[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]