[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
RECOGNIZING AND BUILDING
ON THE SUCCESS OF PANDEMIC
RELIEF PROGRAMS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SELECT SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CORONAVIRUS CRISIS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 22, 2021
__________
Serial No. 117-41
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Reform
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available at: govinfo.gov,
oversight.house.gov or
docs.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
45-878 PDF WASHINGTON : 2022
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM
CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York, Chairwoman
Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of James Comer, Kentucky, Ranking
Columbia Minority Member
Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts Jim Jordan, Ohio
Jim Cooper, Tennessee Paul A. Gosar, Arizona
Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia Virginia Foxx, North Carolina
Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois Jody B. Hice, Georgia
Jamie Raskin, Maryland Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin
Ro Khanna, California Michael Cloud, Texas
Kweisi Mfume, Maryland Bob Gibbs, Ohio
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York Clay Higgins, Louisiana
Rashida Tlaib, Michigan Ralph Norman, South Carolina
Katie Porter, California Pete Sessions, Texas
Cori Bush, Missouri Fred Keller, Pennsylvania
Danny K. Davis, Illinois Andy Biggs, Arizona
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Florida Andrew Clyde, Georgia
Peter Welch, Vermont Nancy Mace, South Carolina
Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., Scott Franklin, Florida
Georgia Jake LaTurner, Kansas
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland Pat Fallon, Texas
Jackie Speier, California Yvette Herrell, New Mexico
Robin L. Kelly, Illinois Byron Donalds, Florida
Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan
Mark DeSaulnier, California
Jimmy Gomez, California
Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts
Mike Quigley, Illinois
Jenifer Gaspar, Deputy Staff Director & Chief Counsel
Derek Collins, Clerk
Contact Number: 202-225-5051
Mark Marin, Minority Staff Director
Select Subcommittee On The Coronavirus Crisis
James E. Clyburn, South Carolina, Chairman
Maxine Waters, California Steve Scalise, Louisiana, Ranking
Carolyn B. Maloney, New York Minority Member
Nydia M. Velazquez, New York Jim Jordan, Ohio
Bill Foster, Illinois Mark E. Green, Tennessee
Jamie Raskin, Maryland Nicole Malliotakis, New York
Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois Mariannette Miller-Meeks, Iowa
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on September 22, 2021............................... 1
Witnesses
Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach, Professor of Human Development and
Social Policy Director, Institute for Policy Research
Northwestern University
Oral Statement................................................... 7
Rev. Dr. Starsky Wilson, President Children's Defense Fund
Oral Statement................................................... 9
H. Luke Shaefer, Professor of Social Justice and Social Policy,
Associate Dean for Research and Policy Engagement, Gerald R.
Ford School of Public Policy, University of Michigan
Oral Statement................................................... 10
Douglas Holtz-Eakin, President, American Action Forum
Oral Statement................................................... 12
Indivar Dutta-Gupta, Co-Executive Director, Georgetown Center on
Poverty & Inequality, Georgetown University Law Center
Oral Statement................................................... 14
Written opening statements and the written statements of the
witnesses are available on the U.S. House of Representatives
Document Repository at: docs.house.gov.
Index of Documents
----------
* Article regarding Australia investigating COVID origins;
submitted by Rep. Scalise.
Documents entered into the record during this hearing and
Questions for the Record (QFR's) are available at:
docs.house.gov.
RECOGNIZING AND BUILDING
ON THE SUCCESS OF PANDEMIC
RELIEF PROGRAMS
----------
Wednesday, September 22, 2021
House of Representatives
Committee on Oversight and Reform
Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:44 p.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, and over Zoom; Hon.
James E. Clyburn (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Clyburn, Maloney, Foster, Raskin,
Krishnamoorthi, Scalise, Jordan, Green, and Miller-Meeks.
Chairman Clyburn. Good afternoon. The committee will come
to order.
Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a
recess of the committee at any time. I now recognize myself for
an opening statement.
As the coronavirus spread nationwide in the spring of 2020,
the economic harm was immediate and devastating. Over 22
million people lost their jobs, and the share of Americans
unable to afford their basic expenses, like food, housing, and
healthcare, sharply increased.
Congress responded to this crisis with unprecedented relief
legislation. That response worked. The relief packages we
enacted, coming in with the American Rescue Plan, have eased
Americans' financial hardships, reduced poverty, and supported
a robust economic recovery.
Recent Census Bureau data show that the pandemic relief
legislation, particularly the American Rescue Plan, helped
millions of Americans pay their basic expenses and reduce the
poverty rate even as the pandemic continued to wreak havoc on
our economy. An analysis of Census data conducted by select
subcommittee staff and released just this morning showed, that
in the weeks after the American Rescue Plan's relief payments
were distributed, the share of households without enough food
to eat or were behind in rent both declined by almost 20
percent, and that continued for many months after the payments
were made.
The select subcommittee's analysis is confirmed by many
other studies. The Urban Institute estimates that the American
Rescue Plan's direct payment, relief payments, child tax credit
expansion, unemployment insurance extension, and other
measures, are contributing to the most dramatic poverty
reduction on record with a particular significant decline for
Black Americans.
This summer, as the Biden administration rolled out the
American Rescue Plan's expanded child tax credits advance
payments, families with children saw significant declines in
food insecurity and poverty. One analysis found that just one
child tax credit advance payment; 2 million fewer children went
hungry. And another report found that the first payment lifted
6 million children out of poverty. Data released just last week
also show that nearly 3 million Americans have gained health
coverage through Affordable Care Act exchanges with the support
of the American Rescue Plan's enhanced tax credits for health
insurance. The ARP drove down premiums and healthcare costs for
children in a wide range of income levels buying insurance on
the exchanges, ensuring expanded access to healthcare as we
continue to combat the pandemic.
In addition to relief measures that are directly
alleviating hardship, the American Rescue Plan has supported a
robust economic recovery. The United States' economy has grown
at a rate far higher this year than most forecasters
anticipated before its passage. And the United States is the
only country among the G-7 Nations that has already recovered
and surpassed its pre-pandemic economic output.
This economic growth has fueled a significant job recovery
with over 3 million jobs created since the American Rescue
Plan's passage in March 2021.
Despite the challenges presented by the spread of the Delta
variant driven by the unvaccinated, the United States has added
an average of 750 jobs per month over the last three months.
For those American families still struggling, this vital
financial assistance is continuing to provide an essential
lifeline. The dramatic progress we have made in easing
financial burdens and reducing poverty during this crisis shows
that we can reduce economic disparities when we have the will.
Now, in order to avoid a reversal of this progress, we must
find the will once again.
The American Rescue Plan was designed as a temporary
stopgap measure to rescue our economy from an unprecedented
crisis. We must now extend many of its provisions and build on
them to create a strong, sustainable, and inclusive post-
pandemic economy. To achieve this, we must act to ensure that
children are not mired in poverty, that people have access to
affordable healthcare, that Americans have decent housing and
the ability to care for their loved ones, and that all
communities have the infrastructure necessary to connect them
with opportunity.
Extending the child tax credit expansion, making health
insurance more affordable, closing the Medicaid coverage gap,
ensuring paid family and medical leave, and making broadband
accessible and affordable are just a few of the steps we must
take. They are just a few of the elements of the Build Back
Better agenda which we must enact to build a better future for
all Americans.
Before I yield to the ranking member, I want to respond to
the letter he recently sent to me renewing his request that
Treasury Secretary Yellen testify before the select
subcommittee. As I responded earlier, I share his desire for a
hearing with Secretary Yellen, and my staff has been working
diligently with the Treasury Department to schedule it. Given
that this is a hearing the ranking member and I both hope to
have, I would suggest that we have direct and private meetings
to further discuss our preparations for a meeting with the
Secretary.
With that, I now yield to the ranking member for his
opening statement.
Mr. Scalise. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I look forward to those discussions to followup and have
that hearing with Secretary Yellen. Maybe you and I can have
further discussions about having a hearing on the origins of
COVID-19, something I will talk about shortly.
But, first, Mr. Chairman, to bring us to the subject of
today, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle plan to use
this hearing as an opportunity to show their massive spending
and tax bill that is moving before Congress. But before we get
into that, I want to direct everyone's attention to what is
happening with the coronavirus and with the Biden
administration, which I thought was supposed to be the purpose
of this select subcommittee.
This virus has killed more than 672,000 Americans. The
daily death count under President Biden's watch is now 2,000
Americans a day. Almost two years into this pandemic, and
things are still this bad. Yet we still haven't had a hearing
about where the virus came from. The United States'
intelligence community has failed to reach a definitive
conclusion about whether the coronavirus escaped from a lab in
China or got into humans through an infected animal. We are in
no better position to prevent the next pandemic today than we
were before this subcommittee was created.
There are serious questions that have been raised about
whether the United States played a role in funding gain-of-
function research at the very lab that is suspected of
engineering the coronavirus. Leaked documents from a FOIA
request show that the U.S. Government gave $3.1 million to the
health organization EcoHealth Alliance, which funded
coronavirus research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and
that almost $600,000 of that taxpayer money was partially used
by the Wuhan lab to find and alter bat coronaviruses that could
jump to humans and infect them. Why are we not having a hearing
on this?
In fact, I was just a few hours ago today, in a meeting
with the Prime Minister of Australia, and one of the things we
talked about was the origins of COVID. And, in fact, he, the
Prime Minister of Australia, called for an investigation into
the origin of this virus over a year ago, Mr. Chairman, over a
year ago. Now, he didn't say that he suspected where it
started. He said: Shouldn't we investigate it?
And do you know what happened after that? China actually
got into a trade war with Australia over that question, just
the question of where it started. Maybe there might be a little
guilt on their part that just raising the question of saying,
``We're going to look into where this disease that killed over
600,000 Americans, millions globally, started from so we can
prevent it from happening again,'' and as soon as you say that,
China engaged in a trade war with Australia.
But at least Australia did not back down, Mr. Chairman.
Australia wasn't bullied by China. I wonder if anybody who is
blocking an investigation into the origins of COVID are more
afraid of being bullied by China than they are by getting the
facts to how this disease actually started as 2,000 Americans
every single day are dying, and we still haven't had that
hearing. We will continue to press for that hearing, Mr.
Chairman. American people all across this country want to get
those facts, deserve to get those answers. Australia's Prime
Minister had the guts to go and ask that question. We ought to
as well, and we are going to continue on the Republican side
pushing for that very hearing.
Another area ripe for oversight is the Biden
administration's political interference with the science.
That's right. You heard President Biden talking for two years
about, oh, there needs to be no political interference with the
science except now that he is President, we see reports that he
may be interfering with the science. This is what we have seen
the President do.
Well, first, we already know that he went around the
science when he catered to union heads to keep kids out of
school. The science said keep kids in school, and the Biden
administration threw that science out the window to bow to
teachers' unions who wanted to keep kids out of school, which
is destroying millions of kids.
And, most recently, the Biden administration prematurely
announced that booster shots would be available this week,
telling the American people that the vaccines have diminished
efficacy over time. Then two career officials that are involved
in vaccine review at the FDA departed, left the FDA amid
concerns that the Biden White House was pressuring the
scientists, pressuring them to recommend boosters before there
was any data that backed it up.
Now the FDA advisory committee says, no, boosters are not
broadly necessary yet. Talk about mixed messaging. Talk about
the Biden administration interfering with the science. Maybe we
should have a hearing on that.
Political interference at the FDA, which this certainly
looks like, would be incredibly damaging to public confidence
in the coronavirus vaccine and every other drug or treatment
the FDA approves. That is why Oversight Committee Ranking
Member Comer and myself sent a letter to the FDA to investigate
this potential interference by the Biden administration with
the science.
By the way, more than nine months into President Biden's
term as President, and he still hasn't appointed an FDA
Commissioner. We are in the middle of a pandemic where hundreds
of thousands of Americans died, 2,000 Americans a day are
dying, and President Biden still to this day, nine months in,
has not appointed a head of the FDA. When you look at the lack
of therapeutics, when you look at some of the rudderless ship
accusations that are being made at the FDA because they don't
have a head yet--the President still hasn't appointed a head of
the FDA.
Mr. Chairman, maybe we should have a hearing in this
committee into why the President of the United States will not
appoint someone to head the Food and Drug Administration as we
are in the middle of a pandemic. That would be an important
hearing to have. Maybe we could jog the President to actually
appoint somebody to head the FDA and right this rudderless ship
that we still see so many problems coming out of.
Just today, The New York Times extensively covered the lack
of in-home testing options, the FDA's slow pace in approving
testing options, not to mention the slow pace of therapeutics
approval. Experts called the process for approvals, quote,
onerous and inappropriate. Why don't we have a hearing on that?
The New York Times said COVID isn't disappearing any time soon.
So long as it continues to circulate and cause both serious
illness and despite, rapid testing is arguably the only way
that society can return to something that resembles normal
life.
By the way, there is also a migrant crisis at our southern
border. Thousands of people are pouring into the country each
and every day. We know that many of them are bringing COVID
into our country. Our own Border Patrol agents are telling us
that, and yet the Biden administration is more concerned with
putting masks on two-year-old children than imposing these
kinds of restrictions to prevent COVID from coming into our
southern border.
Surely these are topics worth looking into, and yet, here
we are, examining ways to spend more money and further fuel
inflation, which we know the spending is directly fueling, and
then add mountains more debt to our children.
Today's hearing will be used to try to sell this Democrat
socialist dream of a bigger welfare state. They want to spend
$3.5 trillion to raise taxes so that they can continue spending
on all of these wasteful programs. They tout free money.
Everybody knows there is no such thing as free money.
Businesses couldn't find workers all summer long because the
Democrats insisted on paying people more money not to work than
to get back to work when ``help wanted'' signs are all across
our country. Companies competing with Uncle Sam is something
that most of them cannot do. And, by the way, to try to do it,
they are raising prices. That is one of the drivers of
inflation that is crippling so many families across America.
On top of that, the reckless government spending is causing
inflation. Prices are up at the gas pump, at the grocery store.
They are rising faster than wages. Even with wages going up,
inflation is going up even higher. It is taking away any
benefit that families are getting, and, in fact, the people hit
the hardest, as we all know, from this inflation are the lowest
income people.
I remember back when President Biden said nobody making
under $400,000 would see any kind of tax increase. Inflation is
probably the biggest direct tax increase on low-income
families, but they don't stop there. Their tax increase plan
also goes after an energy tax. Yes, they are trying to raise
taxes on things like natural gas, which many families use to
heat their homes in a cold winter, to cool their homes in a hot
summer, and yet people are going to see double-digit increases
in their electricity rates if the Biden administration gets
their way with their tax hikes. And who is going to pay the
bulk of that? Yes, low-income families, breaking President
Biden's pledge.
If you are making less than $100,000, you will be paying
more if President Biden gets his way on these tax hikes. That
doesn't touch what happens if he raises income taxes which he
is trying to do. Everybody knows that not only will hurt wage
growth, it is going to ship millions of jobs overseas. You
don't have to wonder about it. It is what was happening before
we cut taxes.
So, if you want to talk about how to get our economy back
on track, there is a simple answer: It's get government out the
way. Help businesses bring back workers. Help schools reopen
and follow the science. The science says to do just that, but
that's not what is happening. They are manipulating the
science. The President continues to go around the science,
continues to avoid appointing someone to run an agency that
should be leading the science on things like more therapeutics.
We would have less people dying every day if the President
focused on that. That is why we should be having hearings on
those issues, not on how to spend more money and saddle our
kids with mountains more debt. Let's focus on solving real
problems that we still have today instead of trying to cover
them up, trying to cover up the President's failures, trying to
cover up whatever China did that they clearly are concerned
about because if they are going after Australia because
Australia wants to find out where this thing started, maybe
that should tell you something right there.
That is where our focus should be, Mr. Chairman. We will
continue to press for that, and, with that, I look forward to
hearing from our witnesses, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Chairman Clyburn. Thank you very much, Mr. Scalise.
I am pleased to welcome today's witnesses. First, I welcome
Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach, a professor and economist who
serves as director of the Institute for Policy Research at
Northwestern University. Professor Schanzenbach has studied the
effectiveness of nutrition assistance programs and tax credits
and has tracked data related to economic hardship through the
pandemic.
Next, I would like to welcome the Reverend Starsky Wilson,
who serves as president and CEO of the Children's Defense Fund.
Dr. Wilson and the Children's Defense Fund are tireless
advocates for the well-being of America's children and have
highlighted the unique hardships children faced during the
pandemic.
I would also like to welcome Luke Shaefer, professor and
associate dean for research and policy engagement at the
University of Michigan's Ford School of Public Policy.
Professor Shaefer has analyzed data related to the economic
hardships faced by Americans during the pandemic and the
effects of pandemic relief legislation.
I would next like to welcome Indivar Dutta-Gupta, who
serves as co-executive director of the Georgetown Center on
Poverty and Inequality, which develops policy recommendations
to address poverty and inequality and to expand economic
opportunity.
Finally, I would like to welcome Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who
serves as president of the American Action Forum.
Thank you all for taking the time to testify today. I look
forward to hearing from our witnesses today on what we can
learn from our pandemic response and how we can build on recent
successes.
Will the witnesses please rise and raise their right hands?
Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give
is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so
help you God?
You may be seated.
Let the record show that the witnesses answered in the
affirmative.
Without objection, your written statements will be made
part of the record.
Professor Schanzenbach, you are recognized for five minutes
for your opening statement. And feel free to let me know
whether or not I have butchered your name.
STATEMENT OF DIANE WHITMORE SCHANZENBACH, PROFESSOR OF HUMAN
DEVELOPMENT AND SOCIAL POLICY DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE FOR POLICY
RESEARCH, NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY
Ms. Schanzenbach. It was perfect.
So, Chairman Clyburn, Ranking Member Scalise, and members
of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear
before you today at this hearing on recognizing and building on
the success of pandemic relief programs. My name is Diane
Schanzenbach. I am an economist and the director of Institute
for Policy Research at Northwestern University.
As you know, the COVID-19 pandemic caused tremendous
economic disruption with a swift and large decline in
employment. This in turn led to purposeful increases and access
to and participation in social safety net programs, such as
unemployment insurance and SNAP. Both congressional and
executive actions have further expanded the generosity of many
of these longstanding programs.
Other programs were newly conceived during the crisis, such
as the new pandemic EBT payments to make up for missed school
meals. Researchers have found evidence that these relief
programs have been successful in alleviating poverty and
economic hardship and sustaining consumption during this time.
The official poverty rate in 2020 was 11.4 percent, up one
percentage point over 2019, but a drawback of the official
poverty measure is that it doesn't take into account many of
the government programs designed to assist low-income families.
The supplemental poverty measure takes these programs into
account and highlights their important roles during the
pandemic and recession.
After counting for the safety net response, poverty rates
fell from 11.8 percent in 2019 down to 9.1 percent in 2020.
This is a tremendous policy success. The first two rounds of
economic impact payments lifted 3.2 million children out of
poverty, a larger impact than any other program studied. The
earned income tax credit and child tax credit lifted 2.7
million children out of poverty, and SNAP and school lunches
lifted 1.3 million children out of poverty.
Now, child poverty is a serious problem in the United
States. Children growing up in poverty begin life at a
disadvantage. On average, they attain less education, face
greater health challenges, and are more likely to have
difficulty obtaining steady and well-paying employment in adult
life. A panel of experts convened by the National Academy of
Sciences estimated that, because of such effects, childhood
poverty costs our economy between $800 billion and $1.1
trillion every year.
Now, against this backdrop, a fully refundable child tax
credit, delivered on a monthly basis, will provide a reliable
$250 to $300 per month per child to sustainably provide
financial stability for children and their parents. While this
is insufficient as a sole income source, it will help families
make ends meet and alleviate parents' stress and help them
focus on their work and their families.
Now, until the American Rescue Plan, the CTC was primarily
targeted to middle class families, and it had only been
partially refundable, meaning that families who owe little or
no income tax weren't eligible for the full credit. As a
result, due to their family's low incomes, 1 in 10 children
received no CTC benefits and 1 in 4 received only a partial
amount. In other words, 27 million of the children who needed
it most received less or no help from the CTC. This includes
roughly half of all Black and Hispanic children and children
who live in rural communities.
Due to the American Rescue Plan, now almost all of these
children receive the full benefit amount. If these changes are
made permanent, they are projected to cut poverty nearly in
half for children.
Full refundability will help workers in low-paying sectors,
who previously only earned enough to claim a partial CTC. These
are workers in occupations such as cashiers, nursing home
aides, cooks and janitors, salespeople, the essential workers
who have been keeping our economy running during this pandemic.
The expanded CTC will promote our country's long-term
economic prosperity. We have a lot of research on this, showing
that reducing child poverty increases education outcomes with
fewer school absences, higher test scores, improved graduation
rates. It also improves health and reduces crime.
Low-income children who benefit from safety net programs
during childhood grow up to be more likely to be employed and
earn more as adults. And, as a result, expanding the CTC will
yield a long-term financial payoff for us. In fact, once the
full benefits of the CTC are accounted for, the net cost to
taxpayers of the expansion seems to be as little as maybe 16
cents for every dollar of new benefits.
It's, of course, important to consider potential impacts of
an expanded CTC on parents' incentive to work. Empirical
studies suggest that the income provided through the CTC is
unlikely to meaningfully reduce parental labor supply. Most
parents would continue to work, and few would substantially
reduce the number of hours they worked. A permanently expanded
CTC would yield tremendous, immediate, and long-term benefits
for children and their families and would be unlikely to
meaningfully reduce employment. Recently, I co-authored a
letter highlighting these same points that was co-signed by
over 460 economists.
For the good of the Nation, we need to be investing more in
children than we have been. The enhanced CTC is an important
start. Thank you, and I look forward to questions.
Chairman Clyburn. Thank you very much, Professor
Schanzenbach.
Now, before I yield to Dr. Wilson for five minutes, let me
yield the gavel to Congressman Foster, who I think has already
voted on this issue as I go vote, and, hopefully, I'll return
by the time--before your time expires for your next vote. So,
with that, Dr. Wilson.
STATEMENT OF REV. DR. STARSKY WILSON, PRESIDENT, CHILDREN'S
DEFENSE FUND
Rev. Dr. Wilson. Thank you, Chairman Clyburn. Good
afternoon, Ranking Member Scalise, distinguished committee
members. Thank you for this invitation to testify on Federal
efforts to help the 74 million children in America, especially
Black and Brown children, during the pandemic. Let me also
thank and acknowledge the other distinguished panelists that
are here with us today. I look forward to continuing to learn
from each and every one of you.
We're grateful for the opportunity to share, and I'm
honored to offer testimony on behalf of the Children's Defense
Fund. And as its president and CEO, CDF has advocated for
children across America for nearly 50 years. We live in a
Nation where marginalized children flourish, where leaders
prioritize their well-being, and where communities wield the
power to ensure they thrive.
Clearly, COVID-19 has highlighted and illuminated systemic
inequality, structural racism, and disinvestment in our Black,
Brown, indigenous, and immigrant communities that left us
unprepared to deal with a national crisis. These families were
more likely to lose their jobs, contract the virus, be
hospitalized, and die because of COVID-19. And a year and a
half later, our communities continue to struggle.
New data from the Census Bureau shows that more than 11.6
million children, nearly 1 in 6, lived in poverty in 2020. This
represents the first increase in child poverty in many years.
Fortunately, expansion in antipoverty programs made as part of
the temporary COVID relief reduced that hardship. Now these
measures must be made permanent.
The pandemic highlighted the need for guaranteed income for
families. The American Rescue Plan included a one-year
expansion of the CTC, which you've heard before, that boosted
its value, allowed half to be paid monthly, and extended it to
more than 23 million additional very low-income children,
predominantly Black and Latinx children.
The expanded CTC is predicted to lift more than 4 million
children out of poverty and begin to close racial income gaps,
cutting poverty in half for Black, Hispanic, AAPI children, and
by 61 percent for indigenous children. In its first month, the
expanded CTC reduced food insecurity by more than 30 percent
and kept 3 million children from poverty.
Families have told us how this benefit--how important this
benefit is. I quote: The monthly payment means not having to
pick up extra shifts and more time with my family, one parent
said.
Another said: It would mean emotional relief knowing that I
don't have to worry about feeding and providing basic
essentials for my children.
The Build Back Better Act would expand the CTC through
2025. Congress must pass it without weakening it and keep
fighting to make the expanded CTC permanent.
The pandemic also exacerbated child hunger and demonstrated
the importance of universal free school meals. The USDA was
given authority to help schools feed children safely and
conveniently last year. This allowed schools to serve over 3.2
billion free healthy meals to more than 22 million children,
more than half Black and Brown children. This authority will
expire soon. Congress must extend it to ensure schools have the
flexibility they need to keep children fed. Failing to do so
could plunge millions of marginalized children back into food
insecurity.
Long term, the Build Back Better Act would get us closer to
universal school meals, extending them to 9 million more
children. This is critical because 10.8 million children, 58
percent children of color, live in households earning too much
to qualify for free meals but too little to get by. Congress
must pass the Build Back Better Act and continue to push for
universal free school meals.
Finally, we must support the roughly 20,000 children in
foster care who are cutoff from support every year when they
reach adulthood without a permanent family. When COVID hit,
more than half of our foster youth faced food insecurity. Two-
thirds reported cuts to work hours or lost jobs, and only 37
percent reported having family to turn to. The consolidated
Appropriations Act of 2021 provided $400 million to help former
foster youth get by and gave flexibilities to the child welfare
system to care for them. Many of the provisions of the law will
expire September 30, and thousands of youth will be ejected
from services, keeping them from poverty and from being
unhoused. Congress must pass H.R. 5167 before September 30 to
extend these supports so no child will be sent from foster care
into homelessness in the streets.
Families need support throughout the duration of this
crisis and economic downturn to protect children from the harms
associated with poverty, hunger, housing insecurity. And,
furthermore, once the crisis passes, Congress should adopt
permanent measures to ensure children and families are always
supported.
Children, I say as a minister, are a gift from God. They
are a treasure to us. I thank you for the opportunity to speak
today and look forward to hearing more from the members of the
committee on how we will care for this treasure.
Mr. Foster.[Presiding.] Thank you, Dr. Wilson.
And we will now hear from Professor Shaefer.
Professor Shaefer, you are now recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF H. LUKE SHAEFER, PROFESSOR OF SOCIAL JUSTICE AND
SOCIAL POLICY AND ASSOCIATE DEAN FOR RESEARCH AND POLICY
ENGAGEMENT, GERALD R. FORD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC POLICY, UNIVERSITY
OF MICHIGAN
Mr. Shaefer. Chairman Clyburn, Ranking Member Scalise,
members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to
speak with you today.
In early March 2020, I was deeply concerned about the
impact of the coronavirus pandemic on the economic security of
low-and middle-income Americans. I was especially worried about
families with children who have the most trouble making ends
meet and who, in this pandemic, faced massive job loss as well
as school closures. Looking back today, there is no question
this has been a time of trial for American families. Yet it has
also proven to be a time when government worked, when public
policy shielded millions of families from economic crisis like
we have never done before.
The social safety net response ushered in by the bipartisan
CARES Act and continued in the December COVID relief bill and
the American Rescue Plan is truly historic. A wealth of
evidence now shows it has proven incredibly effective. I
believe this success is due in large part to the speed and
flexibility of a broad-based approach that prioritized putting
money in people's pockets through EIPs and expanded
unemployment insurance. American households spent this help on
food, housing, and other needs. They paid down debt and got
themselves on sure financial footing.
Much of my research during COVID-19 uses the Household
Pulse Survey, which the Census Bureau has fielded since April
2020, to better understand how Americans are dealing with the
public health and economic crisis. In a report in the summer of
2020, we found that, despite historically high unemployment,
rates of hardship were stable and, in some cases, declining
following the rollout of CARES. In line with this, this month,
the USDA reported that annual food insecurity in 2020 did not
rise for the population and increased only modestly among
households with children. I never could have imagined that
would be true when this crisis started.
When we updated the Pulse data a few months later, though,
we could see that things took a wrong turn in November as
infections rose and the economic recovery stalled. Hardship was
on the rise. By the end of 2020, I believe we were headed in
the wrong direction without further Federal action. Then
Congress acted twice through the COVID-19 relief bill and the
American Rescue Plan, and we could see the impact in the Pulse
data clear as day. From December 2020 to April 2021, food
insufficiency plummeted by 40 percent, financial instability
dropped by 45 percent, and the reports of adverse mental health
problems fell 20 percent. Hardship has inched up in recent
months as we get further away from the EIPs but remains well
below levels seen last December.
Scores of other studies come to similar conclusions about
the success of this unprecedented safety net response. The
credit scores of Americans are better now than in 2019. Credit
card debt is lower, and fewer people are missing payments.
Available evidence indicates this is true for Black and
Hispanic Americans as well as Whites. A study by the Federal
Reserve found that more households could cover a $400 emergency
expense in July 2020 compared to October 2019. Other
researchers have found spending fell off a cliff as the
pandemic started but, following the CARES Act, immediately
rebounded in striking fashion.
Nearest to my heart is the expansion of the child tax
credit. With monthly advance payments that rolled out this past
July, this policy holds the promise to cut child poverty by 45
percent and eradicate its most extreme forms. As those payments
rolled out, we've already heard, once again, we saw food
hardship drop. We saw poverty drop as this help was delivered,
this time among those with children.
None of these programs work perfectly. Some have not gotten
the help they needed. Yet, while we should always think about
how we can do better, I think it is also critical to recognize
the successes we've had. This is the best, most successful
response to an economic crisis that we have ever mounted, and
it's not even close. I hope we can carry the bipartisan
blueprint forward.
A word of caution: Expanded unemployment insurance has
expired, and the evidence from states where it's ended early
sees no increase in employment but a definitive rise in
hardship. I hope I'm wrong, but I expect the next few months
will be harder for many. Most importantly to me, I urge you to
make the expansion of the child tax credit permanent. This
policy holds the promise to dramatically reduce child poverty,
especially among children of color. It recognizes that raising
kids is expensive, and society has a reason to come alongside
parents in that work.
Research indicates that we'll benefit from this investment
for years to come. We are at a crossroads, and you have the
power to chart a very different path forward. I am deeply
grateful for what you have done for American families so far,
and I hope you will take the next step to make a very different
future possible. Thank you.
Chairman Clyburn.[Presiding.] Thank you very much,
Professor Shaefer.
Thank you very much, Congressman Foster, for continuing
this process for us. I just cast my vote, and I am still open
for you. Thank you.
Let us now yield five minutes to hear from Dr. Holtz-Eakin.
Dr. Eakin, you are recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS HOLTZ-EAKIN, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN ACTION
FORUM
Mr. Holtz-Eakin. Well, thank you, Chairman Clyburn, Ranking
Member Scalise, and members of the committee for the privilege
of being here today to discuss these issues. I want to make
three main points, and then I look forward to answering your
questions.
Point No. 1 is that 2020 saw an incredibly effective
response to the COVID-19 recession, and it occurred on a
bipartisan basis. In 2021, however, we need to do something
different, and we have, but it's not been nearly as well
designed and effective as I would have hoped. And, going
forward, any growth in antipoverty strategy should focus very,
very strongly on education, educational attainment, building
skills, and doing this in the environment of rapid job growth.
Let me expand on each of those.
The response in 2020 was just terrific. I would concur with
Dr. Shaefer in that this is the best response to an economic
crisis that we've ever seen. It was timely. The CARES Act
passed in March and the Consolidated Appropriations Act in
December were done on a bipartisan basis at times when
increases in cases had threatened the progress of the U.S.
economy in strong and severe ways, so Congress acted
appropriately and quickly.
It was done to the appropriate scale. The U.S. economy
contracted by 10 percent in the second quarter of 2020. For
perspective, in 1932, the worst year of the Great Depression,
the U.S. economy contracted by 12 percent, so we experienced an
extremely severe downturn in the spring of 2020. Congress
responded with an extremely strong response in the CARES Act. A
10-percent of GDP response was necessary, and the Congress
delivered it. It was also, by and large, well designed. There's
going to be lots of Monday morning quarterbacking, but, on the
whole, I thought that the CARES Act targeted funds effectively.
There are some design issues with unemployment insurance that
certainly are worth meriting discussion, and lending facilities
at the Federal Reserve never turned out to be what we had
hoped, but I think on the whole, it's very difficult to
complain about that.
Turning the corner to 2021, we started to see something
very different. The American Rescue Plan is none of the above.
It certainly is very poorly timed. At the time of its passage,
the U.S. economy, if you looked at the real-time data, was
growing at about a 6 1/2 percent rate. There was simply no need
for further stimulus. We should have turned the corner toward
longer run planning for economic growth.
It was not appropriately scaled. It was much too large. At
$1.9 trillion, it was anywhere from four to five times larger
than most estimates of the output gap, the gap between
potential to produce and actual GDP in the economy. So it was
something that we really didn't need that much of.
And it was incredibly poorly designed. It was not targeted
on COVID-19. In some cases, we had bailouts of multi-employer
pension plans. It wasn't targeted on anything in the near-term
radar screen at all.
And so it flunks those tests of being appropriate in design
and scale and timeliness.
And the results were undesirable. It didn't move the needle
on growth at all. We grew in the second quarter at roughly the
same rate we grew in the first quarter, but it did move the
needle on inflation. First, asset price inflation. We saw sharp
rises in cryptocurrencies, equities, home values, and then
translated into consumer prices where over the first half of
2021, the food, energy, and shelter components of the CPI rose
at a 10-percent annual rate, not something that's terribly
desirable.
The next in line is the Build Back Better Act. This is
something that is not a pro-growth proposal. In research that
we commissioned at the American Action Forum, we took a serious
look, using a model just like the joint committees, at what
happens if you raise taxes of that type, spend it exclusively
on productive infrastructure and R&D, and the answer is you get
negative economic growth.
The actual Build Back Better Act does not exclusively
target productive investments. Instead, it has a large amount
of expansion in social safety nets, and it is not fully paid
for and will increase the structural deficit for years to come.
That combination makes it an undesirable platform for stronger
long-running growth and antipoverty efforts.
In closing, I would say that the most important thing to
remember about poverty is it shouldn't be defined as the
absence of material well-being. It should be defined as the
inability to be economically self-sufficient, and we need to
focus our efforts on generating economic self-sufficiency,
providing people with education, skills, and having them take--
deploy those skills in a rapidly growing economy with lots of
job openings.
So I thank you for the chance to be here, and I look
forward to your questions.
Chairman Clyburn. Thank you, Dr. Holtz-Eakin.
Finally, we hear from Mr. Dutta-Gupta.
STATEMENT OF INDIVAR DUTTA-GUPTA, CO-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
GEORGETOWN CENTER ON POVERTY & INEQUALITY, GEORGETOWN
UNIVERSITY LAW CENTER
Mr. Dutta-Gupta. Thank you, Chairman Clyburn and Ranking
Member Scalise and members of the subcommittee. My name is
Indivar Dutta-Gupta, and I'm co-executive director of the
Georgetown Center on Poverty and Inequality. I'm honored to be
here before this subcommittee to discuss the historic relief
measures put in place in the COVID-19 pandemic and the
importance of permanent improvements to our social protections
system.
The policies we're discussing, from the earned income tax
credit and child tax credit to unemployment assistance and
caregiving supports, are central to building an equitable and
prosperous Nation. Earlier this year, policymakers enacted the
American Rescue Plan, one of the largest Stimulus Plans in our
Nation's history. Their plan wasn't perfect, but it built off
of three previous bipartisan relief measures to significantly
mitigate poverty and hardship. These temporary Federal relief
efforts, especially those boosting household incomes and
ensuring people's access to essential services, played a
central role in stabilizing families and our Nation's economy
while pushing back on racial and gender inequity.
Unprecedented Federal support allowed families, businesses,
and the economy to begin to recover from the pandemic's
economic shock much faster than after the 2007 to 2009
financial crisis. In fact, amidst the deepest economic and
labor market contraction in generations, the United States may
have achieved its lowest poverty rate on record last year, a
stunning outcome attributable in large part to the Federal
fiscal response. The impact this year could match or exceed
what was achieved in 2020, especially if the new child tax
credit reaches eligible families through a whole-of-society
effort.
Now, unquestionably, Federal relief measures have been
substantial, but a response of such a scale was made necessary
in part by the twin challenges of extreme preexisting
inequality and an unusually weak baseline of support for
struggling families in this country. Entering the pandemic, our
economy was characterized by enormous income and wealth
disparities and widespread racial and gender gaps in education,
housing, the labor market, and beyond.
At the same time, the United States' social protection
system lacked key provisions and investments. Unlike other
wealthy nations, we had no national paid family and medical
leave program, no sick leave guarantee, no child allowance or
robust cash assistance, no unemployment assistance for new job
seekers or returning workers, and no health coverage
guaranteed.
And, despite Federal relief measures, our economic recovery
has slowed. As of last month, we are 5.3 million jobs below
prepandemic levels and up to 9 million jobs short of
prepandemic trends. To ensure that our post-pandemic economy is
stronger than our prepandemic one, we'll need ongoing
investments that ensure an equitable distribution of
opportunity and resources to combat the systemic inequities
that hinder our economic prosperity.
Rebuilding our government through permanent structural
Federal policy changes can prevent an uneven recovery where the
wealthy are back to a prepandemic normal and everyone else
feels the economic aftershocks of the recession for several
years, as happened after 2009.
Policies in the Build Back Better proposals, with some
crucial additions, would provide needed investments to help
families hit hardest by the pandemic recover and reduce poverty
in hardship for generations to come. In particular, our social
protection system could be strengthened further by making
permanent expansions of the child tax credit and earned income
tax credit, closing Medicaid health coverage gaps, fully
funding housing assistance, establishing a comprehensive
national paid family and medical leave program, transforming
early childhood education and long-term care, modernizing
unemployment assistance, establishing a large-scale national
subsidized jobs funding stream, and ensuring that immigrant and
mixed status families are eligible for and access Federal
support.
A well-functioning economy ensures widespread economic
prosperity and ensures that all of us, not just the wealthy and
well-connected, are prepared for and supported to withstand
crises. The next crisis may not be national or a pandemic, but
it will come. Returning to our prepandemic social policies
exposes Americans' livelihoods to needless risks in the face of
climate, economic, public health, national security, and other
threats. We have a chance to learn from, improve upon, and
extend our remarkable successes responding to the financial
insecurity families face during this pandemic. The combination
of the bipartisan infrastructure package and reconciliation
bill moving through Congress could offer American families and
the American economy transformational benefits, including by
increasing labor supplies, meeting our national caregiving
needs, and raising productivity. The revenues dedicated to
paying for some of these investments could push back against
concentrated private wealth and power, reduce inflation, and
level the playing field for small businesses and working and
middle class American families.
Now is the time for policymakers to buildupon our
extraordinary pandemic relief measures and make structural
changes that protect all American families and our economy
against future threats. Thank you.
Chairman Clyburn. Thank you very much, Mr. Dutta-Gupta.
Thanks to all of you for your testimony here today, and I
hope to now begin the questions.
Now, each member will have five minutes for questions, and
I now recognize myself for five minutes.
Now, I want to really address a question to Dr. Holtz-
Eakin.
Dr. Holtz-Eakin, I represent a congressional district in
South Carolina. I've studied history pretty much all of my
life. I know a whole lot about what happened after the Great
Depression, and it seems if you only measure progress by how
much the economy grows. I know how the pockets of poverty that
I now represent, how they were created. And I do believe that,
if you look at the poverty rate, the reduction that we
experienced after the CARES Act, et cetera, that would be a
pretty good measurement for a lot of people.
But what I want to know is you think that the only success
programs can have is if the economy grows without regards to
everybody being brought along with it? I'm at a loss as to how
you measure success. Can you explain a little bit to me, what
you would do about all those people that were left behind back
in the 1930's and that if we're not careful and we're not
sustaining what we've done as we've done with the Rescue Act,
why do you think that would be a failure? Let me remind you
that I just I heard from the leader, the minority leader in the
Senate, that we must protect the full faith and credit of the
United States of America by raising the debt limit, but the
Democrats must do it alone, which means that if we do it, it is
going to be bad because it's not bipartisan. That's what you
sound like to me. Kind of explain that to me.
Mr. Holtz-Eakin. Well, I am certainly happy to urge
Congress to either suspend or raise the debt limit. And I am
not wise enough to counsel you on how to get the votes in both
the House and the Senate, but the consequences of failure to do
so would be severe, and it is something I urge you to get done.
As for the first part of the question, let me say a couple
things. One, there is no single measure of success, and you're
right about that. And it's certainly not the case that simply
having growth in aggregate GDP guarantees broad well-being. I
concur with that. It seems to me that in this moment, the
important thing to do in 2020 was to address the root causes of
the pandemic recession, which, as I mentioned in my opening
remarks, was very swift and very severe. Those root causes are
different than any other recession the United States has ever
had. If you look at the data, income grew in 2020 and so did
wealth. In the 20th century, we saw income fall during
recessions. In the 21st century, wealth has always fallen. We
had big financial crises.
This isn't like those. And so, if you want to look at the
root causes, you have to deal with, first, the public health
emergency that is the coronavirus and the threat of COVID,
which prevented people from going to work and which interfered
with the operation of especially the service sector that
involved personal contact, and the spending in that service
sector really was largely dominated by high-income Americans,
who cut back on their travel, going to shows, staying in
hotels, eating at restaurants, all of that. And, as a result,
the employment in those sectors fell dramatically, and that was
largely lower income, less skilled Americans.
And so an effective response in 2020 got people who weren't
going to be helped by a check, who didn't need anything in the
way of the elaborate programs that were in the CARES Act, but
really were afraid of the public health threats. And so deal
with that. I think, as I said in my opening remarks, the
Congress on a bipartisan basis did a tremendous job in 2020.
That's not the job in 2021. 2021 is about how do you take
those areas which have chronic poverty, those areas which do
not experience rapid economic growth and have them improve over
the long term. And there I think the data are quite clear. The
dividing line between poverty and nonpoverty in the United
States is work. And having people have the capability, the
education, and skills to work, and an economy growing rapidly
enough to have a job to give them the opportunity to work is
the recipe we need to focus on.
Chairman Clyburn. I appreciate that, but let me say this: I
think that the income and wealth gap grew. You're telling me
that income grew and wealth grew. Why, then, do we have an
increase in the income and wealth gap?
Mr. Holtz-Eakin. The other unique feature of this recession
is that it did not hit the economy in equal fashion. It hit it
very unequally. If you were a person like myself, your
recession was probably over by August 2020. But it was a
prolonged period of unemployment for less skilled, less
experienced workers and those especially concentrated in the
personal-service sector, leisure and hospitality being the
poster child for prolonged downturns.
So this recession's all about inequality. It hit the
economy very unequally. And that needed to be thought about in
the response, and I think it was to a great extent.
Chairman Clyburn. Well, thank you very much. I agree that
it was uneven. And that's why we have the American Rescue Act.
With that, I'll yield to Mr. Scalise.
Mr. Ranking Member?
Mr. Scalise. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And as the chairman, Mr. Holtz-Eakin, was talking about how
you measure success, before the government goes and spends
trillions more dollars, most of which would be borrowed from
our children--this isn't money sitting in a piggy bank
somewhere. This is money that doesn't yet exist. And some of it
would be raised in new taxes, which would hit low-income
families the hardest. Some of it would just be borrowed, and
borrowed from kids.
I know the term ``generous'' was being used earlier, as if
you're being generous if you're, you know, just spending money
wildly. I would argue, charity is being generous with your own
money, but theft is being generous with your kids' money. And
that's the real concern here.
But before we talk about how much new money they're trying
to spend, why don't we look at what actually did help improve
success for families, especially low-income families?
I know you're very familiar with the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
When we actually cut taxes, lowered our rates to make our
country competitive, we brought millions of jobs back to our
country. But if you look at what happened, the unemployment
rate reached a generational low, with record low unemployment
rate for women, for people of color, for workers without a high
school degree. The economy gained nearly 5 million jobs before
the pandemic.
You saw businesses starting to reinvest again, making
businesses and workers more productive, while boosting worker
wages. That's where we saw real success. Workers' net worth
soared during that period when we cut taxes prior to the
pandemic.
Low-and middle-income families, by the way, saw the largest
gains in wealth growth in 2018 and 2019. And that's according
to the Federal Reserve. Low-income families saw their net worth
increase 37 percent. So the lowest-income families benefited
the most by cutting taxes, making our economy productive again.
So production isn't just about GDP; it's about creating a
new middle class. We rebuilt the middle class. Would you agree
with that assessment from the Federal Reserve and other results
that we've seen from cutting taxes?
Mr. Holtz-Eakin. Yes, I thought the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act
was a very important reform.
Mr. Scalise. And if you look at what this proposal is we're
seeing moving before the House right now, to go the other
direction, to raise taxes--and, again, the President's out
there promising, if you make less than $400,000, you won't see
a dime in new taxes.
Mr. Holtz-Eakin, if there is, as in this bill--if they get
their way and they raise taxes on natural gas, would only
people making over $400,000 pay that tax?
Mr. Holtz-Eakin. No.
Mr. Scalise. Who would probably be hit the hardest from
that kind of tax increase?
Mr. Holtz-Eakin. That's going to be hit families with small
budgets, who spend a bigger fraction of their budget on those
core necessities.
Mr. Scalise. Wow.
And if you listen to people up here, they're acting as if,
don't worry, it's just those millionaires and those
billionaires, as if this is going to be shielded, as if no jobs
are going to go to China.
As you just said, as anybody with common sense says, if you
raise taxes on things like natural gas, everybody pays it. In
fact, hospitals pay it.
Would not healthcare costs go up if hospitals are paying a
14-percent increase on their electronic bills?
Mr. Holtz-Eakin. Certainly. Core cost structures would go
up across the economy. You can't separate one group of people
from the operation of the entire economy. That's one of the
basic lessons of economics.
Mr. Scalise. Yes.
And, in fact, if you look at President Biden's promises,
they all said, don't worry, you're not going to see a tax
increase if you make under $400,000, don't worry, your
healthcare costs won't go up. All that's broken--broken--if
they get their way and they pass this bill to raise taxes, and
raise it, by the way, trillions of dollars.
Let me ask you, right now, when you look at the
unemployment rate, when you look at the job openings, have you
seen numbers that I've seen that show that there are more job
openings today than there are people looking for work?
Mr. Holtz-Eakin. Yes. There are roughly 8 million, a little
above, unemployed people and about 10-1/2 million job openings
in the U.S.
Mr. Scalise. And would that be one of the drivers of
inflation that you're seeing right now?
Mr. Holtz-Eakin. The driver of inflation is, we've got big
supply constraints because we're not getting people back to
work, and we pumped $1.9 trillion into an economy that already
had loose monetary and fiscal policy. And inflation is the
inevitable result.
Mr. Scalise. Yes. And inflation is probably one of the
biggest problems I hear about from families, especially low-
income families. They're the ones who were hit the hardest by
all this inflation driven by President Biden's spending.
But let me ask you this. Because the President--President
Biden's director of the National Economic Council just recently
said--his name's Brian Deese, and he said that if Americans
don't buy meat they won't feel inflation. I'm not sure what
world he lives in, but, I mean, if this is one of the top
advisors to the President of the United States, it's no wonder
why their economy is in disarray, why inflation continues to
soar.
Do you agree with Brian Deese, the President's director of
National Economic Council, that if Americans don't buy meat
they won't feel inflation?
Mr. Holtz-Eakin. I do not agree.
Mr. Scalise. It's a ridiculous statement. Maybe we could
have him in for a hearing as a witness to explain how he could
be so out of touch with what most American families are facing:
higher inflation, higher costs, lower wages when you factor all
that in. And then that's before they raise trillions in new
taxes, plus trillions in additional debt, borrowed money from
our children.
Let's stop this madness. Let's get things back to where
they were when it was going well with the lower tax rate.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Clyburn. Thank you very much, Mr. Ranking Member.
I am now going to yield five minutes to Mrs. Maloney.
Is Mrs. Maloney with us?
I'll now yield five minutes to Mr. Foster.
Mr. Foster. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Am I audible and
visible here?
Chairman Clyburn. Yes, sir.
Mr. Foster. OK.
Well, one of the key parts of our fiscal response to this
crisis were the direct cash payments, which went to over 160
million households, which allowed Americans the flexibility
to--and the freedom to prioritize their family's core needs
during a pandemic and had a wide range of impacts.
Through a series of relief bills, American families making
less than $150,000 per year received economic impact payments
of up to $1,200 per adult and $500 per child and a second round
of payments of up to $600 per individual and, under the
American Rescue Plan, a third round of $1,400 per individual.
Professor Shaefer, you published some striking data on
material hardship during this pandemic. Your analysis shows the
importance of the relief that we distributed and how important
it was to the American people, through the CARES Act and last
year's appropriations bill and in the American Rescue Plan.
Can you tell us a little of what you saw in terms of the
impact of the pandemic relief bill's economic impact payments
on people's ability to afford food, basic expenses, and how
they affected the neighborhoods as well as the direct
individuals who received the payments?
Mr. Shaefer. We've really been blessed with more data this
time around than we've ever had in a previous recession, and,
especially because of the Pulse Survey, we could see how
families were doing week to week.
And you see those stimulus payments go out, and, bam, food
hardship goes down, financial stability goes down. People are
using that money at the grocery store. They're paying their
landlords. They're paying their mortgage holders. That's part
of why we see credit scores have gone up from where they were.
When you think about the strong years, starting in the
Obama Administration, job growth that lasted and the longest
economic expansion in history--and we're talking about families
being on better financial footing than they were before then.
They spend that money at their utilities, their propane gas
providers, and healthcare.
In a recent paper I had published in Health Services
Research, we see, as expanded unemployment insurance goes out,
that people return to the healthcare office. I think a lot of
people thought people were only staying away at the very
beginning of the crisis because of health factors, but we also
know, as those job losses piled up, that they were maybe not
going to the doctor because they couldn't afford the copays.
So it's really quite striking, I think, that all of the
witnesses say, especially this framework, with those stimulus
economic impact payments, expanded unemployment insurance last
year, that really created a framework that we need to take into
the next recession, I think, beyond more broadly, because I,
for one, would take this recovery over any past that we've ever
had, eight days of the week.
Mr. Foster. Yes. And I think you're right about the data
that we're going to get from this. I mean, there's going to be
just a--it's really a rich trove of data for economists and
behavioral economists. Because I think there are a lot of myths
out there about people who receive direct payments will just
sit around, you know, sit around on the couch, playing video
games and waste the money.
What are the factors that you think made these payments so
effective? And what could we do, you know, to--you know, if
immediacy was important, what can we do to improve that, or
other factors that you can tease out of the data so far?
Mr. Shaefer. As Mr. Holtz-Eakin mentioned, it was a fast
response. And one of the great things about providing these
cash transfers is that you empower families to say, you use the
money on the things that you need the most. Right? If you need
it--if you need food, go use it on food. And we saw huge
numbers of families using it on food. If you need it for the
rent, use it on the rent. So there's an empowerment factor.
But there's also this flexibility. There's this--you know,
there's a libertarian argument here, too, that providing those
cash transfers means we can cut through the red tape. We don't
have to figure out how to means-test it. By making a broader
group of the population eligible, we don't have to spend so
much of government resources finding out, are you above or
below some sort of line?
And I think we can argue where the upper bounds should be,
but when we see these payments really mattering for people well
up the economic distribution--you're seeing improvements among
families who are at $60,000, $70,000 a year--we know that we
can save that money, we can be more efficient, by providing
cash transfers fast and that families use that money to meet
their basic needs and they're better off for it.
Mr. Foster. Yes. And I think it was--you mentioned
libertarian wisdom--Milton Friedman that said, you know, there
are these poor people, but they don't really need more
government programs, they need money. Was that--I think I've
heard that attributed to Milton Friedman.
Mr. Shaefer. That's right. Milton Friedman was one of the
proponents of a negative income tax, which goes to the same
exact principle as what we did, to say, when people need help,
the most efficient thing to do is to provide the cash and not
spend a lot of that money into extra services that pretend that
we know what families need, when, really, they're the experts
and they can make those decision.
And now we have this incredible evidence, in the greatest
economic crisis of all time, that that strategy works and
families use the money for things that make them better off and
make society better off.
Mr. Foster. Yes. Thank you.
And my time has expired, and I yield back.
Chairman Clyburn. Thank you very much, Mr. Foster. Thank
you so much. I've got to go vote, so I'm going to yield the
gavel to you once again, as I recognize Mrs. Maloney for five
minutes.
Carolyn?
Mrs. Maloney. I'm here. Can you hear me now?
Chairman Clyburn. We hear you now.
Mrs. Maloney. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The pandemic has underscored the importance of allowing
workers in the United States to take time off from work if they
get sick or need to take care of a loved one.
Early in this pandemic, Congress required many large
employers to provide paid sick leave to help slow the spread of
the coronavirus and support workers who got sick. In the
American Rescue Plan, Congress extended tax credits to small
and midsize businesses that gave workers paid sick leave.
Mr. Dutta-Gupta, we'll start with you. In your opinion,
have the paid-sick-leave provisions in the American Rescue Plan
slowed the spread of the coronavirus?
Mr. Dutta-Gupta. Thank you, Congresswoman Maloney. That's a
terrific question. There is, in fact, evidence that the
provisions in the emergency relief measures slowed the spread
of the coronavirus.
The FFCRA, Families First Coronavirus Relief Act--or,
Response Act was studied by researchers, who found that there
were around 400 fewer confirmed cases per state per day in
states that gained access to paid sick leave through the FFCRA.
That would translate into roughly one prevented case per day
per - one. Three-hundred workers who had newly gained the
option to take up--and, remember, it was just two weeks of sick
leave.
I will note that a lot of workers, a large share of
workers, did not have access to any sort of leave, and still
don't, with the policies being not mandatory for the vast
majority of employers and with a lot of carve-outs for some of
those workers.
So I do hope that we learn from this, that paid sick leave,
paid family and medical leave even, are genuine investments in
public health and in our economy, but that we buildupon what
we've done with a more robust, comprehensive, and universal
approach.
Mrs. Maloney. Well, can you expand, how has expanding paid
leave in this pandemic improved our economy?
Mr. Dutta-Gupta. Absolutely. So just think about somebody
who cannot go without a day or a week's pay, and maybe they
feel unwell. And this is not that uncommon. Even at the end of
the longest economic expansion in U.S. history, some 40 percent
of families would struggle to meet a $1,000 emergency. So the
truth is that a lot of American workers are living quite
precariously even after a decade-long economic expansion. So
lots of workers show up for work when it would be good for all
of us if we could contain the spread of contagious diseases,
including COVID-19.
And they also fear for losing their jobs. Maybe they can
afford a day off; maybe they can afford a few days off. That
doesn't mean that they will have their job back at the end of
that time.
So offering protections for workers to be able to
prioritize their own health and the health of their loved ones
as well, including potentially sick kids and others they care
for, can absolutely allow people to focus more on productive
economic activity and avoid some of those substantial health
costs that we have been facing in this country.
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you.
The pandemic has highlighted many inequities in our
society. Low-income and essential workers, communities of
color, and vulnerable people have disproportionately been
impacted by both the health and economic harms from the
pandemic. Yet low-wage workers and parents of color are less
likely to have paid sick leave and family leave.
Dr. Wilson, what impact can a parent's lack of paid leave
have on their children's well-being?
Rev. Dr. Wilson. Thank you very much for the thoughtful
question.
Clearly, some of the things that we know is that most
parents and caregivers who are in low-income families don't
have paid leave to care for their children or older adults at
all and never have had access. And, of course, this
disproportionately impacts Black and Brown parents.
We also know that millions of women have been pushed out of
the labor force because they didn't have paid leave or
childcare. And, more importantly, this is about caring for a
child in their earliest stages of life, to bond with the child,
to care for them, and every person in the U.S. should have
access to that, regardless of race, ZIP Code, or income.
So we know that early bonds parents develop with their
babies are critical to future learning, to building a positive,
loving relationship with the child, and to helping that child
develop the cognitive, social, and emotional development that
helps them reach their full potential.
So paid family leave or parental leave can also reduce
infant mortality by as much as 10 percent, according to a study
of 141 countries with paid-leave policies. So paid parental
leave can reduce the share of low-birth-weight babies by over
10 percent, decrease the likelihood of early term birth by
nearly seven percent, with particularly large impact on
children and the well-being of children and Black mothers.
So we know that this is something that helps children to be
well, helps them to develop over time. And access--or, removing
that access will have deleterious effect on the future of
children in America, particularly Black and Brown children.
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you.
My time has expired, and I yield back to Representative
Foster. Thank you.
Mr. Foster.[Presiding.] Thank you.
And now, at this point, I think I will yield back to Chair
Clyburn to continue the proceedings.
Chairman Clyburn.[Presiding.] Thank you very much, Mr.
Foster.
I now recognize Congressman Green. Is he here?
Mr. Green. Yes, sir.
Chairman Clyburn. You are now recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member.
And thank you to you the witnesses.
Today's hearing is another failure of this committee to
address the key questions that the Biden administration,
congressional Democrats, and the mainstream media refuse to
discuss. Instead, despite the Federal Government's
unprecedented spending over the past year and a half, my
colleagues across the aisle believe more spending is necessary.
Now the Democrats are leveraging this Select Committee on the
Coronavirus to justify trillions more for their progressive
wish list.
Never mind the disaster of the unemployment handouts that
left small businesses struggling to find workers because the
government was paying people more to stay at home than to work.
Never mind the spending-fueled inflation that's eating away at
Americans' wallets. Bought any chicken lately? We'll just go
for a $3.5 trillion tax and spending spree packed with Bernie
Sanders' wish list.
Earlier this summer, my colleagues and I held a forum where
we discussed the evidence surrounding the origins of the virus
that began in Wuhan and the actions that should be taken to
ensure a thorough investigation. Do you think maybe the
American people want to know if the Federal Government funded
gain-of-function research in a Communist Chinese lab that led
to a new virus strain? Why, yes, they do. But not Nancy
Pelosi's Select Committee on the Coronavirus.
Just last week, a letter published in The Lancet which
reaffirmed the probability of a lab-leak origin while noting
that there is little to no evidence supporting a natural origin
in this outbreak. Still no pangolin yet. Why can we not have a
conversation about that? Are we uninterested in searching for
answers when the evidence contradicts the establishment's
narrative?
Let's take ivermectin. The authoritarian establishment
seems instantly to dismiss any mention of the drug. Some states
are even threatening to take licenses of doctors who prescribe
it. The human version of ivermectin has been prescribed to
millions of people and it has been widely used for years in the
developing world to treat parasitic illnesses. As a meta-
analysis in the peer-reviewed American Journal of Therapeutics
states, and I quote, ``A large majority of randomized and
observational control trials of ivermectin are reporting
repeated large-magnitude improvements in clinical outcomes,''
end quote.
Why is the vaccine the only thing any Democrat will
consider? Why are we not talking about this study? And why are
the media and some states trying to rip the licenses from well-
trained M.D.s who want to prescribe it? Now, there's a valid
investigation for this committee. Not going to happen, though.
The only science they care about is what supports their
authoritarian control.
As President Biden tries to push his unconstitutional
vaccine mandate, we continue to ignore the studies showing
durable--the durability of natural immunity. As Dr. Marty
Makary noted last week in The Washington Post, several studies
have shown that natural immunity provides robust and
longstanding protection against the virus.
In late August, a study out of Israel involving 700,000
people--and, oh, by the way, since we're so worried about the
science, the more confidence--the larger a study, the more
people you have, the larger the ``n,'' or sample size, the more
confidence you can have in the conclusions of that study.
That study of 700,000 concluded that those with prior
infection are 27 times less likely to have a symptomatic
reaction or reinfection than those who are vaccinated--27
times. Yet we continue to insist on a one-size-fits-all
mandatory vaccine policy regardless of age or prior infection.
If immunity from prior infection is better than the
vaccine, which that and many other studies says it is, then why
are we considering kicking soldiers out of the military who
have had COVID but don't want, or apparently from the science
need, a vaccine? It makes no sense--unless, of course, you're
selling vaccine.
This isn't an abstract issue. It's a serious concern that
has immediate, real-life implications for millions of
Americans. Many of those who chose not to get vaccinated
because they've already had COVID are wondering whether or not
they're going to lose their jobs. If they already have acquired
immunity, does it make sense to continue implementing this one-
size-fits-all sell-more-vaccine policy and force them to get
both shots?
Should a previously infected person, with better immunity
than provided by the vaccine, be fired because they won't bend
the knee to the authoritarians who keep perseverating
``vaccine, vaccine, vaccine''?
Why can we not have a conversation about this? These are
pressing questions with serious real-world implications that
this committee can and should explore. The failure to do so is
a failure of this committee to address the most pressing issues
for Americans in this pandemic.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield.
Chairman Clyburn. Thank you very much, Dr. Green.
The chair now recognizes Mr. Raskin for five minutes.
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
I'm sorry that just the sequencing of questioning puts the
burden on me to respond to some of the disinformation we just
heard.
There's a report out today which shows that the 10 states
with the lowest vaccination rate now have an infection rate
four times higher than the rest of the country. And it stands
to reason. The vaccine is saving people's lives. So this is a
life-and-death matter.
How many videos do we have to see of people who,
themselves, were very proud not to get the vaccine and told
other people not to get the vaccine who then ended up with
COVID-19 and are begging people to get vaccinated and are
saying they're sorry for participating in all of the propaganda
and disinformation against vaccines and against masks?
So I'm just--I'm sorry to see that there are still people
trying to sell that very dangerous notion against vaccines.
And, by the way, why should a person get vaccinated if
they've already had COVID-19? Because they can get it again.
And we have colleagues who have had COVID-19 twice.
And people are dying every single day from COVID-19. So I
don't want to participate in any way in any of the dangerous
propaganda that continues to be out there which is causing an
absolute resurgence of COVID-19 across the country.
But the American Rescue Plan's--the American Rescue Plan
and the Child Tax Credit have already made a tremendous
difference in the lives of millions of American kids and their
families. According to one analysis I saw, the number of
children experiencing hunger in American has gone down by 2
million. Two million children fewer are experiencing hunger
because of what we passed in the American Rescue Plan, because
of what we passed in the Child Tax Credit.
And Columbia University estimates that the first Child Tax
Credit payment this summer lifted 6 million children out of
poverty. OK? The very first payment under the Child Tax Credit
plan we passed lifted 6 million kids out of poverty in the
country.
So it might not seem like a lot of money to a lot of
people, how much money goes to each family, but it makes a huge
difference in the lives of children and their families. So
we're fighting to make the expanded Child Tax Credit
permanently available to kids in families with the lowest
incomes.
And my question is, Professor Schanzenbach, what difference
would it make if we actually make the Child Tax Credit
permanent now? What kind of broader economic effects could we
expect to see as a result of this expansion, and what
difference would it make in the life of the kids?
Ms. Schanzenbach. Yes. So, in the short term, we'll see,
just like you said, less hardship. We'll see lower rates of
hunger, lower rates of poverty, et cetera. But where I think
this is just crucially important is, we know from research that
these investments, that reducing child poverty, has long-term
impacts.
I agree with Doug Holtz-Eakin, who said essentially that
any serious long-term growth strategy has to involve education.
And, for kids, it really--the CTC alleviating poverty will
enhance the education investments that we make in them. They
will grow up to be healthier, more likely to graduate from high
school, et cetera. This will have long-term positive economic
payoffs.
Mr. Raskin. And what difference might it make, Dr. Wilson,
in alleviating our longstanding inequalities in wealth and
income along the lines of race?
Rev. Dr. Wilson. Yes. Part of the challenge that we see is
both, of course, an income gap, a racial income gap, and a
racial wealth gap. Both have to be addressed.
But, as it gets to income, we see that the expanded CTC has
most impact for Black, Brown, and indigenous families. As we
think about this, we're talking about cutting child poverty in
half for Black families, 52 percent for Black families, 45
percent for Hispanic families, 65 percent for indigenous
children, as we talk about the impact.
So you're having a disparate impact because you're
investing in a place where people are more likely to find
themselves in poverty. So----
Mr. Raskin. But for poor children of all racial backgrounds
and ethnic backgrounds, lifting them up in this way profoundly
alters their life chances and their opportunities for success
in life, right?
Rev. Dr. Wilson. Absolutely. This will lift all families.
This will lift all children who are touched by it. And, quite
frankly, by doing so, it will have a redounding effect on our
entire economy by making sure that children are well.
Mr. Raskin. OK. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back
to you. And thank you for continuing to promote science and the
prosperity and the health of our people.
Chairman Clyburn. Thank you very much, Mr. Raskin.
The chair now recognizes Mr. Jordan for five minutes.
Mr. Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just would start with, I thought it was almost--it was
amusing to hear Mr. Raskin critique Dr. Green's statement. I
mean, this is the state of where we are today in America, where
the lawyer critiques the Doctor of Medicine about natural
immunity. I think--I mean, I found that--I mean, you'd laugh if
it wasn't so serious.
Mr. Holtz-Eakin, is the Democrats' economic plan working?
Mr. Holtz-Eakin. I think, as I said in my opening remarks,
that the things that were done in 2020 were very effective, on
a bipartisan basis, and the things that are being done this
year are not.
Mr. Jordan. Right. The bipartisan CARES Act package PPP
program worked. But, in the last nine months, we went from
rising wages to less purchasing power. Is that accurate?
Mr. Holtz-Eakin. Yes, inflation has exceeded wage growth.
Mr. Jordan. Stable prices to----
Mr. Holtz-Eakin. Inflation.
Mr. Jordan [continuing]. Not just any old inflation, 40-
year high in inflation, right?
Mr. Holtz-Eakin. First half of this year, the 50 percent of
the CPI basket that is food, energy, and shelter went up 10
percent, annual rate.
Mr. Jordan. Yes. Energy independence to--remember, we have
this spectacle now of the President of the United States--nine
months ago, we were energy-independent, and now we have the
President of the United States begging OPEC to increase
production. I don't think that's an economic plan that's
working. In fact, I think it's a dismal failure.
He's nodding his head. Let the record show the witness
nodded his head.
Have you ever seen a dumber plan than the Democrats'? I
mean, lock down your economy, spend like crazy, pay people not
to work, and, oh, for the people who are working, we're getting
ready to raise your taxes. Could there be a dumber plan?
Mr. Holtz-Eakin. As I said, we actually took the proposal
seriously and ran it through something that looks just like
what the Joint Committee would use for analysis, and it's a net
negative for the U.S. economy.
Mr. Jordan. Net negative. Yes. And the American people are
feeling it now, I mean, everywhere I talk.
Let me ask you this. When you pay people not to work,
should you be surprised when you can't find workers?
Mr. Holtz-Eakin. No one should be surprised about what's
going on.
Now that the benefits expired, it will be a very different
story, and we'll see it first in the October jobs report that
gives us the September numbers. But, you know, we know from
decades of research that, if you raise the replacement rate,
the fraction of your wages that gets replaced by UI, spells of
unemployment are longer and, in the aggregate, unemployment is
higher. That is well-established.
This is over 100-percent replacement for 37 percent of
American workers. I mean, it's--no one would propose that in
normal times, and to put it in place as the economy opened up
just made no sense.
Mr. Jordan. Do you know any--I mean, I don't know of any
employer--I think there's probably a few, but everyone I talk
to across the Fourth District of Ohio, across our great state,
across the country--I was in Wisconsin over the weekend and
Minnesota over the weekend. No one can find--we were driving
through Minneapolis on the way to the hotel, because we stayed
there the night before to fly out of Minneapolis on Monday
morning. And I saw at a Mexican restaurant, taco stand, on the
window, ``$15 an hour,'' I mean, as big and bold as you could
see.
Mr. Holtz-Eakin. Yes.
Mr. Jordan. No one can find people to work.
Mr. Holtz-Eakin. It is everywhere.
Mr. Jordan. Yes.
Mr. Holtz-Eakin. I have three openings I'd like to fill.
I'm going to raid your staff.
Mr. Jordan. Yes. I hope you don't, but I understand. I
understand the sentiment. I understand.
When you tell people they can't be evicted, should you be
surprised when they quit paying rent?
Mr. Holtz-Eakin. No.
Mr. Jordan. No. I mean, it's like, it doesn't take a genius
to figure out this is literally the dumbest economic plan I
have ever seen.
Now, when they worked in a bipartisan fashion at the start
of this virus when it hit us and we didn't know exactly what
was there, we did some things that everyone I've talked to--the
same employers who tell me now they can't find workers are the
same ones who said, ``Thank you for the PPP program.''
Mr. Holtz-Eakin. Yes.
Mr. Jordan. ``Thank you for what you did initially when we
had so much uncertainty around what was going to happen.'' But
now it absolutely makes no sense, where we're going.
Mr. Holtz-Eakin. I think the PPP program is the single best
fiscal response we've ever seen. The SBA got $32 billion out
the door in 2019; they got $500 billion out in a month.
Mr. Jordan. Yes.
Mr. Holtz-Eakin. And it was an extraordinary lifeline to
people and the small-business infrastructure of this economy.
Mr. Jordan. Yes. Now, let me--last question. I'll let you
take whatever time you want on this last one.
They're getting ready to try to raise everyone's taxes. I
mean, tell me your thoughts on that.
Because, again, I think, when you lock down your economy,
when you spend like crazy, when we have the highest inflation
in 40 years, when you pay people not to work, when you tell
them they can't be evicted, you shouldn't be surprised when
they quit paying rent--when all that happens and then you say
to the people who have been working, who have been paying their
rent, ``Oh, by the way, we're going to raise your taxes,'' I
don't see how that's going to help our economy either.
Mr. Holtz-Eakin. As I said, we ran this through some
serious studying, because I would talk to my colleagues across
the aisle in the economics profession and say, can we both
agree that this proposed 3.3--it wasn't in the campaign--tax
increase is a bad idea? And they'd say, yes, but the spending's
going be so good, you don't have to worry about it.
And I think it's--not only is the overall level troubling,
the way it's being done is even more troubling.
Mr. Jordan. Yep. They passed----
Mr. Holtz-Eakin. In the years leading up to the Tax Cuts
and Jobs Act, we lost 100 major headquarters, and in the years
since, zero.
Mr. Jordan. Right.
Mr. Holtz-Eakin. And we're going to go right back to the
third-highest corporate tax rate in the OECD and a very high
global worldwide tax. That's exactly the recipe that got us in
trouble to begin with.
And so the way the taxes are being raised is as troubling
to me as the aggregate numbers.
Mr. Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Clyburn. Thank you. I am tempted to use some
privilege as----
Mr. Jordan. Go ahead. Go ahead.
Chairman Clyburn [continuing]. Chairman, but I'm going to
refrain from doing that.
And I now recognize for five minutes Mr. Krishnamoorthi.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
appreciate the time.
Dr. Holtz-Eakin, I just have a couple questions for you.
You know, the expanded Child Tax Credit results recently
came out, in terms of how the money has been utilized by
families receiving the Child Tax Credit.
Do you dispute that for households earning less than
$25,000 the first payments were spent on food?
Mr. Holtz-Eakin. I'm not an expert on those studies, so----
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. No, I'm just asking----
Mr. Holtz-Eakin.--and I'd be happy to study them.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi [continuing]. Do you dispute that or
not?
Mr. Holtz-Eakin. I don't know those studies. I'd be happy
to look at them.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. It sounds like you don't dispute it.
Do you dispute that it was 52 percent of households used
the money for utilities?
Mr. Holtz-Eakin. As I said, I haven't read the studies, so
I can't dispute or agree with it.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. So I assume you can't dispute----
Mr. Holtz-Eakin. It makes sense to me, but I don't know.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. It's just a yes-or-no question. Sounds
like you can't dispute it, and that's what I'm asking you. Can
you dispute it? Do you have evidence----
Mr. Holtz-Eakin. I have no interest in disputing it.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi [continuing]. To the contrary right now?
Mr. Holtz-Eakin. If you want to know my reservations with
the Child Tax Credit, it's that we aren't focusing it
exclusively on poor people----
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. I didn't ask you about your
reservations. I just asked you, do you dispute the evidence or
not?
The Child Tax Credit has allowed households earning less
than $25,000--41 percent of them are using it on clothing for
their family. Do you dispute that? Do you have any evidence
that you can point to right now, as you sit here----
Mr. Holtz-Eakin. No, I have no--no.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi [continuing]. Pointing to the contrary?
Mr. Holtz-Eakin. The answer was no.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. OK. How about rent and mortgage? Do you
have any evidence to point to the contrary that, among
households earning less than $25,000, their first payments were
spent on rent and mortgage?
Mr. Holtz-Eakin. No.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. How about school supplies? Thirty-one
percent of households earning less than $25,000 spent their
first payments, the first dollars that they received, on school
supplies for their children. You don't have any evidence to
point to the contrary that that's not true, correct?
Mr. Holtz-Eakin. No.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. So let me just get the story straight
here. For households earning less than $25,000, the first
payments that they used the expanded tax credits for were on
food, utilities, clothing, rent, and school supplies.
You don't dispute that food, utilities, clothing, rent, and
school supplies for a family with children are essential
payments for that family, essential expenses for that family,
correct?
Mr. Holtz-Eakin. No.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Now, sir, let me just point you to some
of your previous statements about the expanded Child Tax
Credit.
One of the criticisms you have--and you can please correct
me if I'm wrong on this, but--and I'm paraphrasing--is that you
feel that it's a disincentive to work, correct?
Mr. Holtz-Eakin. No. There's no incentive to work. I didn't
say it was a disincentive. It's not tied to work.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. OK. So let me--I just want to get you
on the record very clearly. You are not saying that it is a
disincentive to work. You're just saying there's no incentive
to work, correct?
Mr. Holtz-Eakin. Correct.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. OK.
Let me just ask you this. If you are a single mom with
children and you want to go to work but childcare is extremely
expensive and you were to use the expanded Child Tax Credit to
help pay for that childcare so you can go to work, in that
instance, the expanded Child Tax Credit would allow the woman
or the mom to reenter the work force, correct?
Mr. Holtz-Eakin. In that instance, yes.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. And let me just ask you this. You don't
dispute that only 57 percent of women are currently
participating in the labor work force, correct?
Mr. Holtz-Eakin. Oh, no. We have very low labor force
participation.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Especially among women. Women have
dropped out of the work force in droves, mainly to take care of
their children and their elders, who unfortunately may have
been afflicted by coronavirus, or because the schools were
closed, right?
Mr. Holtz-Eakin. We've seen declines in both male and
female labor force participation. I think both are troubling.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. But the bigger drop, just in absolute
numbers and percentages, was among women, correct?
Mr. Holtz-Eakin. I'd have go back to check. I can get that
to you.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. The answer is yes. It's a very basic
question.
And so the expanded Child Tax Credit allows for these
women, especially the single moms, but all moms, to participate
once against in the work force, to be more productive, to
expand our economy and enhance our prosperity, because they
have the money to finally hire childcare. And that's an
essential piece of the puzzle if we're actually going to build
America back better and get women back into the work force.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
Chairman Clyburn. Thank you very much, Mr. Krishnamoorthi.
The chair now recognizes Dr. Miller-Meeks for five minutes.
Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.
And I thank all of our panelists.
And, you know, unfortunately, I was not going to start my
questions this way, but I just want to clarify some things from
my colleagues.
First of all, I am a proponent of COVID-19 vaccines. I've
been vaccinated. I gave vaccines and attended vaccine clinics
in all 24 of my counties.
Early on in the pandemic, when we first had vaccines
available, there was not as much research and data we have
available about natural immunity as there is now. So, if I may
say, you know, being a proponent of acknowledging the benefit
of natural immunity--which does not mean people should go to
COVID-19 parties and get infected, but to recognize that
immunity is what we should be talking about, whether it is
immunity from a vaccine or immunity from natural disease--and
then, that way, have vaccines available for those who need
vaccines and also to treat and send to other nations so that
their population can have an increased level of immunity so we
can get through the global pandemic.
So I just want to clearly make that statement, that we
should be talking about immunity--we don't want anybody to get
ill or to get sick--and also to clarify that, yes, people who
are vaccinated can come down with COVID-19, as can people with
natural immunity. So having had a vaccine does not necessarily
confer that you will never contract a disease. And that's true
for all infectious diseases.
Furthermore, we should also be talking about having people
have proof of their immunity.
So I would encourage my colleagues to support a bill that
I'm producing to mandate the coverage for T cell immunity, so
that humoral immunity--which may not be long present in the
bloodstream, but there is T cell immunity for viruses, so we
can prove immunity, and, that way, keep everybody in the work
force, rather than only talking about vaccine mandates, which
sends some people out of the work force.
So, again, it was not my intention--so I'm going to ask the
panelists to be very brief in their comments, if I may.
Dr. Schanzenbach, you have written extensively about the
negative impact of school closures on our students. Your
research also found that they impacted low-income students and
also in reference to food insecurity. So is that correct?
Ms. Schanzenbach. Yes, absolutely.
Mrs. Miller-Meeks. And you----
Ms. Schanzenbach. We've really hurt our children.
Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Yes.
And you also mentioned that, during these school closures,
there was less access to school lunch programs or other food
programs that the school may have, and so that, too, led to a
negative impact, especially in our low-income and minority
students.
Ms. Schanzenbach. Yes.
Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Yes. And that that also related to a
slight decrease in the level of poverty in our students.
And so, while these extraordinary pandemic measures have
slightly reduced poverty in the United States, the World Health
Organization has said that worldwide poverty in children has
increased over 15 percent and may take decades to reverse.
And the school closures not only had an effect on food
insecurity, as you had indicated, but they also had a
tremendous effect upon the loss of grade level and, also,
mental health disorders.
So, based upon your research, I would think certain
Governors, mayors, school boards chose not to let teacher
unions keep schools closed and put tens of thousands of our
children at risk. And their failure to reopen schools has
directly led to kids going hungry and has endangered both their
mental and physical well-being.
So I thank you for that research, which has helped change
decisions to keep students out of the classroom and
jeopardizing our most vulnerable.
If I could ask all of the panelists--and I know my time is
running short--Dr. Schanzenbach, do you believe that there is
inflation? And are you worried about inflation?
Ms. Schanzenbach. Yes. So I'm not a macroeconomist, but I
studied up on this----
Mrs. Miller-Meeks. That's OK. I don't----
Ms. Schanzenbach. OK.
Mrs. Miller-Meeks. I don't mean to cut you off. Just
``yes'' or ``no.'' I want to go to all the panelists.
Ms. Schanzenbach. Oh, sure.
Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Reverend Wilson, are you concerned about
inflation?
Rev. Dr. Wilson. I believe there is inflation. I worry
about children.
Mrs. Miller-Meeks. OK.
Mr. Dutta-Gupta, are you concerned about inflation?
Mr. Dutta-Gupta. Yes, and, fortunately, all the evidence
suggests it's transitory.
Mrs. Miller-Meeks. OK. Transitory, which I asked the Fed
Chair several months ago. Now we're in eight months of
inflation.
Mr. Shaefer, are you concerned about inflation?
Mr. Shaefer. I think it is something that we should watch
but also something we should've expected and----
Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Thank you so much.
Mr. Holtz-Eakin, are you concerned about inflation?
Mr. Holtz-Eakin. Yes, I am.
Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Yes. As a matter of fact, inflation has
eaten away at the benefits of rising wages. We've seen beef up;
eggs, price of eggs; price of gasoline; my husband's favorite,
milk; and my favorite, bacon. So inflation certainly is a
problem.
As a matter of fact, today, the Federal Reserve signaled
that it could start reversing its pandemic stimulus policies in
November and, earlier than anticipated, increase its interest
rates.
So thank you very much. Inflation is a problem related to
too much money in an economy, and I think that we need to be
mindful of our excessive spending.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
Chairman Clyburn. Thank you.
I think that that ends all the members who are present.
Before I go any further, if the ranking member is there, I'll
yield to him now for a closing statement.
Mr. Scalise. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank our witnesses for your testimony.
And start off in my closing, Mr. Chairman, by once again
saying, at some point in time, this committee actually needs to
start having hearings on the real problems we're seeing related
to President Biden's botched handling of COVID-19. We sure
don't have enough time or jurisdiction to handle all the other
things that President Biden has botched, and there's other
committees to do that, but for goodness' sake, if the Select
Subcommittee on Coronavirus can't start looking into some of
the things that we've been calling on this committee to look
into that are leading to more deaths in America--again, 2,000
deaths a day in America right now under President Biden's
watch.
And, still, to this day, he has not even named a person to
head the FDA--the FDA, which is the agency, by the way, that
approved three different vaccines under President Trump's
Operation Warp Speed. Yes, that FDA. Where is President Biden's
pick for the FDA head? Why don't we have a hearing on that?
Mr. Chairman, if you announced today that we're going to
have a hearing next week, I would assure you by next week
President Biden would pick a head of the FDA. But we don't have
that hearing, and we ought to.
We ought to have a hearing, Mr. Chairman, on the origins of
COVID. We've been calling for this for over a year. More than
650,000 deaths in America, millions worldwide. Again, as I said
in my opening statement, a few hours ago, I was with the Prime
Minister of Australia. The Prime Minister of Australia actually
called for a hearing into the origins of COVID last year, and
he did it because, he said, No. 1, ``I don't know where it
originated from, but I want to know. People in Australia in
want to know.'' Well, you know what? People in America want to
know too. Why is this administration trying to cover this up?
You look at this article--and I'll ask that this be entered
into the record, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Scalise. This article talks about how, after Australia
didn't accuse any country of starting it but said, ``Let's
investigate the origin,'' which country then went after
Australia, Mr. Chairman? China. China initiated a trade war
with Australia after they just said, ``We want to find out
where COVID started.'' What should that tell everybody?
And so why don't we look into it? We shouldn't be afraid of
China. We should want to know where this started so it doesn't
happen again. This is something we should be having a hearing
on.
We talk about inflation, and maybe we could be having a
hearing about all the inflation caused by all of these spending
plans. Look, a family of four with two parents out of work last
year made over $100,000. That was a report initiated by
Republicans on the Ways and Means Committee. A hundred thousand
dollars. And people on the Democrat side act like that was
wealth creation.
If you go take out a $50,000 credit card and then you max
the whole thing out, you didn't create wealth. You just created
$50,000 in debt. Whatever you bought with it, good for you, but
you have to pay it back. It's not like you were making
something, you were manufacturing things that people bought.
This is money borrowed from our kids.
And so, when you go down the line--we just have two medical
doctors, as Mr. Jordan was talking about, on our committee, two
medical doctors that talked about some of the medical problems
that we're seeing. I had said in my opening statement that we
ought to have a hearing on President Biden going against the
science, actually trying to manipulate the science. And there's
evidence of it. I laid it out in my opening statement. Do you
know, not one Democrat disputed any of it--any of it?
Two people that are involved in vaccines at the FDA left
the FDA because they're tired of the political interference by
the Biden administration, and we haven't had a hearing on that.
Those are the things that we should be having hearings on
and getting to the bottom of and stopping. And if we stop that,
maybe then the President would pick somebody to head the FDA.
Maybe then the President would look at more therapeutics. Maybe
he'd go find more vaccines, not just rely on the three that
President Trump handed off to him when he walked in the door,
but maybe go find more, go encourage more, go encourage
therapeutics for people that are in the hospital instead of
just trying to shame people if they get COVID and say, well,
it's because they weren't vaccinated. Let's encourage people to
get vaccinated, but let's go find more therapeutics.
We've got the greatest medical research in the world. If
they don't get their way and pass H.R. 3, drug price-fixing--
which, by the way, would run 40 percent of all drugs that are
on the market out of America. We wouldn't be able to get
lifesaving drugs like so many other countries have if they get
their way. They just put that back in the bill yesterday, their
great tax-and-spend bill that's going to create more inflation,
that's going to put millions more people out of work in
America.
China would love this stuff. This is a gift to China. They
give more jobs to China. America would have a higher tax rate
than the Chinese Communist Party if President Biden and
Democrats in Congress got their way.
As Mr. Jordan said, this is insanity. This is the
stupidest, craziest policy we've ever seen.
You're already seeing a negative impact on families--
lowest-income families, as Mr. Holtz-Eakin said, by the way,
that are impacted the hardest. The lowest-income families are
the ones paying the biggest price for President Biden's
inflation. And what do they want to do? They want to jack it up
on steroids by borrowing trillions more, taxing trillions more,
and increasing inflation even higher.
And their only answer is, well, just go print and give
people more money, and then they're rich again. Really? People
know there's no such thing as free money. They know the
negative consequences of all this free money.
The negative consequence is inflation. They're paying more
money on everything. They go to the grocery store, they're
paying more money. They go to their favorite restaurant,
they're seeing about a third of the tables empty, and they have
to wait an hour. Why? Because the government's paying people
more money not to work than to work, which costs them even
more.
If they want to get a new microwave for their kitchen, it's
going to cost them probably 30 percent more, but they're going
to have to wait months to get it.
And God help them if they have to go fill up their gas
tank. They're paying 40 or more percent for that, because
President Biden said no to American pipelines but yes to
Russian pipelines, yes to Europe, South--Middle Eastern
countries' ability to produce more oil, but no to America's
ability to produce more oil--which, by the way, we do it much
more efficiently.
So, if you're worried about carbon emissions, all this
climate change--President Biden goes to the U.N. yesterday,
doesn't talk about solving all these world problems, doesn't
talk about confronting COVID and finding out the origins of it.
He talks about climate change. And then his policies actually
make it worse, because they increase carbon emissions, because
he shuts down manufacturing in America and ships those jobs to
China. China emits four or five times more carbon to make the
same stuff, the same steel, the same other manufactured
products that he's trying to ban in America. Going after fossil
fuels, begging OPEC to produce more oil--which, by the way,
they emit more carbon to make the same oil that we make here in
America.
Stop beating up on America. Stop blaming America. Let's
bring back America. And stop borrowing from our kids. Let's get
this economy open and let's get schools back open and have
hearings on all this, Mr. Chairman.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Clyburn. Thank you very much, Mr. Ranking Member.
I hear that Ms. Waters is on her way to the room. Has she
arrived? I do not wish to close this without giving her an
opportunity to ask questions. I understand she has not arrived.
I want to say to my friend, the ranking member--and he is
my friend--you know, I wish you were present for Mr. Peter
Marks from the FDA. He met with us and answered many of his
questions. And I'm sure that all of us have schedules that we
find ourselves in conflict, but if the ranking member had been
in attendance, he would've heard Mr. Peter Marks say there was
absolutely no political interference with him and the FDA on
the part of this administration. And I prefer--he said that
under oath, by the way.
No, he was not under oath. We just received that as
information.
Now I want to thank all the witnesses for their testimony
today.
The coronavirus pandemic caused enormous economic pain for
American families, particularly those in low-income and
minority communities. Congress and the Biden administration
acted boldly to alleviate those hardships, dramatically to cut
poverty, and put us on the path to recovery.
Today's hearing has made clear that the American Rescue
Plan's relief provisions have delivered for families and
supported our economic recovery. From direct relief payments to
the expanded Child Tax Credit, the American Rescue Plan has
delivered swift assistance to help working and middle-class
families pay for their basic needs as we add millions of jobs.
But a return to the pre-pandemic economy is not sufficient.
For too long before 2020, far too many Americans were
struggling to provide for their families and get ahead
economically. The American Rescue Plan was designed to combat
the immediate crisis, and now our task is to reduce the
longstanding disparities that were exposed and exacerbated by
the pandemic.
As I have shared with the select subcommittee before, last
year I was criticized by the Republican minority leader of the
Senate for observing that the coronavirus crisis presented--and
I'm quoting myself--quote, ``a tremendous opportunity to
restructure things to fit our vision,'' end of quote. And let
me complete the statement: ``of a more perfect Union, with
liberty and justice for all.''
For the last several decades, our economic structure has
denied liberty and justice for far too many Americans. Our
economic structure has denied workers the same rewards as those
with wealth, denied educational and economic opportunity to far
too many, denied affordable healthcare to millions, and
threatens to deny a livable planet to future generations.
The American Rescue Plan has shown that we have the ability
to restructure things to rescue our country from the immediate
crisis. As its emergency measures gradually come to an end, we
are facing a choice. Will we surrender the progress the
American Rescue Plan has made and accept a return to an
economic structure that denied liberty and justice to far too
many, or will we take this opportunity to restructure things to
fit our shared vision of liberty and justice for all? It is my
firm belief that we must build a more perfect Union. We must
build back better.
And I want to say today--and qualify this by saying, in my
studies of various parts of our history, I have not found it to
be a fact that Alexis de Tocqueville actually said what he's
given credit for having said by many people--that America is
great because its people are good, and if the people of America
ever cease to be good, America will cease to be great.
It is not a demonstration of goodness for name-calling and
for such vitriol as we hear often in referring to other
people's attempts to right the wrongs that exist in our
society. But for us to maintain an element of goodness and
respect for each other and for their efforts, that's what it's
going to take for us to get this country back on track, not a
lot of vitriol and disrespect for people.
And, with that--and, without objection, all members will
have five legislative days within which to submit additional
written questions for the witnesses to the chair, which will be
forwarded to the witnesses for their response.
Chairman Clyburn. This meeting is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:41 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[all]