    [House Hearing, 114 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                       MOVING AMERICA'S FAMILIES FORWARD:
                        SETTING PRIORITIES FOR REDUCING
                       POVERTY AND EXPANDING OPPORTUNITY

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                          COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
                         U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                  MAY 24, 2016

                                   __________

                              Serial No. 114-FC13

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    22-187                         WASHINGTON : 2017
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
      For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
      Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
             DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
                              Washington, DC 20402-0001

                          COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS

                          KEVIN BRADY, Texas, Chairman

    SAM JOHNSON, Texas                   SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan
    DEVIN NUNES, California              CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York
    PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio              JIM MCDERMOTT, Washington
    DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington        JOHN LEWIS, Georgia
    CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana  RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts
    PETER J. ROSKAM, Illinois            XAVIER BECERRA, California
    TOM PRICE, Georgia                   LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
    VERN BUCHANAN, Florida               MIKE THOMPSON, California
    ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska               JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut
    LYNN JENKINS, Kansas                 EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon
    ERIK PAULSEN, Minnesota              RON KIND, Wisconsin
    KENNY MARCHANT, Texas                BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey
    DIANE BLACK, Tennessee               JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
    TOM REED, New York                   DANNY DAVIS, Illinois
    TODD YOUNG, Indiana                  LINDA SANCHEZ, California
    MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania
    JIM RENACCI, Ohio
    PAT MEEHAN, Pennsylvania
    KRISTI NOEM, South Dakota
    GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina
    JASON SMITH, Missouri
    ROBERT J. DOLD, Illinois
    TOM RICE, South Carolina

                         David Stewart, Staff Director

                       Nick Gwyn, Minority Chief of Staff

                                C O N T E N T S

                                   __________

                                                                       Page

    Advisory of May 24, 2016 announcing the hearing..................     2

                                   WITNESSES

    Tarren Bragdon, Founder and Chief Executive Officer, Foundation
      for Government Accountability..................................    43
    John Engler, President, Business Roundtable......................     5
    Olivia Golden, Executive Director, Center for Law and Social
      Policy (CLASP).................................................    26
    Karin VanZant, Executive Director of Life Services, CareSource...    14

                           SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

    A Call To Invest in Our Neighborhoods (ACTION) Campaign..........    93
    Catholic Charities USA (CCUSA)...................................    96
    Lawrence M. Mead, Visiting Scholar, American Enterprise Institute
      for Public Policy Research (AEI)...............................   101

                       MOVING AMERICA'S FAMILIES FORWARD:
                        SETTING PRIORITIES FOR REDUCING
                       POVERTY AND EXPANDING OPPORTUNITY

                                  ----------

                             TUESDAY, MAY 24, 2016

                         U.S. House of Representatives,
                                   Committee on Ways and Means,
                                                        Washington, DC.

        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:07 a.m., in
    Room 1100, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Kevin Brady
    [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.

        [The advisory announcing the hearing follows:]

    ADVISORY

    FROM THE
    COMMITTEE
     ON WAYS
    AND
    MEANS

                                                    CONTACT: (202) 225-3625
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    Tuesday, May 17, 2016
    No. FC-13

                   Brady Announces Full Committee Hearing on

                      ``Moving America's Families Forward:

                    Setting Priorities for Reducing Poverty

                          and Expanding Opportunity''

        House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady (R-TX)
    announced today that the Committee will hold a hearing entitled
    ``Moving America's Families Forward: Setting Priorities for Reducing
    Poverty and Expanding Opportunity'' on Tuesday, May 24, 2016, at 10:00
    a.m. in Room 1100 of the Longworth House Office Building. This hearing
    will examine how our welfare system can better help more low-income
    American families move out of poverty and up the economic ladder.

        Oral testimony at this hearing will be from the invited witnesses
    only. However, any individual or organization may submit a written
    statement for consideration by the Committee and for inclusion in the
    printed record of the hearing.

    DETAILS FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS:

        Please Note: Any person(s) and/or organization(s) wishing to submit
    written comments for the hearing record must follow the appropriate
    link on the hearing page of the Committee website and complete the
    informational forms. From the Committee homepage, http://
    waysandmeans.house.gov, select ``Hearings.'' Select the hearing for
    which you would like to make a submission, and click on the link
    entitled, ``Click here to provide a submission for the record.'' Once
    you have followed the online instructions, submit all requested
    information. ATTACH your submission as a Word document, in compliance
    with the formatting requirements listed below, by the close of business
    on Tuesday, June 7, 2016. For questions, or if you encounter technical
    problems, please call (202) 225-3943 or (202) 225-3625.

    FORMATTING REQUIREMENTS:

        The Committee relies on electronic submissions for printing the
    official hearing record. As always, submissions will be included in the
    record according to the discretion of the Committee. The Committee will
    not alter the content of your submission, but we reserve the right to
    format it according to our guidelines. Any submission provided to the
    Committee by a witness, any materials submitted for the printed record,
    and any written comments in response to a request for written comments
    must conform to the guidelines listed below. Any submission not in
    compliance with these guidelines will not be printed, but will be
    maintained in the Committee files for review and use by the Committee.

        1. All submissions and supplementary materials must be submitted in
    a single document via email, provided in Word format and must not
    exceed a total of 10 pages. Witnesses and submitters are advised that
    the Committee relies on electronic submissions for printing the
    official hearing record.

        2. All submissions must include a list of all clients, persons and/
    or organizations on whose behalf the witness appears. The name,
    company, address, telephone, and fax numbers of each witness must be
    included in the body of the email. Please exclude any personal
    identifiable information in the attached submission.

        3. Failure to follow the formatting requirements may result in the
    exclusion of a submission. All submissions for the record are final.

        The Committee seeks to make its facilities accessible to persons
    with disabilities. If you are in need of special accommodations, please
    call 202-225-1721 or 202-226-3411 TDD/TTY in advance of the event (four
    business days notice is requested). Questions with regard to special
    accommodation needs in general (including availability of Committee
    materials in alternative formats) may be directed to the Committee as
    noted above.

        Note: All Committee advisories and news releases are available
    online at
    http://www.waysandmeans.house.gov/.

        Chairman BRADY. Good morning. The Committee will come to
    order.
        Welcome to the Ways and Means Committee hearing on Moving
    America's Families Forward.
        Today, we are holding our first Full Committee hearing on
    America's welfare system in 10 years. We are doing this because
    the current system is failing to deliver results for those that
    need it most, and it is our responsibility to be part of that
    solution.
        Today's hearing is about people, and right now there are
    more than 46 million people in our Nation who are living in
    poverty. Decades of experience tells us the most effective
    antipoverty program is a job. And of those who are working age
    and in poverty, nearly two in three are not working, many of
    them not by choice, but in large part because of the welfare
    system.
        The current system is a disjointed maze of more than 80
    different programs that have been layered on top of one
    another, with little thought for coordination, duplication or
    purpose. For decades, money has been thrown blindly at the
    system, without a genuine regard for effectiveness in actually
    delivering real results. This approach lacks compassion and
    respect for American families trapped in poverty.
        We need a system that provides more Americans with
    personalized solutions, real paths out of poverty, and better
    opportunities to realize their potential. A critical step in
    achieving that is to define a clear set of principles to guide
    our work. And we believe we have four that do just that.
        First, we will expect work-capable adults to work, or
    prepare for work, in exchange for receiving benefits, because
    it helps to set individuals on a path to long-term employment.
    Second, we will strive to get programs' incentives right. We
    can do that. Recipients, taxpayers, employers, States, and
    nonprofits will all be better off when someone moves from
    welfare to work. Third, we will focus on results of welfare
    programs and do everything possible to ensure they are actually
    helping individuals and families. And fourth, we will seek to
    improve integrity of programs to decrease fraud and preserve
    welfare benefits for those most in need.
        Streamlining and better coordinating the disjointed maze of
    antipoverty programs will not be an easy task. These programs
    span the welfare system, as well as the jurisdiction of several
    congressional committees, including ours. I believe our
    Committee needs to do all it can to advance targeted solutions.
    I know our Members have bold, innovative ideas based on
    solutions being used in their own back yards.
        And most importantly, we all believe everyone should have
    the opportunity to achieve the American dream, Americans like
    Ms. VanZant, who is here to testify today. She escaped the maze
    of the welfare system and now spends her days helping others do
    the same. She joins us as Executive Director of Life Services
    at CareSource, a national nonprofit health management
    organization serving more than 1.4 million Americans. Her work
    is dedicated to helping others navigate barriers to self-
    sufficiency so they can move out of poverty and up the economic
    ladder.
        We have a lot we can learn from Ms. VanZant and all the
    witnesses here today. And I am grateful to all of you for being
    here to share your knowledge and help our Committee identify
    solutions to help more Americans move out of poverty and up the
    economic ladder.
        I thank all of our witnesses for joining us today. I look
    forward to your testimony.
        I now yield to the distinguished Ranking Member from
    Michigan, Mr. Levin, for the purposes of an opening statement.
        Mr. LEVIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I might, a special
    hello to Governor Engler. Nice to see you again.
        Mr. Chairman, reducing poverty is so vital a pursuit that
    the true test is action, not words, especially when the actions
    unmask rhetoric. There is a dramatic disconnect between the
    worthy goals of poverty reduction and the agenda Republicans
    have continually pursued in this and recent Congresses.
    Eliminating food assistance for 13 million Americans, as
    suggested by the latest Republican budget, will not reduce
    poverty and hardship, it will increase it. Cutting childcare
    and other services funded by the Social Services Block Grant,
    which Republicans voted earlier this year to eliminate, will
    not increase opportunity, it will deny it for up to 30 million
    Americans who now depend on the program.
        Jeopardizing healthcare coverage for over 20 million
    Americans by constantly attempting to repeal health reform will
    not help struggling families, it will hurt them. Raising taxes
    on one and a half million working families by eliminating their
    refundable tax credit, as marked up by the Committee, will not
    lift families up, it will push them down.
        Cutting State funding for job training and placement will
    not help workers get good jobs, it will make it harder for them
    to stay competitive. And slashing support for higher education,
    including Pell grants, as required under the Republican budget,
    will not help people climb the economic ladder, it will rip
    that ladder away.
        Our Republican colleagues seem to mistake cutting poverty
    programs with cutting poverty. They woefully ignore analyses
    that show our income security programs reduce poverty by over
    40 percent.
        Indeed, the Republicans can accept some immediate steps
    proposed by Democrats, which Republicans have previously
    blocked, to support work, promote opportunity, and reduce
    poverty. Expand access to quality childcare so that parents can
    go to work without worrying about the well-being of their
    children, improve pathways to education and training so that
    Americans can gain the skills needed to climb into the middle
    class. Reform the parts of our Tax Code that continue to tax
    some working Americans deeper into poverty, childless workers
    with low wages. Strengthen the TANF program so it does a better
    job of supporting families and rewarding work, instead of being
    unduly used for other unrelated purposes. Ensure equal pay for
    women, who now earn an average of 78 cents on the dollar
    compared to men doing the same job. And increase the minimum
    wage, which study after study has shown will reduce poverty.
        The American people are yearning for real action on the
    challenges facing our Nation, rather than glossy reports. And
    no one is more deserving of such a debate than the 47 million
    Americans who now struggle in poverty.
        Thank you, and I yield back.
        Chairman BRADY. Without objection, the Members' opening
    statements will be made part of the record.
        Today's witness panel includes four experts. First, we
    welcome distinguished Governor John Engler, President of the
    Business Roundtable; Ms. Karin VanZant joins us as the
    Executive Director of Life Services at CareSouce; Ms. Olivia
    Golden is the Executive Director of the Center for Law and
    Social Policy; and, finally, we are joined by Mr. Tarren
    Bragdon, who is the Founder and CEO of the Foundation for
    Government Accountability. And we have reserved 5 minutes for
    opening statements.
        We will begin with Governor Engler. You may begin when you
    are ready, sir. Can you hit that microphone, Governor?

                       STATEMENT OF JOHN ENGLER,
                     PRESIDENT, BUSINESS ROUNDTABLE

        Mr. ENGLER. Good morning, Chairman Brady, Ranking Member
    Levin, Members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity
    to be here today.
        My name is John Engler. I serve as President of the
    Business Roundtable, an association of CEOs of leading American
    companies operating in every sector of the U.S. economy. Thank
    you very much for the opportunity to bring this employers'
    perspective today on how America can build on the historic
    achievement of the bipartisan welfare reform of 1996.
        When I last testified to Congress on these issues, it was
    2002, I was Governor of Michigan and Chairman of the National
    Governors Association. I stressed that effective welfare reform
    depended on Washington setting overarching goals and leaving
    specifics to the States. This remains as true today as in 1996,
    when we eliminated the old and failed AFDC program. Back then,
    education and job training were critical. Today, our high-tech
    economy has raised the stakes.
        We face serious challenges. The NAEP score, our Nation's
    report card, shows that just 37 percent of high school
    graduates scored at the college-ready level for reading and
    mathematics. This means too many young people are graduating
    who are not ready for their first job or college without
    remediation. This lack of preparedness can be a leading
    disadvantage and a lasting disadvantage in college and in the
    job market.
        Consider this. A recent Gallup survey asked, are graduates
    prepared for work? Ninety-six percent of chief academic
    officers said, yes. In contrast, only 11 percent of business
    leaders said these graduates are prepared for work.
        So what can the public sector do to reverse these results
    and close this preparedness gap? Reform should focus on putting
    people on pathways to work. The Chairman just said this in his
    opening statement, but a job is better than no job. And then,
    when someone goes to work, we need to prepare them for careers.
    Everyone needs competencies that are valued in the workplace.
        Next, we need to create a more efficient system for
    delivering government assistance that is flexible and
    encourages people to find and keep employment. The forthcoming
    reauthorizations of TANF, Perkins Act and the Higher Education
    Act offer an unprecedented opportunity for more effective,
    better-managed strategies at the State and regional level. At
    the same time, Congress should insist on metrics and data
    transparency to evaluate which programs should be continued,
    consolidated or eliminated. Realtime labor market data is also
    essential to help individuals know where the opportunities are
    and what skills will be required.
        Congress should also continue, we believe, to offer
    incentives to aid workers when seeking necessary education and
    training that can lead to employment. This can, as has been
    mentioned, include assistance with childcare, transportation,
    or counseling. Business leaders are quite passionate about
    better connecting the worlds of learning and work, and we
    believe that starts early with rigorous education standards and
    the first milestone, ensuring that all students are reading at
    grade level by the end of the third grade. That is when we know
    our investments in pre-K are paying off.
        We have no choice. If a student can't read, how will he or
    she be able to master the STEM fields? Our CEOs know firsthand
    that their companies need many more employees knowledgeable in
    science, technology, engineering and mathematics. As for STEM
    careers themselves, Business Roundtable leads a national
    network of business and industry associations. We bring
    together business and industry groups to help educators better
    understand what competencies employers are looking for in
    today's world.
        Today, credentials are often used to represent competency.
    There is an urgent need to bring full transparency to the world
    of credentialing so that individuals of any age can be assured
    that what they are purchasing, regardless if out of their own
    pocket or if they are borrowing or even if they are getting a
    grant from the government, is an investment that will help them
    get a good job.
        Done right, transparency can also help job seekers identify
    the program best suited for them. Today, employers are also
    actively partnering with institutions of higher education,
    helping them develop curricula to teach competencies essential
    to the twenty-first century workforce.
        The public and private sectors must continue to work
    together to ensure a variety of models exist that can provide
    individuals the competencies that can put them first into a job
    and ultimately on to a career pathway where they can support
    themselves and their family.
        And finally, I think that it is important that I state for
    the record, not everyone needs to go to college to be
    successful. At the same time, this is America. Everyone can
    aspire to go to college if they wish, but they should choose
    with the knowledge that it is increasingly likely that the job
    market of the twenty-first century will be shifting to focus
    more on competencies than degrees. Credentials will reflect
    what you have mastered, rather than where or what you have
    studied.
        Thank you very much for the opportunity.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Engler follows:]

     [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman BRADY. Thank you, Governor.
        Ms. VanZant, you may begin.

                      STATEMENT OF KARIN VANZANT,
            EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF LIFE SERVICES, CARESOURCE

        Ms. VANZANT. Chairman Brady, Ranking Member Levin and
    Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to
    testify and to help you explore this extremely important topic
    of how to assist low-income Americans as they transition off of
    government subsidies into a higher quality of life, health and
    well-being.
        My name is Karin VanZant. I am the Executive Director of
    Life Services at CareSource, a managed care organization based
    in Dayton, Ohio. CareSource provides health coverage and
    assistance to 1.5 million Americans in Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana,
    and West Virginia, offering services through Medicaid, the
    healthcare exchange, and Medicare Advantage.
        My responsibility is to help CareSource transform how it
    approaches health care. For 27 years, we have worked with our
    members to coordinate their care and have come to deeply
    understand their complex social needs. We have a new strategic
    focus to help people move from poverty to self-sufficiency.
    Life Services is our new model that brings together health,
    economic stability and social well-being for our members,
    something that they tell us has never happened before. And I
    can attest to that from first-hand experience.
        While a junior in college, I found myself pregnant
    unexpectedly. I signed up for Medicaid and soon was on full-
    blown welfare. I quickly learned that people treated me
    differently when I asked for help, and I could have easily
    fallen into the trap of poverty if I had listened to the advice
    of many of my case managers, and if I didn't have incredible
    support from my family.
        In my 4-year journey to come off of government assistance,
    I completed my degree in social work and began working to fix
    the disconnected, broken system that I experienced. The system
    is well intentioned but misaligned, with government programs
    that are failing to move Americans out of a life of subsidy
    dependence. I think we all know intuitively what isn't working
    for almost 46 million Americans, low-income Americans.
        We know that they have created a system that does a fairly
    good job of administering programs. But these programs do not
    move people to a life of independence. We pay for following the
    rules. And, quite frankly, we pay for one maintaining poverty
    status as long as possible.
        The CareSource Life Services program is a unique approach
    that couples the largest low-income safety net, Medicaid, with
    a holistic method to addressing economic and social well-being.
    Many of our members have told us that a job will change their
    lives and improve their health. We listened, and focused our
    efforts on the retention of work, the advancement of an
    individual's skills, and the ability to connect people to
    appropriate resources in the places that they live.
        Life Services staff help our members to stabilize, identify
    their strengths and prioritize their goals. As members' lives
    stabilize, they are connected with education or employment
    opportunities. Once employed, our members meet with a life
    coach that helps them navigate the world of work as well as
    numerous subsidy cliffs.
        In the past 15 months, CareSource Life Services has worked
    with approximately 850 members in an eight-county region in
    southwest Ohio. To date, 150 members have started education
    programs; 190 members are actively working with employers to
    obtain one of the 2,000 open positions by our 37 employer
    partners; 124 members have started full-time employment, with
    85 percent of them eligible for employer-sponsored insurance;
    and we have a 95 percent retention rate at 90 days, with 10
    percent of our members actually being promoted in the first
    year of employment.
        The experiences have been life changing for the
    individuals, as well as my team. Not to mention the significant
    State and Federal cost savings.
        Now let me tell you how this actually works for a member.
    In June of last year, we held a public job fair that introduced
    Life Services to our members. One member, Josh, arrived
    intoxicated. We offered him coffee and simply began to talk to
    him about his life. The next day, Josh received a phone call
    from CareSource care management team. Josh agreed that he
    needed help and began working with a care manager. Within 6
    months, he had seen a primary care physician, a dentist,
    started AA and was in counseling. Throughout this period of
    time, he continued to work with the life coach and started to
    set employment goals. At 6 months of sobriety, Josh was ready
    for work. It took only one interview and Josh was offered a
    $13-an-hour position at a local manufacturer, ending a 4-year
    period of unemployment for him.
        Yes, Josh could have accomplished any of these things on
    his own, but he had not. He tells us that he didn't know what
    to tackle first.
        In closing, I would like to emphasize, many of those who
    are in the Medicaid population are eager to work, but they need
    guidance and support. And by addressing physical health,
    economic stability and social well-being, amazing
    transformations can happen quickly, and the CareSource Life
    Services model is a demonstration of what is working for our
    members.
        I thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today and
    I am happy to answer any questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. VanZant follows:]

       [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman BRADY. Thank you.
        Ms. Golden, please proceed.

    STATEMENT OF OLIVIA GOLDEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR LAW
                       AND SOCIAL POLICY (CLASP)

        Ms. GOLDEN. Chairman Brady, Ranking Member Levin and
    Members of the Committee, thank you so much for the opportunity
    to testify.
        I am the Executive Director of the Center for Law and
    Social Policy, an antipoverty organization that promotes
    effective Federal and State policies, and I have administered
    human services programs in New York State, Massachusetts, the
    District of Columbia and at the Federal level, as well as
    studied their effectiveness as a researcher.
        My written testimony makes three major points. First, the
    Nation's core economic security programs are highly effective.
    They cut poverty almost in half, improve nutrition and health
    care for millions of people and promote work.
        Moreover, a growing body of rigorous research shows that
    these supports have positive effects on children's health, work
    trajectory and income many years later. So there is a two-
    generational effect. For example, expanding health insurance
    coverage for low-income children has large effects on high
    school completion, college attendance and college completion.
    And having access to SNAP in early childhood improves adult
    outcomes, including health and economic self-sufficiency.
        Research also indicates overwhelmingly that these programs
    support work, particularly for low-income parents. What
    typically holds people back from working is not too much
    support, but too little, such as the absence of help with
    childcare.
        In my written testimony, I cite evidence from rigorous
    studies by many researchers using different methods, and all
    showing that childcare subsidies, the earned income tax credit
    and the full package of benefits, including health and food
    assistance, support more work and steadier work over time.
        I also cite recent steps to improve support for work,
    including the choice made by 31 States, including Ohio, to
    expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, which means that
    parents and other low-income individuals in these States no
    longer have to fear that taking a job will eliminate their
    access to health coverage.
        The second major point is that changes in the economy which
    have fostered low-wage and unstable jobs mean that high
    employment rates do not translate into low poverty rates. These
    changes have affected a wide range of working Americans, but
    their greatest impact has been on low-wage workers. In
    addition, remaining gaps in the safety net also lead to
    economic distress and lost opportunities for workers to succeed
    and children to thrive.
        Third, to reduce poverty and expand opportunity, Congress
    should avoid bad ideas, those that are demonstrably harmful,
    and should seize opportunities that build on research and
    experience.
        Starting with the bad ideas, all the available experience
    with block grants suggests they don't work for core safety net
    programs. Their appropriations shrink drastically over time,
    fully one-third in the case of the TANF block grant, and they
    cannot respond to economic downturns. During the recent great
    recession, SNAP and Medicaid, which are not block grants,
    provided greater support to States, communities and families as
    need rose. On the other hand, the capped TANF block grant left
    families and States without resources just when they needed
    help most.
        Flexibility doesn't solve this problem. For example, the
    Child Care and Development block grant is highly flexible. But
    because of capped Federal funding, the number of children
    served has hit the lowest number in more than a decade. Too
    much flexibility also risks diverting funds from programs' core
    mission, as is evident in TANF. And block grants are ill-suited
    to supporting nationwide goals like ensuring that every
    American starts life healthy and well nourished, but instead
    contribute to disparate life chances based on where a child is
    born.
        Another bad idea is so-called work requirements that are
    counterproductive, do not build on the best available evidence
    about what works, or that cut off people even though they want
    to work, as in the SNAP time limits for able-bodied adults
    without dependents. My testimony summarizes the provisions
    about what kinds of strategies truly support work and which
    don't.
        In conclusion, to truly reduce poverty and promote
    opportunity, Congress needs to tackle the economic headwinds
    facing workers and fill remaining gaps in the safety net. My
    testimony proposes five next steps. Ensure access to high-
    quality childcare and early education. I think Governor Engler
    highlighted that as well. Expand access to effective workforce
    development programs and career opportunities. Tear down
    financial barriers to post-secondary success. Fix gaps in the
    safety net for the neediest Americans. And establish minimum
    standards for wages, a stronger minimum wage, and for job
    quality so jobs support rather than destabilize families.
        Thank you so much, and I look forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Golden follows:]

      [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman BRADY. Thank you.
        Mr. Bragdon, please proceed with your testimony.

       STATEMENT OF TARREN BRAGDON, FOUNDER AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
           OFFICER, FOUNDATION FOR GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY

        Mr. BRAGDON. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Levin
    and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to
    testify. I am Tarren Bragdon, the Founder and CEO of the
    Foundation for Government Accountability, a nonpartisan,
    multistate policy organization that works with State leaders
    across America to free individuals from poverty through proven
    welfare reforms.
        All of us are here because we want the same thing, to help
    as many families as possible escape poverty as quickly as
    possible. The best way to do this, and to solve many of the
    other challenges welfare programs currently face, is through a
    simple but powerful tool that must be core to any welfare
    reform conversation. Work.
        But here is the fundamental problem with the welfare reform
    conversation. It is a debate dominated by rhetoric and
    anecdote. Fifty years ago, Congress and President Johnson tried
    to answer the question of how do you end poverty. But the sad
    truth is that strategy has failed. But the tragedy of the
    failed welfare state is not how much money is being spent, the
    real tragedy is how many families are being trapped in poverty
    for far too long, sometimes generations.
        So how do you get somebody out of poverty as quickly as
    possible? In 1996, Congress and the President in a bipartisan
    way took this problem head on, requiring able-bodied, childless
    adults to work in order to receive food stamps, working 20
    hours a week or volunteering. And if they refused, they would
    have to cycle off the program after 3 months. But Republican
    and Democrat Administrations allowed States to waive these
    requirements. But thankfully, several Governors are restoring
    them. And I will focus my comments on two States, Kansas, which
    restored them in 2013, and Maine, which followed in 2014.
        We launched an effort in Kansas to track the 41,000 people
    impacted by this policy change with the largest study of its
    kind, matching those who were on welfare with the State's
    Department of Labor hiring and earnings database to see what
    happened after the policy change. Maine replicated this
    methodology for 10,000.
        The results are inspiring and we no longer have to rely on
    speculation or anecdotes. But we can see how commonsense work
    requirements worked. And the results proved that the bipartisan
    effort of Congress 20 years ago was on the right track.
        Before Kansas restored work requirements, recipients on
    average received about $200 a month in food stamps, whether
    they worked or not, and most did not. But for those who refused
    to meet the work requirement and were transitioned off welfare,
    guess what happened next? They went to work in record numbers,
    half right away and 60 percent within a year. And not only did
    they go to work, but average income of workers doubled and the
    average income is now above the poverty line. Maine saw a
    similar success, all of this within 12 months of the work
    requirement being reinstated.
        And even those who stayed on welfare were better off.
    Enrollees were more likely to be working, more likely to be
    working more hours. Incomes increased, and the average time
    that somebody spent on welfare was cut in half.
        Simply by following the work requirement you established 20
    years ago caused enrollment for these adults to drop by up to
    90 percent. Because people literally transformed themselves
    through work, earning hope, higher income and a brighter
    future.
        This paints a clear, inspiring and simple roadmap to
    Federal welfare reform. And it is a road that Congress has
    already traveled.
        If Congress could do just one thing, it should be to add
    these commonsense work requirements and time limits to most of
    the 80-plus means-tested welfare programs for all nondisabled
    working-age adults. And here is another important thing to
    consider. This reform frees up limited resources to help the
    truly needy, including the more than 600,000 Americans who have
    intellectual disabilities or are in frail health, waiting for
    Medicaid waiver services. And fortunately, these are also
    incredibly popular bipartisan reforms, with 82 percent of
    Americans supporting work requirements. This is an American
    thing.
        It turns out that work works. You set the standard 20 years
    ago, and I am here today to ask you to finish what you started.
        Thank you. My written testimony highlights in much more
    detail. I have attached the reports and some of the key
    takeaways as well. And I would be pleased to answer any
    questions that you have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Bragdon follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman BRADY. Great. Thanks, Mr. Bragdon. Thank you all
    for your excellent testimony.
        So we will now proceed with the question-and-answer
    session, and I will begin.
        And I want to really talk about the difference between
    alleviating the symptoms of poverty, sort of the old school
    approach, versus addressing the causes of poverty. Under our
    current, outdated, old system, a person in need comes in and we
    provide assistance to meet their immediate needs, be it
    housing, food, whatever, and then send them on their way. Next
    month, 6 months, a year later, the same person comes in, still
    in need of help. We haven't helped them move up the economic
    ladder, or even helped them to grab onto the first rung, as
    Governor Engler pointed out. What I have realized, we often
    alleviate the symptoms of poverty, we don't really address the
    underlying reason why they need the help in the first place.
    That is what we are interested in.
        Ms. VanZant, your organization helps low-income individuals
    and families with more than just their short-term needs. You
    remind me of my sister, who runs a faith-based homeless program
    in Humble, Texas, called Family Promise of Lake Houston, that
    focuses one by one on homeless families, gets them into that
    job, into that apartment, onto their feet, really focusing, as
    your organization does, on their needs longer-term in
    addressing them.
        So from your standpoint, what are the specific things you
    do to help people escape poverty? What should be our priority?
        Ms. VANZANT. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the question.
    Members of the Committee, one of the things that I have seen in
    the 20 years of working with low-income individuals across the
    country is many times they are not listened to. And so we tend
    to build programs that are one-size-fits-all types of programs,
    and every one of the 46 million Americans has a different life
    path and different experiences.
        And so what we are trying to do, albeit in an individual
    way, and to make it scalable, is really listen to what's going
    on in the lives of our members. And then we have a three-prong
    approach.
        We believe, if you think about a stool, it's like three
    legs of the stool. You need to have good physical health, you
    need to have good economic health, and then you have to be
    connected to the place that you live in some way, whether that
    is through a church organization or a civic organization, a
    school or a job. You need to have relationships in your life.
    And when we can focus on all three of those things, we really
    can start to customize what are the needed supports to move
    people forward.
        We also know that, as people are moving forward, as they
    define their goals, as they stabilize in their life
    circumstances and as they are connected with resources, they
    are going to approach a subsidy cliff. And we want them to be
    well informed of that. It is very difficult to know what the
    eligibility requirements are and when the subsidies are going
    to decrease. And so we want our members to be well informed of
    what is coming ahead. How can that social connectedness or
    those community resources be a backfill until we can really
    restructure some of the policies that can support the
    transition off of government subsidies and into a fulfilled
    life of work and purpose.
        Chairman BRADY. So addressing the cliff and really creating
    a glide path, you know, not just to reach for that first rung
    but to be able to stay on that first rung as they work their
    way up is important?
        Ms. VANZANT. It is very important. You know, I think we all
    know that some of the faces that our families are making as
    they want to move out of a life of subsidy or out of a life of
    subsidy into prosperity are they are going to have to start
    somewhere. We all had to start somewhere. And it is going to
    take time, once you start in the lower wage jobs, to be able to
    build your skills, build your longevity and credibility with an
    employer to get to the higher wage jobs.
        The graphic that we provided to you as a part of our
    testimony packet shows that many of our members have the same
    type of purchase power at $12 an hour as they do at $18 to $20
    an hour. And so we really have to continue to find the right
    types of incentives, the right levels of incentives so they can
    move from $12 an hour to $18 an hour, and they have enough time
    and enough education to be able to fill that gap. Because
    without the same purchase power, any one of us would probably
    go back to a life that we know, instead of continuing to be on
    that ladder moving upward.
        We're also trying to help our members with the right kinds
    of creative supports so that they can keep taking those
    positive steps upward.
        Chairman BRADY. Thank you very much.
        Governor, from the business perspective, in your experience
    as the CEO of a State, how do we get the incentives right for
    those who really need to get back, to expect work, to get the
    incentives aligned right? Your top priority for us?
        Mr. ENGLER. In getting the incentives right, Ms. VanZant's
    testimony is really important because these cliffs that people
    encounter along the way, if we go back to the decision when we
    eliminated the old AFDC program, we used to have something, I
    know Chairman Rangel in the old days will remember, income
    disregards. And those used to be a terrible system. When you
    basically hit the workforce, you started earning money,
    immediately when you got a dollar, they took a dollar away from
    the grant.
        And we had to change that to create incentives. And these
    incentives have to be allowing someone to constantly earn more
    money. Because people are smart. If they can earn more money,
    they will choose to do to. And so that is important.
        The most important thing, though, that I think we have to
    do may not even be this Committee's specific responsibility,
    but it's America's responsibility. And that is, we have to
    interrupt the cycle. We are spending $650 billion on our K
    through 12 education programs and the Nation's report card, as
    I mentioned, is indicating 36 percent of American children at
    the end of the third grade can read proficiently. If America
    can't teach its kids to read, I am questioning whether or not
    America can end poverty.
        I think we can teach kids to read. We do it in schools
    where there is 100 percent population free and reduced school
    lunch. But I think as a national priority, and this is a State
    and local responsibility, but it is on the national agenda, we
    have to teach our kids to read. If kids can't read, I mean, we
    know where the supply line is then for the future.
        Chairman BRADY. Governor, thank you. Mr. Bragdon, do you
    believe our current and past work of welfare and tax benefit
    programs, you know, some 80 plus, provide an effective ladder
    of opportunity to the middle class for those to try and work
    off welfare? And does cutting through that and really focusing
    on important priorities like a work requirement for work
    capable, is that really the key?
        Mr. BRAGDON. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I really think it is.
    Because we know that the best way for an individual to get out
    of poverty is to be working full time year round. Less than 3
    percent of those who are working full time year round are in
    poverty.
        But unfortunately, what happens in most welfare programs is
    we are paying people not to work, rather than pointing them
    back to work and getting them back in the workforce as quickly
    as possible. And that is why the research from the largest ever
    tracking studies in Kansas and Maine really show the power of
    that simple but very direct reform of a work requirement, gets
    people back to work. And it is not a stopping point. If you
    look at the research, their income is improving every quarter,
    they are changing into better and better jobs, and they are
    earning the success that will ultimately give them the hope of
    a better life.
        Chairman BRADY. Thank you, sir.
        I now recognize the Senior Ranking Member from Michigan,
    Mr. Levin, for any questions.
        Mr. LEVIN. I must confess I find the discussion we just
    heard appalling, that we are paying people not to work, when we
    have proposals that would help people who are working opposed,
    whether it is childcare, whether it is education, Pell grants,
    whether it is Head Start. It is appalling to characterize those
    programs that way.
        Ms. VanZant, your organization very much relies on
    Medicaid, yes?
        Mr. Bragdon, was your organization involved in the effort
    in Florida to not utilize expanded Medicaid?
        Mr. BRAGDON. Yes, we talked about what happens when you
    expand the safety net.
        Mr. LEVIN. The answer is yes. Your organization on your
    website brags about opposition to expanding Medicaid in
    Florida, no?
        Mr. BRAGDON. Yes, we were involved in that fight.
        Mr. LEVIN. You were actively involved in that effort, were
    you not?
        Mr. BRAGDON. Yes.
        Mr. LEVIN. You are a 501(c)(3)?
        Mr. BRAGDON. Yes.
        Mr. LEVIN. You are a charitable organization?
        Mr. BRAGDON. Yes.
        Mr. LEVIN. And you were actively involved in that effort.
    How many people in Florida, because Florida did not expand
    Medicaid, do not receive Medicaid today? Do you know how many
    hundreds of thousands?
        Mr. BRAGDON. Well, there is a whole range of estimates, but
    it is anywhere from 600,000 to a million. But for us, it is
    about taking care of the truly needy first.
        Mr. LEVIN. I see.
        Mr. BRAGDON. Florida has a waiting list of individuals with
    intellectual and developmental disabilities. And we really
    think it is about prioritizing the truly needy first, rather
    than giving Medicaid coverage to able-bodied adults who, if
    they were working full time at a minimum wage job, wouldn't
    qualify for that benefit. And we think for those adults, the
    best path out of poverty is not a Medicaid card but it is a
    job.
        Mr. LEVIN. Ms. Golden.
        Ms. GOLDEN. I just wanted to correct a few things along the
    lines you are talking about. First of all, the relationship of
    Medicaid to work. I think what I would highlight is that the
    Medicaid expansion in the 31 States has been of extraordinary
    importance to working poor adults. That is a lot of who hasten
    those benefits.
        Mr. LEVIN. By the way, Ms. VanZant is shaking her head in
    agreement.
        Ms. GOLDEN. Yes. And I think the story in Ms. VanZant's
    testimony about Josh, what, as I understand it, you were able
    to do was, because he had access to that Medicaid safety net,
    he was able to get to a doctor and a dentist and deal with his
    health.
        So to me, health care is a crucial basis for getting a job.
    That is what the evidence says. There is a new study that just
    came out from the National Bureau of Economic Research that
    says expansion States can show more days of work because, not
    surprisingly, you are able to go to the doctor, you are able to
    get treatment, you are able to go to work.
        In addition, I do want to note the two generational
    effects. You get Medicaid, you have nutrition for your child.
    It is not only that it stabilizes your ability to go to work,
    it is that research is increasingly showing advantages to your
    child's work later on.
        And I think there is lots more to say about the challenges
    in the studies that Mr. Bragdon cited. But I just want to say
    one other thing about the research on the safety net and work.
    Most people who are getting help right now, from SNAP, from
    Medicaid, everybody getting help from the earned income tax
    credit, are working. They are working in low-wage jobs or are
    getting insufficient hours. But in order to make ends meet,
    they are also getting some help.
        The evidence says that stabilizes their lives and enables
    them to move up. And I think it is important that the stories
    about ways in which it might hold people back usually are based
    on a picture of the safety net from 20 years ago, before the
    earned income tax credit, which increases with people's
    earnings, was as powerful as it is today, before the Affordable
    Care Act created the Medicaid expansion and then the subsidies.
    And so the current safety net, in fact, is a crucial stabilizer
    and support for people as they move up.
        Mr. LEVIN. My time is up. I just want to reiterate just the
    two of you sitting next to each other I think shows this effort
    to dichotomize is dangerous.
        By the way, in terms of TANF, in Michigan, we are using so
    little of the TANF monies in relationship to work, Governor,
    today it is disgraceful. They are using it for everything but,
    in most cases.
        Chairman BRADY. Thank you. Mr. Johnson, you are recognized.
        Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        You know, I would like to thank all of you for being here,
    by the way. And as the program's name reflects, the Temporary
    Assistance for Needy Families is meant to be a safety net for
    families that find themselves in need. But the solution is not
    just to continue providing benefits and hope that it will be a
    solution. But the solution is to empower these families to be
    able to enter the workforce, not just so they can provide for
    their family but so they can have a chance for the American
    dream.
        Ms. VanZant, I would like to start with a question to you.
    Do you believe our welfare and antipoverty programs are working
    as intended to address the core issues, such as unemployment,
    that result in these families living in poverty?
        Ms. VANZANT. Mr. Johnson, that is a complex question and
    part of my answer is based on both my personal experience and
    the experience that I have had with thousands of low-income
    Americans across the country.
        I believe that many of the safety net programs were put in
    place to be a temporary solution for people that fell into
    situational circumstances that needed a little bit of help. And
    I also believe that what we have are some families that are
    four generations into living in these temporary solutions and
    have created such a dependency that is so hard to break, when
    you have seen what your parents have done and what your
    grandparents have done.
        And so I believe that, yes, we do need safety net programs
    because we do know that there are going to be situations that
    any one of us could fall into where we will need a little bit
    of help. But I also believe that we need to be able to quickly
    move people out of the programs and into a life of work and
    into a higher quality of life that employment can bring.
        Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, ma'am.
        Governor Engler, as Governor, you oversaw Michigan's
    implementation of welfare reform and now you have a different
    view of these programs from the private sector. Can you discuss
    what you think has been the most successful reform for getting
    these families out of poverty by promoting work?
        Mr. ENGLER. There are two aspects to that. One is you need
    a good strong economy, which I know is a priority of this
    Committee. And there are a lot of things that could be done.
    Right now, our Nation is suffering from the worst recovery from
    a deep recession we have ever had, historically speaking, and
    we are underperforming against both trend and certainly against
    potential. And so there are a set of things over there.
        But regardless of the economy, there are always
    opportunities. And you are correct, Congressman, in 1996, 1997,
    1998, after welfare reform was done in the Congress, and
    remember that was a labor that this Committee worked very hard
    on back then, two times it went up and was vetoed. On the third
    time, the Medicaid block grant was removed and then the
    President signed it, and that was President Clinton. And it was
    bipartisan throughout the process. It was complicated and it
    was noisy. But we got it done.
        And what happened is the States at that point had
    tremendous flexibility. And I remember Michigan had quite a
    competition with Wisconsin going those days and we had Governor
    Thompson, who certainly fancied himself a welfare reformer, and
    we thought we could compete pretty well in Michigan.
        But our goal was to use the flexibility that we had to be
    able to develop solutions. And this is where, again, Ms.
    VanZant's personal testimony is important, about her personal
    experiences. These solutions are going to be different.
        And that is why no Committee of Congress can figure out one
    size that fits all for all of America. It is different in the
    State of Michigan. It is very different to put somebody to work
    on the Upper Peninsula of Michigan than it is in the city of
    Detroit or West Michigan. And so there are lots of different
    stories and you have to have a workforce in your human services
    agencies who can use all of the tools. Because it might be
    mental health services, it might be a medical need, it might be
    an education need. It might be personal needs, it might be
    personal care. It might be transportation. Any of these could
    be the barrier.
        And we felt getting someone connected to the workforce,
    even if it was a volunteer, would lead to the first job, could
    lead to the second job. But we thought any job was better than
    no job.
        Mr. JOHNSON. That is absolutely correct. Thank you,
    Governor.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Chairman BRADY. Thank you.
        Mr. Rangel, you are recognized.
        Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much for calling
    this hearing. And I want to thank all of the witnesses for
    coming forward. And, Governor, it is good to see you again,
    because no matter what differences one might have with you, we
    all know that it is a common goal to make America stronger. And
    all of the witnesses are working toward that goal, I
    understand, especially Ms. VanZant when she says one size
    doesn't fit all and you can't have just a blanket policy, Ms.
    Golden with years of working. I regret that I am not familiar
    with Mr. Bragdon's work. But I understand you fought hard to
    keep people from getting on Medicaid. We will talk about that
    another time.
        But, Governor, the most important thing you said that
    impressed me is that we have to train people who are not
    working, not productive, for jobs that we are begging for
    people to have these skills in order to work. So if we get rid
    of the do-gooders and the charitable organizations and get down
    to the Business Roundtable, where people have a fiduciary
    relationship to shareholders to make certain they make a
    profit, it would seem to me that the employers would do all
    that they can to make certain they have a workforce so that
    they can effectively compete with all nations and within our
    own borders. To do this, you don't have to be a social worker
    to know that poverty just doesn't work in terms of getting a
    decent education, a family setting, a decent school, or the
    proper training.
        And if American businesses go and they see this situation,
    you don't have to go to church to find out we have to do
    something to improve that. The private sector should be telling
    these schools what they need, besides just a diploma, and
    providing the incentives and getting into the schools and
    making certain that we can shatter the myth that people don't
    like to work. It is absolutely stupid to say that: Working
    gives you self-esteem, it gives you pride, it gives you family
    unity, it keeps you out of trouble, it gives you health, and it
    gives you what it is like to be an American.
        So let's talk about the Business Roundtable and see whether
    we can get together before this great President leaves office
    with some pilot projects that say that diplomas are not nearly
    good enough at getting a job. And this is what you said. We
    have people out there that, just because they don't have the
    skills, it doesn't mean that they are bums. Because if it did,
    when I got out of the Army, I had more medals than you could
    get. I was a bum because I had no skills except killing people.
    And the G.I. Bill made the difference for so many Americans.
        I am going to get together with you. It is good to see you
    back into this. And I don't see where there is any conflict in
    trying to get people out of poverty, getting them an education
    and get to what we want for all of our people. It is good to
    see you again.
        And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this meeting. And
    I hope that this hearing is not just an excuse to cut things
    and to be negative, but to find out how we can better use our
    resources for a better country. Thank you so much.
        Mr. ENGLER. I think there is a question in there. But I
    would like to comment. There is a minute left.
        Mr. RANGEL. Yes.
        Mr. ENGLER. Because I saw that beautiful portrait and those
    medals up there, I know we have the same interest. You have the
    military as a very large employer under the public
    responsibility of the Congress. Today in America, three of four
    young people cannot get into the military. Half cannot get
    there academically, the other half cannot get there physically,
    so we are at one in four. So that is the workforce for the
    military. It is the same workforce that the Business Roundtable
    is concerned about.
        And so we have exactly the same interests. We would love to
    work with you. We have to get all these kids reading. That is
    something that has to happen. America can teach its kids to
    read.
        We do not need to tell everyone that it is mandatory to go
    to college, because we have a lot of jobs out there requiring
    skills. You want to climb a pole to string a wire, you can make
    $80,000 to $100,000 a year today, and we are looking for those
    people. A company in Iowa, I can connect, if anybody has
    constituents, we have an address of that company, we can get
    you to them.
        If you want to weld, the American Welding Society has the
    highest possible credentials. If you get trained as a welder
    today, even with the oil industry in a bit of a slump, there
    are still welding jobs all over America. And those can make you
    $65,000 to $85,000 a year. You do not need college for those,
    but you have to have the skill, you actually have to be able to
    weld. And so, if we get busy on infrastructure--I am over
    time--but then there is also a huge training opportunity we can
    do along with that. So we have the same, we are simpatico.
        Chairman BRADY. Thank you, Governor.
        Mr. Tiberi, you are recognized.
        Mr. TIBERI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Today's hearing is about how we get families, individuals
    off of the social safety net into the workforce. That should
    not be a partisan issue. I think we all agree over the last 50
    years, it has not worked so well.
        I think about my own life. I was on the free and reduced
    lunch program. There are more kids in the Columbus school on
    the free and reduced lunch program today than there were when I
    was a kid. There is a bigger need for affordable housing today
    than when I was a kid. There are more people who want a job
    that cannot get a job today than when I was a kid, in my
    community. And yet we have spent millions and millions and
    millions of dollars at the Federal and State level.
        Ms. VanZant, God bless you. You put a face behind reality.
    And you have shown that it can work, and you have transitioned
    from your own experience to trying to help others. I have
    looked people in the eye, to your point, who have been provided
    all sorts of opportunity and have this glazed look in their eye
    because they are trapped in poverty, trapped in poverty.
        Mr. RANGEL. It is misdirected.
        Mr. TIBERI. And it is not misdirected, Mr. Rangel. We all
    care about trying to get people out of poverty. But trying to
    think outside of the box is not mean and disgraceful, it is
    trying to figure out what works.
        You know, one of the things that I just did with
    Representative Kind on a bipartisan basis is introduce a bill
    called Investing in Opportunity Act. Mr. Engler, I would like
    to have you take a look at it. Because what it simply does is
    it says we have distressed communities, by the way, both urban
    and rural, throughout America. And a new report came out
    yesterday by a bipartisan think tank that said three out of
    every 10 U.S. counties in America continued to lose jobs after
    the great recession between 2010 and 2014. That is a third of
    our counties have continued to lose jobs. And what are they?
    They are our distressed counties. They are our poorest
    counties. They are urban and they are rural. What do they lack?
    They lack private investment. They lack jobs.
        So we can continue to throw money. But if a person does not
    have a job, they are not going to get out of poverty, to your
    point, Ms. VanZant.
        But, Mr. Engler, to go even further, this is unbelievable.
    The percentage of U.S. counties seeing more businesses close
    than open has tripled since the 1990s, those same counties. I
    get a call from a third generation businessowner in Columbus,
    Ohio, last week, after the Vice President visited our county to
    announce some overtime rules, that said this rule--and I am not
    making this up, we could call him to testify--this rule is
    actually going to reduce the number of jobs that we have.
        So here is a regulation, a well intended one, by the way,
    that is actually going to affect the very people who we are
    talking about today.
        So, Mr. Engler, you were Governor. How did you engage the
    private sector? How do we better engage the private sector in
    areas that need it most, those distressed communities in rural
    and urban America that have the highest unemployment rates,
    that have the highest number of people on our social safety
    network? And, in particular, how do we ensure that opportunity
    reaches those individuals that Ms. VanZant talked about?
        Mr. ENGLER. Well, we had, at one point in the 1990s, we had
    our unemployment rate down to about 3.3 percent in Michigan.
    But there were a lot of things going on. We had gotten very
    noncompetitive as a State, so we were changing the Tax Code, we
    were trying to improve the education system, we were trying to
    improve other services. And we tried to reduce the cost of
    government. We shrunk nonpublic safety employees in the
    government by almost 20 percent during a decade long period.
        So you have to have this healthy private sector. And you
    mentioned it. I mean, you mentioned small business. For the
    first time in history, we had three consecutive years where we
    lost, more small businesses closed their doors than opened
    them. That has never been the case. And that was not the case
    in 2008 and 2009, that was a couple of years ago. I think last
    year, it might have turned. We had three years in a row. Never
    had had that. Small businesses are job engines. Small business
    is where a lot of people can get started without a lot of
    experience.
        We also engaged the private sector to work with a lot of
    the volunteer agencies. We found in some cases getting somebody
    to go to Goodwill, start working there, was a way back into the
    workforce. And then that little bit of training gave them some
    job experience that could let them go to the hardware store and
    maybe work there or the drug store. It is all hands on deck
    when you are trying to deal with this.
        Chairman BRADY. Thank you. Dr. McDermott, you are
    recognized.
        Mr. MCDERMOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this
    Committee. I know we are starting the Paul Ryan for President
    campaign, conservatives are now very compassionate. But the
    text for today's Committee ought to be from Matthew 7:15. We
    will know them by the fruits that they produce.
        And you bring a witness here today whose website brags,
    ``Across the country, our efforts kept 20 States from expanding
    a broken Medicaid system under Obamacare.''
        Now, if you think that is how you are going to take people
    out of poverty, you have a really tough sell job. Because I was
    listening to Ms. VanZant and I thought of Lynn Woolsey, who was
    a Member of Congress, who had the same experience, a little bit
    different from yours. She was going along, she lost her
    marriage, she has three kids, she is alone, suddenly she is on
    the welfare system. And she has Medicaid. And she managed to
    get through community college and get elected to Congress.
        There are people for whom those programs work. I mean, we
    are acting like it doesn't work anywhere.
        And when you take health care, okay, so you don't have any,
    you have Medicaid right now. So you get a job. You get a $7.25
    job. That means you are making $19,000. Let's make $13.25, as
    Ms. VanZant said with Josh. He is making $35,000.
        Does he still qualify for Medicaid? If he doesn't, then he
    has to go into Obamacare, where he might need a subsidy at
    $35,000 to buy a policy. But this Committee takes away, wants
    to take away the subsidies. They want to take away the subsidy
    to the employer who subsidizes his employee. Any way you want
    to cut it, you leave them without health care. Now, Ms.
    Johnson, out there somewhere, is 25 years old, she has two
    small kids. What are her problems? Feeding her kids, right?
    Finding decent housing that she can afford.
        The Section 8 list in Seattle, and we're the fastest--we're
    the fourth fastest growing city in the country. We're almost
    bigger than Detroit in population, which tells you the city
    that was once fourth is now way down there with us at 26th or
    something in size in the United States. That's what happens
    when you don't deal with the needs of people. The cities
    disappear, the problems grow and grow and grow, and you have
    this Ms. Johnson, you want her to go to work.
        Ms. Johnson, quit sitting there and worrying about your
    kids.
        Well, I don't have a GED or I don't have the money to go to
    community college. Or I do have some skills, but I need
    childcare.
        One of my colleagues from the last campaign said, ``I spend
    more on childcare than I spent to go to Princeton.'' And that's
    what it costs that woman making $7.25 an hour. And nobody wants
    to talk about raising the wage around here. They won't want to
    go up to $10, $12. They don't want to go anywhere.
        Ms. Golden, you would like to say?
        Ms. GOLDEN. Yeah, I was going to suggest an individual that
    people should have in their minds when they think about poverty
    and then come back to your point about what that person takes.
    The woman who was there for my father-in-law in his last
    illness, the lead homecare worker, was working a lot of hours
    at a very low wage doing extraordinary work, caring for two
    kids with very little ability to count on having those hours,
    right?
        And so I don't know exactly what her income was, but she
    was--she's the person to have in mind as the face of poverty
    today. It's not someone who doesn't want to work. Women with
    young kids are in the labor force at levels of 70 percent of
    all mothers, 60 percent with a child under age three, single
    mothers more than that. And so it's somebody who's working,
    who's not getting enough hours or enough dollars and who needs
    health care to move up, who may need help still feeding her
    kids and who needs childcare.
        And to go to Mr. Rangel's point about the G.I. Bill, what
    she needs--and this I think also goes to Mr. Engler's point--is
    the ability to get some education and additional skills to be
    able to move up, but not at the cost of feeding her kids. So
    she's going to need something that gives her some earnings
    along the way, some Pell grant help, and that's what's going to
    work.
        So I think the picture that has been part of this
    conversation of people who don't want to work is a red herring.
    Almost everybody is working and the issues are about low wages,
    not enough hours and what you need to stabilize your life in
    order to be able to move up.
        Mr. MCDERMOTT. I yield back the balance of my time.
        Chairman BRADY. Thank you.
        Mr. Reichert, you're recognized.
        Mr. REICHERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank all
    of you for attending today and especially appreciate our
    witnesses who come and share their personal stories and their
    success. I think that's always a moment of inspiration that all
    of us on this panel should share in and recognize as well as
    the people in the audience and those at home listening. So
    thank you for being here.
        We've had a number of witnesses come in and share their
    stories, and I really liked some of the comments that Members
    on both sides are making, that we're here today to--struggling
    with--I'm 65 years old, and I'll bet you that there were people
    sitting on this dais talking about homelessness and poverty and
    education 65 years ago. And here we are, of course, still
    struggling with it trying to find the right answers.
        And that's what today's hearing is about. We're trying to
    work with everyone on the dais here and those of you who are
    here and those in the audience to find the answer to really
    helping people.
        I'm the oldest of seven. I ran away from home when I was
    16. My father, I remember, when we first moved here from
    Minnesota with two babies, looking for work, telling the story
    of him going to a business down in Renton who wasn't hiring,
    but every day he would go to work, sitting on the curb, waiting
    for a job opening. Finally, 2 to 3 weeks into sitting on the
    curb with his lunch bucket, somebody came out and said that
    there was a person who was hurt or quit and there was an
    opening for him so he could put food on the table for his
    family of nine.
        When I was the sheriff in King County, one of the things
    that I did in the morning is that I'd walk through the parks in
    downtown Seattle and one of the parks right next to the county
    courthouse was called Muskatel Meadows, and you can imagine
    what went on there. I sat down on the park bench and talked to
    the homeless people, and some of those people wanted jobs.
        Some of them told me, ``Look, I don't want a job, I like it
    right here where I am because in the morning I can be at this
    place and get breakfast, in the afternoon I can go a few blocks
    down the street and I can get lunch. I can go up here to get
    health care, and I can go down here and get dinner. I don't
    want to work. I like it right where I am. I don't want to do
    anything. I want free health care and I want free food.''
        The other people that I spoke to want jobs, and so I called
    some of our faith-based organizations and the pastors that I
    know and they came down and they held interviews in my office
    and took them, put them in the homes, got them jobs and then I
    did that for about a week and a week later I showed up at my
    office, I had 15 people lined up in the sheriff's office like I
    was an employment agency looking for workers.
        My executive assistant was not happy with me. We were the
    sheriff's office, not an employment agency. But I wanted to
    help people. I've been to the poorest of the poorest homes and
    the most wealthy. People want help. And it's not our job here
    today to argue about this. It's our job here, ladies and
    gentlemen, to find an answer together.
        And I know I'm on my soapbox here for a moment, but I am so
    tired of hearing the rhetoric from both sides really on what
    needs to be here and what needs to be there and that person
    needs this and that person needs--look, I agree with Ms.
    VanZant, and I don't know how anyone can disagree. One size
    does not fit all. It's our job here today to not get political,
    but to find answers to changing the system to help more people.
        Education is absolutely key, training is absolutely key,
    the engagement of the private sector is absolutely essential
    for this to work, OJT, all of that is absolutely necessary. So
    I know I don't usually do this, I usually ask questions, but I
    had--I just had to be passionate about this for a moment and
    make a plea for this panel to come together for the interest of
    those who are homeless, for the interest of those who need our
    help to make a difference.
        Ms. VanZant, how do you think--I know the Governor's been
    asked this question. How do you think the private sector can be
    more engaged? How would you reach out to them?
        Ms. VANZANT. So we've been working a lot with our employer
    partners and I absolutely agree, there has to be economic
    opportunities on the other side of the equation. And a lot of
    times we
    get stuck in this conversation about how we're going to help
    low-income people get prepared for work, but we don't often
    talk about preparing employers to receive those that want to
    work.
        Mr. REICHERT. Yes.
        Ms. VANZANT. And so we've been doing a lot of work with our
    employer partners in southwest Ohio educating them about what
    the transition off of government subsidies looks like, helping
    them to understand how they may actually be their own worst
    enemy when it comes to finding candidates that want to work.
    We've helped some of our employers restructure their hiring
    practices and the types of assessments that they put people
    through in order to find a job. And so I really do believe it
    has to be on both sides of the coin.
        Mr. REICHERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman BRADY. Thank you.
        Mr. Lewis, you're recognized.
        Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        I want to take a moment to thank all of the witnesses for
    being here. Because the gentleman from the State of Washington
    spoke so passionately and eloquently, I feel like testifying at
    maybe the end of my comments. Maybe I will testify just a
    little bit.
        Now in my home State, the State where I've been living
    since I was 23 years old, the State of Georgia, a Republican
    Governor and others before this Governor had used TANF block
    grant dollars to fill holes in other programs. Georgia has
    diverted Federal dollars to subsidize other programs and
    services. They receive awards for cutting programs, reducing
    assistance and making it harder to help the working poor. That
    is not right, that is not fair, that is not just.
        These resources are to help the poor. Now I grew up very,
    very poor in rural Alabama, born in a shotgun house. But in
    1944 when I was 4 years old--and I do remember when I was 4--my
    father had saved $300 and with the $300 a man sold him 110
    acres of land. So I know what it is to work in cotton fields,
    picking cotton, gathering peanuts, pulling corn, raising
    chickens.
        And I've seen poverty all across America. It's not just
    poverty and hunger and people left out and left behind because
    of one race or one color. African American, yes; whites,
    Latinos, Asian American and Native American. We're supposed to
    be about the business of helping people, responding to the
    basic human needs, and we're not doing that. We spend too much
    time talking the talk, but not walking the walk.
        And I think we must act, we must do something. If we fail
    to act, history will not be kind to us as a Nation and as a
    people. I've been here now for almost 30 years. The American
    people are sick and tired and I'm sick and tired of seeing us
    not doing something in a significant way. And I want you to
    tell us what we must do and what we must do now, not tomorrow,
    not after this election, but what can we do now to fill the
    holes, to help people.
        You need health care, basic health care, you need to expand
    Medicaid in order for people to be able to have able bodies to
    work. We can't have sick people trying to work, we cannot have
    people who don't receive enough to eat.
        Ms. Golden, what should we be doing?
        Ms. GOLDEN. That was very powerful, and I know this agenda
    may not quite feel grand enough. But here's what I would say.
    Health care, absolutely. Everybody needs to be healthy in order
    to work. And if you think about the next generation, about that
    child who's 4 years old today the way you were 4 years old,
    that child needs to have a parent who's healthy and can raise
    them and can work.
        I would say investing in children's earliest years,
    childcare programs, early childhood. We're now--we're helping
    the lowest number of people in more than a decade with
    childcare assistance even though it's incredibly expensive, but
    it's incredibly important both for parents and for children.
        I do think that the Congress has done a lot right over the
    50 years since those great society programs. So part of it is
    about not doing anything that would take you backwards, right?
    We have a nutrition program that we know is helping people eat
    where they weren't eating before, and so part of it is holding
    onto that.
        I would also say you have to take on the characteristics of
    work, of low-wage work. I think we do have to take on the
    minimum wage and the hours and the leave. And then I would
    say--and this is a piece where I think I share some elements of
    the agenda with others here--we have to take on the ability to
    get training and get education even if it's 2 years of
    community college. And we have to understand that today's
    students are not getting paid for by their parents. They are
    independent----
        Chairman BRADY. Thank you, Ms. Golden. I'm sorry. Time----
        Ms. GOLDEN. I'm sorry.
        Chairman BRADY [continuing]. Has expired. We're trying to
    be respectful.
        Mr. Roskam, you are recognized.
        Mr. ROSKAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and for hosting this
    today. It's an interesting thing to listen to the nature of the
    debate actually, and there's sort of an ebb and flow to it.
        I want to associate myself with some of the remarks that
    Mr. Rangel made a minute ago in his interaction with Governor
    Engler and sort of speaking to that level of restlessness and
    anxiety that's out there about people that just don't feel like
    they have basically a shot at the title. That's an interesting
    insight, and I think that we can build on that.
        I also just want to bring the Committee's attention to my
    friend and our colleague, John Lewis' Twitter feed. He said
    this: ``Fifty-five years ago today I was arrested in a
    Jacksonville, Mississippi, bus station for using a `whites
    only' restroom.'' And the hashtag is #goodtrouble. And I think
    good trouble is maybe something for all of us to get into today
    and to challenge a little bit of the orthodoxies on both sides.
        So good trouble may involve something where there's an
    acknowledgment on the political left that says the war on
    poverty wasn't really all that successful.
        Now Ms. Golden has taken a different view of that and has
    defended some aspects of the status quo. But I'm not really
    buying it. I am really concerned about the nature of the war on
    poverty. Well-intentioned, God bless them, well-intentioned.
    But trillions of dollars that have basically yielded this isn't
    working. The American public didn't get what they were
    bargaining for, and, in fact, they got situations that are
    worse.
        John Lewis' journey was a journey out of poverty and it's
    his own story, compelling, by the way, to read his book, ``Walk
    with the Wind.'' But he is out of that, and he's testament to
    what can happen when a larger community effort is around it.
    But what are we describing today? We're describing today kids
    who are stuck into four generations of that, that are
    completely beaten down.
        And it's not as if a Federal check is the remedy. Ms.
    VanZant, your testimony, part of it that's most compelling was
    the coaching and the coming alongside and the assistance that
    you're giving. That is really sort of--that's where this can
    become life-giving.
        And I'm not here necessarily thinking everybody who--that
    there's a bunch of people who don't want to work, but there are
    some people who don't want to work. There are some people who
    are abusing the system. So let's separate out those who don't
    want to work and let's empower those who do.
        And I think part of the--if this is a matter of
    recalibrating child credits, if this is a matter of
    recalibrating childcare initiatives and so forth, there's
    something intuitive to that and it makes a perfect amount of
    sense to me. I'm not persuaded that block grants are bad
    things. I'm not persuaded that the Federal Government has the
    ability to come out with a one--a large declaration. If the
    State of Michigan can't figure out a one-size-fits-all, we know
    that the Federal Government cannot figure out a one-size-fits-
    all.
        So I just want to encourage the nature of this discussion
    today and I think a number of us would be willing to sort of
    get into some good trouble about this. Because I'll tell you
    what, the status quo isn't working, the status quo has
    underperformed, and the status quo in many cases is leaving
    people trapped from a generational point of view. And some of
    these kids that are being born today, they don't have a chance
    right from the get-go. And I think we can do a lot better than
    that.
        I yield back.
        Chairman BRADY. Thank you.
        Mr. Neal, you are recognized.
        Mr. NEAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I think that Sheriff Reichert and Mr. Lewis both offered
    some critical insight. And I've always thought that the safety
    net was supposed to act also as sort of a trampoline, that you
    hit it and you bounce back. And I think that we try
    meticulously to choose our words so as to not offend.
        And in the case of, for example, work requirements, Mike
    Dukakis proposed work requirements in 1974 in his first term as
    Governor of Massachusetts. And I remember that the reaction at
    the time--but much of it really worked, but I think that the
    idea becomes how do you encourage work without being punitive.
        And there were so many good things that we proposed in that
    1996 Act, which, by the way, has been kind of easily cast
    aside, including childcare, transportation, tuition assistance.
    There were a series of things in there that we could use to
    build upon. And I think that--I've noted some of the testimony
    of a former Republican staffer who was much involved in that
    discussion and debate. He has said over the last 3 or 4 years,
    well, there are some other things you can do.
        So he hasn't taken an intransitive position, instead trying
    to be helpful about what we might do. And I will tell you that
    I now see, for example, the trade arguments. Unless there's
    some sort of a supplemental wage, the trade deals are going to,
    I think, be on the side of the road for a considerable period
    of time. And I think that until we begin to address now the 47
    million Americans who receive food stamps, trying to figure out
    how to get many of those people back to work because they
    really do want to work.
        And in an economic--and I'm going to come to you, Ms.
    Golden. In an economic period when the Federal Reserve is now
    saying and projecting growth at 2 percent for the next decade,
    I mean the--just to revisit the Clinton years when there were
    some quarters of growth north of 7 percent, 8 percent and 23
    million jobs, revenue went through the roof. Formulae expending
    on poverty programs went through the floor.
        And not to miss the point coming out of that recession that
    we lost track of almost 8 million people who took social
    security early. Other cases went to social security disability
    and also I think it's fair to say that one of the problems we
    have right now is skill set and also not to miss the following
    point, which I think is critical: Seven to nine million
    Americans are working part-time that want to work full-time.
    The worker participation rate, I mean we need to pay attention
    to those things as opposed to just the talking points that are
    so frequently used in this institution.
        And, Ms. Golden, would you talk about that whole notion of
    the 7 to 9 million people who are working part-time and some of
    the things that we might do?
        Ms. GOLDEN. Sure. I mean, because I think one of the
    headlines that's really important as you deliberate on where
    have we been and where are we going is how many people who are
    poor or near poor and struggling in the United States today are
    working.
        I said before about 70 percent of poor children live with
    an adult who's working, women are working, and we have, as
    you've just said, many people who are working yet who are not
    being able to make ends meet. And that's partly about wages,
    and then as you've highlighted, it's partly about part-time
    work and transient work, work that starts and stops, right?
        So one of the ways to deal with that is to think about what
    people need that will enable them to combine work and training
    and move up. And that's something that's important to spend
    money on. But the other piece is to try to directly address
    those bad jobs. And there are around the country, for example,
    fair scheduling initiatives.
        There's legislation before Congress that would try to
    really focus on what does it take to make sure that somebody
    knows what hours they're working, doesn't have their lives
    messed up by not being able to care for kids, go to school,
    work enough hours. And then of course there's the minimum wage
    agenda.
        So to me part of what you said about the safety net as a
    trampoline, when you look at what the researchers say about the
    safety net itself, what they say is since the beginning of the
    war on poverty, look back on those years. The safety net is
    working enormously better than it was. The problem I think--
    cutting poverty in half, instead of by 1 or 2 percent. But the
    problem which you've just highlighted is that there's a big
    headwind from the nature of jobs.
        And so I think we--I think you're right. They're
    concentrating on what's involved in partnership with the
    private sector and through the public sector in enabling people
    to move up on the job and structuring those jobs themselves so
    they have basic standards of quality and of wages. That's
    really I think a powerful direction.
        Chairman BRADY. Thank you.
        Dr. Price, you're recognized.
        Dr. PRICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank--
    commend the Chairman for calling this hearing. I can't believe
    that it's been over 10 years since we've discussed this in
    Congress here at this--in this Committee. And so I think it's
    incredibly important work.
        Mr. Bragdon, you started your testimony by saying we all
    want the same thing, and I think at one level we do. The
    problem is that what we've been doing clearly hasn't worked. So
    what we're trying to ask is: What should we do? What should we
    do? We are now 50 years into the war on poverty. And as
    somebody once said, poverty won.
        We spend trillions and trillions of dollars--literally
    trillions of dollars as a Nation, and we haven't moved the
    needle on the percent of individuals who live in poverty in
    this country. It was 14.7 percent 2 years after President
    Johnson declared the war on poverty, and today it's 14.8
    percent. Any sane, sober, reflective, sincere society would
    step back and say: What did we do? What happened? Why do we
    still have 14.8 percent of the Nation's population in poverty?
    This is a disgrace.
        So what we need to do is to find what works. What works?
    Sensible, responsible reforms. The Chairman put a chart up
    there that--I mean it's not a piece--it's not an artwork. I
    guess it is an artwork, but it's not meant to be an artwork.
    These are the 80-plus programs, income-based programs that are
    provided by this Nation.
        And you can't--if you're trying to figure your way through
    this as an individual coming into the system, goodness knows
    that you can't figure it out. This is part of the problem.
    There's no doubt about it. If it weren't, we would have
    decreased that number.
        I want to commend the city of Atlanta, metropolitan
    Atlanta. Some folks have disparaged their communities in
    certain areas. The city of Atlanta, the business community in
    the city of Atlanta has done huge work in the area of
    education. The business community has identified community
    colleges and technical schools to say these are the talents
    that we need, let's work together and educate folks and train
    folks so that they can get a job, so they can have a job. There
    have been incredible successes. I would urge us to be thinking
    a little more about some of those successes.
        And to that end, Mr. Bragdon, your testimony highlighted
    some of those successes, and I just can't believe that we've
    kind of washed over the remarkable success. The numbers are
    phenomenal. Would you just take a minute and share with us what
    you believe were the keys that allowed for those successes in
    Kansas and in Maine?
        Mr. BRAGDON. Thank you, Congressman, for that opportunity.
    I think the key really is, as part of the conversation that's
    been had here today is, individuals want to work, but at the
    same time, we have to have the policy and the incentives
    aligned with ensuring that they're taking the steps to get back
    to work. It's not enough to just want to work. You actually
    have to take the steps to get back.
        And that's what these massive tracking studies from Kansas
    and Maine--these aren't samples; these are studies of 50,000
    people, person by person, of what happened after the policy
    change.
        And what's interesting is--and this wasn't in my testimony,
    but if you drill down to the individual county level, those
    counties with the higher rates of unemployment actually had
    higher rates of individuals complying with the work requirement
    or the job training requirement. And the individual stories are
    inspiring. There's one gentleman from Kansas City who was on
    food stamps for 5 years. Within a quarter of that work
    requirement going into effect he was at work and within a year
    he was making $45,000 in the marketing industry.
        Dr. PRICE. I want to commend you and we ought to all be
    looking at this as a highlight and as a model for moving
    forward.
        Governor Engler, you've been involved in this process--this
    political process for a long time and governing, which is
    difficult, which is really hard. But when you look at this
    chart and you see what we have, how would you recommend that
    work to coordinate all of these various boxes and squares,
    circles and triangles to make a system that actually can work
    for the American people?
        Mr. ENGLER. I might just offer any Governor the opportunity
    to take any program 90 percent of the funding free of Federal
    regulation. You'd save money in the Federal budget, and they'd
    get the flexibility to maybe make it work. That might be one
    way out. I can't see Congress ever agreeing on a solution to
    reorganize this many programs, and probably every one of them
    is named after somebody, so you probably can't eliminate it
    either. So there we are.
        So give the flexibility there to see if they can't come up
    with a better system. And I think some performance arrangements
    with the States are what's called for. Let 50 creative
    Governors come in and make some proposals to the Congress or to
    the agency that you delegate and give them the authority to try
    to solve the problem. I do think entering the second half-
    century of the war on poverty we ought to be rethinking how
    we're approaching our strategy and it may not be that we've
    been using exactly the right strategy.
        And I do commend the Committee. One thing I haven't heard
    anybody call for today are at least public jobs programs. We've
    kind of gotten that out of our system in the years past. But we
    do have to have a more vibrant private sector that can hire,
    that's where Congressman Neal's point on--you have a 4 percent
    GDP, you have a lot of jobs.
        Dr. PRICE. Thank you, Governor.
        Thank you, Chairman.
        Chairman BRADY. Thank you.
        Mr. Doggett, you're recognized. And I'll make a point after
    you're recognized. To balance off the question and answer
    period, we'll go two-to-one. Mr. Doggett.
        Mr. DOGGETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I believe we have
    complete agreement with the first principle that you have
    referred to today, and that is that every able-bodied person
    should be working or preparing to work. Governor Engler has
    referred to pathway programs. We have a number of successful
    ones in Texas: Project QUEST, working to get poor people into
    better jobs with the healthcare industry, and with Capital IDEA
    in Austin working to get some people into the tech industry to
    fulfill some of our workforce demands there.
        Ms. VanZant has outlined a program that appears to be
    working very well. We just need more such programs adapted to
    local conditions to help people get good, long-paying jobs
    where they can climb into the middle class and support their
    families.
        There's only one problem that I have with all of this and
    the announcement of these principles, and that is the failure
    of this Committee to do anything to implement those principles,
    specifically to rig up a way of considering the extension of
    temporary assistance for needy families in a way that denies
    any debate about reforms that could really make a difference to
    poor people.
        And not all the ideas about how to get more able-bodied
    people into the workforce come from Democrats. In fact, one of
    them was included in then-Chairman Ryan's poverty rollout last
    summer. And it was embodied in legislation that was introduced
    by Mr. Tiberi and Mr. Renacci from this Committee. Mr.
    Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent to include Mr. Tiberi's
    press release about that bill in the record.
        Chairman BRADY. Without objection.
        Mr. DOGGETT. And Mr. Tiberi told us that what he had was
    a commonsense reform. Unfortunately, it wasn't common sense
    enough to get considered in this Committee. They have
    structured a process to deny us an opportunity to consider
    whether opportunities for more education or training by those
    who have been receiving temporary assistance for needy families
    should be made available and I think have substituted basically
    a press release suggesting from our last set of bills having
    divided up the question of temporary needy assistance for
    families into about six or seven different bills to avoid
    dealing with Mr. Tiberi's idea or any ideas that the rest of us
    might have about getting more able-bodied people to work, that
    what was substituted was a press release saying that the
    Committee takes action to help families escape poverty.
        I would love a report at the end of the year to show that
    if every one of these bills are adopted, that one person got
    out of poverty this year in America because they were adopted.
    This is about substituting not workfare for welfare, but
    substituting talkfare.
        And then there is the question of the polka dot chart. And
    if you'd put it back up, I would appreciate it. You've referred
    to it in every hearing that we've had about poverty. That chart
    is designed to show how expensive the trillion-dollar welfare
    system is; it's worth looking at the specific provisions on it.
        Veterans Pension and Survivors Pension, Breast and Cervical
    Cancer Provision, the Ryan White HIV/AIDS program, Adoption
    Assistance, Child Support Enforcement, the School Lunch
    program, Federal Pell grants, you know, the people in my
    district can find the program out of that that meets their
    needs, and the person who has a problem with cervical cancer
    may not be someone who needs a Pell grant, or they may need
    both.
        To condemn President Johnson's war on poverty as a failure
    is to ignore the many who never engaged in fighting that war.
    And all of those who cut and run at the first sign of adversity
    on the battlefield, it is to ignore the fact that the States
    today are putting 8 cents of every TANF dollar into the work
    that we say we support.
        We don't lack answers. We don't need intensive
    investigation of which program to support. We know that.
    Republicans have even recognized that. They simply don't have
    the courage to put their dollars where their mouth is. And as a
    result, we talk about what might help people escape poverty and
    move into the middle class, and we do next to nothing about it.
        And that's what's happening this year. It's disappointing
    that our States will not fulfill their commitment--if you want
    to look at a failed Federal program, look at Temporary
    Assistance for Needy Families, because it shows you when you
    have a block grant to the States without adequate standards, it
    is a failure in accomplishing its purpose of moving people from
    welfare to work. I yield back.
        Chairman BRADY. Thank you. Just to clarify, that chart is
    based off of a congressional research summary and a listing of
    means-tested poverty programs.
        Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I failed to include--to ask your
    unanimous consent also. Barbara Lee could not be here today.
    She has the Democratic Task Force. May I ask unanimous consent
    to insert her statement in the record.
        Chairman BRADY. Without objection.
        Mr. DOGGETT. Thank you.
        Chairman BRADY. Mr. Buchanan.
        Mr. BUCHANAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And I also want to thank the panel and especially Governor
    Engler. I was from Michigan, and he was a great Governor, so I
    appreciate the opportunity to have you here as a witness today.
        Everybody brings a little different experience, but let me
    just tell you a couple of stories that have--in the last month
    talking to employers, and I'll just--just for a second. One guy
    I met, he dropped out of high school, he has a GED, and he runs
    one of the most successful enterprises in Florida today. He's
    about 38 years old.
        Another young African American 20-year-old is making in
    excess of a hundred thousand dollars, became a manager, he was
    telling me--his employer was telling me last week.
        Another Hispanic young man, maybe 27, 28, making $150,000--
    my point being that in the real world--that's the world I've
    been in for 40 years--many people, they just need an
    opportunity. They need a job. And I think the Governor
    mentioned something about growth.
        If you can grow your State and create more opportunities,
    get in the right enterprise, you give me a 20-year-old, and
    I've created thousands of jobs. I don't care if someone's got a
    Ph.D. or a master's in whatever. Maybe technically that makes
    good sense for a lot of that, but many times you can find a
    young person, whether it's in service or in sales, that can be
    one of the top performers in terms of a manager running a
    company someday, running an enterprise. I have seen that for
    the last 40 years.
        And I guess I'd like to ask you, Governor, I know you work
    with large C corporations. But maybe talk about the young
    people you've met along the way in Michigan for 12 years that
    got out of high school, maybe went to college for a year,
    dropped out and are some of the most successful people in the
    State of Florida.
        And I heard a statistic that half of the millionaires, if
    you want to look at it from that standpoint, one way to measure
    it, are high school graduates. So I'd be interested in your
    thoughts on it.
        Mr. ENGLER. A couple of thoughts and maybe just to set it
    up, I'll respond this way. If we think about people who need to
    work, the first person that's going to go back to work is the
    one who just left the workforce last week, that lost their job,
    they're easy to replace. Somebody who's been working can go
    back to work easier than somebody who hasn't worked in 5 years
    or longer.
        And what we're trying to do, I think, is put Americans to
    work. Americans--I do believe Americans want to work. And what
    we're seeing is today an economy underperforming so there
    aren't as many work opportunities out there. And that's a
    function of a 2 percent GDP growth rate versus 4 percent, and
    there are strategies that can raise that 2 to 4. A number of
    those are going to be in the jurisdiction of this Committee.
        At the same time, somebody who's been disconnected from the
    workforce, we're trying to remediate their situation. If
    somebody's been living in poverty much of their lives, it's
    going to be a big challenge. But one thing we ought to pledge
    ourselves is not to make the same mistake with the rising
    generation. Let's not let their children--because we haven't--
    the education investments haven't been cut, they've been
    rising.
        In Detroit where 5 percent of the kids can pass the reading
    test for NAEP, the Nation's report, 5 percent are reading, in
    Wayne State, a large urban school there where the graduation
    rate--and this is 6 years of students, all students, is 32
    percent, the underrepresented minorities----
        Mr. BUCHANAN. Governor, let me ask you another question. I
    have 5 minutes. Let me just mention also--because you had
    touched on the idea of incentives. I think Dr. Price had
    mentioned something about in the last 10 years in terms of this
    space, we've done little or nothing. And I think it speaks to
    both parties that we need to do something. But my attitude has
    always been continuous improvement. What incentives, from a
    State's perspective, might we consider or look at to improve
    what we're trying to do here in Washington?
        Mr. ENGLER. You know, let the States try to figure it out.
    I mean, I'm sorry, you just--I wish I could give you an answer
    there's one thing this Committee could do that could fix the
    problem in America. You can't. Let the States try, and let's
    hold States accountable, let's set some metrics out there and
    let's have--to the Members who have spoken on both sides, let's
    bring the top two States back in and what have they done and
    let's bring the bottom two in, what didn't they do.
        And let's evaluate how they spent TANF money. I would
    welcome that one. I was a Governor. I would encourage you to
    hold current Governors accountable. Bring them in and hear from
    them. But you can't fix it from Washington.
        Ms. GOLDEN. Could I add on State examples that are out
    there?
        Mr. BUCHANAN. Yes.
        Ms. GOLDEN. Congress did agree in the Bipartisan Workforce
    Innovation and Opportunity Act on principles for workforce
    training, and I think what Mr. Doggett's highlighting is that
    what that bipartisan agreement said was you need to be--at
    least a community college, at least a post-secondary credential
    is important in today's labor market.
        Pathways of the kind Governor Engler has been talking
    about, where you connect up different work and training
    experiences, unfortunately right now the rules and the sharply
    decreasing dollars in the TANF program make it really hard for
    States to come together even though they want to. And so
    figuring out how to have the resources and the incentives----
        Mr. BUCHANAN. Thank you, and I yield back.
        Chairman BRADY. Thank you.
        Mr. Smith, you're recognized.
        Mr. SMITH OF NEBRASKA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you to our panel here today as well. I think this
    topic that we are addressing cannot state enough how important
    I think it is, and I am glad that there are folks across
    America who are engaging on the frontlines as you are.
        I know that America is a big country, and during the
    economic downturn, not every State, not every region around the
    country, not even all parts of the same State faced the same
    challenges. And I'm kind of glad that in Nebraska we had
    roughly half the unemployment rate when the national
    unemployment rate was at 10 and we were at 5. I'm not--I won't
    take the time to explain why I think that was the case.
        But I look at a community just outside my district called
    Columbus, Nebraska. Columbus I would describe as very
    industrious, a population less than 25,000. In speaking to some
    of their leaders a couple of days ago, they're talking about
    adding 1,500 manufacturing jobs in a community of less than
    25,000. That's incredible.
        And this actually is not a new situation for this
    community, but we know that there are pockets of unemployment
    around the country, and I know that we can't expect the workers
    to just uproot their lives and their families from one region
    to another, and I especially don't want the Federal Government
    trying to necessarily accomplish that. But how can we kind of
    address these very diverse needs that there are--the huge need
    for workers in one area and a huge need for jobs in another?
    How can we kind of bring this together so that ultimately
    individuals can see more opportunity for themselves and their
    families for the future?
        Governor Engler, could you explain perhaps, given your
    national perspective and your experience?
        Mr. ENGLER. Sure. The example you've just given is a
    perfect one to start with. The community college in the area no
    doubt has been working with the local leadership, and they're
    going to set up training programs to specifically train people
    for the jobs that are going to be in that manufacturing plant.
    They're going to address that need, and they're going to take
    some people maybe working in lower wage jobs and retrain them
    for a new job.
        And today when companies are making location decisions,
    despite all the talk about tax incentives and this and that,
    the number one barrier to location today is workforce. And the
    number one deal that most Governors are offering is if you put
    your plant, if you put your facility here, we'll train your
    workforce. You tell us what you need in the way of training,
    we'll deliver that. We'll customize that for you.
        The disconnect in the poverty debate is that we're taking
    people who can't even read and suggesting that they're going to
    learn to handle computers or technology or statistically
    produce a part where there's no errors and a million parts.
    That is not going to happen. That is a fantasy. And so the idea
    that we're going to suddenly upgrade someone with no skills--we
    can do that with some over time, but whole-scale, that's not
    going to happen.
        But the children who are in school, we're paying $15,000 a
    year to the school to teach, perhaps for $150,000 we can get 10
    kids to read. And then if they can read they can learn some
    science and they can be prepared. We have to break the cycle. I
    mean, this is what--I mean, stop treating the failure and deal
    with the root cause.
        And your community college will not be able to train the
    person who's illiterate, at least very easily and very quickly
    and probably maybe not in time for that first couple of years'
    employment at that plant. They can do it over time.
        Ms. GOLDEN. And one--I think one strategy it builds on is
    that you need some parts of your strategy that are national. So
    I completely agree that with the Workforce Investment Act and
    other strategies that need to be funded--it's not funded enough
    yet--they get resources to the community college locally, that
    gives you part of your answer. But you also need for every
    child to have access to health insurance and to food.
        Because what we know from the national research is that
    that booming economic area, the kids that are its future are
    not just growing up in that State; they're growing up all over
    the country. So we need to be able to have a national floor
    that makes sure that all those kids are getting the basics, the
    nutrition, the health care, the early experiences and then you
    can build on top of that with local.
        Mr. ENGLER. Which years ago before Obamacare Congress
    addressed through SCHIP. Every child in America was given
    health insurance through the SCHIP program. You were all part
    of that.
        Mr. SMITH OF NEBRASKA. Well, I appreciate the responses. I
    think mentioning education and the impact of costs of education
    and so forth, it would be interesting to study the impacts of
    student debt and poverty. Thank you very much.
        Chairman BRADY. Thank you.
        Mr. Larson, you're recognized.
        Mr. LARSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for this
    hearing. I never cease to be amazed, sitting through one of
    these, how you come up with constructive ideas.
        I especially want to commend Mr. Reichert and Mr. Lewis.
    It's all so rare that passion takes over for what our usual
    message is that we're going to ask our witnesses, and I think
    within that passion, a couple of things that are tied to the
    testimony that we've heard today.
        Number one, I think Mr. Engler's suggestion about looking
    at States and the laboratories of democracy that we all know
    that they are and bringing in those that have been successful
    and those that have not. I would also say the private sector. I
    say that for two reasons, Mr. Chairman. One, I had a little
    epiphany while sitting here and listening. I think this
    Committee--the operative word in politics and the economy today
    is disruption, changing or breaking the cycle as a number of
    people here have said.
        One of the cycles we need to break, quite frankly, is the
    way we get information and the way we do public hearings. We
    should be going out to the States. I would love to go to
    Detroit and the Upper Peninsula and see the differences there
    between what happens in an urban area and what happens in a
    rural area and how the solutions could differ. Because all the
    panelists have indicated not one size can fit all in all these
    cases, and we have so many opportunities.
        I would also ask that we bring in people from the private
    sector. In my home State of Connecticut, the AETNA leads the
    way in terms of coming out and recognizing what we have to do
    with wages, saying minimally they have to have $16 in order for
    people to make it in today's society. And they went on and
    examined their own programs over the years and said, you know
    what, if we don't boost their healthcare benefits, number one,
    they can't afford to live where they go to work if we don't
    give them the right minimum wage.
        And, number two, they can't afford to buy what we're
    making, an idea that Henry Ford first came up with and said if
    we're going to produce Model A's and we're going to have them
    come off the assembly line and people are going to be able to
    buy them, they have to have the money.
        These are practical things that sometimes elude us here in
    Washington, and it is what the people despise about us because
    they say we're about messaging and not about solutions. And
    they're right. We're about messaging. We don't come up with
    solutions. We have taste-great-less-filling arguments all the
    time and then people say, my God, nothing gets done there. And
    everyone dramatically goes home and restates their messaging
    points, and we don't move the ball any further forward.
        We have to disrupt that and change it. Hal Rogers is
    leading the way. He's got a great idea with respect to how we
    address poverty, how we address it in promise zones
    specifically on a very narrow basis, but incentivizing
    businesses who will actually locate and hire people in poverty
    zones that have been designated across this country. What a
    change if we were to go out there and view those firsthand.
        Whether it's Washington State or Georgia, if this Committee
    were proactively going out instead of sitting here in a
    messaging quandary over these issues and debating the ideology
    on the left and the right, do what the American people expect
    of us, solve a problem for them.
        The bottom line is this: Do safety supports work? And if
    they do work, what do we need to enhance and change them? And
    if the system after 50 years isn't working the way that it has
    to, do we throw the baby out with the bathwater or what kind of
    changes do we need?
        Ms. Golden, I'll give you the 1 minute I have left to
    answer what is a comprehensive question, but----
        Ms. GOLDEN. Okay. So I think there's a mix of new ideas and
    successes we've already had, and I think it's very important to
    recognize the successes, that it really does matter that we
    have a consistent ability for people not to be hungry and are
    growing toward an ability for people to be healthy, and we're
    addressing poverty. But it's also important to recognize the
    big gaps, which you've highlighted, wages, hours and the
    persistence of people's inability to do better.
        New and emerging ideas I would actually highlight are a
    couple that I think have sort of come out, but just to pull
    them together. I--one is the idea that one of the ways you make
    a difference is by influencing two generations at once, parent
    and child. And that's--there's powerful new research that says
    the core safety
    net programs do that, SNAP and Medicaid, the earned income tax
    credit.
        But there's also, I think, a lot to be thought about and
    worked on about how to really focus on what we now know about
    those early years of life. Do childcare right, do early
    childhood programs right. And then I'll just toss out one
    other, which is that I do
    think that Congress in their bipartisan work on the Workforce
    Investment and Opportunity Act really took seriously how
    college--community college credentials and workforce
    development can fit together and there's lots to say there.
        Chairman BRADY. Thank you, Ms. Golden.
        Mr. Paulsen----
        Mr. LARSON. Mr. Chairman, would you entertain my--me
    submitting to you a proposal that we have the Committee--I know
    it's not going to happen tomorrow. But I do think taking this
    Committee on the road and going to people's districts where
    we--that actually depict the problems that are going on would
    put Congress in a better light as an institution of working
    toward the solution, and I think you could have the same kind
    of witnesses, but we'd be doing it, we'd be reaching out to
    America, we'd be getting out beyond the Beltway.
        Chairman BRADY. I'd be interested in anything that would
    put Congress in a better light, anybody, anywhere.
        Mr. LARSON. Thank you.
        Chairman BRADY. Mr. Paulsen, you're recognized.
        Mr. PAULSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, also for holding this
    hearing. And this is actually the first Committee hearing on
    poverty or welfare reform that's happened in a long time, and I
    can only imagine--I was not here in the 1990s when this debate
    was happening, but I was in the State level, and these debates
    can be very passionate and engage a lot of different
    challenges.
        The sad reality is today that there are too many Americans
    that are still living in poverty and lack the right job
    opportunities and tools just to keep moving up the economic
    ladder, and the status quo should absolutely be looked at being
    revised, and that's because we owe it. We owe it to those folks
    that are most in need that get help from these programs to make
    sure that we're actually seeing results.
        And I just really appreciate the testimony we've had here
    this morning. I'm not going to make a long statement, because I
    do want to have a chance to ask a few questions. And maybe I'll
    just start with Mr. Bragdon real quick.
        From results we've seen around the country, what do we know
    about how individuals respond to financial incentives when
    they're put out there--do individuals respond to those
    incentives? How specifically do welfare benefits potentially
    discourage work on--when you look at that?
        Mr. BRAGDON. Thank you for the question. I think that's
    what's so instructive about these largest-ever tracking studies
    in Maine and Kansas is that we have the answer to that by
    looking at what happened to individual behavior before the work
    requirement and then what happened after. And I think the
    spirit of your question is spot on that people respond to
    incentives.
        It's not just enough to want to work; you also need to be
    nudged. And what the lesson from the work requirements and
    looking at individuals is, that nudge in getting people either
    back to work or in training--it's not just about work; it's
    about training or even volunteering--was transformative. For
    those individuals who weren't willing to meet that standard and
    cycle off welfare, they went back to work in record numbers.
        They went into 650 different industries. Only 20 percent of
    them went into food service. Many started out in temp agencies
    and then moved into full-time employment. So the response was
    very dynamic to one policy change. You had this really
    significant response where people took what they desired, but
    then the incentives were in line for them to actually go back
    to work and increase their earnings over time.
        Ms. GOLDEN. May I correct--oh, I'm sorry.
        Mr. PAULSEN. In just a second. Maybe Ms. VanZant, because I
    appreciated your testimony earlier, too. Following up a little
    bit on that, given your experience with work and your personal
    past experience, is the problem that recipients don't get to
    keep all of the money they earn from work because their
    benefits get reduced?
        Or is it also the component that some people are actually
    made financially worse in many respects by working because they
    lose some of the benefits that they have as a part of those
    earnings. And that's a challenge that they have to face, right?
    They make sort of a decision.
        Ms. VANZANT. Absolutely. Absolutely. Thank you for the
    question. Yes, as a person goes to work, especially in the
    lower-wage jobs, what they'll experience is that many times
    their subsidies are decreasing at a much faster rate than the
    income that they're bringing in. And so what we typically see
    in our members is that same kind of knee-jerk reaction we might
    all have of this is just not working out for me. The math is
    not working out for me.
        If I'm making $8.10 an hour, which is minimum wage in Ohio,
    and I'm working 32 hours a week and I'm losing 50 or 60 percent
    of my food stamps or all of them before I even receive my first
    paycheck, how in the world am I supposed to piece that
    together? And so one of the things that we're suggesting is
    that we take a look at the spectrum of the safety net programs
    and look at how we can put some of them in place after work
    starts to really allow the slope of--instead of the cliff and
    allow it to be a much slighter slope and that the incentives
    are directly aligned with the types of supports that Americans
    need when they go back to work.
        If we pull mom and dad out of the house 40, 50 hours a week
    because they want to work and they're in an opportunity to have
    a full-time job and we don't give them any supports for the two
    and a half children they have back at home, that's not going to
    bode well long-term for the family relationships that are
    happening.
        But if we can give mom and dad the types of supports they
    need when they are pulled out of the house 40 to 50 hours a
    week in jobs that allow them to know that their kids are in a
    safe place, that they have after-school activities, that some
    of the large dollar items in their budget such as housing and
    childcare and utility assistance are in place that allow that
    slope to be much more gradual, what I think is we're going to
    find troves of people going back to work, because I really do
    believe that they want to.
        And one point about the work requirements, from my own
    personal experience and from the thousands of members that I've
    worked with across the country that are low income, I don't
    necessarily think that mandating anything to anyone is the way
    to go. I believe any time that we're told that we have to do
    something we have an automatic human resistance to doing that
    even if we know it's the absolute best thing that we can do.
    But giving people options of things that they can do I think is
    very important.
        Mr. PAULSEN. Thank you.
        Chairman BRADY. Mr. Marchant, you're--Mrs. Black, you're
    recognized.
        Mrs. BLACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I so appreciate
    the conversation that we're having in here because 47 million
    Americans being in poverty is unconscionable. In a country
    where we have the kinds of resources that we do, there is no
    reason to have 47 million people in poverty.
        I'm going to associate myself with my colleague from
    Connecticut that talked about us messaging and not having
    solutions. We must take a look at what the solutions are, and
    we must put them in place and stop just talking about them.
        I will also associate with what was said about one size not
    fitting all, because as we look at programs around this country
    and different programs that are working, we're ignoring really
    talking about those in a way that will help us to solve this
    problem, and we keep turning back to the same old stuff over
    and over again thinking that it's going to work when it hasn't
    worked for all of these years.
        I will tell you that I have a personal relationship with
    the situation where I started out and my family started out in
    public housing. And I know what hard work can do to put me
    where I am today from living in the halls of public housing to
    serving in the halls of Congress.
        So I've given back and not in as great a way as I'd like to
    since I've been here in Congress, but I can tell you that I
    worked with a young lady getting her the opportunity to get an
    education, being able to get a job with that education as an
    LPN.
        And you know what she told me after 3 months of working and
    she was no longer getting her check in the mail? She was frozen
    and couldn't go back to work because she was scared to death of
    not getting a paycheck, that she might lose her job and not
    have a paycheck to feed her four children because she was
    trapped in poverty. She told me her mom was on welfare, her
    grandmother was on welfare, it was the only thing she ever
    knew.
        People do get trapped. And we, government, are trapping
    them. And so I want to thank each one of the members today,
    Governor Engler for talking about the necessity to have
    education, not just post-secondary education, but to make sure
    kids are getting good education in high school and to even give
    them an opportunity when they leave high school maybe not to go
    to college but to get a skill.
        Look, I pay the guy that comes in to fix my refrigerator a
    lot of money. And those are good jobs, and we haven't done a
    good job in saying these are good jobs.
        I want to thank you also, Ms. VanZant, for what you're
    doing to help with this drop-off that we know happens, this
    cliff and what kind of paralyzation takes place when someone
    knows that they're going to hit that cliff.
        And then also, Mr. Bragdon, I have this article from Forbes
    that talks about--and I read this before you actually came here
    today--the successes in both Maine and also in Kansas of the
    programs.
        I want to go back to you, Ms. VanZant. How is your program
    funded? Because you're having tremendous success. So what is
    the funding mechanism?
        Ms. VANZANT. Actually, thank you for the question. We are
    self-funding. So the CareSource Foundation is actually funding
    the program. Because many of the things that we are doing under
    the umbrella of a managed--a Medicaid managed care plan are
    things that cannot be funded out of Medicaid. There are really
    strict rules around where those dollars go.
        And so through the research that we have done and really
    looking at how overall health and wellness was not happening
    for the 1.5 million Americans that we have on our plan, we
    decided to take our own dollars and start to test this concept,
    that if we actually coupled looking at economic stability with
    the types of supports that we have been offering through
    Medicaid and the Medicaid exchange, that we could actually be
    able to move people forward at a faster pace, but in a
    supported faster pace. So right now we are using private
    dollars.
        Mrs. BLACK. These are private sector dollars.
        Mr. Bragdon, would you talk a little bit about how Maine's
    Governor came to this thought and conclusion that he needed to
    do something a little different to get people back to work in
    this particular category?
        Mr. BRAGDON. Sure. Thank you for the question.
        The Governor of Maine, much like yourself, grew up in very
    tough circumstances. He is one of 18 children and his family
    was homeless at age 11, and he saw firsthand what poverty and
    what welfare did to his siblings and to his family. He grew up
    in a very, very tough family environment.
        And so I think, while there is a lot of rhetoric around
    this for a lot of individuals, it really is about their own
    personal life story and then how can we align policy incentives
    to ensure that as few people as possible have that same life
    story going forward.
        And, as I said in my testimony, that is where I feel like
    the real tragedy of the failed welfare state is, that so many
    families are trapped in poverty for far too long.
        Mrs. BLACK. And so what we see here is a private sector and
    a public sector solution, both of them coming together from
    different States and different mechanisms. But being able to
    find a solution.
        Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time.
        Chairman BRADY. Thank you.
        Mr. Pascrell, you are recognized.
        Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, this is a very sad day. A good
    friend of ours died yesterday, he played for the Baltimore
    Colts, Bubba Smith. Now, how did Bubba Smith die? Bubba Smith
    died by getting hundreds of whacks to his head. He was a
    lineman, and had CTE. He has become the ninetieth NFL football
    player to die from CTE.
        How many times does a child in poverty, who doesn't get
    enough to eat, doesn't get the proper health care when he
    doesn't get enough to eat, how is that child damaged
    physically, psychologically and spiritually through the years?
        Our problem is, and I agree with the young lady who just
    spoke and the gentleman from Connecticut, that we deal in
    absolutes. And the world does not work that way. I believe if
    the Chairman could use his own talents and the talents of each
    person, every person on this Committee--I have a lot of faith
    in this Committee--and forget about where leadership is going
    in either party, that we could make some resolution here, if we
    really, really wanted to.
        I have been working since I was 10 years old. So I have
    been working for 69 years. I love work. And the older I get,
    the more I love work.
        Most of the people--I have lived in a city all of my life.
    You see, we know history, Mr. Chairman, we don't know culture.
    We have no idea of the person living in rural Mississippi
    compared to the person who lives in, as someone said,
    Cambridge, Massachusetts. And that is why we have to have some
    changes in what a minimum wage would be. The cost of living is
    very different in that rural area. So you can't just impose it.
    I understand that.
        We could come to some resolution if we are at the right
    place, if we are at the right place.
        Governor, you were a great Governor. I find it difficult to
    say, because you are of the other party. But you were a great
    Governor. You had a lot of practical solutions and you did
    listen to people. That is unusual around here, as you know.
        The States with the worst child hunger, Mississippi,
    Arkansas, New Mexico and Georgia, John, these Members
    representing their constituent voices when they vote for SNAP
    cuts, so if you are a representative from those States and you
    see our program SNAP being cut and cut, you better pay
    attention because you are one of the worst child hungers in the
    whole country. If not the world.
        Because paid family leave--child poverty in the United
    States is the worst among many developed countries. That is
    serious. How many whacks does the kid need?
        And we can do all the political pontificating we want. If
    we are not going to try to help, nothing will get done. In
    fact, many people came to this Congress in 2010 not wanting to
    even deal with what the responsibility of the Federal
    Government is, and you see where that has brought us. To no
    resolution of anything. None.
        Even in New Jersey, my State, we have a State paid leave
    program. So the women who used paid leave were more likely to
    be working a year after having a baby, and 39 percent less
    likely to receive public assistance. I am not making this up.
    That sounds in line with your principles. So why don't you
    support a paid leave policy, Mr. Chairman?
        The Family and Medical Insurance Leave Act, H.R. 1439,
    sponsored by Rosa DeLauro from Connecticut, which would ensure
    paid family leave for all qualified workers, had 124 sponsors,
    not a single Member from the other party. Not that they
    wouldn't get on, but their leadership told them not to get on.
    You better not get on that bill. Just like Mr. Renacci and I,
    when we tried to get a transportation solution, and the
    leadership said, don't get on.
        So while I appreciate the Speaker's desire to enact this
    rosy P.R. campaign to make Republicans appear more
    compassionate toward the poor, the record speaks for itself. I
    don't believe that there is one person on this panel that has
    less compassion than I do. Listen to what I am saying.
        Chairman BRADY. Thank you, Mr. Pascrell.
        I know. I apologize. Your time has expired.
        Mr. PASCRELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman BRADY. While we may disagree on many issues, I do
    agree with you about the goodness and the greatness of Bubba
    Smith, who grew up in Beaumont, Texas. I had the honor of
    running the Chamber of Commerce there for a number of years,
    and had an opportunity to work with him on tourism industries.
        I am not sure I did bring that subject up, but----
        Mr. PASCRELL. Just as the NFL deep sixed--wanted to deep
    six the report on concussions--CTI--we sugar coat----
        Chairman BRADY. Mr. Pascrell, I understand our differences.
    So thank you. And I appreciate your passion.
        Mr. Kelly, you are recognized.
        Mr. KELLY. I thank the Chairman.
        And I want to thank the panel for being here, because you
    were asked to come here, not just to testify but to give us
    solutions of what we can do.
        I just think it is hard for somebody like myself, from the
    private sector, to look at half a century of spending, $22
    trillion. It is not that we haven't spent the money. And the
    money we spent, by the way, does not belong to Congress, it
    belongs to hard-working American taxpayers. I think they more
    than deserve a little bit better return on that.
        Ms. VanZant, because I think your story is so relevant, for
    moms, for moms to get back to work, childcare is a huge issue,
    is it not?
        Ms. VANZANT. It is.
        Mr. KELLY. Okay. So in your case, what motivated you to do
    what you did? Because you got up and got moving. You didn't
    lament where you were, you just decided to turn your sights to
    where you wanted to be.
        Ms. VANZANT. Absolutely. And so, in my situation, I had a
    lot of family support. We called it the baby shuffle that we
    did for the 4 years that it took me after I had my son to
    graduate from college. My parents, my in-laws, my husband and I
    all had car seats in our cars. And this was before the days of
    cell phones, and so literally there were times where we weren't
    exactly sure who was picking him up from where. But we were
    pretty sure that a family member had him.
        And so we weren't able to use a day care. We couldn't
    afford it. And at that time, back in the mid-'90s, there
    weren't the types of childcare supports that there are now.
    Although for the families that are going back now, the cost of
    childcare is significantly higher than it was when I couldn't
    afford childcare back in the 1990s.
        Mr. KELLY. Do you know what the average is now?
        Ms. GOLDEN. I have it in my testimony.
        Mr. KELLY. Excuse me, Ms. Golden. I appreciate you jumping
    in. But it is $10,500.
        We have introduced some legislation that would actually
    increase the pretax dollars that working families are looking
    at right now. That is a piece of legislation that Ms. Sanchez,
    myself, Senators Ayotte and Capito are working on.
        And so I think that--what you said earlier, you talked
    about families. I would just submit that the programs that we
    have initiated don't keep families together. And if you look at
    the statistics, where we have come as a Nation in 50 years, as
    opposed to families working together to raise children, we have
    put government programs into place that actually incentivize
    breaking families down, not keeping them together. That, to me,
    is a very failed policy.
        When I look at everything you were all talking about today,
    all of us are the sum product of families who raised us for one
    reason and one reason only, and for many reasons, but to be
    self-sustaining and be able to rely just on yourself. That's
    what I heard, Governor, Governor Engler, I really like the idea
    that you go to the States, 50 States, let them try out things
    and make sure what worked and what didn't work. If it works for
    you in Michigan, maybe it would work for somebody in
    Pennsylvania, maybe it would work for somebody in Idaho or
    Texas.
        So I really do think the best laboratory is actually in the
    States. The only problem we have, if I am not mistaken, is that
    when you take a government handout, there are so many strings
    attached to it, you really can't do what you want to do. You
    are kind of handcuffed to only working within the parameters of
    what was discussed.
        So tell me in your experience, and what you are doing right
    now, you are talking about best practices that give American
    taxpayers a better return on their investment. That is all we
    are looking for. It is not that I want to spend any less money,
    I just want to see a better result for all those folks who get
    up every day and go out to work, sometimes mom and dad
    together, and sometimes they are both working two jobs.
        So tell me, in the States, is that not the best way to do
    it? You don't need a Federal Government dictating from
    Washington what you need to do in Michigan or Washington or
    Oregon or anyplace else?
        Mr. ENGLER. I totally agree. And if we couldn't give it to
    the Governors, I would divide it by 535 and let every Member of
    Congress be in charge of something, because you would all--
    somebody here would figure it out and the others would then
    follow.
        But what we are trying to do with the bureaucratic, top-
    down approach, it is too constraining. And you just heard
    earlier the description in health care, they are trying to do
    things on wellness. Wellness is a really important prevention
    investment. It pays off. We think it's a big deal. That ought
    to be covered. We spend $3 trillion in health care. They say $1
    trillion of that is wasted, we just don't know which trillion
    it is. But if you could free that up, look what we could do in
    terms of health care and addressing some of the issues that
    Congressman Pascrell raised just a moment ago.
        Mr. KELLY. Ms. VanZant.
        Ms. VANZANT. And I would also like to weigh in. When you
    look at the 80 programs on the chart that you have been
    referring to today, it is my experience, and I think it is the
    experience of a lot of low-income Americans, that they end up
    with a lot of people that are paid to be in their lives, to
    administer just one piece of the poverty puzzle. And those
    programs are not necessarily allowed to cooperate with other
    programs. There is no consistency. We have lots of rules around
    information sharing and lots of things that keep well-
    intentioned case managers, well-intentioned programs and low-
    income people who want to work from actually being able to make
    those steps moving forward, because of a lot of the rules and
    regulations that we have surrounding those 80 programs.
        Mr. KELLY. One final point I want to go back to. A half a
    century and $22 trillion later, we don't have enough good to
    show for what we are doing. And I think we sometimes get
    confused about throwing money at a problem, and that is easy,
    as long as it is not your money. When it is other people's
    money, it is easy to throw. Coming from the private sector,
    every penny counts. And every penny of what we put out there
    comes from hard-working American taxpayers.
        Chairman BRADY. The gentleman's time has expired.
        Mr. Renacci, you are recognized.
        Mr. RENACCI. First off, I want to thank the witnesses for
    their testimony, and I want to thank Chairman Brady for calling
    this important hearing.
        Like all of my colleagues who serve on this Committee, I
    believe that one of the keys to ending the cycle of poverty is
    ensuring that individuals have access to the education and
    skilled training required to be on a path toward a good paying
    career. In some cases, that does not mean a college education.
    So, as my colleague, Mr. Larson, mentioned about getting out
    into the real world, I have actually taken, over the past 2
    years, taken the time to meet with local leaders in Cleveland
    and Akron, Ohio, to discuss barriers which prevent northeast
    Ohioans who are in poverty from finding permanent employment
    and being self-sustainable.
        I have met with the county Jobs and Family Services staff
    to understand how the Federal programs are working and not
    working. I have also met with individuals in the programs, many
    of which did not have their GED, let alone basic skills. I ask
    to submit a letter into the record, Mr. Chairman, from Summit
    County Executive Russ Pry.
        Chairman BRADY. Without objection.
        [The submission of The Honorable Jim Renacci follows:]

       [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. RENACCI. These individuals are all working within the
    current system. What they told me is the State simply does not
    have enough flexibility in administering TANF and that outdated
    workforce participation rules act as a barrier for agencies to
    work with TANF clients and engage in activities that would
    actually provide the training and education they would need to
    get back to work. They all emphasized we need to assure a basic
    education, including a basic GED.
        If we want to get people out of poverty, it is the one
    thing I have learned from all these meetings, and into the
    workforce, we need to help them get their GED. You can't even
    join the Army without a GED or high school diploma.
        In fact, according to the State of Ohio's 2016 Poverty
    Report, Ohioans above the age of 25 who do not have a high
    school diploma are twice as likely to be in poverty compared to
    individuals who have obtained at least a high school diploma or
    GED. It is clear that paving the way to at least obtain a high
    school diploma is an easy step. We talk about steps, we talk
    about things we can do. That is an easy step that Congress can
    take to alleviate poverty.
        So I want to go back to the one thing that was said to me
    time and time again. If we want to get people out of poverty
    and back to work, we need to at a minimum get them their GED.
    That is not me saying that, that is all these people that I
    have talked with.
        Does the panel agree, yes or no, a basic starting point
    would be to make sure TANF dollars used for work credit hours
    should include hours credited toward getting the individual,
    those individuals, their GED or high school equivalency? I will
    have a yes or a no.
        Ms. GOLDEN. Yes, and, I mean, it is Mr. Doggett's point
    that, yes, TANF needs to be able to provide more education. And
    States need the resources, because they are squeezing down the
    dollars in total.
        Mr. RENACCI. Does everybody----
        Mr. ENGLER. Yes. The GED requirements have been upped a
    little bit. They are more rigorous, and I think that is a
    really good thing that has been accomplished. So I think the
    old GED was a little more dubious. But, sure.
        Mr. RENACCI. But you have to admit, you can't even get a
    college education without your GED. You have to start there.
        Ms. GOLDEN. There are pathways that will take you directly
    to the higher education, but TANF isn't well structured to do
    that either, right now.
        Mr. RENACCI. Ms. VanZant.
        Ms. VANZANT. I absolutely agree. For any job that is going
    to pay anything above minimum wage, you really do have to have
    that basic education. And then there needs to be additional
    support in the career technical ability to use TANF work
    requirement times to be able to do those. And a lot of those
    technical career options that are just above a GED or high
    school diploma are short-term training that can actually move a
    person from the minimum wage into a $10 to $12 an hour job with
    less than 6 months of education under their belt.
        Mr. ENGLER. You could actually fund this using Federal
    dollars that are paying for remedial education in college today
    by stopping that and saying to the schools, get it right before
    you send the kids, ill prepared, to college.
        Mr. RENACCI. Well, in my district, if you just get your GED
    and a welding certificate, you can make up to $60,000 to start.
    So I think that is----
        Mr. ENGLER. Yeah, I don't disagree.
        Mr. RENACCI. That is why I keep trying to get away from
    college education always being the answer.
        Mr. ENGLER. It is not, you're right.
        Mr. RENACCI. Mr. Bragdon.
        Mr. BRAGDON. Yes, I would say I agree. I think it should go
    beyond just parents on TANF, though, to look at the kind of
    jobless, nondisabled adults that we were talking about
    receiving food stamps. As part of that work requirement,
    training is a piece. And I think you are spot on with the GED
    as the first critical step for that population as well.
        Ms. GOLDEN. And States get resources that they could use,
    if they were choosing, in fact, to offer those opportunities
    for the adults that Mr. Bragdon is talking about.
    Unfortunately, because they haven't chosen to use it, they are
    not pushing as hard as they could, and so people are without
    those opportunities.
        Mr. RENACCI. Thank you.
        Dr. Davis, you are recognized.
        Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        I want to thank all of the witnesses for their testimony.
    And I also want to thank my colleagues because I have heard
    many passionate, real expressions of concern, directions that
    will aid us to get where we need to go, as well as experiences
    with things that have actually worked.
        Let me just mention two things that we know. One, we know
    that one in five children in the United States are living in
    poverty. We also know that the United Kingdom reduced their
    child poverty rate by 50 percent in a 10-year period by
    targeting poverty direction and by implementing specific
    policies to help low-income families.
        I agree with all of my colleagues who have expressed a
    great desire that people work. I remember the Prophet; Gibran
    says that work is love made visible. And to me, when you work,
    it enhances your sense of self, your self-being. So I don't
    think there is anything more important. But I also remember
    that every slave had a job. And I believe that every person on
    Mr. Lewis' father's plantation worked.
        Friday of last week, I flipped hamburgers at a White
    Castle. And I must confess that it took me a while to learn how
    to do the flip, that I couldn't just go in. And I waited on
    customers. All of this had to do with National Hamburger Week,
    and learning and knowing what others do.
        And so work is a virtue. But I don't believe, just as Great
    Britain didn't believe, that work alone was enough to seriously
    reduce poverty, that it took some other things, such as a
    livable wage.
        I believe every person that is able-bodied, unless they
    have some impairment other than adequate childcare, or
    something else that prevents them from being able to get to and
    from a job, should work. But that alone is not going to do the
    job.
        Ms. Golden, from a more math comprehensive vantage point,
    based upon evidence-based research, what we have seen work,
    what does it really take in your estimate?
        Ms. GOLDEN. I think it takes several things and you have
    hit on some of them. It takes, as you say, it takes more than
    work. One of the important ways we know that is that almost
    everybody on SNAP now is either working, worked last year or
    works next year. And most poor children are with someone
    working. So lots of people who are working are not able to keep
    their families out of poverty. So you highlighted the living
    wage and the regular hours.
        It also requires, as you just said, addressing the
    barriers. It requires really paying attention to children's
    early years. Because those children's experience, their
    nutrition, their health, their parents' stress, the settings
    they are in are going to affect them later in life.
        It requires help during those periods when people aren't
    doing well. Great Britain does that, did that way better than
    we do. And that can be through a child tax credit, it can be
    through TANF, it can be through nutrition. But you have to have
    food on the table and a stable place to live. And then the
    ability to move up afterward. So I think it has those pieces.
    It is about the jobs and it is about what the family gets.
        And I just wanted to correct one fact about Mr. Bragdon's
    studies. He has presented the 60 percent working rate in the
    year after as though it were better than what you would have
    gotten without imposing the time limit. In fact, if you look at
    the SNAP program nationally, about 80 percent of adults on SNAP
    work in the year before or the year after. So the study doesn't
    prove that it got worse because people were hungry and couldn't
    find a job, but it doesn't prove that it got better.
        So to circle back to your point, work alone at low wages
    isn't enough.
        Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much.
        Mr. REICHERT [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Davis.
        Mrs. Noem, you are recognized.
        Mrs. NOEM. Mr. Bragdon, did you want to respond to that?
        Mr. BRAGDON. Yes, thank you. I want to be clear, this
    wasn't some made up information. This was looking at the actual
    Kansas Department of Labor Earnings and Hire Database for the
    several quarters before the work requirement went into effect
    and then for a full year after. And this was for 41,000 people.
    In Maine, it was replicated for 10,000 people.
        And the facts are clear. Only one in five individuals were
    working before. After the work requirement, those moved off
    welfare, 60 percent went to work within the first year, 50
    percent----
        Mrs. NOEM. Did they track if they were working full time or
    part time?
        Mr. BRAGDON. They weren't able to track the number of
    hours, but they were able to track wages. And those wages
    increased every quarter.
        Ms. GOLDEN. And there wasn't a comparison group, so that
    makes it hard to know otherwise.
        Mrs. NOEM. I will reclaim my time.
        Because many of you referenced today the need for more
    resources, I have $137 billion for you. I am sure that you
    would like to have that added into the programs to help more
    people. And it is through improper payments that currently
    happen through a lot of our programs that we arrive at that
    total. In fact, almost 27 percent of earned income tax credit
    payments are made improperly. We have, gosh, that is almost $40
    billion. Social Security income in payments, improper payments
    of 8 percent, that results in $4.8 billion. Oh, it's 10 percent
    of Medicare fee-for-service payments that are almost $40
    billion. That makes $137 billion that could go to meeting
    people who have needs, rather than to people who shouldn't be
    receiving those types of benefits, those that are gaining it
    improperly.
        And I guess that is what I wanted to focus on today because
    it seems as though I sit here in these committees, and maybe I
    woke up on the wrong side of the bed today or something, but
    our point here is to listen to you, to have you give us
    information, because you have real firsthand knowledge. If we
    had all the answers today, we could sit here and talk to
    ourselves. A lot of times, I have sat here and listened to
    Members of Congress preaching to you. It is our opportunity to
    learn from you today.
        So I want to learn. I have a bill that would reform the
    TANF program, because we have a lot of States gaming that
    program. They are using third-party dollars to match Federal
    dollars, which is allowing them to not have to spend their own
    funds on TANF spending. And then it also waives the work
    requirements. And that is very concerning to me. I think we are
    losing the integrity in the program, we are not helping
    individuals, we are not helping them by giving them work
    experience, which is critical to getting them out of poverty.
        And that is the biggest challenge that I find in front of
    us, that we do have States--while I would like to block grant
    everything to States, we have an oversight role here as Members
    of Congress. When States aren't doing their jobs and are gaming
    our systems, we have to change the law to make sure that
    doesn't happen, because we need the resources in place.
        Mr. Bragdon, I would like for you to speak specifically to
    work requirements, how that is beneficial to individuals. I
    would like for you to keep it a little bit encompassing as well
    the fact that so many times we talk about work requirements
    like it is a bad thing. It is not a bad thing, because we have
    seen it lift people out of generational poverty. And also I
    think all of the information and research shows us that
    Americans support it. It is very popular. And you have
    something in your written testimony that references that that I
    would like you to touch on.
        Mr. BRAGDON. Thank you very much for the question. I think
    Congressman Rangel, to quote him, he said poverty doesn't work.
    The corollary to that is work eliminates poverty. The research
    is very, very clear on that. And we are not just talking about
    working part time. The standard for these nondisabled,
    childless adults was either work 20 hours a week, train 20
    hours a week or volunteer 24 hours a month. And it was all
    about getting out into a work-like experience or training for
    permanent work, and that really is the key.
        I also want to just quickly respond to your comment about
    improper payments. You know, one of the things we are seeing
    States really do, and this started actually in Illinois, is
    stepping up and checking eligibility on a more realtime basis,
    to make sure that those individuals who are receiving benefits
    still were truly eligible, so that limited resources could be
    directed to the truly needy.
        And I think that, unfortunately, there have been a lot of
    Federal rule changes to encourage States to check it once and
    forget it almost. And what States need to do is make sure those
    resources are available to the truly needy and get at some of
    those improper payments you're talking about.
        Mrs. NOEM. So I have a different type of question. I come
    from a State that has very low unemployment. We need a lot of
    workers that we are willing to train. Frankly, we have great
    programs that will train these workers. Why won't people move
    for work? Or do we need programs where money is reprogrammed to
    help people transition to a place where they can get a good
    paying job?
        It seems to me people aren't as willing to do that. We
    advertise and advertise nationwide and can't get people to
    necessarily move for a good paying job.
        Mr. BRAGDON. I think it is something that should really be
    looked at.
        Mrs. NOEM. Do you think it is due to welfare programs being
    flawed?
        Mr. BRAGDON. I think that when there are incentives not to
    work, we know from the research people don't. And what we need
    to do is have those incentives aligned.
        Ms. GOLDEN. A big reason people are moving less has to do
    with the----
        Mr. REICHERT. The gentlelady's time has expired.
        Mr. Rice, you are recognized.
        Mr. RICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, for
    holding this hearing today on reducing poverty and increasing
    opportunity.
        I have a little bit of experience in this. I helped to
    administrate a homeless shelter for 20 years in Myrtle Beach,
    South Carolina, where I am from. And Myrtle Beach is a really
    interesting spot, because it is a huge tourist destination, but
    it is also--it is kind of like the promised land in the Grapes
    of Wrath. Folks think that, if they come there, they can find a
    job and everything will be okay. And, you know, there are a lot
    of seasonal jobs there. And usually when people come in, they
    can find a job. But it is so expensive to make that transition
    that we had a lot of homeless people showing up. So we decided
    we would form our homeless shelter.
        And what we did to encourage people to go to work is we
    said, you can't stay here unless you are either working or
    looking for work. And we put a limited amount of time on how
    long they could stay and then we transitioned them into, you
    know, more permanent transitional housing and eventually they
    got on their feet, and we had a lot of successes. Not always
    successes, but we had a lot of successes.
        But ultimately--and I always tried to stay away from
    government money. I didn't want the strings. It made it too
    hard. You know, my job was to raise the money and to keep the
    books. And so I always tried to do it with private funds, with
    golf tournaments and those types of things, to raise our own
    money.
        But the only permanent solution to this is a job. That is
    it. We can sit here and--put the polka dot chart back up,
    please. We can sit here and talk about all these programs, but
    the truth is that, regardless of the fact that we, you know,
    everybody wants to make sure that those who need a hand up get
    it. But the truth is that if you rely on these government
    programs and you don't transition to work, you will always be
    in poverty. And it is likely your kids will always be in
    poverty and your grandkids. Transitioning to work ultimately is
    the only way out of that trap.
        America used to be called the Land of Opportunity, you
    know, where everybody had the opportunity to get a job. And
    unfortunately, we have kind of gotten away from that by
    expanding our government and creating all these new
    restrictions on business. And we stifled our economy. We
    shouldn't be surprised that our economy is only growing at 1.9
    percent. If we want to solve this problem, we have to get our
    economy growing again. And the only way to do that, in my
    opinion, is to make this country competitive.
        That is a little off topic. But you have to recognize that
    it is all interrelated. We won't make America competitive by
    growing these programs or putting more money in them. That will
    not do it. You can educate people from now until doomsday. You
    can get everybody a Ph.D. But if, when they get out of school,
    there is no job for them, you haven't really accomplished much.
        And for too many people coming out of college today, that
    is a fact. I have three sons that graduated from college in the
    last 10 years, and I have seen what they have gone through. And
    I am afraid they won't have the opportunity that I have had if
    we don't do something about this and get our economy going.
        Now, we have very limited resources. One of the things
    stifling our economy is this enormous debt we have, right?
    Economists almost universally agree, this debt is a real
    problem. So we have very limited resources. And we want to use
    those limited resources in the best way we can to lift as many
    people out of poverty as we can, right?
        Now who here on this panel can look at me with a straight
    face and tell me that that is the best way we can use our
    limited resources?
        Ms. GOLDEN. I think I would say the best way to use our
    limited resources is to focus on the youngest children and
    young adults.
        Mr. RICE. Okay, so let me ask you this, because I just
    asked the question. Do you think that that chart there, those
    80 means-tested Federal programs, is that the best way we can
    use the resources?
        Ms. GOLDEN. I can't see the details of the programs, but I
    know they include programs for veterans and the elderly and the
    disabled. And I would never say----
        Mr. RICE. I am not going to get a straight answer out of
    you. I only have 45 seconds.
        You know, when I first got out of--when I was running for
    Congress the first time, I went through this little parade in
    Florence, South Carolina. And the people at the end had little
    booths set up. I went from booth to booth just shaking people's
    hands. And I got to a booth, it was called the Benefits Bank. I
    thought it was a bank. I didn't know what it was. I started
    asking, well, where is your bank? What do you do? Oh, no, no,
    no, we are not a bank. We help people get all the benefits they
    are entitled to. I said, what do you mean? He said, well, there
    are so many State and Federal benefits and they are so
    intertwined that people can't figure out what they are entitled
    to, so we kind of help them, direct them to everything that
    they are entitled to.
        I told him, well, I am going to make it my job when I get
    in Congress to put you out of business. Because if that is the
    way we are doing our benefits, then that is not the most
    efficient way to lift people out of poverty.
        I yield back.
        Mr. REICHERT. Thank you, Mr. Rice.
        I would like to thank you, the panel, for being here today
    and providing us with your testimony. And it has taken almost 3
    hours now, so we appreciate your time here.
        I get a second chance now to talk since they sat me in this
    chair. So I have just a few things I would like to--some
    observations I would like to make.
        I was a hostage negotiator in the sheriff's office and the
    SWAT commander. It sounds like kind of a, you know, one of
    these things. But you have to know when to negotiate, right,
    and when to kick in the door.
        I always believe there is a place where we can find
    agreement. It doesn't matter if you are a Democrat or a
    Republican. I don't care. We can find something we agree on and
    that is the base where we spring from to provide other
    solutions and ideas that we can agree on for the betterment of
    the country and the people that live here.
        Today someone noted that this is the first hearing in 10
    years on welfare reform. So even though some of us may not have
    agreed with whether or not this chart was, you know, the
    panacea to solutions to welfare reform or homelessness or
    education, I think we can all agree that there is need for some
    change, that there is always room for improvement, that no
    matter what program we are working on, we are always
    continually moving forward with new ideas.
        I think you also heard everybody has a story. You have CPAs
    on this panel, you have businessmen and women and nurses and
    attorneys and doctors, and a sheriff. We all have different
    experiences that we shared with you. You have your experiences
    that you shared and those that you worked with. But we are all
    trying to do the right thing. We want to help people get back
    to work. We all care.
        We agree on early education and intervention, breaking the
    cycle. I was the lead detective in the Green River serial
    murder case, if you have heard of that case in Seattle in the
    1980s. We solved it in 2001. Fifty-one women were murdered.
    They came from homes, some of the homes like we talked about
    today, no education, alcohol and drug abuse, emotional,
    physical, and sexual abuse at home.
        That is where we can make a difference, in those homes, in
    those children's lives. And, as Ms. Golden said, also by
    working with the parents. It has to be in tandem in those
    cases, but early education, I think, in breaking this cycle and
    working toward prevention, as the Governor said, physical
    health, as Ms. VanZant has said, economic health and
    relationships is absolutely critical. Even those cops on the
    street have relationships with those young people on the
    streets and can save lives, even though we hear just the
    opposite in today's world. That is what police officers really
    want to do is help.
        And I know in working with your organizations, law
    enforcement is closely engaged in those relationships with
    churches, families and other social entities.
        We all agree there has to be a safety net. It is the
    trampoline effect that may not be working exactly right. At
    least that is what I heard from that safety net to the
    trampoline, to continue up in building your family.
        I really agree with the one size doesn't fit all, and I
    could go into a story that describes that, but I won't.
        So the bottom line is status quo is unacceptable. I heard
    that from the panel today, because too many people need help.
    There is a need for improvement and change. And we need to come
    together across this country to make that happen.
        So, again, I thank you for indulging me a few minutes to
    place that thought out there. I would like to thank our Members
    for being here today and for the passion and compassion that
    they showed.
        Usually, this is a little more rancorous experience, but I
    think we came together a little bit.
        Thank you for appearing before us today. And please be
    advised that Members may submit written questions to be
    answered later in writing. Those questions and your answers
    will be made part of the formal hearing record.
        With that, this Committee stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:46 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
        [Submissions for the Record follow:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]