[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
MORE THAN A SHOT IN THE ARM: THE NEED
FOR ADDITIONAL COVID-19 STIMULUS
=======================================================================
VIRTUAL HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 4, 2021
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Financial Services
Serial No. 117-1
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
_________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
43-964 PDF WASHINGTON : 2021
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES
MAXINE WATERS, California, Chairwoman
CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York PATRICK McHENRY, North Carolina,
NYDIA M. VELAZQUEZ, New York Ranking Member
BRAD SHERMAN, California ANN WAGNER, Missouri
GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
DAVID SCOTT, Georgia BILL POSEY, Florida
AL GREEN, Texas BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri
EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan
ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado STEVE STIVERS, Ohio
JIM A. HIMES, Connecticut ANDY BARR, Kentucky
BILL FOSTER, Illinois ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas
JOYCE BEATTY, Ohio FRENCH HILL, Arkansas
JUAN VARGAS, California TOM EMMER, Minnesota
JOSH GOTTHEIMER, New Jersey LEE M. ZELDIN, New York
VICENTE GONZALEZ, Texas BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia
AL LAWSON, Florida ALEXANDER X. MOONEY, West Virginia
MICHAEL SAN NICOLAS, Guam WARREN DAVIDSON, Ohio
CINDY AXNE, Iowa TED BUDD, North Carolina
SEAN CASTEN, Illinois DAVID KUSTOFF, Tennessee
AYANNA PRESSLEY, Massachusetts TREY HOLLINGSWORTH, Indiana
RITCHIE TORRES, New York ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts JOHN ROSE, Tennessee
ALMA ADAMS, North Carolina BRYAN STEIL, Wisconsin
RASHIDA TLAIB, Michigan LANCE GOODEN, Texas
MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania WILLIAM TIMMONS, South Carolina
ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, New York VAN TAYLOR, Texas
JESUS ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois
SYLVIA GARCIA, Texas
NIKEMA WILLIAMS, Georgia
JAKE AUCHINCLOSS, Massachusetts
Charla Ouertatani, Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on:
February 4, 2021............................................. 1
Appendix:
February 4, 2021............................................. 69
WITNESSES
Thursday, February 4, 2021
Anthony, Clarence E., CEO and Executive Director, National League
of Cities...................................................... 4
Johnson, Derrick, President and CEO, National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People (NAACP).......................... 7
Murguia, Janet, President and CEO, UnidosUS...................... 6
Spriggs, William E., Chief Economist, the American Federation of
Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO)....... 9
Strain, Michael R., Economist, American Enterprise Institute..... 10
APPENDIX
Prepared statements:
Anthony, Clarence E.......................................... 70
Johnson, Derrick............................................. 74
Murguia, Janet............................................... 77
Spriggs, William E........................................... 88
Strain, Michael R............................................ 111
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
Waters, Hon. Maxine:
Written statement of the Credit Union National Association
(CUNA)..................................................... 131
Hill, Hon. French:
Letter from various undersigned organizations................ 134
MORE THAN A SHOT IN THE ARM:
THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL
COVID-19 STIMULUS
----------
Thursday, February 4, 2021
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Financial Services,
Washington, D.C.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m., via
Webex, Hon. Maxine Waters [chairwoman of the committee]
presiding.
Members present: Representatives Waters, Sherman, Meeks,
Scott, Green, Cleaver, Perlmutter, Himes, Foster, Beatty,
Vargas, Gottheimer, Gonzalez of Texas, Lawson, San Nicolas,
Axne, Casten, Pressley, Torres, Lynch, Adams, Tlaib, Ocasio-
Cortez, Garcia of Illinois, Garcia of Texas, Williams of
Georgia, Auchincloss; Wagner, Lucas, Posey, Luetkemeyer,
Huizenga, Stivers, Barr, Williams of Texas, Hill, Emmer,
Zeldin, Loudermilk, Mooney, Davidson, Budd, Kustoff,
Hollingsworth, Gonzalez of Ohio, Rose, Steil, Gooden, Timmons,
and Taylor.
Chairwoman Waters. The Financial Services Committee will
come to order.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a
recess of the committee at any time.
I want to remind Members of a few matters, including some
required by the regulations which established the framework for
remote committee proceedings. First, I would ask all Members to
keep themselves muted when they are not being recognized by the
Chair. This will minimize disturbances while Members are asking
questions of our witnesses. The staff has been instructed not
to mute Members, except when a Member is not being recognized
by the Chair and there is inadvertent background noise.
Members are also reminded that they may only participate in
one remote proceeding at a time. If you are participating
today, please keep your camera on, and if you choose to attend
a different remote proceeding, please turn your camera off.
If, during the hearing, Members wish to be recognized, the
Chair recommends that Members identify themselves by name so as
to facilitate the Chair's recognition. I would also ask that
Members be patient as the Chair proceeds, given the nature of
the online platform the committee is using.
With that, I yield myself 5 minutes for an opening
statement.
Today, this committee convenes for our very first committee
hearing of the 117th Congress. Today's hearing is entitled,
``More Than a Shot in the Arm: The Need for Additional COVID-19
Stimulus.'' Our focus today is on the urgent need for Congress
to provide additional stimulus to address the COVID-19 pandemic
crisis.
Following his decisive victory in the November election,
President Biden has a mandate to move on his agenda and lead
the nation out of this crisis. Finally, we have real leadership
in the White House to provide a serious, comprehensive response
to this virus.
From his first day in office, President Biden has been
moving efficiently and effectively to right the ship and clean
up the mess that his predecessor created. The stimulus package
that Congress passed at the end of last year was the very first
step, and served as an emergency stop gap to help individuals
and families in distress, but it was clear then, and remains
clear now, that much, much more relief is needed. President
Biden has put forth a sensible and well-designed proposal,
called the American Rescue Plan, to provide $1.9 trillion in
essential funding and relief to individuals, families, and
communities across the country.
The American Rescue Plan provides additional direct
stimulus payments, rental assistance, unemployment assistance,
and emergency assistance for local, State and Territory
Governments, as well as other critical relief and measures to
respond to the crisis. Leading economists agree that it is
critical for Congress to pass another large stimulus package.
Federal Reserve Chairman Powell has also noted that, ``Support
from fiscal policy will help households and businesses weather
the downturn as well as limit lasting damage to the economy
that could otherwise impede recovery.''
According to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the
Biden stimulus plan would boost United States output by 5
percent over 3 years. Last year, the United States economy
shrank by the largest amount since 1946. Around 1.2 million
small businesses closed between February and June of last year,
and communities of color continue to be the very hardest hit.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, of all job losses
in December where jobs were held by women, women of color
suffered the most job losses. These are not statistics that
warrant a wait-and-see approach. These realities demand urgent
action. They demand the American Rescue Plan.
This committee has played and will continue to play an
essential role in providing much of this relief. The
Administration needs critical funding to prioritize the
development and production of desperately-needed medical
supplies under the Defense Production Act (DPA). Renters need
additional assistance, including emergency housing vouchers, to
ensure that people in rural and suburban and urban communities
can remain stably housed. More funding is needed for persons
experiencing homelessness, who face even greater health risk as
a result of the pandemic. We must also address the reality that
homeowners across America face a foreclosure crisis if Congress
does not step in to support modifications before the pandemic
ends.
And this committee will also need to come to the aid of
businesses and their workers who are barely staying afloat,
including small businesses, minority-owned businesses, and
sectors hit hard, like the airlines. Finally, with new, more
contagious, and potentially more deadly variants of the virus
from the U.K., Brazil, and South Africa, all having now been
detected right here in the United States, we need to mobilize
the multilateral system and its institutions. And it is very,
very clear that this pandemic cannot be defeated until it is
defeated everywhere. And so, I look forward to hearing from our
distinguished panel of witnesses on the need for relief, and
the proposal that the Biden Administration has put forward.
I will now recognize Congressman Hill, who will be standing
in for our ranking member, Mr. McHenry, for an opening
statement. Mr. McHenry has an emergency and cannot be with us
right now. Mr. Hill, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Hill. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Thank you for
convening this hearing today.
Let's start with the facts. To date, Congress has provided
$3.5 trillion to support the economy. This included direct
payments to individuals, assistance for small businesses,
rental assistance, and support for frontline workers, among
many other strategies. This was a tremendous and often
bipartisan effort that has provided a bridge for Americans
reeling from this dual health and economic crisis. Now, thanks
in large part to Operation Warp Speed and Congress' actions,
vaccines are being distributed. To be clear, we are not out of
the woods yet, but we are on the right path.
Today, we are discussing what our economy needs to fully
recover. I think the answer is clear: The best way to support
the economy now is to reopen it safely. No amount of stimulus
can replace open businesses, available jobs, and kids in the
classroom. We should continue to be thoughtful and deliberate.
I think we can all agree that the Coronavirus Aid, Relief,
and Economic Security (CARES) Act was the right response at the
right time. We were all facing an enemy that we knew nothing
about. Since then, Congress has come together on five separate
occasions to support families, individuals, workers, and small
businesses. In fact, at the end of December, just over a month
ago, we came together and put nearly $1 trillion in additional
relief through the Congress, which was signed into law. This
$900 billion package, money to be spent across our country, has
yet to be spent. Just 1 month later, that money has not yet
seen its full impact in our economy and for our families.
Today, unlike 10 months ago, we have the benefit of real data,
and the facts guide us in driving better policy outcomes.
Last Tuesday, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that
despite the surge in positivity rates throughout the summer and
fall, States that were open, and open safely, had better
employment rebounds than those States that were locked down. In
fact, employment increased in 15 open States. California, in
comparison, lost more than 52,000 jobs. Michigan lost more than
64,000 jobs. In my own home State of Arkansas, our unemployment
rate fell to 4.2 percent in December, from the peak in May of
10.8 percent. Our tax revenues are up.
What does the data tell us? It tells us that States can
reopen safely. It tells us that if States aren't open,
businesses cannot operate. If there are no businesses, there
will be no jobs for individuals to come back to. Our focus
should be on how best to safely reopen our economy. That means
more testing and faster vaccine distribution to keep our
communities healthy. It may mean more funding to ensure that
frontline workers have the supplies they need to stay safe. At
the same time, we need to make sure that additional funding
will have an impact on Americans who need it the most. There
are families and individuals who are hurting from the
lockdowns. We should be targeting assistance to get them back
into the workforce, not just creating more bureaucracy and
throwing money at this critical problem.
We should mirror the bipartisan compromise and serious
legislating that went into the CARES Act and the other four
bills that were enacted last year, and not spend time
deliberating a partisan, wasteful, not targeted, $1.9 trillion
stimulus bill. The data is pointing us towards what the economy
needs. Now, let politics get out of the way and let us get to
the work of providing the targeted help we need.
Again, let me thank the Chair for holding this hearing. I
yield back the balance of my time.
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much. And Members, I am
so pleased that we have a President with a plan.
I want to welcome today's distinguished witnesses to the
committee: Clarence Anthony, CEO and executive director of the
National League of Cities; Derrick Johnson, president and CEO
of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored
People (NAACP); Janet Murguia, president and CEO of UnidosUS;
Dr. William Spriggs, the chief economist at the American
Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations
(AFL-CIO); and Dr. Michael Strain, an economist at the American
Enterprise Institute.
Each of you will have 5 minutes to summarize your
testimony. You should be able to see a timer on your screen
that will indicate how much time you have left, and a timer
will go off at the end of your time. I would ask you to be
mindful of the timer and quickly wrap up your testimony if you
hear the timer, so that we can be respectful of both the
witnesses' and the committee members' time. And without
objection, your written statements will be made a part of the
record.
With that, Mr. Anthony, you are now recognized for 5
minutes to present your oral testimony.
STATEMENT OF CLARENCE E. ANTHONY, CEO AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES (NLC)
Mr. Anthony. Good morning. Thank you, Chairwoman Waters,
Congressman Hill, and members of the committee. I am Clarence
Anthony. I am CEO and executive director of the National League
of Cities, and a former mayor of South Bay, Florida, for over
24 years. The National League of Cities is the nation's
foremost resource and nonpartisan advocate for municipal
governments and their leaders, representing 19,000 cities,
towns, and villages, many in your districts. Today, I am
speaking on behalf of all of those local governments that have
gone above and beyond to overcome the COVID-19 emergency.
Local government employees are truly on the front lines of
enforcing measures that protect residents from catching and
spreading COVID-19. Local community and economic development
departments are stabilizing households and small businesses
harmed by losses from the COVID-19 pandemic. Local elected
officials are making painful budget cuts to preserve essential
day-to-day operations that sustain cities as economic engines
and places of opportunity. Residents are relying more than ever
on the safety net programs that local governments are
responsible for putting into action.
We are grateful for the funding provided in prior emergency
relief packages, but the fact remains that local budget
revenues are far below normal collections. Municipal
governments are alone facing a $90 billion shortfall on 1-year
revenues. This does not include the losses facing County,
State, Tribal, or Territory Governments. NLC supports the $350
billion for emergency intergovernmental relief.
Local leaders in your district will tell you this is not a
bailout. Our local communities need a partnership, and we are
fighting every day. Labor market data shows that local
governments are still cutting jobs to offset revenue losses and
unexpected expenses related to COVID-19. The December job
reports from the Bureau of Labor Statistics state that 32,000
jobs have been cut. Public sector employment is down by more
than 1 million jobs, compared to February 2020.
Emergency funding has provided aid to the private sector,
to residents harmed by COVID. SBA Treasury programs provided
businesses with access to credit. HUD programs provided funding
to help homeless residents, renters, and small businesses. The
role of local government in these programs is to connect
emergency resources to those in need, and that required drawing
up new programs lifting up our residents through creating
operations that help small and minority-owned businesses
overcome obstacles.
There is no question that additional housing stability is
important, and the National League of Cities (NLC) has
reflected that in our Homeward Bound programs that focus on job
security and health. As a result, however, of these layoffs and
operation decline, many local governments are less able to
enact this kind of guidance that they are immediately
responsible for after the CARES Act was passed. The new
Emergency Rental Assistance Program is a reasonable response to
the emerging economy-killing eviction cliff.
Roughly 1 out of every 5 people is in a rental in America.
Forty million people are at risk. Local governments are the
ones that implement these initiatives. We need support. Local
governments are running out of ways to paper over dramatic
losses, and even when that happens, declines will not stop the
new programs from needing to be implemented.
So, we are asking that these principles ensure that local
governments are connected and engaged in the next bill: one,
emergency funding should be fair and appropriate for each and
every local government, with no minimum population threshold
for eligibility; two, allocations of aid should be built on
familiar and proven government revenue-sharing programs like
the Community Development Block Grants; three, funding should
be separate for States, counties, and municipalities; and four,
eligible expenditures should be targeted to the widespread
health and economic consequences of COVID-19, including
unavoidable revenue shortfall.
In conclusion, on Monday CBO warned that unemployment is
likely, so we are asking for our shot as local governments.
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Anthony can be found on page
70 of the appendix.]
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much, Mr. Anthony. Ms.
Murguia, you are now recognized for 5 minutes to present your
oral testimony.
STATEMENT OF JANET MURGUIA, PRESIDENT AND CEO, UNIDOSUS
Ms. Murguia. Good morning. Thank you, Chairwoman Waters and
Ranking Member McHenry, for inviting me to testify today. My
name is Janet Murguia, and I am the president and CEO of
UnidosUS, the largest Hispanic civil rights and advocacy
organization in the United States. For more than 50 years, and
in partnership with our affiliate networks, we have worked to
advance opportunities for Latino families across the country so
they can achieve economic security and build wealth. Chairwoman
Waters, thank you especially for leading this committee's work
to address income inequality and racial wealth disparities.
As I begin, I would note that inadequate recovery efforts
from the last recession, when Latinos lost 66 percent of their
wealth, contributed to the fragile economic status of the
Latino community prior to the COVID-19 outbreak. As a result, a
pre-pandemic 2020 poll found that most Latinos were already
concerned about high housing costs, and said they struggled to
make ends meet.
And social, economic, and health disparities, coupled with
systemic barriers to safety net assistance and relief, have
disproportionately impacted Latinos and devastated our
families. More than 70 percent of Hispanic workers are
essential workers, which is why we are twice as likely to get
sick and 3 times as likely to die from COVID-19.
Latinos were also deeply impacted by job losses in hard-hit
industries like hospitality, including those that did not allow
telework, and Latino small businesses have struggled to stay
open. Our polling shows that more than half of Latinos surveyed
have lost job wages or businesses due to the pandemic, and
these job and earnings losses put Latinos especially at risk of
losing their homes to eviction and foreclosure.
While the pandemic has placed financial pressure and strain
on many Americans, the experience of Latinos in accessing
Federal relief has been especially difficult, since many
Hispanic immigrants in mixed-status families have been excluded
from emergency Federal relief and aid. For example, the CARES
Act excluded millions of mixed-status families, including more
than 5 million children and spouses who are either U.S.
citizens or green card holders, from stimulus payments. While a
partial fix was enacted in December, millions of U.S. children
and their families remain blocked from Federal relief.
The President's American Rescue Plan is a huge improvement.
Latino workers and their families will benefit from extended
unemployment insurance, and housing protections and aid to
prevent eviction. The plan's aid to State and local governments
will help our local affiliated, community-based organizations
and help them serve their hard-hit communities. But it is
outrageous and immoral to continue denying aid to families and
children in need during a national emergency simply because of
their parents' immigration status, especially when they are
experiencing hunger and food insecurity. So, Congress must
include all of our neighbors and essential workers in emergency
pandemic relief.
We then would suggest some additions to the Biden plan,
such as: ensure that HUD and Treasury assistance reaches the
hardest-hit communities, including mixed-status families and
immigrant workers; provide $700 million in support for housing
counseling organizations to help homeowners and renters at risk
of losing their homes; expand foreclosure protection, extending
aid to all homeowners, and establish a homeowner assistance
fund; set aside a portion of small business aid for impacted
minority-owned business; and use the Community Reinvestment Act
(CRA) to ensure that the hardest-hit communities can access
available aid.
A true American rescue plan is one that ends the cruel
exclusion of families and includes everyone in relief. But to
truly rebuild our economy better, we must also protect
essential workers by finally updating our immigration system
and providing a path to citizenship for immigrant workers and
their families. We must do this now to stand up for the people
who have been standing up for us, including through budget
reconciliation if necessary. A real robust and lasting economic
recovery depends on it. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Murguia can be found on page
77 of the appendix.]
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much. Mr. Johnson, you
are now recognized for 5 minutes to present your oral
testimony.
STATEMENT OF DERRICK JOHNSON, PRESIDENT AND CEO, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE (NAACP)
Mr. Johnson. Good morning, and thank you, Chairwoman
Waters, for your leadership, and Ranking Member McHenry. Thank
you for the invitation to testify on this timely, important
topic: the need for additional support for COVID-19 relief. I
am excited about your leadership, Chairwoman Waters, at this
crucial time as we look forward to working with you in ensuring
that our communities are protected from this unfortunate health
crisis. On behalf of the million activists who make up the
NAACP from across the country in 47 States and 2,200 units,
NAACP is the nation's oldest civil rights organization, this
month at 112-years-old.
Much of what I want to talk about will highlight the need
as we have observed it on the ground across the country. Before
I do that, I do want to recognize: Representative Ayanna
Pressley for helping us in December to highlight the need for
student loan indebtedness; the new Chair of the Congressional
Black Caucus and member of this committee, Representative
Beatty, for using her platform to continue to amplify the call
for justice, equity, and equality; and former CBC Chairman
Cleaver, who has been sounding the alarm on testing and racial
disparities in this moment.
As we look at this current crisis in the stimulus packages,
we really want to focus on critical workers, and many of those
critical workers are straddled with student indebtedness. In
fact, if you look at the student loan crisis, African Americans
and Latinos are disproportionately impacted because many of
them are first-generation college students, but in total we are
looking at about $1.7 trillion in student loan indebtedness.
If we consider discharging much of this, if not all, it can
be seen as an economic stimulus. Much of the funds that are
used to pay back these loans could infuse capital back into our
economic system and caboose our GDP. In fact, there are tools
that are currently in place to provide support for critical
workers under the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program,
where many of our citizens participate in ensuring that our
society keeps moving. These are government workers, our
teachers, and others who have to go to work every day to ensure
that we are provided the necessary resources for which our tax
dollars pay.
Far too many of them are underemployed and over-indebted
because of the student loan burden. The tools in the toolbox
through the automatic discharge after 10 years could be
accelerated and it could be immediate. We celebrate the
forbearance that the new Administration just called for, but if
we really look closely at how to stimulate our economy, this is
an effective tool. We have given more away in tax breaks and
other stimulus to corporations. In fact, if you look at the
ongoing tax break that was provided over the last 4 years on
top of the stimulus packages for corporations, it more than
doubled the amount of student loan indebtedness.
It is the right thing to do in this moment of crisis. It is
a way to boost our economy, and it is a way to ensure that
those individuals who are on the front line providing support
for us, and municipal governments and State governments, and
our teachers in the classrooms will be cared for in ways in
which it could pay dividends for our economy.
In Houston, as we begin to look at the eviction crisis,
many people have to be on the front lines to prevent evictions
as a result of some of the deadlines about to expire. We
partner with BeyGOOD, Beyonce's group and we created a program,
and we were overwhelmed with the need of individuals who are on
the verge of being evicted. In fact, it was so overwhelming
that we had to shut down the program within 48 hours, because
37,000 families, over 50,000 applications, came in so quickly
that we had to shut the program down.
It is clear that there is a crisis. This committee can
continue to hold businesses and banks accountable to ensure
that in this moment of economic transition, evictions are
stalled and we are able to put our economy right, and people
can fully participate. And when you look at the vaccine and the
disparity in which the vaccines are being deployed, we have to
make sure those who are most impacted are provided with the
necessary support.
This COVID moment has impacted African Americans to where 1
out of 660 Black persons in this country are dying because of
COVID, and the vaccine deployment has not been equitable. In
the City of New York, we found that high-wealth individuals
were going to Latino communities to get the vaccines, although
the vaccines were placed there for the Latino community to
receive. We have to have a better approach of deploying the
vaccine. So, when we look--
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Your time has
expired.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson can be found on page
74 of the appendix.]
Chairwoman Waters. And let me just take a moment to thank
Mr. Anthony and Ms. Murguia for their very fine testimony. Dr.
Spriggs, you are now recognized for 5 minutes to present your
oral testimony.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM E. SPRIGGS, CHIEF ECONOMIST, THE AMERICAN
FEDERATION OF LABOR AND CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS
(AFL-CIO)
Mr. Spriggs. Thank you. Thank you, Chairwoman Waters. I
appreciate your leadership and this opportunity to speak to
your committee on the issues of our nation's crisis. I am happy
to offer this testimony on behalf of the AFL-CIO, America's
house of labor, representing the working people of the United
States, and based on my expertise as a professor in Howard
University's Department of Economics.
My testimony today will discuss the immediate challenge our
nation faces of a severely damaged labor market and the need to
conduct an all-out, coordinated Federal, State, and local
Government fight to tame the COVID virus. We will need to have
in place a full fiscal response to coordinate with current
monetary policy to ensure our economy can emerge with a robust
and sustainable growth path by addressing inequality. That
means we need policies to address the damage of the virus to
economic activity, ensuring all of our efforts to reduce the
incidence of the virus, and to regain American leadership
globally to heal the global economy as the United States did at
the end of World War II.
Despite improvements since April 2020, when our nation lost
the greatest number of payroll positions since World War II,
through December, we were still down 9.8 million payroll
positions since February 2014. In March, Congress acted rapidly
to pass several key economic supports, but the efficacy of
those policies began to show weakening and waning job gains
since July, after key provisions, like the $600 in additional
weekly unemployment compensation, phased out, so in December,
we were again losing jobs. Today, our labor market is missing
almost 1.8 million more jobs from its peak than we stood at the
depth of the Great Recession in September 2010, compared to
that labor market's peak in January of 2008.
Despite congressional efforts to put substantial sums into
the economy in the second quarter of last year to make up for
lost jobs, slower business, and to help develop a vaccine, in
the 4th quarter of last year, the economy grew at a
significantly slower rate than the 3rd quarter, and we began
this year with an economy that is smaller than it was in the
2nd quarter of 2018. This is a dire situation. Our situation is
complicated because our job losses stem from a failure to
control the spread of the virus.
Individuals living in high-income areas have drastically
reduced their consumption of services, especially personal
services--restaurants, brick and mortar retail consumption, and
travel--in response to the prevalence of the virus, not in
response to health orders to limit business activity, and this
is a vital portion of consumption that is shrinking our
economy.
To tackle the source of our economy's woes, we need a
coordinated effort by the Federal Government with State and
local government partners, but State and local employment
levels are depleted. Through December, we had 373,000 fewer
State Government workers and a little more than 1 million fewer
local government workers. We cannot bring all of the public
resources to bear on this crucial fight with so many fewer
public sector workers. To get ahead of this rapid virus, we
need congressional action now, because we failed in December to
have the money for State and local workforces.
It is important to also look at the important things that
were missing. We need the $400 in unemployment compensation
added back that was key to what was happening in the 3rd
quarter recovery. We need the pandemic relief payments of
$1,400 because that was key for what was making the economy
expand in the 3rd quarter. And we need to increase the Federal
minimum wage to ensure that we will have wage growth coming out
of this recovery and to ensure racial equity as wages recover.
We know that there will be excess monopsony power that will get
in the way of restoring the wage growth that we need for our
economy to recover.
We need to have the United States back special drawing
rights at the International Monetary Fund (IMF) so that all
world governments will be our partner in defeating this virus.
No one will be safe until all countries can win this war.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Spriggs can be found on page
88 of the appendix.]
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you, Dr. Spriggs. Dr. Strain, you
are now recognized for 5 minutes to present your oral
testimony.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL R. STRAIN, ECONOMIST, AMERICAN ENTERPRISE
INSTITUTE
Mr. Strain. Thank you, Chairwoman Waters and Ranking Member
McHenry for the invitation to testify today. And thank you,
Congressman Hill and members of the committee. It is an honor
to be here.
Two ways to assess the need for economic support are top
down and bottom up. The top-down approach attempts to assess
the amount by which the economy is underperforming and
determine how much government spending would be required to
bring the level of economic activity back to where it should
be. More precisely, the quantity of goods and services that
could be sustainably produced given the economy's underlying
technology and labor and capital resources is determined and
compared to the economy's actual production. The difference
between the economy's underlying potential and actual
performance is called the output gap. The size of the output
gap can be used to determine the appropriate size of an
economic stimulus package.
Alternatively, Congress can take a bottom-up approach. This
way of crafting economic support would pay less attention to
the size of the output gap and more to the specific needs
facing the economy. Today, those needs clearly involve
increasing the nation's capacity to distribute the vaccine and
to test people for COVID-19. Of course, in practice, applying
both a top-down and bottom-up approach makes the most sense,
but judged by either criteria, President Biden's proposed $1.9
trillion American Rescue Plan is too large and too wide in
scope.
According to my calculations based on Congressional Budget
Office (CBO) data, the 2021 output gap will be around $420
billion. This calculation includes the effects of the $900
billion law Congress passed just 6 weeks ago. The policy debate
seems to have all but forgotten that Congress appropriated
around $900 billion just a month and a half ago, but factoring
that in, the output gap will be around $420 billion for the
current year. From a macroeconomic top-down perspective, the
President's proposal would fill the 2021 output gap several
times.
It is commonly argued that the risk from spending too
little is larger than the risk for spending too much. I agree,
but this is not the same as arguing that the size of an
additional stimulus package should be untethered to estimates
of the underlying economic need. Any assessment of the right
size for another stimulus should start with a good estimate of
the output gap, and given the [inaudible] calculating that gap
and the balance of risks, it is prudent to err on the side of a
slightly larger package.
The future paths of gross domestic product to the output
gap and consumer prices are very uncertain. Congress should
recognize the many risks from spending too much and
[inaudible]. From this macroeconomic perspective, the
President's $1.9 trillion proposal is clearly too large. While
the proposal contains several important components that
Congress should enact, from a bottom-up microeconomic
perspective, many major components of the plan are either
unnecessary or will hold the recovery back.
For example, direct checks to households earning a six-
figure incomes that have not experienced employment loss are an
unnecessary and imprudent use of government spending. The
proposed $400 Federal supplement through September to standard
State-provided unemployment insurance benefits would prolong
the period of labor market weakness by incentivizing unemployed
workers to remain unemployed. Raising the Federal minimum wage
to $15 an hour [inaudible] workers in many States. As a moral
proposition, a bill that would destroy jobs for low-wage
workers while handing out checks to employed upper-middle-class
households is deeply problematic.
A bill that was more focused and that did not contain these
harmful or unnecessary provisions would also be more aligned
with the overall macroeconomic need and would better address
our specific economic challenges. A bill that provided adequate
funding for vaccine distribution to strengthen the social
safety net and provide needed relief to State and local
governments would be reasonable and advisable. It would cost
under $750 billion, would be focused on current economic and
social need, [inaudible] gap. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Strain can be found on page
111 of the appendix.]
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you, Dr. Strain. I now recognize
myself for 5 minutes for questions.
This is the first week of Black History Month. While there
is so much to celebrate and honor, we know that this pandemic
has taken a particular toll on both renters and homeowners of
color. According to the latest Census data, renters and
homeowners of color are significantly more likely to be behind
in paying their rent or mortgage, putting them at greater risk
of eviction and foreclosure. Before the start of the CDC's
eviction order, researchers estimated that up to 40 million
renters could face eviction. More recently, Moody's Analytics
estimated that renters owe more than $57 billion in back rent,
utilities, and additional fees. In the second quarter of 2020,
mortgage arrears totaled an estimated $16.3 million.
Since the pandemic began, it has been my top priority to
ensure that families remain in their homes, and last year, I
successfully sought to secure $25 billion in emergency rental
assistance. But as I have said, that was just the first step,
and there is much more work to be done, and now is the time to
do it.
Mr. Spriggs, without taking further action to protect
renters and homeowners, we could see a wave of foreclosures and
evictions in 2021. Can you tell us, based on your research, how
such a wave of evictions and foreclosures would impact the
American economy, both in the short term and the long term?
Mr. Spriggs. Thank you, Chairwoman Waters. Yes, this is a
vital problem to address, and thank you for your leadership on
this issue. It will complicate things, which is why we have the
urgency of acting now. People, as you mentioned, are in
arrears. The moratorium only means they will not be evicted
now, and the $600 that they received at the beginning of
January has already been spent because they got behind from the
period of July through December, when Congress refused to
respond to the Health and Economic Recovery Omnibus Emergency
Solutions (HEROES) Act that the House passed, thanks to the
leadership.
Those dollars are gone. Those households are in desperate
need of assistance and rental assistance so that when we get
out of this situation, they will be able to stay in their
homes. If we allow people to become homeless, we will have
scarring that we cannot solve. It will be more expensive. This
is not the time to be penny wise and pound foolish because
people are already behind, and that is why we must do this now.
We do not have months to wait. We already know their situation.
We need to act now.
Chairwoman Waters. Mr. Johnson and Ms. Murguia, can you
tell us about the current housing instability that Black and
Latinx communities are experiencing across the country, and how
it compounds existing socioeconomic inequities?
How can resources, like emergency rental assistance or
housing vouchers, help stabilize the hardest-hit communities?
Thank you.
Mr. Johnson. Sure. At the NAACP, we tried to provide some
support. We opened up a portal to help home renters. Within 48
hours, our system crashed because we had over 37,000 people
apply, literally. That is on top of the many workers,
particularly in the southern States, who are underpaid, who
work in critical areas, and they are making the necessary
support, in addition to the exposure that they are bringing
home to their families in this COVID moment. Your actions and
your efforts could help support those families to become sturdy
in this moment as we rebuild our economy.
Many southern States underpay their State and local
workers, including teachers. A lot of these teachers are home
renters. So, we are asking teachers under economic stress and
duress to teach our young people for a future when they cannot
be in a comfortable position in this present. Your assistance
is desperately needed in this moment.
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much. My time has
expired. I now recognize Mr. Hill for 5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Hill. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and I thank our
witnesses for the really useful information.
Something that is so important to Congress, particularly
for Republicans, is assessing, after nearly $4 trillion in
appropriated funds plus the strong support of the Federal
Reserve System during 2020, how much more targeted relief and,
directly, where is our challenge? So Dr. Strain, I really
appreciated you sort of assessing that output gap issue, though
when you look at the underlying potential and you look at the
actual performance and find that gap, based on CBO's, something
that the Congress studies quite closely, long-term economic
analysis that was released on Monday, is there an appropriate
spectrum of stimulus that Congress should consider? In other
words, is President Biden's proposal of $1.9 trillion right, or
should it be something smaller? Reiterate that point. Let me
give you a minute to talk about that.
Mr. Strain. Thank you, Congressman. It is really an
excellent question. The policy debate seems to have forgotten
that Congress just appropriated $900 billion 6 weeks ago, and
that money hasn't fully been spent. It is still making its way
through the system, and it is going to have a big impact on the
economy. That is a larger appropriation than Congress
appropriated following the Great Recession that began with the
2008 financial crisis.
There is a risk of Congress appropriating more money than
the economy needs and pushing the economy above its sustainable
level of production. This risk is amplified by significant
growth in the money supply. It is amplified by supply chain
disruptions. It is amplified by diminishments and the
productive capacity of the economy. It is amplified by the fact
that households are sitting on over $1 trillion of unspent
savings. And it is amplified by the possibility that when the
vaccines are in wide distribution in the second half of the
year, households are going to go on a spending spree.
Congress is correct, I think, to be thinking about the
economic need, but that needs to be scaled to reflect both the
risks of doing too little and the risks of doing too much, and
there are real risks of doing too much.
Mr. Hill. Thank you. That is something we talked about in
the Congressional Oversight Commission of the CARES Act with
the Federal Reserve and the Treasury, precisely that,
particularly as it relates to State and local governments,
because we don't always count that a great deal of that $4
trillion in appropriated money goes to support our State and
local government activities. Thank you for that.
I want to switch subjects briefly. There has been reference
to the minimum wage here. I wonder if you agree with former
economic adviser to President Clinton and President Obama,
Larry Summers, when he says that more Economic Impact Payment
(EIP) is not the best use of the economic stimulus at this
time. He even cites that it is not effective, and you just
referenced that there is $1 trillion out there in additional
unspent savings. Can you address that for me?
Mr. Strain. Yes. I think that almost any use of half a
trillion dollars would be better than giving checks to
households who are in six-figure incomes and who haven't
suffered any employment loss. More than that, I think a bill
that both would increase the Federal minimum wage to $15 an
hour, and that gives checks to households who earn six-figure
incomes and haven't experienced unemployment loss, really has
some moral problems as well. The President's plan would destroy
low-wage jobs while boosting middle-class incomes. I don't
think that is what Congress should be doing, particularly in a
period of labor market weakness.
Mr. Hill. Thank you, Dr. Strain. Let me say that all of
this combined, this work, is over 20 percent of GDP, which is a
tremendous amount of stimulus. Mr. Spriggs referenced the
support for our poor, struggling countries in the world facing
the pandemic, and referenced the use of special drawing rights
from the International Monetary Fund. Madam Chairwoman, I would
like to submit my op-ed in the Wall Street Journal for the
record, with your permission.
Chairwoman Waters. Without objection, it is so ordered.
And the gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Hill. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Chairwoman Waters. We will move on. The gentleman from
California, Mr. Sherman, who is also the Chair of our
Subcommittee on Investor Protection, Entrepreneurship, and
Capital Markets, is now recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Sherman. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. As I pointed out
in the Democratic Caucus, Madam Chairwoman, you preside as Full
Committee Chair over a committee today of Full Committee
Chairs. I will be the only one out of the first six Democratic
questioners who does not preside over, of course, our Financial
Services Committee, the House Oversight and Reform Committee,
the House Small Business Committee, the House Foreign Affairs
Committee, or the House Agriculture Committee.
Madam Chairwoman, I thank you for mentioning that we are
not safe until we defeat this disease everywhere. There are
those who are focusing only, and we should focus on,
vaccinating all Americans, but until all 7 billion-plus people
in the world are vaccinated, we haven't met our moral
responsibility. The world economy is still suffering from this
disease, but perhaps most importantly, there are billions and
billions of people outside the U.S. who can be infected. That
is where the disease will replicate. Whenever it replicates, it
mutates, and some of those mutations can lead to more virulence
and more contagious disease, and perhaps worst of all, a
version of this disease that cannot be dealt with by the
vaccines we have developed.
Speaking of vaccines, we did a great job in this country of
developing three vaccines, but we initially were throwing away
Pfizer vaccines after five dosages came out of a bottle that
held almost seven dosages. We threw it away due to the FDA.
Now, we are still throwing away vaccine when we could get half
a dose out of one bottle and a half out of another. We are
manufacturing the vaccine as quickly as we can in the factories
of the company that invented it, but no company has licensed
one of its competitors to create vaccine in their own factory.
And we have just begun testing lower dosages to see their
effectiveness, although the bulk of available medical science
shows that much lower dosages would be effective, particularly
in those under age 55. We have started those studies 8 months
late.
I want to thank Mr. Anthony for being here and for pointing
out that our municipalities are losing about $90 billion in
revenue, that we have a million public sector jobs, and I know
there is a study from the Economic Policy Institute that
estimates that by the end of this year, we could be losing 5.3
million public sector jobs. Now, that is, of course, a problem
for the person who loses their job. It is bad for the economy
in that those people aren't able to spend. But I want to focus
on the services we lose when we don't have those people working
for us. Looking at Los Angeles as one municipality, it spends
roughly one-third of the money, more than one-third on public
safety, so using that as an example, we are looking at $30
billion less spent for public safety.
So my question, Mr. Anthony, is, if someone in Congress
votes against providing revenue to municipalities, are they, in
effect, voting to defund our police, because obviously any city
that spends a third of its money on public safety, and my city
does and most cities do, is going to have to make cuts in all
of its functions. And if those cuts are pro rata, we are
looking at a $30 billion dollar defunding of our police. Is
that a real, practical effect of voting against this bill?
Mr. Anthony. Congressman, thank you so much for that
question. Local governments have to balance their budgets, and
as Congressman Cleaver, a former mayor, knows very well, we
will have to look at all of our programs, including our
permitting process, and our housing programs. And, in fact, we
will have to look at our public safety, fire and police, if we
don't get additional funding, because it is essential that we
balance our budget. We are not like other levels of government,
so we will have to look at that, and I believe that would
probably be a difficult thing for us to do, but we would have
to look at all of the programs.
Mr. Sherman. I would hope that those who vote against this
bill will go to the House Floor and say that they are in favor
of defunding those municipal services and that they stand by
the votes to defund the police. I yield back.
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much. The gentlewoman
from Missouri, Mrs. Wagner, is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Wagner. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and I thank our
witnesses for being with us today.
I am going to get straight to it, and I would like folks to
keep their answers as brief as possible.
Dr. Strain, in early March, economic data directly pointed
to the need for congressional action to support the economy,
and by the end of the summer, our economy had stabilized, but
small businesses and their hard-working employees needed
additional support as they continued to face lockdown measures.
Congress acted and provided approximately $3.5 trillion in
response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and in the late fall,
economic data indicated a downward trend.
In December, Congress, again, acted to provide relief.
Today, I am still hearing daily from my constituents who have
yet to receive their stimulus checks or who have been unable to
apply for the next round of Paycheck Protection Program (PPP)
or Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) loans. If my
constituents haven't even gotten access yet to the funds we
provided in December, the nearly trillion dollars, $900
billion, how can we expect that useful economic data exists
about whether or not another new round of relief funding is
even required?
Dr. Strain, do you agree that Congress should rely on
quality economic data to identify the weak points in fiscal
relief efforts?
Mr. Strain. Yes, of course. I agree with that, and I think
that there have been some problems in getting CARES Act funds
to the households and businesses who need them. The
overwhelming majority of the time, those processes work, but
there are times when they haven't. And we do know that
households have received checks. We know that unemployed
workers have received unemployment benefits. We know that
businesses have received PPP. But those processes haven't been
perfect, I agree with you.
Mrs. Wagner. The problem here is we are not really getting
quality economic data to identify, I think, the weak points in
our fiscal relief efforts.
Other witnesses today have focused on the positive impacts
of further economic relief, but data shows that there can be
negative outcomes, as well, from excessive and mostly
untargeted stimulus spending.
Can you please address what specific negative economic
impacts may occur, should too much untargeted stimulus be
placed into the economy, Dr. Strain?
Mr. Strain. There is a risk of the economy overheating.
There is a risk of economic demand outpacing growth and
economic supply, which can lead to price inflation. That risk,
I think, is much more concerning in the second half of this
year when people are vaccinated, and they are out there
spending money.
Mrs. Wagner. The Penn Wharton budget model yesterday
released a study estimating that nearly three-quarters of
economic stimulus checks will go toward savings and will not be
used to stimulate the economy.
Are you able to quickly address this study and its results?
Mr. Strain. Yes, as a general matter, I think the evidence
suggests that if you look at households with income above, say,
$75,000, they save the overwhelming majority of the checks they
receive, and that savings is kind of a double-edged sword,
because it reduces concern about economic overheating, but it
amplifies concern about Congress prudently spending money.
There is just no reason, in my view, for Congress to write
checks to six-figure households who haven't suffered any
employment loss so they can pay down credit card bills or make
advance payments on other debts.
Mrs. Wagner. It is certainly not stimulating the economy.
And I want to make the point clear and reiterate again that
currently, there is more than $1 trillion of previously-enacted
stimulus funding remaining to be spent. These remaining funds
include: SBA's PPP program, $280 million; health spending, $239
billion; EIDL loans, $172 billion; unemployment insurance
expansion, $172 billion; education funding, $59 billion; State
and local aid, $58 billion; stimulus checks, $52 billion; food
stamps, $33 billion; Childcare and Development Block Grants,
$10 billion; and agriculture, $29 billion.
Should Congress see positively where more targeted support
is needed before passing another large stimulus package, that
is my main concern here.
I believe I am out of time, and I yield back.
Chairwoman Waters. Yes, the gentlewoman's time has expired.
I now recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr. Meeks, who
is also the chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs,
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank you to
all of the witnesses for your testimony today.
I am going to start out with Mr. Anthony. I heard Mr. Hill
state that essentially, we faced an enemy we knew nothing about
in the beginning. And I know that my State of New York was one
of the hardest-hit States first, and it seemed to me at that
particular point, the then-President of the United States
basically underplayed what should and what could be done at
that particular time, as well as aid to States, I know to New
York and to States that were initially hit.
So, my question is, if you had a State like New York, which
was hit at a time when no one knew what the pandemic was and
how to deal with it, and the States had to take on that burden
themselves, can you speak to the budgetary needs of the first-
hit States that now need this money, as far as aid to cities
and States, as far as them being able to benefit from already,
and other States learning from them and the practices that they
had to undergo, being one of those first States and earlier
States hit?
Mr. Anthony. Yes. Thank you very much, Congressman Meeks,
for that question.
All of us have indicated that this is a pandemic that none
of us was prepared for, and so when we received the CARES Act,
as Congress knows, those first dollars went to States and
cities with populations of 500,000 or more. And what local
governments under 500,000 had to do was to go begging State
Governors and others for those dollars to address the problems
that they were facing in terms of the implementation of the
response.
Cities, the mayors, the councilmembers, rural cities, small
and large cities, as you said, Congressman Meeks, as well as
States, had to put an infrastructure system together. We did,
but yet, we spent money at the city level that we did not have,
to respond to the needs, and now we are at $90 billion,
estimated, that we have lost, plus all of the employees,
32,000, up to a million employees, we have had to lose, because
we don't have the reserves, we don't have the budget dollars.
So, we are just asking that $350 billion be provided to
State and local governments to continue helping America return
to creativity and jobs and recovery. So, that is the bottom
line. We weren't prepared. America wasn't prepared, but we want
some additional dollars.
Mr. Meeks. Thank you for that.
And Dr. Spriggs, many economists have argued that our
recovery from the 2008 financial crisis was so slow and drawn
out because we did too little with respect to economic
stimulus; accordingly, certain communities were
disproportionately impacted and lost wealth unnecessarily. So,
in your opinion, what is riskier, doing too little by way of
stimulus or doing too much?
Mr. Spriggs. It is far riskier in this situation that we do
too little. We must think big.
The fear of inflation that we heard about, that will occur
if we don't do enough. Because if we don't keep workers intact
and whole so that their employers can find them, if we let
workers become homeless, it will be harder to reconnect workers
and reignite the economy.
We have to take care of the workers who are most directly
impacted now with adequate support for their rent, adequate
support for their income, adequate support for those who fall
through the cracks because their unemployment insurance needs
drastic modernization.
So, my fear is not that we are going to do too much, it is
that we will do too little, and the outcome will be that it
will be too difficult to put our labor market back together.
Mr. Meeks. Thank you so much.
I am out of time, so I will yield back.
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you so very much, Chairman Meeks.
The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Posey, is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Posey. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and Mr. Ranking
Member. It is good to be back here on the Financial Services
Committee again in this new Congress, and thank you for holding
this hearing today.
The events of last year have been like nothing we have ever
experienced in our lifetimes. The pandemic has brought
intolerable suffering and lasting economic harm.
In this time of pain, Congress has to help so many
Americans, and Congress has enacted over $3.5 trillion in
relief for people who, through no fault of their own, faced
unemployment, shutdowns, and the inability to pay rent, put
food on the table, and hold their businesses together.
I know all of the Members have worked very hard to help
people access COVID relief programs, and I am proud to be able
to help my constituents figure it out. But as I have said, we
have spent $3.5 trillion on COVID relief since last spring.
During Fiscal Year 2020, our deficit was $3.1 trillion. Since
October 2019, the Federal debt held by the Federal Reserve has
grown from $2.4 trillion to nearly $4.9 trillion by the end of
the third quarter of last year.
That means that during this period, the Fed monetized about
$2.5 trillion of added debt spending. We have been financing up
to two-thirds of our debt by running printing presses. Since
new relief spending will come at the expense of borrowing money
from the Fed, I support proposals to moderate the next round
and target such spending on families and workers who need it.
I am particularly concerned about initiatives to provide
extraordinary assistance to State and local governments, and I
would like to ask Dr. Strain if it would be fair to replace
COVID-19-related revenue losses of all of the States, dollar-
for-dollar? Wouldn't it be unfair to the States that have a
more balanced approach to government and its size?
Mr. Strain. Thank you, Congressman.
I think that it is appropriate for Congress to help State
and local governments with revenue losses, but that help should
be tied to pandemic-related revenue losses. So, Congress should
not bail out States that misuse rainy-day funds. And Congress
certainly shouldn't bail out mismanaged pension funds.
But I think an amount close to $100 billion would be
appropriate for Congress to give to States and localities, many
of whom really are in need. My concern is that not doing so
will act as a drag on the national economic recovery, because
States and localities won't be able to hire back workers they
have laid off.
Mr. Posey. Thank you very much for that answer.
How do you think we should go about determining the amount
of the distribution?
Mr. Strain. A formula could be created that looked at where
State revenues were on the eve of the pandemic, and then
attempted to estimate how States actually fared, relative to
reasonable projections that, again, focused on pandemic losses.
Some States wouldn't need much money at all. Some States
have seen sales taxes recover, and have good income tax
revenue. But there are some States, particularly States that
rely a lot on tourism or that rely on more in-person services,
that have taken a big hit as a consequence of the pandemic, and
I think it is appropriate for Congress to help, if for no other
reason than to support the overall national recovery.
Mr. Posey. I agree, and I thank you for that.
What do you think the major items should be and how should
we estimate them, do you have any thoughts on that?
Mr. Strain. Congress has already appropriated several
hundred billion dollars to States and localities. Much of that
funding is for specific programs, for example, for the Medicaid
program. I think what is needed now is to give States more
discretion so they can fill in the holes that are unique to
their States and localities.
Mr. Posey. Thank you very much.
Madam Chairwoman, I yield back.
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much.
The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Scott, who is also the
chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture, is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Scott. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman.
This is a great hearing. Let me just sort of get right to
the point here.
Earlier on, Chairwoman Waters had asked me to kind of zero
in on helping with the HEROES Act and the preceding stimulus
packages on the housing relief for homeowners. And so, we put a
package together that would get, I think initially, I forgot
the figure now, but right now, that figure is at $25 billion
for rental assistance. We started out with some higher numbers.
We also wanted to get money in to help with utilities. So,
right now, it is $5 billion for aid to help keep the water and
the lights and the electricity on.
But then when we got down to the mortgage assistance, we
are still in a process of trying to get that in. So, Mr.
Anthony, I want you to comment on how important it is.
And we also have to understand one of the reasons is that
Chairwoman Waters and I were here back during the time, and I
think it was 2008 when they had the Wall Street breakdown, and
we put the Hardest Hit Program, which dealt with keeping folks
in their homes. This is critical, but right now, we don't have
anything there.
I wanted to share with the committee what the progress is
on that right now. Our House Financial Services Committee, the
Senate Banking Committee, and the White House right now are
trying to get language in.
So, I wanted to get your opinion, Mr. Anthony, because,
even with some of the money that we have gotten in this area,
even back in 2008, 2010, it went to the State to be able to
implement it down to the cities to get that help. But I got
inundated with calls, and still am, because there is a failure
of the State working effectively with our cities in terms of
getting the money to our cities. And as I understand it, part
of that money was even left on the table because there was a
deadline put on that money because of the population
thresholds. Only three governmental units in Georgia were able
to get that money--Cobb and Fulton Counties, and the City of
Atlanta--because of that population threshold.
So, my point is, give us an update on how tragic this is to
get money down to give to the cities and towns. I represent 48
cities and towns and we are having difficulty in getting that.
Can you tell us what we need to do to correct that problem
and make sure we are getting that money out to our cities and
municipalities?
Mr. Anthony. Yes, thank you very much, Congressman Scott,
for that question.
The issue was that the dollars, again, went to cities of
500,000 or more population. And it was very challenging to get
through the bureaucracy of working to get it down to the people
from the State, and then to the county, and then to those
cities.
And some of these cities in some States, for example, Iowa,
had no cities that qualified for direct funding. And then there
are other States that may have had one. South Carolina had one
city, Columbia, South Carolina. And we had other States, again,
that may have had two cities.
But the issue is, these cities, small and medium-sized
cities, can, in fact, use the Community Development Block Grant
formula to get direct funding so they can get it out and solve
some of these issues.
The rental assistance program had like 40 million people
right now that are on the brink of eviction. So, I will stop
there, Congressman.
Mr. Scott. Yes, thank you very much.
In my remaining seconds, I want everybody to know, also,
that we have a food shortage. We have a hunger problem here. As
chairman of the Agriculture Committee, I want you to know that
we are going to be in a bit of a fight, because we want to
raise the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
allocation to 20 percent, 15 to 20 percent. I feel very
strongly we are going to need that, and I just hope everybody
is ready to fight that battle.
We will be having a hearing on it, on food insecurity in
about 3 weeks.
Chairwoman Waters. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, ma'am.
Chairwoman Waters. You're welcome.
The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Huizenga, is now
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Huizenga. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I appreciate
that. And I am sorry if I am going back over a little territory
here with Dr. Strain, but I want to just make sure that we are
covering this.
Dr. Strain, what actions do we need to take here that could
best provide a boost to the economy? Is it direct payments? Is
it additional unemployment insurance? Is it ultra-low interest
rates, which we are seeing? What is it that would actually
provide the biggest boost?
Mr. Strain. Thank you, Congressman.
I think the direct payments would be a mistake and an
imprudent use of government spending. The unemployment benefits
the President is proposing actually would hold the recovery
back by keeping people unemployed for longer.
The $15-an-hour minimum wage would significantly reduce
employment opportunities. The Congressional Budget Office
estimates that it would reduce employment by over 1 million
jobs for low-wage workers.
The best things that Congress can do in my view are to make
sure that we can actually get vaccines into people's arms, to
make sure that we can test people for COVID-19, to make sure
that households that really are in need, vulnerable households
that really have suffering, can get the help that they need,
not households with six-figure incomes who haven't had any
employment loss, and I think that it would be appropriate for
Congress to help States and municipalities to the tune of
around $100 billion.
Mr. Huizenga. How would you do that for those families, how
would you determine those families who do need that economic
help and support, that safety net?
Because I tend to agree with you, I think there are a
number of families who are doing just fine, who are going to be
receiving these payments.
Mr. Strain. We could use the mechanisms that we already
have in place to help low-income families. The food stamp
program is very well-targeted. The Earned Income Tax Credit is
very well-targeted on low-income households. Making the Child
Tax Credit fully refundable for 2021, I think, would be
perfectly appropriate.
So, the existing programs that we have that target low-
income households, I think, can be utilized in this instance.
Mr. Huizenga. Okay. You brought up the unemployment
insurance situation, and Dr. Spriggs from AFL-CIO, the last
time he appeared here, I brought up the $600 payment, that
kicker, that Federal kicker that was brought up. He had made
the claim, 3 claims kind of spaced out, that that was the only
way that people were able to pay their bills at that time. It
may or may not be true.
He then moved on to the fact that, and said that, I believe
the term he used was this was about racial inequality or
inequity that had been present in the economic system that we
were dealing with.
And then the third thing that he said was that employers,
and this was the word he used, ``refused'' to keep their
employees safe in work conditions.
And so, Dr. Spriggs, I am just curious, do you stand by
those statements now, a number of months later?
Mr. Spriggs. I don't stand by your characterization of my
words, but I stand by my words and I will put them in testimony
again.
Mr. Huizenga. I am not sure--
Mr. Spriggs. It is still the case that because of the
racial wealth gap, Black and Latino households have no
liquidity. And in a situation where they lose jobs--
Mr. Huizenga. Reclaiming my time--
Mr. Spriggs. --if you give them unemployment insurance--
Mr. Huizenga. Reclaiming my time--
Mr. Spriggs. --they will rapidly try and gather up
precautionary savings--
Mr. Huizenga. Madam Chairwoman?
Mr. Spriggs. --and the $600 is still necessary--
Mr. Huizenga. Can you--
Mr. Spriggs. --to make up for that inequality.
Mr. Huizenga. Reclaiming my time, so, do you stand by the
fact that employers refuse to keep their employees safe in the
workspace?
Mr. Spriggs. My statement didn't say that. It said that
they were not safe.
Mr. Huizenga. No, you--
Mr. Spriggs. My statement said that they were not safe and
the evidence is clear. I provided in my written testimony that
the disparities that are going on for low-income workers--
Chairwoman Waters. The time belongs to--
Mr. Spriggs. --specifically in California--
Chairwoman Waters. Mr. Spriggs, the time belongs to--
Mr. Davidson. A point of order, please, Madam Chairwoman?
Chairwoman Waters. --Mr. Huizenga.
The time belongs to Mr. Huizenga. Please continue, Mr.
Huizenga.
Mr. Hill. Can we put 10 seconds more back on the clock,
Madam Chairwoman?
Chairwoman Waters. Yes, we can. We will. No problem.
Mr. Huizenga. Madam Chairwoman, that was the word that he
used, ``refused,'' so he may or may not stand by those
statements.
But I am curious, if $600 a month wasn't enough, the AFL-
CIO supported the last package, to my understanding, that had
$300 through the end of March. It is now going to be $400 if
the Democrats move ahead with the Biden-only plan through the
end of the year.
And I am curious, if $600 wasn't enough a couple of months
ago, how in the world could the AFL-CIO support something that
is less than that now? It seems to me, that is politics.
So, Dr. Spriggs, I don't know if you care to respond, but
now I will give you the time.
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you.
The time has expired.
The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green, who is also the
chairman of our Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations,
is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I greatly
appreciate your opening comments, because I would like to
associate myself with this issue that assistance is something
that is of paramount importance. We have circumstances wherein
persons who are about to be evicted are about to be evicted by
properties that are owned by mom-and-pop landlords, people who
don't necessarily have a mortgage, but they need the income to
sustain themselves. The rent must be paid.
The best way to deal with these issues associated with
eviction would be for the rent to be paid. It obviously
benefits the tenant, because the tenant maintains a home, but
it also benefits those mom-and-pop landlords who need this
income to sustain themselves. The rent must be paid.
The $25 billion that we have proposed that is in this
package is another down payment. It is a continuation of what
must be done.
I don't know what the duration of the pandemic will be, but
the duration of the suffering is still at the level it was
previously, notwithstanding our efforts to help, because, as
has been indicated today, some 40 million may be on the brink
of eviction. Nobody knows what the real number is; I have heard
numbers higher, and I have seen some lower. But the point is,
people are on the edge. They are living on the margins, and we
must pay the rent.
Having said this, I do want to concern myself now with the
$1.4 trillion-plus package or tax cuts in 2017: $1.4 trillion
went to some of the wealthiest people in this country. There
were no hues and cries about, we are paying them too much and
they are getting too much money in their pockets.
They were not suffering. Their rent was paid. There was no
pandemic. Their car notes were paid. But they were not persons
who needed to have some infusion of cash for some specific
reason. We never heard from people who were complaining about
this from the other side.
My dear friends, if there is a moral question about someone
who is getting a six-figure income and we are talking about
maybe $150,000 for them, too, where is the moral issue
associated with putting millions upon millions in the pockets
of persons who are wealthy, who did not express a need for it?
In fact, many of them said, don't do this, I don't need the
money. Many of them did, but we did it, notwithstanding their
hues and cries.
So, I just believe that at some point, we have to
understand that it is not a sin for people in the working class
to get help, because it wasn't a sin, by some standards, for
people who are in the upper class to get help.
So, Mr. Strain, my question to you is this: What was your
position on the wealthy class, the healthy class, what was your
position when they were getting these tax breaks in the
millions?
Mr. Strain. Thank you, Congressman.
My position on the 2017 tax law is that the corporate
provisions, I think, were very good. I have some issues with
the individual-side provisions. So, I don't think I am--
Mr. Green. I have been doing some research, and I haven't
been able to read where you expressed those concerns.
Do you have a White Paper that you have written that
expressed those concerns?
Mr. Strain. I believe that I expressed those concerns a bit
in commentary and in media interviews, certainly behind-the-
scenes, as well. I don't think I am the forefront--
Mr. Green. I can appreciate behind-the-scenes, but a lot of
what we have to do to have an impact has to be open and
notorious. You are here, openly and notoriously, expressing
your concerns about the morality associated with working-class
people getting some help. I didn't see that in my research,
openly and notoriously, for the wealthy class.
And with reference to the tax cuts to the corporations, do
you believe that corporations should have received those tax
cuts and still keep those tax cuts?
Mr. Strain. Congressman, I reject your characterization--
Mr. Green. Seconds left--
Mr. Strain. I reject your characterization of reducing tax
rates--
Mr. Green. My time has expired.
Mr. Strain. --as giving a handout to anyone.
Mr. Green. My time has expired.
Mr. Strain. I also reject your characterization of my views
and I--
Chairwoman Waters. The gentleman's time has expired.
The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Stivers, is now recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. Stivers. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I appreciate you
holding this hearing.
The most important issue facing us, Madam Chairwoman, as
you know, is recovering our economy and moving past COVID-19
and getting our kids back in schools, getting our businesses
open, setting the conditions to make that happen, to have
sustainable growth in the future, and to mitigate the suffering
in the meantime.
So, I am curious, Dr. Strain, do you think opening the
economy is the best long-term solution toward our economic
growth?
Mr. Strain. Thank you, Congressman.
I think there is really no question about that. Once we get
the virus under control, and once we get people vaccinated,
there is every reason to believe that the economy will bounce
back--
Mr. Stivers. Okay. Thank you, Dr. Strain.
Mr. Strain. --very strongly. And--
Mr. Stivers. Thank you.
I only have a short amount of time, and I would like to ask
Mr. Anthony, Mr. Johnson, Ms. Murguia, and Mr. Spriggs, do you
all support vaccinations, one at a time, quickly, yes or no?
Mr. Anthony. Clarence Anthony, I personally support it and
I educate people to take it, but it is their decision,
especially in the Black and--
Mr. Stivers. I am not asking about mandatory vaccines. I am
asking if you personally support vaccinations. Thank you.
Mr. Johnson?
Mr. Johnson. Yes.
Mr. Stivers. Thank you.
Ms. Murguia. Yes.
Mr. Stivers. Mr. Spriggs?
Mr. Spriggs. Yes, I do.
Mr. Stivers. Thank you.
I want to be clear: I am not for mandatory vaccinations for
people who have religious or personal problems with it, but I
want to educate, and I think that vaccinations are the fastest
way forward. By the way, I did put forward an idea a couple of
weeks ago, that I have since walked away from, of tying the
stimulus payments to the vaccinations.
But I would like to talk to Mr. Johnson about vaccinations.
I read in a front-page story in the Columbus Dispatch that in
Ohio, the vaccination rates among minority communities were
lower than majority communities.
Is there something we should be doing in this bill to help
support vaccinations, whether it is a PR campaign; again, I am
not for mandatory vaccinations, but is there something that we
could do? Is it a distribution issue? Have you dug into that
issue, Mr. Johnson, about what is going on? Is that an anomaly
in Ohio or is that happening around the country? Is there
something that we need to do?
Because I believe vaccinations are one of the fastest ways
to open the economy.
Mr. Johnson. First of all, that is the reality across the
country. It is a trend we have seen that African-American
communities have been disproportionately left out of the
vaccination opportunities. In this bill, we should prioritize
those communities who have been hit hardest first to ensure
that we get those individuals who are critical workers, who are
providing the support.
Second, in this bill, there should be a robust
communications plan investing in African-owned media, and
Latino-owned media to talk to some targeted communities, and
then American-owned media to talk to targeted communities to
ensure the proper education is provided.
Mr. Stivers. Thank you. I really appreciate that.
We need a partnership with really trusted organizations
like the NAACP, Mr. Johnson, as we pursue this.
I have seen some conspiracy theories on social media about
Hank Aaron's death that don't appear to be based in fact, and I
would like to make sure that we address some of those issues,
too. Because while it is true that Mr. Aaron got the
vaccination and passed away, I don't believe, and doctors that
I have seen interviewed have said there seems to be no
correlation between the vaccination and him later dying.
So, is that an issue in the minority community, Mr.
Johnson?
Mr. Johnson. There are some historical questions that many
would like answered, but that is the part of education that
must take place. We stand ready to partner with you or the
committee or anyone in general to ensure that people are
educated around their options, which is most crucial, and in
doing so, we could find ourselves getting out of this pandemic
much quicker if we target impacted communities.
Mr. Stivers. Are we doing enough with testing? Are African
Americans represented enough in the FDA's tests? Is that an
issue, Mr. Johnson?
Mr. Johnson. There is a huge disparity in clinical trials
in terms of the demographics of African Americans and Latinos.
So, we must increase that, as well.
Mr. Stivers. I would like to work--
Chairwoman Waters. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Stivers. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you.
Mr. Stivers. I am committed to working with everybody on
those issues. Thank you.
Chairwoman Waters. The gentleman from Missouri, Mr.
Cleaver, who is also the Chair of our Subcommittee on Housing,
Community Development, and Insurance, is now recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Cleaver. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Madam Chairwoman, I am so glad to have Mayor Anthony with
us today. We were mayors back in the day. He started a little
earlier. He was there at the age of--I think, in his 20s. But I
would like to talk with him and Ms. Murguia.
Mayor Anthony, we have a problem in Congress that you can
recognize, maybe most, which is that the Federal Government
leans towards Governors, because most of the people who come
from other divisions, they come from State legislatures, State
senates, and there are only a few of us who were mayors, and so
we tend to do dumb things like, the first CARES Act only wanted
to give direct grants to cities populated over 500,000. We did
fix that, however, but the other thing it might be important
for people to remember is that there are 27 States in our union
that don't have any cities populated over 500,000.
Mr. Mayor, there seems to be this resistance, particularly
on the Republican side, of giving money to cities and States in
our package.
What would you say to them or what can you say to them
right now in terms of that need and what happens if they don't
do it?
Mr. Anthony. Thank you, Congressman Cleaver, for that
opportunity to respond.
What we are seeing, again, is a loss of jobs and loss of
ability to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic that exists
specifically in the neighborhoods and the communities of rural,
small, as well as urban communities. And I think that the
misnomer here is that we are looking for a bailout.
What we are saying is if we are going to get back on track
in America, we must give some support to the level of
government directly to respond, and to create the jobs, and to
be able to help the small businesses, and minority-owned
businesses, help those that have been left behind. So, that is
the bottom line here. We were overlooked in the last bill,
because we did not get direct dollars.
I am just asking that we get a partnership with those
mayors and councilmembers of towns and villages of all sizes to
get them the dollars, Congressman.
Mr. Cleaver. Amen.
Ms. Murguia, I am not going to mention that you are from
Kansas City, I am not trying to rub that in to people, but what
I would like for you to address is that Black and Brown people
end up being disproportionately on the front lines of holding
the country together, but we are on the back lines of receiving
the vaccines.
But even before that, there has been always this resistance
about increasing the minimum wage. Has your organization taken
a position yet on the minimum wage, which we do have in this
package?
Ms. Murguia. Thank you, Congressman, for your leadership.
We absolutely support a $15 increase in the minimum wage. We
understand that an unfair minimum wage disproportionately
affects people of color, including Latinos and African-
Americans, many of whom are often concentrated in low-wage
jobs; for instance, 34 percent of Latinos are earning below
poverty-level wages.
And we know, also, that Congress has not raised the Federal
minimum wage in quite some time. It is currently at $7.25 an
hour, and has been since 2009. So for us, we absolutely
understand how increasing that minimum wage can help provide
needed economic support for these communities who have been
disproportionately impacted, and not just by the pandemic, as I
highlighted in my testimony.
Even in pre-pandemic times, we had seen significant
challenges in terms of income and equality and those underlying
conditions that are systemic that have kept our communities
from being full participants in the economy. So, we absolutely
believe that minimum wage has to be part of a robust recovery
and we support it.
And I will just build quickly, the States and localities,
part of that ecosystem, as you know, Mr. Mayor, Congressman, is
the ecosystem of community-based organizations that are key
links to communities of color for services. And so, Guadalupe
Center or the Mattie Rhodes Center or El Centro, those are all
key to providing important services in this particular time,
and need that funding, as well.
Chairwoman Waters. The gentleman's time has expired. Thank
you.
The gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Barr, is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Barr. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
And for all of the Americans who are watching this hearing
online or on television, I want to be clear-eyed about what the
Biden Administration and my Democrat friends are doing this
week. This week, Democrats are using a budget procedure
originally designed to cut spending, to pave the way for a
massive spending spree that, with interest, will add over $2
trillion to the national debt, despite the immediate
availability of over $1 trillion in unspent funds from the
CARES Act, and a $900 billion relief bill passed less than 2
months ago. That bears repeating: Over $1 trillion in unspent
funds are immediately available for the American people.
I would hope that all of us, on a bipartisan basis, would
focus on actually deploying those funds before we rushed to
saddle future generations of Americans with an additional $2
trillion in debt.
But one thing we absolutely must do is, do no harm. I want
to explore this minimum wage hike that is included in this
bill, because at a time when so many workers, and especially
low-wage workers, the minority workers that Ms. Murguia was
just talking about, are struggling, one thing we absolutely
should not do is force those workers to lose their only source
of income.
And Congress went to great lengths through the PPP to
ensure that small businesses could keep their employees on the
payroll, yet this proposal from President Biden and
Congressional Democrats to raise the Federal minimum wage to
$15 per hour, without any adjustments based on regional
differences and cost-of-living, would compromise those efforts.
According to the CBO, 1.3 million low-income workers will
lose their jobs because of this misguided proposal. I want my
friends, my Democrat friends who support this policy, who are
well-intentioned, who want to help low-income workers, and I
share their goal, but I want them to hear what I was told by my
local restauranteurs, a sector of the economy that has been
devastated by this pandemic. I have talked to big
restauranteurs with 1,800 employees across all of their
restaurants, and then in some cases, a small restauranteur, who
owns two restaurants in a very low-wage, low cost-of-living
county, Estill County, in my district, and they said it would
be ``catastrophic.'' Those two restaurants would close as a
result of this because of the low cost-of-living. Those 40
employees would lose their jobs.
And the large restauranteur in Lexington, Kentucky, told me
that because of this policy, his business would lose 70 percent
of their profits and the result would be ``carnage'' for the
tipped employees in his business.
So, Dr. Strain, what would be the impact on low-income
workers, especially those in the distressed restaurant sector,
with this across-the-board hike in the Federal minimum wage
that would destroy jobs?
Mr. Strain. Thank you, Congressman.
Your characterization is correct. I think CBO's estimate of
1.3 million is actually on the low side. There are three States
where the median wage is below $16.50, where half of all
workers earn less than $16.50. There are two dozen States where
half of all workers earn less than $18 or $18.50 an hour. And
in 47 States, over one quarter of workers earn less than $15 an
hour.
So, this would be extremely disruptive, particularly in
low-wage States. But when you think about low-wage States,
think about approximately half of the States.
Mr. Barr. Can I just reclaim my time quickly, because I
know my Democratic colleagues do very much care about, just
like we do, these low-income workers, but the reality is, in
the restaurant sector, in this past year, nearly one in every
five restaurants permanently closed their doors, and over 30 of
the country's largest retail and restaurant companies have
filed for bankruptcy.
Is this the time? Is this really the time to put greater
stress on those employers in their ability to retain workers?
I think this is a devastating policy that will destroy jobs
and kill peoples' ability to stay employed. And with that, my
time has expired, and I yield back.
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you, very much.
The gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Perlmutter, who is also
the chairman of our Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and
Financial Institutions, is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Perlmutter. Thanks, Madam Chairwoman.
And I have to start by saying to my friend, Mr. Barr, I am
your ``Democratic'' friend. I am not your ``Democrat'' friend.
It is the Democratic party. It is not the Democrat party. I
don't call you my ``publican'' friend or ``banana republican''
friend. You are my Republican friend.
So, please, I am your Democratic friend. It is the
Democratic party. Thank you.
Now, many of my questions have been answered and I thank
the panel, all of you; you have been excellent witnesses. I
would just like to confirm with you, Dr. Strain, and with you,
Mr. Anthony, some numbers that you guys testified to, as to the
need for backfilling, to some degree, State and local
governments.
Dr. Strain, in my notes, I have that you said a $100
billion for State and local governments probably is your
ballpark number; is that right?
Mr. Strain. Yes, Congressman. I think that would be
appropriate to the need.
Mr. Perlmutter. Okay. And Mr. Anthony, the number that I
had for you was $350 billion; is that correct?
Mr. Anthony. That is correct, Congressman.
Mr. Perlmutter. Okay. Thank you.
I turn my attention to you, Ms. Murguia, even if you are
from Kansas City, which is a shame, and to you, Mr. Johnson. In
Colorado, we noticed an uptick in calls to our housing hotline
in terms of evictions and mortgage delinquencies. Within the
Hispanic and Latinx communities, within the African-American
community, have either of you seen an uptick in concerns about
delinquencies, either with rentals or in homeownership?
And I will start with you, Janet Murguia from Kansas City.
I shouldn't be messing around with Kansas City, but Mr. Cleaver
always makes me crazy about that.
Ms. Murguia. Well, go, Kansas City Chiefs, on Sunday, just
to add another point of emphasis there.
Look, you are right, Congressman. There is no question that
our communities are being impacted very seriously by the rental
and the foreclosures or mortgage challenges. It is one of the
reasons that in my written testimony, I really went to great
lengths to talk about the importance of housing counseling
programs. They can provide that on-the-ground resource where
folks can call and turn to trusted partners and advisors, and
we can provide linguistic and culturally competent information.
And that information is so important right now as they are
navigating the crisis, the confusing messages about what they
can and can't do. It is essential that we expand and deepen
resources for those types of housing assistance programs, in
addition to funds that will help extend eviction moratoriums
and also mortgage relief for some of these individuals.
I found that our network of community-based organizations,
the UnidosUS Affiliate Network, has been extremely effective
when we have the resources to be able to engage on the ground,
because we are seen as trusted partners and we can give them
that important information. But it is essential that those
services be funded as part of this recovery.
Mr. Perlmutter. Thank you.
And Mr. Johnson?
Mr. Johnson. I absolutely agree with Janet, and I also
agree with Congressman Green that there is some immediate need,
not only for the home renters who actually work every day, but
for this pandemic, but also for the homeowners who are
providing access to home rental as a supplemental income
opportunity. It is absolutely vital to provide support as soon
as possible.
Mr. Perlmutter. Thank you.
And I would just like to say that I tried cross-examining
Jim Jordan in the Rules Committee on Zoom the other day. It
didn't work very well. Cross-examining witnesses on Zoom or on
Webex is hard and everybody should just remember that.
I yield back.
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much.
The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Williams, is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Williams of Texas. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
In December, Congress passed a bipartisan $900 billion
COVID relief bill, which brings the 10-month total on
coronavirus relief to $3.5 trillion. Now, this means we have
spent more money on COVID relief in less than a year than the
entire GDP of Germany, France, or India.
It is not sustainable or realistic to think the Federal
Government can continue this pace of spending to keep propping
up the U.S. economy, while States are forcing businesses to
remain closed. The only way to get out of this pandemic with
our economy still intact is if we end the lockdowns and put
people back to work.
Dr. Strain, I am going to have 3 questions for you. This
will be the first one. Can you give us some examples of
policies we can be examining in Congress that would incentivize
reopening the economy, that would not require, I repeat, not
require additional Federal spending?
Mr. Strain. Policies that would not require additional
Federal spending?
Congressman, I think there is a need for some additional
Federal spending, to advance your goal of reopening the
economy, and to get shots in arms, to distribute the vaccine
much better than we have seen so far.
I also think that despite the rollout of the vaccine, a
more adequate testing regime would go a long way toward
reopening the economy, as well. So, I think those sorts of
measures would do what you want, but they would cost some
money.
Mr. Williams of Texas. What about liability protection for
businesses?
Mr. Strain. Yes, Congressman, I think that is an important
component. I think you don't want to give businesses blanket
immunity. You want businesses who are grossly negligent to
still be liable.
But businesses are faced with sometimes conflicting
guidance. They are faced with guidance that is changing
relatively rapidly. So, I think if you are a business and you
make a good-faith effort to follow public health guidance, that
a temporary liability shield from frivolous pandemic-related
lawsuits would be very appropriate and advisable.
Mr. Williams of Texas. Thank you.
Secondly, if my friends on the other side of the aisle are
intent on passing another COVID-19 relief package, they should
prioritize reopening the economy, as we've talked about, and
getting people back to work. But, instead, they are looking to
include completely, I think, unrelated liberal policy
priorities such as increasing the minimum wage to $15 an hour.
We have talked a lot about that.
And I just got out of another committee hearing with a
small business where they had 3 witnesses who all said it would
be a disaster to increase the minimum wage to $15. I am a small
business owner in Texas, and I have some experience in that. It
would be a real problem.
Now, Jim Clyburn said back in March that this virus is a
tremendous opportunity to restructure things in their vision.
Now, the Congressional Budget Office, as we have already heard
today, estimates an increase in the minimum wage to this level
could cause over a million workers to lose their jobs, and it
is crazy that a job-killing policy is being considered in the
middle of a pandemic.
So, Dr. Strain, can you discuss how increasing the minimum
wage could affect the rate of the automation in our workforce?
Mr. Strain. Yes, Congressman.
I think the CBO estimate of over a million jobs lost is a
reasonable estimate. I think it is actually too low, given the
fact that we are talking about an increase during a period of
labor market weakness.
I think economic research shows that when the economy is
weak, that the job loss from a minimum wage increase is higher
than in normal times. So, I think it really would be a
significant, significant mistake, that would accrue to the
detriment of low-wage workers.
You asked about automation. The plan to phase this in over
a 4- or 5-year period, I think, on the one hand, blunts the
impact, but on the other hand, if you are a small business
owner, you know that you are in for a period of 4 or 5 years
where every year, your labor costs are going to go up and up.
So, that really, I think, will encourage businesses, since they
know they are looking at a sustained problem that is going to
grow every year, that will encourage businesses to think about
how they can produce goods and services with fewer workers and
that will increase the use of automation.
Mr. Williams of Texas. Thank you very much.
And Madam Chairwoman, I yield back. Thank you.
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much.
The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Foster, is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. Foster. Thank you. Ten years ago, when we were
preparing the stimulus bill to revive the economy in response
to the previous economic collapse that the previous Republican
Administration had left us with, we were greeted with
terrifying predictions that the stimulus spending would trigger
hyperinflation, huge increases in government borrowing costs to
debase our currency, and on and on. I can't remember how many
hearings we had on this subject.
And in the 10 years since those predictions, of course, we
saw something very different, actually historically low
inflation and low borrowing costs. And I was wondering, I guess
starting with Dr. Spriggs, what has been learned in that 10
years about what is wrong with these predictions that are being
made in response to stimulus spending during times of economic
stress?
Mr. Spriggs. We learned from the Great Recession that we
gave too little, and that was an error, and we are trying not
to repeat that. Where we stand right now is where we were at
the depth of the Great Recession. Congress already responded in
March with a very substantial package, to recover from what was
even worse than where we are now.
But it slowed down. In December, we lost jobs. And one of
the things that we know was weak from the recovery during the
Great Recession was that we didn't pay attention to State and
local government. We lost jobs in the State and local
government sector, we left that sector weaker, and we don't
want to repeat that going into this recovery, and we need those
workers so we can go door to door, and we can call people. The
idea that we are going to use computers and people getting
online and setting up appointments is not going to reach the
communities that we need to reach. It is not going to reach
rural communities that don't have internet. It is not going to
reach small cities where internet isn't that strong. We need
local government to have the people in place to really reach
the people, and to make sure that going forward, we have a more
robust recovery.
Mr. Foster. In the 10 years that we have had to study the
response to the last stimulus--it contained a variety of
different measures, and if I recall properly, roughly 40
percent of that stimulus was tax cuts, some of which actually
went to very wealthy people and some to the working class.
What have we learned about the benefits of things like tax
cuts for the wealthy, compared to assistance to working-class
families, in terms of the bang for the buck, in generating GDP
in response to a crisis, which is more effective?
Mr. Spriggs. We had a much bigger fiscal multiplier by
helping those with lower incomes, and one of the problems from
the recovery during the Great Recession was that we didn't get
wages to rise. Wage growth was very slow, until State and local
governments stepped in and marched us towards $15 an hour. So,
we have to understand that the call to raise the Federal
minimum wage to $15 an hour is not the whole country, because
the whole country is on an uneven path, and those States that
aren't on that path disproportionately have Black workers.
There is a racial equity issue here because Black workers have
not seen their wages respond as quickly since the Great
Recession, and it is in large part because we ensured stronger,
safer economies by doing that.
We have studied, as economists, raises in the minimum wage.
All of these claims of job losses in restaurants is not what we
find in the evidence. The claims by the CBO have to do with
workers who maybe work two jobs, and are asked to deal with
substitution within the household, where maybe the wife decides
she doesn't need to work if the wages are higher. So, it is not
that we mean fewer jobs. It is that some workers may be able to
cut back on their hours.
Mr. Foster. Thank you, and I understand there is another
large effect that if you provide economic benefits to those at
the top of the economic scale, instead of spending in the local
economy, they are much more likely to basically turn it over to
their investment advisors who will advise them to diversify,
and roughly one-third of that money will be invested offshore,
which I think is another new argument about the benefits, of
targeting the benefits at the working families who need it the
most.
I am done here, and I yield back.
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you. The gentleman from Georgia,
Mr. Loudermilk, is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Loudermilk. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I am surprised
that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have all of a
sudden felt the need to rush through this partisan COVID relief
package, when the Speaker actually held up the last one for
over 6 months. We all know that was done purely for political
reasons, to hurt the other President politically in his
campaign. But now, all of a sudden, this is an emergency that
we have to get it out.
There is over $1 trillion of the last several packages
still unspent. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer recently
said it makes no sense to pinch pennies when so many Americans
are struggling. I would argue that it makes no sense to spend
another $2 trillion when there is still more than $1 trillion
of unspent funds from the other packages.
The CBO projects that the December package will grow the
economy 1.5 percent faster in 2021 and 2022, and less than 20
percent of it has been spent. We should let that package work
and see what else is needed before rushing to pass a colossal
waste of $2 trillion. I appreciate that President Biden and
other Democrats have called for unity and have spoken of the
need for job growth, but actions speak louder than words. They
are pushing a hyperpartisan package, and quite frankly, we
voted yesterday on a budget, and the Budget Committee has not
even been organized yet. There has been no input from
Republicans. There is no bipartisan agreement here. This is
being ramrodded through and it is a package that could destroy,
and I believe will destroy, millions of American jobs.
Here is my question. Mr. Strain, there is an old saying
that you don't raise taxes during a recession. I would argue
that you don't raise the minimum wage during a recession
either. CBO estimates that a $15 minimum wage would destroy 1.3
million jobs. It would disproportionately increase employment
for part-time workers and those without a high school diploma
and raise the cost for small businesses, and the small
businesses are the ones that have been hurting the most because
of the government shutdowns. Those are the people we should be
helping. It is unconscionable that Congress would pass a policy
to destroy so many jobs when we are trying to recover the
economy.
So, Mr. Strain, can you explain why now is not the time to
raise the minimum wage?
Mr. Strain. Thank you, Congressman. I agree with that. I
think there are several reasons why raising the minimum wage in
a period of labor market weakness leads to a larger amount of
employment loss. Businesses are just more willing to make those
kinds of changes to the way they produce goods and services
when the economy is weak, and when the economy is weak, of
course, there is less demand for businesses, products, and
services to begin with, which also makes them more inclined to
change the structure of their labor forces.
I think it is actually maybe even a little bit worse than
you characterized, Congressman, because the same CBO report
that found 1.3 million job losses also found that a $15 -an-
hour minimum wage would slow economic growth. And so, I just
think that there are many reasons why you don't want to raise
the minimum wage to $15 an hour, and raising the minimum wage
to $15 an hour during a period of elevated unemployment is
adding insult to injury, I think.
Mr. Loudermilk. Thank you. I agree with you there, and
there is another provision in here that gives me grave concern.
Back in August of last year, I was visiting with several of our
local governments, and one of the county commissioners came to
me and said, ``Look, please do something for us. Will you stop
the unemployment subsidies? We don't want any handouts from
Washington. We want you to stop the subsidy because we can't
get our county employees to come back to work because they are
making more money being on unemployment than they were being
paid at their jobs,'' which, according to the economy in
northwest Georgia, they were making good money there. Four
hundred dollars is keeping people out of work and it is hurting
our economy.
Do you agree with me that extending this $400 subsidy for
nearly 2 years is going to be devastating to especially the
small businesses?
Mr. Strain. Yes, Congressman. I think extending the $400
through September, which is what President Biden is proposing,
would be an act of economic self-harm. When Congress passed the
$600 Federal supplement in March, that was during a period of
time where the country was locked down, and you really did not
want unemployed workers out there trying to find a job because
you didn't want them spreading the coronavirus. That is not the
situation we are going to be in for September. You are going to
have unemployed workers sitting at home and not getting jobs,
when there is no reason for that.
Mr. Loudermilk. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairwoman Waters. The gentleman's time has expired. The
gentlewoman from Ohio, Mrs. Beatty, who is also the Chair of
our Subcommittee on Diversity and Inclusion, is now recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Beatty. Thank you so much, Madam Chairwoman, and thank
you to the committee, and thank you to all of the witnesses. It
is an honor for me to be here today. Certainly, as we have
heard, and research and the people's comments have supported,
individuals need relief. Small businesses need relief. We know
that when we look at the 440-some thousand individuals dying
from COVID-19, that it is a three-headed pandemic. It is health
care, it is the economic issues that we are dealing with, and
it is the social injustices.
So when it comes to this committee, I want to thank the
Congresswoman for speaking up for all of the people and what we
know to be true. We know that people need more financial
assistance. We know that individuals need relief. We are
hopeful that we will get through this COVID-19 because of
science and medicine. But we know we are not there.
We know cities and communities across this country are
saying, ``Give us relief. Continue the individual
unemployment.'' I think it is unthinkable for anyone to believe
that someone would not go to work because they are getting an
additional $200, $300, or even $600. It comes back to the
economy. Economists have told us that. Wall Street has said to
us, when you look at the stock market and what happens when
individuals get more dollars, what do they do? They buy food.
What do they do? They try to keep a roof over their heads.
I want to thank all of the witnesses, but I want to give a
special thank-you to Mr. Johnson, head of the NAACP, because
last week he brought up former Ambassador Susan Rice to talk
about domestic policy leadership and the issues and racial
justice inequity. He had soon-to-be HUD Secretary Marcia Fudge.
Housing is a big part of what we do under Chairwoman Maxine
Waters' committee. He had me come on to talk about financial
services. And I want to thank you, because when the people
called in, it was Black people, White people, Democrats, and
Republicans, because death and hurting is not a partisan issue.
So, Mr. Johnson, can you help us? When we know that it
comes to people who are affected most by COVID-19, whether it
be medically or economically, African Americans have borne the
brunt of this pandemic, so is there anything, as head of the
NAACP, that you want to elaborate on, that we still need to do
in Congress to ensure that all communities who have suffered
are made whole?
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Chairwoman Beatty. Three quick
things. First, is a targeted approach to ensure that
communities who are most at risk receive the vaccine
immediately. Second, I have never heard that giving people in
need of money, more money, will hurt people in need of money.
That is a concept I am not familiar with. We need to ensure
that we stabilize our economy. It fuels more resources in
people's hands, not corporations, but those people who use
those funds to support the very small businesses that many of
them work for, like the Henry Ford Model. He paid his workers
more because he wanted to sell more cars.
And then third, I always go back to the looming student
debt crisis. We depend on our governmental workers, local and
State, teachers, and they are suffocating under the burden of
student loan debt in the midst of a pandemic, in the midst of
an economic crisis. We must give those individuals relief, and
if we do so that can stimulate the economy, because the $300 to
$500 that they are paying in monthly student loans will go
right back into the economy.
Mrs. Beatty. Thank you. Dr. Spriggs, can you tell us a
little bit about the economy and the consequences of not
providing more rental assistance dollars?
Mr. Spriggs. Thank you, Congresswoman. We are risking too
much going in the economy because all workers in America make
too little money. The size of this package is evidence to us
how little we have put in the hands of our workers, keeping
them from being individually resilient in the face of crises.
Letting them become homeless complicates this situation. If you
are a long-term unemployed worker, it is very hard to reconnect
you to the labor force. Letting you become homeless is
virtually impossible. That is too steep a challenge for us to
face. It is penny wise and pound foolish for us not to make the
investment now to prevent the scarring of homelessness--
Chairwoman Waters. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
Thank you.
Mrs. Beatty. Thank you.
Chairwoman Waters. The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Davidson,
is now recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Davidson. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. And I thank our
witnesses. This is certainly a timely hearing and one that
deserves a lot of attention. Frankly, over the past year,
nearly $5 trillion has been voted on here in this body to add
to the monetary supply of the United States of America.
One of the agenda items is that the Fed's dual mandate
should be updated to address economic inequality. The proposals
behind that, from the Majority, focus on more redistribution.
They want the Fed to take money that we cannot even print fast
enough and redistribute it. They want the Fed to make loans
that the market would never actually make. And they want the
American taxpayer to underwrite risks that no one rationally
would take.
The Federal Reserve is adding to this inequality massively,
because what they are doing isn't driving a huge amount of
consumer price inflation. It isn't driving that kind of
inflation because that money does not make it to the average
American worker. That money makes it to people who are wealthy,
people who have a large portion of their net worth tied up in
marketable securities. And that is why right now, in the midst
of this pandemic, where much of Main Street is decimated, Wall
Street is having its best days ever. You are seeing the S&P 500
hit record highs with no correlation to the activity on Main
Street. Lots of hope for the future, but we had lots of hope
for the future at this time last year, and we weren't yet
reacting to the COVID-19 pandemic.
When those asset prices become inflated, the wealth gap
grows. The wealthy benefit from this right now. Jeff Bezos
doesn't even pay the capital gains tax on his shares. He simply
borrows against their value, which is rational in our current
Tax Code.
But while the worker, the American worker back home in Ohio
is busy working his hourly job, or hoping to be able to get
back to it because it has been crippled not entirely by the
virus but by the government's reaction to it, is happy that his
401(k) or his IRA has gone up, but that is for future earnings.
That is not for money that can be spent today. That is hope for
someday. But meanwhile, the value of those dollars being
deposited in his paycheck are destroying--destroying--our
economy.
When I first got to Congress, I wasn't sure that people
were aware that this destruction was taking place. But the sad
thing is that they are, and they want to misdirect and blame
things like the Tax Code or employers or things like that. And
I don't want to say there is no fault anywhere, but the biggest
pump-and-dump scheme going on in America right now is being
driven by the Federal Reserve. We need to get back to sound
money and have a sound, rational basis for our monetary policy.
These economic distortions are crippling not just America's
economy but the global economy. Developed economies around the
world are talking about going to real negative nominal rates.
The real rate for interest right now is already negative. No
one really believes that the rate of inflation over the next 10
years is going to be less than 1 percent. But that is what
happens when you wire Treasuries. It is central planning. It is
distorting pricing.
And that is not an attack against the whole concept of
central banks. Our central bank has been effective. In March,
and in April, in particular, it is a case study in why central
banks should exist. They provided essential stability to make
our markets function. It was incredible. A number of programs
implemented swiftly and decisively when there was literally no
buy side for, for example, the safest assets, municipal bonds.
Super safe assets. A market only functions when there is
equilibrium between buyers and sellers, and when there is no
buy side, the market is in freefall. So I commend the Federal
Reserve for that, but since that time we have seen massive
economic distortion, and it not going to end well.
Look, billionaires will lose billions of dollars. They may
even lose a higher percentage of their net worth. But the
working men and women of America are harmed by this economic
distortion. We have to get back to sound money. Now, the idea
to print even more of this money that we don't have, robs from
future consumption. Dr. Strain, you have spoken well of this
economic distortion. I want to give you a chance to talk about
the consequence of spending future earnings of the American
people. What kinds of consequences might we expect from this
economic distortion?
Mr. Strain. Thank you, Congressman. I think it is
appropriate for Congress to spend money to support households
and businesses and to fight the virus, and I think that the
CARES Act really did a great deal of good for American
businesses and households.
Mr. Davidson. Thank you for that, and I would agree with
you that it did a very good--
Chairwoman Waters. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Davidson. --job in the essential moments, as I
highlighted. So, I appreciate that final comment, and I yield
back.
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you. The gentleman's time has
expired. The gentleman from California, Mr. Vargas, is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Vargas. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman, and I
also want to thank the Republican Ranking Member today for this
hearing. I do think it is very timely, and I first want to say
that I do agree with some of the things that were said by my
good friends from Ohio, certainly Representative Stivers. I
think it is very important that we get the vaccine out in as
many arms as we can. And I do think that my good friend, Mr.
Davidson, what he just said, there is that distortion where you
have now the wealthy getting wealthier and wealthier and the
poor and the working class falling behind, that is something
that is real and we have to work on it.
However, at the same time, I have to say I listened to most
of my other colleagues on the other side and it seems that they
want to figure out how to give the working class and the poor
as little possible help as they possibly can, and the wealthy
as much as they possibly can through tax cuts. It was
interesting to hear a scold today tell us about how we are
going to add trillions of dollars through this potential
process, when that same person, a few years ago, voted in favor
to adding trillions of dollars to the long-term debt by doing
the tax cuts for the wealthy, that even Dr. Strain said he had
problem with, at least with the individuals, not with the
corporations. I do not want to put words in his mouth.
That, to me, is crazy. That is as looney as I think this
QAnon stuff, that we make the wealthier wealthy and the poor
and the middle class, we give them as little help as possible.
That doesn't make any sense to me at all. It doesn't make any
sense. That is not why government exists and that is not what
we should be doing.
I do want to ask a couple of questions here before I become
the scold in the rank here. Ms. Murguia, you were talking about
the losses suffered by Latinos, and they are very painful in my
district, of course, which is predominantly Latino. You talked
about how they are 3 times as likely to die because of COVID-
19, and twice as likely to get sick, and the losses that we
have suffered. And then you have talked about some of the
things that we can do. What else can we do? You mentioned some,
but what else?
Ms. Murguia. Thank you, Congressman. I appreciate your
comments. And I think I would just say, in addition to what you
have laid out, in terms of making sure we are concentrating on
targeted relief to those who have been the essential workers,
and what we have found is that the Federal relief so far has
not included those essential workers. And as you know,
Congressman--you have worked a lot on behalf of Dreamers and
many who have been undocumented, who are yet filling the lines
of folks who are helping our country right now, whether it is
in the fields as farm workers, whether it is in meat processing
plants, whether it is stocking shelves or actually delivering
food, or whether it is providing care to all of these folks who
are in need of health professionals. But yet, we have found
that Federal relief, because of these families being mixed
status, the relief has not gone there. But they have provided
the work, the services to keep things going.
So we have argued, as you have heard, that we should make
sure that all essential workers, regardless of their status,
many who are families who have U.S. citizen children, should be
included, and that we should take the step to look at, perhaps
in a reconciliation bill, maybe addressing, first and foremost,
how we can provide protected status for these folks. Because
they are going to continue to keep the economy going from this
particular moment and into the future.
Mr. Vargas. Thank you very much. I appreciate that.
I also want to ask Mr. Anthony, I was on the San Diego City
Council for a number of years when I started my political
career, and the City and a lot of the little cities that I have
in my district are really suffering at this moment. They are
working hard but they are suffering. How can we help them,
through this package? You have talked a little bit about that,
but could you expand on that? Because I know that they work
hard. At the same time, they are in desperate need.
Mr. Anthony. Yes. Thank you, Congressman, for asking that
question. I think the way in which we could be of help to those
small and especially the rural communities is to be able to get
those dollars in the hands of those local leaders who can
actually create those programs such as the food programs. Also
to be able to help them keep their employees so that we can get
our economy started back up through permitting, housing, and
capital investments. Again, this is not a bailout. This is
being able to help them administer the programs that you, in
fact, are approving through the past stimulus projects as well.
Thank you, Congressman.
Chairwoman Waters. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Vargas. Thank you.
Chairwoman Waters. The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr.
Budd, is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Budd. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I just want to
confirm, Dr. Strain, can you hear me okay?
Mr. Strain. Yes, sir.
Mr. Budd. Thank you. I appreciate you being here today.
Over the past 11 months, Congress has appropriated nearly $3.5
trillion to stimulate the economy and support families,
workers, and small businesses. Today, we are discussing the
newest plan proposed by President Biden which is seeking to add
$1.9 trillion in untargeted relief. I am supportive of the
widespread testing, I am supportive of vaccinations, and I
believe that these are both critical components to opening
safely. But I also strongly believe that additional funding, if
necessary, should be targeted to meet those needs. Keep in mind
that a majority of the funds we appropriated in the December
COVID package has remained untapped.
So my question is this: How will the new untargeted
spending provide greater benefit to our economy that the
already appropriated $3.5 trillion hasn't, and is this even
necessary?
Mr. Strain. Thank you, Congressman. I think much of it is
unnecessary and a good chunk of it is actually actively
harmful. The checks to households, a whole lot of that money is
going to go into savings. That is not going to help support the
recovery. The reason it is going to go into savings is because
so much of it would go to households earning well above median
income, earning six figures a year, who haven't suffered any
employment losses.
The unemployment insurance supplement of $400 a week
through September, I think will be actively harmful. On the one
hand, it will support consumer spending. On the other hand, it
is going to act to keep people unemployed for longer, at a time
when most likely the vaccines are in wide distribution and we
want people to be getting back to work. The $15-an-hour minimum
wage will be actively harmful to helping low-wage workers keep
jobs, get back to work, and get back on their feet.
So I think you are right, Congressman, that we should be
looking at the actual needs here, and I think it is appropriate
for Congress to spend some more money this month on addressing
those needs. But large portions of the President's proposal
wouldn't do much good, and large portions of the President's
proposal would actually do harm.
Mr. Budd. Thank you. I also want to ask, we have seen the
devastating impacts that widespread lockdowns have had on our
economy. Just last month, the Labor Department reported that
our economy lost 140,000 jobs, and we are used to, over the
last several years, adding jobs by the hundreds of thousands,
but now we have lost 140,000 jobs, the bulk of which came from
States that have endured long-lasting and broad lockdowns.
States with less restrictions are rebounding at a rapid pace.
So, Dr. Strain, do you believe that the most effective way
to support the economy is to safely open it up?
Mr. Strain. Yes, Congressman. I don't think there is really
any doubt that in order to fully recover from the pandemic, we
need the economy to be reopened. And the best way to get the
economy reopened is to get vaccine shots in people's arms. I
think that the inability to do that quickly, the fact that
vaccines have been sitting in storerooms and not being
administered is a national scandal, and I think it is very
appropriate for Congress to figure out what it can do to help
get people vaccinated. Because the faster we do that, the
faster we can reopen and the faster we can recover.
Mr. Budd. Thank you. And lastly, Dr. Strain, would you
detail the benefits of using private lending institutions to
operate an emergency loan program instead of creating a
government-run program?
Mr. Strain. One benefit is just speed. And that was a key
reason to rely on private sector lending institutions for the
PPP program, that you wanted to get money to businesses
quickly, and that creating a new government agency to do that
really would have slowed it down.
Another reason, of course, is that the situation we are in
now is temporary, and we should not be kind of changing the
structure of government to support a temporary problem.
Mr. Budd. Very good. I appreciate your time, Dr. Strain,
and, Madam Chairwoman, I yield back.
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much. The gentleman from
Florida, Mr. Lawson, is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Lawson. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and I would like
to thank the witnesses for being here today. I had an
opportunity to listen to many of the panelists, whom I think
have done a great job. And I am going to talk a little bit from
the small business standpoint, because I have been in small
business for the last 34 years. One of the things that, Mr.
Strain, you said, is that enhancing the minimum wage is going
to really, really hurt small businesses. I wonder if you could
elaborate a little bit more on that and tell me why you think
it is really going to hurt them? Oftentimes, we can draw good
employees if we pay them well, which increases our bottom line
and helps us to do better economically, and we might even have
the opportunity, if we get more resources, to hire other
people.
So, maybe you can elaborate on that a little bit more for
me, please?
Mr. Strain. Yes. Thank you, Congressman. I think the
example that you gave is an example of something that does
happen. When a State or when the Federal Government increases
the minimum wage, you often see businesses hire a different
type of worker. Perhaps, a business was employing workers who
hadn't graduated high school when the minimum wage was $6 or
$6.50. Then, the minimum wage goes up to $7, $8, and they start
to hire workers who have graduated from high school. So in that
instance, the business itself that is doing that is not
necessarily worse off. They are hiring workers who are going to
be more productive and they are able to absorb the minimum wage
that way.
But the person who loses out is the person who didn't
graduate high school, and my concern is that even in situations
where businesses will be okay--and to be clear, when you are
talking about doubling the minimum wage, I think many, many
businesses are going to really struggle. But even those
businesses that don't struggle because they find other ways to
adapt, that doesn't change the fact that the least skilled,
least experienced, most vulnerable workers in society are going
to pay an enormous cost for the minimum wage increase up to
$15. Middle-class households are going to see their incomes go
up, but the cost of the policy is going to be borne by the
least skilled, least experienced, most vulnerable workers in
society, and that is just not a tradeoff that I think Congress
should make.
Mr. Lawson. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Johnson, I heard you earlier give quite a few analyses
about where we stand, especially with people of color. And I
know how important it is to get the vaccine out there because I
know it is critically important. I represent a lot of rural
areas. How do we get dollars down, because there has been some
consideration this morning about dollars are not really coming
down. Dollars are going to the wrong people who don't really
need it, but in my district, everybody I come in contact with
seems to really need the stimulus dollars to benefit their
families. How do we do that in legislation to make sure that
the dollars that are needed the most by individuals are
stimulating the economy?
Mr. Johnson. Was that question for me?
Mr. Lawson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Johnson. Putting money in people's hands becomes
crucial. That is why we supported the $2,000 stimulus check
that was first stated by the prior President, that many people
now oppose. But we also understand, in terms of the vaccine,
you have to provide access to vaccination closer to where
people live, and if you only provide it through the medical
facilities, you can miss whole communities. Municipalities play
a huge role. Public housing systems play a huge role.
But then, more importantly, to your earlier question about
minimum wage, I have never been able to reconcile this concept
of a free market economy, but we don't want a free market
economy when it comes time to pay people an equitable wage
because people go out of business. We have to pay people their
value, and if we look at what the growth is in terms of the
cost of living, and we are not keeping up the cost of living,
we must supplement or create a space where people can actually
work hard every day and make a living. Every community I have
driven through that appears to be impoverished, I could assure
you those are low-wage workers. We need to raise the floor for
the quality of life.
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much. The gentleman's
time has expired. The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Kustoff, is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Kustoff. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Thank you for
convening today's hearing, and thank you to all of the
witnesses who have appeared today.
Dr. Strain, if I could talk with you first, you talked in
your testimony in response to other questions about the
enhanced set of employment benefits that we approved in the
CARES Act, and that we renewed, to a lesser level, back in
December. I will tell you that in my district, I have heard
from ``X'' number of employers who told me that they literally
could not get employees to come back to work when they were
receiving those unemployment benefits because they were
literally making more money with these enhanced unemployment
benefits than they were pre-pandemic.
And I will say, with the passage of the CARES Act that we
passed in March, I think we did a lot of things right, as a
Congress, and we did it on a strong bipartisan basis. But my
recollection is that when Secretary Mnuchin, who was
essentially the lead negotiator for the Trump Administration,
talked about the $600 enhanced unemployment benefit, he
essentially said that was a median number.
So my question to you is a little bit wonky, and that is,
if we do approve additional enhanced unemployment benefits, is
there a way to make that locality-based, based on cost of
living for an area? I represent Tennessee, so in my area--
Arkansas, Mississippi--the cost of living is lower than in
California, New York, and New Jersey. Is there a way for us to
do that, as a Congress, and with the Biden Administration?
Mr. Strain. Congressman, it is a really good question. I
think we saw in the ability of State Governments to administer
unemployment benefits, the inability to handle even the $600
increase, suggests that their capacity to do something
complicated like that is unfortunately limited. I think you are
right to be thinking about ways to mitigate the damage that
those unemployment benefits could do.
I think a similar solution is just to do them at a much
lower level than $400, or not do them at all, and to make sure
that they stay in effect for a relatively short period of time,
certainly not until September.
When Congress appropriated the $600 as part of the CARES
Act in March, that was an extremely unusual circumstance. The
idea behind the $600, as you said, was to replace completely
the income that unemployed workers would lose when they lost
their job. The reason why that was reasonable to do was because
you did not want unemployed workers trying to find another job,
and the reason you didn't want them trying to find another job
was because if they were trying to find another job, they would
be spreading the virus. This was in March and April when we did
the lockdown. Keep everybody at home. Don't go to work unless
you absolutely have to. Certainly, don't be trying to find a
new job.
That is just not the situation we are in anymore. If we
thought the $600 would keep workers from trying to find a job
in March and April, certainly it is going to keep them from
trying to find a job in July, August, and September, when the
vaccine is going to be in wide distribution. So, I really think
that this is a damaging proposal.
Mr. Kustoff. Thank you very much, Dr. Strain.
Mr. Anthony, if there is another stimulus bill that, in
fact, appropriates money, replaced money for cities, as you
talked about in your testimony, first of all, if you were
writing the bill, would you write in a population threshold for
a city or municipality? And if the answer is yes, what is that
number?
Mr. Anthony. Thank you, Congressman. That has been a
question that many have asked. I think that our perspective as
the National League of Cities is that every mayor, no matter
the size of their community, has been elected to lead and to
make decisions on behalf of that community. And if I then had
to make a formula decision, I would use the Community
Development Block Grant formula, that gets it down to $50,000,
and would require that if money is sent to the State for those
smaller cities, that it be transferred immediately, within 30
days of receipt of those dollars, down to those communities.
Mr. Kustoff. Thank you. My time has expired.
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much. The gentleman from
Guam, Mr. San Nicholas, who is also the Vice Chair of this
committee, is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. San Nicholas. Thank you so much, Madam Chairwoman, and
thank you for convening this very important hearing. I think it
is doing a huge service to the American people by allowing them
to really vet the conversations that we are having and to
address what is on the table and also how to speak towards
misnomers that are circulating regarding what is happening
next. I would like to thank our witnesses on the panel for
making time to be with us today.
Madam Chairwoman, I want to address some of these
misperceptions. That way, the American people can have clarity.
First, there is a misperception out there that there is $1
trillion kind of just sitting out there, that we have already
approved, that is not being spent, and it is creating the
perception that we have money out there that has been made
available that is somehow just not being used.
Mr. Anthony, based on your experience, is it true that $1
trillion in relief is languishing and wasting away or is it
largely programmed by our States, our cities, and our local
governments?
Mr. Anthony. Yes, Congressman. I think that we know, again,
we were not prepared for a pandemic. No one was. And so if
those dollars have gotten to State and local governments, there
had to be an infrastructure created and a plan. And what we are
seeing is that the States, as well as the mayors and counties,
have those programs, and now those dollars are going to be
spent.
And we also must recognize there is a lagging economy that
is happening. We haven't even seen the worst of what is going
to happen. So, thank you, Congressman.
Mr. San Nicholas. Thank you. Yes, and we are having the
same experience in my district. The money is not languishing
out there. It is being programmed. It has a purpose, and the
purpose is to fulfill the intent of the Congress to make sure
that we are addressing the COVID-19 circumstances and the
relief that needs to go out to our communities.
Mr. Anthony. That is correct.
Mr. San Nicholas. I am looking forward to our local
governments deploying those resources expeditiously, but the
funds that we made available is not somehow money that can all
of a sudden be reprogrammed. It has already been programmed.
Second, there is a misnomer out there that was reiterated
by, I am not sure if it was Dr. Strain, but it is the idea that
the Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation (FPUC) was
somehow provided to prevent people from going back to work. We
are talking about the additional supplemental $600, $300, now
$400. That is absolutely incorrect. The purpose of that
resource was because we have millions of Americans who are now
relying on unemployment, and the unemployment compensation
provided by their unemployment insurance in their State, and in
my district, is insufficient to meet the cash flow strains that
they are suffering from because they are no longer able to
work. That supplement is being used to make up the difference
between what they are receiving in unemployment insurance and
what they were actually earning.
And to be perfectly honest, that difference is still very
insufficient: $600 was insufficient; $400 was insufficient; and
$300 is insufficient. And the fact that we are at least
providing something is keeping families from going from being
able to provide, what they are doing for their communities and
bringing money into their households, to now at least having
unemployment, whatever paltry sum that is they are receiving in
their respective districts, plus the supplement that is going
out to support them.
The idea also that we have to engage in a protracted
deficit at this time has me very concerned. We entertained an
amendment just the other day that would have locked up the
ability of this committee to be able to provide any relief
whatsoever if we did not find a budgetary offset. Now, of
course, we should always be mindful of the deficit, but I am
going to ask a very elementary question to Dr. Spriggs, and
forgive me for the elementary nature of it. But is the time for
us to be addressing Federal spending during the pandemic we are
enduring now, or should it be during times of economic
stability?
Dr. Spriggs?
Mr. Spriggs. Thank you, Congressman, for that question. It
should be in times that are normal. We are actually in a war.
The virus has killed more Americans than we lost to combat in
World War II. This is not the time to be looking at a budget.
Now is the time to be looking at, are we successfully winning
our war against this virus? That has to be the number-one
priority. That is what is killing our economy. We cannot heal
the economy until we heal the virus.
Mr. San Nicholas. Thank you, Dr. Spriggs. Madam Chairwoman,
thank you so much, again, for convening this hearing, and
again, thank you to our witnesses for making time for us today.
I yield back.
Chairwoman Waters. The gentleman from Missouri, Mr.
Luetkemeyer, is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Luetkemeyer. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and I thank
our witnesses for being here this morning. I certainly
appreciate their willingness to be here and inform us.
But I would like to take a moment, before I begin my
testimony, my questioning, to point out that the testimony for
this hearing was not posted until last night, Madam Chairwoman.
If the Majority wants to have a serious discussion regarding
the needs of American consumers and businesses during this
pandemic, and what Congress should do to enhance economic
recovery, giving Members less than 12 hours overnight to review
and prepare for this hearing is unacceptable. If this was any
indication for how the Majority intends to operate the 117th
Congress, I have serious concerns over what we are trying to
accomplish here. So, I would appreciate more timely responses
by the witnesses and/or the Majority staff who is in charge.
With that, first question. With regards to the stimulus, it
is interesting that Lawrence Summers, who was President
Clinton's Treasury Secretary, and the top economist for Barack
Obama's Administration, Jason Furman [inaudible] the concern
with this pouring of more money into the economy, feeling it
may overheat and cause inflation. Mr. Strain, what would you
say in response to that concern?
Mr. Strain. I share that concern. I think it is commonly
argued that right now, Congress should err on the side of doing
more rather than doing less, and I think that is a reasonable
way to think about the problem, given the balance of risks. I
think there are more risks to doing too little than to doing
too much.
But that is not to say that Congress should pass another
stimulus that is untethered to an assessment of the actual
economic need. The actual economic need is maybe a few hundred
million dollars, something like that. And so, you want to have
the fudge factor to do more than less. But there are real risks
to dumping another $2 trillion on the economy right now, and
one of those risks is a few months where there is some
troubling price inflation.
Mr. Luetkemeyer. One of the things that concerns me is,
there is some money in here, about $350 billion, to bail out
the States. Now, I realize some of the States are struggling a
little bit, but in my own State of Missouri, we ended the
lockdown in mid-May. In 2020, we had a 5 percent increase in
revenue over 2019. Yes, last year we had an increase in revenue
over 2019. We have a 4.4 percent unemployment rate, and over
200,000 jobs that are being unfilled right now.
It seems as though there are a number of States which are
well-managed, from the standpoint of the COVID problem, and
their own budgets and revenues now. It would appear that this
$350 billion is going to bail out some States that are not very
well-managed. What would your comment be on that, Mr. Strain?
Mr. Strain. Look, Congressman, I think you are right that
as a general matter, State and local finances are looking a lot
better than many people thought that they would, and a good
number of States are basically even with 2019, in terms of
revenue. That really varies from State to State. States that
rely a great deal on tourism have taken a big hit. States that
rely relatively more on sales taxes from in-person activities
have taken a big hit.
And so I do think that, looking across all of the States,
there is a hole in terms of revenue of around $100 billion to
$150 billion. And so, I think it is appropriate for Congress to
help States with pandemic-related revenue losses, but not to
help States that just use rainy-day funds, not to help States
bail out pensions. And there are some States that aren't going
to need that much help at all.
Mr. Luetkemeyer. I appreciate that. Yes, I can tell you, I
live very close to the Lake of the Ozarks there in central
Missouri, which is one of the premier recreational
destinations, especially in the summertime. And they actually
had a record amount of visitation last year. So, I think being
open is a big key. It is interesting to me, with the COVID
lockdowns--and I have made this comment before--you look at
Florida and New York and they are roughly the same population;
one is 21 million and the other is 19 million. New York had
only twice as many deaths last year due to COVID as what
Florida did. And yet, Florida is open and California is locked
down, and Florida has a greater elderly population, probably,
than New York.
So, as a result, I am concerned that we are trying to bail
somebody out here instead of actually giving money to--putting
it in places where it actually needs to be targeted to be
helpful.
I understand my time is up. Thank you very much for your
responses.
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much, Mr. Luetkemeyer,
and there are many things that I think I could advise you about
publicly. The ranking member and I have an agreement to work
out our concerns, and we are in charge, so I didn't appreciate
your comments earlier.
Mr. Luetkemeyer. I appreciate getting information on time.
Chairwoman Waters. The gentlewoman from Iowa, Mrs. Axne, is
now recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Axne. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank you,
everyone, for being here today.
Mr. Anthony, I would like to start with you. Cities and
towns, of course, across the country have been fighting to
support people and the communities for the last year as COVID
hit our shores, and I know that nationally, we have lost about
1 million jobs in the State and local government sectors. One
of the areas that I have been really focused on, and this
committee has as well, is housing. Could you tell us a little
bit about how the budget losses and the job losses for State
and local government employees have made it more difficult to
keep people in their homes, and what are some of the steps that
you have had to take to overcome that?
Mr. Anthony. Thank you, Congresswoman, for that question. I
spoke earlier about the eviction level. We are looking at about
40 million renters who are on the cliff of being evicted.
The second data point is that this is a pent-up loss for
even real estate owners of about $7 million of revenue or
renter income that will be lost.
And the final thing is, in city governments and local
governments, period, we are seeing homelessness increase. So we
are dealing with all of those issues and responding. And I
think what this relief package would do is it would help us to
be able to provide programming for those challenges.
Mrs. Axne. I appreciate you saying that, and I thank you so
much, because one thing I know can be an issue for so many of
our constituents during this time is finding the help that they
need and the different programs that are available to them, in
a timeframe by which they need them.
So what can you tell us about how we are helping people
navigate some of these programs so that they can keep a roof
over their heads?
Mr. Anthony. Cities all over America have created rental
assistance programs during this time, but first of all, helping
to get those dollars specifically to nonprofits and to create
programs so that people will be able to come in and get those
dollars. Mayors and councilmembers have created small business
programs as well, small business loan programs, rental
assistance programs, and I think that if we think about the
level of government where people can knock on the front doors
of mayors and the city halls, it is local government.
So, I think that what we are asking for is direct dollars.
We know that we have lost over 1 million jobs. We anticipate
more than $90 billion of additional revenue loss this year. So,
I am begging that we get the dollars out to that level. But I
appreciate that question because it has been desperate in some
cities, not all, but I will tell you that in 95 percent of the
cities--rural, small, as well as urban--the homeless challenge
is increasing.
Mrs. Axne. It is an issue that we face right here in Des
Moines, Iowa, so I absolutely understand. And that fits,
actually, really well, with something that I have been working
on since last spring, which is getting more resources for
housing counselors, who can help people figure out what is
going on, how they can save their money, how they can stay in
their homes, et cetera.
You brought up some facts here, but the last estimates I
saw showed almost $60 billion in rental assistance is needed,
and with the forbearance that has been offered for mortgages, I
think a lot of people are going to need help with that. And, of
course, we saw, after the 2008 financial crisis, that 2 million
people who worked with housing counselors were 3 times as
likely to get loan modifications and then not go into
foreclosure or redefault, which is a great thing for our
communities.
Many of those same benefits--lower costs, more stable
housing--can also help renters when they are in tough straits,
like you mentioned. Ms. Murguia, or anyone else, does that seem
like something--these housing counselors--that we could benefit
from right now?
Ms. Murguia. Yes. Thank you, Congresswoman. I really
appreciate your leadership on this. I know you have seen and
understood the efficacy of using housing counseling programs
and those community-based organizations, those nonprofits, who
are so effective in reinforcing the importance of the steps to
be taken, the information that needs to be provided, to the
most hurt families, the most impacted families, and their
success rate, as you pointed out, is really high.
So, the $700 million-plus for COVID housing counseling
assistance is absolutely necessary. UnidosUS has the largest
Hispanic housing counseling network in the country, and we have
seen first-hand the role that they play, because they are
trusted partners; they have the cultural and language
competencies to be able to provide that service.
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you. The gentlewoman's time has
expired.
Mrs. Axne. Thank you.
Chairwoman Waters. The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Gonzalez,
is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Gonzalez of Ohio. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Quick
check, Dr. Strain, can you hear me?
Mr. Strain. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gonzalez of Ohio. Yes, very good. Thank you. First, I
want to just comment on a couple of things. Some of my friends
on the other side of the aisle have commented that, now is not
the time to worry about deficit spending or where it is going,
and I would offer this.
We are in a pandemic. There is an emergency, and there is a
need to act. I agree with that. But I would offer that it is
always our responsibility to make sure that we are spending
taxpayer dollars wisely and effectively. That is always a
priority. You never get to put that on hold. And I think what
we have done to date has been pretty good, not perfect. But
when we are talking about a $1.9 trillion bill, which, let's be
honest, the justification is pretty poor for a lot of the
spending in there, and a lot of it would be wasteful, I can't
possibly support it.
The second thing I would say is, if there is one thing that
President Biden said in his inaugural address that I think
every single Republican agreed with, and most across the
country, it is that we need to come together. We do need to
come together as one country and solve our problems, and we
need to take the temperature down politically. Unfortunately,
everything that has been done from that speech to today,
including this spending bill, has gone completely counter to
that. And so, I would ask my Democratic colleagues, whom I know
are sincere in this, please help on that, because I will help
anybody who wants to work on that. I don't care who you are.
But if we are going to just jam wish list items, like a $15
minimum wage, which we know isn't a bipartisan solution, if we
are going to jam a $1.9 trillion spending bill with no
Republican votes, that is not going to bring anybody together,
and you know it. And so, I would ask you to think wisely about
where we are as a country, culturally, emotionally, before we
go down that path. And it sounds like that train has already
left the station, but I would ask you to think twice.
Now, Dr. Strain, you talked about the unemployment rate.
Currently, where is the bulk of the unemployment? What sectors
of the economy?
Mr. Strain. The sectors of the economy that have been hit
the hardest are sectors that feature in-person interaction, so
sectors like retail, trade, leisure, and hospitality. Those are
the sectors that have borne the brunt of unemployment.
Mr. Gonzalez of Ohio. And a $15 minimum wage would do what
to those sectors?
Mr. Strain. It would be a major challenge to workers in
those sectors and a major challenge to businesses in those
sectors as well.
Mr. Gonzalez of Ohio. Yes, I would argue it would be
completely counterproductive, and we asked, where is the
unemployment? It is not an interest rate question. It is not a
stimulus check issue. It is a virus issue. I think we all know
that, and I think that is what you are saying, and that screams
towards quickly getting targeted relief in the form of
vaccines, testing, and anything we can do to defeat the virus.
The faster we defeat the virus, the faster we come back. Now,
we could pass that, I would argue, with broad bipartisan
support later tonight if we wanted to.
And then, the second piece I want to touch on is the
stimulus checks. You mentioned in your testimony--you say, for
example, direct checks to households earning six-figure incomes
that have not experienced employment loss are an unnecessary
and imprudent use of government spending. I agree with that 100
percent. Have you seen anyone anywhere who has intellectually
or economically justified the notion that we would be paying
people thousands of dollars who have not been economically
harmed by the pandemic? What is the rationale for that? Have
you seen it?
Mr. Strain. Congressman, I haven't seen a rationale that I
found compelling to support those checks. I think you could
make an argument for targeting checks that went to low-income
households that have been really hurting in this economy. But
checks to households earning $150,000, $200,000, and up, there
really is just very little justification for that policy.
Mr. Gonzalez of Ohio. Yes, thank you for that. I agree. I
want to be targeted. I want to help. Anybody who has been
affected by the COVID pandemic economically, I want to be there
to help them. I think most Republicans would agree with that.
This overshoots by a mile, and, again, I would encourage my
Democratic colleagues to come back and work with us. I yield
back.
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you. The gentleman's time has
expired. The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Casten, is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Casten. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. And thank you to
our witnesses. Before I start with my questions, I want to just
respond to something Mr. Barr said. He had noted that a lot of
the public is watching us right now, and it is really important
to understand this budget reconciliation process. This isn't
about being partisan, nonpartisan, or bipartisan. We pass
things by majority rule. The Senate has this goofy filibuster
rule that certain things require 60 votes, and budget
reconciliation is the way we pass things by simple majority.
The last time that my colleagues across the aisle controlled
everything--the House, the Senate, and the White House--they
used budget reconciliation to pass a massive tax cut to
corporations and to take away people's healthcare.
Now that we are in control, we are using budget
reconciliation to address the fact that we are in a pandemic
that has killed 443,000 Americans, and left 12 percent of
Americans hungry, and 60 million people out of work. That is
the right way to use your majority. I do not apologize for it,
and please do not say that this is somehow not worth doing in
the name of bipartisanship or question why that [inaudible].
I want to move from there to a question for Mr. Spriggs. We
have done a lot of funding so far. We have a lot of support for
small businesses. The PPP program, while it had some slow
rollouts and some hiccups that we are all aware of, has really
been a lifeline for a lot of small businesses, certainly in my
district and across the country. But I think we have lost sight
of the fact that it was designed, first and foremost, to
protect labor. There were no credit checks. It was run with the
SBA. The size of your loan was a function of your employment,
and your ability to convert that into a grant was a function of
making sure that you used it for labor. Again, not perfect, but
it has kept a bunch of people off of unemployment rolls, off of
welfare, not needing COBRA, and out of needing food assistance.
Because we could not get support across the aisle to
support State and local funding, the PPP has really protected
people who work for the private sector or certain classes,
nonprofits. And following your introductory comments, Mr.
Spriggs, we have had about 1.3 million public sector job losses
since February. Correct me if I'm wrong on the math. If we do
not get State and local aid, Mr. Spriggs, do you think that
that 1.3 million number will increase, decrease, or stabilize?
Mr. Spriggs. Thank you for the question, Congressman. If
you don't provide the direct aid, and you have heard this
directly from Mayor Anthony, we are going to continue to lose
jobs at the time we need those workers in place, both to
implement the plans, as the mayor pointed out, that cities and
local communities are trying to put in place, but also to make
sure that we have a full court press in getting people
vaccinated, because we can't do this from the air. We cannot
just do this using the internet and assume that people can log
on and make appointments. This is going to take direct action
from the local level and local governments.
Mr. Casten. Thank you. Mr. Anthony, is there anything you
would like to add to that? Personally, like we all do, I have a
neighbor who is a schoolteacher. I have friends who are cops.
They didn't get any of this protection. Anything you would like
to add or put color on [inaudible]?
Mr. Anthony. Yes, I would just add that Dr. Spriggs has
said it very clearly. If we really want our economy to come
back, it has to start at the local level, and get done quickly.
Our leaders are able to deal with, through distributions, PPE
and the vaccine distribution and education. I know that our
mayors and council members from our rural, as well as urban,
communities are ready to partner with the Federal Government to
get us back on the right track. So thank you, Congressman.
Mr. Casten. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Strain, I have been
reading a little bit of your bio, and I am a Dartmouth guy, so
I won't hold your Cornell degree against you. But if I am
following right, you went to work at the Fed in 2005, and the
Census Bureau in 2008, and you have been AEI since 2012, right?
Do I have that timeline about right?
Mr. Strain. Yes, that is about right, Congressman.
Mr. Casten. I am not going to ask you for particulars, but
have you had any raises during that period?
Mr. Strain. Have I had any raises?
Mr. Casten. Yes, has your salary gone up since the 2008
time frame?
Mr. Strain. Yes, my salary has gone up.
Mr. Casten. Mine has, as well. As you have earned more
money, did you find that you increased your spending? Do you go
out to dinner more often? Do you ever buy a nicer car, buy a
nicer house?
Mr. Strain. I did not buy a nicer car, but I have increased
my spending.
Mr. Casten. I mention that because the Federal minimum wage
has not gone up during that period. It has been locked since
2009. And as you run your economic forecasts that presume that
somehow if you raise wages to the wealthiest, they will
increase their spending and live a nicer life, but if you raise
it for the poorest, they are not going to be willing to pay
more for a sandwich [inaudible] suggested by some of your math.
Thank you. I yield back.
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much. The gentleman from
Tennessee, Mr. Rose, is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Rose. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thanks to
Ranking Member McHenry and Representative Hill for having this
committee hearing today. I am [inaudible] into the 117th
Congress. I am grateful that we are finally getting under way
with the business of the country.
Today, we are discussing the next COVID stimulus package
before the ink has even dried on the last one. As my colleagues
have cited, Republicans and Democrats have negotiated 5 COVID
relief packages totaling $3.5 trillion to address the pandemic
and the economic crisis. A significant portion of the funds
Congress has already allocated are yet to be spent by agencies,
and I believe that before providing additional relief, we must
do a thoughtful review of the programs that have been most
effective and then determine whether to place additional
targeted funds.
Our economy is recovering. The best way to stimulate
economic growth is to safely reopen businesses and schools. Our
focus now needs to be on providing timely, targeted, and
temporary funding to ensure adequate testing and vaccination
supplies get to States across the country. Finally, I would be
remiss if I didn't mention that I find this hearing to be
largely a show, as Democrats in the House, Senate, and the
White House have already moved forward on the path to pass
another COVID package that would completely cut out the voices
and input of Congressional Republicans.
Over the past few weeks, I have spoken with private, not-
for-profit colleges back home in Tennessee, and they are
distressed by President Biden's and the Democrats' stimulus
plan. The President's plan includes funding for all public
colleges and universities, but fails to acknowledge the
majority of private, nonprofit institutions that have felt the
repercussions of this pandemic just like their public
counterparts. There are more than 1,700 degree-granting
private, nonprofit colleges and universities located across the
country which collectively enroll over 5.1 million students and
provide more than 1.2 million administration, faculty, and
staff jobs to the economy. Low-income students, students
regardless of their college choice, face increased challenges
during this time as well as members of faculty and staff. While
these institutions have had access to Federal relief through
the CARES Act, we cannot cut them out of future relief.
Dr. Strain, do you believe there should be parity in the
treatment of these higher education institutions, and could you
speak to the potential negative effects of treating them
differently?
Mr. Strain. Thank you, Congressman. I think as a general
matter, pandemic-related relief should be broad-based and
should be available to businesses that meet a certain
threshold. I think it was appropriate, for example, to limit
PPP grants to businesses of a certain size class. I think it
would be inappropriate to target relief on specific industries
or the specific characteristics of businesses in those
industries.
Mr. Rose. Thank you. We have talked extensively about how
the $15-per-hour minimum wage would destroy millions of jobs,
and I think we can all agree that at a time when our national
unemployment has only just begun to recover from the economic
pain imposed by the COVID-19 lockdown last year, we should not
be jeopardizing the economic security of more than a million
American workers. Dr. Strain, can you discuss the
disproportional negative impact this one-size-fits-all approach
would have on smaller and rural communities like those in the
6th District of Tennessee?
Mr. Strain. I think it would have a significant impact,
Congressman. I think in many American States that are more
rural, you have a lot more workers who earn lower wages in the
labor market. And if you are talking about doubling the minimum
wage in those States or more than doubling it, you are talking
about a policy that is going to impact directly, one-third,
pushing up to the really middle-of-the-wage distribution
workers in that State. And that is just going to make it a lot
harder for them to find jobs.
Mr. Rose. Thank you, and I see my time has expired. Madam
Chairwoman, I yield back.
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much. The gentlewoman
from Massachusetts, Ms. Pressley, is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Pressley. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank you to
our witnesses for joining us here today. We have been living
with this pandemic and the disparities that it has laid bare
for nearly a year, and yet we have consistently fallen short of
fully delivering relief than meets the scale and scope of
people's hurt. These hearings are a critically important
reminder that our work is not done.
The stock market may have recovered, but our communities
have not. My colleague across the aisle said this feels like a
show. Well, in this show, we are centering on the American
people, and it is important that we never lose sight of the
plot, and the plot is the people. The inherent and outstanding
disparities in our public health and economic systems, coupled
with the slow and inequitable rollout of vaccination efforts
across this country, mean that our hardest-hit communities--
Black, Brown, indigenous--will continue to shoulder the burden
of the pandemic and will be the last to recover, if at all. In
fact, a CBO report projects that while the economy may rebound
in the next year, it will take until 2024 for employment to
return to pre-pandemic levels.
Mr. Spriggs, for those who look to conflate the two, can
you please explain the consequences of an economic recovery
without a labor recovery?
Mr. Spriggs. Thank you, Congresswoman. We have had this
problem in our economy for the last several recoveries where we
have the economy rebound much quicker than the labor market, so
we have to pay attention to that. When we look at things like
unemployment assistance and people projecting when they think
the economy will recover versus when the labor market will
recover, we have to have our ears open, because in September,
it isn't clear whether the labor market will recover. It is
hopeful that because of the vaccinations, our economy will be
much closer to normal operation. But workers will still find it
very difficult to reconnect, and the additional support in
their unemployment insurance will still be necessary.
So, we cannot do what we did in the past, which is have
everyone declare a victory because the stock market is up or
because the unemployment rate nationally is 5 percent or 4\1/2\
percent.
Ms. Pressley. Thank you.
Mr. Spriggs. That is not cause for celebration.
Ms. Pressley. Thank you. And we know that women of color
accounted for all jobs reported lost in December. So what does
a slow labor recovery mean for them specifically?
Mr. Spriggs. This is why we need to act now, because when
you are unemployed for more than 6 months, it becomes
increasingly difficult for you to find a job. If people become
homeless, then it becomes impossible, and so we can't let this
story take place. We need to get the labor market back as
quickly as we can to have a robust labor market, which is why
we must raise the minimum wage, because it is specifically
Black women who would be left behind if we continue on the path
we are on now. While most Americans are on their way to a $15
minimum wage, it is disproportionately Black women who are not,
and we need robust wage growth so that we can have sustained
growth, and so that these kinds of recovery efforts won't be as
expensive to the government and our economy won't be as
fragile.
Ms. Pressley. Thank you. And so to that end, since Black
women are disproportionately bearing the brunt of this hurt,
and that certainly is true when it comes to housing, there is
an ACLU analysis of national eviction data. Black women were
filed against for eviction at double the rate of White renters,
and were more likely to be denied housing because of it. In my
district, the Massachusetts 7th, the report found that during
the first month of the pandemic, 78 percent of all evictions in
Boston were filed in communities of color.
So that is why I am partnering with Representatives Tlaib,
Ocasio-Cortez, and Neguse to introduce the Emergency
Homelessness Assistance Act, to provide nearly $5 billion
dollars in additional funding to support those experiencing
homelessness. It is responsive to the needs of community and
the hurt that people are experiencing. This funding includes
support for additional vouchers and the acquisition and
development of non-congregate shelters. Mr. Anthony, many
cities have looked to purchase and convert hotels and motels
into shelter spaces. Why is it critical to give cities and
local providers the flexibility to make these long-term
investments?
Mr. Anthony. Thank you, Congresswoman, for that question.
And you know very well, being a former city council member in
Boston, the challenges that local governments are facing. We
need that flexibility. We need the resources first and the
flexibility to create solutions that will address our local
needs specifically to the cities, and we thank you for your
support on that.
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you. The gentlewoman's time has
expired. The gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Steil, is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Steil. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I appreciate your
recalling us back in here a month into Congress. Some of our
colleagues here are in a big hurry to spend more taxpayer
dollars and enact a liberal wish list. And just a few months
ago, we were sitting here in this committee, and committee
Democrats on this committee referred to that liberal spending
wish list as Washington gamesmanship, party politics. One
member described it as a waste of time, but here we are.
This is not what Wisconsin wants. It is not what the
country wants. People in Wisconsin, people across the country,
we want to get back to work. We want our way of life back. We
want to get back to work. Let's talk about where we are today.
Congress and President Trump have already provided $4 trillion
in coronavirus relief, including $915 billion that was
authorized less than 6 weeks ago, and I know, that is what Joe
Biden calls a down payment. But by the latest estimates, almost
a trillion dollars of that has been allocated has not yet been
spent.
And so, let's conceptualize what this means. We have
already provided $12,000 for every single person in the United
States. That is $48,000 for a family of four. You can buy a new
Cadillac car with that kind of money. And about a third of it--
and this is what is important--nearly $4,000 per person, hasn't
even been spent. And now my colleagues want to move forward and
spend another $1.9 trillion, rammed through on a party-line
vote. That is another $5,700 per person.
And a big portion of these funds would be earmarked for
projects like bailing out States, States like Illinois, that
have been fiscally irresponsible for years. The Illinois
Pension Fund system is absolutely out of control. Meanwhile, in
my home State of Wisconsin, as in many other States, tax
collections turned out to be better than expected. The
Wisconsin Department of Administration just a few days ago
reported that, ``Our State's fiscal condition has remained
remarkably resilient,'' pointing out the continued tax revenue
growth in States like Illinois. Why should Wisconsin have to
bail out States like Illinois? They should not.
But wait, there is more. My colleagues also want to use
this package to push through a whole host of job-killing
measures. Killing the Keystone Pipeline and private sector
infrastructure is not enough. And I appreciate, Dr. Strain, you
discussing some of these policy proposals today. We are living
in a time when far too many small businesses have shut their
doors and workers are out of work. Sixty-one percent of adults
in the United States are currently in the labor force. We
haven't seen labor force rates at this level consistently since
the Carter Administration. If we want to get people back to
work, now is not the time for job-killing ideas.
It is time to slow down the spending spree, and focus,
focus, focus. Focus on what is important. Focus on getting
vaccines to everyone who wants one. Focus on getting kids back
in the classroom. Focus on reopening the economy safely and
responsibly. And the spending spree that we are discussing here
today does not do that. I yield back.
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much. The gentleman from
Massachusetts, Mr. Lynch, is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and I want to thank
the witnesses as well for your attendance and your testimony.
Mr. Spriggs and Mr. Anthony, in my area, we have, and I
think in most cities around the country, we have a real mix of
small landlords, and then we have some major housing developers
as well. Frankly, I have been surprised at the willingness of a
lot of landlords, big and small, to exercise forbearance with
their tenants. That is just what I am seeing in my community.
Some of my big landlords have come out ahead of Congress, ahead
of the CDC to say, you know what? We are not going to evict
anyone. We are going to work with you. And yet, at the same
time, those big landlords now are saying, look, we have a large
number of workers, electricians, plumbers, laborers, carpenters
that they have kept on the payroll to make sure that the
quality of life in those big developments is maintained. And,
again, I have smaller landlords who are really, because they
only have one or two rental units, really hard-pressed.
Mr. Spriggs and Mr. Anthony, could you talk about what you
are seeing and what you are hearing from your positions and
what you might recommend in terms of providing relief to those
small landlords, and also the larger responsible landlords that
have been trying to do the right thing?
Mr. Spriggs. Yes. I will go first, Congressman, and thank
you for the question. This is why rent assistance is necessary.
It is the best way to help out the landlords, and it is, in
many ways, the first way to help out the landlords. If quite
small landlords are in the awkward position of having to demand
arrears all at once, it is going to be a very difficult
situation. You mentioned it is uncomfortable for many small
landlords. That is why I think the most proven and effective
way to do it is through rental assistance.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you. Mr. Anthony?
Mr. Anthony. Yes, I will just quickly add that--thanks,
Congressman--we are looking at a $7 billion backlog of landlord
rent on properties that they own, and I think that we need to
have some assistance there. And local governments are coming up
with programs, rental assistance programs, to stop those
evictions. And the real impact is not happening to the wealthy.
You are finding a lot of us who are blessed, are moving to
rural communities and buying new properties. But those who are
poor can't leave, and they are stuck with the bill of owning
these properties and having to pay full rent.
Mr. Lynch. Ms. Murguia, would you like to add anything to
that, please?
Ms. Murguia. I would. Thank you, Congressman. I think just
building on the previous comments, we are finding, certainly
within our communities of color, Black and Hispanic landlords
are actually more likely to work with tenants to keep them in
their homes, but, yes, they are facing great financial
struggles, too, because of the pandemic. And we do find that
these smaller landlords, especially those paying off a
mortgage, face some of those challenges that we are hearing
about, small businesses and cash-strapped small businesses,
with not enough money in their pockets at the end of the day.
And so, that is why we think this is another opportunity
for the Federal Government to partner with community-based
lenders, including community development financial institutions
(CDFIs), to perhaps deploy short-term aid or low-interest
financing to help struggling landlords with assets and who are
being solvent through this pandemic. Of course, it is nothing
more than just making sure we are able to get direct assistance
and funding into the hands of those renters, and we do know
that our Latino renters, in particular, use any payments that
they are getting to pay for basic needs, like rent. So, I
appreciate your question and the comments of my colleagues.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you. And, Madam Chairwoman, I just want to
thank you. I know you have been focused on this issue like a
laser. I do want to say to some of my Republican colleagues,
you know I love you, but I can tell by the way you talk about
this, that you have never stood in an unemployment line. And I
have, being an ironworker for 20 years, and you are constantly
working yourself out of a job. I think you might have a
different perspective if you had actually stood in an
unemployment line. The fact that you got a check for $1,000, 5
months ago, really doesn't amount to much. So with that, I
yield back. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you so very much. The gentleman
from South Carolina, Mr. Timmons, is now recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Timmons. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. The only thing
that is going to solve the problem we are currently in is to
reopen the economy as quickly and safely as possible. It seems
today we are talking about three different buckets of spending.
One is the easier-to-reopen bucket, and that is the bucket that
I believe that we should be focusing most of our time and
effort on. The second bucket is the easier-to-stay-closed
bucket, and while that bucket was appropriate in March of last
year when we had our 15 days to slow the spread, 300-plus days
later it is no longer the best use of our resources, and we
should not throw money into that bucket. And then the last
bucket, and I don't even really know what to call it--I guess
you could call it the progressive wish list, policies that have
no chance of becoming law outside of a global pandemic. You can
call it the let-no-crisis-go-to-waste bucket.
And let's start there. I have heard it proposed that we are
going to cancel $1.7 trillion in student loan debt. That has
nothing to with COVID. There is also granting amnesty to 20
million illegal immigrants. I want to fix immigration. I think
that is something that we should do this Congress, but the idea
that we would do it through budget reconciliation is just
irresponsible. It is not going to happen, and that is really
not part of COVID relief conversations, that are very
important, when we should be spending our time talking about
politics that will actually help.
A $15 minimum wage? I can tell you what that will do to my
business in Greenville, South Carolina, and the other small
businesses in Greenville and Spartanburg, South Carolina. That
makes a lot of sense in New York City and Chicago, but it will
severely impede our ability to not only successfully overcome
COVID, but to even survive as a small business in my district.
So, a $15 minimum wage just doesn't make sense all across the
country. Now, again, that is not a conversation that I'm
unopposed to having, but one-size-does-not-fit-all.
The second bucket--let's go back--the easier-to-stay-closed
bucket. You have State and local bailouts. Any money spent with
State and local governments should be focused on reopening the
economy safely and quickly. Bailing out unfunded pension
liabilities and poor fiscal policy for the last decade is just
not an appropriate use of Federal tax dollars for COVID relief.
Then, you have stimulus checks for people who make six figures
or more, who have had no income disruption. That is not
appropriate. And unemployment benefits that disincentivize
returning to work also not helpful.
We need to spend all of our time and resources on the first
bucket. How do we make it easier to reopen? Vaccines are
clearly the number one issue there. Anyone who wants a shot
should be able to get it as quickly as possible. That will
allow all of our economy to reopen, and we can get past the
pandemic. Schools are another very important way. Even if we
reopen the economy, if our schools are not reopened, parents
are not going to be able to go to work because they have to
keep the kids at home. We need to give the schools the
resources necessary to reopen. That is additional PPE. That is
additional testing. Whatever the schools need to reopen, that
is what we need to be spending our time and resources on.
Last, but certainly not least, we need to address
businesses that have been disproportionately affected by COVID,
and that is tourism, hotels, and restaurants. We have done
that. We have already spent $3.5 trillion. We can have
conversations about more, depending on how long it takes for
the vaccine to be fully distributed. But we just need to spend
all of our time on how we are going to make it easier to reopen
the economy. We are going to have $30 trillion of debt within
the next year or two, but probably in the next month or two, if
this passes.
The global community is not going to let us borrow $40-,
$50-, or $60 trillion. The only reason we are getting away with
it right now is because the dollar is the global currency and
we are able to spend beyond our means, but the global community
will find alternative currency eventually. And if our debt is
called, if we lose the global currency, our entire economy is
going to fall apart. So, again, we must reopen as safely and as
quickly as possible, and that is where we should be spending
our time and resources. With that, Madam Chairwoman, I yield
back.
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much. The gentlewoman
from Michigan, Ms. Tlaib, is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Tlaib. Thank you so much, Madam Chairwoman. Look, I
think the biggest job killer right now in our country and
around the world is COVID, so let's just be very clear. That is
the job killer in our country, and that is what we need to
truly address right now, to pretend that it doesn't even exist,
to talk about these different kinds of economies that are not
connected to the fact that we need to protect our public
health.
Madam Chairwoman, I don't know if you realize this, but the
United States is on a course of losing about 500,000 people.
That is half a million lives lost because of the incompetence
of this past Administration. Just in my home State of Michigan,
we have lost nearly 16,000 of our neighbors. For comparison, in
the entirety of Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, and Japan
combined, there has been less than 7,000 deaths. Think about
that for one moment.
It did not have to be this way. The stock market might have
bounced back, but everyday Americans--our neighbors, our
communities, like my residents--are suffering. The measure of
our nation's greatness should not be the gains of Wall Street.
It should be in how our most vulnerable are taken care of.
Since the beginning of the pandemic last March, we have senta
$1,200 check and another $600 check, a total of $1,800 to our
neighbors. That is an average of $163 per month. That is
absolutely shameful. It is the reason why our food bank lines
are growing longer in my district, and people are falling
behind on their rent and losing their homes.
I have been calling for a $2,000 recurring monthly direct
payment since the start of the pandemic. And Mr. Spriggs, I
want to know, if we fail to provide sufficient economic support
for the most vulnerable among us in the coming months, what
will be the impact on our economy and, by extension, on
everyday people?
Mr. Spriggs. Thank you, Congresswoman. We are in the
situation we are in because of our high level of inequality.
The size of these packages is an indication of what it takes to
actually fill the gap because people at the bottom of our
income distribution don't have enough money. We scar them and
scar our economy. It will be harder to reconnect them. When we
have the virus under control and employers go to meet with
these workers, it will be harder to find them because they will
have lost their homes. They will have lost contact with the
labor market. We have to keep households engaged and as intact
as possible so that when the economy does recover, people are
spending their money on growth and not on paying back debts.
So the importance here is keeping this growing from not
just the physical, not just the mental, not just the spiritual,
but you don't want economic disparity.
Ms. Tlaib. Absolutely. The vaccine can't fix the problem of
our savings accounts, right? It can probably keep us healthy,
but, again, how does that extend to the fact that this economic
downfall that is happening is going to be something that is
going to be hard to address if we don't do something now?
I represent the third-poorest congressional district. The
majority of my neighbors were living paycheck to paycheck prior
to this pandemic, so just imagine now this layer of issues. I
also want to push back against the deficit hawks and
Republicans who worry more about the budget than getting
Americans money so that they can keep food on their table and a
roof over their head. They had no issue with granting
corporations and the wealthiest of Americans hundreds of
billions of dollars' worth of tax cuts, yet they speak out now
when we need to help everyday Americans, when this is their
money that they are asking for, and they are saying, this is
the time for the government to be about people and to help
them.
So, Dr. Spriggs, do you agree that those billions of
dollars of lost tax revenue could have funded greater financial
relief to our Americans right now?
Mr. Strain. We saw many corporations didn't have the
liquidity they should have had because after we gave the
corporations the tax cut, they found themselves fragile going
into this pandemic. They required government assistance as
well. So those tax cuts didn't build up the reservoir that we
were told would be there to make those corporations much more
resilient. If those corporations with their billions weren't
more resilient, then what does it say of these households
living paycheck to paycheck?
Ms. Tlaib. Thank you. I know my time is up. I apologize.
Thank you so much.
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you. The gentleman from Texas, Mr.
Taylor, is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I appreciate being
in this hearing. Mr. Anthony, I want to talk to you a little
bit about municipal finance running local governments. I am
very blessed to represent Collin County, Texas, and we have
some very successful cities, and our County is very well-run.
We have some of the safest streets, and some of the best
schools. I think it is a testament to the people in our
community who consistently elect competent leaders who then, in
turn, run fiscally conservative cities, counties, and school
districts. And as such, not only are our taxes low, but we keep
decent reserves in our local governments. And so when COVID-19
came, we watched a modest drop in municipal revenues, and the
CARES dollars that went to the Collin County government
actually, which is Collin County has about a million, so it got
us a direct CARES dollar contribution. That money was then
distributed to the cities, and the cities actually went ahead
and distributed that to the citizens.
I have heard a lot of talk here today about rental
assistance. Rental assistance actually came from the cities to
the citizens, so there was no need for Federal assistance,
because the cities and the counties could actually go ahead.
They were in good fiscal shape, well-run physically. They could
actually go ahead and help their citizens. And I remember
visiting the Allen Area Food Bank, which is a food pantry in
Allen, Texas, and they had gotten a $10 million grant from
Collin County. The county government gives them $10 million to
help feed people, but that was possible because the county was
well-run. It had the resources. It had gas in the tank.
And so as we talk about more CARES dollars going to cities,
what I am kind of concerned about is that my cities and my
county have been well-run, and I am worried that you are
talking about taking money from my voters and giving it to
other places that were not well-run, because those are the ones
where taxes were high, and so they are more likely to have
revenues drop off very quickly, and where they didn't have
money in the bank and they were unable to handle the problem in
front of them. So, how should we think about this to be sure
that we are fair to people who did a good job, who had money in
the bank, who were well-run, Mr. Anthony? How should we think
about this problem?
Mr. Anthony. Yes, thank you, Congressman Taylor, for that
question. I think I will start from a place of assumption that
municipal leaders are responsible, that they, in fact, have to
balance their budget based upon the tax base that they have.
And perhaps in your county, region, it is very diverse, and
perhaps the wealth of that county may be a little different
than some other counties and cities. So my assumption is that,
again, local governments do manage their budgets.
The other thing I will say is that your description of how
the CARES Act dollars came into the State, into the county, and
then, in fact, were shared with the city is a story that we
want to happen all over America, but it has not happened that
way all over America. And the fact that your county was able to
get the CARES Act dollars and then provide them to the
nonprofits is the way we want it to happen. The thing that we
want to stop is having to argue with counties and States to get
the money. We think that your mayors in your county, in your
district, should get direct dollars. So, I commend your county
leaders and say that all of our leaders attempt to be good
stewards of dollars.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you. I appreciate that. Obviously, I feel
very fortunate.
Mr. Anthony. Yes.
Mr. Taylor. And I am very proud of the leaders in my
community, and it is a team effort to build Collin County into
a really, really terrific county, and it has been humbling, to
say the least, to watch the struggles. And they are very real,
very personal struggles that individuals in my county have
confronted, like the single working mom who just lost her job
and is trying to find toilet paper, and getting that phone
call. It is very hard, very humbling calls that we have had as
leaders, but I am proud of what we have been able to do to step
up, and I appreciate your thoughts on this subject. And I yield
back.
Mr. Anthony. And I am proud of you as well.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you.
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you. The gentlewoman from North
Carolina, Ms. Adams, is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Adams. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Thank you for
convening this hearing today. And to our witnesses, I want to
thank you as well for sharing your perspectives. Mr. Anthony,
let me take a moment to ask you some questions about housing
insecurity, which has been worsened by this pandemic. According
to the Census household post-survey, we know that of an
estimated of 15.1 million adults living in rental housing, 1 in
5 adult renters are not caught up on their rent, according to
the data collected in January. But let me just skip over and
talk about a little problem that is going on in my district.
In Charlotte-Mecklenburg, we are seeing the impacts of the
pandemic-fueled housing insecurity. In fact, it has played out
before our very eyes. We have a large and growing homelessness
situation. Our community calls that largest settlement the Tent
City. Tragically, each and every day, more and more tents join
that community. These people are actually living on the street,
because the pandemic does not allow the social distancing in
these centers. They have needs that vary from basic healthcare,
to mental health services, job training, hunger, clothing, et
cetera. So in addition to the recent $25 billion in emergency
rental assistance, what more should Congress do to provide the
funding solutions and support to our cities and counties in
addressing the ever-growing homeless problem, and does the
pandemic give us an opportunity to tap into new and innovative
solutions?
Mr. Anthony. Thank you, Congresswoman Adams. I know your
mayor, Mayor Vi Lyles, and I have worked with the county as
well to address the issues and questions about housing
instability. And we all know that having a roof over your head
is one of the things that creates a feeling of safety, a
quality of health, and wealth. And what we are seeing and
hoping is that there could be dollars in the rental assistance
and housing stability programs to help residents to get a roof
over their head and to get some security. So what we would want
is some dollars, again, going directly to those counties and
cities, who can actually create programs and partnerships with
neighborhood associations.
Ms. Adams. Thank you for that, for your comments. Mr.
Johnson, when Congress created the Paycheck Protection Program
in the CARES Act, we found through various studies,
particularly by the Brookings Institution, that businesses in
majority Black neighborhoods received PPP loans less
frequently, they waited longer for their loans, and they were
more likely to apply through fintechs or online lending
platforms, which frequently carry less favorable interest
terms. So, how can we ensure that minority communities have
adequate and equitable access to programs like PPP, and that
they are not victims of disparate treatment by financial
institutions in carrying out these programs?
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Congresswoman. First, with the
current consideration, there is a requirement for small
business owners, if they want to go in for a second PPP, they
have to demonstrate that they had a loss of up upwards of 25
percent in one quarter of last year. For many small businesses,
particularly for African-American businesses, if they had a 25
percent loss last year, they are no longer in business, so that
should be addressed in this upcoming bill.
Second, you have to ensure that the lending institutions
that are closer to those businesses have access and preference
for those small businesses, whether it is CDFIs, local credit
unions, and others, that are closer to the ground, and
particularly Black banks, because many of those institutions
are the lenders for African-American small businesses.
Ms. Adams. Thank you for that. I just want to add one
thing. As I talk to some of the banks and some of the
individuals who were trying to get these loans, many of the
banks are just now providing information to their customers,
and some of these are small businesses that were unbanked and
so forth. So that continues, I guess, to be a problem.
Hopefully, we can figure that out, but thank you very much.
Madam Chairwoman, I yield back.
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much. The gentleman from
New York, Mr. Zeldin, is recognized for 5 minutes. And I am
going to turn the gavel over to Mr. Perlmutter, as I must leave
to attend to other business at this point. Thank you all very
much.
Mr. Zeldin. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Thank you to the
witnesses for being here today. Thank you to Ranking Member
McHenry as well. I represent the 1st Congressional District of
New York, which is located on the east end of Long Island in
Suffolk County. Long Island was hit very hard by COVID-19 from
the earliest stages of the outbreak here in our country, and
the local governments in my district all stepped up to the
plate in a very big way to provide critical services when my
constituents needed it most. In light of historic shortfalls
caused by this ongoing outbreak, our local governments have
been struggling to recover fiscally. Additional relief from
Congress is likely coming, but it cannot be an across-the-board
free-for-all. Additionally, the State and local government
relief being discussed should not be a bailout of budgeting
failures unrelated to the pandemic.
Democratic leadership has decided to try to push forward a
$1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief package through the budget
reconciliation process, ignoring that the Federal Government
just passed another massive coronavirus recovery bill just a
few weeks ago. Our country cannot afford a partisan approach to
COVID-19 relief, like the Democrat-flawed HEROES Act from last
Congress. We must target our relief to where it can pack the
greatest punch. Congress provided support for State and local
governments in the CARES Act, but limited it to support for
local governments with more than 500,000 in population.
I did not agree with that population limit, which is why I
have worked across the aisle with my New York colleague,
Congressman Antonio Delgado, to reintroduce H.R. 199, the
Direct Support for Communities Act. This would drive support to
the most local levels of our counties, towns, cities, and
villages without that population threshold, and driving it to
those who desperately need the assistance.
Dr. Strain, in a recent AEI blog posted on January 26th,
you stated, ``The best thing that Biden is proposing is the
Federal grants to State and local governments, which are
providers of essential services and major employers. The
decrease in tax revenue caused by the pandemic left these
governments with no choice but to lay off workers, especially
since Congress failed to provide funding for States and
localities in the previous relief packages.'' It is clear that
the fiscal solvency of all levels of government is important
for economic recovery. Can you elaborate on the importance of
the health of all levels of government as we talk about the
health and growth of the overall U.S. economy?
Mr. Strain. Yes, Congressman. Thank you for the question.
Right now, State and local unemployment levels are about 1.4
million below where they were prior to the pandemic, so there
are about 1.4 million fewer jobs in State and local governments
than there were in February of 2020. That includes about
600,000 fewer education sector workers. And so, if we want the
overall economy to recover, if we want the national labor
market to heal, and if we want there to be enough personnel in
schools for schools to reopen, I think it really is critical
that Congress replace the pandemic-related revenue losses that
have been experienced by States and localities, if for no other
reason than to support the national economic recovery.
Mr. Zeldin. Yes. I am a member who supports additional
funding for State and local governments, but I would not want
it to be a one-size-fits-all approach. I would not want us to
be inefficient with it. I believe that it is important, as
stewards of tax dollars, to ensure that it is not just going to
State governments or the largest cities, but it is going to
some of the local governments that have been on the front lines
of responding to this pandemic. I had towns that had balanced
budgets. They had AAA bond ratings. They were doing a really
good job with their finances, and then they got hit hard by
this pandemic.
In New York State, we have unique issues where the State
had a deficit before we got hit, and it was exacerbated. New
York City has financial issues, correct, but it got exacerbated
by this pandemic. Plus, it is also important that our nation's
largest mass transit system, the MTA, as well as the Port
Authority and some of these others are being heard and that we
are being responsive, but have to be smart in how we do it.
That is extremely important, and that is our responsibility,
working together on both sides of the aisle. I yield back.
Mr. Perlmutter. [presiding]. The gentleman yields back.
Another gentleman from New York, Mr. Torres, is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. Torres. Thank you. We often speak of a single American
economy, but in truth, there is no single economy in America.
The economic reality for Americans varies widely depending on
your ZIP Code, and often depending on the color of your skin.
Take, as an example, New York City. In the South Bronx and West
Farms, the unemployment rate is 25 percent, which is
Depression-level unemployment. Right across the river in the
Upper East Side, the unemployment rate is 5 percent. New York
City, much like America itself, is a tale of two economies. And
so my first question is, what are your thoughts on how to best
confront the crisis of Depression-level unemployment in
communities of color in places like the South Bronx? And I will
start with Mr. Spriggs.
Mr. Spriggs. Thank you for the question, Congressman. It is
to recognize these disparities. When you hear folks say that,
oh, if you add more money to unemployment benefits, then this
would discourage work. It doesn't discourage those workers who
live in the South Bronx. They are living in absolute fear
because they don't know when they will get their next job.
Their data are clear. They will suffer long-term unemployment.
They may well run out of unemployment benefits. So if you
design unemployment and ignore these realities, if you ignore
the reality that those workers have no savings, they truly live
paycheck to paycheck, and missing one paycheck means they are
in debt, this $600, $400, whatever we add to the unemployment
check, is vital for them.
So it is important that we not model on who is not
unemployed, and understand in this downturn specifically, it is
a clear set of workers who are unemployed, who have severe
challenges. And we can't legislate based on somebody's notion
of what those workers look like. When we added the extra money
to the unemployment check, everybody howled that workers
wouldn't return to work. The evidence was absolutely clear.
Workers returned to work. That was not a discouragement for
people to get back to work, because real people who live in
those communities know you need a job. An unemployment check is
not a job, and in the face of this downturn, it is not a
discouragement for them.
Mr. Torres. I have a question about State and local aid.
State and local governments, largely through no fault of their
own, have seen a catastrophic loss of revenue caused by an
economic crisis the likes of which we have not seen in a
century. New York City has a $4 billion deficit over the next
year. New York State has a cumulative deficit of $60 billion
dollars over the next 4 years. State and local aid matters not
only to State and local governments; it matters to the larger
ecosystem of community-based organizations that depend on the
stability of local and State government. These are community-
based organizations that often heavily employ people of color,
and heavily serve communities of color.
One example that comes to mind in my district is Acacia
Network, which employs thousands of people. More than 85
percent of its essential workforce are people of color who
depend heavily on local and State aid. So when it comes to
local and State aid, can you share with the committee your
thoughts on what is at stake for communities of color and the
ecosystem that heavily serves and employs them? And this
question is for Mr. Anthony, Mr. Johnson, and Ms. Murguia.
Ms. Murguia. I would be happy to take the first stab at
that. Thank you, Congressman. It is a great question. We have
been talking about how there is an ecosystem at the State and
local level, particularly at the local level, and, yes, it is
State and local governments. But it is these community-based
nonprofits that are the lifeline, the safety nets, for so many
in our communities. These affiliate clients are low income,
mostly now ravaged by the hospitality industry layoffs. They
are the essential workers that we are trying to make sure we
can get assistance to.
But when you see funding cuts for these nonprofits, you see
their safety nets shut down. These affiliates are there to
provide much-needed resources, oftentimes setting up food
pantries and direct assistance, and information. And these are
trusted partners in those communities, so getting that
information, whether it is about vaccines, or economic
assistance, or, again, food, they are a lifeline. They are a
safety net, and we need to make sure that we are supporting
State and local governments, but also, and in addition to,
these community-based organizations. I'm proud of Acacia, which
is a UnidosUS affiliate as well. Thank you.
Mr. Anthony. Congressman, I will add on behalf of cities
all over America, that we know that if there is stress on local
government in the ability to provide support for the nonprofit
community, we know that the communities of color will suffer
first.
Mr. Perlmutter. And, Mr. Anthony, I don't mean to cut you
off, but the gentleman's time has expired, and it has been a
very long hearing for all of the witnesses, that is for sure.
So, Mr. Torres, thank you for your questions. I am going to
recognize Ms. Williams from Georgia for 5 minutes.
Ms. Williams of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
convening this hearing on the critical need for additional
funding to assist our families and communities that have been
impacted by COVID-19. Our constituents are suffering, and are
in desperate need of assistance from the Federal Government. My
colleagues across the aisle keep expressing their outrage at
the fact that we are spending necessary dollars to help
families impacted by a deadly pandemic, but were silent on the
$1.9 trillion tax scam that benefited the wealthiest in the
country.
My question is for you, Dr. Spriggs. In your testimony, you
stated that there is a misguided belief that simply reopening
businesses will solve the current unemployment crisis. What
will it take to actually help the economy recover and ensure
that long-term unemployment is resolved?
Mr. Spriggs. Thank you, Congresswoman. The data is clear
because we have a huge variation in levels of shutdown, what
has been shut down, and it is clear from the economic evidence
that it is not these orders. It is the disease. People are
responding to the risk, and they aren't going out because of
the risk, and it is hurting the businesses because of that. So
the real issue is, can we solve the disease? Can we get it
under control? Can we throw everything at it that we possibly
can? Simply reopening is not going to get people on airplanes.
It is not going to get them into a theater. It is not going get
them to a live music venue. It is not going to get them flying
to Disney.
Ms. Williams of Georgia. Thank you, Dr. Spriggs. Like my
colleagues, I also want to have people get back to work, and I
want our economy to recover and work for the people. So, Dr.
Spriggs, could you tell us, in your opinion, what happens if we
reopen too soon or have a patchwork of States reopening and do
not have a coordinated reopening?
Mr. Spriggs. My fear is that too often, that will be
accompanied by lowering our barriers on the safety issues, and
we would reignite the disease. We were warned of that going
into this fall. People ignored it, and now we have the disease
on a path we are so uncertain of. We are hopeful that it has
peaked, but it has peaked now with variants that are even more
dangerous, so we can't take our eye off the ball. We must
concentrate on safety first.
Ms. Williams of Georgia. As we have heard, communities are
still being ravaged by the pandemic. Millions of workers are
struggling to find work, and countless families are facing a
looming eviction crisis. There is currently an eviction
moratorium in place by the CDC halting evictions through March
31st. However, we know that several States, including my home
State of Georgia, have been continuing with the eviction
proceedings for months. Mr. Anthony, as we work to pass the
necessary proposals in President Biden's rescue plan to assist
families, how can we ensure that CDC eviction moratoriums are
being enforced?
Mr. Anthony. Congresswoman Williams, thank you for that
question. I think what we need to do is to have our local
leaders, our mayors and our council members work with the local
legal center to make sure that the rights of those people are
not taken for granted. And I think that local leaders are
committed to that by the programs that they have created, and
the mayors, again, in your region are models for that. Atlanta
and other mayors are doing an amazing job in trying to make
sure that evictions do not occur without some place for people
to live.
Ms. Williams of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Anthony. As we work
towards slowing the spread of COVID-19 and ensuring that the
majority of the country is vaccinated, we must continue to
provide emergency funding to help families and communities
recover. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back the balance
of my time.
Mr. Perlmutter. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back her
time. The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Garcia, is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and all of
the witnesses, and I want to thank Chairwoman Waters and the
ranking member for holding this hearing. This Congress has to
deliver more relief, and we have to do it fast. And I applaud
our witnesses for joining us today to talk about how our
communities across the country are experiencing this pandemic.
I would like to ask Ms. Murguia a question regarding
housing. I thank you for joining us today. As you know, I
represent a working-class Latino district, and communities like
mine have been hit especially hard. Essential workers in my
neighborhood worry about getting their family sick when they
come home from work. Especially in times like this when money
is tight, intergenerational living puts entire families at
risk. And a report came out last month saying that one-quarter
of Latinos in Illinois think they will miss their rent payment.
Families are worried about losing their homes. Can you talk a
little bit about why it is so important to keep families in
their homes, and tools like rental assistance and counseling
that can help do that?
Ms. Murguia. Yes. Thank you, Congressman. Thanks for your
leadership on so many issues, but particularly this one. I know
we have worked on the impact of systemic inequalities and how
that has impacted communities of color in terms of our Latino
community, and we are seeing that in healthcare, but of course
now economically through the pandemic, and in housing in
particular, and it has been devastating. Our Latino workers are
the essential workers, and they are being crushed right now by
this pandemic.
And I would just say it is absolutely essential for us to
up the housing counseling assistance funding right now. The
Housing Counseling Program gives that early intervention that
really does empower renters and homeowners to stay in their
homes, and this support is also accessible to mixed-status
families who have been cruelly left out of Federal assistance.
So we do know that there is a high success rate as well. In
terms of when families and individuals are able to get that
counseling, it is 3 times more likely to allow them to stay in
their homes. So we do understand that that helps us prevent
homelessness and eviction by helping these renters locate
secure and retain affordable rental housing or stay in their
homes.
So, housing counseling improves outcomes, and that helps
create stability for these families, and in our economy, so it
is very important. And what we have found, and as you know, in
Illinois, Unidos affiliates, like the Resurrection Project,
have the trust of communities. They have the cultural
competency and are able to provide the linguistic support to be
able to effectively connect with these families. That is going
to be true for housing. It is also going to be true for
vaccines, which we know have to be more equitable in terms of
their distribution, and to gain the confidence for our
community to do that.
So, across-the-board, we know that this nonprofit network,
the community-based networks, become key. UnidosUS has the
largest Latino housing counseling network in the country, and
it has proven to be very effective, but we need to grow that
footprint and its impact with more funding. Thank you,
Congressman, for your leadership.
Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Thank you, Ms. Murguia, and as a
former housing counselor, I couldn't agree with you more. On
the special drawing rights, I would like to ask Dr. Spriggs,
whether it is the virus or the economy? We talk a lot about how
we are all in this together, but if we don't keep people safe,
we will keep spreading the virus, and if we don't get money
into people's pockets, we won't see economic growth.
But that is true on a global scale, too. Like many others
in my neighborhood, I moved to this country from Mexico. It
matters to me and my community that Mexico is able to fight the
virus effectively, and, of course, it matters to us here in the
U.S., and that the global economy recovers. The AFL-CIO is a
major proponent of the International Monetary Fund (IMF)
issuing special drawing rights. Could you talk a little bit
about what those are and why a large issuance is so important?
You have about 33 seconds.
Mr. Spriggs. Thank you so much for the question and for
your leadership on banking issues. Yes, it is vital that
governments not face fiscal constraints when it comes to them
responding on the global scale, and that is why we want these
special drawing rights. It is not a time right now for finger
pointing and arguing about which countries we think were
profligate or anything like that. It is time to let them be
unfettered in responding, and we don't want them to go into
early austerity. You don't want them to start cutting their
budgets and cutting their services because that will hurt the
rate of recovery for the global economy. And they are all going
to turn to wanting to export to the United States as their
number-one answer if we force them into austerity.
Mr. Perlmutter. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Spriggs. The
gentleman's time has expired, and now we will recognize Mr.
Auchincloss from Massachusetts for 5 minutes.
Mr. Auchincloss. Thank you, and thank you all for being
here. Our nation's response to this pandemic has revealed
significant gaps in our domestic ability to rapidly deploy key
medical equipment and supplies in the face of ever-changing
requirements. The Biden Administration has taken action since
day one to accelerate vaccine deployment, in part by invoking
the Defense Production Act (DPA), but the reality is that it
will be a while before we have the supply to meet the need. In
Massachusetts, we have the personnel and equipment needed to
distribute vaccines. We just don't have the vaccines themselves
in sufficient supply.
My question is for Mr. Anthony. We know that the Defense
Production Act could be invoked to provide PPE, like N95 masks,
gloves, and gowns. These are in short supply, and we must ramp
up their production for States and local governments. As we
begin to implement our mass vaccination campaign, it appears
that the supply of the vaccine components will be the limiting
factor. How can the DPA be used to address this bottleneck for
States and local governments? How can we use the DPA to
actually expand the supply of vaccinations themselves?
Mr. Anthony. I think that one of the things that most
citizens have an assumption on, Congressman, is that most
cities have access to the distribution and supply of vaccines,
and, in fact, probably 90 percent of cities do not. It is a
State- and county-level process. What we are hoping is that you
will partner with those cities, those neighborhoods, those
churches, and those places in the community so that we can get
the vaccine in the arms of people very quickly, especially
people of color.
In my State of Florida, where I grew up, they are, in fact,
using one of the high-class, I would say, grocery store chains
to get access, and it is not working because those citizens
don't have access. So, local government is the answer.
Mr. Auchincloss. Thank you, Mr. Anthony. I will yield back
my time.
Mr. Perlmutter. The gentleman yields back. Thank you, Mr.
Auchincloss, and I don't think we have any more Members. To our
panelists who have shown incredible stamina, thank you all very
much. I would like to thank you all for your testimony today.
The Chair notes that some Members may have additional
questions for this panel, which they may wish to submit in
writing. Without objection, the hearing record will remain open
for 5 legislative days for Members to submit written questions
to these witnesses and to place their responses in the record.
Also, without objection, Members will have 5 legislative days
to submit extraneous materials to the Chair for inclusion in
the record.
Again, thank you all very much for your diligence, your
stamina, and your testimony today. And with that, this hearing
is adjourned.
Mr. Anthony. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Perlmutter. Everybody have a good day.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you. Have a nice day.
Mr. Perlmutter. You, as well.
Ms. Murguia. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 2:19 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
February 4, 2021
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]