Measure is a job. And many of us believe that if someone works hard all day, all year around, that he or she should be able to earn enough to keep their family out of poverty. Thats why the president and democrats in congress have proposed to raise the minimum wage, which has less purchasing power today than when harry truman was president. And according to the Congressional Budget Office, that measure would lift over 1 million hardworking americans out of poverty and raise low wages for another 15 million working americans. Here in the house, speaker boehners refused to even allow a vote on that measure to raise the minimum wage just as he continues to refuse a vote to extend emergency Unemployment Compensation to 3 million americans. But we all know that even if we raise the minimum wage, huge challenges remain. And we must examine the past to chart the best way forward. A january report from the council of economic advisers did just that. It found that about 50 million americans remain in poverty. An unacceptably high number. But it also found that steps weve taken over the last 50 years have cut poverty in half from what it would otherwise be. That over 40 million americans who otherwise would be in poverty are not. Thats why, mr. Chairman, we cannot understand the disconnect between these hearings on poverty, and the republican budget that was recently adopted. That budget is full of trojan horse policies that are heavy on sound bites but actually shred the social safety net and push more americans into poverty. The republican plan undermines the existing supports for the most vulnerable, the elderly, the disabled and children. It guts food and nutrition programs, it slashes 700 billion there the base Medicaid Program which primarily serves these vulnerable populations. And it repeals the optional state expansion under the Affordable Care act. All told, two thirds of the budget cuts in the republican budget come from initiatives to help middle and lower income individuals. Now by what logic do we reduce poverty for the millions of americans in poverty today by cutting programs that have helped lift about 45 million americans out of poverty . Its bad enough that the republican budget targets these programs, but it does add insult to injury to do so to protect special interest tax breaks for powerful wealthy elites at the expense of middle class families and those working to climb into the middle class. The republican budget passed this spring calls for a onethird cut in the tax rate for millionaires and refuses to close a single special interest tax break to help reduce the deficit. Not one. But it doesnt just slash Safety Net Programs designed to prevent people from hitting rock bottom. It also slashes programs that provide opportunities to climb out of poverty. It cuts deeply into early education. It cuts deeply into k through 12 and cuts very deeply into Higher Education programs like pell grants, and student loan programs. And just this week while the president and many of us are working to try and reduce the debt burden being faced by college students, here in the house, were talking about permanent unpaid for tax break extensions for businesses. Allowing future generations to foot the bill. So, in the end, mr. Chairman, the republican budget will not create jobs, it will not make people more employable. It will not reduce the poverty. It will reduce the ladder of opportunity, and shred the social safety net as part of a trickledown ideology obsessed with cutting tax rates for the wealthy at the expense of all the other priorities. When you get to the top in the republican budget, you pull the ladder up, after you. So i hope, mr. Chairman, that today we can really get to the bottom of some issues here on moving forward, and we have a tremendous witness with us right now, the assistant democratic leader mr. Clyburn who has spent his life working to improve the lives of those living in poverty, particularly in communities that have had persistently high poverty rates. We couldnt ask for a better person to be before the committee, and im proud to join you, mr. Chairman, in welcoming mr. Clyburn to the Budget Committee. Now that we set a nice bipartisan tone for productive conversation, the floor is yours. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. Lets hope we can keep it that way for awhile. Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member van hollen, members of the committee, good morning, and thank you very much for having me here today. I want to thank the chair lady of the Congressional Black Caucus first and other members of the Congressional Black Caucus who have adopted this formula as an appropriate way to tackle this issue of persistent poverty. I know that all of us know that it is no secret that there are major disagreements among the members of this committee, and our respective parties, over the role the federal government should play in fighting poverty and confronting many other national challenges. These disagreements put simply come down to a question of federal resources. I believe that we should target more resources to impoverished communities. Than you proposed budgets allocate. And i believe you can do see efficiently and effectively. I was privileged to have the opportunity to work through some of these disagreements with you, mr. Chairman, last year, as a member of the budget conference committee, and the results, while not 100 of what either of us wanted, was a reasonable compromise on federal spending through the end of the next fiscal year. I was proud to support that agreement. Now that we have determined how much the federal government will spend, we must determine how to spend it most effectively. It is on this latter question, how to allocate finite federal resources to get the most bang for the buck that i believe we need to work a little harder, and more creatively to find Common Ground to make real strides in combatting persistent poverty in america. Now mr. Chairman there are currently 4 8 persistent poverty counties in america. So defined because 20 of the population live below the poverty line for the last 30 years or more. Theyre diverse, including counties in states like kentucky, and west virginia, native American Communities in states like alaska, and south dakota, latino communities in states like arizona and texas, africanAmerican Communities in states like South Carolina, mississippi, and alabama. There are urban communities in the northeast, and Rural Communities in americaaries heartland. 139 of these counties are represented in this august body by democrats. 331 of these counties are represented by republicans. And 18 are split between the two parties. From that impersistent poverty should matter to all of us, regardless of party, geography, or race and ethnicity. In early 2009 when we were putting to the the recovery act, i proposed language to require at least 10 of funds in Rural Development account to be directed to projects in these persistent poverty counties. This requirement was enacted in law. In light of the definition of persistent poverty counties having at least 20 poverty rates over 30 years, this position became known as the 102030 initiative. This provision bore dividends, as Economic Development projects proliferated in persistent poverty counties across the country. The recovery act funded a total of 4,655 projects in persistent poverty counties totalling 1. 7 billion. I saw firsthand the positive effects of these efforts in my congressional district. Projects were undertaken that would have otherwise gone lacking, and jobs were created that would have otherwise gone wanting. Among these investments was a 5. Le million grant, and 2 million loan to construct 51 miles of water lines in a community in marion county. Which i represented at the time, but today is represented by our colleague, who silts on this committee, mr. Rice. In lyons county, mississippi, 17. 5 million was spent to install a water line, elevated tank, and two waste water pump stations, providing Potable Water to mississippians and created badly needed construction jobs. The special utility district in brasso county, texas, received a 538,000 loan to contract more than nine miles of new water distribution lines, and connect over 50 pauseholds to a new water source. I come before the Budget Committee today to ask that as you decide how to allocate federal resources, you expand 102030 to other federal agencies. In 2011, i joined with our former republican colleague thenrepresentative Joann Emerson of missouri to introduce an amendment to the continuing resolution that would have continued 102030 for rule development, and expanded it to 11 additional accounts throughout the federal budget affecting Economic Development, education, job training, health, justice, the environment, and more. I hope to work with members of this committee to include similar language in future budget resolutions and other legislation. And i want to be clear about two things. Number one, 102030 is not a license to be applied to an inadequate budget. And number two, it does not, i want to repeat this, mr. Chair, 102030 does not add one dime to the deficit. It simply targets funds already authorized or appropriated to needy communities. Over the past 30 years, the National Economy has risen, and fallen, multiple times. During each economic downturn, while we have been rightly focused on getting our economy as a whole back on track, we have not given attention to these communities that are suffering from chronic distress, and depressionera levels of joblessness. As a result, they have suffered even in good economic times. The 102030 approach will provide a mechanism to address this depravation in time of want and times of plenty, in times of federal investments, and in times of fiscal austerity. I published an article on 102030 in the most recent issue of the harvard journal on legislation. In that article i discussed the history of our nations efforts to address chronic poverty, and more fully lay out the case for broadly implementing 102030 in a bipartisan fashion. I have included the full article in my written testimony so that it appears in the record. Without objection it will be included in the record. Thank you, mr. Chair. And i encourage the members of this committee to please read it when you have the opportunity. I look forward to discussing this issue further and working with you to eliminate the scourge of persistent poverty in these distressed communities. Thank you so much for having me here today. Thank you very much, mr. Clyburn. I understand your schedule is very busy and you have to move on. But this very appreciated and thank you for your contribution to this and thank you for all your hard work on this issue. Thank you very much, mr. Chair. Well now move to our second panel. Jason turner, the executive director of the secretarys Innovation Group. Robert doar the morgridge fellow in poverty studies at the American Enterprise institute. And olivia golden, the executive director of class. To make sure that every witness knows that it is against the law to provide false testimony to a committee of congress, we are going to begin a new committee practice, which is occurring in every committee here, of swearing in all the witnesses. This does not reflect any mistrust we have in a witness. We are taking this step only because of recent legal guidance we have been given from the department of justice. So please raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear to affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I do. I do. I do. Let the record reflect that the witnesses have answered in the affirmative. Thank you. Why dont we just proceed from our left to right, and mr. Turner. Why dont we start with you. A couple of seconds. Can you hear me . Testing. Okay. There you go. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before this committee. Im the executive director of the secretarys Innovation Group made up of 17 state secretaries of Human Services from around the country. Reporting to their governors, and representing 34 of population of america. Our Group Exchanges ideas, and examples of state program innovations, and we press for National Solutions which favor work, healthy families, economic growth, and budget responsibility. In 2012 our members proposed a policy recommendation which would rebalance the relationship between states and federal government, and these remarks are adapted from our policy as developed and agreed upon by our 17 member sents. Whenever our Organization Meets with congress, mr. Chairman, our secretaries always ask for less money, and more accountability. To take an example, our members requested through our food stamp policy proposal a fixed allocation, a bloc grant, with a 50 federal and state shared risk, benefits going up or down either way, rather than the 100 risk borne currently by the federal government. Adapting this proposal in a legislative Initiative Last year we proposed that the House Agriculture Committee allow willing states to 100 selffund a new food stamp work program comparable to tanf for similarly situated s. N. A. P. Recipients with benefit savings resulting from increased work levels and independently verified shared 50 50. Our members were pleased to advance this proposal in partnership with representative Steve Sullivan and which as the members of this committee know passed the house in modified form without the shared risk funding mechanism we had advanced was enacted into law the first new federal work Program Since 1996. In two other proposals our members have made for ui and for disability we proposed federal state share risk financial models on an optin basis. With the states designing and owning the overall system to be to better run the program. In fact, the federal state shared risk model could be adapted to any program with entitlement based expenditures going to individual citizens. Our member secretaries constitute a pool of proven risk managers who, through example of our own proposed reforms are willing and able to consider shared risk models as proposed by congress in exchange for Program Management and operating control. The adoption of tanif unleashed energy. Adults newly finding and taking jobs, case workers oriented to work first, time limits inducing urgency, new Program Purposes such as the promotion of twoparent families. Its an example of how its possible for the states under a proper federal state partnership to make major improvements to poverty, dependency and employment. Why did it work so well . Well, first it eliminated the individual entitlement to forever benefits. Second, it combined new and appropriate federal Program Objectives such as work and marriage. Third, it set constructive federal measurements such as work activation and participation while allowing States Credit for positive outcomes such as dependency reductions resulting from employment. It permitted states operational freedom to experiment with multiple approaches, it permitted states which reduced caseloads to reuse the benefit money for more constructive purposes than cash payments. In fact, only 29 of the current tanf budget is allocated for cash benefits. The rest is going to Supportive Services and other constructive, more constructive purposes. And finally its fixed allocation capped the growth in the program as compared to the former Entitlement Program formula and induced, therefore, greater budget discipline. I saw that in my own home state, in wisconsin, where after the program, tanf Program Began to grow again under the subsequent governor, the instructions came down for the agency to redouble its effort to get people employed, and to manage the case load better and that occurred. My written testimony contains specific examples of what tanflike authority could do. But and i will leave that in my written testimony. Here i would like to share our proposal to the committee in which we would propose that states implement demonstrations and adaptations of tanf to other programs. The simplest ill have you to do in my q a because i want to make sure we have enough time for the other witnesses. So ill give you time for that in q a. Very good. Were going to try to stick to five minute rules to get to everybodys questions. Mr. Doar. Thank you chairman ryan and Ranking Member van hollen for inviting me to testify today. It is now 50 years since president johnsons ambitious call for a Great Society and 18 years since the signing of welfare reform that promised to change welfare as we know it. And while we made significant progross, notably in support for the elderly, reducing material depravation, increasing Labor Force Participation for nevermarried mothers and promoting important work supports that make work pay there is still great frustration and disappointment with the current status of our nations war on poverty. With 47 million americans classified as poor, too Many Americans are not earning their own way above the poverty line. But almost as sad as the stubborn persistence of this problem is that at least based on our experience in new york city, where i worked for the last 18 years in