    [House Hearing, 117 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                           ENSURING WOMEN CAN THRIVE
                           IN A POST-PANDEMIC ECONOMY

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                            COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, D.C., MARCH 16, 2022

                                   __________

                                Serial No. 117-7

                                   __________

               Printed for the use of the Committee on the Budget

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                           Available on the Internet:
                                www.govinfo.gov

                                   __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    47-248                      WASHINGTON : 2022

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET

                      JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky, Chairman
    HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES, New York         JASON SMITH, Missouri,
    BRIAN HIGGINS, New York                Ranking Member
    BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania,      TRENT KELLY, Mississippi
      Vice Chairman                      TOM McCLINTOCK, California
    LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas                 GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin
    DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina       LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania
    JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois       CHRIS JACOBS, New York
    DANIEL T. KILDEE, Michigan           MICHAEL BURGESS, Texas
    JOSEPH D. MORELLE, New York          BUDDY CARTER, Georgia
    STEVEN HORSFORD, Nevada              BEN CLINE, Virginia
    BARBARA LEE, California              LAUREN BOEBERT, Colorado
    JUDY CHU, California                 BYRON DONALDS, Florida
    STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands   RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa
    JENNIFER WEXTON, Virginia            BOB GOOD, Virginia
    ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, Virginia  ASHLEY HINSON, Iowa
    SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas            JAY OBERNOLTE, California
    JIM COOPER, Tennessee                MIKE CAREY, Ohio
    ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
    SCOTT H. PETERS, California
    SETH MOULTON, Massachusetts
    PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington

                               Professional Staff

                         Diana Meredith, Staff Director
                      Mark Roman, Minority Staff Director

                                    CONTENTS

                                                                       Page
    Hearing held in Washington, D.C., March 16, 2022.................     1

        Hon. John A. Yarmuth, Chairman, Committee on the Budget......     1
            Prepared statement of....................................     4
        Hon. Jason Smith, Ranking Member, Committee on the Budget....     6
            Prepared statement of....................................     8
        Stefania Albanesi, Professor of Economics, University of
          Pittsburgh.................................................    11
            Prepared statement of....................................    14
        Ai-Jen Poo, Executive Director, National Domestic Workers
          Alliance...................................................    33
            Prepared statement of....................................    35
        Rosa Walker, Mother And Momsrising Member....................    51
            Prepared statement of....................................    54
        Carrie Lukas, President, Independent Women's Forum...........    57
            Prepared statement of....................................    59
        Hon. Janice Schakowsky, Member, Committee on the Budget,
          letter and report submitted for the record.................    81
        Questions submitted for the record...........................   131
        Answers submitted for the record.............................   133

                           ENSURING WOMEN CAN THRIVE
                           IN A POST-PANDEMIC ECONOMY

                                  ----------

                           WEDNESDAY, MARCH 16, 2022

                               House of Representatives
                                        Committee on the Budget
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 11 a.m., at 210
    Cannon Building, and via Zoom, Hon. John A. Yarmuth [Chairman
    of the Committee] presiding.
        Present: Representatives Yarmuth, Higgins, Doggett, Price,
    Schakowsky, Horsford, Plaskett, Jackson Lee, Jayapal; Smith,
    Kelly, Grothman, Smucker, Burgess, Carter, Cline, Boebert,
    Donalds, Feenstra, Good, Obernolte, and Carey.
        Chairman Yarmuth. This hearing will come to order. Good
    morning and welcome to the Budget Committee's hearing on
    ``Ensuring Women Can Thrive in a Post-Pandemic Economy''. At
    the outset I ask unanimous consent that the chair be authorized
    to declare a recess at any time. Without objection, so ordered.
        Now, before I welcome our witnesses I will go over a few
    housekeeping matters. Today the Committee is holding a hybrid
    hearing. Members and witnesses may participate remotely or in
    person. For individuals participating remotely, the Chair or
    staff designated by the Chair may mute a participant's
    microphone when the participant is not under recognition for
    the purpose of inadvertent background noise. If you are
    participating remotely and are experiencing connectivity
    issues, please contact staff immediately so those issues can be
    resolved.
        Members participating in the hearing room or on the remote
    platform are responsible for unmuting themselves when they seek
    recognition. We are not permitted to unmute Members unless they
    explicitly request assistance. If you are participating
    remotely and I notice that you have not unmuted yourself, I
    will ask if you would like staff to unmute you. If you indicate
    approval by nodding, staff will unmute your microphone. They
    will unmute your microphone under any other conditions.
        I would like to remind Members participating remotely in
    this proceeding to keep your camera on at all times, even if
    you are not under recognition by the chair. Members may not
    participate in more than one committee proceeding
    simultaneously. If you are on the remote platform and choose to
    participate in a different proceeding, please turn your camera
    off.
        Finally, we have established an email box for submitting
    documents before and during Committee proceedings and we have
    distributed that email address to your staff.
        Now, I want to introduce our witnesses. This morning we
    will be hearing from Dr. Stefania Albanesi, a professor of
    economics at the University of Pittsburgh, Ms. Ai-jen Poo, the
    executive director of the National Democrat--Domestic--not
    Democrat--Domestic Workers Alliance--I see that D and I go for
    it--Ms. Rosa Walker, a mother and MomsRising member, and Mrs.
    Carrie Lukas, the president of the Independent Women's Forum.
        We welcome all of you.
        I now yield myself five minutes for an opening statement.
        Every March, we celebrate Women's History Month to honor
    the vital role of women and girls in our nation's history. From
    revolutionaries, abolitionists, and suffragists to labor
    leaders, equal rights activists, and elected officials, women
    have always been on the front lines in the fight for progress.
    Generations of women have struggled and sacrificed to build a
    better country for the next generation of trailblazers to
    inherit. But despite the progress made and battles won, women,
    especially women of color, still face systemic barriers to
    opportunity.
        The COVID-19 pandemic and resulting recession raised these
    barriers even higher, worsening underlying inequities and
    disparities that have pushed women out of the labor force,
    compounded their care-giving responsibilities, and more.
        Last week marked one year since the American Rescue Plan
    was signed into law and Democrats delivered lifesaving and
    life-changing relief for working families, small businesses,
    and communities across the country. Since President Biden took
    office, we have added a record-breaking 7.4 million jobs back
    to our economy. But when you look below the surface, it is not
    hard to see the challenges women are still facing.
        Since the beginning of the pandemic, women have been pushed
    out of the work force at a shocking rate, losing 12.2 million
    jobs at the depth of the recession. Women accounted for 52
    percent of jobs lost at the peak of the crisis, despite making
    up only 47 percent of the labor force at that time. Sectors in
    which women are overly represented, like education, health
    services, leisure, and hospitality, saw the greatest job loss
    to date and have been the slowest to recover.
        Because women typically bear the brunt of childcare and
    caring for family members, as businesses shuttered, schools
    closed, and working from home became the norm for many, it was
    women, especially women of color, who found themselves laid off
    or forced to make the impossible choice between caring for
    their families or providing for them. Without childcare, in-
    person schooling, or paid leave, the burden of this crisis fell
    disproportionately on the shoulders of women.
        Women also constitute the majority of our frontline
    workers. So even if they did not lose their jobs, these women
    faced increased health risks, fewer opportunities for remote
    work, and a lack of paid leave. Again, there is a
    disproportionate impact on women of color. Black women are more
    likely to be the sole earners for their families, meaning that
    they may be forced to take lower wage jobs or more dangerous
    work to make ends meet for their families.
        Today, two years later, we have made tremendous economic
    progress, but we simply aren't there yet when it comes to women
    in the work force. When compared to February 2020 levels, there
    are currently 1.2 million women missing from the labor force.
    In contrast, the number of men in the labor force is above pre-
    pandemic levels. And not all groups have been impacted equally.
    The unemployment rate for white women is 3.1 percent, for
    Latina women it is 4.8 percent, and for Black women it is 6.1
    percent.
        Our economy cannot afford to permanently lose 1.2 million
    workers, and women should not be forced to stay out of the work
    force because we have failed to respond to very obvious unmet
    needs in our country. Congress must address these issues or we
    will be left with a partial recovery, diminished productivity,
    and curbed economic growth for decades to come.
        We have to lower the costs of childcare and extend the
    Child Tax Credit expansion. Establishing universal pre-K for
    all three-and 4-year olds is essential. U.S. workers,
    particularly women, need paid leave. And they certainly need
    and deserve equal pay.
        These are the types of investments that will make it
    possible for more women to return to the work force. They will
    help business owners fill open positions and grow. And they
    will ensure we recover from the pandemic stronger than before,
    with a more fair and equitable economy, and build an America
    that better reflects our values.
        That is what we are focusing on today at this hearing and
    that will remain a top priority of this Congress until we get
    it done.
        I now yield five minutes to the Ranking Member, Mr. Smith,
    for his opening statement.
        [The prepared statement of Chairman Yarmuth follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        It is fair to say the pandemic has had a disproportionate
    impact on women. It is also important to acknowledge that much
    of that negative impact came in the form of policies enacted in
    response to the pandemic. For example, working mothers
    represent 27 percent of Americans who left the work force
    during the pandemic. And school closures played a huge--a huge
    part. According to a 2020 study, mothers were almost 70 percent
    less likely to be working in states that closed schools early
    compared to other states. In other words, school closures
    harmed both the child and the parent.
        It was under the guise of responding to COVID-19 that just
    over a year ago Democrats chose to spend $2 trillion and less
    than 9 percent of which went to combatting and eliminating the
    virus. They ignored the warnings, including from those in their
    own party, that the spending spree would only ignite inflation.
    We now have the highest spike in prices in 40 years. The most
    recent data from February showing a year-to-year increase of
    7.9 percent, the highest in 40 years.
        Prices are up on everything from groceries to gas to the
    clothes that you put on your back. The cost of women's apparel
    is up 11 percent. And mothers are having to shell out more and
    more money for infant and toddler clothing too, with the
    pricing rises by nearly 9 percent. If Democrats want to help
    women, if they want to help women thrive in a post-pandemic
    economy, they ought to stop the inflationary spending that is
    undermining paychecks and family budgets.
        When it comes to jobs, Democrat policymakers are also
    keeping women out of the work force. Right now, 80 percent of
    the top 10 states with the highest unemployment rates for women
    are run by Democrat Governors. Of the 15 states with the lowest
    unemployment rate for women, 11 are run by Republican--11 out
    of 15 are run by Republican Governors. That is no coincidence.
    Democrats will claim that the policies in their $5 trillion
    Build Back Broke bill will solve these challenges, just as they
    claimed spending another $5 trillion will solve a spending
    driven inflation crisis. Democrats are trying to re-frame and
    rename their agenda to fit the moment rather than change the
    agenda to fix the challenges in the moment. Their spending
    policies will further drive up prices, their policies will
    reduce incentives to work and make childcare for many mothers
    more expensive. In fact, a Congressional Budget Office analysis
    from November found that the Build Back Broke government
    mandated childcare policies would raise costs for those middle-
    class families whose care is not subsidized. Those working
    mothers who are just above the income threshold to qualify for
    subsidized childcare would be forced to make a choice--work
    less to qualify or pay more out of pocket for childcare.
        To create an economic environment under which all
    Americans, but particularly women, can find greater opportunity
    to thrive, we need to only look to the recent past. Under the
    economic policies of Donald Trump, which included regulatory
    relief and tax relief that put money back in the pockets of
    working families and spurred substantial growth in our economy,
    the labor force participation rate for women reached 57.9
    percent--the highest since 2011. For mothers, that labor force
    participation rate was even higher at 72.4 percent--the highest
    since 2000. Median real earnings for women grew by 9.6 percent
    during the Trump Administration, and that is including the year
    2020. That wage growth was also 2 percentage points higher than
    wage growth for men.
        Under President Biden's economic policies, earnings for
    women have gone down by 2.6 percent, the decline for men has
    been less than still 1.2 percent. We ought to be disturbed by
    the negative impact your policies--Democrat policies--are
    having on all Americans, but since our colleagues often wish to
    make comparisons, let us be clear, under President Trump
    earnings for women grew substantially and more so than earnings
    for men. Under President Biden wage growth for women has
    declined and declined more so than for men. The data does not
    lie. It tells a clear story about how damaging lock down
    policies and a Washington knows best spending agenda have been
    and will be for women.
        To help women thrive in a post-pandemic economy, Washington
    needs to stop with the permanent pandemic narrative, stop
    undermining wages with inflationary spending and stop telling
    Americans, particularly women, how to raise their kids.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Jason Smith follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Yarmuth. I thank the Ranking Member for his
    opening remarks. I will note that I gave you 40 seconds extra
    time just----
        Mr. Smith. Thank you.
        Chairman Yarmuth [continuing]. for the log we are keeping.
        In the interest of time I ask that any other Members who
    wish to make a statement submit their statements for the record
    to the email inbox we established for receiving documents
    before and during the committee proceedings. Again, we have
    distributed that email address to your staff. I will hold the
    record open until the end of the day to accommodate those
    members who may not yet have prepared written statements.
        Once again, I would like to thank our witnesses for being
    here this morning. The Committee has received your written
    statements and they will be made part of the formal hearing
    record. You each will have five minutes to give your oral
    remarks.
        And I will now yield to Dr. Albanesi. You may unmute your
    microphone and begin when you are ready.

        STATEMENT OF STEFANIA ALBANESI, PROFESSOR OF ECONOMICS,
                        UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH

        Dr. Albanesi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Yarmuth, Ranking Member Smith, and Members of the
    Committee, thank you for inviting me to speak today.
        The COVID-19 pandemic has upended our lives and disrupted
    the economy in many ways. One reason it has been hard to
    grapple with the impact of the resulting recession is its
    unique nature. Economic downturns in the United States are
    usually associated with larger employment drop for men than for
    women. But during the COVID-19 recession employment losses were
    larger for women.
        There are labor demand and labor supply reasons for the
    gender differences in typical recessions. On the demand side,
    the asymmetry is partly explained by gender differences in the
    occupation distribution, with men primarily employed in
    production occupations and women concentrated in services,
    which tend to be cyclical. During the pandemic, however, there
    was a large drop in the demand for services, hitting women with
    the corresponding employment losses. More specifically,
    employment fell most in inflexible occupations in which remote
    work was not possible. These can be further divided into high
    contact occupations that entail close contact with co-workers
    and customers and low contact occupations that do not.
        Women are over represented in inflexible high contact
    occupations that primarily comprise personal service and
    healthcare jobs. Employment in these occupations dropped by
    more than 35 percent when the pandemic started and was still
    more than 10 percent below pre-pandemic in December 2021.
    inflexible low contact occupations, many comprising production,
    construction, transportation, and farming, exhibited a decline
    in employment of approximately 30 percent at the onset of the
    pandemic. But the job losses for women nearly were twice as
    large as those for men. And employment in these occupations was
    still approximately 5 percent lower than pre-pandemic in
    December 2021.
        On the labor supply side, married women tend to increase
    their attachment to the labor force during standard recessions,
    a form of family level insurance against the risk of job loss
    by their husbands. This mechanism acts as an automatic
    stabilizer and as the share of women in the labor force grew in
    the 1970's and 1980's, it actually mitigated the aggregate
    effects of recessions in the states. By contrast, during the
    pandemic, increased childcare need led some mothers to exit the
    labor force.
        So why did mothers, more than fathers, respond to the
    increased childcare needs by reducing labor supply? Gender
    norms possibly played a role, but from an economic perspective,
    this was likely driven by the differences and the opportunity
    costs of time measured by wages. In the United States there is
    a substantial child penalty that reduces wages for women when
    they become mothers. Three years after having their first child
    the child penalty is about 40 percent and it accounts for two-
    thirds of the overall gender wage gap in the last decade. Given
    this penalty, most working mothers at the start of the pandemic
    were likely to be earning less than their partners, leading
    them to reduce labor supply.
        There are also large racial disparities in the employment
    impact of COVID-19. During the course of 2020 employment
    dropped by 5 to 10 percentage points for Asian, black, and
    Hispanic women than for white women. In 2021 Asian and white
    women showed similar employment recovery, but black and
    Hispanic women lagged behind, likely because they are over
    represented in those inflexible occupations that cannot be
    performed remotely. Communities of color were also
    disproportionately exposed to COVID-19, which reduced their
    ability to work due to illness or the need to care for sick
    family members.
        The decline in women's employment during the pandemic has
    raised concern that the setback for women may be long-lasting.
    In the aftermath of recent recessions, a switch to automation
    during the recovery, slowed the pick up in employment. This
    pattern may well repeat since more than 30 percent of jobs in
    the occupations most affected by the pandemic are highly
    susceptible to automation.
        When it comes to labor supply, women's labor force
    participation has stagnated in the United States since at least
    the mid 1990's, after several decades of rapid growth. In 1990,
    the United States ranked fifth out of 20 three comparable
    countries in women's participation. By 2019 our rank had
    dropped to 20 first. While there are maybe many factors that
    contributed to the United States falling behind, the economic
    research clearly points to family policies as the most
    important driver.
        Three policies in particular stand out. Entitlements to
    paid parental leave, entitlements to flexible work schedules,
    and publicly provided childcare. The expansion of women's labor
    force participation in the post war period boosted aggregate
    economic performance in the United States, increasing
    productivity and the standard of living for all. This important
    engine of economic growth has stagnated in the last 30 years.
    Fortunately, we have a number of policy levers that are
    available to support women's work.
        I welcome for the discussion of this important issues
    during today's hearing.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Stefania Albanesi follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Yarmuth. Thank you very much, Doctor, for your
    testimony.
        I now recognize Ms. Poo for five minutes. Unmute your
    microphone please and begin.

    STATEMENT OF AI-JEN POO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL DOMESTIC
                            WORKERS ALLIANCE

        Ms. Poo. Chairman Yarmuth, Ranking Member Smith, and
    Members of the Committee, thank you so much for the opportunity
    to testify today.
        It has been two years since we began to experience the
    biggest disruption to the way we live, work, and care in
    America, the devastating unprecedented loss of life and
    livelihoods from COVID-19. And thanks to the extraordinary
    action and leadership on the part of Congress, we were able to
    prevent more catastrophe and stabilize our economy, rebuild a
    sense of hope for the future.
        So let me begin by thanking you for your extraordinary
    leadership.
        One of the reasons why we have hope is because COVID
    revealed both long standing inequities that we must address and
    how important the role of government is in enabling our
    success. From where I sit, the urgency of ongoing investments
    in our care infrastructure cannot be overstated. COVID revealed
    our crumbling care giving systems that have relied too heavily
    on the individual sacrifices of women and our families and a
    care work force of women and women of color were forced to live
    in poverty and precarity in order to stay in their jobs.
        One of our members from Houston, Kiana, worked as a home
    care worker for more than 20 years. She is also am other to a
    university graduate and two elementary school aged children.
    When her mother became ill, Kiana took on caring for her.
    During the pandemic Kiana lost consistent work and experienced
    homelessness with her two small children. Last summer she took
    on a job for $10 per hour as a cleaner because she couldn't
    afford childcare and she would be able to bring her children
    with her while she cleaned.
        Domestic workers like Kiana are overwhelmingly women and
    majority women of color. The typical domestic worker is paid
    about $12 per hour, which is 39.8 percent less than a typical
    non domestic worker. There is not paid family and medical
    leave, and 82 percent of domestic workers don't have a single
    paid sick day. In a survey of domestic workers from just last
    month, nearly seven in 10 respondents said they are caring for
    their own children and three in 10 are caring for sick, aging,
    or disabled family members, 79 percent told us that it had been
    difficult to find access to care, eight out of 10 reported
    having to reduce their work hours or leave a job because of
    care giving responsibilities.
        This is the reality for the work force that is at the heart
    of our care infrastructure. Meanwhile there are 50 million
    working family care givers who need home and community based
    services for their aging or disabled loved ones, many are in
    the sandwich generation who also need access to childcare in
    order to return to work. We are an aging nation. Every year, 4
    million of us will turn 65 and we are all living longer. We are
    also giving birth to 4 million babies per year.
        Due to the demand, care jobs are going to become a large
    share of the jobs of the future. They are also jobs that can't
    be outsourced or automated. They are job enabling jobs. Let us
    make them good jobs. By passing the Better Care Better Jobs
    Act, led by Congresswoman Debbie Dingell and Senator Bob Casey,
    we can meet the outsized demand for home care and create high
    quality jobs to address home care worker shortages. Renewal of
    policies from the American Rescue Plan, such as the child tax
    credit, childcare subsidies, and emergency paid leave, would
    help domestic workers better support their families. And in
    passing the National Domestic Workers Bill of Rights, led by
    Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal and Senators Kirsten Gillibrand
    and Ben Ray Lujan, we can establish long overdue rights and
    protections for this incredibly important essential work force.
        As Members of this Committee have often reminded us,
    budgets are a statement of values. In our country, we have
    never fully valued or supported the work of care. Now is the
    time. And when we do, we will all benefit, especially women and
    women of color.
        I am truly honored to be able to testify before this
    Committee today and look forward to your questions.
        Thank you so much.
        [The prepared statement of Ai-Jen Poo follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Yarmuth. Thank you very much, Ms. Poo, for your
    testimony.
        I now recognize Ms. Walker for five minutes. Unmute your
    microphone please and begin when you are ready.

                  STATEMENT OF ROSA WALKER, MOTHER AND

                           MOMSRISING MEMBER

        Ms. Walker. Good morning, Chairman Yarmuth, Ranking Member
    Smith, and Members of the Committee.
        My name is Rosa Walker and I live in Oregon City. I am an
    occupational therapist working in special education and I am a
    mom of three incredible children, Matias, age 11, Tomas, age 8,
    and Gabriel Elan, age 4. I am also a proud member of
    MomsRising.
        Like so many families across the country, the pandemic has
    taken a terrible toll on my family's physical and mental health
    and on our financial security. We are struggling because our
    country hasn't invested in basic programs, such paid family and
    medical leave, home care and high quality affordable childcare
        I am here today to urge you to create a care infrastructure
    that can provide meaningful support to families to we can
    recover from the pandemic and move forward.
        Thanks for the chance to share my story.
        At the beginning of 2020, both my husband and I were
    working full-time, my husband as the foreman of a roofing
    company and I as a learning specialist in early education. All
    three of our children were thriving in school, our two eldest
    in third and first grade, and our youngest in a small local
    preschool, which he loved--we loved, even though the high cost
    strained our budget.
        When COVID hit, our lives changed overnight. Our preschool
    closed and our older children suddenly switched to remote
    learning, and like so many parents, my husband and I scrambled
    to teach and care for our kids at home, while also working
    enough to put food on the table and pay our mortgage.
        Then, despite efforts to stay safe, our entire family
    contracted COVID. While our boys recovered quickly, both my
    husband I took much longer. Today I am still experiencing long
    COVID. I use an inhaler now and I also have an autoimmune
    condition.
        Both my husband and I reduced our work schedule, often up
    to 50 percent, for more than a year. Not only did we need to
    care for and support our children in virtual learning, we also
    needed to recover from long COVID.
        Even with the lack of paid leave, we had to do what was
    best for our children and we couldn't afford to get even
    sicker. During this time my husband also fell and broke a rib
    while working, adding still more stress.
        Virtual learning was a struggle that first year of the
    pandemic, despite both our teachers' incredible efforts and
    those of our own. We also began to see our children struggle
    with their mental health for the first time, although we worked
    so hard to find safe ways for them to socialize. We were
    fortunate to find at least some counseling in the middle of
    this huge mental health crisis, but this vital care cost money
    too.
        With less money coming in, our debt mounted quickly. We
    went from living modestly on two incomes to putting basics like
    food and medical bills on credit cards. Today we have $11,000
    in credit card debt, which would have been unthinkable before
    COVID. Despite all of the financial pressures on our family
    prior to the pandemic, student loans, housing costs, we have
    always been able to pay our bills. When the child tax credit
    payments arrive in July 2021 we felt like our elected leaders
    were finally recognizing what families like ours were facing.
    That $800 per month was world changing. It helped us pay down
    debt, it helped us cope with the rising cost of groceries, and
    it helped us re-enroll our child in his beloved preschool. The
    cost is $300 higher a month and the hours were shorter. As so
    many other preschools, ours had to adjust. It felt the
    pressures of COVID and then larger situation. But that
    preschool was vital for our son and for our ability to work.
        And then in January, just as the new variant was surging,
    Congress failed to extend the child tax credit. That extra
    income was helping our family recover disappeared. The past two
    months have been a nightmare. Our youngest child's preschool
    closed twice due to COVID outbreaks. All three children became
    ill with COVID and our eldest, while steal weakened, contracted
    Epstein-Barr Virus. He has needed to stay home for many weeks
    to heal. And then our school bus driver caught COVID, and there
    are no substitute driver's right now.
        As my husband has no paid leave, and has never had any paid
    leave, and mine is limited, over the past two months I have had
    to juggle taking care of our kids, transporting them to and
    from school along with my work responsibilities as a specialist
    in early learning.
        I participate in work meetings while driving my kids to
    school. I work early in the morning and I stay and work late at
    night to make up for lost time during the day. My nonstop 15
    hour days mean that I cannot rest enough and my new autoimmune
    condition flares up.
        Two years into this pandemic and Congress still hasn't
    guaranteed workers paid family medical leave. Without this
    basic safety net, families can't catch up. It is only March and
    I have already drained my paid leave for the year. In fact, I
    am using my final hours to be here today to share with you, our
    elected leaders, the impossible tradeoffs that my family and so
    many other families are forced to make.
        And just to be clear, all of these issues predate the
    pandemic. The past two years have simply intensified the
    problems. Without adequate care infrastructure, we have to
    choose between working enough hours to pay our bills and taking
    care of our children and our health, between counseling and
    tutoring for our children, much needed to recover from the
    pandemic and paying down debt. That is not right.
        After two years of this pandemic we are at a crucial
    decision point. Will Congress fund the care infrastructure that
    children and families need to recover and to thrive? Or will
    you turn your back on children and allow families to slide from
    financial insecurity into financial disaster? As you discuss
    how to rebuild from this pandemic, please remember our family
    and all the other families. I hope that you will work to build
    a better America, one that works for all of us.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Rosa Walker follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Yarmuth. Thank you, Ms. Walker, for your
    testimony.
        I now recognize Mrs. Lukas, here in the hearing room. You
    are recognized for five minutes.

    STATEMENT OF CARRIE LUKAS, PRESIDENT, INDEPENDENT WOMEN'S FORUM

        Mrs. Lukas. Thank you.
        Good morning, I am Carrie Lukas, president of Independent
    Women's Forum. Independent Women's Forum is a nonprofit
    organization dedicated to developing and advancing policies
    that aren't just well intended, but that actually enhance
    people's freedoms, opportunity, and well-being.
        IWF employees about 30 full-time employees and more than a
    dozen additional contractors and fellows. We have studied the
    issue of women's employment as a policy topic, but I also know
    about this first hand as an employer. I am a working mother of
    five children between ages seven and 16, so I know personally
    about balancing work and family life.
        Before we consider what policies will help women reenter
    the work force, we need to be clear about why women left in the
    first place. After all, women didn't leave the work force just
    because of a virus, but really because of society's response to
    COVID-19. Women had made record labor force gains during the
    Trump Administration, and unfortunately these gains were lost
    during the pandemic and the economic shutdowns that followed,
    and we have yet to fully recover.
        But these economic losses have not been uniform throughout
    the country. Rather, they have been most profound in states
    that most aggressively shut down schools and locked down their
    economies. In these states, which are disproportionately led by
    Democratic Governors and state legislatures, women are still
    suffering the worst economic effects and have the highest rates
    of unemployment. Reduced earnings and lower labor force
    participation will lead to lower earnings for women, not just
    today, but for years to come.
        So Congress should consider four lessons we have learned
    from this experience to inform policymaking decision moving
    forward. The first lesson that we learned is that our public K-
    12 school system is fundamentally flawed and needs to be
    reformed. Like many working parents during COVID-19, I had to
    juggle my job along with managing my five kids' schooling
    online. Where I lived in Virginia private schools all opened at
    the start of 2020 with in-person learning, but our public
    schools fought to stay closed for as long as possible until
    mid-April 2021.
        Public schools behaved this way because they don't see
    parents and students as their customers. And why would they?
    Their ability to pay the bills and keep their jobs depends on
    pleasing government officials and not serving families. We need
    to change this dynamic. We need to fundamentally transform our
    K-12 public education system so that schools see parents and
    students as valued customers and never again fail families and
    our country so spectacularly. Rather than funding systems,
    money should follow each student so that parents have leverage
    and schools know that if they fail to provide value, parents
    will take their business elsewhere.
        Second, and relatedly, do not embrace any policy that would
    make our daycare and preschool system function more like public
    K-12. At the height of the pandemic, about 60 percent of
    childcare centers closed, but by the end of 2020 an estimated
    73 percent of preschool, day care, and childcare programs had
    reopened. In contrast, at the end of 2020, only about a third
    of public K-12 schools were opening. Imagine how much worse
    women would have suffered if our day care system was run like
    our public schools and had refused to provide in-person
    service. Policy makers should find ways to may childcare more
    affordable, plentiful, and diverse, including eliminating
    unnecessary regulations that raise the cost of childcare, but
    they should reject plans like those contained in Build Back
    Better, which would have made government the funder of day care
    and reoriented providers toward pleasing regulators and
    policymakers instead of families and parents.
        Third, women need a diversity of work and employment
    opportunities. And we frequently hear that women need
    flexibility, but what does flexibility mean? True flexibility
    means having a range of employment options. This is why about
    23 million women work as independent contractors. They want
    more freedom and control. Of course, some women want full-time
    work and benefits, and that should be their choice, but
    measures to try to limit people's ability to work as
    independent contractors, such as contained in the Pro Act, will
    backfire on women and force millions of women to face a black
    and white choice of either accepting a nine to five style job
    or leaving the work force entirely. This policy approach should
    be rejected.
        Finally, everyone wants workers to have paid leave and
    policymakers should work to help people access financial
    support when they need to take leave. Yet the wrong approach
    would be to create a one size fits all federal paid leave
    entitlement program or mandate. One size fits all entitlement
    system leave workers worse off with less income and less true
    flexibility, and for many, reduced benefits. They take money
    from lower income workers in the form of payroll taxes and
    transfer that money to wealthier workers, as has been shown
    time and again. This approach also should be rejected.
        Today employers face tremendous headwinds, inflation,
    shortages, rising labor costs, and extraordinary uncertainty.
    And these are mostly driven by bad policy choices and
    government overspending. Policy makers need to embrace the
    concept of doing no harm, stop overspending, and intervening in
    the economy in ways that leave workers poorer and with less
    opportunity to find work relationships that allow them to
    pursue their own visions of happiness.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Carrie Lukas follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Yarmuth. Thank you for your testimony. I thank all
    the witnesses for their testimony.
        We will now begin our question and answer session. As a
    reminder, Members can submit questions to be answered later in
    writing. Those questions and responses will be made part of the
    formal hearing record. Any Members who wish to submit questions
    for the record may do so by sending them electronically to the
    email inbox we have established within seven days of the
    hearing.
        I will, as is my habit, defer my questioning to the end, so
    I now recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr. Higgins, for
    five minutes.
        Mr. Higgins. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        The expanded tax credit was initiated in July and extended
    through December. During that period of time about 3.7 million
    kids were pulled out of poverty and the reduction in poverty
    rates in America was about 30 percent. 10,000 kids in America
    are born every day and 10,000 people turn 65 every single day.
    An earlier program called Social Security provided income
    security for those 65 and older and pulled about 50 percent of
    the elderly population in America out of poverty. This expanded
    child tax credit was particularly effective over this 6-month
    period of time.
        And the whole idea here is if you have, you know, 100,000
    kids that are born every day--or 10,000 that are born every
    day, you are investing in the future productivity of young
    people by helping making them happier, healthier, and thus more
    productive. We should all, regardless of our political
    persuasion, want our people to be more economically independent
    and self-sufficient. And I think this is a program that is
    proven to be highly effective.
        Dr. Albanesi, you teach economics, correct?
        Dr. Albanesi. Yes, I do.
        Mr. Higgins. You teach economics at the University of
    Pennsylvania?
        Dr. Albanesi. At the University of Pittsburgh, yes.
        Mr. Higgins. Pittsburgh. I'm sorry, University of
    Pittsburgh. You focus in on macroeconomics and labor economics
    as it relates to women and families?
        Dr. Albanesi. That is correct, yes.
        Mr. Higgins. OK. Do you have any evidence of a cost benefit
    analysis to the expanded child tax credit as it relates to the
    amount of money we spend on the program compared to what the
    increased productivity is of young people that benefit from it
    to and through adulthood?
        Dr. Albanesi. Yes. Actually, there is quite a bit of
    economic research on the impact of, you know, additional
    spending, you know, on young children, both in terms of the
    educational opportunities, sort of being able to enroll
    children in better childcare and preschool options and so on.
    So that has been demonstrated to actually improve achievement
    of children later on life and actually have community level
    benefits, such as reducing crime rates and increasing income
    overall.
        There are also benefits for parents, you know in the--you
    know, of these children in terms of better ability to work. And
    there is also some benefits in the very long run. You may have
    read that one of the reasons why the millennial generation is
    postponing and reducing the number of kids that they want to
    have is that kids are very expensive. So that is really
    generating demographic stress on our society because there are,
    you know, fewer and fewer young people because of the declining
    fertility rates due to the high cost of raising children.
        So there would be long-term macro benefits from that, sort
    of in terms of possibly stimulating fertility as well.
        Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Doctor.
        So I guess here is what I am getting at here. You know,
    Brown University did a study concluding that over the past two
    decades America spent $6.2 trillion in three Middle East wars.
    Not one kid was lifted out of poverty, no one family was helped
    with affordable childcare, and not one kid benefited from
    universal pre-K. And, you know, the economics of war is
    terrible. It doesn't produce any economic benefit that is
    broadly felt.
        There are value investments and the child tax credit I
    believe is one of them. A fellow economist of your, Mark Zandi
    from Moody's Analytics, said that for every dollar that you
    spend in infrastructure in America you can produce $1.60 in
    economic activity. So the return on investment for that dollar
    that you spent is 60 percent. Conservative economist. He also
    did an analysis on the tax cut primarily for corporations and
    said for every dollar that you spent for that tax cut, $1.9
    trillion, you could expect to get a return of about $.33. so
    your loss in investment was 67 percent.
        So it would be helpful in advocating for expanded child tax
    credit, universal pre-K, and affordable quality childcare if we
    could associate, if it is achievable, a dollar amount spent to
    a dollar amount returned in terms of economic activity.
        And I see that my time has run out. I will yield back.
        Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman's time has expired.
        I now yield 10 minutes to the Ranking Member.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mrs. Lukas, since the start of COVID-19 over two years ago
    we have watched politicians and elected officials enact lock
    downs, mandates, and decrees on those they were entrusted to
    represent. More often than not these actions were not backed up
    by science, but more an assumption that Americans couldn't be
    trusted to make the best decisions for themselves.
        One of the most harmful of these policies was forced school
    closures and virtual classrooms. Kids suffered, parents
    suffered, and we are still playing catch up today. I have
    argued that this was harmful to students first and foremost,
    but also harmful to parents, particularly working mothers.
        Could you take a moment, based on your personal experience
    as a working mother of five school aged children, as well as
    what you have heard from parents in your community and
    elsewhere, to explain the impact of some of these pandemic
    responses, like school closures, on kids, families, and
    particularly on working mothers?
        Mrs. Lukas. Well, absolutely. You know, I do think that
    when you think about the mistakes that were made when we look
    back at the response to COVID-19, what happened in public
    schools in the K-12 schools is going to stand out as the worst
    policy that was enacted. And it did mean that many parents,
    especially those who did not have jobs that could be done
    remotely, that they were forced into impossible choices,
    leaving children behind to try to log on themselves, to
    essentially miss school during that time or to quit their jobs.
    When I think about this, I do think about this mostly from the
    children and as the--as Mr. Higgins was just referring to--when
    we think about the dollar numbers that are associated with
    this. Children lost on average six months of learning when it
    came to math, but this was not across the board. A fellow
    witness talked about systemic inequities, but it was minority
    children, it was African American children who were the most
    harmed by this. Their schools stayed closed the longest and
    they suffered the worst learning losses. And I do think this is
    something that should be eye opening to everyone. Democrats and
    Republicans should be asking why, why did our public schools
    not care and not prioritize our children.
        Mr. Smith. You know, under the economic policies of the
    Trump Administration, which included tax relief and regulatory
    relief, work force participation for mother's reached 72.4
    percent, the highest since 2000. Over 3.5 million jobs were
    created for women under Trump, securing 56 percent of the job
    gains and lifting women's employment to the highest level in
    history. Women's wages grew by 9.6 percent as well.
        But under President Biden earnings for women have gone down
    by 2.6 percent. In fact, the wage gap between women and men
    grew smaller under President Trump while the gap is now
    widening under President Biden.
        What policies should the government be pursuing right now
    to help close the work force participation gap between where it
    was under President Trump and his policies to where it is today
    under President Biden, as well as address the widening wage gap
    occurring under President Biden?
        Mrs. Lukas. You know, I think that one of the lessons for
    Congress is first, again, this idea of doing no harm. Because I
    do think when it looks at what is a cause of so many problems,
    it has been the forced closures, the regulations that have been
    put on business that has made it so hard for them to stay open.
    You look around cities like here in Washington, where so many
    of the local businesses are no longer open, the eateries that
    have closed because of the economic shutdowns. So I think,
    first, let us open up. America needs to open up and stay open
    for business so that there is some security. We need to be
    confident that our schools are not going to close again. For a
    lot of moms who have stepped out, they were worrying about
    school closures all this year. Some had their kids sent home
    again during omicron. That cannot be the default. We have to be
    able to have some security in knowing that we are going to be
    able to continue to participate.
        Mr. Smith. Mrs. Lukas, I would have to say, the people of
    Missouri would agree with your statements 100 percent.
        And in speaking of a lot of regulations, as of February
    2022 80 percent of the states with the lowest Black female
    unemployment rates have Republican Governors. Of the 20 states
    with the highest black female unemployment rates, 70 percent
    have Democrat Governors. President Obama's economist, Larry
    Summers, cites vaccine mandates as something which took upwards
    of 400,000 people out of the work force. Given the overall
    black vaccination rates are behind those of the overall
    population by 28 percentage points, can you speak to how
    policies that Democrat run states have pursued, especially
    things like vaccine mandates, would contribute to a
    disproportionate impact on black females and opportunities they
    would have to enter the work force?
        Mrs. Lukas. Well, absolutely. With this lower rate of
    vaccination among African American women, this is just locking
    people out of jobs. And I do think that, you know, we have
    had--this is--we think about the decisions that were being made
    two years ago when COVID was just coming into effect. We now
    know so much more, and especially when it comes to post
    omicron. We know that these types of mandates are no longer
    necessary. Your vaccine status does not affect my risks. So we
    should show some kindness, allow true diversity of allowing
    people to make choices that work for them so that they can work
    and we can all get on with our lives and respect people and not
    continue to create unnecessary barriers for people's
    participation.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you.
        Another idea our Democrat colleagues proposed is government
    mandated pre-K, which would give government more control over
    education decisions. Well, we have seen over the past few years
    what happens when overly emboldened school boards and local
    officials think they know best what kids should be learning.
        In November, the Independent Women's Forum published a
    piece noting that the use of critical race theory has emerged
    in a neighboring district to mine. To what extent do you see
    local officials, or even federal officials, with the type of
    government mandates Democrats have suggested, trying to dictate
    the type of curriculum, care, and teaching for American kids.
        Mrs. Lukas. I think this is so important. We have seen when
    it comes to K-12 public schools they have become such a flash
    point and it is because parents no longer feel confident that
    their public schools have their kids' best interest at heart.
    And this is true when it comes to curriculum, to masking
    policies, to health decisions, to gender. And I do worry. I
    think that parents out there should be warned that if the
    federal government takes over childcare and day care centers
    and preschools and begins to decide what is a qualified day
    care center and what can be open or subsidized, parents are
    going to be fighting these same battles over curriculum, CRT,
    gender ideology, are all going to come to your local
    preschools. And preschools are going to be in a terrible
    position. More than 50 percent of childcare are faith based and
    they are going to have a very hard time meeting with the
    demands of regulators. And I fear that they will be crowded
    out. That is why I absolutely reject the idea that federal
    government should take over our preschool programs.
        Mr. Smith. So, parents know best for their children, not
    the government.
        Thank you.
        My final question--and this is for all witnesses. This past
    Friday we marked the 1-year anniversary since congressional
    Democrats and President Biden pushed through a $2 trillion
    spending bill that they claimed was need to combat COVID-19. A
    year later, it is now obvious their spending has done little to
    combat COVID-19. In fact, less than 9 percent of the spending
    was even earmarked for such purposes. And they are already back
    asking for more COVID-19 money.
        Anyway, it is also obvious that unleashing this flood of
    spending sparked a massive spike in consumer prices that are
    crippling family budgets and undermining Americans' paychecks
    because of a 40 year high in inflation.
        How have these high prices and spending driven inflation
    affected you, your household budgets, and others in your
    community? And that is for all witnesses.
        Chairman Yarmuth. Does anyone want to take that question
    first? Since Mrs. Lukas has had the balance of the time, does
    anybody want to--you only have a minute left in the Ranking
    Member's time.
        Mr. Smith. Well, Mrs. Lukas can go first since it is taking
    so long.
        Let us hear from Mrs. Lukas first.
        Mrs. Lukas. Sure. You know, it is--we are talking about how
    many people needed support and we are talking about the
    important of a, you know, $300 a month check, but now we see as
    inflation--as you are seeing 10 percent increases in housing
    costs, the doubling of gas prices, you know, childcare costs
    going up. We are going to be--we are chasing this with--
    inflation is eating up any support of those rising wages. And
    it has just been devastating. It is something that every mom
    sees every time she walks into the grocery store, every time
    she goes to buy her kids, you know, the birthday present and
    those things. It is incredibly harmful and threatening. A lot
    of insecurity right now as we look to what the future is going
    to be.
        Chairman Yarmuth. OK. You have succeeded in your
    filibuster, Mr. Smith, so----
        Mr. Smith. It is getting the facts for the American people
    to see what is going on.
        Thank you.
        Chairman Yarmuth. Your time has expired.
        I now recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Doggett, for
    five minutes
        Mr. Doggett. Listening to the gentleman's diatribe, I think
    perhaps he lives in a parallel universe. I live in a state with
    a Republican Governor, perhaps the worst Governor Texas has
    ever had, and the cost being paid by Texas women, particularly
    women of color, poor women, is an immense cost of being left
    uninsured, without access to adequate childcare, often with
    interference in local public health decisions that have made
    this pandemic and its impact so much worse.
        But to focus in on the topic of the day and the apparent
    willingness of the Republican Members of our Committee to do
    nothing from the federal level to meet the challenge of
    inadequate childcare and lack of early educational
    opportunities that have enjoyed strong bipartisan support in
    the past.
        I want to pose a question to our excellent witnesses and
    just offer an occasional additional comment.
        If think if we are to build a better Texas and a better
    America, we have got to build a better future for women across
    the country. A stronger foundation is needed on which a woman's
    hard earned paycheck isn't eaten up by the very same care
    giving that enables her to leave home to go to work every day.
    We have talked to parents about the crushing burden of
    navigating childcare, of finding quality childcare, safe
    childcare, and parenting during this pandemic. Some Texans have
    been more than ready to return to work, but the lack of
    childcare prompted them to drop out of the work force--falling
    disproportionately on women. And parents who have found
    childcare in recent months have had no guarantees each morning
    when they drop off their child as to whether a call would come
    to quarantine because of COVID.
        Expanding affordable childcare is a key to unlocking more
    opportunity and economic security for parents and particularly
    for mothers. And it is important to all of us to reinvigorate
    our economy by getting these women back into the work force and
    having the support they need to do just that.
        High quality care is essential to early learning, essential
    to economic development, but years of insufficient funding and
    a devastating pandemic have sharpened the crisis for our
    providers, while costs have often been inaccessible--make care
    inaccessible for families. And quality childcare cost more than
    tuition at a 4-year college. And for an infant it is even more
    expensive. For years we have worked to try to ensure that we
    get the health care coverage gap closed, and I have been
    concerned in recent legislation that we ensure we don't open a
    second coverage gap in the event that the ideological
    commitment of some of theses Republican State Governors, like
    mine in Texas, refuses federal support for childcare. It is
    essential that our legislation provide that local governments
    can step forward, as they did when we had a failed President
    Trump and Governors that refused to lead and got us through the
    pandemic, that those local officials will be able to access any
    federal funds to protect our children's futures and our
    parents' progress.
        Of course, the child tax credit, continuing it is so
    important.
        But, Ms. Walker, I appreciate your testimony. Let me just
    ask you in the time remaining to comment further on the need
    for the critical provision of childcare, particularly for
    children from infancy on. Can you speak a little more about
    that and your family's experience and the need to do this for
    everyone, regardless of the zip code or the whim of some
    politician?
        Ms. Walker. Thank you for that question.
        And I am speaking as a mother but also as an early
    education specialist from more than a decade of experience
    partnering with providers in day cares and preschools.
        Research and common sense both show us that zero to five is
    a critical period for a child, a human's development. And our
    current system, from what I see in my work as I collaborate
    with providers in all sorts of different setting, it is not
    working. We are not able to pay a living wage to so many of our
    workers who do this incredibly valuable work. And it is not
    working for our families because it is an incredible cost.
        So what I time and time again--is that it is not working.
    There is a pivoted cost. There is not enough space in options.
    I hear from families who have incredibly long drives in rural
    areas, I hear from families that are 2.5 years on a wait list.
    Again, these are our children, these are our youngest citizens,
    and they deserve our best. And what I see is that across the
    board there is work to be done.
        Mr. Doggett. Thank you very much for your testimony and the
    contribution of all of our witnesses.
        And I yield back.
        Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman's time is expired.
        I now recognize the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Kelly,
    for five minutes.
        Mr. Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And I just want to start, this is not just pandemic
    related. I go back to my wife of 31 years. She is the--when I
    mobilized in 2009 and 2010 to Iraq, she raised two pre-teen
    children, she carried a baby for nine months, she delivered
    that baby, she worked a job, and she took care of everything on
    the home front. So you want to talk about--I don't understand
    where she got the determination, the dexterity, all the things
    that are necessary. But here is the difference between my wife
    and I--and these are the things we need to address, but we are
    asking the wrong people. We get people up here with Ph.Ds who
    are Washington elitists or are elitists somewhere else, we
    don't ask the rural people of Mississippi who have a hard time,
    what can we do to make it better. But my wife has been allowed
    to have jobs. I have been allowed to have a career. That is the
    difference in earning power, is that I can sustain a career
    because of what she has sacrificed to her family.
        COVID hit, inflation from all the money that we spent--what
    does that mean? It doesn't mean all these big words, it means
    groceries are higher, it means gas costs too much to go, that
    we have intentionally inflated gas prices like we did under the
    first Obama Administration, it means that day care is not
    available, or if it is, it costs so much. We don't talk about
    rural broadband. So most of my people don't even have
    broadband. So they don't have a virtual option. They can't get
    healthcare, they can't get education, they can't do all those
    things.
        Mrs. Lukas, you seem to get it. Trust me, we are
    outnumbered one and half to one in my family. You are
    outnumbered two and a half to one, OK, so much greater. What
    policies, what three policies have hurt the most in the COVID
    pandemic that have hurt working mothers and their abilities to
    form careers, not jobs.
        Mrs. Lukas. You know, I want to talk a little bit about--
    you know, I love the idea of this difference between career and
    jobs. But I want to say just one thing as a mom, is a lot of
    moms really want jobs. And I want to make sure that as we talk
    about the role of being a care giver, that we recognize that a
    lot of women make sacrifices and do--when we talk about what
    drives the wage gap--a lot of women have decided that they are
    going to take a step back and intentionally not make as much
    money, make a sacrifice, so that they can have the capacity to
    support their family and be present for their children. And I
    want that to be their right. And we shouldn't measure
    everything by money, the amount of money earned, although we of
    course want women to have income earning opportunities.
        But of course a lot of people did lose jobs and they
    didn't--it wasn't by choice, it was because of these economic
    closures, which made it impossible to work. Literally just
    drove businesses out of business. It was the school closures,
    which were so devastating to working families, but particularly
    working moms. And, you know, I think there are like a lot of
    other burdens, including the runaway spending, that have helped
    fuel this inflation, which is now hurting women as consumers,
    but also as business women and as workers.
        Mr. Kelly. Thank you.
        And, you know, I am just thinking, there is a--so I have
    served a long time in the military. My wife has gone through
    three deployments and it completely tears a family apart when
    you have to do those things.
        But that being said, I was always afforded the ability, as
    a military service member, when I was taken out of my civilian
    job, when I came back I got any pay raises, any promotions, any
    things that would have occurred positively to me, I came back
    in at least as good, and usually better position than I left.
    Is there something we can do for working mothers during that
    critical times when they have kids in school, when they have--
    they are having--you know, having birth of their first child or
    second child and they are taken out of the work force, not by
    that, or they have to care for an aging parent, which in may
    cases falls on women, not men? Is there an opportunity to look
    at something as much like the Military Leave Act that could
    apply to mothers in the work force?
        Mrs. Lukas. You know, Independent Women's Forum has
    explored a lot how we can expand paid leave, especially for
    those with lower incomes. You know, the problem is that so
    often the well intended approaches on paid leave--and we have
    seen this in some states--let us see, it is like Rhode Island
    and California, where they do enact a paid leave program that
    taxes and gives a defined set of benefits. And that ends up
    usually backfiring, especially on those low-income workers. And
    we have seen reduced labor force participation and lower wages,
    which is exactly the opposite of what we want.
        Independent Women's Forum has looked at how to make the
    existing entitlement programs, things like Social Security,
    accessible to people--a woman who has just had a baby. So she
    would be able to receive some of that Social Security money
    early and then pay it back later. So it would be budget
    neutral.
        So those are--there are ideas, innovative out of the box
    ideas worth exploring.
        Mr. Kelly. Final comments. We have just got to pay
    attention to the working class and rural populations who
    actually earn and things that work for them, not the elites.
        And I yield back.
        Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman yields back.
        I now recognize the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr.
    Price, for five minutes.
        Mr. Price. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks to our panel
    for a very helpful discussion.
        I want to refer to the a couple of tables that maybe they
    can be entered in the record as the predicate for my question.
    They come from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and they were
    included in some of the preparatory material we had today. And
    ask maybe any of our witnesses who wish to comment on these,
    maybe starting with our economist and going on from there.
        One of the charts has to do with the return to the labor
    force of men and women, the comparison of the rates of return
    to the labor force. Something like 1.4 million job differential
    between the return the labor force of men and women, return to
    the 2020 level of employment. And then another table that
    indicates that while women's labor force participation rates
    have recovered modestly, they are still below historic highs.
    That does raise some additional question of why they declined
    after 1908 a couple of points. But, in any case, they are
    considerably short of the historic highs now in this period as
    the pandemic eases.
        There has been a lot of focus today--and you did a very
    good job of focusing on the care economy and the way the care
    economy, of course, especially affects women, and the gaps in
    the care economy that may account for a lot of this failure to
    return to the labor force. There has also been discussion
    though of the kind of discernment that workers, men and women,
    may be exercising in this period as they think about returning
    to the labor force. What they--and not everyone of course has
    the luxury of exercising that kind of discernment, some just
    have to get--do the best they can. But others may be reflecting
    on their low wages or their inadequate benefits. And in the
    case of women, of course, there is even more to reflect on in
    terms of wage discrimination and various kinds of challenges in
    the workplace that if they are able, they may just not want to
    put up with anymore. Or at least they want to bargain for a
    better deal.
        So that does raise the question, to what extent have they
    gotten a better deal. What can you tell us about the way that--
    how widespread this is, first of all. The extent to which
    employers, wages, benefits, those kinds of things have
    responded to this and have helped draw people back to the labor
    force. And to what extent have they fallen short.
        You see where I am coming here? I am getting away from the
    care economy to some of these other factors that have to do
    with the attractiveness of the jobs that are available and
    whether people have an inclination, whether they have the
    discretion and the inclination to hold out for better
    conditions.
        So I would--there has been a lot of talk about this, and I
    would appreciate your helping us reflect on it.
        Dr. Albanesi. Yes, thank you. Thank you, representative.
        A couple of points there. So if we look at labor force
    participation, we need to distinguish, you know, women and men
    with a college education as opposed to women and men without a
    college education. So if we look at college graduates, their
    participation hasn't really declined, even for parents and
    mothers with children. They have been extremely stressed the
    fact that the--in addition to working remotely, they had to
    take care of their children, but their participation hasn't
    dropped very much. So most of the decline in participation is
    for women without a college degree. And those are the women
    that work in these inflexible occupations, so the care economy,
    production jobs, and so on.
        And also the decline in participation that we have seen is
    not coming from women who just quit their job, it is coming
    from women who became unemployed first. So the fact that
    certain services, you know, were hit by the fact that, you
    know, not just the mitigation measure. So what we have seen
    from foot traffic data coming from cell phones is well before
    mitigation measures were introduced. You know, people stopped
    going to restaurants, people stopped going to the gym, and so
    on. So the risk of infection affects behavior even before, you
    know, the government made a mandate that, you know, restaurants
    should only do takeout. And so that is an important observation
    because the women who were able to keep their job, they
    struggled immensely, but they kept it. And women who were laid
    off, you know, eventually, you know, left the work force. And
    that is a combination of this childcare, you know, and care
    needs in general, but also maybe the perspective of not being
    able to get another job, you know, in the same industry.
        So we know that, you know, one of the reasons why leisure
    and hospitality jobs haven't recovered is not necessarily, you
    know, government mandated closures--at this point there are
    none in the United States. But, for example, you know, business
    travel has dropped dramatically. You know, people do Zooms now,
    they don't, you know, fly to another city for a meeting. And so
    the leisure and hospitality services are experiencing what we
    refer to as the reallocation shock. So jobs in that sector are
    going to be permanently lower.
        So if you were working in that sector and you lost your
    job, you might, you know, not have a job to go back to, and so
    you don't even look, particularly if you are also saddled with
    childcare needs.
        So the issue is quite complex and, you know, there is
    always a demand side. You know, demand for certain jobs has
    permanently declined as a function of the pandemic. And then
    there is also the supply side, you know, all these sort of
    childcare challenges that we have been discussing. And it is
    useful to sort of look at both to better understand what is
    going on.
        Mr. Price. Thank you very much.
        My time has expired, but I would invite any of the other
    witnesses who want to supply some helpful information on this
    to do so for the record.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Yarmuth. Mr. Price, is there a specific request
    you have for submitting information for the record?
        Mr. Price. No, just--we didn't get to the other witnesses
    and if they have a response to the question I posed, the kind
    of explanation that Dr. Albanesi gave, I would appreciate them
    supplementing the record.
        Chairman Yarmuth. I will ask for unanimous that if you have
    material that you submit for the record that--Mr. Price, that
    it be approved.
        Without objection, so ordered.
        And now your time is expired.
        I now recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr.
    Smucker, for five minutes.
        Mr. Smucker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, ranking member, for
    scheduling this important hearing. We, I think, all share a
    concern of the impact that COVID had on women and their
    families and of the impact that government policies relative to
    COVID, in response to COVID has had on women.
        And so I think it is a good time to evaluate our policies
    and I think everyone watching can know that we all share the
    desire to help women and their families achieve their own
    American dream. And we are--we hear that some of the issues
    that you all are faced with, and particularly Ms. Walker. We
    thank you for sharing your story, which is similar to many
    other stories of other families. So it is a good time to look
    at the impact of policies and what is affecting American
    families.
        And I can tell you the No. 1 issue, maybe second to Ukraine
    and security, is inflation today. And I think Democrat policies
    that have been put forth directly resulted, or at least had a
    significant impact on inflation and the impact of that has been
    felt by women and their families.
        I received over 1,000 inputs from constituents in my
    district with regard to how inflation is impacting them. I
    think about Connie who is 70 years old from the town of New
    Holland in my district. She recently picked up a part-time job
    to make ends meet because of the price increased caused by
    inflation. Tanya from Lancaster had trouble keeping her home at
    a comfortable temperature this winter due to high energy costs.
    And Sherri from Columbia, Pennsylvania tells me that inflation
    restricts--and I quote--''what she eats and where she goes''.
    Not only does she feel the pinch at the grocery store and at
    the pump, but she also recognizes that inflation undermines all
    her buying power.
        So, Mr. Chairman, if we are scheduling hearings on impacts
    and what our constituents are feeling, I would certainly
    suggest that we do a hearing specifically looking at the impact
    of inflation, what is causing that, and what we can--we can
    prevent it. I think it would be a great topic.
        We knew--one of the moments that I am proud of here is when
    we came together in a bipartisan way and passed the CARES Act,
    brought together the drug industry through Operation Warp
    Speed. We were together to combat the impacts of COVID. But we
    couldn't have disagreed more on the need or the impact of the
    $1.9 trillion Rescue Plan. I can tell you that economists were
    telling us that it would result in years of inflation like we
    hadn't seen in a long, long time. The Democrats were warned
    about that when we passed it. Larry Summers has already been
    mentioned here. I quote--of course he was the treasury
    secretary under Clinton. He said, and I quote, ``I think this
    is the least responsible macroeconomic policy that we've had in
    the last 40 years.'' He also wrote in the Washington Post that
    the proposed $1.9 trillion stimulus could ignite inflationary
    pressures of a kind that we have not seen in a generation. That
    turned out to be true. We now have 40-year highs in inflation
    and it is a direct result of misguided policies putting
    trillions of dollars into the economy that did, frankly, more
    harm than good. And not much of that bill went directly to
    combat inflation anyway.
        And so I agree we should be looking at this, but we should
    be clear eyed about what is happening, what has caused that,
    and what we can do to fix it.
        Mrs.--and I am sorry--Lukas--didn't have your name--can you
    just react to that? I would like to hear your response.
        And I am going to say one other thing. You know, it was
    brought up that women's income, real income, because of
    inflation has declined 2.6 percent compared to in the previous
    Administration had grown by 9.6 percent. But could you talk
    just a little about whether you agree, how you feel about the
    impact of inflation on women?
        Mrs. Lukas. Yes. And, you know, I would like to talk. I
    have heard a lot of calls for additional spending, and that
    worries me. And I think another thing we really need to explore
    is all the unspent money. You look at this, the calls for
    increased funding of day care. Well, right now there are 20
    states that have not spent even 50 percent of the money that
    was allocated as a part of these COVID relief packages. Public
    schools have over $150 billion left in COVID money. What are
    they doing with it? I mean why--can't we give this to parents?
    I hear the stories of people having to pay for tutoring. Why
    are they paying that? Don't let the public schools keep that
    money, give it to people like my fellow witness who are paying
    for tutoring to make up for the job that their public schools
    didn't do.
        Before we spend more money, let us make sure we actually
    track what has happened with those that you guys have already
    allocated.
        Mr. Smucker. Thank you. And I am out of time.
        Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman's time is expired.
        I now recognize the gentlewoman from Illinois, Ms.
    Schakowsky, for five minutes.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I first want to enter into the record a letter and report
    from the Chicago Foundation for Women, an organization that for
    the last 30 years has really focused on lifting up women and
    girls. And in their report, among other things, they say--they
    discuss how ``care giving responsibility has landed squarely on
    women throughout the pandemic''. So if I could have unanimous--
    --
        Chairman Yarmuth. Without objection.
        Ms. Schakowsky. OK.
        [Letter and report submitted for the record follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        I would like to devote the rest of my time to Ai-Jen Poo.
    She is, as you know, the executive director of the National
    Domestic Workers Alliance and Caring Across Generations, which
    has done so much I think to raise the important issues of what
    the needs are right now in our economy for so many people.
        So if you would focus especially on workers. You know, we
    call them the heroes of the pandemic and yet they are in such
    great need. If you could talk for a while--five minutes is so
    short that you had before. Take the rest of my time.
        Ms. Poo. Thank you so much, Congresswoman.
        I do want to take a moment to just name that among the
    fastest growing job categories in our entire economy, not just
    for women but in our entire economy, are personal care aids and
    home healthcare workers. And these are workers who earn on
    average $18,200 per year. Because of the growing aging
    population in this country, we know that the demand for this
    work force is only going to continue to grow. A Congressman
    mentioned earlier rural communities. There are massive home
    care deserts throughout rural communities all over this country
    because we have labor shortages. Workers cannot survive on the
    income that they earn and pay for gas to get to work on the
    incomes that they earn. They don't have access to healthcare or
    a safety net or paid time off. The quality of these jobs is so
    poor that we cannot sustain the current work force we have, let
    alone the huge demand that we need going into the future as an
    aging nation. We have the opportunity to make these jobs good
    jobs for the 21st century, just like we did for manufacturing
    jobs in the 1930's, where one generation could do better than
    the next. If we invest in care jobs becoming living wage jobs
    with real economic security and access to a safety net, we will
    create a pathway to the middle class for literally millions of
    working class and working poor women and their families.
        It is a huge--it is a win-win-win investment and the cost
    of elder care to states right now is extraordinary because of
    our over reliance on nursing homes and nursing home care. When
    we invest in a home care work force and home and community
    based services--which is a big part of the plan in the build
    back better agenda--when we invest in a home and community base
    services, we are investing in cost savings on the part of
    states and the federal government long-term because the cost of
    home and community based care is a third of what it costs
    states to pay for nursing home care for people who need it.
        So it is a win-win-win. Lower costs for states and the
    federal government, better jobs for a group of workers who have
    been forced to live in working poverty, and their families,
    support for working family care-givers who need the support of
    a strong work force and access to these programs in order to
    participate in the economy, and a dignified quality of life for
    our growing aging population in this country and people with
    disabilities who need these services and prefer to live and age
    in the home and community. What could be a better investment of
    our public dollars?
        And investing in this work force, these are job enabling
    jobs. There are supporting all of us working class families who
    need this care to be able to do and contribute what we want to
    on our terms across all sectors of the economy.
        So I do want to say the care economy investments are in my
    mind the highest return on investment, both from a job
    standpoint and from a long-term economic sustainability for
    working class families standpoint.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you so much. Appreciate these
    additional words. Appreciate it.
        Chairman Yarmuth. The gentlewoman's time is expired.
        I now recognize the gentleman from Texas, Dr. Burgess, for
    five minutes.
        Dr. Burgess. And thank you, Chairman.
        And, first off, let me just start with the fact that I
    disagree with my colleague from Texas. I think Governor Greg
    Abbott has been one of the best Governors this state has had.
    And I only say one of the best because Rick Perry and George W.
    Bush were his immediate predecessors and I certainly don't want
    to slight their service either, because they have all been
    important.
        Look, a year ago at the Rules Committee, I introduced the
    very same opinion pieces that Mr. Smucker just talked about the
    former chairman Larry Summers has written because as it turns
    out he was a regular Nostradamus with his ability to predict
    what was going to happen. We had the chairman of the Fed at
    that time saying inflation not a worry. But look, those of us
    who are old enough to remember what it was like going through
    the inflationary spiral of the 1970's and early 1980's also
    remember how painful it was to unwind that inflationary spiral.
    And, look, let us be honest, people at upper income levels were
    inconvenienced, people at the lower income levels were
    devastated. And that is the price that is paid for those types
    of policies.
        I am so grateful Mrs. Lukas mentioned about the oversight
    of the spending that went into that $1.9 trillion bill because
    I think it is important. And, Mr. Chairman, I have just got to
    say, this is my first term on the Budget Committee, we haven't
    done a budget. And if you don't do a budget, then you don't
    plan, then how do you know where--if you get to where you
    thought you wanted to go?
        We also have not heard from the Congressional Budget
    Office. The Congressional Budget Office has not done the CBO
    baseline for this year. They say the problem is OMB. Fair
    enough. But people ought to get their acts together. And this
    is too important to just leave undone.
        Now, the Congressional Budget Office did come in and visit
    with me and they went through a list of 20--of the top 20
    agencies and institutes that have unspent money from the
    American Rescue Plan. And it turns out just in the top 20 that
    is $340 billion. The aggregate of all the unspent money is over
    $400 billion. So, yes, actually, there is some money there that
    could go to help people.
        And here is another problem. A lot of that money went to
    the states before it gets doled out to municipalities and to
    individuals. We have not done any oversight of how the states
    have done with getting that money where we intended it to go.
    So it is very, very difficult to talk about new spending when
    we haven't done a good job with trying to keep track of what
    has already gone out the door.
        Now, look, just like everybody else, I have voted for the
    CARES Act in March 2020. I thought it was important. We didn't
    know what was ahead of us. It was uncertain times and we were
    in unchartered waters. But since that time we have not done--
    and I am also on one of the authorizing committees, I am on
    Energy and Commerce--we have not sat down and done the work on
    what was actually needed. We had all the money dispensed in the
    CARES Act, but we never sat down and said what was actually
    needed, where did it go, could we have done more, should we
    have done less, were we in appropriate in some of our
    expenditures. So we get to the end of the year and do a big
    omnibus and we don't even know. We don't know because we have
    not asked the questions and we have not done the proper
    oversight.
        So I was opposed to the omnibus bill in December 2020, even
    though there was consensus around its passage. But then not two
    months later we are passing another $1.9 trillion bill. And we
    ask ourselves, well, why does it cost so much at the grocery
    store, at the gas station. Well, it was as plain as the nose on
    your face. And even the former secretary of the Treasury was
    able to recognize that.
        Mrs. Lukas, I do actually have a question for you. You have
    posed a very interesting concept that mandatory paid leave
    programs are wealth transfer, but it is counterintuitive. The
    people that you thought you were going to help, you hadn't
    helped, and you gave help to people that probably didn't need
    the help in the first place. Would you care to talk about that
    a little bit?
        Mrs. Lukas. Yes. I appreciate that. Because I do think a
    lot of people, you know, really want to help people and they
    see paid leave and everybody feels bad when somebody has to
    make a real sacrifice when they need time off from work. But
    these programs are simply not serving who they are supposed to
    serve. When you look in Rhode Island, you look at these income
    brackets and the places that are getting the most, the income
    cohort that is getting the largest payout, is the upper income.
    It is the lowest income bracket that is the least likely to be
    taking these benefits. It is incredibly regressive. And that
    is--clearly we need to go back to the drawing board and not
    commit that on a federal level.
        Dr. Burgess. Correct. And of course the taxes are collected
    in payroll taxes from those lowest income workers.
        Mrs. Lukas. Exactly.
        Dr. Burgess. They don't pay income tax, but they do pay----
        Mrs. Lukas. Payroll tax.
        Dr. Burgess [continuing]. employment taxes.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will yield back.
        Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman's time has expired.
        I just note for the record that my Republican colleagues,
    who often criticize Ivy elites, are very free with their
    compliments of a Harvard guy today.
        I now yield five minutes to the gentleman from Nevada, Mr.
    Horsford.
        Mr. Horsford. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
    appreciate very much you holding this hearing and your interest
    in ensuring that women are able to fully participate in our
    changing economy. I also want to thank our witnesses for their
    tremendous insight, particularly as these issues have
    disproportionately affected women, especially women of color,
    and their involvement in the labor market.
        We are working hard to make sure--as we have seen 7.4
    million jobs created in the first 13 months of this new
    Administration. However, we know that there are still many who
    are struggling and there is more work that we have to do.
        So, first, I want to touch on the fact that the effects of
    the pandemic and the subsequent economic downturn were not felt
    equally across racial and socioeconomic groups. The job that
    disappeared were predominantly held by women and the were
    predominantly held by women of color. These were the essential
    workers who kept our country running during the darkest days of
    the pandemic and now they are being ``rewarded'' with reduced
    hours, little opportunity for remote work, and in may cases, no
    options for childcare. Our communities of color are being left
    behind. And while the COVID-19 pandemic laid bare their tenuous
    position, the vulnerabilities within our economy for workers of
    color existed long before 2020 and the pandemic.
        So Dr. Albanesi's testimony--I know you touched about the
    systemic makeup of our country's occupational distribution set
    up many women of color for failure. So will you briefly discuss
    the economic impact of decreased labor force participation by
    women of color and provide us with your thoughts on how we can
    help to train more women who are facing--low contact flexible
    jobs like you discussed earlier in your testimony?
        Dr. Albanesi. Yes. Thank you, representative.
        Yes, it is true. Particularly Black and Hispanic women are
    over represented in these inflexible high contact occupations,
    basically in the care economy, that, you know, Ms. Poo so
    unequivocally described for us. And wages in those occupations
    are low for two reasons. They are low because they are
    primarily female occupations. And as economists we have done a
    lot of work to understand gender wage gaps, and it turns out
    that when occupations are predominantly female, wages in those
    occupations are lower, even if those occupations require the
    same qualification as another occupation that is primarily
    male.
        But also, you know, historically in the care economy there
    have not been enough protections that are standard in other
    types of occupations. And this is really a heritage of the kind
    of structural barriers to advancement of people of color when
    these programs of employment protections were first introduced
    in the 1930's. So if we as a society value employment
    protection, we should be giving it to all our workers and not
    just giving it to some kinds of workers and not other kinds of
    workers. That is inefficient, it causes disallocation of funds
    and it causes a crisis where many families desperately need
    care for their elderly relatives or for their children and they
    can't find workers because workers in those occupations are
    underpaid.
        So how do we solve this problem? The problem--you know, I
    think Ms. Poo had, you know, several suggestions in her
    testimony. If we just equate the kind of protections that are
    given to other workers who are care workers, that would do a
    lot to even the playing field and attract more talent to those
    sectors.
        But I also want to recognize that, as I said before, as a
    result of the pandemic there has been some structural change in
    the economy. I mentioned, you know, sort of business travel is
    expected to be permanently lower. The fact that more people are
    working from home who can--you know, several surveys have been
    conducted, you know, by employers and by economists suggesting
    that going forward more people are going to be working from
    home if they can more days, which means all of those
    restaurants and cafeterias and other jobs that are connected to
    serving people who work in offices or other establishments,
    those jobs may not come back to the extent that we saw them in
    2019. So there is going to be a demand for certain types of
    jobs that were, you know, primarily employing, you know, women
    of color.
        So there is a need to offer retraining and other, you know,
    kinds of services to enable those women to enter other
    occupations and are, you know, growing in response to the
    pandemic and demographic change, such as the care occupations.
        Mr. Horsford. Thank you so much for your testimony.
        I know I am out of time, Mr. Chairman. I did want to just
    highlight Ms. Walker's testimony and her focus on the child tax
    credit. And I am really proud that your youngest son was able
    to go back to preschool based on that child tax credit. And
    that is why we are working to provide those benefits for so
    many families.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I yield back.
        Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman's time has expired.
        I now recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Cline, for
    five minutes.
        Mr. Cline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you having
    this hearing.
        You know, from the start of this pandemic, the number of
    active small businesses have plummeted, with minority and
    female owned businesses disproportionately impacted. And that
    is because while lock downs and temporary business closures
    were intended to address the public health crisis, women and
    minority owned businesses were more likely to fall under the
    arbitrary designation of non-essential. These designations were
    put forward by aggressive administrations of Democrat led
    governments and therefore they were--these businesses were
    forced to close with very few resources to help them get by.
        Now, I look at the title of this hearing ``Ensuring Women
    Can Thrive in a Post-Pandemic Economy''. Having suffered
    through in Virginia the strict shutdown requirements of a
    Democratic Governor, I think the answer to ensuring women can
    thrive in a post-pandemic economy would be to stop electing
    Democratic Governors.
        But I would say that now we have the higher gas prices that
    are putting pressure on women, on families, and the Biden
    Administration and Washington Democrats are trying to put the
    blame on the Russian Federation's invasion of Ukraine that
    began just three weeks ago. Gas prices started rising 40
    percent year over year before Russia's invasion.
        And so I would ask our witness, who is here and I
    appreciate her being here in person, how do higher gas prices
    impact women and particularly mothers?
        Mrs. Lukas. Oh, absolutely. You know, it is such an
    obvious--sometimes we need to look at statistics and look at
    the data, but ask any mom and she knows every time she fills up
    the tank. Back when President Biden was elected it was about
    two bucks a gallon and I mean a couple of months ago it was $3
    and now it is well over $4. And this does impact every decision
    and it is pushing up, it is helping fuel what is happening in
    our grocery stores and across our economy.
        And it is interesting, because I do think that--don't want
    to go off field here, but when we look at energy policy, this
    was another big driver of this. When we look at what has
    happened and what is happening the world today, the decisions
    that were made to reduce energy production here in the United
    States is a big driver of that inflation and it is rippling
    through our economy and hurting women.
        Mr. Cline. And it absolutely it. Over the past year women's
    outwear prices and dresses are up over 11 percent, women's
    footwear and jewelry, each up over 6 percent, baby food up
    almost 8 percent, baby clothing up almost 9 percent. Over a
    year of rising prices and Democrats are continuing to dismiss
    and downplay the impact of inflation on everyday goods. And
    often falsely blaming it on car and gasoline prices.
        You mentioned in your testimony that back in December 2020
    more than 70 percent of childcare centers were open while only
    about a third of public K-12 schools were fully in person. If
    the Democrat proposed government controlled childcare policies
    in Build Back Better were in place two years ago, do you think
    government run childcare centers would have also shut down as
    public schools did?
        Mrs. Lukas. Absolutely. You know, and it is not just what
    happened with COVID. You know, we talked about some of the
    problems that predated this pandemic. Well, certainly we have
    seen across the country, most recently in the city of Chicago,
    where there was a decision to close the schools and push
    everybody back to virtual learning. And I believe they just
    shut the doors for a while. And this is what happens when you
    have a system that really doesn't care whether or not how they
    serve those families because it doesn't affect their budgets,
    it doesn't affect their livelihoods.
        Mr. Cline. And, as you said, the impact on women in the
    work force of that type of situation would have been enormous.
    And so I am glad that we avoided that. I do think we need to
    look at rolling back some of the red tape. It is largely going
    to have to be done in the states because the states are
    aggressively over regulating our childcare centers, causing
    prices to go up. Democrats love to create a problem and then
    create a solution to the problem using aggressive government.
    And so here we go again with Democrats responsible for the
    rising price of childcare and now trying to cap it or in some
    way subsidize is with even more government intervention.
        So the policies of the majority party are often the
    problem, not the solution. And I would urge us to take a step
    back from that.
        So I appreciate the witnesses for being here and, Mr.
    Chairman, I yield back.
        Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman yields back.
        I now recognize the gentlewoman from Washington, Ms.
    Jayapal, for five minutes.
        Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I just have to respond to that--to those last comments
    because I think it is also very clear that what we have going
    on right now is pandemic profiteering by the largest
    corporations. The reality is, yes, families are dealing with
    sticker shock and meantime, Mr. Chairman, profits for companies
    that put these goods on the shelves are skyrocketing. Data from
    the U.S. Commerce Department shows that corporate profit
    margins are the largest they have been in 70 years.
        And even if you talk about energy costs, the reality is the
    President--President Biden has called out that prices for
    unfinished gasoline were down by 5 percent where the prices at
    the gas station went up by 3 percent. So, in other words,
    companies are selling gas at the gas station--are increasing
    prices by more or not handing down price decreases that they
    enjoyed just a few months back in November.
        So, anyway, I just had to correct the record on exactly
    where these increases are coming from.
        Now, that said, I want to talk about the subject at hand,
    which is the disparities among women in job numbers and
    industries that overwhelmingly employ women like the domestic
    work force. Normally there are about 2.2 million domestic
    workers and 91 percent are women. During the pandemic domestic
    workers lost jobs even as their work became more essential for
    senior and others who needed to avoid care in congregate
    settings. And so I think it is absolutely essential that as we
    work to provide an inclusive and thriving economy, we have to
    ensure that domestic workers are included.
        Ms. Poo, thank you for your work. I have argued with you in
    the past that our immigration system is ``sexclusionary''--is
    what I call it--because it places value on work typically
    performed by men. Do you think that a similar systemic
    undervaluing of women's labor exists? And, if so, can you talk
    about how it is hindering efforts to ensure that women are
    included in recovery efforts?
        Ms. Poo. Thank you so much, Congresswoman, and thank you
    for your leadership.
        You know, I think the entire debate on infrastructure is a
    really good example of the ways in which the contributions of
    women to the economy and how fundamental and essential they are
    is devalued in a systematic way. The fact that--the definition
    of infrastructure is that which enables the economy and society
    to function. Bipartisan infrastructure bill was passed and most
    of the jobs that were created in the context of the
    infrastructure bill will go to jobs that are predominantly held
    by men. There is another part of investment in infrastructure
    that we have yet to make, which is that investment in our care-
    giving systems and programs that will--an infrastructure where
    the jobs are largely held by women, as you just named, where we
    can actually turn these jobs into sustainable living wage jobs
    and ensure affordable high quality access to care for the
    millions upon millions of working class families and working
    women in particular who rely on those programs.
        And so investing in prioritizing, investing in our care-
    giving infrastructure the way that we have invested in
    infrastructure--more traditional surface infrastructure is
    essential and fundamental. And the only reason why, that I can
    see we don't see it in those terms is because we devalue the
    work of women. And it is really time in the 21st century that
    we address that. And this is an opportunity.
        Ms. Jayapal. Let me followup on that and just say that, you
    know, we are trying to build back better. And I think investing
    and protecting domestic workers gets at two issues, women who
    need the support of domestic workers to be able to do their own
    work outside the home, as well as the women who are doing very
    tough and often thankless work without the necessary support or
    basic rights. And you sort of referred to this. Why is
    supporting the domestic work force crucial to ensuring that
    women can thrive in a post-pandemic economy?
        Ms. Poo. Domestic workers as a work force, more than 90
    percent women, majority women of color, were
    disproportionately--this is work that is by definition work
    that has to be done in person. It is not remote work. And we
    have seen over and over again about how essential it is.
    Domestic workers were an essential lifeline throughout the
    pandemic to some of the people who are most vulnerable to
    COVID-19, older people, people with disabilities, people with
    chronic illnesses. Enabling this work force to be secure, to
    have training, to have living wages, access to a safety net,
    rights and protections, like the ones that are included in the
    Domestic Workers Bill of Rights that you have championed, means
    that we have a secure--a set of jobs for a work force that is
    overwhelmingly women and those jobs will enable many, many
    other jobs throughout the economy. They will enable all kinds
    of essential workers, professionals throughout the economy to
    go to work knowing that they have access to care and the
    services they need inside their homes.
        Ms. Jayapal. The work that allows all other work to happen.
    And it is also why it is important that we keep those
    investments that we have proposed in Build Back Better for
    elder care, for childcare, for all of this kind of work.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Chairman Yarmuth. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
        I now recognize the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands,
    Ms. Plaskett, for five minutes. Please unmute, Ms. Plaskett.
        Ms. Plaskett. Yes. Thank you so much for that. I appreciate
    you holding this hearing.
        This is of course extremely important to me as a black
    woman and I am really very grateful to your leadership in
    recognizing that this is a topic that all women, particularly
    women of color, are specifically feeling the impact of.
        I wanted to ask Ms. Poo a question related to post-pandemic
    and market conditions workers. Has the labor market changed in
    ways that affect women's ability to succeed in their work since
    the post-pandemic or the late stages of the pandemic? And do we
    have quantifiable evidence related to that? For example, are
    women better able to negotiate pay, working conditions, and
    scheduling with their employers now? Have we seen a change?
        Ms. Poo. We are still early days in terms of collecting the
    data we need, Congresswoman. Thank you for the question.
        But what I do know anecdotally from our membership is that
    the lack of access to childcare, to paid family and medical
    leave, to paid sick days, and to healthcare is still a huge,
    huge issue for workers. And the wages for domestic workers have
    not increased to better enable workers to afford the care that
    they need for their own families. So we are still hovering at
    about a 22 percent unemployment rate among domestic workers
    because the quality of the jobs is not good enough for workers
    to be able to work and take care of the people that they love
    and keep themselves safe.
        So we will continue to collect data. I am not sure if Dr.
    Albanesi has more data as an economist, but from what I can
    tell, it is still a struggle. The American Rescue Plan
    investments did help, the child tax credit did help, and some
    of the emergency childcare subsidies and emergency paid leave
    did help, which is why I really advocate for extending those.
    And it is still a struggle and we need permanent investments in
    these jobs.
        Ms. Plaskett. Well, I want to thank you for that. You know,
    I recognize that statistically we are all aware that women of
    color of course, for the same jobs earn less pay, have
    additional difficulties in the workplace that other women do
    not. And thus there are long-term effects, even if they do find
    another job, that still impact them and their families. In
    general, do the effects of employment loss end when a worker
    finds a new job? Or do we know the statistics on what happens
    to those families--the incremental changes in and the
    incremental losses that that can happen to a family related to
    an initial job loss and that impact? And how can we in our
    budget and as Members of Congress cushion the American families
    or support them to rebound from this in the long-term?
        Ms. Poo. I think we have heard from Ms. Walker to day about
    what happens when workers don't have the right supports. And
    hes and her family are in debt as a result.
        Ms. Plaskett. Yes.
        Ms. Poo. And I think what we need to do is extend some of
    the investments that were made in the American Rescue Plan, an
    invest in affordable high-quality childcare so people like Ms.
    Walker and our members at the National Domestic Workers
    Alliance can have those supports as they consider reentering
    the work force.
        Ms. Plaskett. Well, Ms. Walker has shown herself to be
    incredibly brave and we are all grateful for her testimony.
        Dr. Albanesi, do you have anything that you wanted to add
    to that?
        Dr. Albanesi. Yes. Actually, I can add a couple of things.
        With respect to the programs that we have seen during the
    pandemic, including the child tax credit, one thing that
    economics teaches us is that for programs to change behavior or
    workers they have to be sort of long lived. So if the child
    credit is only in place for six months or 12 months, it may not
    be enough to change the behavior of a single mother who, you
    know, is sort of deciding whether to go back to the work force
    and invest in a childcare arrangement or not. Instead, if a
    program is expected to last, you know, for two or three years,
    that will actually change behavior.
        So, you know, the predictability of these kinds of benefits
    is really useful so that workers can count on them and actually
    make appropriate choices.
        Ms. Plaskett. Well, thank you so much for that information.
        And I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for this important
    hearing
        Chairman Yarmuth. Oh, sorry. Than you very much. The
    gentlewoman's time has expired.
        I now recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Carter, for
    five minutes.
        Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank all of the
    witnesses for being here today.
        I want to start with you, Mrs. Lukas. I want to talk about
    this government mandated childcare. And I want to--first of
    all, you know what, it is funny, it seems like the majority
    party is always fond of declaring almost anything that they
    want to see happen a right, to just justify becoming something
    the government most guarantee. I don't--I know that this didn't
    evolve overnight, but it just baffles me as to how we ever
    reached this point where everything is a right.
        But, anyway, now they have set their sights on government
    child and day care. And, look, I have got six grandchildren.
    The two youngest ones were born last year and I have got--this
    is an issue that is very important to me, but I want to ask
    you, Mrs. Lukas, what would happen if the majority party, the
    Democrats, got their way and mandated a government childcare
    program?
        Mrs. Lukas. Well, you know, I am concerned that it would
    change the dynamic where instead of day care and childcare
    providers being focused on providing for the family and serving
    the family, that they would be much more focused on serving
    regulators and public policy officials. So it would operate
    more like the K-12 public schools.
        And if I can, you know, there is just--i would have a
    moment of caution, because there is a lot of discussion about
    what an investment childcare is and how it leads to tremendous
    returns on investment. And yet nobody brings up Head Start. And
    that is the existing federal program which spends about $10,000
    per child and serves, you know, thousands of children. And
    there have been congressionally mandated studies to see is this
    investment paying off in terms of lasting school readiness, do
    you see gains. And any gains that these congressionally
    mandated studies that any benefits fade out over time. The
    programs that people point to to show this tremendous return on
    investment are small programs and that served extremely
    disadvantaged communities. In fact, there was just a study done
    of a program in Tennessee that they were hopeful that they were
    doing to see some real returns on this. And, in fact, they
    found again that not only did it not have positive effects,
    that it was actually associated with negative effects. And I
    will be sure to pass this on so that the information on that
    study is available to everyone here, because I think it is very
    telling and cautionary. Doesn't mean that the preschool can
    never be good or day care can never yield investment, but we
    should be rather humble about knowing that government programs
    are going to provide this return on investment.
        Mr. Carter. Well, thank you for that input. And we look
    forward to getting that information from you.
        You know, I have been going through this--I haven't been
    going through it, but my sons and their families have been
    going through the process of going to different day care
    centers and seeing the very diversity of them and making a
    decision based on, hey, we like this, we like that, and this is
    what we want to try to get. How do you think the curriculum
    would be change if we had government mandated day care centers,
    Mrs. Lukas? Could working parents maintain flexibilities do you
    think with private childcare centers?
        Mrs. Lukas. You know, I would be very concerned, that
    especially when it comes to right now, currently about 50
    percent of childcares are faith based. And I think those would
    have a lot of trouble with mandates made by state governments;
    that those would be kind of pushed out of the marketplace. And
    I do think we would see--a lot like K-12 schools, it would
    become much more cookie cutter. You know, we have seen over the
    past several decades a steep decline in at-home childcare,
    which is something that parents really want. There was almost
    at 50--I believe it was a 50 percent decline between 2005 and
    2016 in the number of at-home day care providers. We need to
    take a hard look at the regulations that are making it
    impossible for those small businesses to stay in business
    because there is a lot of regulatory overreach. And we would
    have a greater diversity if we were able to remove that red
    tape.
        Mr. Carter. So you would agree that it is important a have
    a diversity of institutions to serve parents and their kids?
        You know, I mean I am so relieved to hear you say this,
    because this is such a big decision for parents. My daughter-
    in-law is Catholic, my son Methodist and Protestant. And, you
    know, they are interviewing all these different day care
    centers, including such thought and so much time into making
    these kind of decisions. And it is really such a fascinating
    thing to watch in this. And my fear that that is going to go
    away and that we are just going to have cookie cutter childcare
    centers anymore.
        Any comment on that, Mrs. Lukas?
        Mrs. Lukas. I do worry about that. And I will just have one
    more, really quick--I know that the time is almost up. But you
    should look at the mask policies. Because I think one of the
    things that is a tremendous tragedy is how we have kept our
    youngest children masked. Everybody here has the freedom to
    take off their masks, yet the kids sitting in Head Start are
    still forced to wear masks even though it is impeding their
    learning development, impeding their speech. I think it is
    terrible and I have been terribly concerned about that being
    the wave of the future if the Build Back Better childcare
    program went into effect.
        Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mrs. Lukas.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I yield back.
        Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman's time is expired.
        Next in line is Ms. Jackson Lee, but her camera is not on.
    If you are there, Ms. Jackson Lee--OK, you are there. The
    gentlewoman----
        Ms. Jackson Lee. I am here.
        Chairman Yarmuth. The gentlewoman from Texas is recognized
    for five minutes.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. This is
    a crucial meeting. Obviously there is much going on.
        Let me ask--also the doctor, but let me make this point as
    I--I appreciate the witness who indicated that there would be a
    problem with trying to provide a 7 percent top of how much
    families, women, would pay for childcare. And because women's
    salaries--sometimes heads of households--are lower than men, if
    you will, even as heads of households, I am stunned that this
    would not be a positive. Clearly, good childcare would not be
    spending their time focusing on government regulations. They
    would be spending their time being grateful of the quality of
    childcare that would generate by securing federal funding. And
    the amount of people maximized beyond Head Start--Head Start is
    a governmental program, childcare is not a governmental
    program. Childcare is giving people access to childcare
    wherever they are.
        So, Ms. Poo, let me ask you this question, what kind of
    seismic change would come about, for example, if you invested
    through, say, the Build Back Better Act in lowering childcare
    costs so that women could re-imagine their lives through new
    training, education, longer hour jobs? How would that improve
    the economic condition of children and women? And then,
    additionally could you find anything negative to having
    provisions that would increase the opportunity for childcare
    and lower the course? My third question is, you may not be a
    Head Start expert, but I am not really seeing those numbers. I
    guess I will have to explore that to say that their impact
    fades out. Well, you want the impact to be as a lead Head Start
    in going to elementary school and they are left in the hands of
    the teachers and hopefully they will move on with that
    foundation.
        But, Ms. Poo, can you answer my first question please?
    Thank you.
        Ms. Poo. Thank you so much for the questions,
    Congresswoman.
        I think that making childcare more affordable would be
    nothing short of transformative in the lives of women. And
    right now women are spending between 9 and 40 percent of their
    income on childcare. And so not having to spend more than 7
    percent of their income means that there is more income to pay
    for food, to pay for--save for a rainy day, to pay off the
    debts, like the ones that Ms. Walker's family accumulated. It
    would be nothing short of transformative for women and their
    entire families and for the ability to transfer generational
    wealth to create economic mobility so that one generation can
    do better than the last. I think there are so many ripple
    effects that we will see, beginning from having less pressure
    on your pocketbook, which is absolutely essential in the short-
    term to achieve.
        The cost of childcare is one of the most significant fixed
    costs for families right now. If we want to lower costs for
    families, making childcare affordable is the way to do it. And
    I have never heard any data that the impact of Head Start fades
    over time. In fact, I have heard the opposite. And I have
    encountered so many people across professions who have
    benefited from the Head Start program, that has allowed them to
    actually have an equal footing as they enter public school.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Well, thank you for that.
        Let me conclude my remarks. First of all, Mr. Chairman,
    this was a long overdue and very vital hearing to focus on
    women. There are several elements of the Build Back Better Act.
    We contributed to its construction. I think the Budget
    Committee did an excellent job. But make the care economy real,
    women who care for people, make it a profession, increase the
    salaries of the women who had to stay out of the workplace, but
    they could come back to the workplace with a professional
    skilled industry of care workers. I believe that that
    combination, childcare, will put women on a sure footing, no
    matter what their educational level is and what level of job
    that they have. There are many women bosses who need childcare
    as well and there are many women who work day to day, hour to
    hour, that need childcare.
        And so I hope we can move this forward. Thank you very
    much, Ms. Poo. Thank you for your testimony. And also for the
    witnesses.
        I yield back.
        Chairman Yarmuth. The gentlewoman yields back.
        I now recognize the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Feenstra, for
    five minutes.
        Mr. Feenstra. Thank you, Chairman Yarmuth, and Ranking
    Member Smith. I want to thank you for all of our witnesses for
    their testimony today. And I share your concerns that we need
    our kids to have a great education and our economy recovery
    cannot exclude women who are trying to find work.
        You know, of the toughest problems facing my constituents
    in Iowa is the lack of childcare. And we just talked about
    this. And here question after question about childcare. So it
    is great that we are talking about this topic.
        There is a lot of work being done in this space with our
    Iowa Governor working to find solutions to ensure that moms
    aren't forced to stay home. However, one of the key drivers of
    this problem in my state is a lack of work force. And that
    hasn't been talked about a lot today, right. We have a lack of
    work force. We have a lack of staff for our childcare. Our
    unemployment in Iowa is at 3.7 percent and for women it is 2.8.
    that is because Iowans avoided some of the pitfalls that a lot
    of other states had when they recovered from this pandemic. You
    know what, for Iowa we kept our schools open to ensure that our
    kids are getting a great education. And our parents weren't
    forced to struggle between feeding their family and keeping
    their kids on track, right. Our schools were open.
        Studies agree with this and the Federal Reserve Bank in
    Minneapolis found that nearly 70 percent of mothers in states
    that shuttered schools were forced out of work compared to
    mothers living in states that kept schools open. Isn't that
    amazing? You know, the states that shuttered also had this
    massive problem, but the states that didn't don't have this
    problem.
        Second, Iowa didn't double or triple down on its harmful
    lock down policies after medicines became available. You know,
    we went mask free. We just hear earlier how important that was
    for kids.
        The rising crisis that is starting to crush moms across
    this country is inflation. Just yesterday it was announced that
    the wholesale inflation rose by 10 percent over last year, gas
    up 40 percent, heating you homes up 15 percent. Expense after
    expense on that bottom line for families.
        Flooding the country with trillions of spending is making
    Americans' lives worse. In Budget Committee we showed--actively
    accounting for the trillions we have printed to recommend
    recessions of unspent funds. And this is just again another
    hidden tax, this inflationary cost because of all this money we
    dumped in the system.
        Mrs. Lukas, you have talked a lot about this already, and I
    appreciate all your comments, but do you have any thoughts or
    ideas when it comes to childcare and work force and how we can
    help the work force out? To me, the bottom line for us in Iowa
    is the childcare industry just simply needs work force.
        What is your thoughts on that?
        Mrs. Lukas. You know, I appreciate--I do think that it is
    important to talk about kind of those supply side effects when
    it comes to labor. And there is an interesting study. I think
    there Heritage Foundation's Rachel Greszler wrote a piece that
    looked at some of this and she notes that states that ended the
    unemployment insurance bonuses in July 2021 or earlier
    experienced a significantly greater pace of employment recovery
    in July and August than the states that hadn't. And she
    estimates that if the economy of all the states had ended those
    unemployment bonuses earlier we would have had 800,000 more
    jobs gained in July and August.
        I do think it is important--we have talked a lot about the
    need. Everybody supports helping people. We want there to be a
    robust safety net. We need to make sure that that safety net is
    a safety net, not one that impedes people from returning to
    work. Because some of my fellow witnesses have talked about, we
    need people in the childcare industry, that it is these jobs
    create jobs and we need to make sure that the incentives are
    right so that we are not discouraging labor force participation
    permanently.
        Mr. Feenstra. Yes, thanks, Mrs. Lukas. I greatly appreciate
    those comments. And you said something very valuable. You know,
    and this very seldom gets talked about, but if you are a family
    like me, I have a family of four, I have got four children,
    when you are doing your monthly budget and all these items are
    drastically going up, it really limits what you can do and it
    really pinches day care, because you just don't have the
    dollars to do it.
        Now, you can throw more dollars in, that is very, very
    temporary. And obviously what we have seen is that created more
    inflation, it creates higher call for product. So it is just to
    me it--being in economics, this is not the way we do things. I
    mean it is just wrong on so many levels.
        So, with that, I yield back. And thank you again for each
    one of your testimoneys.
        Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman yields back.
        I now recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Good, for
    five minutes.
        Mr. Good. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        This hearing really should be called how recent government
    policies have hurt Americans, women included, because it has
    hurt women just as much as every other American to have our
    most basic freedoms that we couldn't have imagined being under
    assault and under attack even just two or three years ago, from
    what we have seen the last couple of years, but our most basic
    freedoms like our freedom of movement, our freedom to travel--
    even today we don't have true freedom to travel without wearing
    a mask--our freedom of assembly, getting together. Heck, even
    in this room we don't have everybody in the hearing room, they
    are doing it by Zoom. This Congress votes by proxy. We continue
    to use the China virus as an excuse to have these emergency
    provisions, which we know are not necessary. Our most basic
    freedom just to earn a living, to operate our business, to go
    to work, to keep our job, our freedom to worship, and our
    freedom to educate our children, to have our children go to
    school and to be there in person. These have been trampled upon
    and harmed our children, harmed our families, harmed mothers,
    harmed women in general.
        History will judge us harshly by how we have sacrificed our
    children on the alter of politics over these last two years.
    You touched on it just a few moments ago, but the fact that we
    would close schools for children who are at almost no risk--
    almost no risk to the virus. For two years kids are at home or
    trying to learn remotely when they were at almost no risk to
    the virus. We have treated everybody the same. We have treated
    children like senior citizens, we treated college students like
    those with multiple comorbidity factors. Children--how do we
    ever make up for these mother's, these women's children, how do
    we ever make up the lost learning for two years?
        So they graduate--what? With just two years less of school.
    Not to mention the developmental delay, the social delay, the
    emotional issues that have come in there. In my home county we
    lifted the mask mandate thankfully, finally. It should have
    never been in place. It is child abuse to put a child in a mask
    all day long when we know masks don't make any difference. That
    is why no one who has been enforcing it all this time ever
    wears it when no one is looking. It is virtue signaling. That
    is even--I saw a doctor on CNN say, hey, it just shows what
    team you are on, it is virtue signaling, it just sends a
    message that you care when you wear your mask. But do to that
    to children all day long when they are almost no risk for the
    virus. And also, we know from studies that masks don't make any
    difference.
        But in my home county of Campbell County outside Lynchburg
    in the fifth district of Virginia, half the kids are still
    wearing masks when they don't have to. Why? Because we have
    told them they are going to die from the virus. And they have
    gotten comfortable with this thing on their face.
        In the meantime, for women across this country these
    policies that have made them less secure with the border
    invasion that we have not just allowed to happen, we have
    caused to happen by this government's policies, our weakness on
    the national stage, where we look across the ocean to Ukraine,
    what is happening there, or the threat of China, the threat of
    North Korea, the threat of Iran, and the American weakness that
    has been projected, the massive spending that is robbing women,
    Americans, and families of their purchasing power, costing them
    thousands of dollars a year more now than it did previously
    last year just to buy the essentials. Grocery prices through
    the roof, gas prices through the roof as we have declared war
    on American energy. These policies are harmful to women.
        The crime explosion in this country, putting--undermining
    our police. Not to mention we have fired women for not getting
    vaccines. Not allowed them to keep their job as essential
    healthcare workers, not allowed them to stay in the military,
    not allowed them to stay in law enforcement, not allowed them
    to provide for their family because we have taken away their
    right, again, trampled on their right to their most basic
    freedom of their own health decisions, and then we fired them
    if they didn't do what their government wanted them to do.
        So I know you are chomping at the bit to respond, Mrs.
    Lukas. I will let you just respond any additional thoughts you
    might have.
        Mrs. Lukas. I mean, no, I appreciate that. And I do think
    when we look at the decisions we have made about our children,
    it contrasts very much with the rest of the world. When you
    look at--we have talked a little bit about European systems and
    what they do to support families. But one thing they didn't do
    was to put little kids in masks. Even the WHO had said that
    masking children under age five was not recommended, was bad,
    was not just not recommended but was harmful. And through most
    of Europe they have long had something where--a policy that
    children under the age of 11 or 12 do not wear masks. I do
    think that we are going to see tremendous mental health impacts
    from this. We see now there was a 51 percent in teenage girls
    attempted suicides during these last two years. And this is
    something we are going to be living with. Damaging effects for
    a really long time.
        Mr. Good. And we are not telling the truth about the risks
    of the virus, which I heard Dr. Ben Carson say was the most
    dangerous virus in the--the most dangerous--we are not telling
    the truth about the risks of the vaccine, which I heard Dr. Ben
    Carson say is the most dangerous vaccine in history, and we are
    forcing it upon children, who are at almost no risk for the
    virus.
        Thank you.
        Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman's time expired.
        I now recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Grothman,
    for five minutes.
        Mr. Grothman. Well, first of all, Mrs. Lukas, I would like
    to thank you for being here. You know, I know most of the
    people back home in Wisconsin where I am from, they go to work
    in the day and they make it do. And I am sure it would have
    been easier for you to just call it in and do this from your
    kitchen table. But I think, you know, you really can tell a lot
    more or learn about a lot more when somebody is here and in
    person. So I would like to thank you for understanding that and
    being here.
        So a couple of comments here. During this pandemic a lot of
    people were mandated vaccine wise. And I certainly got calls
    from many nurses and I have such a high opinion of nurses. I
    thought it was so offensive and unAmerican to force them to get
    the vaccine. I know a lot of nurses who quit, particularly if
    they were concerned it might have an effect on a pregnancy down
    the line. I met with a doctor earlier today, he was concerned
    about that. And I could just envision a bunch of guys sitting
    around at NIH or CDC or whatever saying, well, everybody can
    have the vaccine.
        Do you think the fear of a negative effect on the vaccine
    is something that--particularly because so many of them work in
    the healthcare field--disproportionately hurt women?
        Mrs. Lukas. Well, certainly when it comes to fertility
    issues, that was something that I know a lot of women
    personally were very concerned with because this is--you can be
    somebody who supports a concept of vaccine and wants people to
    get vaccinated, but when it comes to our kids and our
    fertility, there is a lot of questions. And so we need to let
    free people make their decisions.
        Mr. Grothman. Right. And when I go through a hospital, I
    certainly see more women working there than men overall.
        Mrs. Lukas. Sure.
        Mr. Grothman. And I wondered if there wasn't a little bit
    of tacit sexism going on there when they cracked down and told
    everybody who works in a hospital, but women in particular,
    that they would have to lose their jobs if they didn't get a
    vaccine. I was kind of--was very offended. But I just wondered
    if you had any other comments on that.
        Mrs. Lukas. Well, you know, I think that--again, we have
    learned a lot during the course of this pandemic and one of the
    things we really learned in the last several months in the wake
    of Omicron is that the vaccine's protection is for your
    personally and it has not been preventing the spread of the
    disease, which makes it all the more, I think, inappropriate to
    force people to not have the opportunity to work and support
    themselves merely because they make a different health choice
    and weigh their own risks differently than the government does.
        Mr. Grothman. We have all sorts of statistics before us
    today, do you have any general statistics as far as percentage
    wise women and percentage of men who want to stay out of the
    work force and take care of their kids?
        Mrs. Lukas. You know, I think that--it is actually--I am
    glad you asked that question, because I think we have talked a
    little bit and heard some about the wage gap. And it was
    actually a holiday the other day called Equal Pay Day, that is
    often used as a proxy to talk about how much women are
    underpaid systemically. And the truth is that a lot of women, a
    lot of that is not discrimination, but it is because women
    often do decide to prioritize things other than earning and
    want to stay home with their kids. And we should respect that.
    That is why I think it is important for any support that is
    given to families, people with young kids, isn't make
    conditional on using--hiring somebody else to care for your
    kids. We should be providing support and recognizing the value
    of people who choose to stay home.
        Mr. Grothman. Why do you think some people dislike--I mean
    I think it is fine. When I grew up my own mom was at home more
    often than not. Why do you think there is this dislike for
    women who are staying at home with their kids?
        Mrs. Lukas. You know, it is funny. I think that sometimes
    there is this almost like I think a myth of the mommy wars. But
    I think when you talk to actual women that, you know, I am a
    working mom and I know some stay at home moms and they are my--
    are fully staying at home moms and they are the people who bail
    me out when I can't get there to pick up my kids and they are
    the ones who help so much in the classrooms. And I think there
    is a lot more respect.
        I fear from a public policy standpoint that sometimes there
    is a lack of respect. But I do think it comes from elites, that
    it is not on the ground moms. Because I think on the ground
    moms respect the decisions that other women make.
        Mr. Grothman. And if a stay-at-home mom, say she decides to
    work part-time or not work overtime or whatever, that winds up
    statistically to look like that there is something wrong with
    our society, right. I mean if you--you know, some woman is
    taking the professional track and some woman, professional, but
    maybe working 20 hours a week, that they--when you--when that
    runs through the statistics, they claim that there is something
    wrong with our society for allowing women to stay at home or
    allowing women to work part-time. Do you think that means there
    is something wrong with our society?
        Mrs. Lukas. No. You know, I think that--and my old women's
    studies classes, they would have talked about this conversation
    as having a really male lens, just judging everyone by how much
    money they earn, where a lot of women focus on other things and
    including--they value the time they get to spend with their
    kids.
        Mr. Grothman. Yes. I think people who just look solely at
    money are shallow. And I have always felt that way.
        OK. Well, again, thank you for being here today. It was
    very nice of you to come on down and talk to us in person.
        Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman's time is expired.
        I now recognize the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Donalds,
    for five minutes.
        Mr. Donalds. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is good to be
    back. I love how Congress schedules all committee hearings all
    at the same time. Such a use of efficiency in the Nation's
    Capitol. I am quite sure everybody watching C-Span right now
    hears all my sarcasm.
        I just want to jump into it. Obviously we have a limited
    amount of time.
        First of all, look, the American Rescue Plan, when it was
    written so fast after the President was inaugurated, it was an
    excuse in my view to essentially unleash long held policy
    ideals from people on the political left that they wanted to
    accomplish for quite some time. And so the pandemic was the
    crisis not being let go to waste. It was pretty clear from
    economists all across the spectrum that if we actually passed
    that piece of legislation--and we talked about it here in the
    Budget Committee--that if we passed that piece of legislation
    it would lead to inflationary pressures in the United States.
    Obviously, Larry Summers' comments have been proven to be very
    accurate. His comments today about a potential Federal Reserve
    interest rate hike is that if the Federal Reserve does not do
    this quickly and in an appropriate manner, we are going to
    enter a period of stagflation in the United States.
        And so the point I want to really bring home for the
    witnesses here, and I am going to ask you guys about this
    stuff, is, you know, Ms. Poo--I want to make sure I pronounce
    your last name correctly--but I know that, you know, you and
    your organization have advocated for I am assuming permanency
    in the child tax credit. But my question for you is even if you
    have permanency in the child tax credit, but the United States
    enters a period of stagflation where inflationary pressures
    continue to be high, don't these families that receive this
    advancement of a tax credit--isn't the purchasing power of the
    dollars they receive already doing to be eroded from higher
    inflation rates in the United States, which come from passage
    of this policy to begin with? And many others, by the way.
        Ms. Poo. I think actually, Dr. Albanesi is probably in a
    better position to answer questions about how inflation works
    long-term, but what I will say is that we are paying for care,
    specifically which is my area of expertise, in incredibly
    costly, inefficient, and ineffective ways. Both----
        Mr. Donalds. Well, and I--and I will--because I only got
    two minutes and we are going to have to plug and play here. And
    I apologize. I wish we did this differently where we weren't
    tied to five minute segments, but I don't set the rules.
        My point is that, listen, I get it. Listen, I have three
    kids, I pay childcare, I know what it is. It is a car payment,
    sometimes it is a Mercedes payment depending on where you live
    and what you are doing. Been there, done it. You know, I got
    the checks. I have written the checks, I know what I am talking
    about. I know you do as well.
        My point is, is that when you interject with massive
    amounts of governmental spending, specifically to childcare,
    and you are chasing childcare, what actually ends up happening
    is the cost of childcare will actually increase as a result of
    additional federal stimulus. Look no further than the
    university system in the United States. We essentially
    subsidize federal student loans because we think it is in the
    best interest of students, but what it also does, it allows
    universities and colleges to raise their tuition rates because
    they know that there is essentially a pot of unlimited dollars
    chasing university slots and being able to pay tuition, which,
    you know, the good doctor obviously through her work sees on a
    day to day basis. And that has also spiraled us through the
    loan crisis.
        I guess, look, at the end of the day--and Dr. Albanesi--
    that is correct?
        Dr. Albanesi. Albanesi, yes.
        Mr. Donalds. Albanesi. You said earlier that with respect
    to people coming out of the work force, it was really a
    differentiation between college graduates and non-college
    graduates. In your studies, was it college versus no college?
    And amongst the college segment, was there a differentiation
    between men and women? Because you didn't say that in that
    answer. I just want to expand upon that. Is the differentiation
    between--in the non-college graduates, men versus women versus
    college graduates, men and women? Or really is there no
    differentiation at all with respect to academic attainment?
        Dr. Albanesi. No, there is some differentiation. So most of
    the decline in participation of women is coming from women
    without a college degree. But there was a slight decline also
    for women with a college degree. But it was temporary and very
    short lived.
        And as I mentioned earlier in response to another question,
    where we saw the decline in participation was not, again, women
    quitting their job, but women becoming unemployed and then
    deciding that, you know, they weren't going to search for a new
    job, perhaps because of childcare challenges or other issues,
    including not having sufficient protection from infection in a
    care job where you work.
        Mr. Donalds. I appreciate your answer, I really, really do.
    I am already out of time. I am abusing the chairman's time
    right now.
        The only thing I would add to your point is, yes, it goes
    without question that there are many people who are out of the
    work force because we literally shut down the economy in the
    United States. And I would argue, especially if you are the
    woman in the household and you are in an industry that Ms. Poo
    represents, you were first on the chopping block because you
    are service oriented. And if people are basically locked in
    their houses, then those service jobs are no longer needed. So
    I don't really think that it is appropriate to say that it is
    about men versus women, that it is much more appropriate to say
    that it is about governmental policy and how you shut down an
    economy. And it actually had the most impacts on women as a
    result of the policy decisions that were made in shutting down
    an economy, which is why we shouldn't be shutting down
    economies.
        But I digress. And I yield back.
        Chairman Yarmuth. OK. The gentleman's time has expired. And
    I will remind the gentleman that he has the right to ask--
    submit any questions to the witnesses that he didn't get to for
    the record. And you submit them within a week when we do it.
        I now yield myself 10 minutes. And I love going last
    because I get to push back against a lot of things, but also I
    am going to start in an uncharacteristic way and I am going to
    agree with my Republican colleagues on two things.
        One is we do need to provide much better oversight over
    everything the government does. That has been one of my biggest
    complaints since I have been here. And now that I am on my way
    out, I will repeat it. We don't spend nearly enough time
    dealing with the impact and the effectiveness of the actions we
    take. Been true before the American Rescue Plan. And I will
    remind everyone that the American Rescue Plan really has not
    been in effect for a year yet, so the question is when do you
    make that--when do you conduct that oversight? I am not sure we
    are actually ready to do that because a lot of decisions are
    still being made as to how that money is spent.
        The second thing I will agree with, some of the comments of
    my colleagues has been the question of the supply side aspect
    of things like childcare. I stressed this over and over with
    the Administration as we were developing the American Rescue
    Plan that we have to focus as much on building capacity as we
    do on helping our citizens afford service, because if we don't
    create capacity--and that is true of early childhood education,
    it is true of senior care, regardless of what it is, that all
    we are doing is providing much more money to chase and not an
    increased number of opportunities, and that will necessarily
    lead to inflation.
        So that said, I am finished agreeing with my Republican
    colleagues and I want to push back on a few things. One is I
    know that the ranking member talks a lot about only 9 percent
    of the American Rescue Plan was spent on actual COVID treatment
    and combatting COVID, but virtually all of the American Rescue
    Plan was designed to deal with the impact of COVID. And for
    instance, $122 billion to help schools reopen, which we all
    want to do, which is a high priority of Republicans and
    Democrats--$122 billion to make sure that schools can reopen
    safely and effectively. And part of that $122 billion was for
    remedial education, which many of the schools are trying to
    figure out how to do. So, you know, the biggest complaint I get
    now from some of my citizens is they are trying to get one
    program or another financed through the American Rescue Plan
    and the government is telling them, not, that is not COVID
    related. So I would take issue with the characterization,
    although the way you have expressed it, you are technically
    correct.
        Now, I want to talk about inflation and gas prices. You
    know, everybody wants to--everybody has an idea of what causes
    inflation and the American Rescue Plan is an easy target,
    although on the one hand you say so much of the American Rescue
    Plan hasn't been spent yet and then you blame it for creating
    inflation. You have got to have it one way or the other. And I
    know--I love the way Mr. Donalds said economics across the
    spectrum believe this. The only economist who has been
    mentioned today taking issue with the American Rescue Plan and
    inflation has been Lawrence Summers. And so I am--I would look
    to cite some other economists like Moody's Analytics, which
    said--and this is a few weeks ago, this is prior to what has
    happened to gas prices--I will qualify that--but as of a few
    weeks ago Moody's Analytics said that the American Rescue Plan
    was responsible for less than 1 percent of the inflation we are
    experiencing. Something like .6 percent. And the Fed in San
    Francisco did a similar study and came up with the same answer.
    So Mr. Smucker wanted to have a hearing on the causes of
    inflation, I think it would be very instructive to do that
    because I think you would find a lot of different answers and a
    lot of different opinions as to what is responsible for how
    much of the inflation.
        Again, we have talked a lot about Republican Governors and
    Democratic Governors. And Mr. Doggett talked about his opinion
    of the Texas Governor. I have a great Governor. He is a
    Democratic Governor, the state legislature is 75 percent
    Republican. So, you know, it is kind of hard to call Kentucky a
    red state--I mean a blue state by any stretch of the
    imagination, although our Kentucky Governor has done a great
    job. And when you contrast it, not with some of the metrics
    that have been mentioned here today, but with the issue of
    number of cases per capita, number of cases over all, percent
    of hospitalizations, number of deaths, I think you would find
    that the states that have done the worst in terms of preventing
    damage, health consequences to their citizens, they have been
    Republican led states and not Democratic led states.
        Finally, I want to talk about gas prices. You talked about
    gas prices and suggested, Mrs. Lukas, some of the things we
    ought to do. Do you know how many gallons--how many barrels of
    oil the United States is producing today?
        Mrs. Lukas. I don't.
        Chairman Yarmuth. OK. It is is over 12 million barrels a
    day. Do you know where that ranks among all the countries in
    the world?
        Mrs. Lukas. No, sir.
        Chairman Yarmuth. No. 1. We produce more oil on a daily
    basis right now than Russia and Saudi Arabia and every other
    country. And so to say that somehow the policies that
    apparently Joe Biden has put in place over the last 13 \1/2\
    months that he has been in office have done damage to our
    production of energy is not born out by the facts. And in fact
    we are producing more oil now than we ever did under Donald
    Trump, than we ever have done under any other president,
    Republican or Democrat. And in addition, there are 9 million
    acres of licensed drilling opportunities in the United States
    right now. And I don't think that any Republican or Mrs. Lukas
    would want us to have a Gazprom, a government sponsored oil
    company doing the drilling. We have private enterprise in this
    country and they make the decisions as to when to drill, when
    it is their economic interest to drill and to produce oil. They
    are doing that right now.
        So, you know, I don't necessarily blame--I think--you know,
    there has been a current spike that has actually receded
    because of the invasion of Ukraine, but I don't think it--I
    don't call it Putin's inflation of oil prices. That is an
    international market which we don't control, but we are doing
    our best to accommodate.
        I want to thank Ms. Walker for her very compelling story.
    And I know that that is a story that is true of many, many
    women throughout the country. And I do want to make one
    comment, and that is--because it is important that everybody
    realizes this, you may or may not know, but the child tax
    credit expansion is not ended. The monthly checks have ended.
    There are six months more of child tax credit expansion this
    year. You have to file a tax return to get it. But the same
    criteria. You don't have to make money, you just have to--you
    don't have to have an income or taxable income, you just have
    to file the return.
        And speaking to the CBO director last week, there was a
    very encouraging sign that he said only about 6 percent he
    thought right now is the estimate of those who are eligible
    have not taken advantage of that. So I want to make sure that
    people if they haven't do take advantage of it.
        In the remaining time I do want to ask a question of Dr.
    Albanesi. You mentioned the child penalty that is up to 40
    percent. Could you explain a little bit about how that--what is
    in that 40 percent?
        Dr. Albanesi. Yes.
        Chairman Yarmuth. Or how did you get to that 40 percent?
        Dr. Albanesi. Basically it is how much, you know, women's
    wages drop three years or more after having their first child,
    as a result of having become mothers. And it is 40 percent, as
    I said, and it contributes to the largest fraction of the
    gender wage gap overall. And it is a combination of both career
    choices, labor supply, and, you know, also forced career
    choices that women make, as well as, you know, outright
    discrimination in some types of occupations. But it is why, you
    know, in most, you know, households, you know, mothers tend to
    be the less earning, you know, member of the household, you
    know, a two earner couple. And it is also why, you know, single
    mothers, you know, have more trouble making ends meet compared
    to maybe single fathers, because they are paid less.
        So it is, you know, a substantial--the United States is not
    the only country where this exists unfortunately. It is very
    common amongst comparable countries, though it varies quite a
    bit across countries depending on, you know, the wage structure
    and so on.
        Chairman Yarmuth. Great. Well, one final comment before I
    close, and that is my daughter-in-law is in a childcare
    business. She has a day care center with her mother and
    grandmother. They run it. And one of the things that Kentucky
    did with the ARP money was to set up a fund to help support
    childcare. And what that has enabled my daughter-in-law's
    business to do is actually compete on salary with other
    businesses. And she is now able to pay them a competitive wage.
    She is having a much easier time, although not--I wouldn't
    characterize it easy--she is having a less difficult time
    finding qualified personnel to work in the day care center. And
    so that has been a positive way that the American Rescue Plan
    has helped support childcare, again, going through Kentucky
    government.
        So, with that, I only went 17 seconds over my time and I
    was very lenient with the other side and I am not going to--I
    am going to let everybody go and get lunch.
        But I want to once again thank all of our witnesses.
        I will take issue with the one comment that we learn more
    from a witness. Mr. Grothman said we learn more from a witness
    in the room than we do from--virtually. I wouldn't say that is
    necessarily true. It would be nice to have all the witnesses in
    the room. I agree it does create a better dialog. But I think
    we have learned a lot from our virtual witnesses as well.
        So with no--if there is no further business, I thank the
    witnesses for their testimony and responses and this meeting,
    without objection, is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 1:35 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                              [all]