    [House Hearing, 118 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                       EXPOSING THE WOKE, WASTEFUL, AND
                              BLOATED BUREAUCRACY

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

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                            COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                 HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, D.C., MAY 11, 2023

                                   __________

                                Serial No. 118-3

                                   __________

               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

    53-463                    WASHINGTON : 2024

                            COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET

                      JODEY C. ARRINGTON, Texas, Chairman

    RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina         BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania,
    TOM McCLINTOCK, California             Ranking Member
    GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin            BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
    LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania          JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
    MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas            EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon
    EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia    DANIEL T. KILDEE, Michigan
    BEN CLINE, Virginia                  SCOTT H. PETERS, California
    BOB GOOD, Virginia                   BARBARA LEE, California
    JACK BERGMAN, Michigan               LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
    A. DREW FERGUSON IV, Georgia         JIMMY PANETTA, California
    CHIP ROY, Texas                      JENNIFER WEXTON, Virginia
    BLAKE D. MOORE, Utah                 SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
    DAVID G. VALADAO, California         ILHAN OMAR, Minnesota,
    RON ESTES, Kansas                      Vice Ranking Member
    STEPHANIE I. BICE, Oklahoma          DAVID J. TRONE, Maryland
    LISA C. McCLAIN, Michigan            BECCA BALINT, Vermont
    MICHELLE FISCHBACH, Minnesota        ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT,
    RUDY YAKYM III, Indiana                  Virginia
    JOSH BRECHEEN, Oklahoma              ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York
    CHUCK EDWARDS, North Carolina

                               Professional Staff

                          Gary Andres, Staff Director
                      Greg Waring, Minority Staff Director

                                C O N T E N T S

                                                                       Page
    Hearing held in Washington, D.C., May 11, 2023...................     1
        Hon. Jodey C. Arrington, Chairman, Committee on the Budget...     1
            Prepared Statement of....................................     4
        Hon. Brendan F. Boyle, Ranking Member, Committee on the
          Budget.....................................................     7
            Prepared Statement of....................................     9
        Hon. Sheila Jackson Lee, Member, Committee on the Budget,
          statement submitted for the record.........................    13
        Ms. Rachel Greszler, Senior Research Fellow on Budget and
          Entitlements, The Heritage Foundation......................    19
            Prepared Statement of....................................    21
        Mr. Myron Ebell, Director of the Center for Energy and
          Environment, Competitive Enterprise Institute..............    38
            Prepared Statement of....................................    40
        Ms. Paige Agostin, Policy Director, Center for Renewing
          America....................................................    44
            Prepared Statement of....................................    46
        Mr. Indivar Dutta-Gupta, President and Executive Director,
          Center for Law and Social Policy...........................    50
            Prepared Statement of....................................    52
        Hon. Lloyd Smucker, Member, Committee on the Budget,
          Submission for the record..................................   103
        Questions submitted for the record...........................   125
        Answers submitted for the record.............................   126

                       EXPOSING THE WOKE, WASTEFUL, AND
                              BLOATED BUREAUCRACY

                                  ----------

                             THURSDAY, MAY 11, 2023

                              House of Representatives,
                                       Committee on the Budget,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 a.m., in Room
    210, Cannon Building, Hon. Jodey Arrington [Chairman of the
    Committee] presiding.
        Present: Representatives Arrington, Norman, McClintock,
    Grothman, Smucker, Burgess, Carter, Cline, Good, Bergman,
    Ferguson, Roy, Moore, Estes, Bice, McClain, Fischbach, Yakym,
    Brecheen, Edwards, Boyle, Higgins, Schakowsky, Blumenauer, Lee,
    Doggett, Panetta, Wexton, Jackson Lee, Trone, Balint, Scott,
    and Espaillat.
        Chairman Arrington. Good morning, everybody. The hearing
    will come to order.
        Welcome to the Committee on the Budget's hearing regarding
    woke, wasteful, and bloated bureaucracy. It is a mouthful.
        Now, I would like to yield myself such time as I may
    consume for an opening statement. I am going to try to speak a
    little just off the cuff here, because this is something I have
    been thinking about for a while and something we have been
    discussing as a Committee for now, a few months.
        We are in a real mess financially. We did a Fiscal State of
    the Nation hearing and I think we all agreed, even though we
    may not agree on exactly how to address it, we agreed that the
    financial health of our country is in decline, and that the
    deficit spending and debt trajectory is absolutely and
    completely unsustainable and we have to do something about it.
        I think the debt ceiling proposal that Republicans passed
    out of the House is a good first step. It is just a step, but
    it is an important step to getting our fiscal house in order,
    and it reflects the principles that will be reflected in our
    budget resolution. Rein in the spending, rightsize the
    bureaucracy, and encourage growth, get our economy off high
    center, get out of this nosedive into recession, and get us
    back on the path to prosperity once again.
        I have said this to my friend, Mr. Boyle, Republicans have
    contributed to this over time as well, and I don't think
    anybody, as a lawmaker or a leader of this country, has any
    credibility if they don't understand that fact, but let me say
    this, we have never experienced in the history of our country
    the avalanche of spending like we have seen and witnessed in
    the last two years--$10 trillion of spending, six of which has
    been added to our national debt, all of which has contributed
    to record inflation, soaring interest rates, an economy that is
    sliding quickly into recession and getting us closer--and I
    don't think anybody knows exactly when--the problem is when you
    tip over the precipice into a sovereign debt crisis, all bets
    are off at that point. We are borrowing a trillion and a half
    today as a government, and the gap in funding our government
    will be three trillion if we just keep the policies we have
    now, in ten years. So if you undermine the currency and our
    ability to borrow, it looks really bleak, and that is why we
    have to have a sense of urgency, Democrats and Republicans, to
    deal with this, and that is why I hope and pray that the
    President and our colleagues in the Senate and my Democrat
    friends will come to the table and let's raise the debt ceiling
    responsibly, by allowing our Nation to pay its bills, protect
    the good faith and credit of the United States, but at the same
    time address this out of control spending that has put
    hardworking American families in a real bind, like a real bind.
        Think about this--this statistic is startling to me--an
    average family of four is paying $13,000 per year more to
    purchase the same goods and services they did in January 2021.
    $13,000--over $1,000 a month. Six out of ten Americans are
    living paycheck to paycheck y'all. 45 percent--I read this
    yesterday, Ms. Greszler--45 percent of Americans say that if
    they had an emergency that cost more than $1,000, they can't
    survive it. We see savings down, we see credit card debt and
    consumer debt up at the highest levels. This is a crisis, this
    is a cost of living crisis, driven by inflation and inflation
    has been driven by, in large part, spending.
        So, I encourage my friends and colleagues on the other side
    of the aisle, work with us and encourage the President to do
    what three out of four Americans expect him to do and all of us
    to do. Three out of four say the President ought to negotiate
    fiscal reforms in the debt ceiling. He has done it before. That
    is the thing, Ralph, he has done it before in 2011, the last
    major rightsizing of the bureaucracy and the reining in of the
    spending that was excessive, was led by none other than Joe
    Biden as Vice President, and he was proud to do it, as he
    should have been, and he did it as a Senator. So this isn't
    unprecedented. This isn't unusual. In fact, I would say it
    would be unusual and even irresponsible if we don't do
    something to pay our bills and rein in the spending at the same
    time, in a very sensible way, in a very straightforward way,
    and I believe that is what the Republicans have done in the
    House by passing the Limit, Save, Grow Act, and now I hope that
    our colleagues will respond responsibly and in kind.
        Here is the bottom line, our Federal Government is 40
    percent bigger today than it was in 2019 as we were going into
    an unprecedented pandemic. So coming out of the pandemic, CBO
    projected we would be spending in discretionary spending,
    hundreds of billions of dollars less than we are spending
    today. President Obama's last budget had us spending less than
    we are spending now, his last budget projected that. Folks,
    there is bloat, there is excessive spending, there are programs
    and policies that need to be repealed, and if we do that, we
    have got a fighting chance to bring down inflation and to give
    our children a more hopeful future with respect to our Nation's
    finances.
        Look, I could go through this list here because I have got
    a speech, Brendan, but I want to share something with everybody
    that is hot off the press here. CBO gave us a mid-year, mid
    fiscal year, report, seven months into the fiscal year. Here is
    their report: we are borrowing at a 236 percent higher rate
    than we did this time, over that time frame rather, last year.
    That is $400 billion more borrowing this year, over the first
    seven months, than last year. The biggest driver of the
    spending, or drivers--(1) 40 percent increase in interest
    payments. Chuck, our interest payments this year will be half a
    trillion dollars. We will triple that with just the current
    policies. In ten years, we will be spending $1.5 trillion in
    interest payments. Not a single soldier will benefit, not a
    single senior, not an anti-poverty program, not infrastructure.
    We get nothing for it. It is up 40 percent, guys, in the first
    seven months of this year, over last year. The other driver is
    56 percent or $48 billion in increased spending at the
    Department of Education because President Biden did what I
    believe is unconstitutional, certainly an overreach, and very
    reckless, to cancel almost $700 billion of student loans,
    basically having lower-income families, many of whom just said
    I can't go to college because I can't afford it, basically
    writing off the debt for upper and middle income folks and
    increasing inflation with respect to college tuition. So that
    is a driver, and then, of course, inflation has impacted
    Medicare's trust fund, it has impacted the Social Security
    trust fund. Medicare now is up 15 percent as a result, that is
    $61 billion, Social Security spending up 11 percent, that is
    $73 billion. We are accelerating this insolvency problem for
    important senior safety nets. Guys that came out just two days
    ago.
        I won't go through the army of IRS agents, I won't go
    through the excessive and expensive and unnecessary climate
    policies, hundreds of billions, I won't go through the
    expansion of healthcare to people who already had healthcare
    and make hundreds of thousands, half a million dollars a year.
    Makes no sense. It is wasteful. It is unnecessary.
        I certainly can highlight some of, what I would refer to
    as, progressive Democrat or woke earmarks--$3 million for the
    LGBTQ museum, $2 million to promote dirt bike culture in
    Baltimore, $1.2 million for pride centers in San Diego, $3.6
    million for the Michelle Obama Trail in Decatur, Georgia. If
    the folks in New York want to build an LGBTQ museum, have at
    it, but the people in Lubbock, Texas ought not to underwrite
    it.
        Let's get back to our core function. We are washed in
    waste, folks. We are in a sustained inflation crisis, and we
    got to get this thing back on track, and we got to do it soon.
        So, I welcome our witnesses. Our mission is to restore
    fiscal sanity in this place, and to get our house in order and
    to make sure that our country's future is not bleak, as it is
    today, but bright, because we are doing what every American is
    doing, tightening our belts, changing our spending habits, and
    paying our bills.
        So, with that, Mr. Ranking Member, I will let you have as
    much time as you may consume because I consumed more than I
    thought.
        [The prepared statement of Chairman Arrington follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Boyle. All 20 minutes?
        Chairman Arrington. Ten, I will give you half of what I
    took.
        Mr. Boyle. Mr. Chairman, in all seriousness now, I have to
    say, at first, I am disappointed, you only used the word
    ``woke'' twice. I had bet the over because I know how much my
    Republican friends love using the word ``woke''. If we had a
    dollar for every time they use the word, we would be able to
    pay off the National debt. Still, to this day, I have no idea
    what exactly the word means, and I can't say I am terribly
    interested in finding out.
        I am more interested in responding, though, to the
    Chairman's principled viewpoint on where this economy is, and I
    couldn't disagree more, and here is why: his very pessimistic
    assessment of doom and gloom--that the debt has doomed us, and
    that Americans are struggling today more so than at any time in
    our history--that perception runs completely contrary to all of
    the evidence in front of us. Right now, in America, we have
    lower unemployment than at any time in my lifetime, and I am
    46. You have to go back 55 years to the last time we had an
    unemployment rate this low. He brought up inflation, which has
    been a challenge. The good news is, as the data showed
    yesterday, for eight consecutive months inflation has dropped.
    Inflation--which of course was caused worldwide coming out of
    the pandemic--inflation is lower in the U.S. than in the UK,
    Germany, France, most of our peer countries, and the average of
    OECD countries.
        We are such a marvel, as I pointed out when we had a good,
    vigorous debate on the House floor last session week, over the
    DOA Act, that the Economist magazine, just a couple of weeks
    ago, devoted their entire cover and a leading article to just
    attempting to explain the marvel of the American economy. It is
    brought up to me by colleagues of ours who serve in other
    Western parliaments of some of our respective NATO countries,
    attempting to figure out why it is that the U.S. growth rate is
    better than our Western peers? Why our unemployment rate is
    better, and why our inflation rate is lower.
        Now, do we have real challenges still? Absolutely. I come
    from blue-collar Philadelphia. I am well aware of the
    challenges that ordinary Americans face. We help people in our
    constituent service offices every day with real challenges, but
    the way to help them is not to pass a bill, as the House of
    Representatives did two weeks ago, that, according to Moody's,
    would lead to 800,000 fewer jobs by the end of next year and a
    greater likelihood of a recession. Again, quoting from Moody's
    report. That is not the way to go. The way to go is not to
    threaten the full faith and credit of the United States. We
    have raised the debt ceiling 103 times since 1940, the majority
    of which were under Republican presidents. We voted, including
    myself, three times under the most recent Republican president,
    and do you know, that in those three debt ceiling increases,
    two of the three did not cut spending, they increased spending
    in that very vote. So, we cannot suddenly change our views on
    this based on the political party of the occupant of 1600
    Pennsylvania Avenue. That is unfair to the American people and
    risks our economic growth. The kind of things that were in that
    DOA bill--that I hope we will have a real discussion about
    today--would have devastating consequences.
        And by the way, while we had, I thought, a very good
    vigorous debate and discussion on the House floor two weeks
    ago, that always stayed on message and there was no invective
    from either side--and I appreciate the Budget Committee Members
    on both sides who participated--that said, what about regular
    order? We should have had a hearing on that bill in this
    Committee before it went straight to the floor. I tend to
    remember swearing in day taking a whole week--and my wife and
    daughter missing my actual swearing in because they had to head
    home because it took place after midnight Friday night into
    Saturday morning--and that one of the big topics was supposed
    to be a desire to return to Committee work in regular order
    before things were rushed to the floor. Unfortunately, that did
    not happen.
        So I hope today, two weeks late, we can take this
    opportunity to have essentially the Committee hearing on the
    bill that passed two weeks ago, even though it is clear that
    that bill will be DOA in the Senate. Nonetheless, what is in it
    reveals the priorities of those who wrote it, and we have to
    ensure that the devastating consequences that would result if
    that bill were to ever become law--we have to make sure that
    those consequences are known to the American people.
        So with that, despite you generously offering me more
    time--I did use five and a half minutes--I will yield there. I
    look forward to hearing from the witnesses as well as our
    colleagues.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ranking Member Boyle follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Arrington. I thank my good friend from
    Pennsylvania. In the interest of time, if any other Members
    have opening statements, I would ask that you submit it for the
    record. I will hold the record open to the end of the day to
    accommodate those Members who may not yet have prepared written
    statements.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Arrington. Once again, I would like to welcome our
    witnesses this morning. Today we will hear from Ms. Rachel
    Greszler, Senior Research Fellow on Budget and Entitlements at
    The Heritage Foundation, Mr. Myron Ebell, Director of the
    Center for Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise
    Institute, Ms. Paige Agostin--did I get it right? Ms. Paige
    Agostin, who is the Policy Director at the Center for Renewing
    America, and then Mr. Indivar Dutta-Gupta--from a West Texan
    you are not going to get any better than that. We welcome you.
    Mr. Dutta-Gupta is President and Executive Director of the
    Center for Law and Social Policy, and we are honored that you
    would take time out of your busy lives to share your insights
    with us.
        The Committee has received your written statements. They
    will be made part of the formal hearing record.
        You will each have five minutes to deliver your oral
    remarks and I now yield five minutes to Ms. Greszler.

    STATEMENT OF RACHEL GRESZLER, SENIOR RESEARCH FELLOW ON BUDGET
              AND ENTITLEMENTS AT THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION

        Ms. Greszler. Thank you for the opportunity to be here
    today.
        My name is Rachel Greszler. I am a Senior Research Fellow
    in Economics, Budget, and Entitlements at The Heritage
    Foundation. My remarks today are mine and don't necessarily
    represent those of The Heritage Foundation.
        So paying the correct amount of taxes to the Federal
    Government is not optional. The IRS now has an extra $80
    billion to make sure that Americans are properly paying their
    taxes. Meanwhile, the Federal Government spent $245 billion of
    taxpayers' money last year--that is $1,800 per household--on
    improper payments, but instead of increased audits, most
    government programs get rewarded with bigger budgets. This
    double standard should not exist.
        Last year, one out of every six Medicaid dollars and one
    out of every four CHIP dollars represented an improper payment.
    That is enough to purchase health insurance for 15 million
    individuals. In the Earned Income Tax Credit, one out of every
    three dollars was an improper payment. What that means is that
    for the government to properly transfer $1 to an individual,
    they have to take a dollar and 46 cents from somebody else. I
    estimated that more than 40 percent of the pandemic
    unemployment insurance benefits, that is $357 billion in total,
    went to individuals who were not unemployed, and while the
    media did pick up on international crime rings, even Chinese
    state sponsored hackers stealing Americans' identities and
    taxpayers' money, there is little attention and zero
    consequences to government programs that regularly squander
    taxpayers' dollars.
        Any solution to reducing improper payments will require
    both verifying identity and eligibility, and imposing
    accountability, and that includes consequences. Most improper
    payments come from failure to verify that people are who they
    say they are and that they are eligible for the benefits that
    they claim. According to this year's GAO report, 59 percent of
    improper payments were the result of agencies' failures to
    obtain the data needed to verify payments. Another 25 percent
    was the result of non-existent or inaccessible data. So better
    data is crucial, but it will be meaningless if agencies aren't
    held accountable when they fail to steward taxpayers' dollars.
        For example, Federal agencies already are required to use
    the Do Not Pay database, but what they do is they ping that
    database, they send out the payments, and then afterwards they
    get the results from that database when the money has already
    gone out the door.
        To improve integrity and accountability across government
    programs, I propose the creation of a Taxpayer Integrity
    Office, or a TIO, within the Treasury Department, and that TIO
    should have five responsibilities: one, improving eligibility
    and ID verification; two, strengthening information sharing
    across government; three, maintaining competitive, responsive,
    and secure systems; four, establishing and enforcing reasonable
    standards for agencies to follow; and five, and most
    importantly, is enacting meaningful consequences for agencies'
    failure.
        Finally, while improper payments are a major problem, they
    are a symptom of the bigger disease, which is improper Federal
    spending. When the Federal Government expands its role into
    areas of people's lives that are better addressed within
    households and businesses, by state and local governments, or
    by charitable and religious organizations, that is government
    bloat that comes at the expense of personal freedom and
    opportunity. The Federal Government spent $4.2 trillion last
    year on transfer payments. That is over $32,000 per household.
    It's also nine out of every ten dollars the Federal Government
    collected, and two out of every three dollars the Federal
    Government spent. Bigger government means even bigger improper
    payments. As this chart will show, Federal payments have
    increased at three times the rate of GDP, that is the middle
    yellow line there. Improper payments have increased at four and
    a half times the rate of GDP since 2005. At these current
    rates, improper payments plus interest costs could total $4
    trillion over the next ten years. Constantly expanding
    entitlement programs without any consideration of what they
    will cost is unsustainable, and taking people's money and
    requiring them to jump through bureaucratic hoops to get things
    that the government thinks they need, makes it harder for
    ordinary Americans to earn a living and to pursue what is best
    for them and their families.
        So to reduce improper Federal spending and empower people
    instead of bureaucrats, policymakers should replace tax credits
    with lower overall tax rates, enact universal savings accounts
    to make it simpler and more accessible to save, reject new
    entitlement programs, and reform existing ones.
        Thank you.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Arrington. Thank you, Ms. Greszler. Now we will
    yield five minutes to Mr. Ebell.

     STATEMENT OF MYRON EBELL, DIRECTOR FOR THE CENTER FOR ENERGY
        AND ENVIRONMENT AT THE COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE

        Mr. Ebell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
    Boyle, for inviting me to testify today.
        My name is Myron Ebell and I am Director of the Center for
    Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
    We concentrate on regulatory issues from a free market
    perspective, and so our work is endless.
        I want to congratulate you, Chairman Arrington, on your
    leadership in passing H.R. 2811, the Limit, Save, Grow Act. I
    think this, as you said, is an important first step, and I
    think it puts the forces of fiscal sanity on the offensive in
    Washington for the first time in a long time.
        I want to just say that I believe, and I say this in my
    written testimony, that the most important part of the spending
    cuts that you have, is the repeal of Senator Manchin's so
    called Inflation Reduction Act, particularly the energy
    subsidies, which are huge. This is not only wasteful spending
    of money that the Federal Government does not have, it is not
    only handouts to special corporate interests. Subsidies distort
    markets, and that's why CEI opposes all mandates and subsidies
    in the energy sector. I think we oppose all mandates and
    subsidies. I may be going too far.
        There is one thing about most subsidies, conventional
    subsidies, they actually lower the cost of the product or
    service that is being subsidized. So, for example, if Mexico
    subsidizes tortillas so that poor people can get enough to eat,
    that will lower the cost of tortillas. The perverseness of the
    energy subsidies is that they have the effect of lowering the
    cost of one particular product or contributor in the energy
    sector while actually raising total costs. This is perverse. So
    we subsidize corporate interest to build huge wind factories
    and solar factories, that lowers the cost of wind and solar,
    but it actually raises the price of electricity. We see this
    throughout the world. Germany has gone the furthest. They have
    the world's highest electric rates--maybe Denmark, but they
    have gone just as far. The consequence of this is even worse
    than raising the cost of electricity. The massive mis-
    investment in wind and solar and other handouts--but I don't
    have time to go into all of them--the cost is also that it is
    destroying our energy infrastructure. How is that so? While
    massive mis-investment in wind and solar, there has
    consequently been massive underinvestment in conventional
    dispatchable sources, and let me use the example of Texas
    rather than California, which is--usually we point to
    California, but let me talk about Texas for a moment. In 1999,
    Ken Lay of Enron convinced Governor George W. Bush to support a
    renewable electricity standard for Texas. Since that time--to
    take advantage of the subsidy--since that time, Texas has had
    massive overinvestment, mis-investment in wind, massive
    closures of coal fired power plants, massive underinvestment in
    dispatchable gas plants, and now the Texas legislature and the
    governor are trying to figure out what to do about it because
    Texas faces a reliability crisis, and the answer that many
    people in the legislature seem to be coming up with is, well,
    we will keep taking the wind and solar subsidies and we will
    now subsidize gas plants. This is crazy.
        The other thing, I just like to close with, is it took 150
    years to build the electric infrastructure, it took 150 years
    to build the oil infrastructure, and President Biden claims
    that we are going to transform it in a so-called clean energy
    transition in a decade. This is impossible. This is a train
    wreck.
        Thank you.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Arrington. Thank you, Mr. Ebell, and now we will
    yield five minutes to Ms. Agostin.

     STATEMENT OF PAIGE AGOSTIN, POLICY DIRECTOR AT THE CENTER FOR
                            RENEWING AMERICA

        Ms. Agostin. Chairman Arrington, and Ranking Member Boyle,
    Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me here today.
        Late last year, the Center for Renewing America released a
    proposed budget that sought to provide a strategic vision
    indelibly linking the efforts for getting our Nation's finances
    in order with removing the menace of woke and weaponized
    bureaucracy which is aimed squarely at the American people.
        The main thing I hope to leave with you today is a
    conviction that the woke enterprise is in fact a cultural
    revolution bent on destroying America. The Federal Government
    is now a main distribution channel of it, and if you do not act
    soon, we will not have a country left.
        So first, what does woke mean? Historically, woke meant
    being aware of racial injustices. However, decades later, woke
    is now identity based neo-Marxism, and its goal is to destroy
    American society. The woke adopt the view that our society is
    structured to oppress the marginalized and that differences
    between groups are attributable to this systemic oppression.
    The required solution is to abolish those oppressive norms in
    the name of equity. That is, equal outcomes regardless of
    merit. In some, the woke stoke division among Americans based
    on identity in order to tear down the Republic, eliminate
    capitalism, marginalize religion, and rupture the nuclear
    family.
        As I mentioned, our budget proposal took an in depth look
    at each department and found that the Federal bureaucracy is a
    significant funder of this woke cultural revolution. It is the
    framework by which the bureaucracy operates. It is how it
    structures its programs and makes funding decisions, and what
    trainings and guidelines it adopts, and because the bureaucracy
    is so big and spends trillions of dollars, private businesses
    are happily coerced into the same mission.
        Just a small sample of what we found in health and
    education and foreign aid. The Department of Health and Human
    Services and the National Institutes of Health actively push so
    called gender affirming care, which is cross sex hormones and
    surgical mutilation, even for minors. NIH funds human fetal
    tissue harvesting from aborted babies for medical research, and
    CDC spent nearly $6 billion to address so called COVID health
    disparities through the lens of health equity, 25 states allow
    Medicaid to pay for chemical castration via hormone therapy,
    and 23 states pay for irreversible and mutilating genital
    surgery, and the Biden Administration's Section 1557 rule would
    require all insurance to cover chemical castration and sex
    change surgeries or be deemed discriminatory.
        Federal grants often have a specific woke purpose, but they
    also serve as a taxpayer funded lifeline to civil institutions
    committed to spreading the woke dogma. The University of
    Maryland Medical System performs gender transition surgeries on
    boys and girls at the earliest onset of puberty as young as
    nine and ten years old, and received a $3.5 million grant to
    increase mental health and advanced gender affirming care, or
    take $4.7 million in a CDC grant to the National Minority AIDS
    Council for Training and Technical Assistance. That
    organization engages in pro Black Lives Matter activism and
    promotes radical gender theory. Three CDC grants, totaling $8
    million, went to Access Matters, which is based in
    Philadelphia, for so called family health care. That
    organization says its abortion services are provided through
    the lens of equity, which means explicitly pushing abortion on
    vulnerable minority populations.
        The Department of Education, often under the guise of
    culturally responsive learning and social emotional learning,
    is an active adversary of parents and citizens concerned about
    the inherent race essentialism of CRT and gender theory.
    Through its Equity Assistance centers, it trains teachers to
    incorporate critical race theory and gender transition of
    children without parental knowledge. It also provided more than
    $60 million through its SEED program to morph teachers into
    essentially progressive activists. The Department's cultural
    learning was featured in its K-12 History and Civics Education
    Competitive Grant program, which reminds applicants that
    America is systemically racist and emphasized both Ibram
    Kendi's ``How to Be an Antiracist'' and the factually
    challenged ``1619 project''.
        Lastly, at least for this testimony, the State Department's
    diplomatic programs remain geared toward exporting woke
    ideology abroad. Millions of dollars go to support programs
    like gay pride parades in Prague, LGBTI activists in Senegal,
    LGBTQIA+ social events in Australia, and drag theater in
    Ecuador. Woke is the umbrella ideology, and it uses all manner
    of terms and concepts like equity and inclusion. Every dollar
    should be examined to determine what, in fact, the country is
    spending money on. This should absolutely not be an exercise in
    austerity wherein every program must take a hit.
        Wokeness is now essentially a taxpayer funded secular
    religion crafted by secular elites to supplant the Nation's
    Judeo-Christian traditions that have stood the test of time. It
    is dangerous, existentially dangerous, for Congress to continue
    funding the priorities of a neo-Marxist ideology that seeks
    only to destroy that which has come before.
        Thank you.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Arrington. Thank you, Ms. Agostin. Now we yield
    five minutes to Mr. Dutta-Gupta.

       STATEMENT OF INDIVAR DUTTA-GUPTA, PRESIDENT AND EXECUTIVE
        DIRECTOR AT THE CENTER FOR LAW AND SOCIAL POLICY (CLASP)

        Mr. Dutta-Gupta. Thank you, Chairman Arrington, Ranking
    Member Boyle, and Members of the Committee.
        My name is Indi Dutta-Gupta, and I am President and
    Executive Director of the Center for Law and Social Policy, or
    CLASP. CLASP is a national, nonpartisan, nonprofit, using
    research and analysis to promote effective policy solutions to
    end poverty and advance racial and gender equity.
        This morning, I will discuss why many people rely on
    Federal programs to achieve economic security and why the deep
    cuts mandated under the McCarthy debt ceiling bill would
    undermine the Nation's well-being. Finally, I will discuss the
    importance of raising revenues and the dangers of failing to
    raise the debt limit.
        So first, why do people rely on Federal programs for
    economic security? Well, the United States suffers from an
    unusual number of low wage, low paid jobs, ranking 39th out of
    42 OECD countries. As a result, many who benefit from support
    programs are simply workers paid too little to make ends meet.
    Others experience low incomes due to the hazards of life,
    including illness, disability, death of a family member,
    outliving savings, underemployment, intimate partner violence,
    and caring for a loved one. Fortunately, a vast array of
    rigorous empirical studies has demonstrated that individual
    programs and our social protection system overall helps
    families with low incomes stabilize their lives, maintain
    employment, advance in the labor market, and help their
    children thrive. Unfortunately, our still very high prevalence
    of economic insecurity harms us all. Allowing child poverty
    alone to persist costs us nearly $1.5 trillion dollars
    annually.
        Unsurprisingly, the McCarthy bill's deep cuts would
    undermine the Nation's well-being. The House debt ceiling bill
    would set dangerously low caps on appropriations that would
    grow harsher over time. If House Republicans later exclude from
    the caps defense spending and veterans medical spending, even
    as defense and veterans' health costs grow, virtually all other
    appropriated spending would need to be eliminated. Let that
    sink in. Supports on the chopping block include child care,
    which supports parents while they work or go to school to
    improve their employment prospects, post-secondary education
    and workforce development, which can offer credentials required
    for better jobs and supports our small businesses, and food
    safety, public health, and basic transportation programs that
    benefit all of us. The bill would also use work reporting
    requirements to limit access to Medicaid, Snap, and TANF,
    programs that help families, including more than a million
    veterans, access opportunity, and thrive. Extensive evidence
    proves that such work requirements do little to promote work,
    but they do increase hardship, harming many who merely fail to
    meet and overcome the red tape these requirements create.
        So instead, revenues must be part of the answer. The United
    States is a low tax country, ranking 32 out of 38 OECD
    countries, and tax cuts have actually propelled us to our
    current debt levels. The Bush tax cuts, their extensions, and
    the Trump tax cuts alone are responsible for most of the
    increase in the ratio of debt to economic output since 2001,
    and more than 90 percent of the increase if we exclude the cost
    of combating COVID-19 and the prior recession. Yet the McCarthy
    bill would reduce revenues by cutting the IRS budget and making
    it harder to collect taxes owed by the wealthy and
    corporations.
        We face serious dangers if we fail to raise our arbitrary
    debt limit. A default could spark a financial crisis, causing
    millions of job losses and decimating retirement savings. It
    would make borrowing more expensive and reduce families'
    abilities to build wealth through home ownership, through
    education, or through entrepreneurship. Millions of people
    would immediately feel the impact of a stop in government
    spending through delays in Social Security, veterans'
    disability payments, and more. A recession, which the proposed
    cuts could trigger, would harm everyone, particularly workers
    paid the lowest wages, young people, and communities of color,
    many of whom are among the last hired and first fired.
        The House passed bill is an ideological wish list that
    would also wreck our economy. Congress should not pass any deal
    that increases hardship, never mind one that asks struggling
    families to foot the bill so the richest corporations and
    households can evade their taxes. Instead, Congress should
    raise the debt ceiling on its own now and get to the work of
    investing in our families and communities, which make our
    Nation strong.
        Thank you.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Arrington. I thank Mr. Dutta-Gupta and all of our
    witnesses. We are going to go into the question-and-answer
    session.
        I want to start by yielding myself five minutes, and I am
    going to focus on the economic policies and consequences side
    of this discussion.
        Mr. Ebell, my colleagues may have a different view of the
    economy and the path we are on and the projections that we have
    received from nonpartisan groups like CBO. I believe things are
    really bad, and I think they are going to get a lot worse if we
    don't change. GDP is at 1.1 percent in this first quarter, it
    is down from the last quarterly report, which was down from the
    last quarterly report, because of interest rates, and interest
    rates are coming at us in hikes that we haven't experienced in
    a while because of inflation, labor participation rates are
    low, et cetera, et cetera.
        But you talked about regulations. That is one that I don't
    think--that is a side of policies and economic impact that I
    don't think we quantify enough or discuss enough, the
    deleterious effects on our economy. $400 billion is what I
    understand, sir, $400 billion in additional regulatory cost in
    two years from this administration. My understanding it is
    twice the clip of President Obama and six or seven times the
    amount of regulatory burden and cost of the previous
    administration, President Trump. What do you say about
    overregulating and its adverse impacts on us at this point,
    coming out of a recession and having the prospect of growth and
    jobs and higher wages and all the good things that come with
    that?
        Mr. Ebell. Thank you, Chairman Arrington. Yes, I agree with
    you. The three dampers on economic growth and prosperity are
    overtaxing, overspending, and overregulating, and my colleague
    at CEI, Wayne Crews, is the real expert on this, on regulation.
    He has spent his entire career trying to quantify and identify
    the costs of regulation.
        In the energy sector, we see that regulation is a huge
    damper on the use and the production of energy, and I would say
    this, if you want to look at a place to get some economic
    growth, what I would call the Trump energy dominance agenda is
    what we need to return to. It turns out, because of the shale,
    oil, and gas revolution, that America is the world's energy
    superpower, and the so-called clean energy transition is an
    attempt to take us back to the days when we were incredibly
    dependent upon foreign countries for our energy.
        We used to run several hundred billion dollars of deficits
    in importing oil every year. We are now an oil exporter and a
    gas exporter. Instead of that, what the clean energy transition
    proposes is that we become almost entirely dependent upon China
    for the critical minerals that are used in windmills, solar
    panels, and electric batteries. So we are going in the wrong
    direction right now. I think your bill is a good step, moving
    us back in the right direction.
        Chairman Arrington. Let me follow on that comment about
    wind and solar.
        My district actually produces more wind than any district
    in America, by the way, but we also sit on top of the Permian
    Basin, so we get to say that we produce all of the above, but I
    am concerned about the distorting effect that you talked about
    with respect to reliable and affordable sources of energy--by
    the way, sources of energy we may need if we were ever to go to
    war, for example, with China. We would also need financing for
    that war, which I am very concerned that we wouldn't have.
        One of the elements of the Green Energy Corporation
    subsidies, one element of my concern is that they are three
    times higher than what they were marketed and sold during the
    IRA. The other piece is much of the component parts, if not the
    majority, of solar and wind are coming from China. I read an
    article where China was going to benefit by, to the tune of
    $125 billion. Can you make a quick comment there? And then I am
    going to move on, let my Ranking Member ask questions.
        Mr. Ebell. You are absolutely right, there is a lot to be
    said about this, but we have traded energy independence for
    being dependent upon a potential adversary for everything that
    keeps our economy going, which is the stuff that moves and
    produces energy.
        Chairman Arrington. Thank you for your quick comment. Now,
    Mr. Boyle, I will yield five minutes for your questions.
        Mr. Boyle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to all
    the witnesses.
        Indi, you mentioned something in your opening statement
    that I was very glad to hear because you rarely hear it either
    on Capitol Hill or just in the media as part of this discourse,
    and that is the great missing tax revenue. 2001, George W. Bush
    tax cuts, which weren't paid for, 2003, George W. Bush tax
    cuts, which also weren't paid for, their extension, which was
    done on a bipartisan basis about a decade later, and then, of
    course, the 2017 Trump tax cuts. All told, are you able to put
    a number on just exactly how much missing tax revenue there is?
    And of course, as you pointed out, you think about that--too
    often around here we hear about the spending side, but we don't
    hear about the whole other half of the equation, which is the
    revenue side. So want to make sure that if we are going to
    really talk about deficit and debt, we talk about both sides of
    the ledger.
        Mr. Dutta-Gupta. That is right. Thank you, Ranking Member
    Boyle.
        We have in many ways, as I mentioned, propelled ourselves
    into our current ratio of debt to our economic activity because
    of these tax cuts. Just to put it in perspective, in a decade
    or so, we would actually have seen that ratio decline were it
    not for these tax cuts and their extensions, so----
        Mr. Boyle. The debt-to-GDP ratio.
        Mr. Dutta-Gupta. The debt-to-GDP ratio would actually
    decline. So the tax cuts on their own have added about $10
    trillion to the debt since 2001, which is, I think, what you
    are getting at.
        I will just emphasize quickly that in the United States,
    the overall taxes paid as a share of our economy and our
    economic activity is much closer to middle income countries
    and, like Mexico even, than it is to our wealthy peers who have
    higher living standards than the lower tax countries. So I
    think what we ultimately all want is higher living standards
    for the American people, and if anything, our low taxes are
    getting in the way of that here. We are not trying to reduce
    people's ability to have those high living standards, we want
    to reduce the cost of living that they face.
        Mr. Boyle. And this is before we even look at the
    disproportionate impact of those tax cuts in terms of where
    most of that money was going. I mean, the most recent round of
    tax cuts, the one for which I was here, the Trump tax cuts,
    officially called the TCJA, CBO estimated 83 percent of that
    going to the top one percent by the end of the ten-year window.
        Let me transition real quickly, though, to the debt
    ceiling, because this is something I have worked on for a long
    time, and while I think many people are now coming to
    understand the devastating consequences of default, I think
    there is a part of the conversation, though, that has been
    missed, and that is while the question of whether we default or
    not is binary, that obscures there is a whole continuum between
    then and now in which we could also suffer consequences even if
    we ultimately raise the debt ceiling by the deadline.
        So I was wondering if you could talk about what happened in
    2011. We did suffer the first ever credit downgrade in American
    history. One of the three credit agencies downgraded us, which,
    according to the Government Accountability Office, cost us over
    $1 billion dollars in extra borrowing costs. So I wonder if you
    could speak to that.
        Mr. Dutta-Gupta. That is right, and I will just add that
    households suffer. Their household wealth fell by almost $2.5
    trillion dollars over the second and third quarter of 2011. As
    a result, consumer confidence fell, mortgage spreads increased,
    and it led to hundreds of dollars a month in increased
    borrowing costs for new borrowers. So approaching the debt
    ceiling just makes it harder for Treasury to issue regular
    debt, and that creates a lot of uncertainty and increased costs
    throughout financial markets as well.
        Mr. Boyle. I would also just share, in the 30 seconds I
    have left, based on conversations I have had, I feel quite
    confident that unfortunately the other credit agencies will
    downgrade us if this debt ceiling drama plays out much longer,
    and that, of course, has so many impacts. You just described
    what happened in 2011 in terms of household wealth. I fear this
    time it would, in fact be worse. It is all the more reason that
    we solve this now.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Chairman Arrington. I thank the Ranking Member.
        I now yield five minutes to the gentleman from South
    Carolina, Mr. Ralph Norman.
        Mr. Norman. We got two different worlds up here. We really
    do. We are diametrically opposed in our viewpoint, in our
    thinking.
        Congressman Boyle, you mentioned about regular order on the
    border bill and on the bill we put up to the Senate to cut and
    rein in spending. It didn't go through regular order. I was one
    of the 20 that objected to bills, we held out until things do
    go through regular order. Reason these two bills didn't, on the
    spending bill that we presented to the Senate, this
    administration has not cut $1. He has made his thoughts known,
    no cuts, clean debt ceiling raise, which is insane. A lemonade
    stand run by a 12-year-old can find cuts, at least $1. This
    administration doesn't. What does his budget do? Biden's
    budget, $2 billion more, just a few, to increase regulations of
    the firearms industry, $512 million to provide money for
    abortion services to the Department of Health and Human
    Services, $3 billion for ``marginalized communities'' to
    promote advanced gender equity and equality. It goes on and on.
    So that is why the two bills didn't go through.
        On the border bill, there is no reason to have a debate.
    This administration is opening the doors to every country in
    the world to come into the United States, which has never been
    done, and the sad part about it, when the cities start
    hollering, like New York did, that they are out of money, they
    are going to come to the Federal Government. Guess what? The
    Federal Government has no money to spend.
        Mr. Dutta-Gupta, I heard your comments, which really were
    amazing, that you would make the statements that you have made.
    Just raise the debt ceiling, corporations need to pay more
    taxes. Have you ever run a small business?
        Mr. Dutta-Gupta. I run a small nonprofit.
        Mr. Norman. Nonprofit. Have you ever had a business where
    you had to hire employees?
        Mr. Dutta-Gupta. That is what I do.
        Mr. Norman. No. Your agency is supported by the profits of
    companies and the small businesses. Am I wrong? Yes, I am
    right.
        Mr. Dutta-Gupta. It is supported by foundations, individual
    donors.
        Mr. Norman. Here is what I suggest you do, get out on Main
    Street America, explain how the inflation, which has increased
    14.9 percent, how are they handling that? Explain how food
    prices are up 17 percent, how are they handling that? Gas
    prices, 37 percent. From abandoning our natural resources and
    buying from countries from OPEC that hate America. Let them
    explain that to you. Real wages have decreased by 3.5 percent
    because of inflation. Why do you think the rating for this
    administration is so low? His policies are insane, and it is
    tearing the country down.
        Now we have a lot of hot air and wind up here too in
    Congress. We are going to take action on cuts and thank God the
    leverage on the debt ceiling. Finally, the Democrats in the
    Senate have got some consequences. Let them not put forward
    their plan. I heard not one plan that you offer. It was just
    criticisms. Let them put it in writing, as businesses have to
    do, on what their plan to solve this crisis.
        Now, I assume corporations--I don't know whether you
    understand it or not, but corporations don't pay tax. It is the
    people that pay the tax. Corporations don't pay it. So I think
    that where we are right now, if your house is on fire, you
    don't rearrange the furniture around the pool, and that is what
    this Republican led House, which is in charge of the purse
    strings, is going to do one way or another, and I am tired of
    the talk. We are going to put it forward.
        I have yet to hear a plan by this administration to offer
    any solution other than just spend more money. It is an insult
    to the American people and it is an insult to our military, and
    what they are attempting to put us in a bind by more spending
    is going to shipwreck this country, along with every other
    thing that this administration has done.
        Ms. Greszler, I was very impressed with your proposal about
    putting together a group to oversee the fraud and abuse. Would
    you go into how we would implement that and real quickly? We
    got 35 seconds.
        Ms. Greszler. Yeah. That is a Taxpayer Integrity Office
    within the Treasury Department. You could use the existing
    funding that is there, and the biggest thing is that they need
    to have the authority to impose the consequences.
        Mr. Norman. A thought would be to put a panel of business
    people who have no agenda, who don't have to answer to the
    lobbyists, who can say, this makes sense, and question
    everything. That is what this country needs now more than ever.
    Thank you all for what you are doing.
        Mr. Ebell and Paige, I wish we had more time, but you are a
    voice of reason and a voice we are going to consider. Thank you
    so much. I yield back.
        Chairman Arrington. Thank you, Mr. Norman, and we now yield
    five minutes to the gentleman from New York, my friend, Mr.
    Higgins.
        Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, let's
    make very clear that the U.S. economy is not in decline, it is
    healthy and it is growing. Under President Biden, for the past
    24 months, 14 million jobs have been created, the unemployment
    rate is at 3.6 percent, the lowest in 54 years, the projected
    inflation rate at this time next year will be 2.5 percent--
    normal based on historical trends. Under the previous
    administration, 3 million jobs were lost, including 300
    thousand manufacturing jobs. That woke publication, Fortune
    magazine, said that under the Trump Administration was the
    greatest job loss since Herbert Hoover.
        The United States economy is $23 trillion. It is nearly one
    quarter of the world economy. U.S. Treasury bonds are the
    safest, most reliable investment in all the world. The U.S.
    dollar is the go-to currency in the world, 75 percent of U.S.
    bonds are owned by Americans, local banks, local businesses,
    local governments, Social Security, Medicare, and Federal
    pensioners. America made a promise to its own people and the
    institutions who dared to invest in the country's economic
    growth. Again, these bonds are the safest investment in all the
    world. Why would you want to stiff your own people and destroy
    your own currency and destroy your own economy?
        The 14th Amendment, Section Four of the United States
    Constitution is as clear as it can be. The validity of the
    public debt shall not be questioned. This is not a political
    negotiation, this is a moral and legal obligation to be
    honored. The budget is a law enacted by Congress, and that law
    is the debt ceiling. The U.S. needs to pay its obligations, and
    if Kevin McCarthy wants to petition the United States Supreme
    Court to allow the United States of America to default on its
    obligations to its own people for the first time in the United
    States' history that is on his speakership and on his party. We
    are a better country than that.
        Yes, there is a debt problem. I understand that. What is
    the contemporary historical example as to how you deal with
    debt? You deal with debt through growth, growth of the economy.
    From 1992 to 2000, you had 4 percent economic growth each year
    sustained over an 8-year period. We didn't have a budgetary
    deficit; we had a $300 billion budgetary surplus. We paid $400
    billion to reduce the overall debt. America is better than
    this. It is a constitutional obligation that we pay our debts,
    particularly when 75 percent of those are to our own people.
    When there is financial crisis in the Nation, when there is
    financial crisis in the world, American debt and the investment
    in it is referred to as a flight to safety because it is a
    safe, sound economic investment.
        Mr. Gupta.
        Mr. Dutta-Gupta. Well, I appreciate that, Representative
    Higgins.
        I will just add by saying this is sort of the equivalent of
    taking out a mortgage. The bank knows you can pay for it,
    believes you can pay for it, it is happy to give you the
    mortgage, and you come to them and you say, I have a side
    agreement with my family that I am just not going to pay. It
    doesn't make sense. We can have a good conversation about
    reducing debt, stabilizing debt, which by the way, the
    President's budget does stabilize debt over time, but we should
    take off the table the threats to raising the debt limit itself
    because of the potential economic calamities, obviously there
    are constitutional questions, but I think it makes a lot of
    sense to look at, including our military spending, which we
    have been told is going to be off the table under these caps.
    So we are looking at instead a very small slice of spending,
    mostly non-defense discretionary spending, and the biggest
    chunk of that is veterans medical care, and that is being taken
    off the table from what we have heard as well. So that is a
    different conversation.
        But the U.S. economy, I want to note, has grown and people
    are working. We actually have the highest employment to
    population ratio, which is now above the prior peak on record,
    except for the late 1990s and 2000, when we also had a booming
    economy.
        Mr. Higgins. I yield back.
        Chairman Arrington. Thank you, Mr. Higgins.
        We now yield five minutes to the gentleman from California,
    my friend Mr. McClintock.
        Mr. McClintock. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        First of all, I agree with Mr. Higgins, which is why
    Republicans just voted to raise the debt limit by $1.5
    trillion, but I remind him that if your family is spending
    itself into debt and you need to ask the bank for an increase
    in your credit card limit, you damn well better have a serious
    discussion about what has gotten you into this mess and make a
    plan to get out of that mess. That is what the Republican bill
    does. If the Democrats don't like it, they can strip all of the
    measures out in the Senate and send it back to us and then it
    goes to conference and we have discussion, that family
    discussion. That is what this whole Capitol building is all
    about, discussing our differences and reaching a common
    direction on behalf of the American people.
        Now, to answer the Ranking Member that the term woke is not
    one of the right, it came from the left. It is a toxic
    combination of socialism and racism, and the reason that the
    left doesn't like it being used today is because it has already
    been discredited in the eyes of an overwhelming majority of
    Americans. I am sorry, but his party has made that bed and now
    they are going to have to sleep in it.
        Once again, I would warn him that you cannot spin the
    economy. Everybody knows how the economy is doing in their own
    lives and trying to gaslight them never works. Whenever the
    left is taking control, you see the same economic pathologies,
    rampant homelessness, sky high taxes, failing businesses, and
    ultimately fleeing families. I have seen that myself. I live in
    California, and if you just look at the census numbers, you can
    see what people believe is a better environment to raise their
    families.
        What my Democratic colleagues don't seem to understand is
    that government cannot put a dollar into the economy that it
    first hasn't taken out of that same economy, and it can do so
    in only one of three ways that I know of. You either raise
    taxes, that reduces the current standard of living, it
    suppresses productivity, borrowing, that crowds out to capital
    what would otherwise be available to loan to consumers to make
    consumer purchases, or businesses to expand jobs, incurs
    enormous interest costs and ultimately has got to be paid back
    anyway through future taxes, which reduces people's future
    standard of living, and then finally you have inflation,
    pushing money into the economy that is unsupported by
    productivity and that in turn reduces the value of the dollar
    and increases prices.
        Can any of our panelists tell me any other possible way
    government spending can be paid for? I guess it turns out all
    that free money isn't so free. It is actually very expensive
    and people are paying it back every day at the gas station, at
    the grocery store, and in their paychecks.
        So the central question then is what we are spending? Now,
    we just heard that raising taxes to fund more social programs
    is sound policy. They always tell us that socialism is caring
    and sharing and taking care of each other and capitalism is dog
    eat dog selfishness. They have got it completely backwards.
    There is only one way to prosper in a free society, you have to
    figure out what somebody else needs and figure out how to get
    it for them better than they can do it for themselves. That is
    true whether it is sweeping a floor or designing an advanced
    microchip. Socialism is taking what one person has made by
    helping others and giving it to someone who has not. It is
    true. If I take a dollar from Peter and give it to Paul, Paul's
    got an extra dollar to spend, he is $1 better off, but Peter,
    of course, has one less dollar to spend, and that is why
    socialism is so destructive, because you have now robbed both
    Peter and Paul of a dollar of incentive to help each other,
    Peter because he no longer profits by helping others, and Paul
    because he no longer needs to. That is why socialism
    consistently produces poverty and misery wherever it is
    practiced. It destroys the natural incentives in a free society
    that encourages people to help each other the most efficient
    way that they can.
        And here is the rub. A free market is an amazingly
    democratic process because every consumer, everyday, votes with
    every dollar they spend on what the economy will produce and
    what prices they are willing to pay. When government takes that
    dollar out of the economy, it transfers that decision from the
    consumer to the government. Instead of consumers deciding what
    they need, government makes that decision for them. So instead
    of using the dollar you have earned to support your family,
    government takes that dollar and spends it on an LGBT museum.
    Capital would otherwise go to its highest and best economic
    use, instead is used for its highest and best political use,
    something that is radically different.
        Mr. Ebell, what do subsidies do to stuff the economic
    ballot box and cause consumers to make inefficient decisions
    that they would never make if they were getting accurate price
    information?
        Mr. Ebell. Thank you, Representative McClintock.
        That was an outstanding summary of how the economy works
    and what is wrong with government intervention and government
    taking taxes and spending it on things that don't create
    wealth.
        And I think Mr. Higgins mentioned that the economy grew at
    4 percent in the 1990s, and that is because the policies were
    much closer to what you advocate than to what some others
    advocate. The economy was still benefiting from the Reagan tax
    cuts, the historic Reagan tax cuts, and I would point out that
    during most of the 1990s, the Republicans were in control of
    both the House and the Senate.
        So to say----
        Chairman Arrington. The gentleman's time has expired. I
    appreciate the response, but we need to keep this moving.
        Mr. McClintock, thank you, and now I want to yield five
    minutes to Ms. Schakowsky from Illinois.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Well, I am going to actually try and get a better
    understanding of woke, a word that actually I have never used
    in a sentence myself, although I hear it a lot out there and
    heard it today, and unfortunately, I think it was also in the
    name of this hearing.
        I have just yes or no questions for every one of our
    witnesses, and maybe this will clarify our priorities. To me,
    it seems as if veterans have earned and deserve comprehensive
    healthcare. That has been a promise that we have made to
    veterans, and now we know that we do not have thousands and
    thousands of nurses that are needed for the Veterans
    Administration to take care of them.
        So my yes or no question is do you think that hiring more
    nurses to provide for our veterans is woke and wasteful and
    bloated? Yes or no?
        Ms. Greszler. I can start and just say that I think that we
    need to get nurses hired. One thing you could do first is to
    just not allow nurses who work at the Veterans Administration
    to work for the unions instead of treating veterans.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Well, it is really--I have a number of
    questions. So do you think that we should hire more nurses? I
    understand that you have qualifications to make sure that we--
    --
        Ms. Greszler. First you should use the nurses you have to
    treat veterans instead of to work for unions.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Can we go down the line?
        Mr. Ebell. It is not my issue area. Thank you.
        Ms. Agostin. Not necessarily.
        Mr. Dutta-Gupta. Not at all. Not at all, and remember,
    nearly a million veterans also participate in Medicaid and
    could be caught up in the work reporting requirements of the--
    --
        Ms. Schakowsky. Okay, so was your answer that it is not
    woke to take care of our veterans?
        Ms. Agostin. Not necessarily. It could be woke, though.
    Happy to give you more details.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Okay. So there was recently a--recently we
    learned the Department of Labor found that there were 102
    minors, children who were working in very dangerous meat
    packing plants. They were doing some very dangerous work.
        So my question is, do you think that it is woke or wasteful
    to allow the Department of Agriculture and the Department of
    Labor to actually make sure--and spend money to be able to make
    sure that we aren't having children that are working, some as
    young as 13, in dangerous workplaces? Yes or no?
        Ms. Greszler. No, I think that those laws need to be
    pursued to protect children, but also the border laws need to
    be enforced because a lot of those were stolen identities.
        Mr. Ebell. No, but I think you have added wasteful to woke,
    which raises new questions. So----
        Ms. Schakowsky. Well, that was in the title of our hearing.
    It was about wasteful----
        Mr. Ebell. Yes, but you wanted to ask about woke, not--you
    have now added wasteful. Wasteful and woke are two different
    issues.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Okay. My question is on woke and wasteful,
    the words that were in our hearing.
        Yes, do you think so?
        Ms. Agostin. I think the Department of Labor spends
    millions of dollars through all different kinds of programs,
    including job corps----
        Ms. Schakowsky. Should we protect child labor?
        Ms. Agostin. Should you protect child labor?
        Ms. Schakowsky. Children, children from doing dangerous
    child labor.
        Ms. Agostin. Yes, you shouldn't let children do dangerous
    child labor.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Is it woke to do that?
        Mr. Dutta-Gupta. Absolutely not.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Let me see my time. Well, it looks like--I
    had a number of questions, but it seems to me that when we look
    at the important things that government regulation can do to
    make sure that our workers are safe, that our children are
    safe, that our railroad workers, which I was going to talk
    about, are safe, is very, very important. This is not about
    being woke. This is about being sensible and doing the right
    thing for our American people.
        And I yield back.
        Chairman Arrington. I thank the gentle lady from Illinois.
        I now yield five minutes to my friend from Virginia, Mr.
    Cline.
        Mr. Cline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Contrary to what you are hearing today and what you might
    hear coming out of the White House press room, the fiscal state
    of our great Nation is in desperate need of a reality check,
    and facing this looming fiscal crisis, House Republicans have
    risen to the occasion. We passed the Limit, Save, Grow Act, a
    package of fiscal reforms and pro-growth policies to protect
    the full faith and credit of the United States, but ensure that
    we will not accrue debt as we have over the past few decades.
        Without providing a solution of their own, the White House
    has resorted to false statements, alleging, for example, that
    the Limit, Save, Grow Act would cut veterans benefits despite
    there not being a single line in the bill to substantiate the
    claim.
        But while the President refuses to negotiate, the House
    Budget Committee is pushing forward to identify meaningful
    areas to reduce spending in a Federal Government that is
    growing increasingly, yes, woke and weaponized.
        Often overlooked as a source of potential savings, improper
    payments from government programs amounted to over $247 billion
    last year. That is nearly 15 times the total of this year's
    budget for Customs and Border Patrol, and as we know, there is
    a crisis in Customs and Border Patrol that is under-resourced,
    undermanned, and understaffed.
        Let me ask Ms. Greszler, this was a primary point made in
    your testimony. How is this able to happen year after year? How
    are we not able to get a handle on this?
        Ms. Greszler. There is simply no accountability. It doesn't
    matter how much in improper payments goes out the door, all
    that is done is there is a report, it is measured, it is sent
    in. Nothing happens. You get more money. A lot of these are
    entitlement programs. They are entitled to get the dollars no
    matter what, and as I pointed out, in some cases, that means
    you have to take $1.46 to deliver $1 in benefits.
        Mr. Cline. In one of the more egregious examples of
    improper payments in your testimony, you showed that more than
    550 million claims for unemployment benefits went to people who
    were not unemployed. To what degree do you think that the rapid
    expansion of these benefits throughout the COVID pandemic
    played a part in this? And have you noticed any other
    contributing factors to increased rates of improper payments in
    your research?
        Ms. Greszler. Yeah, I think that the Federal unemployment
    pandemic programs created a perfect storm. The state systems
    were already outdated, but then the Federal Government stepped
    in and they imposed these standards on the states that they
    could not follow through with. Essentially, anybody could
    qualify for an unemployment insurance benefit. You simply had
    to say, I have been affected by COVID-19. There were no income
    checks, and the impetus was told to the states, get the money
    out the door quickly, we will check it afterwards. Well, we
    have seen what has happened is that they are not checking it
    afterwards, and it is very difficult to get the money back once
    it is out the door.
        One of the most egregious ones is the only one I can point
    to is a rapper in California who made a YouTube video called
    EDD for California's Employment Development Department, and he
    is sitting there with a video showing the stacks of EBT cards
    and saying, hey, you got to go sell cocaine, all I got to do is
    file a claim. So, yes, they got him, but they are not getting
    the Chinese state sponsored hackers, they are not getting the
    international crime rings, and so we are bringing in a couple
    of million, maybe even a billion dollars here and there, when
    $357 billion went to people who were not unemployed.
        Mr. Cline. And it is having an impact on our ability to
    fight the international drug trade, secure our border, and any
    other number of important priorities of this government.
        Mr. Ebell, nonsensical climate regulations also present
    prime opportunities for reductions in spending. For example,
    the EPA received $10 billion for Fiscal Year 2023 to enact
    regulations such as their new WOTUS Rule that burdens farmers
    and by proposing stringent tailpipe emission standards to
    target an overwhelming majority of passenger vehicles. Further,
    the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy received
    $3.2 billion for Fiscal Year 2023 to go after Americans' gas
    stoves, washing machines, refrigerators, light bulbs. How do
    these regulations impact an American's freedom to choose what
    they want to buy in an open market? And would the outcome of
    these regulations result in disparate impacts for low-income
    families?
        Mr. Ebell. Thank you, Representative Cline.
        I think you have raised a very important issue that
    deserves its own hearing and I hope that you will be putting
    some riders in appropriations bills in your other Committee
    assignment.
        Mr. Cline. We are working on that.
        Mr. Ebell. Yes, all of these rules and regulations on
    efficiency standards, on appliances, cars, furnaces, air
    conditioners, are raising costs which reduces people's choice
    because they find that they can't afford what they really want
    or need. Without the regulation, they would be able to afford
    it. So choice is a huge issue here, and I think the American
    people are getting fed up with all of the--the gas stoves hit a
    nerve, but some years ago--Mr. Burgess knows--some years ago,
    so did the incandescent light bulb ban.
        Mr. Cline. Right.
        Mr. Ebell. So this has been going on a long time and there
    is a lot of work to do here.
        Mr. Cline. Thank you.
        Chairman Arrington. Thank you, Mr. Cline.
        I now yield five minutes to the gentleman from Oregon, Mr.
    Blumenauer.
        Mr. Blumenauer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I would like, if I could, Ms. Greszler, back in the old
    days when Paul Ryan and I were on the Budget Committee,
    Heritage was very helpful in working with us, crafting some
    proposals to limit unnecessary agricultural subsidies. Is there
    still some interest in Heritage in exploring opportunities to
    save money there?
        Ms. Greszler. Absolutely. A lot of our crop insurance
    subsidies are going to some of the wealthiest farmers. I think
    ten percent go to the top one percent of farmers who have an
    average gross income of $1.5 million per year across the board.
    These subsidies are distorting the market, but absolutely you
    could put some income limits on those, and I would also like to
    point out that a lot of those subsidies are going to farmers
    who are producing--I think 70 percent are to corn, soybean, and
    wheat and not to the more nutritious foods.
        Mr. Blumenauer. Thank you. I don't always agree 100 percent
    with The Heritage Foundation, but I really appreciate the
    intellectual honesty dealing with unnecessary subsidization,
    and some of these, as you point, actually go to foreign
    companies. It is an area, Mr. Chairman, that I would hope that
    this Committee could actually--when we get down to actually
    working on solutions, I hope this is an area that we can work
    across the aisle with a wide variety of philosophical
    positions, where the facts will lead us and save substantial
    money.
        Some people are talking about limiting access to nutrition
    by having greater limitations. I have pointed out to this
    Committee that there are almost 20,000 farmers who have
    received an average of a million dollars a year on subsidies
    for 37 consecutive years. I think it is easier for us to deal
    with that than just going on simply piling on regulations on
    poor people.
        I appreciate Mr. Norman talking about two worlds. Sometimes
    it is a little jarring if you just listen to what goes on here.
    We are in two different worlds. Unfortunately, the world of our
    economy and our finance is a little more reality based and they
    will punish us and already have if we are going to be reckless
    with dealing with our responsibilities. I think there are
    opportunities to be able to deal meaningfully with the deficit
    in ways that can actually bring people together rather than
    divide them. I think it is a good idea to actually collect
    taxes that are due and not paid. That is not a tax increase on
    anybody. It deals with the efficiency and fairness of our tax
    system, and there are hundreds of billions of dollars that
    could be collected if people remembered to report their income.
        I was taken by my colleague from Virginia's point that
    there is not a single line in this budget that speaks to a
    specific cut that the Republicans have advanced. That is right.
    That is why what has been offered is not a plan. There are no
    specifics in terms of what they want to step up and do. There
    is just, in the aggregate, 22 percent reduction with all the
    exclusions that they are carving out. Well, that is not how you
    budget. You can't get away with that. You can't imagine those
    things away.
        I really think if we get down to things like border
    enforcement, air traffic control, Social Security, food safety,
    workplace safety, I mean, these are things you can't imagine
    away. They are specifics. There are costs associated, and if
    you are going to cut them 22 percent or more, there are real
    consequences, and that is why I would like us to circle back
    and deal with things, not wishing savings, but being specific,
    and the agricultural subsidies, I think, is something that is
    specific that we ought to be able to agree with. Collecting
    taxes that are already due and owing is fair to businesses who
    play by the rules, and I think we can get serious in terms of
    making some significant adjustment if we deal with these things
    that bring us together rather than divide us.
        Thank you very much.
        Chairman Arrington. I thank my friend from Oregon and would
    just say I am always open to making sure incentives are
    responsible, no matter where they are in the marketplace or who
    they apply to and that we reduce waste no matter what the
    program or the constituency, agriculture included.
        So I thank the gentleman for his comments.
        I will now yield five minutes to Mr. Bob Good, my friend
    from Virginia.
        Mr. Good. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to all of
    our witnesses and for your testimony, both written and
    expressed today.
        I do want to just start with Ms. Agostin, and I appreciate
    all the fine work done by CRA and I appreciate your testimony
    regarding the current Federal spending that is not simply
    unnecessary, unjustified, unconstitutional, or wasteful,
    borrowing from our kids and grandkids, but it is actually--you
    made a very compelling case about so much of it that is
    literally harmful and intended to transform America into a
    Marxist global estate envisioned by the radical left that
    frankly hates the Founders, hates the Constitution, and hates
    the basic ideals and values that are central to our country.
        The Limit, Save, Grow Act, or what I like to actually call
    ``shrink Washington, grow America'', will take a meaningful
    broad-based fiscal approach to top line spending cuts, as you
    know, and some caps and then some significant target
    eliminations of pet projects like climate, IRS expansion, COVID
    spending and student loans, but I would like just a few
    additional thoughts from you on how we would take a razor-sharp
    scalpel approach to the most egregious and harmful spending via
    the appropriations process this fall. Really as we work on it
    now to vote on it in the fall.
        Ms. Agostin. Thank you, Congressman Good, and I think you
    are exactly right. We have done a good job today talking about
    the financial crisis that is upon us, but there is another
    equally great crisis facing the American people and that is the
    woke and weaponized government that is aimed squarely at them.
    In-so-far as you do deal with the debt limit, you absolutely
    must maintain the about $130 billion in cuts and find that from
    the woke and weaponized spending, and my advice to you would be
    look at the Department of Education and HHS, because what is
    happening to children in this country is the perfect display of
    what woke and weaponized government is doing to people, and
    when you send your kid to the public school systems, they have
    gay porn in the libraries, they have teachers that are asking
    them if, are you sure you are a boy or girl today, and changing
    their pronouns without their parents knowing about it, and then
    putting them on a path to radical gender affirmation where you
    have cross sex hormones and then eventually genital mutilation,
    and what that does to a child--and if you listen to the
    detransitioners, this will give you the perfect insight--is
    make them a permanent pharmaceutical patient for the rest of
    their life. There is no way for them to ethically consent to
    any of this and this is being done in the schools without the
    parent's knowledge. This is why you have $3 million to
    Montessori schools to train three-year-olds on antiracism. Why
    would you need to tell a three-year-old something about the
    color of their skin and divide them based on oppressor versus
    oppressed so that you put them on this path to adopting the
    woke ideology, and by the time they get to college, they can't
    even tell you what a woman is.
        So, yeah, look at the Department of Education and HHS.
        Mr. Good. Well said, and you could expand so much more, as
    you know, and this is all with everyone's tax dollars
    irrespective of their beliefs on it. The liberal progressive
    Bill Maher said when he was a child he wanted to be a pirate.
    He is glad no one poked out his eye and cut his leg off, and it
    is unbelievable we let children diagnose themselves and then
    adults perform this surgery to permanently maim and harm them
    accordingly.
        Ms. Greszler, President Biden has tried to say, hey, we are
    going to default if we don't raise the debt limit. I would just
    like your thoughts on the veracity of that claim that we would
    have a default. Isn't it true that it would just force
    prioritization of payments and we would only have a default if
    Treasury chose to have a default?
        Ms. Greszler. Yes, it is true that Biden and Treasury have
    the authority to prioritize those debt payments first to
    prevent a default.
        Mr. Good. Yeah, we sent--I led a letter with ten of my
    colleagues to Secretary Yellen a couple of months back asking
    her, when are you going to run out of extraordinary measures?
    What is your plan to ensure we don't have a default and how
    will you prioritize payments? And of course, she would not
    answer any of those questions because it defeats the narrative.
        But isn't Biden really afraid of defaulting on his radical
    agenda and his priorities of climate extremism, the Green Raw
    deal, perpetuating COVID spending, expanding and empowering the
    IRS, promoting again the things that Ms. Agostin has spoken to
    so eloquently this morning.
        Ms. Greszler. Yes. I think that it just points out that you
    would have to make those difficult choices, and when you look
    at things like one of the President's own actions that added
    $5.4 billion in additional cost to taxpayers for taxpayer
    finance select private union pension plans, which by the way,
    sent $36 billion to one single union pension plan on January
    12, five days before the U.S. hit the debt limit, and so you
    can see the types of things that might have to be at least
    delayed.
        Mr. Good. Well, thank you. My time is out, but I will tell
    Ms. Agostin we have got 500 targeted cuts that my colleagues
    and I have sponsored already to deal with the appropriations
    process, and the Dems, Ms. Greszler will not--they will end up
    signing and agreeing to Limit, Save, Grow because it would
    force $100 billion a month in cuts rather than $131 billion
    over the course of a year, and I yield back Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Ferguson [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Good.
        The gentlelady from California, Ms. Lee, is now recognized.
        Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, to the panel.
        First of all, let me just say to my colleagues, you all
    have a warped definition of woke. Marion Webster's Dictionary
    defines woke as aware of and actively attentive to important
    societal facts and issues, especially issues of racial and
    social justice. In other words, it is basic decency. It means
    treating all Americans fairly, regardless of their skin color,
    background, religion, or gender identity, and I should know
    because they actually quoted me in that definition of woke from
    a speech that I gave, and I said, but we will succeed if we
    reject the growing pressure to retreat into cynicism and
    hopelessness. We have a moral obligation to, yes, stay woke,
    take a stand and be active, challenging injustices and racism
    in our communities and fighting hatred and discrimination
    wherever it rise.
        So, as an African American, your testimony, Ms. Agostin,
    scares me to death because you said, based on your definition
    of woke, that we won't have a country left. We won't have a
    country left if, in fact, we want a country that ensures
    equality for all. That is outrageous. That is what America
    stands for.
        Mr. Gupta, let me just ask you about the value of the
    Federal Government and the American taxpayer investing in
    diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility, and how these
    investments lead to equal opportunity for everyone in this
    democracy where every American should have a shot to the
    American dream, where you know and all of you know that
    marginalized people in this country, people of color, poor
    people, don't have that path to the American dream.
        Mr. Dutta-Gupta. Thank you, Representative Lee, for the
    question and your contributions to this discussion, and I
    appreciate you bringing up what I think should be a shared
    principle. Let's go back to the Declaration of Independence. At
    the time, they meant it in an exclusive way, but they wrote,
    all men are created equal. If you believe that today and you
    see that based on group identity and other lived experiences,
    these extraordinary disparities, for example, that a median
    white household has nine times--eight or nine times the wealth
    of a typical black household in this country, and if you
    believe that our systems are fair, then how could we see those
    outcomes, right? Does anyone here believe that merit varies by
    race? That ability varies by race? I don't think anyone here
    believes that.
        So what we know is sometimes unintentionally, but sometimes
    very knowingly, we do have a lot of disparities by race, and
    educating people like my six-year-old and my ten-year-old about
    this history, about just basic facts, actually helps bring them
    together. It actually helps them understand each other. It
    helps build a multiracial vibrant democracy that will allow us
    to compete with other countries rising throughout the world,
    that will allow us to have the strength of everyone's talent
    and potential.
        Ms. Lee. Thank you very much, and let me ask you very
    quickly about the default on America Act in terms of the harm
    that this could wreak on the American people. In fact, let me
    just give you a couple of facts. In Speaker McCarthy's own
    district, mind you, these cuts would jeopardize Social Security
    payments for 75,000 people--that is in our Speaker's district--
    would risk the health benefits of 285,000 people in Speaker
    McCarthy's district, it would threaten the retirement savings
    of 89,000 people in Speaker McCarthy's district, and this is
    just one year impact of these cuts. Can you speak more on the
    long-term impact of these cuts?
        Mr. Dutta-Gupta. Yes, I appreciate the question,
    Representative Lee, and I will just add that this underscores
    that prioritization of debt service payments over everything
    else is still default. You are defaulting on the American
    people, on promises, on obligations that have been made to them
    that they can count on right now, that they have been able to
    count on. So the consequences could be tremendous in the long
    run, undermining our credit rating and the ability for the
    United States government to borrow as freely as it can right
    now.
        I just want to remind folks that there is no bank, there is
    no one telling us that we can't borrow. We are only telling
    ourselves that. In fact, people are ready, willing, and able to
    help us finance our investments because they know that the
    American economy has been so dynamic, so successful for so
    long, we will continue to in the future. So this would simply
    be an own goal that would harm us potentially for decades to
    come.
        Ms. Lee. Thank you, and just for the record, in my own
    state of California, not specifically Speaker McCarthy's
    district, which we just went through--which I just went
    through, the whole state of California, if in fact these budget
    cuts were enacted, we would have 2.6 million people at risk of
    losing Medicaid coverage, we would eliminate preschool and
    child care for at least 35,000 children, and reduce access to
    outpatient care at Veterans Affairs medical facilities by
    approximately 2.3 million visits. So these are impacts on
    people's daily lives. These aren't just statistics, these are
    real, everyday challenges that people are going to have to
    have, will have, if in fact, these cuts are enacted. So what
    are they going to do? How do you see their lives?
        Mr. Ferguson. The gentlelady's time has expired.
        Ms. Lee. Okay, well, thank you, and I will submit the
    question for the record to get a response. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Ferguson. Thank you. Thank you.
        I will next yield myself five minutes.
        Thanks to each of the witnesses for being here and giving
    us your insights and your valuable time. We are grateful for
    that.
        I have heard from my colleagues on the other side of the
    aisle when they talk about the resilience of the American
    economy, and we are doing better than Europe, we are doing
    better than other areas, and I think the foundation of that is
    based in the fact that with the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act we
    created a vibrant economy where it made America the most
    advantageous place in the world to invest, to manufacture, and
    to sell around the world, and the things that have made this
    economy very, very resilient, and even to the point that they
    have been able to withstand the massive amount of public
    spending, is the fact that we have made American business and
    Americans competitive and we have made them more competitive
    than other places in the world, and so I just want to say that,
    yes, I agree, the American economy is resilient, and I do think
    that it is a direct result of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that
    have allowed Americans to invest in their people, American
    business to invest in their people, and to invest in their
    systems and to become more efficient so we can win around the
    world.
        Now, with that backdrop, we are seeing some things happen
    that are eroding even the greatness of the American economy
    right now. When I look at--and, Mr. Dutta-Gupta, please, with
    my Southern accent, I hope I said that correctly--you said that
    corporate America should pay its fair share, correct? And yet
    with the Inflation Reduction Act and the infrastructure bill,
    we see green energy tax credits that now are going to go to the
    level of about $1.2 trillion and about 90 percent of those are
    going to go to the very corporations that you want to pay their
    fair share of the taxes. So you are going to then--and what my
    colleagues on the other side of the aisle have done is given a
    massive tax break to the wealthiest corporations to advance
    their own agenda.
        Mr. Ebell, does that sound right? Am I off base with that?
        Mr. Ebell. There are many ironies involved in the position
    of the taxers and spenders, and you have revealed one. In fact,
    a huge amount of the Federal budget is devoted to giving
    handouts to the corporate special interests and rewarding the
    people who have the right agenda. This is a real drag on the
    American economy, and it depresses, ultimately, investment by
    private individuals in businesses that could actually create
    jobs and create wealth. So, yes, you are absolutely right.
    Thank you.
        Mr. Ferguson. Thank you, Mr. Ebell.
        Next, I want to go to something. As we have talked about
    this debt limit right now and what is happening. It is amazing
    to me that the Biden Administration continues to go down the
    road of relieving, of forgiving student loan debt.
        Ms. Greszler, can you draw out a diagram of what happens
    when, for this latest tranche, $42 billion, who actually pays
    for that $42 billion? Because currently, right now, students
    and American workers that have those loans, about 17 percent of
    the folks in the country, are responsible for paying that back.
    As soon as that is wiped off the books, explain to us how that
    impacts the rest of the taxpayers and the debt, if you would.
        Ms. Greszler. Well, it is already affecting the debt.
    Caused us to approach the debt limit sooner and will cause us
    to run out of money and extraordinary measures sooner, because
    we are going on three years now that people who hold those
    student loans have not been required to make any payments on
    them. So continuing to do that is just pushing us closer to
    that limit.
        Mr. Ferguson. Okay, so as we are then having to--because
    once you take the mandatory spending side out of the equation
    and then you defend the Nation, which is our number one
    responsibility, we are basically borrowing money for everything
    else. So we are going to borrow more money to pay off the debt
    and then we are going to pay a higher interest rate on that,
    which is going to exacerbate the problem, which means that we
    are not going to be able to take care of our most vulnerable,
    and at some point it is going to drive in to Social Security
    and Medicare. Is that a fair statement?
        Ms. Greszler. Yes, and if we want to protect the most
    vulnerable people, then we should be at least asking those who
    have the highest incomes, those who have achieved a college
    degree, to pay back the money that they borrowed.
        Mr. Ferguson. Thank you.
        One final thing. A lot of discussion here on the definition
    of woke. People can make it up, do whatever they want to with
    it, say however they want to with it. Bottom line, I can tell
    you what American people don't want, they don't want the
    Federal Government or other entities telling them how to think,
    what to think, and why to think, and they especially don't want
    somebody--they don't want their tax dollars being used for that
    purpose.
        With that, I will yield back.
        Next, I will call on my colleague from Texas. Mr. Doggett,
    you are now recognized.
        Mr. Doggett. Thank you very much.
        With the clock ticking on the few days that are remaining
    to avoid the Republican default on America and the severe
    economic consequences that will result from failing for the
    first time in American history to uphold our full faith and
    credit of the country, this gathering occurs about the woke and
    the wasteful. Well, I think the real waste here is the waste of
    time in the Republican willingness to follow the call of
    President Trump just last night to drive our economy off the
    cliff. Instead of their much ballyhooed promised budget, they
    offer us today talk about woke policies. They don't really know
    what woke means, but it sounds a little bit black, and it
    appeals to the white nationalists who are so important in their
    base as they send a message to signal that they don't want to
    do anything about historic injustices to people of color. Well,
    before it is too late we need Republicans to wake up, to wake
    up to the reality, to be aware, to get woke about the true
    dangers of default, to overcome their fear of providing this
    Committee a budget that outlines the specific cuts that they
    are demanding to educational opportunity, to environmental law
    enforcement, to dealing with contaminated food and contaminated
    air and water, to secure our border, and to counter the growing
    influence of China.
        The Republican failure to present the budget that they had
    promised is not an accident, it is a vital strategy. As one of
    our colleagues just said this morning, there is not a single
    line in their bill that cuts veterans' healthcare. It is just
    that the effect of their bill is to cut that very health care
    by about 22 percent or greater, and it is deliberately hidden.
    They recognize that if they expose specific cuts like that,
    they will be rejected by the American people.
        So, without a budget, both Representative Arrington, our
    Chairman, and Speaker McCarthy can engage in a rhetorical
    slight of hand, implying that they will not be making these
    devastating cuts, all they are going to do is return the
    spending to the level of last October. Well, it is a slight of
    hand because we recognize that fiscal year 2022 spending levels
    were set back in 2021, and we are now talking about 2024
    spending, 3 years later, and there has been a little inflation
    since then. They don't want to apply that policy to national
    security because they recognize it would not provide the level
    of security our country needs, but they are so eager to apply
    it to healthcare security and educational security that are so
    very important to our country.
        Mr. Chairman, Mr. Arrington, I would have a great deal more
    confidence in your stated claim of restoring fiscal sanity if
    you had not already committed yourself, along with many of your
    Republican colleagues, to actually exploding our deficit and
    our national debt. You are sponsoring yet another massive tax
    cut that is estimated to cost about $2 trillion or more, and
    that is the same approach that got us into this mess in the
    first place, helping those at the very, very top of the
    economic ladder and adding more and more debt as you have done
    in the past. It was George W. Bush who took us off the course
    that President Clinton had set with a balanced budget and a
    path to reducing the debt. Then his failed war in Iraq, so
    costly in lives and in trillions of dollars, all done on
    borrowed money. Then the Trump tax giveaway. After their
    embrace of Trump, the self-described king of debt, they raised
    the debt limit three times. Their newfound interest in debt
    today seems more aimed at destroying health, education, and
    environmental law enforcement that they never supported in the
    first place.
        Let me just ask you, Mr. Dutta-Gupta, what will be the
    effect on college students if, as you say, the cuts could be
    even as much as 33 percent if the Republican Default on America
    Act is adopted?
        Mr. Dutta-Gupta. Thank you, Representative Doggett. That is
    a great question, and as you said, we have to make a bunch of
    assumptions here to figure out how this would work, but if we
    do assume that there is a cut of that size, that means that
    low-income students in particular would have limited access to
    college. There are a number of grants and funding streams that
    help them afford college, which, by the way, has gotten
    increasingly expensive. Most of the folks in this room probably
    didn't have to face the cost of college that people do today.
    So, it would undermine our future. It would undermine our
    ability to grow a strong workforce that can compete with the
    rest of the world.
        Mr. Doggett. Thank you.
        Mr. Boyle. I am 10 seconds away from seizing power, so.
        Dr. Burgess [presiding]. I am in charge here. Yeah,
    Alexander Haig. I recognize Mr. Roy from Texas.
        Mr. Roy. Thank you, Chairman Haig. I appreciate that. Ms.
    Greszler, let me ask you a question. True or false we currently
    are bringing in about 19.6 percent of GDP in terms of revenues
    into the Treasury right now.
        Ms. Greszler. Correct.
        Mr. Roy. So, this idea that somehow that the tax problem is
    the problem is completely absurd, correct?
        Ms. Greszler. Yes. Historical levels of revenue are
    actually lower, two percentage points lower than we are
    bringing in now.
        Mr. Roy. And right now, we are at levels that basically
    have only been matched two other times in history, World War II
    and in 2000, right after the .com explosion, correct?
        Ms. Greszler. Correct.
        Mr. Roy. In other words, it is a complete lie to say that
    tax policy is causing the problem that we have with respect to
    deficit spending right now. Rather, it is a spending problem.
    True?
        Ms. Greszler. Correct. Taxes are significantly higher. It
    is the problem that spending is about five percentage points
    higher than GDP, and typical, 25 percent versus a little over
    20 percent.
        Mr. Roy. Correct, and the reason we are having the hearing
    we are having today is because we have an explosion of the
    Federal bureaucracy, a bureaucracy that is at odds with the
    wellbeing of the American people by empowering bureaucrats to
    go after them. For example, putting a man in prison for
    building ponds on his ranch, an estate in West Texas. I mean, I
    am sorry, in the western United States. Is that not right, Ms.
    Greszler?
        Ms. Greszler. Yes. I think the problem is when the size of
    government gets bigger and we are talking about American
    exceptionalism, that has been because typically America has
    taken less from individuals and businesses.
        Mr. Roy. Right. Ms. Agostin, is that correct about what has
    happened to this man who lost--went to jail because of what
    happened out there with the EPA?
        Ms. Greszler. I am not familiar with that.
        Mr. Roy. Right. Sorry.
        Ms. Agostin. That is correct, Mr. Roy.
        Mr. Roy. Right. Okay, and so, we have got the Secretary,
    Yellen calling the President's budget a fiscally responsible
    proposal and said Republicans want to focus on cutting
    spending. Yes, yes, guilty, guilty. We would like to cut
    spending. Year one, our bill would cut the deficit in year one
    by over a trillion dollars. Yet President Biden's budget would
    increase spending next year by $500 billion to $6.8 trillion
    and increase the deficit by $300 billion. Ten years, our bill
    would cut the deficit by $4.8 trillion. The President's budget
    reduces the deficit by hiking taxes by $4.7 trillion, causing
    outyear decreases in spending through taxes.
        Yellen says our spending reforms are draconian. We are
    simply cutting topline discretionary spending to 2022 levels,
    and if we do that, we can keep our non-defense discretionary at
    the same level as that MAGA extremist Barack Obama proposed for
    Fiscal Year 2024 in his final budget. Literally, the same as
    that MAGA extremist Barack Obama.
        You know, that draconian pre-COVID bureaucracy, that pillar
    of efficiency and effectiveness of bureaucracy before COVID, if
    we return the spending to that, that somehow is going to leave
    the American people without the ability to function. Completely
    and patently absurd. Leveling charges of cuts against VA is a
    page out of the Democratic playbook we have all seen far too
    well where they want to scare the American people. Say that
    somehow these great experts in Washington, if they don't come
    to their defense, that they are going to starve on the streets,
    but the fact of the matter is, the American people prosper best
    when the Federal Government's woke bureaucracy, weaponized
    bureaucracy, wasteful bureaucracy, gets the hell out of the way
    of the American people.
        What I would say is that the most egregious problem with my
    colleagues on the other side of the aisle is that they say that
    our plan will hurt the poor and minorities, but is it not true
    that we repeal Biden's $80 billion IRS expansion, the IRS which
    the New York Times reported, I would ask Mr. Dutta-Gupta, do
    you not agree that the New York Times reported that black
    taxpayers are at least three times as likely to be audited by
    the Internal Revenue Service as other taxpayers? Do you know
    that the New York Times reported that? Yes or no?
        Mr. Dutta-Gupta. Yeah, absolutely. More IRS resources would
    let them redirect the focus----
        Mr. Roy. And that CBS----
        Mr. Dutta-Gupta [continuing]. To the bigger tax gap from--
    --
        Mr. Roy [continuing]. And that CBS----
        Mr. Dutta-Gupta [continuing]. Corporations and
    partnerships.
        Mr. Roy. Reclaiming my time. That CBS, IRS audits the poor
    at five times the rate of everyone else, as the analysis finds.
    The fact of the matter is, it is absurd, the attacks on our
    responsible effort that the President is ignoring.
        The rich, Biden claims that we want to cut spending so we
    can, ``cut taxes for the rich.'' But is it not true, Mr. Ebell,
    that 78 percent of the electric vehicle tax credits are claimed
    by the filers, making $100,000 or more per year, and we repeal
    that. A tax for the rich, true?
        Mr. Ebell. Yes, Representative Roy. The problem with the
    subsidies is that they go to people who already own two or
    three vehicles and they want another one because it is
    fashionable.
        Mr. Roy. And that 90 percent of the green energy tax
    subsidies, which we repeal, go to corporations that make over
    $1 billion per year, not to mention Chinese companies. True?
        Mr. Ebell. I believe that is true, yes.
        Mr. Roy. Right. This is the truth. The American people know
    it. Our Democratic colleagues passed the biggest giveaway to
    the rich that we have seen in years last August in the so-
    called Inflation Reduction Act. They are the party for wealthy
    corporations and elites. We are the party for hardworking
    Americans. We are trying to get the government out of the way
    to improve their lives, and that is what we are going to do
    despite Biden's resistance.
        Dr. Burgess. I recognize the gentleman from California, Mr.
    Panetta, for five minutes.
        Mr. Panetta. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I admit a part of
    this hearing I appreciate because it is on an issue that is
    important to me and that is obviously improving the functioning
    of our government bureaucracy. I think all of us, all of us, I
    don't care what side of the aisle that you are on, all of us
    want to make the Federal Government work for our constituents.
        Now, I think we can also all admit that there are numerous
    examples where our bureaucracy is wasteful and duplicative and,
    yes, can be better streamlined. For example, I was pleased that
    this administration put out a permitting reform objective to
    get infrastructure and energy projects built faster and give
    taxpayers more bang for their buck and believe we must work
    together on this front.
        Now, we have to have serious conversations. Of course, we
    can be serious about spending, and yes, we need to be serious
    about revenues as well, and we can start by marking up a budget
    resolution in this Committee. I was critical of my own party's
    failure to do this, and I won't let this majority off the hook
    either. Now, I hope we can get some real discussion about how
    to improve our bureaucracy and of course, of course, like I
    said, make the Federal Government work for our constituents.
        Now, there are areas in which we can reduce waste. The
    Government Accountability Office releases a report annually
    highlighting opportunities to reduce fragmentation, overlap,
    and duplication in Federal programs, as well as chances to save
    money and increase revenue. The GAO has found that tens of
    billions of dollars can be saved if we took actions to reduce
    fragmentation and duplication. To the government's credit,
    agencies have taken GAO's recommendations to save additional
    funding.
        Now, many of the GAO's recommendations include investments
    in programs to improve the administration, service, and track
    overpayments, but note that in some of these cases, spending
    money actually reduces cost. Mr. Dutta-Gupta, are there areas
    where a little more investment can make a program work better
    and more efficiently?
        Mr. Dutta-Gupta. Absolutely Representative Panetta, and in
    fact, one of the things that is missed by the focus on improper
    payments is how many people who could benefit from a program
    also don't access them. So, we can do a lot better, and I will
    just note that there is a lot of government spending that
    absolutely has a return on investment for American taxpayers.
    That includes, especially the American Rescue Plan's child tax
    credit expansion, which has a nine-to-one return on investment,
    which, if we would talk about a businessperson, or someone in
    the private sector, you wouldn't hesitate to make a virtually
    guaranteed nine-to-one return on investment, but we got to get
    those programs back. We lost some of those and make sure that
    everyone gets them so we could make programs a lot more
    effective and efficient.
        Mr. Panetta. Mr. Dutta-Gupta, I had some constituents at my
    office yesterday and they have been having a difficult time
    dealing with one of our favorite bureaucracies, the FAA, and
    what they noticed is that there has been sort of a brain drain
    at the FAA and that basically there is sort of high turnover
    causing a major slowdown in their aircraft certifications, and
    what we are seeing is that more experienced staffers are
    replaced with less experienced staffers. In other cases, they
    have to get up to speed on a project all over again, wasting
    the efforts of the previous staffer. Heck, I have seen this not
    just with the FAA but the Army Corps of Engineers, as well.
        So, the issue, like I said, isn't limited to one
    bureaucracy and it can impact agencies that serve people in
    every part of government. So, what can we do to ensure that we
    have well-staffed agencies that work effectively, and
    efficiently, and like I said, help make the Federal Government
    work for our constituents, Mr. Dutta-Gupta?
        Mr. Dutta-Gupta. There is a lot we can do and there are
    other agencies, as you pointed out, including the Social
    Security Administration, which is struggling with the workload
    as our population ages and needs human beings to interact with
    to get their benefits, but one of the things we should do is
    not arbitrarily and preemptively limit, sort of across the
    board, our non-defense discretionary spending.
        We can do a lot more to make government work more
    attractive, and remember, if there is a default here,
    government employees will also suffer with wages not paid. So,
    we need to do a lot more to recruit, to continue to staff
    adequately, and that will improve the experiences that the
    American people have interacting with our government.
        Mr. Panetta. Let's hope so. Thank you. I appreciate that
    and I yield back.
        Dr. Burgess. The Chair thanks the gentleman. The gentleman
    yields back. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana
    for five minutes.
        Mr. Yakym. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you to our
    witnesses for being here today. Our job in the Federal
    Government is to protect taxpayer dollars and ensure that they
    are used responsibly and effectively, but President Biden seems
    to have lost sight of that fact, the fact that every single
    dollar that is spent by the government is a dollar that was
    taken from the American people through taxes, and it is less
    money that Americans get to use for a down payment on a house,
    to put food on their table, and sending their kids to college.
    The Biden Administration's complete disregard for taxpayer
    dollars is illustrated in its never-ending plans to increase
    government spending with zero accountability.
        Today, I want to begin my focus on the government's
    staggering amount of improper payments. The nonpartisan
    Government Accountability Office estimates that in 2021, Fiscal
    Year 2021, the Federal Government made $247 billion of improper
    payments. If improper payments were its own line in the Federal
    budget, it would be the sixth largest line behind Social
    Security, Medicare, national defense, Medicaid, and interest on
    our debt.
        But it gets worse. The Government Accountability Office
    also states, and I quote, ``this estimate is likely understated
    since it doesn't include improper payments related to COVID-19
    funding.'' The Department of Labor's Inspector General
    estimates that improper payments for pandemic unemployment
    programs accounted for $191 billion, and outside experts
    estimate that it could be as high as $400 billion. I am glad
    that the House is considering the Protecting Taxpayers and
    Victims of Unemployment Fraud Act, which incentivizes states to
    investigate and recover fraudulent unemployment insurance
    claims.
        My first question for Ms. Greszler, regarding the amount,
    the reported amount, found that one-in-five Medicaid payments
    were improper. A business would never survive if one-in-five
    checks sent out were in error. A family would never make it
    financially if 20 percent of the bills they paid were in error.
    How do improper payments of this size, how are they permitted
    to continue year after year?
        Ms. Greszler. There is no consequence for having those
    improper payments. They simply can continue to go on and on and
    to just collect the funding because it is an entitlement.
        Mr. Yakym. Do you think that the Federal Government has
    taken any meaningful steps to reform improper payments and hold
    our Federal agencies accountable for the improper payments that
    take place?
        Ms. Greszler. No.
        Mr. Yakym. Why not, from your perspective?
        Ms. Greszler. There are some recommendations. They have
    largely gone ignored, but there is no accountability. What is
    their incentive to do that? The money will be there no matter
    what if they send the improper payments, and in some places, it
    is difficult to impose the consequences if it is an entitlement
    because you would be taking away from something they have a
    legal authority to, but that is where I think we need to impose
    accountability on the States, especially in those programs that
    are administered through the States.
        Mr. Yakym. All right, thank you. Also, Ms. Greszler, there
    are dozens of instances where the Federal Government has
    duplicative programs in offices. In 2022 alone, the GAO
    identified 16 new instances of overlap between Federal
    programs. Would you agree that duplicative Federal programs are
    a clear illustrator that our bureaucracy, our Federal
    bureaucracy, has gotten out of control?
        Ms. Greszler. Absolutely, and that is also a disservice to
    the individuals those programs are supposed to help because
    they don't know which door to walk into.
        Mr. Yakym. I want to just cite a few examples of some of
    these duplicative government programs that have just recently
    been uncovered. For example, there are 21 Federal agencies that
    have programs related to the role of diet in Americans' risk of
    chronic health conditions. There are five Federal agencies who
    research alternate technologies for radioactive materials. The
    Department of Interior has three separate systems that
    separately collect data on oil and gas development. There are
    three different programs at the Department of Justice that
    investigate law enforcement's use of force, and the Department
    of Homeland Security and the Department of Treasury both have
    programs regarding trade-based money laundering.
        All of these are programs that should be funded, but at the
    same time, we shouldn't have so many duplicative programs and
    so many people in our Federal Government that are doing the
    same thing and doing the same job. With that, Mr. Chairman, I
    yield back.
        Dr. Burgess. The gentlemen yields back. The Chair thanks
    the gentleman. The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from
    Vermont, Ms. Balint.
        Ms. Balint. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The United States
    cannot become a deadbeat Nation. We have never failed to pay
    our bills, and to do so now would have dire consequences on
    American families, including the ones living in my district in
    Vermont.
        As my colleagues have noted, we never had a hearing or a
    markup on H.R. 2811. We never got a budget. All we have got is
    this vague plan that was passed, and we have to try to make
    sense of that. So, let's take a look at that. The Republican
    bill would potentially cut funding to low-income students at a
    time when we are talking about allowing people to get ahead. As
    a former teacher, I can tell you that cutting $4 billion for
    schools that serve 26 million low-income kids is going to lead
    to a cascade of negative impacts for those millions of kids and
    their families.
        The Republican bill would slash mental health supports for
    students, and at a time when we can all agree that we have a
    mental health crisis in this country, we should be investing
    more in this area and not making cuts.
        The Republican bill would also make college more expensive.
    A 22 percent budget cut would likely eliminate Pell Grants
    altogether, and it would reduce the maximum award by nearly
    $1,000 for the remaining recipients. So, we should be making
    college, again, more affordable, not less affordable for
    regular families.
        And the list goes on and on in this vague plan that nobody
    will allow us to, you know, put our finger on exactly what is
    going on in here. They left it intentionally vague. As a former
    teacher and as a parent, this is very alarming to me. Mr.
    Dutta-Gupta, can you highlight for us what the impact of the
    Republican cuts would be on America's public schools?
        Mr. Dutta-Gupta. Thank you, Representative Balint, and I
    will just start by noting, as you did, that we have a serious
    youth mental health crisis in this country. Nearly one in six
    youth ages 12 to 17 reported experiencing a major depressive
    episode in the past year. Among teen girls in 2021, the data
    show that nearly one in three seriously considered attempting
    suicide, and without adequate support for students and
    teachers, these statistics are only going to get worse.
        Unfortunately, we see cuts, as you mentioned, also to
    higher education, including Pell Grants, which are very well
    targeted overwhelmingly to folks with lower and moderate
    incomes. Nearly 97 percent go to household, students in
    households with family incomes at or below $60,000 a year in
    2020 and 2021. So, that is well below the median income in the
    United States.
        This will also hurt our public institutions, our public
    two-year and four-year colleges, and institutions, but I will
    just sort of finally note that this is really undermining our
    Nation's prosperity, because we know that these are
    investments. They are investments. Wherever you believe the
    money comes from, they absolutely do have a return on
    investment. So, I really hope that folks can come together in
    Congress and understand that this non-defense discretionary
    category of spending has lots of critical funding.
        Ms. Balint. Thank you so much. I am deeply concerned about
    all of our students. That is why I ran for office. That is why
    I serve, and again, I will stress about all of our students.
        I just want to mention something that is deeply troubling
    to me. A Republican witness earlier noted a few Federal
    programs that support LGBTQ people, including kids, and as a
    member of that community, it is really disappointing to me that
    my Republican colleagues seem to delight in attacking the LGBTQ
    people and their families, and blaming us for all things,
    including, now, it turns out, the deficit.
        So, I just want to put this in perspective. Yesterday, I
    met for an hour with parents of trans kids from across this
    Nation, and they came from all over. All over, from
    conservative districts and states, just regular families.
    Parents came to share their experiences of what it is like in
    this moment, and you know what I heard over and over again? Why
    are members of our own government scapegoating us and our
    children? Why have we become the favorite enemy when we just
    want the same things that all American families want? We want
    to live safe, fulfilling lives, and we want to support and love
    and protect our children.
        It is morally bankrupt and deeply un-American to continue
    to attack these kids. It is time to do our job and pass a
    budget that supports and protects all of our kids, all of our
    constituents. I yield back.
        Dr. Burgess. The gentlelady's time has expired. The Chair
    recognizes the gentlelady from Michigan, Ms. McClain, for five
    minutes.
        Ms. McClain. Thank you and thank you all for being here
    today. I have listened to everyone, and I appreciate your
    comments and opinions. I want to start with one simple question
    because we have a deficit, we are up against the debt limit,
    correct? And what we are asking is can we tighten our belt a
    little bit? The President, right, oh, I don't want to
    negotiate, right? I want to pass a clean debt ceiling. Is there
    anyone on this panel that thinks the government runs so
    efficiently that there is not $1 we can save? So, everyone's in
    agreement? Okay. All right, just for the record, everyone
    agrees that there is probably a few efficiencies that we could
    find.
        So, what I find troubling, disheartening, and if it wasn't
    factual, kind of comical, is what my colleagues on the other
    side of the aisle want to cut. The fear mongering is hilarious
    if it wasn't true. So, one of my colleagues, appropriations
    Ranking Member Rosa DeLauro, sent a letter to the agencies,
    right? Asking them what cuts would look like in their
    department, right? Okay, so let me use my family. Hey, my
    husband comes home, hey, Lisa, we are way over maxed out on our
    credit cards. We have got to make some cuts. What I say is, you
    know what? Okay, great, I have four kids. I am just not feeding
    them. Now, I am still getting my nails done. I am still going
    to the gym, and my God, I am not discontinuing my wine
    subscription. The kids, they cannot eat.
        I mean, you would never do that, but that is exactly what
    my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are doing, and let
    me give you some specific examples. So, the AG Secretary, Tom
    Vilsack, said we would cut $1.4 billion of cuts to WIC. That is
    where your priority is. The first thing we are going to cut is
    WIC, my God. Now, forget about the $1.5 billion in tree
    planting. Nope, we are going to cut WIC. We are saving those
    trees.
        Okay, let me give you another one. Secretary Buttigieg, who
    has just done a phenomenal job, and I say that with quite
    sarcasm, says if this budget that the Republicans passed, here
    is what we would cut, FAA $2.6 billion in air traffic
    controllers. That is the first thing we are going to cut.
    Because, you know, anybody who has flown, everything is on time
    and nothing runs late, right? That is the first thing we are
    going to cut.
        Well, I have another idea. Instead of cutting my food, I
    would go to maybe, let's say, $1.9 billion that the FAA spends
    on heat island hotspots, not sure what that is, or gaps in tree
    canopy coverage. So, let's put people at risk, but let's make
    sure we protect regional greenways. Not sure what that is.
        My point here is if you truly want to care about the
    American people and truly want to get your fiscal house in
    order so we can actually protect American citizens, actually
    protect our most needy, actually protect our children, stop
    with the fear mongering. Because the first place we shouldn't
    go, is none of the children are going to eat. Well, when the
    first opportunity that the Democrats have in these agencies,
    appointed by this administration, start with the fear mongering
    on, oh, my gosh, none of the kids are going to eat, what I
    would suggest is, why don't we let the children eat and maybe
    plant a few less trees? I am not saying trees aren't important,
    but if you ask me, do I care about the children eating,
    especially the underprivileged children, or planting trees, I
    am going to tell you what I am going to pick every day of the
    week and twice on Tuesday. I am not going to start with the
    kids. So, I am curious, is that where you all would start?
        Ms. Greszler. If I could just say real quickly here, I
    think that the American people want to know if they are going
    to have $11,500 per household in new debt taken out for one
    year alone. They want to have a responsible plan to know that
    the next year might be at least a little less than $11,500, and
    I think that if we put it to the rating agencies to say what is
    going to be the better path forward? Are you going to downgrade
    or upgrade? That they would pick a plan that is responsible and
    sets at least modest limits over something that is just clean
    debt limit increase.
        Ms. McClain. Do you think it makes a difference if it is
    your money or other people's money?
        Ms. Greszler. Absolutely.
        Ms. McClain. Because I find it interesting that these
    agencies, the first thing they do is attack the most
    vulnerable. I find that very disheartening, and I don't know
    why they do it. I really don't, other than fear mongering, and
    if we want to get back to some serious talk and budget
    negotiations so we can provide for the next generation, we have
    to have some honest talks.
        That is where I think we are at. You can't say, oh my gosh,
    we are going to cut veterans' benefits by 22 percent. Where in
    the plan does it say that? I can't point to one line, not one
    line. Yet, that is the first place we should go. Maybe----
        Dr. Burgess. The gentlelady should conclude.
        Ms. McClain. Thank you, sir.
        Dr. Burgess. The gentlelady's time has expired. The Chair
    now recognizes the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A couple of
    comments about some things that have been said. First of all,
    the Trump tax cut led to economic development. First of all,
    the Trump tax cut led to a disaster at the end of the Trump
    Administration. The American Rescue Plan came in, and that is
    when the jobs came back.
        I get tired of being lectured by Republicans on the budget
    deficit. This chart shows that every presidential
    administration, Democratic administration since Kennedy left
    for their Republican successors a better deficit situation than
    they inherited, and every Republican presidential
    administration since Nixon, left for their Democrats, a worse
    deficit situation than they inherited, all without exception.
    Trump was on the way to doing that before the pandemic, and
    President Biden has already improved the budget since then.
        Now, Mr. Dutta-Gupta, you started to answer a question
    about why there was a discrepancy on who gets audited by taxes,
    and I think you were going to say that they don't have the
    money to actually go after wealthy people and that is what the
    money can be used for. Is that right?
        Mr. Dutta-Gupta. That is right. Right now, it is too easy
    and encouraged for the IRS to go after the poorest people,
    including communities of color, when they need a much stronger
    staffing and almost an army to go up against the armies that
    wealthy corporations who are responsible for most of our tax
    gap, by the way, meaning taxes owed that are not paid.
        Mr. Scott. Now, people are trying to make this a spending
    problem. Where would we be if there had not been a Bush and
    Trump tax cuts, if they had not passed? Where would we be on
    this budget chart?
        Mr. Dutta-Gupta. Yeah, we would be including the Bush tax
    cut extensions, $10 trillion better off.
        Mr. Scott. $10 trillion better off. Would be back to the
    Clinton days where we would be almost in surplus. Is that
    right?
        Mr. Dutta-Gupta. Yeah, we would be----
        Mr. Scott. But for the tax cuts. Now, you mentioned on this
    threat on the debt ceiling that the interest rates might go up.
    What does that mean to mortgages?
        Mr. Dutta-Gupta. Yeah, it makes it much less affordable for
    people to own homes, start businesses.
        Mr. Scott. Like a $200,000 mortgage, one percent would be
    $2,000 extra every year.
        Mr. Dutta-Gupta. Yeah.
        Mr. Scott. For each percentage we go up, car notes, credit
    cards. What would that mean for a $30-some trillion debt per
    percent? What would it cost the budget?
        Mr. Dutta-Gupta. What would it cost the budget if the
    debt----
        Mr. Scott. If the interest rates go up one percent?
        Mr. Dutta-Gupta. Yes, that is a major driver of increasing
    debt service costs, actually. So, it could be----
        Mr. Scott. So, 300----
        Mr. Dutta-Gupta [continuing]. $100 billion, 300----
        Mr. Scott. $300 billion----
        Mr. Dutta-Gupta [continuing]. Billion dollars, yeah.
        Mr. Scott [continuing]. Per percent.
        Mr. Dutta-Gupta. Yeah.
        Mr. Scott. So, if it goes up two or three percent, you are
    into six, nine, maybe a----
        Mr. Dutta-Gupta. Right.
        Mr. Scott [continuing]. $1 trillion worth of additional
    interest----
        Mr. Dutta-Gupta. Right.
        Mr. Scott [continuing]. Because they are fooling with the
    debt ceiling. We have heard a lot about these vague, illusory
    cuts. Everybody's talking about it in general. I think it has
    been pointed out that veterans, there is no specific cut for
    veterans. There is no specific cut for anything. As a matter of
    fact, every time you say something's going to get cut, oh, we
    are not going to cut that. Do you cut the budget in general, or
    do you actually have to cut something? And we haven't heard any
    specific target of any meaningful, I mean, the one percent
    increase in interest that will take place because of the debt
    ceiling fiasco could be $300 billion. We have heard a couple of
    hundred million here and a billion here. They are not even
    going to be able to cover the debt service that they cause
    unless they start getting specific and talk about a budget. Is
    that right?
        Mr. Dutta-Gupta. Yes, and the data that have been discussed
    are across the board. It is not where the agency said they
    would go first. It is assuming across the board cuts.
        Mr. Scott. If you protect Social Security, Medicare,
    defense, veterans, what do you have to do to the others?
        Mr. Dutta-Gupta. You get close to having to eliminate the
    rest.
        Mr. Scott. Let me ask, Ms. Agostin, you talked about the
    education, you want to cut the education budget. If we get away
    from the culture wars and just talk about the budget, what part
    of the Department of Education would you want to cut?
        Ms. Agostin. I would cut all of the training programs that
    are teaching teachers to radicalize kids, the social, emotional
    learning, culturally----
        Mr. Scott. How much are you talking----
        Ms. Agostin [continuing]. Responsive----
        Mr. Scott. How much are you talking about?
        Ms. Agostin. Thirty percent at least.
        Mr. Scott. Thirty percent of the training or 30 percent of
    the Department of Education?
        Ms. Agostin. I would get rid of the SEED program. Get rid
    of the----
        Mr. Scott. How much money are you talking about?
        Ms. Agostin. Sixty million dollars for SEED.
        Mr. Scott. Sixty million?
        Ms. Agostin. For that one program.
        Mr. Scott. And we are talking trying to get hundreds of
    billions.
        Ms. Agostin. I am not saying that is the only thing. I told
    you that every single training program, do you know how many
    training programs are at the Department of Education for
    training teachers?
        Mr. Scott. We only spend a few billion dollars in training
    generally.
        Ms. Agostin. Okay. So, all----
        Mr. Scott. For everything.
        Ms. Agostin [continuing]. Of that training is now being
    done through the lens of woke ideology.
        Mr. Scott. So, how much money would you cut from----
        Ms. Agostin. And you should not spend that money anyway.
        Mr. Scott. How much money would you cut from the Department
    of Education?
        Ms. Agostin. I told you 30 percent.
        Mr. Scott. How much money are you talking, 30 percent of
    what?
        Ms. Agostin. Of their budget.
        Mr. Scott. Of the whole budget?
        Ms. Agostin. Well, the Congressman earlier said that the
    whole entire government is 40 percent bigger now than it was
    before COVID.
        Mr. Scott. Well, I am trying to get a straight answer.
        Ms. Agostin. So, I----
        Mr. Scott. How much money----
        Ms. Agostin. The straight answer----
        Mr. Scott [continuing]. Are you talking about----
        Ms. Agostin [continuing]. Is I am saying you should trim
    the Department of Education's budget by 30 percent.
        Dr. Burgess. I think 30 percent----
        Ms. Agostin. Cut it back----
        Dr. Burgess [continuing]. Has to be the final answer.
        Ms. Agostin [continuing]. To 2019.
        Dr. Burgess. The gentleman's time has expired. You can
    submit further questioning in writing.
        Mr. Scott. Well, I just want to point out that she
    wouldn't--the total Department of Education is a couple of
    hundred billion dollars, and she is talking about a percent of
    a little bit. We are trying to balance----
        Dr. Burgess. Again, the gentleman's----
        Mr. Scott [continuing]. And we are trying to balance the
    budget.
        Dr. Burgess [continuing]. Time has expired, and the problem
    is it is now my time. So, you are encroaching upon me, and that
    can't--I can't allow that.
        I appreciate that observation of 30 percent, and as Ms.
    Greszler pointed out earlier on the Medicaid dollars that are
    just being spent, the crank continues to turn. The dollars
    continue to go out the door at an interest rate that is now
    higher than what it was two and a half years ago. Mr. Gupta,
    the interest rate, and Mr. Scott was asking about the interest
    rate, the interest rate has what, over the last two and a half
    years?
        Mr. Dutta-Gupta. Due to the Federal Reserve actions, it has
    risen significantly.
        Dr. Burgess. Yes, and the Federal Reserve action was in
    response to what, Mr. Ebell?
        Mr. Ebell. Inflation.
        Dr. Burgess. Well, and as a result of Federal spending.
        Mr. Ebell. And spending, oh, yes.
        Dr. Burgess. Which is what we are here talking about today.
    Look, and I know this ground has all been covered extensively.
    I did want to ask Ms. Greszler, we are right at the end of the
    Public Health Emergency, thank God. It is going to end midnight
    tonight. A figure that I am hearing is that 18 million people
    will lose Medicaid tomorrow morning. Is that accurate?
        Ms. Greszler. I haven't seen that. I don't know any reason
    why they would lose their coverage.
        Dr. Burgess. Yeah, and that is just it. These numbers get
    inflated and socialized. They are repeated until they are just
    now derived as fact. When, as you have pointed out several
    occasions this morning, that purported cuts to veterans, for
    example, purported cuts to other healthcare programs, in fact,
    are not what has been included in the Limit, Save, and Grow
    Act. Is that correct?
        Ms. Greszler. Correct. There are no specific cuts to these,
    but if you do want to drill down to getting at protecting
    veterans, you can absolutely protect veterans and you don't
    have to have any cuts, and you can actually still save money
    because 11 percent of all the payments that are coming out of
    the VA are improper payments. One of their programs has an 80
    percent improper payment rate. You are paying five times as
    much for long-term care services as veterans as you need to be.
    So, you can save money and still provide quality care.
        Dr. Burgess. And every dollar that is not well spent in the
    program deprives some other veteran of a service that they may
    need or increases their time on a waiting list. Is that not
    correct?
        Ms. Greszler. Correct.
        Dr. Burgess. Mr. Ebell, let me ask you a question. Title 42
    is in all the news. There is a different Title 42 in the--HHS
    had developed a different payment rate for some of their
    scientists, the special pay authority originally given by
    Congress to the Department of Health and Human Services, but
    EPA also used to be a part of the Department of Health and
    Human Services, so they have sort of continued that special pay
    authority that they have under the Public Health Service Act.
    Are you aware of this special pay authority that the EPA
    possesses?
        Mr. Ebell. Representative Burgess, I am vaguely aware of
    it, but I don't think I can offer any expert advice on it.
        Dr. Burgess. But suffice it to say, it was a special pay
    authority that was thought to be necessary to attract
    scientists to HHS when EPA was split off as a separate agency.
    You don't need special pay authority for, say, a beginning
    chemist in a lab at the EPA. We are looking at a time where
    every tax dollar that is spent should come under scrutiny.
    Something I have worked on for several years is to get
    rescission of that special pay authority for the Environmental
    Protection Agency, and unfortunately, as we have learned now
    coming through the Coronavirus emergency, some of that special
    pay authority was going to some of our very highly paid NIH
    scientists, and again, I think in retrospect, you would have to
    ask yourself, were those dollars well spent? And that is still
    an open question, but I don't think you could convince the
    American taxpayer that they would want to continue that.
        On the other component of improper payments, Ms. Greszler,
    I would stress an improper payment does not necessarily mean
    fraudulent. It simply can be a payment that was submitted that
    wasn't entirely accurate. But Medicaid stands out as one of
    those where the improper payment rate is strikingly above the
    overall average of improper payments in the Federal Government.
    Is that not correct?
        Ms. Greszler. That is correct. An improper payment is a
    payment made to the wrong person or in the wrong amount. About
    95 percent of those are all overpayments. Medicaid is most
    problematic, I would say, because it is administered by a state
    agency. They often aren't checking the eligibility for them,
    and also, it is just an incredibly complicated program, and the
    healthcare market is distorted by it being largely funded
    through the government. So, there is a whole host of things
    feeding into that improper payment rate.
        Dr. Burgess. Thank you very much. My time has expired. I am
    supposed to recognize any Democrat I see. Oh, I do see. I
    recognize Ms. Jackson Lee from Texas for five minutes.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me lay the groundwork, Mr. Gupta, for
    what I would like to ask questions for. Moody Analytics
    estimates that the default on America--and a default would
    result in more than seven million jobs lost, an unemployment
    rate over eight percent, and a wipeout of $10 trillion in
    household wealth. Mortgage rates and consumer borrowing rates
    would increase and the status of the dollar as a reserve
    currency of the world would be at risk. I want Houston, Texas
    to be aware of that. I want Texas to be aware of that.
        In addition, if we had a default after talking about
    Democrats and their support of law enforcement, these
    Republicans will in fact cut the Department of Justice over $8
    billion and threaten 30,000 law enforcement. That is a threat
    to public safety, which I would like to put on the record, and
    we know that the Default on America bill has a threat. It has a
    trigger. It says that we will give you a dime, $1.5 trillion in
    debt, raising the debt, and then we got to come back again for
    whenever we meet that, or it gets, or maybe March. So, we are
    just playing daggers with the working families of America. Just
    daggers. We are just shooting them in the foot, and many people
    in the heart.
        Texas, for example, 1.6 million families in Texas get SNAP,
    and the roughly 5.746 million Medicaid would face a mountain of
    paperwork which in essence would weed out vulnerable children,
    which is what we need to be aware of. Let me tell my fellow
    Texans, deny 1,100 Texans admission to opioid treatment, if you
    talk about raising the mental health crisis or even crime, that
    is your pathway. Jeopardize air safety by shutting down at
    least 24 air traffic control towers in Texas. I represent Bush
    Intercontinental in Houston. Estimate 27,400 preschool children
    and childcare slots gone immediately.
        I remember during the pandemic standing in front of
    childcare centers begging for resources as parents were
    desperate to be able to find places for their children who were
    out of school.
        Strip food assistance from 994,000 Texans, threatening
    855,000 Texans with restrictions. Making college more expensive
    for 587,900 Texans. Raising housing costs in an already
    oversaturated market where people can't find housing for 40,000
    Texans.
        And so let me go directly, if you would, answer these
    questions and maybe very briefly, we are in the aftermath of
    the Trump tax cuts that we suffered. By the way, you know on
    the record, we raised as Democrats collectively the debt
    ceiling three times under the past administration. Give me
    quickly, because I have a SNAP question, a lingering effect of
    the dastardly Trump tax cut. Did it generate revenue into the
    economy, or did it give corporate America billionaires a fat
    cushion, maybe a soft pillow, if you will.
        Mr. Dutta-Gupta. It is yet another example of the failure
    of trickle-down economics. The Trump tax cuts failed to deliver
    the thousands of dollars of increase in incomes that were
    promised by the Council of Economic Advisors. They failed to
    deliver any meaningful increase in job growth, and
    unfortunately, delivered a huge amount of debt.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. And do you see--I started as you well know
    with the Moody Analytics--you see a truth in that mass loss of
    jobs and $10 trillion in household wealth, which are working
    families or middle-class families, you see value or veracity in
    that?
        Mr. Dutta-Gupta. That is right. Even getting close to the
    debt limit without raising it will have severe financial
    consequences.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Now, let's work on this. You know, here
    are some old issues that you might not have been around to
    hear, but you remember in early administrations, this whole
    thing about get to work. If you are on benefits, get to work,
    and that was supposed to be one of the saving graces of the
    economy. So, let me just get right to it. Does the increasing
    age limit do anything to help more people find work, or will it
    simply increase hunger? And as well explain it is not an
    employment program and able-bodied people get off anyhow
    because of state rules. Could you explain that, please, and why
    we are wasting time with the Default on America and making it
    worse for hungry people?
        Mr. Dutta-Gupta. Adding new work reporting and
    documentation requirements will be counterproductive. It will
    not help people work. We have tried this repeatedly. We know it
    undermines people's ability to have that basic foundation they
    need to access opportunity, succeed in the labor market, pursue
    education, and support their family.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Are the people needing to get SNAP,
    children, who are the basic population of hungry people in
    America?
        Mr. Dutta-Gupta. Absolutely.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. And what we are doing with Default on
    America is really undermining our own safety net, putting
    children in dangerous health conditions, as well as hunger
    conditions without having a viable program?
        Mr. Dutta-Gupta. Yes, and for those kids, the safety net is
    really a trampoline.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Have you seen massive fraud or waste?
        Mr. Dutta-Gupta. No.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. You are in the business so, you would----
        Mr. Dutta-Gupta. SNAP does an incredible job of getting
    payments right.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me thank you so very much for your
    response, and, Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much for your
    indulgence. I yield back.
        Chairman Arrington. I am always better at indulging my
    colleagues when they are from Texas.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Arrington. I have a really bad record about that.
    Thank you for your comments.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank you.
        Chairman Arrington. Now, I will yield five minutes to my
    friend from North Carolina, Mr. Chuck Edwards.
        Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Dutta-Gupta, do
    you believe that folks making more than $400,000 a year ought
    to be paying more taxes than they are today?
        Mr. Dutta-Gupta. Yes.
        Mr. Edwards. Do you believe that folks making less than
    $400,000 should be paying more taxes than they are paying
    today?
        Mr. Dutta-Gupta. I think you will probably have to do that
    if you want to do things like paid family medical leave and
    meet our Nation's caregiving needs.
        Mr. Edwards. And so, President Biden has told us over and
    over again that he intends to not ask folks making less than
    $400,000 to pay more. So, it sounds like you disagree with
    President Biden.
        Mr. Dutta-Gupta. While the President's budget may well
    stabilize debt as a share of GDP over the long run, I think to
    meet some of our Nation's crucial needs, including climate
    policy, some people between $250,000 and $400,000, who others
    here on your side have already described as wealthy, should be
    able to contribute more.
        Mr. Edwards. And so, I hear that you do disagree with what
    the President has been telling us about his tax policy.
        Mr. Dutta-Gupta. I would not. I draw the line at $400,000.
        Mr. Edwards. I find it interesting. I am going back to your
    testimony that you made comments regarding folks needing to
    work for, let's just call it SNAP benefits. You said for people
    who can't prove that they are working or exempt, it would
    create a particular hardship, and you go on to say that many
    people might even lose benefits even though they are working or
    should qualify, but then they fail to keep up with paperwork
    requirements. Are you familiar with what those paperwork
    requirements are?
        Mr. Dutta-Gupta. Yes, and in Arkansas, when they tried this
    for Medicaid, it bumped off so many people who actually were
    complying that Arkansas itself is now acknowledging that they
    failed.
        Mr. Edwards. And so, how often would someone have to
    complete paperwork to qualify for these benefits?
        Mr. Dutta-Gupta. That can vary.
        Mr. Edwards. Monthly?
        Mr. Dutta-Gupta. It can----
        Mr. Edwards. The benefits are----
        Mr. Dutta-Gupta. It can be to document work.
        Mr. Edwards. The benefits are established monthly, are they
    not?
        Mr. Dutta-Gupta. Many benefits are established monthly,
    yeah. Some you can get a year, a trial.
        Mr. Edwards. And so, the answer to my question is monthly.
    Do you realize that folks that are working and raising their
    families and paying to feed their families today have to be
    involved in some activity? Plumbers are underneath houses
    working on fixtures and piping. Bricklayers are out all day.
    They are working with their hands, often in the sunshine.
    Welders have to do something all day to provide for their
    families. Factory workers have to be on a production line all
    day, and you are trying to tell this Committee that for folks
    to receive benefits, it is a hardship for them to complete
    paperwork once a month? I am not sure that I understand that.
        Mr. Dutta-Gupta. Yeah, they are often struggling with
    substance use challenges, with violence, lots of challenges
    that maybe you or I are not facing, and the way that these
    systems are created----
        Mr. Edwards. Thank you.
        Mr. Dutta-Gupta [continuing]. Make it hard to.
        Mr. Edwards. And so you recognize that what we have in the
    Limit, Save, and Grow Act is that able bodied, childless adults
    should work for their benefits, and you are trying to tell this
    Committee that you don't believe that they should work for
    that.
        Mr. Dutta-Gupta. The research shows that it is precisely
    giving the benefits that can often help them work, help their
    families do better. So, people need healthcare, they need food
    to be able to succeed in the labor market.
        Mr. Edwards. So, filling out a form once a month seems to
    be a real----
        Mr. Dutta-Gupta. It is much harder than that.
        Mr. Edwards [continuing]. A real hardship.
        Mr. Dutta-Gupta. And often rejected for inappropriate
    reasons.
        Mr. Edwards. All right. Thank you for that. Ms. Greszler,
    thanks so much for being with us today. I appreciated hearing
    your testimony. We have seen President Biden promise time and
    time again that the middle-class families, families making less
    than $400,000 per year, wouldn't be affected by proposed tax
    hikes, and yet he is allowing the Trump era tax cuts to expire.
    The numbers that I have read say that that means families will
    be paying, even less than $250,000, will be paying maybe $2,000
    more per year, and I don't believe that this boils down to pure
    tax policy for this administration. It is the latest trend in
    policies with an ideological bend. In your view, does the Biden
    Administration's $400,000 number send a message to Americans
    that at the end of the day, it doesn't pay to succeed?
        Ms. Greszler. I think it does, but more importantly, that
    $400,000 figure is not possible if you want to fund everything
    that the Biden Administration wants to, and we have had
    statistics done at The Heritage Foundation that show you could
    confiscate every single dollar of somebody earning over
    $200,000 and you would still not pay for half of the left's
    agenda.
        Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I see my time has
    expired, so I yield.
        Chairman Arrington. I thank the gentleman from North
    Carolina and now will yield five minutes to Ms. Espaillat from
    New York.
        Mr. Espaillat. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Arrington. Mister, I apologize.
        Mr. Espaillat. Yes. I don't want to be the subject of one
    of their testimonies. Mr. Gupta, the proposed cuts have been
    presented in a way that leadership has asserted they would
    protect certain areas and not cut those particular areas,
    including Social Security. They asserted that they will not
    touch Social Security, on many occasions they have said that.
    Defense, Homeland Security, and Medicare, some say they will
    not cut Medicare. If that occurs, of course, this will impact
    the level of cuts in other areas because you will have to sort
    of like make up the funding somewhere. What is your projection
    on the levels of cuts for other areas if they kept their
    promise and did not cut these areas?
        Mr. Dutta-Gupta. So, a lot depends. It is intentionally
    vague, and that means we have to assume a few things, but if we
    assume veterans' medical care, which on the non-defense side is
    sort of the largest single item for appropriations, is
    protected, and we assume growth that we meet the needs of
    veterans, we see the similar growth that we have had in defense
    in recent years, you may have to eliminate virtually all that
    is left.
        Mr. Espaillat. Do you feel that this massive budget cuts
    will have not just an impact on the quality of services and the
    services rendered to average Americans, but that it will also
    have an impact on the economy? What do you think is the impact
    of this scheme on the economy?
        Mr. Dutta-Gupta. That is right. Moody's estimates that
    several hundred thousand jobs would be lost. Our government
    does actually support our labor force, and ensures that we have
    high employment, especially compared to a lot of our peer
    countries, and these investments, including non-defense
    discretionary investments, support our economic activity across
    the board.
        Mr. Espaillat. What do you think the impact that it will
    have in more than just a budget cycle, let's say, in the next
    decade, if these cuts were perpetrated?
        Mr. Dutta-Gupta. Well, we are already far below 47-year
    averages on the non-defense discretionary side. We have seen
    real harm, inability to keep up with needs. On Social Security
    Administration, for example, people have to wait a long time
    for disability benefits, retirement benefits, et cetera, but
    similarly on just basic safety functions of the government, and
    that will only worsen over time.
        Mr. Espaillat. Now, Mr. Gupta, I think you made a good sort
    of like assessment on the impact on the economy, but the
    Default on America Act would also impose work requirements on
    Medicaid recipients and increase work requirements for SNAP
    recipients, right? It is often the assumption that
    individuals--their assumption is that individuals are not
    working and relying on safety net programs to meet the basic
    needs. Which groups do you think this will hurt? How will this
    hurt America?
        Mr. Dutta-Gupta. Well, it will catch a lot of people, even
    people maybe the Republicans don't intend to catch, because it
    turns out a lot of people who fail to meet these sorts of
    requirements actually might have been exempt. They might have
    been compliant, but when you are a student, say, working full-
    time, and you should be exempt, but you are focusing on your
    studies, dealing with another agency and their requirements and
    documentation, this isn't about just going online and filling
    out a form. There is a lot of forced documentation. So, all of
    that would sweep a lot of people into this sort of dragnet.
        Mr. Espaillat. Why would you think the long-term effect of
    these increased requirements will have on the workforce and the
    economy? We are talking about the economy.
        Mr. Dutta-Gupta. Right.
        Mr. Espaillat. That is why we are here. This is the Budget
    Committee.
        Mr. Dutta-Gupta. Right. Counterproductive. I mean, we know
    Medicaid improves student achievement. We know kids who grow up
    in families that participate in SNAP do much better when they
    are adults than otherwise. So, this is completely
    counterproductive, pennywise, and pound foolish.
        Mr. Espaillat. Thank you, Mr. Gupta. I yield back, Mr.
    Chair.
        Chairman Arrington. I thank Mr. Espaillat from New York,
    and will now yield to my friend from Pennsylvania, Mr. Lloyd
    Smucker, for five minutes.
        Mr. Smucker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to just
    follow up, Mr. Dutta-Gupta, on the conversation that occurred
    there, and I will say, you know, there are some things I think
    we agree on. One, we want to try to lift people out of poverty
    and give everyone a chance to live their own American dream.
        There was just, in context, a group in my area--actually it
    was a Democrat mayor of the largest city in my district that
    did a study on poverty, and out of that came sort of an effort
    to bring together all the different organizations, and the
    report was called One Good job, and the intent, or sort of the
    end goal, was to connect as many people as possible with a
    great family-sustaining job. We also agree that, you know, I
    think we all believe we are fortunate to live in a country
    where there is a safety net for people who are not able to
    access and provide for themselves.
        But based on some of your comments, I just want to ask you,
    do you think everyone who should be working or could be working
    should be?
        Mr. Dutta-Gupta. Absolutely. We should try to make sure
    there is a good job for all of them.
        Mr. Smucker. And how would, like people who are relying on
    government programs now, we want to move them, which was,
    again, the intent, the goal of this program. The success was
    measured by putting people on that ladder of upward mobility,
    by connecting them with a good paying job. How would you
    accomplish that for people who are not currently there today?
        Mr. Dutta-Gupta. Yeah, that is a great question, and thank
    you, Representative Smucker, for the line of questions, so----
        Mr. Smucker. And I don't have a lot of time.
        Mr. Dutta-Gupta. Yeah, so we do have employment jobs
    programs, some of which would actually likely be cut,
    unfortunately, under the bill, but it turns out that the
    programs themselves, by giving people that very basic
    foundation we all need, food, healthcare, actually does help
    them. We saw this with a child tax credit expansion. People
    spent money on things that helped them. Do more, work more,
    more childcare, for example, would be a great way for us to
    promote more employment.
        Mr. Smucker. So, I literally don't understand why you think
    that work requirements would work against that. Like, why would
    we not want to do everything we can to encourage people, who
    can, to take a job or to do everything they can to find a job?
    Why is that so bad?
        Mr. Dutta-Gupta. Yeah, it turns out it expands bureaucracy,
    red tape. It bumps a lot of people off benefits who shouldn't
    be bumped off, even under the rules, and it just adds a lot of
    stress and would create a lot more challenges for people who
    are just trying to have that basic foundation. It is much
    easier to find a job and do well when you are well fed and you
    have got healthcare you need. You know, people who are
    accessing substance use disorder treatment, for example, they
    could lose that.
        Mr. Smucker. I think----
        Mr. Dutta-Gupta. And that would help them get a job.
        Mr. Smucker [continuing]. I think your position misses the
    importance of incentives and of ensuring that we are trying to
    incentivize the right thing to help people access a good job. I
    want to get back, there is one other issue, Ms. Greszler, and I
    want to submit for the record, Mr. Chairman, if I may, CBO's
    April 2023 report titled, Expired and Expiring Authorizations
    of Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2023.
        Chairman Arrington. Without objection, so ordered.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Smucker. That is here, the House and Senate rules
    require that all spending in appropriations bills be authorized
    by law, but this particular report by CBO reports that $1.7
    trillion in Fiscal Year 2023 in the omnibus included--the
    omnibus of $1.7 trillion included $510 billion in
    appropriations for unauthorized or expired programs. Is that
    any concern to you?
        Ms. Greszler. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Smucker. Are you familiar with that?
        Ms. Greszler. Yes, I think that is over 400 programs that
    are currently----
        Mr. Smucker. Four hundred twenty-eight programs, I think.
        Ms. Greszler [continuing]. Unauthorized or expiring, and
    that is Congress's job to make sure that they are funding only
    the programs that have been authorized and that are still
    supposed to be funded. There is the Unauthorized Spending
    Accountability Act of 2023 that would be----
        Mr. Smucker. And I don't even understand how we can today
    spend it, because very clearly, House rule XXI prohibits
    spending for unauthorized or expired programs, yet we spend
    half a trillion dollars on this type of spending. Like, how is
    that happening and what can we do to stop it?
        Ms. Greszler. Well, it is happening because there is still
    funding being appropriated for them even though they are not
    authorized, and so, as I mentioned, the Unauthorized Spending
    Accountability Act of 2023 would essentially expire all those
    unauthorized programs after three years if Congress doesn't
    explicitly reauthorize them and fund them.
        Mr. Smucker. Do you think as an individual Member or
    Members together, do you think we would have an opportunity to
    object to unauthorized spending during consideration of
    appropriations bill? And if so, how would that be done?
        Ms. Greszler. Yeah, I think not just an opportunity, but an
    obligation that funds should not be going to programs that are
    unauthorized.
        Mr. Smucker. Yeah, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Arrington. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania
    and yield five minutes now to Ms. Wexton from Virginia.
        Ms. Wexton. I thank the witnesses today----
        Chairman Arrington. Push, there you go.
        Ms. Wexton. Thank you very much to the witnesses for being
    here today. Federal workers are the backbone of our government
    and carry out important functions and services every day that
    keep our country running smoothly. It is unfortunate that my
    colleagues across the aisle hosting this hearing aimed at
    disparaging the Federal workforce during Public Service
    Recognition Week. What is worse than that are the cuts that
    they are considering.
        The proposal would be catastrophic for families across the
    country. It is designed to make it more difficult for Federal
    employees to serve the American people, almost as if they don't
    want government to function effectively.
        Pediatric mental health. The U.S. is in the middle of a
    pediatric mental health crisis, and as a mother, I am
    heartbroken that we are not doing more for our children. I am
    proud to have fought for programs to help address this mental
    health crisis, including getting more mental health
    professionals in schools, including the impact of social media
    on children's development and wellbeing, and the 988-suicide
    hotline.
        The proposed cuts threaten families' access to these
    crucial programs in the middle of a crisis. Mr. Dutta-Gupta,
    how would decreased funding limit access to care for our kids
    and our families? How would this decreased funding that the
    Republicans are proposing in their budget, how would that limit
    the options for--how does that limit access to care for our
    kids and families, please?
        Mr. Dutta-Gupta. Yeah, it would be significant. We are
    already facing the end of the continuous coverage requirement
    in Medicaid because of the end of the Public Health Emergency.
    We are expecting up to 15 million people to lose coverage.
    People need health insurance coverage to access the care and
    treatment that they need, and for young people and families,
    including those struggling with mental health challenges, it is
    often the only way that they can possibly be at their best, and
    I think that is what we all want. So, they need that coverage
    that is not being provided often in low paid jobs, and it is
    not being provided through any other means than these public
    programs.
        In some cases, they would have to wait until it becomes an
    acute crisis, which is the worst possible outcome.
        Ms. Wexton. It is not only bad for their health, it is also
    bad for the bottom line for sure.
        Mr. Dutta-Gupta. That is right.
        Ms. Wexton. The cuts could impact hundreds of thousands of
    children and cause them to lose access to childcare in
    preschool for nearly 6,000 children in Virginia. What impact
    would this have on children's wellbeing at large and largely
    within the economy with women in the workforce? What impact
    would this loss of childcare access have on women in the
    workforce as well as their children?
        Mr. Dutta-Gupta. One of the clearest findings in research
    is that childcare helps women succeed in the labor market. So,
    you would be undermining our labor force participation and
    employment to population ratios. Women disproportionately bear
    care burdens as we know, and childcare is really unquestionably
    valuable investment with a meaningful return for taxpayers and
    the country overall.
        Ms. Wexton. How about pre-K?
        Mr. Dutta-Gupta. You know, pre-K as well. I mean, we could
    lose hundreds of thousands of Head Start slots too, with a bill
    that has been passed by the House, and that has long-term
    payoff. Those investments, we know, dramatically improve the
    outcomes of kids who go to those programs. When they are
    adults, they graduate from school at higher rates, they go to
    college at higher rates, they do better in jobs, higher
    earnings, higher employment rates.
        Ms. Wexton. So, that is something we would encourage right?
        Mr. Dutta-Gupta. Yeah.
        Ms. Wexton. Yeah. The Inflation Reduction Act includes
    significant funding to help IRS employees address its backlog
    of unprocessed returns and provide better service. We are
    already seeing the benefits this year. I know that in our
    office we had very few complaints this tax season, which last
    year we had many. I am glad that the increased funding has
    really helped with that.
        We are also seeing a lot of cases that have been open for a
    long time be closed. So, I am very pleased to see that these
    new people that we have hired at IRS are actually working with
    customer service for a change. My colleagues across the aisle
    have tried to call these desperately needed funds back. How
    would this impact IRS's ability to modernize technology, reduce
    backlog, and increase approved customer service, Mr. Gupta?
        Mr. Dutta-Gupta. So, we are addressing a longstanding
    challenge at the IRS, so it would completely reverse some of
    the gains that are underway that improve people's experience
    interacting with IRS, reduce errors that others here have
    discussed today, reduce improper payments, and help more people
    get the payments that they are eligible for, including some key
    tax credits.
        Ms. Wexton. Thank you very much. One other question for
    you. Earlier this week, I met with a group of people from our
    ID and DD communities, intellectually, developmentally disabled
    communities, people who depend on SSI for, to live. What would
    happen if--what would happen if the Social Security, the cuts
    to Social Security that are being proposed by the majority,
    what would take place?
        Mr. Dutta-Gupta. They would have to wait longer and longer
    for eligibility determinations, redeterminations, possibly be
    denied life sustaining benefits.
        Ms. Wexton. Thank you very much, and those are most
    vulnerable people in our society. Thank you very much. I would
    yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Arrington. I thank the gentlelady from Virginia,
    and now yield five minutes to my friend from Utah, Mr. Blake
    Moore.
        Mr. Moore. Thank you, Chairman, and Ranking Member. Mr.
    Ebell, I am going to start off with just a few questions and
    hope to get to some of the energy-related things that you
    worked on, but are we as high a debt-to-GDP as we were in World
    War II?
        Mr. Ebell. Representative Moore, I think we are at a point
    that is in the same vicinity. I think what we need to
    understand is World War II was an existential crisis. It wasn't
    just a phony claim of existential crisis.
        Mr. Moore. Or bad planning.
        Mr. Ebell. Or bad planning, yes.
        Mr. Moore. I like to highlight to a lot of my constituents
    that not a single, you know, it is just, it is bad planning. We
    are not dealing with a catastrophic World War III, right? We
    are not. Our revenues are as high as they have been, right? Our
    spending is far higher than it has ever been. Would you also
    agree that, with Larry Summers, former economic adviser to
    Obama, and Secretary of Treasury to President Clinton, that a
    $2 trillion bill done within a very, very short timeframe with
    no real offset spending is going to increase inflation?
        Mr. Ebell. Yes.
        Mr. Moore. Thank you. Okay. So, the other thing that I have
    noticed about this lovely place of Washington, D.C., I am in my
    second term, things are actually a lot more predictable than
    you would assume. When Republicans lost the Senate, control of
    the Senate on January 5, 2021, I said to many of my colleagues,
    we are going to see a record amount of spending this term. The
    same can also be true, and I think that they could expect, that
    my Democratic colleagues could expect, that when we won the
    majority in the House, oh, you are going to see Republicans
    push back on spending.
        That is not like earth shattering news. That should be
    predictable to everybody here. So, when the debt ceiling comes
    up and we push back and we put a bill that has an enormous
    amount of spending cuts in there, is that a surprise to
    anybody? Do you think that that should have been a surprise to
    anybody?
        Mr. Ebell. No, and I am a little bit dismayed by the fact
    that it is claimed that the Republican bill is somehow a denial
    of the debt ceiling crisis. The bill passed by the House raises
    the debt ceiling. I am not real happy about that, and maybe
    some of you, maybe you aren't either.
        Mr. Moore. It is hard for fiscal conservatives. It is going
    to be hard for people in Utah, which is one of the most----
        Mr. Ebell. But the fact is, the House is the only part of
    the tripart structure of our system that has addressed the debt
    ceiling.
        Mr. Moore. Do you think we should be at least exploring
    opportunities for restraint in our spending right now, given
    those realities? Our highest debt-to-GDP ratio. We have never
    had spending at what it is. We just came off of 2 years of the
    record spending. Do you think we should at least explore some
    constraints?
        Mr. Ebell. Yes.
        Mr. Moore. Thank you. Okay. Easy questions. I get that. I
    am not trying to be flippant, but I would love your perspective
    on one particular thing. With respect to the Inflation
    Reduction Act, there has been some--and I have looked into
    this--there has been some independent review of the cost of
    that bill. Is there an area that we could come together and
    say, yeah, that is far more expensive than what it was set out
    to do? It is also not going to target lower income individuals.
    If you give an EV tax credit to folks, those are wealthier
    individuals that can buy an electric vehicle and they are the
    ones that are going to benefit from that bill. Is there an
    opportunity to look at that bill and say, we can claw back some
    of this and find a way to restrain some of this spending?
        Mr. Ebell. Well, yes. As you know, I support, and CEI
    supports the complete repeal of all of the energy subsidies and
    handouts in the so-called Inflation Reduction Act, but yes, if
    there has to be compromise, and I understand that legislation
    is a messy business, then I think you could put caps on, for
    example, the amount of money that will be expended for the
    various subsidy categories because they are all uncapped. They
    are open ended.
        Mr. Moore. Another thing that I find fascinating, from the
    years of 2011 to 2018 when Republicans had control of, at least
    the House, like you saw significant cuts to discretionary
    spending. Did our government continue to operate? Did we
    continue to provide services to people? Were we able to look in
    that budget and find areas to cut? Obviously, leading towards
    this concept that we can roll the clock back about 5 months,
    about when we were operating under Fiscal Year 2022. Roll it
    back to that timeframe and put some spending caps going
    forward. Is that completely unreasonable?
        Mr. Ebell. It is reasonable.
        Mr. Moore. Thank you. I yield back.
        Chairman Arrington. I thank the gentleman from Utah. I now
    yield five minutes to the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Trone.
        Mr. Trone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We were called here
    today to talk about a woke government. Fascinating. Our
    government's barreling toward a default on its debt. Americans
    are dying in record numbers from mass shootings. Americans are
    dying in record numbers from suicides. Americans are dying in
    record numbers from drug overdoses. Yet, here we are to talk
    about wokeism, and women are living in fear of horrific limits
    on abortion access to their healthcare. We came to Congress to
    try and get stuff done and to help and focus on our Nation's
    most important problems. Frankly, wokeism, isn't it.
        I would also like to correct the record of the previous
    gentleman. We talk about the deficit. The deficit under the
    last year of President Obama was, give or take, $470-$480
    billion. Third year of President Trump, before COVID, before
    that hit, it increased a record amount more than it has ever
    increased. Under President Trump, the biggest increase ever to
    our deficit up to $980 billion because of a ridiculous tax cut
    to C-corporations from 35 to 21 percent, which effective rate
    is probably 10 to 12 percent. Why are our C-corporations,
    Google, Apple, eBay, paying 10 and 12 percent when our
    hardworking families are paying 15, 20, 25 percent? That
    doesn't make any sense.
        But President Trump, after last night's debate of lies, and
    lies, and lies, the Republicans can't seem to get out of their
    way on what is truth and what are lies, but we got to go with
    the facts. The facts are where we are in life. So, let's try
    and talk about the deficit with reality and not just make up a
    bunch of BS because it fits the talking points that some
    staffer gave someone that has never ran a business, never had a
    payroll, doesn't have any conception what the deficit really
    means.
        Last month, the Republicans released the exclusive, the
    Default on America Act. The debt ceiling was drafted. No
    hearings, no transparency. That is because it is a bad deal for
    working Americans. The Default on America Act would hurt our
    country, hurt our people, hurt our children, hurt our future,
    but extreme Republicans still voted to pass it.
        Mr. Gupta, on a brighter note, this week is teachers' week,
    teacher appreciation. What a great time to recognize America's
    teachers and the important role they play, but, but extreme
    Republicans have a funny way of celebrating. The Department of
    Education is estimated, from the Default to America Act, to
    lose $4 billion cut from schools serving low-income students,
    resulting in 60,000 fewer teachers, 60,000 less teachers. That
    is the Republicans' plan. That doesn't sound too good about our
    children, does it? Not to me.
        Your testimony explores how these critical programs such as
    Head Start--we all have to love Head Start. It works. We know
    it works. For our children and our families, this debt ceiling
    is going to result in hundreds of thousands of children losing
    access to these programs. So, in addition to hurting the
    children, hurting the families, how might these cuts have that
    opposite effect on the economy? What are they going to do with
    the economy that, then what the Republicans claim they are
    going to do?
        Mr. Dutta-Gupta. It will slow our growth or even shrink our
    economy. It will reduce the foundation of our economy that the
    government does play a central role in ensuring.
        Mr. Trone. Bring our growth rate to a halt. Stop an economy
    that is growing. Stop an economy that has record folks working
    in the economy, the record low unemployment. Stop all of those
    awesome things that have happened. Instead, bring us backwards
    because they don't understand that a nation has to carry debt.
    As the Nation gets bigger, we carry more debt than we do in
    World War II. What a stupid question. World War II debt. What
    was happening in 1945, compare our economy today, in 2023 to
    1945, and somehow that is germane. It is not germane. Mr.
    Gupta, your thoughts?
        Mr. Dutta-Gupta. The United States can clearly afford this
    debt. People will be willing to continue to buy United States
    debt if we don't threaten the validity of it. It is one of the
    safest, if not the safest, investment in the world and in
    extraordinary demand and continues to be.
        Mr. Trone. You get bigger, you have more debt. My company
    at $6 billion has hundreds of millions more debt than we had at
    $1 billion.
        Mr. Dutta-Gupta. You can use it----
        Mr. Trone. That is the way it works.
        Mr. Dutta-Gupta. You can use it to finance investments.
    When you buy a house, you net.
        Mr. Trone. How you grow, how you build.
        Mr. Dutta-Gupta. Yeah.
        Mr. Trone. Thank you. I yield back.
        Chairman Arrington. I thank the gentleman from Maryland and
    yield five minutes to my friend from Minnesota, Ms. Fischbach.
        Ms. Fischbach. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and that last exchange
    just explains to me, you know, it is a perfect example of the
    absurd arguments that are being made to increase the out-of-
    control spending. I did have some questions, but after sitting
    here for a while, excuse me, I just have to say a few words
    because the arguments that are being made, and I think that
    Representative McClain was talking a little bit about, you
    know, pleading with the other side to come and help us get this
    spending under control, but they continue to use these
    outrageous emotional arguments about the things that would get
    cut.
        They will not admit that we can do better, that we can do
    better. There are things that could be scaled back, that can
    be, let's face it, cut, in the Federal Government, there are
    places, but instead, what we always end up hearing about is, of
    course, they are going to cut, you know, food to children, and
    I think that that was one of the examples that Representative
    McClain used, and, you know, it is typical fashion for the
    Democrats to throw out the most extreme and emotional arguments
    that they can find because they are unwilling to admit that
    there is out of control spending.
        I have been here two years and all I have seen is Democrats
    spend money, the first two years I was here, and now, they are
    unwilling to admit and, you know, they can blame it on Trump,
    they can blame it on Republicans, whatever, but let's face it,
    we have to get this under control.
        There was a mention of this is going to hurt our children,
    this is going to hurt our future. The spending cuts were going
    to hurt them, but having this kind of out-of-control debt is
    going to hurt them even more and hurt the future of the
    country.
        Like I said, I had some questions, but I really felt the
    need to just get that out because the other side is just
    unwilling to admit it, just plain and simple. They will make no
    efforts to cut a dime because what they want to do is continue
    to spend, and spend, and spend, and spend. They feel like there
    is no responsibility to the taxpayers, to those middle-class
    folks, the lower income folks that they talk so passionately
    about, but they are paying for this debt, too, and we have to
    get it under control. We have to get spending under control.
        So, I feel very strongly that the American people want us
    to do this. They want us to get this under control. They
    understand that out-of-control debt, out-of-control spending
    does nobody any good, and I had to say that. I had to get it
    off my chest, because as I sit here, and I listen to these
    ridiculous arguments that we are going to starve children. We
    are going to do all kinds of horrible things.
        Then come to the table and help us figure out this issue,
    that is all I ask. If they don't want that to happen, then
    where are they? They claim all these horrible, horrible things
    but won't actually help, but won't actually admit that there is
    even a problem.
        They talk about, we could potentially, you know, we can
    afford this debt. It doesn't make sense. So, I ask, and I
    appreciate all of the witnesses being here, and all of you have
    put up with a lot of us all day long, and you have been here
    for the long haul. So, I appreciate that and I appreciate all
    your work, but I just, I had to talk a little bit about that
    because it has been so frustrating today to hear that they
    won't even come to the table and help. So, thank you, and I
    yield back, Mr. Chair.
        Chairman Arrington. I thank the gentlelady from Minnesota,
    and yield to another gentlelady from Oklahoma, my friend, Ms.
    Stephanie Bice.
        Ms. Bice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Ranking
    Member Boyle. I first want to start out by saying that the
    comment was made earlier that obligations were made and that
    the United States needs to pay their debt, but let me be very
    clear, obligations were made by some. I was not one of those.
    In the last two years, $11 trillion worth of obligations were
    made. I did not agree with many of them, and it is sort of rich
    to sit here in this room and hear the other side of the aisle
    talk about how this didn't go through proper order, because I
    don't recall a single one of those very large bills, not only
    going through proper order, but not accepting amendments to be
    able to cut some of the wasteful spending that was in those
    bills. So, it is frustrating for me to sit here and hear, to be
    lectured by that.
        Now, my friend on the other side of the aisle brought up a
    great point. He said, it is Teacher Appreciation Week, and I am
    incredibly honored to have my sister-in-law as a teacher back
    home. Shout out to Lisa, you are doing an amazing job. Mr.
    Gupta, how much did Democrats appropriate in Fiscal Year 2023
    for the Department of Education?
        Mr. Dutta-Gupta. I don't know that.
        Mrs. Bice. One hundred seventy-five billion dollars. Do you
    know how much they appropriated in Fiscal Year 2023 for the
    Department of Energy, including loan payments?
        Mr. Dutta-Gupta. I don't, but I bet you do.
        Ms. Bice. Four hundred seventy-eight billion dollars. Seems
    to me that Democrats care more about climate change than kids.
    Let me make a couple of points on that particular issue. The
    so-called Inflation Reduction Act enacted last year, gave $271
    billion in tax credits to pay for green energy projects favored
    by Democrats' donor class. The preliminary JCT estimate,
    independent analysis keeps raising the price tag on that, with
    one recent estimate putting the green subsidy handouts at $1.2
    trillion. The debt ceiling is tied to spending. That is why we
    are in the position we are in, because we keep writing checks
    that the government can't cash. This has to stop.
        To the points that have been made by my colleagues McClain
    and Fischbach, and many others, you can't sit here today and
    tell me that there is not one single dollar that can be cut,
    and we have been told over and over, I hear it in the press
    every day that Republicans haven't done anything. Hogwash. We
    passed the debt ceiling with offsets because we recognize that
    this is an unsustainable path. We can't continue down the road
    that we have been going over the last couple of years.
        So, Ms. Greszler, interest rates have been hiked up ten
    times in response to Bidenflation. More Americans are unable to
    buy a home than they were a year ago. Can you talk about how
    interest rates are impacting the current situation with debt?
        Ms. Greszler. Yes, the interest rates are exacerbating it,
    and those interest rates were caused by excessive government
    spending, most of which was passed after the crisis was truly
    over, and the problem here in talking about from the other side
    saying that the Republicans' Limit, Save, Grow Act is not
    accounting for inflation, Americans are already paying for
    their own inflation. Their wages have gone up by over $5,000,
    but inflation has eaten away over $8,000. So, they are actually
    $3,000 poorer, and now, they are being asked to pay for the
    government's share of inflation, on top of that within the next
    year alone, $11,500 in added debt to every household.
        Ms. Bice. Mr. Ebell, Ms. Agostin, do you want to comment on
    that, too?
        Mr. Ebell. Yes. I appreciate your focus on the energy slush
    funds in the so-called Inflation Reduction Act, and one of the
    things that you ought to focus on, you mentioned the Department
    of Energy. The Inflation Reduction Act raises the loan
    authority for green energy by $350 billion. That is a lot of
    Solyndras.
        Ms. Bice. Ms. Agostin, if you want to quickly comment on
    that as well, the interest rates issue.
        Ms. Agostin. Well, if you don't mind I don't want to
    comment about interest rates.
        Ms. Bice. Fair enough.
        Ms. Agostin. What I do want to say is to your sister-in-
    law, I believe you said is a teacher. I just think that the
    teachers are as much a victim as the students when the woke
    ideology has totally overtaken the institution that is our
    education system. I don't think your sister-in-law wants to
    teach kids that America is systemically racist.
        Ms. Bice. Amen. To your comment about energy, I want to
    make a couple of points here, Mr. Ebell, if I may. The
    Inflation Reduction Act has given so much money to these sort
    of Green New Deal initiatives, including the estimates on the
    cost of electric vehicle battery production alone could cost
    upwards of $196 billion. That is 540 percent more than the
    initial estimate of $30 million--I am sorry, $30 billion.
        But the bigger issue here is China. China controls 50
    percent of the processing capacity of key EV battery inputs
    like lithium, cobalt, and graphite. We, through these policies
    that Democrats have passed in the last two years, are becoming
    more and more and more reliant on China, and that is a problem
    for the future. Mr. Chairman, thank you for indulging. I yield
    back.
        Chairman Arrington. I thank the gentlelady and yield five
    minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Josh Brecheen.
        Mr. Brecheen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, $1.4 trillion is
    what we will overspend, the Congressional Budget Office
    projects this year. That was the size of our gross national
    debt exactly 40 years ago. So, for all of us that can remember
    where we were 40 years ago, and to think about the optimism
    and, you know, it took us 200 years as a Nation to get to $1.4
    trillion gross national debt. We will overspend this year in
    one year what it took us 200 years to accumulate in debt, and
    then ten years from now, the Congressional Budget Office says
    that is just the interest payments on our debt.
        It was mentioned a minute ago. I am appreciative you take
    the $6.2 trillion spend, multiply it times 0.77, or 0.72,
    rather, you do find out that in 2017, that our government was
    30 percent less than the size that it is today. So, 30 percent
    less the size of government, totality in our spending 6.2
    comparative to 4.5, we were that much less in the size of our
    government. Then, if you look at our dollar, I have a little
    prop, right? Props are fun. We know that since 2017 that if I
    fold back about 20 percent of this instrument of purchasing,
    that is the devaluation of our currency since 2017.
        So, at the same time that our government's grown 30
    percent, we have lost 20 percent of the value of our spending,
    and it is amazing. It is not just the devaluation of currency,
    it is that the countries around the world. Someone said a while
    ago, I don't mean to be mean spirited, but we talked about the
    strength of our world reserve currency. In 1983, that was an
    accurate statement, but when you have Brazil, Russia, India,
    China, and South Africa going, wait a minute, we think we will
    create our own European Union type currency. What has caused
    many people to believe in quantitative easing for years has
    been the thought that the world reserve currency would save us
    in our petrol dollar. That is being questioned.
        So, man, we have got to take an honest look at the problems
    that are before us. It is really astounding that when we look
    at the spending and people say, well, it is about, you know,
    not spending enough here. The Democrat ideology is sacrificing
    our prosperity on the altar of the church of nature when it
    comes to what they are doing with going after what needs to be
    another .com type boom in America. We have got to cut and we
    have got to grow.
        I appreciate you bringing up a while ago that from 1992 to
    2000, there was a four percent economic growth GDP. Well, what
    is causing us to get in the one percent now in this first
    quarter? It is because we are fighting with our hands tied
    behind our back and China and Russia are laughing at us. We
    have become not work brittle, they are work brittle. They are
    not abiding by the Paris Climate Accord, and yet we are
    fighting with our hands tied behind our back because of a woke
    ideology, and we have got to grow past this and we have got to
    grow up, and we have got to stop appeasing radical ideology.
        Food prices up 17 percent in the last several years since
    2021, since the Biden Administration took over. Gas prices up
    37 percent. Real wages decreased 3.5 percent. Somebody today
    will spend, on average, $13,000 more to buy the exact same
    goods and services as they did, you know, prior to Biden taking
    office, as a family. The ability to buy a home, to get a
    mortgage because of rising interest rates, 15 percent higher
    than just a year ago. Small businesses struggling to find line
    of credit, more seniors seeing their lifetime savings wiped out
    because of this, and then top three tier type banks looking to,
    having to go under because of this system that we have created.
    It is a self-inflicted wound.
        All right, so I want to jump to Paige, you--Ms. Agostin, I
    apologize. You had mentioned earlier some of the egregious
    spending. I loved it. I love that you are trying to call us on
    the carpet as a Nation when some say there is no way to reduce
    spending.
        Department of Health and Human Services, National Institute
    of Health actively pushing so-called gender affirming care,
    which is cross sex hormones and surgical mutilation, even for
    minors. I wrote a letter to the NIH a week or so ago about
    this. A couple of suicides and it gets brushed under the rugs,
    and hundreds of young adults, minors, these are young children
    we are giving cross sex therapy to, hormone treatment, and you
    have suicides, and this is what the Federal Government
    prioritizes?
        So, I want to ask you a question. It is not just that. It
    is not just the hypersexualized culture. It is also where we
    are going backwards when it comes to race, and we are trying to
    drive ourselves back to a place to where we are incentivizing a
    focus on not being color blind but looking at color versus the
    content of your character. Can you speak to that?
        Ms. Agostin. Sure. If I may, there was somebody quoting
    Merriam Webster. I will just quote Kendi, ``If racial
    discrimination is creating equity, then it is antiracist.'' So,
    they redefine language as you do when you are embarking on a
    cultural revolution in order to reestablish systems of
    discrimination based on identity. Race being one of them.
        Mr. Brecheen. I am out of time, Mr. Chairman. I thank you
    for your indulgence.
        Chairman Arrington. I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma,
    and now yield five minutes for my friend from Wisconsin, Mr.
    Glenn Grothman.
        Mr. Grothman. Thank you. I just got a few questions here.
    It seems our country is in a lot of trouble, and I would just
    like to focus on things that I think make that problem worse.
    Ms. Greszler, I want to focus a little bit on the Earned Income
    Tax Credit, something I have long disliked for a variety of
    reasons. One of the most embarrassing things Republicans have
    done, I think, in the last 40 years, but that tax credit, which
    is really a welfare payment, is this right that almost 32
    percent of the payments are improper every year?
        Ms. Greszler. No, it is incredibly inefficient, and it is
    costing $1.46 from one person to transfer that $1 of Earned
    Income Tax Credit to somebody else.
        Mr. Grothman. It is very inefficient, right? And 32 percent
    of the payments are improper, which I will believe because it
    is so easy to cheat on it. Is that accurate?
        Ms. Greszler. Correct.
        Mr. Grothman. Okay. Could you comment on, in general you
    think it is something we should keep going, or is it one of
    those places where we are giving a lot of money to people who
    maybe are only getting it fraudulently? And it discourages
    work, too, doesn't it? Do you want to lecture the Committee on
    how it discourages work?
        Ms. Greszler. Yes. In the phase-out ranges with that
    credit, it poses very high marginal tax rates that discourage
    people from pursuing either more work or from pursuing
    education that would allow them to further climb the career
    ladder and taking----
        Mr. Grothman. Is it true depending on your family size, it
    discourages you from making another $16,000 a year, or $20,000,
    or $26,000, or whatever, the well-informed will say, sorry, I
    can't improve myself more than, say, $25,000 a year or I am
    going to lose my Earned Income Tax Credit?
        Ms. Greszler. Yes. That program, combined with others,
    actually makes sense for people to not pursue better
    opportunities.
        Mr. Grothman. Well, thank you. Very good. That is what we
    want to hear. Next thing, President Biden's so-called American
    Rescue Plan expanded the child tax credit by removing work
    requirements and turning it into an unconditional cash payment
    per child. What effect on the moral fiber of this country will
    these changes have?
        Ms. Greszler. It is incredibly problematic, and there were
    studies that showed that for the lowest income children, that
    would actually make them worse off because it would reduce
    labor force participation, and this is not a partisan issue. I
    like to remind people, President Clinton quoted Robert Kennedy
    when he said, work is the meaning of what this country is all
    about. We need it as individuals. We need to sense it in our
    fellow citizens, and we need it as a society, and as a people.
    Work is crucial, especially when you have children in the home,
    to building those foundations for success, and today, what we
    are talking about, in some of the limits that have been put,
    the work requirements in the Limit, Save, Grow Act, those are
    not even targeted at individuals with children. Those are
    individuals without children, older ones, and when I have been
    looking at what is happening in the labor force today,
    employment among people who have no children under the age of
    18 at home is down by 1.6 percent. Employment of people who
    have children in the home is up by 1.3 percent.
        So, it is not the families with children that are
    struggling today. Their employment has improved. It is
    predominantly people who don't have children at home who are
    not working.
        Mr. Grothman. So, I want you to restate that in this
    fashion. They always talk about the booming economy and the low
    unemployment rate, but that unemployment rate doesn't take into
    account: people are sitting on their butt, not trying to get a
    job does it?
        Ms. Greszler. There are 2 million fewer people working
    today, and I do want to correct that for the record. The
    employment-to-population ratio is not higher than it has ever
    been. It is lower, and it is the equivalent of 2 million lower
    compared to February 2020.
        Mr. Grothman. Okay. So over time, under the Biden
    Administration, I think this is a goal of the Progressive
    Party, they like everybody dependent on the government, more
    and more people are just sitting it out because they can sit it
    out or working for cash, right?
        Now, we got to mix it up a little bit here. Ms. Agostin,
    the Biden Administration, a memo was released or a
    whistleblower put it out there, encouraging the investigating
    of Catholic groups because I guess they don't like people who
    take their religion too seriously. They decided to also slander
    Catholic groups and say that they were, you know, filled with
    White supremacists, or working with White supremacy. Did the
    administration offer any justification for this action within
    the, particularly within the--it would appear like among other
    things, it is going against the free exercise of the religion
    clause of the First Amendment.
        Ms. Agostin. Sure, and I think that is part and parcel of
    what this Department of Justice is. It is weaponized against
    the American people.
        Mr. Grothman. Right, and over time, this government, this
    big government is going to be used to go after political
    enemies in particular, not just political enemies, but
    religious enemies, as they always do in a totalitarian state.
    Thank you very much.
        Chairman Arrington. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin
    and yield five minutes to my friend from Georgia, Mr. Buddy
    Carter.
        Mr. Carter. I thank the gentleman for yielding and I
    appreciate all of you being here and what an appropriate and
    timely hearing that we are having that is entitled, ``Exposing
    the Woke, Wasteful, and Bloated Bureaucracy,'' and nothing
    could be further from the truth. Thank you for that. This is
    something we needed to have, Mr. Chairman, and I do thank you.
    You know, I sit on the Energy and Commerce Committee and I have
    witnessed what has been going on with bloated, and
    bureaucracies, and it is very frustrating, especially when it
    comes to energy and climate, and I see this rush to green.
    Look, I have the honor and privilege of representing the entire
    coast of Georgia, 100 miles of pristine coastline, and it also
    happens to be my home, where I have lived all my life, and no
    one cares about the environment more than I do. So, I discharge
    this theory that we don't care about the environment. We do
    care about the environment.
        But at the same time, what I am seeing, why this
    administration has been nothing less than an all-out war
    against fossil fuels. Day one, this administration declared war
    against fossil fuels. You know, both parties share the same
    common goal and that is to decrease carbon emissions. It is not
    to decrease choices. The United States has decreased our carbon
    emissions more in the last decade than the next 12 countries
    combined while growing our economy. We have proven that it can
    be done, and even today, look at what is happening. The EPA's
    got a new power plant rule that will have significant new
    requirements on our baseload generation, more regulations.
    Unbelievable.
        I would submit to you that what is going on in our economy
    right now is self-inflicted. Day one, when this administration
    declared war on fossil fuels, price of gasoline went up,
    inflation went up, interest rates went up, and now we got the
    mess that we have got. Self-inflicted, unnecessary, and it just
    frustrates me to no end.
        Mr. Ebell, I want to ask you because you know a lot about
    climate policy and about free market environment. What type of
    consequences do you think that this administration and their
    policies have had on Americans, on everyday Americans, whether
    they make over $400,000 a year or whether they make less than
    $400,000 a year?
        Mr. Ebell. Thank you, Representative Carter. You know, I
    think the consequences of these policies are really bad
    economically on the American people. They are also bad
    environmentally. Economic growth and opportunity are the basis
    of environmental protection. So, when you degrade the economy,
    you will degrade the environment as well. So, I think they are
    hiding a lot of bad things behind the climate blob, green blob.
    They are saying, oh, we have to do all these things because of
    climate, but in fact they have very deleterious impacts on the
    environment as well.
        Mr. Carter. Thank you. Ms. Greszler, what about you? What
    is your opinion?
        Ms. Greszler. Well, I think that we are seeing the green
    energy agenda shift into other areas of the government as well
    and even threaten them. I know that the U.S. Army right now is
    facing a recruitment shortage, and then the same time that they
    are doing that they were submitting a 50-page report of their
    new green energy climate plan, and so, they are having to
    divert their resources towards fighting climate change instead
    of actually having the proper amount of army to protect the
    Nation.
        Mr. Carter. You know, in the first two years of the Biden
    Administration, Ms. Greszler, this government has spent over
    $500 billion in improper payments, but instead of seriously
    working to address that problem, President Biden's budget
    proposes to inject even more spending on some of the worst
    performing programs, such as Medicaid, which spent $80 billion
    improperly last year, a 15.6 improper payment rate increase.
    Again, another example of the Federal Government failing to do
    its job and not even attempting to fix it or get better. What
    are the consequences for taxpayers because of this lack of
    accountability?
        Ms. Greszler. Well, they are already paying about $1,800
    per year, but I think it is incredibly insulting to them and
    causes them to lose faith in their government when the Federal
    Government expects taxpayers to pay the correct amount based on
    a 7,000-page tax code, and then the Federal Government, when it
    is administering the programs that it designed itself, is
    spending $1,800 per household, per year, $245 billion in total,
    making improper payments.
        Mr. Carter. Well, I am out of time, but I do want to thank
    you all for being here, and I want to thank you again, Mr.
    Chairman, because this is a very appropriate and a very timely
    hearing that needs to be brought to the attention of the
    American people because this rush to green as if we don't care
    about the environment is ridiculous. We do care about the
    environment, but we also care about our economy. We also care
    about people being able to make it, make ends meet. That is
    what we want to do. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will yield
    back.
        Chairman Arrington. I thank my friend from Georgia. I
    couldn't agree more. We love God's great Earth, and we are
    stewards of those natural resources, but we better be stewards
    of taxpayer resources, or everything that anyone cares about on
    any side of the political spectrum will be irrelevant because
    we will bankrupt the country.
        With that closing remark of mine, much shorter than my
    introduction, I might add, I want to thank the witnesses. You
    all did a lot of prep to come here, and you spent a lot of time
    with us. You have been generous. We appreciate your insights,
    your input, and God bless you, and we will close by saying that
    Members can submit written questions to be answered in writing.
    Those questions and your answers will be made part of the
    formal hearing record. Any Member who wishes to submit
    questions for the record may do so within seven days, and with
    that, the Committee stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, the Committee was adjourned.]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                               [all]