“Examining the Growth of the Welfare State, Part I”

1[House Hearing, 119 Congress]2[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]34                        EXAMINING THE GROWTH OF5                       THE WELFARE STATE, PART I67=======================================================================189                                HEARING1011                               BEFORE THE1213                      SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH CARE14                         AND FINANCIAL SERVICES1516                                OF THE1718                         COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT19                         AND GOVERNMENT REFORM2021                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES2223                    ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS2425                             FIRST SESSION2627                               __________2829                           FEBRUARY 11, 20253031                               __________3233                            Serial No. 119-43435                               __________3637Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform3839[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]4041                       Available on: govinfo.gov42                         oversight.house.gov or43                             docs.house.gov4445                               __________4647                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE4858-805 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 20254950-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------5152              COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM5354                    JAMES COMER, Kentucky, Chairman5556Jim Jordan, Ohio                     Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia,57Mike Turner, Ohio                        Ranking Minority Member58Paul Gosar, Arizona                  Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of59Virginia Foxx, North Carolina            Columbia60Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin            Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts61Michael Cloud, Texas                 Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois62Gary Palmer, Alabama                 Ro Khanna, California63Clay Higgins, Louisiana              Kweisi Mfume, Maryland64Pete Sessions, Texas                 Shontel Brown, Ohio65Andy Biggs, Arizona                  Melanie Stansbury, New Mexico66Nancy Mace, South Carolina           Robert Garcia, California67Pat Fallon, Texas                    Maxwell Frost, Florida68Byron Donalds, Florida               Summer Lee, Pennsylvania69Scott Perry, Pennsylvania            Greg Casar, Texas70William Timmons, South Carolina      Jasmine Crockett, Texas71Tim Burchett, Tennessee              Emily Randall, Washington72Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia      Suhas Subramanyam, Virginia73Lauren Boebert, Colorado             Yassamin Ansari, Arizona74Anna Paulina Luna, Florida           Wesley Bell, Missouri75Nick Langworthy, New York            Lateefah Simon, California76Eric Burlison, Missouri              Dave Min, California77Eli Crane, Arizona                   Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts78Brian Jack, Georgia                  Rashida Tlaib, Michigan79John McGuire, Virginia80Brandon Gill, Texas8182                                 ------8384                       Mark Marin, Staff Director85                   James Rust, Deputy Staff Director86                     Mitch Benzine, General Counsel87               Dan Ashworth, Chief Counsel for Oversight88                Peter Spectre, Professional Staff Member89      Mallory Cogar, Deputy Director of Operations and Chief Clerk9091                      Contact Number: 202-225-50749293                  Jamie Smith, Minority Staff Director9495                      Contact Number: 202-225-505196                                 ------9798           Subcommittee on Health Care and Financial Services99100                  Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin, Chairman101Paul Gosar, Arizona                  Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois102Pete Sessions, Texas                     Ranking Member103Anna Paulina Luna, Florida           Emily Randall, Washington104John McGuire, Virginia               Wesley Bell, Missouri105Brandon Gill, Texas                  Lateefah Simon, California106107                        C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S108109                              ----------110111                                                                   Page112113Hearing held on February 11, 2025................................     1114115                               Witnesses116117                              ----------118119Mr. Robert Rector, Senior Research Fellow, Center for Health and120  Welfare Policy, The Heritage Foundation121Oral Statement...................................................     5122Ms. Patrice Onwuka, Director, Center for Economic Opportunity,123  Independent Women's Forum124Oral Statement...................................................     6125Mr. Michael Linden (Minority Witness), Senior Policy Fellow,126  Washington Center for Equitable Growth127Oral Statement...................................................     8128129Written opening statements and bios are available on the U.S.130  House of Representatives Document Repository at:131  docs.house.gov.132133                           Index of Documents134135                              ----------136137  * Statement for the Record, National Council on Disability;138    submitted by Rep. Grothman.139140  * Statement for the Record, Olympic Medical Center, re: SNAP;141    submitted by Rep. Randall.142143  * Report, Foundation of Government Accountability, ``Examining144    Growth of the Welfare State''; submitted by Rep. Grothman.145146  * Article, the World Economic Forum, ``New Research Busts147    Welfare Dependency Myth''; submitted by Rep. Krishnamoorthi.148149  * Report, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities,150    ``Medicaid Work Requirements Could Put 36M People at Risk'';151    submitted by Rep. Krishnamoorthi.152153Documents are available at: docs.house.gov.154155                        EXAMINING THE GROWTH OF156                       THE WELFARE STATE, PART I157158                              ----------159160                       Tuesday, February 11, 2025161162                     U.S. House of Representatives163164              Committee on Oversight and Government Reform165166           Subcommittee on Health Care And Financial Services167168                                                   Washington, D.C.169170    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:30 p.m.,171Room 2247, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Glenn Grothman172[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.173    Present: Representatives Grothman, Gosar, Sessions,174McGuire, Gill, Krishnamoorthi, Randall, Bell, and Simon.175    Mr. Grothman. The Committee will come to order. This is the176Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. It is the177Subcommittee on Health Care and Financial Services. I am the178Subcommittee Chairman of this Committee.179    Welcome to the Subcommittee on Health Care and Financial180Services' first hearing of the 119th Congress. Today, we will181hear from expert witnesses about the enormous growth of the182welfare state. In particular, we are going to be focusing on183the effect on marriage that the current welfare state has.184    Over the past 50 years, millions of Americans have received185benefits from various welfare programs. These programs allow186low-income Americans to gain access to food, health care, and187childcare.188    While many welfare programs are vital to the day-to-day of189many, their design too often creates dependence on the system.190The current status also leads people away from getting married.191And the exponential growth in dependency on welfare programs192has not corresponded with a proportional reduction in poverty193at all.194    Today, more than one-in-five able-bodied working-age adults195receive some form of welfare. In 2022 alone, the Federal196Government spent nearly $1.2 trillion on more than 80 welfare197programs.198    And these numbers have only grown since.199    Many of these programs incentivize recipients to remain in200the program rather than find employment which would enable them201to get out of the programs.202    Furthermore, almost all these programs penalize married203couples for simply choosing marriage. Penalties occur when a204married couple no longer qualifies for the same benefits as205they would as individuals. There are about 70 different benefit206programs that you could lose if you are a single parent by207getting married.208    Due in part to these penalties, the percentage of children209born to unmarried women has skyrocketed, and we all know many210wonderful, wonderful single parents. In 1960, around 5 percent211of children were born to unmarried women. Today, that number is212around 40 percent. To anybody who cares about the next213generation, these numbers should be deeply concerning.214    Marriage is the backbone of a stable society and is a force215that encourages individuals to be responsible for their216families instead of having to rely on government assistance.217Not only is marriage associated with better financial218institutions, but it is also associated with better mental219health for married couples and their children.220    While I personally know many single parents who do an221excellent job, studies have shown that children raised in222single-parent households are at heightened risk for substance223abuse, crime, bad educational outcomes, depression, and other224disorders.225    Given that Federal policy should reflect the fact that226children--well, it is time that Federal policy be changed so we227stop discouraging and penalizing people for simply getting228married. To better understand why this is the case, we must go229back to the creation of many of these programs.230    While some welfare programs began under President Franklin231Roosevelt, most were created or expanded under President Lyndon232Johnson's so-called ``War on Poverty.'' President Johnson's233stated goal in expanding the welfare state was to provide234Americans the chance to pull themselves up out of poverty and235reduce dependency. It was intended to enable Americans who had236stumbled on hard times to make a comeback. But that is too237often not the case in today's welfare system.238    Our current welfare system is designed to ensure dependence239on the government and penalizes marriage.240    Sadly, the problems do not stop there. Many of the241benefits, paid for by taxpayer dollars, are improperly going to242illegal immigrants. In 2023, the Federal Government spent $23243billion on health care for illegal immigrants and another $11.6244trillion on food stamps, child nutrition, and other welfare245programs.246    Not only are we spending billions on illegal immigrants,247but often welfare programs are among the most common targets248for scammers and fraudsters.249    Last year more than $100 billion in improper payments were250made in programs like Medicaid, food stamps, and the Earned251Income Tax Credit. This is bad for taxpayers, but bad for252welfare recipients, as well.253    If we continue on our current path, it will become254increasingly difficult to fund welfare programs, making it hard255to justify the safety net for Americans.256    I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today, and257they will help us better understand the enormous growth of the258welfare state, so we want to see what we can do to prevent259government dependency and empower Americans.260    I should point out there have always been people who are261hostile, outright hostile, to the idea of marriage. I know a262lot of the radical feminists, Kate Millett and that crew, in263the 1960s, did not want to have a man in the family. Of course,264Karl Marx, for people who follow him, also felt the family was265a negative impact on society and wanted to destroy it. So, we266do not have Kate Millett or Karl Marx get their way. Hence, we267are having this hearing.268    Now I yield to Ranking Member Krishnamoorthi for his269opening statement.270    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am looking271forward to working with you on the important issues confronting272our Nation within the jurisdiction of this Subcommittee.273Particularly, I am looking forward to addressing the continuing274failures and costs of our broken healthcare system.275    I will confess that I had hoped our first hearing together276would have tackled one of those vital issues, such as PBM or277health insurance reform. Chairman Grothman, you and I have been278working with Chairman Comer and the Democrats for years to try279to rein in the abuses of pharmacy benefit managers. We have280further worked on concerns about health insurance companies281stopping payments for critical medical services, such as, for282instance, anesthesia--anesthesia rules limiting the use of283anesthesia mid-operation, that were about to be implemented284this past winter. But sadly, this Committee is focused today on285antiquated debates about welfare.286    I know what I am talking about when it comes to safety net287programs because I have personal experience with SNAP's288predecessor, the Food Stamp program. I came to our country with289my family when I was 3 months old so my father could continue290his education and our family could embrace all the291opportunities that America afforded it. But despite my family's292best efforts, it was not always easy. Specifically, in the293recession of 1973, my father lost his income. But thanks to the294generosity of the people in the United States, its government,295and the existence of these safety net programs, we were allowed296to survive and flourish.297    Today, my father, who turned 86 today--it is his birthday--298is an engineering professor emeritus, having retired after 40299years of teaching engineering at Bradley University in Peoria,300Illinois. My brother is a doctor at the University of Chicago,301and myself, I am honored to represent the people of Illinois'3028th Congressional District in my fifth term. That is the303American dream: the promise of a middle-class life with the304opportunity for your children to have an even better life than305you did.306    That dream was possible for my family because of my307parents' hard work and the possibilities and the generosity of308this country. However, it was also because the American people309established programs like SNAP and public housing so my family310could temporarily sustain itself in times of severe need.311    For families like mine, access to public housing and SNAP312served as a critical social safety net and allowed us to bounce313back from financial adversity. It remains true today for tens314of millions of struggling Americans.315    House and Senate Republicans, according to recent reports,316are discussing an upwards of $2 trillion cut to Medicaid,317almost one-third of funding. This does not sound to me like318simply rooting out waste and fraud. Unfortunately, it sounds319like forcing tens of millions of children, pregnant women,320seniors, and people from programs they desperately need.321    Helping our neighbors through safety net programs is good322economic policy. In 2025, the USDA found that in an economic323downturn, every dollar in additional SNAP benefits leads to a324$1.54 increase in gross domestic product. This does not325surprise me. Social safety net programs do not encourage326laziness; they empower Americans to succeed on their own.327    The demonization of benefit recipients is appalling. We328will unfortunately hear shortly the untrue characterizations of329lower-income people that have been made by the Majority, which330undermine the credibility of the reforms they offer. People on331public benefits are not lazy, they are not dumb, and they are332not bad people. Often, like my own family, they have fallen on333hard times and they simply need a hand up. The help they seek,334they hope, is temporary. The difference we make in their lives335lasts a lifetime.336    I am not going to silently acquiesce to this Congress337turning its back on hungry, frightened, cold children or their338families anywhere in our country who need help, in order for339the Majority to pay for tax cuts for special interests. That is340wrong. I hope that this hearing shines light on the good work341our country does every day in feeding, housing, and caring for342its people.343    Thank you, and I yield back.344    Mr. Grothman. OK. I do not believe I demonized any people.345I try to demonize the politicians who set up the program, not346the people who wind up doing what they are, in essence, paid to347do.348    But, to our sad disappointment, to all our wonderful people349who showed up here, we now have to vote on the Floor. So, I350apologize. We are going to reconvene--what should we say? 10351minutes after they bang the gavel downstairs.352    So, we will see you guys again. I wish we would have353brought you pizza or something or other. Thank you for being354here.355    [Recess.]356    Mr. Grothman. Thank you all. Before we hear from the357witnesses, I would like to enter a document called ``Examining358the Growth of the Welfare State,'' put together by Hayden359Dublois and Jonathan Ingram. And they work for, I assume a360think tank thing, labeled FGA.361    Thank you. OK. I would like to welcome our witnesses today,362Dr. Robert Rector, Ms. Patrice Onwuka, and Dr. Michael Linden.363    Mr. Rector is a Senior Research Fellow at The Heritage364Foundation's Center for Health and Welfare Policy. Ms. Onwuka365is the Director of the Center for Health and Welfare [sic] at366the Independent Women's Forum. Dr. Linden is a Senior Policy367Fellow at the Washington Center for Equitable Growth. We look368forward to hearing what you all have to say on today's369important topic.370    Pursuant to Committee Rule 9(g)--I hope they warned you of371this in advance--the witnesses will please stand and raise your372right hand.373    Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony which374you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and375nothing but the truth, so help you God?376    [Chorus of ayes.]377    Mr. Grothman. Let the record show all the witnesses378answered in the affirmative. Thank you. You may sit down again.379    We appreciate you being here today and look forward to your380testimony.381    I would like to remind the witnesses that we have read your382written statement already and it will appear in full in the383hearing record. If you can, please limit your oral statement to3845 minutes.385    As a reminder, please press the button on the microphone in386front of you so that it is on, and the Members can hear you.387When you begin to speak, the light in front of you will turn388green. After 4 minutes, the light will turn yellow. When the389red light comes on it means 5 minutes is up, and we would like390to ask you to wrap up as quickly as you can.391    I now recognize Mr. Rector for the opening statement.392393                       STATEMENT OF ROBERT RECTOR394395                         SENIOR RESEARCH FELLOW396397                  CENTER FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE POLICY398399                        THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION400401    Mr. Rector. Thank you for the opportunity to come here and402speak today. I have worked on the welfare system for 40 years,403going back to President Carter, so the issues are very dear to404my heart. And today, I would like to talk about one of the core405features of the welfare state, perhaps the core feature that is406largely neglected, which is the marriage penalties within the407welfare state.408    Those of you that are Republicans, you know all about409marginal tax rates on labor. Everyone that is in the Republican410Party knows about marginal tax rates on labor. So, the marginal411tax rate on labor, if you go out and you earn $20, and the412government takes away half of it, that would be a marginal tax413rate of 50 percent. Everybody says, ``That is kind of bad.''414    What we do not know is marginal tax rates on marriage, OK.415When Republican hear about marriage penalties, they are416thinking about marriage penalties in the income tax code, which417means basically families that pay income tax, which are those418in the top half of the population, above $110,000 a year. But419the marriage penalties are not in the income tax code. They are420in the $1.6 trillion welfare state. There are 90 means-tested421welfare programs, including 40 that go predominantly to422families with kids, meaning single-parent families, and every423one of those programs has an outrageous marginal tax rate on424marriage, a penalty on marriage.425    So that we talk about marginal tax rates on labor, OK, it426would be very hard if we earn a dollar and the government took427away half of it. But the marginal tax rates on marriage are428infant, OK. At least with the marginal tax rate on labor, if429you work more you get to keep something of it. But if you are a430low-income family, a potential mother and father, you face a431net loss in income, a net negative in income, when you get432married. It is as if you went to work and you earned $20 an433hour, and the government dinged you $100 bucks. The more you434work, the more you lose. It is a confiscation rate. It is not a435marginal tax rate.436    And the reality of that is, because all of the welfare for437programs, all of these 90 programs, they, for the most part,438give maximum benefits when there are no earnings in the439household, and then as earnings go up the benefits go down,440right. But earnings are all the earnings in the household, the441mother's and the father's. So, if the father is in the442household and he is married and he holds a job, your earnings443went up, your welfare benefits are confiscated, and they fall444dramatically.445    Such that if you look at the testimony I put in, let us446take a family with a mother that makes $20,000 a year, a father447that makes $30,000 a year. Let us say they have two kids. If448they are not married and they cohabit, they could have a joint449income of around $80,000 from their earnings, plus about450$30,000 coming out of the welfare state. However, if they451marry, they lose $15,000 of that. It is a tax rate of about 30452percent on their original earnings beforehand.453    If they are in housing, Section 8 or public housing, then454their combined benefits, if they are not married, are over455$90,000, earnings plus cash, food, housing, medical care, and456housing. But if they get married, out of that $93,000, they are457going to lose $28,000 in penalties.458    The answer is, they do not get married, because we have459made marriage economically irrational for them through these460horrendous penalties. And what we need to do is rebuild461marriage, because if you look today, 1 out of 4 children in the462United States are born to an unmarried woman who is cohabiting463with the father of the child at the time of marriage. They464often remain together for 10 years later, but they do not get465married. Why do they not get married? Because this institution466will penalize them, will take their money away when they do.467    We need to stop doing that. We need to take all of the468waste and fraud and abuse--there is a 30 percent waste and469fraud rate in the EITC--take some of that money, save it, and470apply it over to giving more generous benefits to these low-471income couples when they do get married and they do do the472right thing. And I think that you will have an enormous473behavioral response to that.474    We also need to tighten up the work requirements on all of475these programs. I was a principal author of welfare reform in476the 1990s, and we believed that the work requirements would not477have so much of an effect on labor but an effect on family478formation, and they did. For example, the non-marital teen479pregnancy rate, when we put work requirements in, it dropped480about 70 to 80 percent immediately, and it did that also by481reducing abortions at the same time.482    So, the public that we are talking about, no, they are not483evil. They, in fact, want to do the right thing. And the right484thing is to form a stable family and raise kids that way. But485they cannot do that because you are going to penalize them for486doing it. That is a terrible thing. We should do it anymore.487    Mr. Grothman. Thank you very much. Ms. Onwuka.488489                      STATEMENT OF PATRICE ONWUKA490491                                DIRECTOR492493                    CENTER FOR ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY494495                       INDEPENDENT WOMEN'S FORUM496497    Ms. Onwuka. Yes. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Ranking498Member and Members, for inviting me to appear today. I am the499Director of the Center for Economic Opportunity at Independent500Women. And we know this is an important topic because we501represent, we speak to you about, women and their issues.502    And we recognize that we have made significant strides in503this Nation in attacking poverty, but there are still a lot of504failures. And particularly as a Black woman, and the Black505family, we have seen the impact of welfare policies on Black506families.507    As has been mentioned, over 80 welfare programs, spending508$1 trillion, yet we have so much duplication and opportunities509for waste, fraud, and abuse.510    So, how can we overcome some of these challenges? Well, I511will just mention, today we want to close the loopholes that512Federal agencies and states exploit to grow program enrollment,513we want to target improper payments, and we want to promote514work and family.515    I will just say a word on our poverty rate. Right now, we516have 36.8 million people living in poverty, according to the517U.S. Census bureau. Although when you calculate people who518receive non-cash payments--in-kind housing, other forms of519subsidies--I think the actual poverty rate is much smaller,520which is a good thing. But how do we ensure that these folks521who are still unable to enjoy the benefits of prosperity are522able to do that and be independent?523    When it comes to the actual fiscal impact of welfare524programs, we are seeing that they are growing exponentially.525Thirty-four percent is expected to be the increase in welfare526spending over the next 10 years. And they are talking about527going from $1.2 trillion to $1.6 trillion.528    We have many agencies tackling a lot of the same different529problems, 15 agencies dedicated to providing food aid alone, 13530hitting housing, 12 hitting health care, and 5 hitting cash531aid.532    So, where can Congress focus its energy? Well, I think533reforming eligibility and participation to, I say, quote,534``right-size'' these mandatory spending welfare programs.535    So, talking about some of the loopholes. We say states,536and, frankly, the Federal Government, have relaxed some537eligibility requirements or expanded the definition of who is538needy. In the latter case, states are providing benefits to539individuals earning far above the poverty rates and the poverty540line. We know very often, or I think we are familiar here, that541SNAP grants categorical eligibility to TANF enrollees, and that542means that these folks are being exempted from program income543and asset limits. That is a loophole, at an expected cost of544over $111 billion over the next decade to you, taxpayers. So,545this is one of the loopholes that we should be figuring out how546to close.547    We also want to make sure that when we look at the types of548people who are participating in welfare programs, we want to549make sure that these are folks who are talking advantage of the550millions of open positions that are available in this economy.551Right? So, a lot of these folks are able-bodied Americans, both552those with children and without children. And I think that553there is a case to be made that whether you are talking about554Medicare, SNAP, or TANF, you have 60 percent rates or above of555non-disabled adults who are able to work but receiving these556benefits.557    So, how can we get them to work? Well, part of it is that558states have been waiving, or they have been able to waive,559requirements that individuals are working. Or sometimes states560are using backdoor ways to dedicate Federal funded money to561other priorities that are not promoting work and family562formation, frankly.563    So, I think these are the ways that we need to attack the564perverse incentives that encourage states and the Federal565Government to reduce the dependency rates, whether you are566talking about SNAP or some of the other programs.567    Fraud, waste, and abuse. It is not surprising that there is568a lot of fraud and waste and abuse, and this is created because569there is not a good amount of tracking of how much there is.570The GAO estimated that taxpayers have lost probably $2.7571trillion over the past 10 years, between $200 and maybe $500572billion annually on fraudulent payments, while the GAO has573already provided to Congress a roadmap for how to attack these574things. Better reporting. We need to make sure that Federal575agencies that are providing welfare are reporting, tracking,576data collecting, providing oversight to ensure that people who577are receiving benefits are the ones that should be receiving578it.579    And going forward, being prepared for the emergencies that580happen, and I think during COVID we saw a tremendous expansion581in our welfare programs, and we have not seen a recission back582down to normal levels, despite an economy that is generating583millions of jobs, as we know.584    Finally, a quick point on marriage. There is a marriage585penalty, and I think that marriage is an important part of this586conversation. And we know that the success series--if you just587graduate with a high school diploma, if you get a job and get588married before having children, your likelihood of falling into589poverty drops significantly. And even if you do not, even if590you are single mom and you get married, the poverty rate falls,591as well. So, we cannot leave marriage out of the discussion.592    Thank you so much.593    Mr. Grothman. Thank you. Mr. Linden?594595                      STATEMENT OF MICHAEL LINDEN596597                          SENIOR POLICY FELLOW598599                 WASHINGTON CENTER FOR EQUITABLE GROWTH600601    Mr. Linden. Thank you. Chairman Grothman, Ranking Member602Krishnamoorthi, and Members of the Committee, I really want to603thank you for my opportunity to be here today.604    Today, I am going to make three main points.605    First of all, Federal investments in health, nutrition,606housing, and other work supports for low-and very low-income607people are both a moral and an economic necessity. The major608problem with our current approach is that we do not do enough609to make sure that low-income children have a real path out of610poverty, and that struggling families have a real chance at the611middle class.612    Second, if you are interested in efficiency and cost613savings, you are looking in the wrong place. The Federal tax614code is rife with loopholes, special subsidies, and giveaways615that benefit the very wealthy and giant corporations with616little or no discernable public benefit.617    Third, it is indefensible to scapegoat hardworking618Americans who are striving everyday just to make ends meet619while the ultra-wealthy and giant corporations have been given620trillions, literally trillions, in tax breaks, and even as we621speak, this Congress is proposing yet another round of tax622handouts.623    Investments in health care, nutrition, housing, and other624work supports pay enormous dividends, not only for those625families, but for the entire U.S. economy. Children who receive626nutrition assistance have better health and lower health care627costs their whole lives. Children whose mothers receive WIC do628better in school than children whose mothers did not. Children629of families who use rental assistance earn more as adults and630are less likely to become single parents. Boosting the incomes631of very poor families, including through, for example, the EITC632or the Child Tax Credit, results in more schooling, more hours633worked, and higher earnings in adulthood for the children of634those families. Medicaid expansion has resulted in better635financial security for millions, lower eviction rates, lower636costs for hospitals, especially rural hospitals, fewer637premature deaths, and positive statewide economic impacts.638    These conclusions, and the many others like them, are drawn639from literally hundreds of studies. The facts are not disputed.640    But you do not have to pore over studies to find the641benefit of these investments. You just have to talk to people642who actually use them, and the Ranking Member spoke eloquently643of his own experience with this.644    Take the story of Zoe, a young woman from Colorado, who645recently shared her story with The Arc of the United States.646She completed a 4-year college degree, like so many other647people of her age, and is now applying to grad schools. Zoe has648spinal muscular atrophy, or SMA, which is a genetic649neuromuscular developmental disability. She relies on the650caregiver support she receives through Medicaid in order to651live independently while she pursues her education. For Zoe and652the millions of other Americans who rely on Medicaid, one in653five, in fact, slashing these programs would have devastating654effects on their lives and their livelihoods.655    We invest too little, not too much, in reducing poverty and656providing pathways into the middle class. The Federal657Government spent just 1.3 percent of gross domestic product on658``income supports'' in 2024, which is down from 1.8 percent a659decade ago, and lower than the average of 2 percent from the660past 30 years.661    Roughly one in five children is in poverty today, which is662twice the rate of other developed countries.663    These numbers are especially concerning given that there664are more working-age Americans in the labor force and working665today than at almost any time in modern history.666    And that is why it is a grave mistake, both morally and667economically, to slash benefits and services for low-income668people. And do not be fooled. Adding bureaucratic red tape,669narrowing eligibility requirements, setting arbitrary limits,670all amount to the same thing: indefensible harm to poor671families and our economy.672    But there is another place in the Federal budget that truly673is bloated with wasteful costs, and subsidies, and674counterproductive incentives, and that is the tax code. Over675the past quarter-century, Congress has repeatedly enacted676trillions of dollars in tax cuts that disproportionately677benefit the wealthy.678    Consider the 40 percent reduction in the corporate tax rate679that was passed in 2017 under President Trump. That single680giveaway is estimated to have cost roughly $1 trillion to date,681and will cost trillions more over the next decade. These682corporations did not raise wages or create more jobs. They683enriched their shareholders and their executives. That is the684very definition of wasteful spending.685    Those who are quick to scrutinize the choices of a poor686family receiving $6 a day in nutrition benefits never get687around to asking whether a giant corporation is doing what they688promised to do with their tax cuts, or whether they needed them689in the first place.690    The truth is that far too many Americans are struggling to691make ends meet while those at the top get richer and richer.692And that is why most Americans support investing more, not693less, in aid to poor families. And that is why I find it is694surprising that Congress is considering spending another $5695trillion, or more, not on lowering health care costs or696improving public schools or expanding benefits to address697marriage penalties, but to give tax cuts, mostly to people at698the top. It is hard to take seriously claims that we spend too699much on poor families as policy-makers write a budget that700would take money out of their pockets to give it to701billionaires. That is not effective government. That is highway702robbery.703    Anyone truly interested in improving efficiency and704reducing waste in the Federal Government should be appalled by705efforts to scapegoat those living in poverty, while padding the706pockets of the super wealthy.707    Mr. Grothman. Well, thank you. I am going to lead off with708Mr. Rector. I think the purpose of this hearing is see whether709it is appropriate, and we are supposed to treat all Americans710equally, but whether it is appropriate to design programs such711that we are doing what we can to discourage formation of the712traditional American family.713    We will start out with Mr. Rector. How many welfare714programs penalize married couples, about do you think?715    Mr. Rector. Yes, there are 90 such programs. Every single716one of them has a significant marriage penalty. It is the way717to understand these programs is if you had the income tax code718where you did not have a category ``married, filing jointly,''719so that as soon as you got married you would be moved into a720higher tax bracket and you would be penalized.721    Every program is designed like that. That makes no sense,722OK. It never has made any sense. I have been watching this for72340 years, and it will not make sense tomorrow. We need to stop724doing that.725    Mr. Grothman. OK. Can you give me just a couple of maybe726common programs that seem as if they were designed to punish727traditional married couples?728    Mr. Rector. Absolutely. Food stamps, Section 8 housing,729Medicaid, the Earned Income Tax Credit, WIC. Every single one730of these programs operates this way, that if you get married to731an employed man, to the employed father, you lose roughly half732of those benefits. I mean, it does not make any sense, and it733is an irony that most poor people understand this. They734understand that they are going to lose benefits if they get735married, so they cohabit, right, but they do not form stable736bonds. They do not make public commitments, and so forth,737because we basically said do not do that.738    You can hide the father in the home, to cohabit with him.739Just do not tell us about it, OK, and you will be doing fine.740But if you were to go out and make a public commitment, and so741forth and so on, we are going to take $25,000 away from you. It742is an absolutely nutty system, but it is the system that we743have.744    Mr. Grothman. OK. Do you know about how much we spend today745on what we refer to as welfare programs?746    Mr. Rector. Yes. I would say it is about $1.6 trillion. It747is about six percent of GDP. I would say that we are probably748spending about $700 billion on low-income families with749children, and about 80 percent of that goes to single moms. It750is a subsidy system for single parenthood. It has been since751the beginning of the war on poverty. And if you take that, and752you just take the total amount of money that we spend on753families with kids, which is again close, probably to, $600 to754$700 billion, and you divide it by, say, the bottom income755third of the population, you come up with something like756$60,000 per family.757    So, we say we do not spend enough--we do not even know how758much money you spend. There is Federal record of total spending759on means-tested programs for children. You have to go through760the budget, line by line, and bring it out. And when you find761it, it is an enormous amount of money. And we do not know where762that money goes. If you were to go to any state in the United763States and take any given family and ask the question, ``How764much does this family get from welfare?'' no one knows the765answer to that, because they are getting benefits from six or766seven programs at the same time. It is all disparate, the767programs do not talk to each other, and there is no record on768how much they get.769    So, one of the clear things we ought to have is a clear770record of what the family gets, integrated, so we know that,771OK, and we also ought to put that into our poverty measurement772system. We just were told, oh, we do not spend enough, and we773have one in five children living in poverty today. Well, you774have one in five children living in poverty because of that775$600 or $700 billion that you spend. None of that is counted as776income for purposes of poverty. It is all hidden. It is all off777the books. And therefore, all the spending on any of these778programs, by definition, has no effect on poverty, because it779is not counted as income. Food stamps is not income. Housing is780not income. The EITC is not income. It is all off the books. No781matter how much you spend on it, it has no effect on poverty,782except it makes it worse because you are going to reduce783earnings. Earnings are counted. So, you are going to have more784poverty, not less, as a result of these programs.785    Mr. Grothman. Thank you. Whenever I hear about this topic,786I remember the stuff on Black Lives Matter, where one of their787goals was to get rid of the traditional Western prescribed788family. It did not prevent people from marching with them,789despite their goal was to get rid of the family.790    Mr. Rector. Primary goal of Marx and Engels, as well.791    Mr. Grothman. Right. Ms. Onwuka, is it true that many792welfare programs do not require recipients to work?793    Ms. Onwuka. It is true. When we look at a number of794different programs, we see that either states have exempted795individuals in their jurisdiction from work requirements or796that there are programs that just simply do not have them. So,797those are loopholes that I think should be closed, and Congress798can work with states to ensure that states are not waiving799these requirements.800    Mr. Grothman. I will give you guys just one more question,801either one of you. Since this big explosion of what we call the802welfare programs in the mid 1960s, do you know what has803happened to the birth rate in which the father stays around and804does not stay around, what effect Lyndon Johnson's programs had805on that?806    Mr. Rector. Yes. When the war on poverty started, seven807percent of children were born outside of wedlock. Today it is80842 percent. It is particularly striking in the Black family,809where the non-marital birth rate, the percentage of children,810were outside of marriage. The Black family survived slavery, it811survived Jim Crow, it survived the Depression, it survived812World War II. So, when you get to the beginning of the war on813poverty, about 15, 16 percent of Black children were born out814of wedlock. In comes the war on poverty. All these different815programs, liberalization of these programs, and the Black816family literally disintegrates within a decade. And now you817have close to 70 percent of Black children being born outside818of wedlock because that is what you pay for. You get what you819pay for.820    And that is not just within Blacks. It is also now821beginning to affect moderate-income Whites, Hispanics. Every822low-income family is suffering from that. You are very lucky823that you have any marriage at all in the bottom half of the824population, because they all pay penalties for the fact of825being married.826    Mr. Grothman. Mr. Krishnamoorthi.827    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon,828Mr. Rector. You have written welfare payments, quote/unquote,829``increase dependency.'' Isn't that right?830    Mr. Rector. I have written that many times.831    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. And in your opinion, dependency on832welfare benefits is a bad thing, obviously.833    Mr. Rector. No, I would not say that. I would say that834having welfare benefits is necessary. I am not against the835welfare state. But I believe that the incentives of the welfare836state should help people to go upward rather than to fall apart837and go downward. And the system you have now----838    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Let me just jump in here. I am talking839about dependency. Over-dependency on welfare benefits is a bad840thing?841    Mr. Rector. Long-term dependency certainly is, yes.842    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Let me bring your attention to843something that happened at the Republican National Convention844last summer. In this visual, Teamsters President Sean O'Brian845said, quote, ``The biggest recipients of welfare in this846country are corporations,'' close quote. You do not dispute he847said that, right?848    Mr. Rector. I guess not.849    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. In 2023, the CATO Institute, by no850means a liberal think tank, found that the Federal Government851spends more than $100 billion a year on what they call, quote/852unquote, ``corporate welfare.'' You do not dispute that they853found that, right?854    Mr. Rector. No, I guess not.855    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Now, Mr. Linden, according to the856Brookings Institute, oil and gas companies annually receive $20857billion in direct Federal subsidies that no other business in858this country gets. And you do not dispute that the Brookings859Institute found that either, right?860    Mr. Linden. Nope. That is absolutely right.861    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Look, if we are going to talk about862reforming the welfare state, Mr. Chair, let us also look at863corporate welfare. In the words of Paul Ryan, the former864Speaker, quote, ``Republicans cannot make the case to the865American people that Republicans are the reform party if866Republicans will not reform the giant corporate welfare state867in Washington.''868    Chairman, this is a theme I will be returning to on this869Committee as we proceed.870    Let me turn to my next topic. Sir, Mr. Rector, according to871The Washington Post, you said the following, quote, ``Is872poverty harmful for childhood?'' Question. ``I think not.'' You873do not dispute that you said this, right?874    Mr. Rector. No.875    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Let us explore if poverty is harmful.876The NIH, under President Trump, found that poverty is877consistently associated with academic achievement gaps, as878early as kindergarten, and by age 14, lower-income students879are, quote, ``a full year behind their peers.'' You do not880dispute the NIH found that, right?881    Mr. Rector. I could explain what I am saying in the quote882if you want me to.883    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. I am asking you, you do not dispute884that the NIH found that these academic----885    Mr. Rector. I assume you do not want me to explain.886    Mr. Krishnamoorthi [continuing]. Gaps exist.887    Mr. Rector. No, I do not.888    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. I would like to bring your attention to889a Department of HHS study, which finds that childhood poverty890is associated with, quote, ``development delays, chronic891illness, and nutritional deficits.'' Mr. Linden, you do not892dispute that the HHS found that, and I presume that you agree893with them.894    Mr. Linden. Yes. I mean, there are a lot of studies that895show childhood poverty has long-term negative effects for the896children and the economy as a whole.897    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. So academic gaps, development delays,898along with chronic illness.899    Now, in addition, Mr. Rector, you said, to The Heritage900Foundation in 2007, quote, ``Most poor children are super-901nourished.'' You do not dispute you said that, right?902    Mr. Rector. That is exactly what the USDA data shows. Yes,903I have read the reports. Very few people have.904    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. You are not a doctor, right? You are905not a medical doctor.906    Mr. Rector. No. I am an expert in these programs.907    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. You are not a medical doctor, are you?908    Mr. Rector. I do know more about nutrition----909    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. You know more about nutrition than a910medical doctor?911    Mr. Rector. I know more about nutrition in welfare programs912than any doctor.913    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. You are not a nutritionist, are you?914    Mr. Rector. I said exactly what I am saying. If you want to915look at the----916    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. It is a simple yes-or-no question. You917are not a nutritionist, are you?918    Mr. Rector. No. I----919    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. And you are not a----920    Mr. Rector. I am an expert in the food stamp program----921    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Sir, anybody who----922    Mr. Rector [continuing]. And nutritional effects.923    Mr. Krishnamoorthi [continuing]. Anybody who----924    Mr. Rector. Do you want to talk about the food stamp925program and its nutritional effects, or do you want to926grandstand?927    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Anybody who thinks that childhood928poverty is not harmful to children unfortunately should not be929talking about whether these welfare programs benefit families930or not.931    Let me turn your attention----932    Mr. Rector. Would you like me to explain what I meant by933that?934    Mr. Krishnamoorthi [continuing]. To my final topic, in my935limited time. On January 31, Politico quoted Donald Trump as936promising to, quote, ``love and cherish Medicaid.'' Mr. Linden,937you do not dispute that Politico reported that, right?938    Mr. Linden. They definitely reported that.939    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Donald Trump also promised that, quote,940``The people will not be affected. Medicaid will only be more941effective and better.'' That is what he said, right?942    Mr. Linden. That is what he is promising.943    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Punchbowl News reported, quote, ``The944Energy and Commerce Committee currently is eyeing up to $2945trillion in cuts to Medicaid.'' You do not dispute they946reported this, do you, Mr. Rector? This is what Punchbowl News947said.948    Mr. Rector. I am not aware of that.949    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Michael, can you tell us briefly what950would happen if $2 trillion in cuts to Medicaid actually951occurred, in terms of the number of people who would be dropped952from Medicaid?953    Mr. Linden. Yes, tens of millions would lose coverage or954benefits, or both. There is just no way around it. Those level955of cuts, there is not tweaks or efficiencies to be found that956is one-third of total Medicaid spending at the Federal level.957It is not there. Just one of the proposals that I have heard958being batted around would mean 36 million potential people959would lose coverage. So, there is a lot of harm here.960    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. We are at a proverbial fork in the961road. Either we keep President Trump's promise that ``the962people will not be affected,'' close quote, or we accept963trillions in cuts to our safety net programs that drop tens of964millions of people, Americans, from the Medicaid rolls. This965will not only affect them, this will devastate them.966    Thank you, and I yield back.967    Mr. Grothman. Thank you. Paul Gosar.968    Mr. Gosar. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I agree with all969your comments, Mr. Rector. I think you have come up with really970good ways.971    Let me ask you something first. I want to ask you, did972AHCCCS in Arizona cut people off of the rolls?973    Mr. Rector. I am not entirely familiar with the specific974program.975    Mr. Gosar. OK, so we got an exemption on Medicaid, and we976did it ourselves. It did not cut.977    Mr. Rector. Was this the work requirements.978    Mr. Gosar. No, no, no. It was AHCCCS. It is called AHCCCS.979It is a Medicaid--we got a waiver and we tried to hit different980populations. So, just looking at the incentivization or the981growth of a product does not mean you are cutting people off,982does it?983    Mr. Rector. It depends on what you are doing.984    Mr. Gosar. Oh, that is all I wanted to hear, because it985came across by saying it does.986    Mr. Rector. Well, Congressman----987    Mr. Gosar. No, it is my time. It is my time.988    Mr. Rector. If you are cutting----989    Mr. Gosar. It is my time. Hold on. Hold on. It is my time.990    Mr. Rector. Fair enough.991    Mr. Gosar. OK. So, if we were to look at using that FMAP,992and you saying we are going to use inflation to carry it on,993and block that back to the states, tell me how that994disincentivizes opportunities. Tell me how that does.995    Mr. Rector. I can do that.996    Mr. Gosar. Go ahead, quickly.997    Mr. Rector. So, if you are block-granting Medicaid and you998are capping the growth of Medicaid below health care costs, by999definition----1000    Mr. Gosar. No, I did not say that. I did not say that. I1001said capping it according to inflation.1002    Mr. Rector. But health care costs grow faster than1003inflation----1004    Mr. Gosar. That is----1005    Mr. Rector [continuing]. In the private sector. And, in1006fact, the private sector grows faster than the public sector.1007So, if you are capping Medicaid costs below the growth of1008healthcare spending, then, by definition, you are going to be1009cutting Medicaid funding for the states, and states will have1010to either reduce benefits or cut people off the rolls. And the1011important thing here is the savings being considered here will1012be funneled into tax cuts for rich people and corporations. You1013are not putting those savings back into Medicaid. You are not1014saying let us make this work better. What you are saying----1015    Mr. Gosar. OK, so, that is gratuitous.1016    Mr. Rector. Let us cut taxes for rich people?1017    Mr. Gosar. Ms. Onwuka, I am glad you brought up COVID, you1018know, because we went on this spending spree, of $4.8 to $71019trillion. Not a single receipt exists out there. And NIH, we1020talk about the NIH doing this and that, this is the same NIH1021that gave us COVID and an improper appropriation to how we took1022care of it. You know, it is sick.1023    So, can you tell me a little bit more about your opinion?1024Did this continuous enrollment opportunities for Medicaid, how1025does it buildup waste, fraud, and abuse?1026    Ms. Onwuka. Sure. During COVID, obviously, and frankly1027during recessions, we tend to see the enrollments in Medicare1028and some of the other welfare programs increase. Now, that1029said, the economies bounce back, and so as people gain1030employment, they should fall off things like SNAP. They should1031fall off certain programs. But we have not seen that, and COVID1032supercharged that. Even with the Child Tax Credit, for example,1033that was expanded, a Republican idea, the Child Tax Credit, but1034it was expanded and morphed into universal basic income by1035paying it out in monthly increments to every household and1036removing work requirements.1037    So, when you remove work requirements you provide waivers1038for states, and you create these loopholes where states can1039certainly roll people into these different programs, regardless1040of what their resources are or their income, then that is how1041you see these enrollments increase. And it is a shame that we1042are spending as much money that we are and our enrollment1043numbers are not falling. That is telling us something.1044    Mr. Gosar. Well, I tell you what. I am so excited for this1045event, looking at this idea coming about, of wellness. I cannot1046tell you. I am a dentist, previously, so I love the fact that1047we are going to hopefully look at wellness, OK.1048    But I want to know more about this. This Families First1049Coronavirus Response Act provided advanced Federal funding or1050the FMAP to states to continuously enroll Medicaid1051beneficiaries. I want to get to this point. So, what did the1052states do? They just kept enrolling. In fact, they never ever1053followed through. There was no accountability to it, everybody1054that was under this FMAP, OK. For 3 years we did this.1055    So, tell me how you would feel about that aspect.1056    Ms. Onwuka. Well, I mean, it is concerning when you have so1057many able-bodied people. We are not talking about people who1058have disabilities or are not able to work, but able-bodied1059people who are participating in programs like Medicaid because1060it has been expanded so much, we are talking about 60 percent1061of able-bodied adults on Medicaid, 25 million Americans who are1062reporting no earned income.1063    So, that is telling us that there are people who can work,1064we know that there are millions of open positions, and they are1065participating in the Medicaid program, but they are not1066working. That is a problem that needs to be fixed, and there is1067something there that is broken that needs to be rectified.1068    Mr. Gosar. And we are also seeing the fact that there is no1069accountability. The Federal Government is not going back, the1070states are not going back and saying, ``Hey, listen. You had1071private insurance. Why did you take this?'' So, there is no1072accountability whatsoever, so we just blanket across the board.1073    I do want to thank you, Mr. Linden, because I think you1074were one of the people that supported my thing about McCarran-1075Ferguson and developing in regard to health care. That is why I1076want to see new ideas, new advantages, all that across the1077board. So, from that I will say thank you. I will yield back.1078    Mr. Linden. Thank you, Congressman.1079    Mr. Grothman. Thank you. Next, we have Ms. Randall.1080    Ms. Randall. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. It is delightful1081to get the chance to talk about health care access in this1082first Subcommittee hearing, and I want to start out, being a1083new Member, and I do not know if this makes me a radical1084feminist or not, I am a married woman but I do not have a man1085in my family.1086    But I do believe that we need to make sure that access to1087the services that folks need is not--that we do not create1088additional barriers. And I believe that because of really1089personal experience. When I was 7 years old, my sister, Olivia,1090was born with microcephaly, which is a complex disability. The1091doctors did not know how long she would live or if she would1092live. My dad had a good government civilian job, had good1093Federal employee insurance, but it would not have covered all1094of the equipment and specialists that Olivia needed to survive1095in our family. But because the Washington State legislature, in10961993, was one of the first states in the country to expand1097Medicaid, Olivia was able to survive and thrive in our family.1098And because of special education funding, she was able to go to1099school, be integrated in her classroom.1100    And that is when I learned that government can play a role1101in making people's lives better, and ensuring that families1102have the tools to build strong futures, ensuring that children,1103like my sister and my brother and I, can be civically involved1104community members and can build better for our kids and our1105kids' kids.1106    I am also the first of my family to go to college. I1107benefited from financial aid. When my parents got divorced, my1108mom, after being a primary caregiver for my sister, struggled1109to re-enter the workforce, and SNAP benefits made a difference1110for us.1111    You know, I went on to break a lot of barriers in my1112family, and was elected to the State Senate, where I had the1113chance to chair the Higher Education and Workforce Development1114Committee for 5 years, where I heard story after story after1115story that was like mine and my family's, working parents who1116were trying to go to school so that they could build a better1117future for their kids, who were penalized, and who were not1118able to dedicate the time to their schoolwork because they were1119trying to hit the work requirements. Students were penalized1120because they got a little bit of a raise, a tiny, tiny, tiny1121bit of a raise, which meant that they lost their childcare1122benefits or their housing benefits or their food assistance1123benefits. Those cliffs are what keep so many families in1124poverty.1125    And I also believe that we should tackle the marriage1126penalty. I have talked to a number of particularly disabled1127parents who want to get married, who want to build a strong1128family unit, but who do not have the opportunity because they1129know that they will be made homeless by getting married and1130losing the benefits that are allowing their children to have1131health care and thrive.1132    Mr. Linden, I do not know if you have tracked any of1133Washington State's response to the Great Recession. I assume1134that it is like many states, we were forced to make some cuts1135to our safety net programs. Can you speak at all about any1136other states that made cuts to programs, safety net programs,1137under the Great Recession, and what impact that had on1138families?1139    Mr. Linden. Yes, absolutely. I think stepping back broadly,1140we know that when states and localities are forced to pull back1141on aid to struggling families because of economic resources,1142because the Federal Government has cut back, that the effects1143are very long-term. Certainly, people get hurt right away, but1144there is something in the economic literature that we call1145``scarring,'' kind of a gross term, but it does capture the1146real long-term effects of people getting thrown off of these1147programs before they are able to pick themselves up. You see it1148years and years afterwards. They have lower educational1149attainment, lower earnings, less attachment to the workforce.1150All the things that we want to see, you get the opposite of1151that.1152    I am sure that happened in Washington State. It happened1153all over the country. It happened in other countries.1154    Ms. Randall. We definitely saw that impact in Washington1155State, and in fact, what we saw was a greater strain on the1156budget long-term, because since we kicked folks off of programs1157that were allowing them to build themselves up, then we had to1158pay for housing and other safety net programs, longer term, not1159only for the parents but for the children as they grew up.1160    Washington State, like many states in the country, also has1161extensive workforce shortage, and one of the ways that we meet1162that is by ensuring that folks get credential attainment after1163high school. We have a goal of 75 percent credential1164attainment. None of that is possible if we are ensuring that1165families are not able to access education, to keep a roof over1166their head, to send their kids to childcare, and to thrive. So,1167I hope as we think about what is good for families and what is1168good for our economy, we remember that these programs provide1169support.1170    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.1171    Mr. Grothman. Thank you. We will now go to the gentleman1172from Texas, Mr. Sessions.1173    Mr. Sessions. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Mr.1174Rector, I would like to play a game with you. What is the1175amount of money, total, that you believe a family of four, that1176is married, two children, what is the amount of money that you1177believe that they should have total benefits for?1178    By the way, I think I am looking for you to help me in this1179endeavor.1180    Mr. Rector. Maybe you are trying to figure out how much1181they currently get.1182    Mr. Sessions. Well, no. I think what I am trying to say is1183if you go to the poverty level, line, and then you add in1184whatever amount of money you would choose to add in, what is1185that correct level that you believe would be something that1186would be a good number to say if a person makes this much, what1187is that number?1188    Mr. Rector. I think that you can very easily, within the1189current system, ensure that any family that has work could have1190enough benefits to get to, say $100----1191    Mr. Sessions. I am not saying that. Maybe I cut you off. I1192am sorry. Go ahead.1193    Mr. Rector. The welfare system is designed to reinforce1194work and to supplement work.1195    Mr. Sessions. And that is what I said. I said married----1196    Mr. Rector. Right.1197    Mr. Sessions [continuing]. And then what is that amount of1198money? I am trying to look at work and then amount of benefits,1199because I think there ought to be a sliding scale----1200    Mr. Rector. Right.1201    Mr. Sessions [continuing]. Up and down, instead of you do1202not qualify, or we do this, or we penalize. It ought to be, OK,1203if we decided--I am just going to say it--$100,000. I am1204playing the game I wanted you to play. If you just said,1205``$100,000, Congressman Sessions, would be an amount of money1206that I believe a family of four, husband that worked, husband1207and wife that are married, they need $100,000, however you1208cobble it together, to live.'' And then we looked at the amount1209of money that they make, and then we looked at the amount of1210money that they received benefits for. And we just said,1211$100,000. That way we are not penalizing marriage.1212    Now I can have this wrong, but that is one way to look at1213it. And then you would go and sit down with a person, whoever1214it might be, maybe it is a computer, and say, I work and my1215salary is this, and my wife's salary is this, and our tax level1216is this. Maybe they do not pay any taxes. To get to $100,000, I1217am allowed to add in benefits that look like the following1218matters, and that we encouraged marriage instead of then1219telling them, ``No, you do not qualify,'' or what you do, let1220them package together the things that they believe they needed1221the most.1222    What kind of game is that? Is that too much of an1223articulation of maybe a philosophy?1224    Mr. Rector. No. I think if you look at what we currently1225spend, if we are spending through the means-tested welfare1226system close to $60,000 for every family that has an income in1227the bottom third of the population, it is a huge amount of1228money which no one knows where it is going, for the most part.1229But you can very easily, within that system, ensure that any1230family that has at least one working parent, has an income, oh,1231say 150 percent of the poverty rate. You can easily do that.1232    But the current system, first of all, all the spending is1233hidden. It is not on the books, OK.1234    Mr. Sessions. I agree with that, and we put it on the1235books.1236    Mr. Rector. No, you do not. If you look at, like, the1237measurement of poverty, 95 percent of the $1.6 trillion you1238spend every year is off the books. It is not counted. It has1239effect on poverty.1240    Mr. Sessions. I did not say you would not count it. I am1241saying we would count it.1242    Mr. Rector. Oh, you definitely count it, and then you have1243a system that has incentives that promotes people to work----1244    Mr. Sessions. I agree.1245    Mr. Rector [continuing]. And to get married. And you get1246rid of all the fraud, which is in there, which is huge, and you1247can definitely do that for considerably less than you are1248spending today. But you have to be honest about what the1249benefits are, who is getting them. You have to count that in1250terms of measuring poverty. I mean, you have a $1.6 trillion1251welfare system.1252    Mr. Sessions. Well, I have read Phil Gramm's book. I get1253that.1254    Mr. Rector. OK.1255    Mr. Sessions. I am trying to reverse engineer it. I am not1256trying to take the time of this important panel. I am trying to1257say, is that something that might be a better----1258    Mr. Rector. Yes.1259    Mr. Sessions [continuing]. Way to look at, because I think1260it is. For instance, the gentlewoman just before me talked1261about her mother had to probably quit work because of her1262sister. Not unusual. I have a Down syndrome son. There are1263people in family emergencies, and they cut down one person1264working, and all of a sudden much of their income is cut in1265half.1266    So, I have dealt with these circumstances. I am trying to1267say it seems like we could have a workbook, a paper, that would1268say, OK, here is where you have got to be. You are at this. And1269our job is to try and get you there. And then make it easier1270for someone that is married to stay married. That way there is1271less back-and-forth.1272    OK. I am interested in getting in touch with you. I am1273interested in seeing if we could design a sheet of paper that1274could be a potential model of saying if we get to this, how do1275we get to this, how do we encourage that, and then seeing if we1276can float that with any ideas around it.1277    You are very kind. Thank you for playing my game. Mr.1278Chairman, I yield back.1279    Mr. Grothman. Thank you. Ms. Simon.1280    Ms. Simon. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair, and thank you to1281our witnesses who have come here today to talk about the issues1282surrounding family, and the health of our families, the health1283of our children. It is the reason that I came to the U.S.1284Congress.1285    For the folks who are listening in, there are women and1286mothers who are escaping domestic violence, and families who1287have small children who are trying to finish school. You know,1288the farmer that called my office, out of district, so nervous,1289so nervous that there is the potentiality of his family losing1290benefits because our system will count his small amount of land1291and his farm equipment as assets, and he has a severely1292disabled child. I care so much, as you all do. I believe we1293uniquely all have a deep place in our professional and personal1294spaces for the American family.1295    I do not believe that there--I am making an assumption, so1296I will ask--are there any members of the witnesses who came1297here today that were a single parent?1298    [No response.]1299    Ms. Simon. Any witnesses who have ever collected SNAP or1300WIC?1301    [No response.]1302    Ms. Simon. I appreciate it, because we need people on both1303sides, our advocates, our organizers, our academics.1304    I was a teen mom, a single teen mom, and I had my daughter1305while I was in college, community college. And I worked three1306jobs, and I got $28 of food stamps. And because I am legally1307blind and I was not able to drive, I would have to catch a bus1308an hour in Martinez, Contra Costa County, in the Bay Area, to1309get that $28. At one point, it just felt like it was just too1310much. But I kept my WIC.1311    And I would go to the grocery store--every month, you only1312get WIC once a month--and I would go and I was humiliated every1313single time purchasing beans and rice and milk, and being asked1314to put back because the milk maybe was two ounces more than the1315WIC stamps cost. Being poor is hard, trying to live up to the1316values in this country of working hard and raising children.1317    In fact, I got married later on. My husband died of1318leukemia. I will tell this story every single day. My 13-year-1319old is at school right now, in Washington, DC. It is a snow1320day. I am a single mom and a widow. No one is there to pick her1321up. I am asking her to wait on the stairs.1322    So, when we are going to talk about families, let us really1323talk about families. We talked about so many of the stats that1324are put before us.1325    I only have one question, but I want to give a little bit1326more background. During our last work week, members, I took1327members of my leadership of our party on a tour of University1328of California's Benioff Children's Hospital. It is an amazing1329facility, one of the state-of-the-art burn centers. It is a1330sickle cell center. They provide stem cell transplants to1331children. There are fears that much of this federally funded1332immediate care may be denied to low-income families who are1333just trying to survive.1334    They are also really thinking about, the leaders of this1335hospital, they are thinking about what they are going to do1336should our Administration attack the 340B Drug Pricing Program.1337Again, as someone who spent a lot of time with my husband when1338he was living and dying, trying to move through cancer, the1339program is essential, not only for our adults fighting life-1340critical diseases but for our children.1341    And I also met with our federally qualified health centers,1342diabetes care, prenatal care. When I was pregnant as a1343teenager, I got all of my prenatal care from Planned1344Parenthood.1345    I have one question. Actually, the question--I have a1346statement, actually, before the question, and let me get it1347clear. What I heard earlier was this estimation of poor women1348should immediately work when they give birth to their children,1349or it is really important to have work requirements. You know,1350I agree that folks should work. I have run organizations that1351put young women to work. But we do not have the same1352expectation for middle class and wealthy women. We are asking1353them to stay at home, take care of your babies.1354    So, I am curious, you know, Mr. Linden, with all the1355hypocrisy in this conversation we know that poor folks struggle1356to just make it, and they are pathologized every step of the1357way. When we are talking about the plan to cut Medi-Cal at $21358trillion, give me 7 seconds of what the effects could be on our1359low-income families in this country.1360    Mr. Linden. Sure. Seven seconds. We would cut millions of1361people from their lifesaving health care, and for what? To fund1362tax cuts for billionaires. That is what the discussion is right1363now in Congress. Should we or should we not take health care1364away from low-and moderate-income families so that we can have1365more room to give tax cuts to billionaires and corporations. I1366think the American people would be pretty unhappy to find that1367is what is under discussion her.1368    Ms. Simon. I appreciate it and I yield back. Thank you so1369much.1370    Mr. Grothman. Thank you. The gentleman from Texas, Mr.1371Gill.1372    Mr. Gill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. The1373great economist, Milton Friedman, once quipped that you can1374either have a welfare state or you can have open borders, but1375you should not have both, and I do not think you should have1376either, for one.1377    You know, we have talked, and we have heard a lot over the1378past 4 years about root causes of mass illegal immigration into1379our country, and I would like to perhaps suggest a few of them,1380and they are coming from the other side of the aisle, in that1381we are creating a welfare state that incentivizes mass1382migration into our country from every country on the globe that1383is poorer than we are.1384    My colleagues on the other side of the aisle like to say1385that illegal aliens cannot get welfare. I think that that is1386verifiably not true. In fact, illegal aliens and their families1387can receive welfare from about over a dozen different programs.1388I will list out a few of them: food stamps, child nutritional1389programs, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Supplemental1390Security Income, childcare and development block grants, the1391Earned Income Tax Credit, the Child Tax Credit, Obamacare1392premium tax credit, Obamacare cost sharing subsidies, Medicare,1393Medicaid, the Children's Health Insurance Program, Pell Grants,1394student loans, Head Start, public housing, and the Coronavirus1395State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund.1396    Whenever we think about how much money we are giving to1397illegal aliens, the numbers really are absolutely staggering,1398and I can give you just a few of them. Let me pull them up1399here. We spend, on illegal aliens and their families, over $31400billion in primary and secondary education, $580 million on1401limited English proficiency programs, $239 million for migrant1402schooling, $2.8 billion for Head Start programs, over $81403billion in uncompensated hospital expenditures, nearly $1.61404billion for Medicaid births, almost $8 billion a year on1405Medicaid fraud, $5.4 billion for Medicaid for U.S.-born1406children of illegal aliens.1407    In terms of law enforcement costs, we spend almost $1.71408billion on Federal incarceration of illegal aliens, $4.11409billion for enforcement and removal operations, $8.6 billion1410for Customs and Border Protection, $1.7 billion for other ICE1411operations, $237 million for State Criminal Alien Assistance1412Programs, over $8 billion for alien minors, and I am going to1413keep going, $191 million for DoD National Guard deployment.1414    If we look just at welfare, we spend over $1.5 billion for1415meals in schools for illegal aliens and their children, $5.81416billion for SNAP, just under $1 billion for WIC, $1.4 billion1417for TANF programs, $991 million for Child Care and Development1418Fund, $334 million for public housing, $600 million for1419Supplemental Security Income--I think in the context of a1420Federal debt that is at $36 trillion. I think that is utterly1421absurd.1422    As it all comes out, according to various estimates, we are1423spending right around $50 billion, on the Federal level, on1424illegal aliens and their families, and about $100 billion a1425year on the state level, as well.1426    Mr. Linden, I would like to start with you, and I know we1427only have a little bit of time. But do you think it makes sense1428that we provide welfare benefits for illegal aliens and their1429children?1430    Mr. Linden. I think it does not make sense to spend1431multiple times that on subsidies to corporations and rich1432people.1433    Mr. Gill. But do you think we should be taxing working1434class American families to pay for welfare for illegal aliens?1435    Mr. Linden. I genuinely believe we should make sure that1436the welfare and health care and nutrition programs that we have1437in this country are going to the people who are entitled to1438them, who are in the law, what the law says who should get1439them. And I also think that if we are worried about the Federal1440deficit and debt, we are spending multiples times what you just1441described there on tax cuts for rich people and corporations.1442And I do not understand the focus----1443    Mr. Gill. There is a difference between providing tax cuts1444for American citizens and providing handouts for illegal1445aliens.1446    Mr. Linden. Huge beneficiaries of these tax cuts are1447foreign investors. One of my----1448    Mr. Gill. I hope you guys continue----1449    Mr. Linden. One of the biggest----1450    Mr. Gill. I hope your side of the aisle continues defending1451welfare for illegal aliens, because Republicans will win every1452single election in perpetuity of that is your view.1453    And Mr. Chairman, I yield my time. Thank you.1454    Mr. Grothman. Well, thank you. Have another new person we1455are getting used to here.1456    Mr. Bell from Missouri?1457    Mr. Bell. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, let us level set here.1458It is no secret that Republicans want to cut Federal programs1459that hardworking families rely on in order to fund tax cuts for1460the wealthiest among us. And Democrats will continue to fight1461for programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security1462because we cannot turn our backs on the people that need us1463most.1464    A month ago, I was an elected DA back home, and I am going1465to give you all a piece of advice that I got a long time ago.1466You want to fix public safety? Fix your health systems. So,1467there is a public safety component to ensuring that everyone1468has access to quality healthcare1469    So, like my colleague on the other side, I would also like1470to play a game. And we should be able to find bipartisan1471consensus that waste, fraud, and abuse within Federal programs1472is intolerable. We should also support Inspectors General and1473law enforcement personnel that have dedicated their careers to1474rooting out this fraud and recovering lost funds from bad1475actors.1476    Instead, I have been very disappointed, and dismayed, for1477that fact, that President Trump spent his first week in office1478firing Inspectors General and career prosecutors, including1479people who were tasked with investigating and preventing fraud1480within the very programs our Republican colleagues claim are1481ripe for abuse. I want to stress the importance of our1482independent and nonpartisan Inspectors General. The work they1483do should be commended.1484    So, let us also play a money or investment game. For the1485relatively small investment made in Offices of Inspector1486Generals, the taxpayer receives a massive return on that1487investment. In Fiscal Year 2023, Inspectors General detected1488and clawed back as much $93 billion in taxpayer funds. By one1489measure, for every $1 invested in an Office of Inspector1490Generals, $26 is saved by their oversight work.1491    So, Mr. Linden, President Trump fired the HHS Inspector1492General in January. What impact will this have on the ability1493for people to defraud Medicare and Medicaid.1494    Mr. Linden. It will make it a lot easier, and exactly as1495you said, Congressman, if we are really interested in rooting1496out waste, fraud, and abuse, I am all for that. We should be1497spending every single dollar of American taxpayers with1498responsibility and oversight. And when we find those savings,1499let us reinvest them into the people who actually need those1500benefits and who actually deserve those benefits, who will grow1501our economy. Let us not give that money to the wealthy and1502corporations.1503    Mr. Bell. And staying on that, what signal does removing a1504watchdog send to bad actors intentionally seeking to defraud1505the government?1506    Mr. Linden. It says that it is open season for fraudsters.1507If these Inspectors General are not on the job, looking out for1508the American taxpayer, who is doing it? Is it Elon Musk? I do1509not trust him.1510    Mr. Bell. Our colleagues on the other side push this common1511misperception that increasing access to Federal programs will1512lead to rampant fraud and abuse. Why is that untrue?1513    Mr. Linden. It is simply not true. We can absolutely1514increase access and the generosity of benefits, the1515availability of benefits, at the same time making sure that1516those benefits are going to the people who we intend them to go1517to and stopping scammers and fraudsters from taking advantage1518of the low-and moderate-income people who need those benefits.1519    Mr. Bell. Without independent Inspectors General at the1520wheel, effective oversight diminishes, and programs that1521Congress established become far more vulnerable to waste,1522fraud, and abuse. If my colleagues across the aisle were truly1523serious about examining how to cut down on waste or fraud, then1524President Trump's purge of independent watchdogs would be a1525flashing red light telling us something is wrong. We should1526come together, make sure that independent Inspectors General1527are nominated, confirmed, and committed to a career that is1528free from political influence and games.1529    Thank you, and I yield my time to the Ranking Member.1530    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Thank you, Mr. Bell. Inspectors1531General, you know, Mr. Rector, let me ask you this question.1532What is your opinion about the utility of having Inspectors1533General at the agencies where they are supposed to be rooting1534out waste, fraud, and abuse?1535    Mr. Rector. Well, that is fine, but you actually have to1536work and do something about the reports they give you. For1537example, the Inspector General at the IRS has told us for1538decades that there is about a 37 percent fraud rate in the1539EITC. Now, I have read all those reports. I have done all that1540analysis.1541    So, I could sit down here this afternoon and tell you1542exactly how to prevent all that fraud, prevent the money from1543going out the door in the first place, because it does not do1544any good to have an audit of 10,000 people when you have a1545caseload of 22 million. You say over and over again there is1546fraud, fraud, fraud. Nothing is done. I can tell you right now1547I could stop every single bit of that fraud in the EITC. I have1548already written out how to do it, OK.1549    So, the question is whether you want to act on that fraud1550and act on those reports or whether you want to continue the1551fraud to flow out that door. The EITC is noted for having a1552high fraud rate. The reason for that is it is the only program1553that the government, correctly, audits. There are no meaningful1554audits in food stamps. There are none in Section 8. And if you1555had a good audit on them, you would find equal fraud rates1556there, as well, OK. But then when you know what the fraud is,1557you know how it is done, you have to stop it. We have known how1558the fraud is done in the EITC and the ACTC for decades, but1559there is nothing that is done to stop it. I could stop it1560tomorrow afternoon.1561    Mr. Grothman. We will give my good buddy here, Mr.1562Krishnamoorthi, a follow-up.1563    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. So, I am with you on this, which is1564what I hear you saying is, do the audit, but then act on it.1565    Mr. Rector. Yes.1566    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. So, the utility of Inspectors General1567is high, but you have to act on their advice.1568    Mr. Rector. Absolutely.1569    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. OK. Thank you.1570    Mr. Grothman. OK. The new gentleman from Virginia, Mr.1571McGuire.1572    Mr. McGuire. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, it is1573immoral and indefensible to use taxpayer dollars to support a1574border invasion. Illegal aliens, the criminals, are robbing,1575raping, and killing the American people. It is also1576indefensible and immoral to put boys in girls' sports and boys1577in girls' bathrooms, and to allow this fentanyl being produced1578in China to come across the southern border and poison the1579American people. More people die every year from fentanyl1580overdose than died in the Vietnam War. They say age 18 to 45,1581it is the No. 1 cause of death in the country.1582    I think it is also immoral and indefensible to spend $1.61583trillion on these programs with no record of where that went. I1584think I heard testimony--is that correct, Mr. Rector, $1.61585trillion, and we have no idea where it is going and how it is1586measured.1587    Mr. Rector. That is correct. And to the extent that you1588have any measures, they hide it.1589    Mr. McGuire. That is why President Trump got a mandate.1590There are two things missing in our country right now--trust,1591President Trump is bringing back trust because he is doing what1592he campaigned on. He got the popular vote, and he got the1593electoral college.1594    But he is also bringing back fairness. Eighty percent of1595Americans, regardless of race, religion, creed, or party,1596believe that it is wrong to have boys in girls' sports. Yet for1597some reason our colleagues on the other side think that is OK.1598I think it is immoral and indefensible.1599    I also think it is indefensible that there is no clear1600record of how much money each family gets. Is it $100,000? Is1601it $50,000? We have no idea.1602    Ms.--I hope I do not pronounce it wrong--Onwuka?1603    Ms. Onwuka. Onwuka.1604    Mr. McGuire. Onwuka?1605    Ms. Onwuka. Yes.1606    Mr. McGuire. I really, really appreciate your comments on1607the family, the breakdown of the nuclear family. You know, I1608heard Mr. Rector say it does not make any sense why every1609single safety net program is against the family. Is that how1610you said that, Mr. Rector?1611    Mr. Rector. That is correct.1612    Mr. McGuire. That is just indefensible, and it makes no1613sense. And, I heard you say it makes no sense, but it makes1614sense to me why they are doing this, because the strength of1615our country is that our religious values, our Judeo-Christian1616values, this country was founded in the church, but it is also1617the strength of the nuclear family. And you remember, on the1618Black Lives Matter website, it used to say their purpose was to1619break down the nuclear family.1620    So, when you say you do not know why they are doing it, I1621think they are telling us. And when someone is telling you why1622they are doing something, you should believe that.1623    I would say that our social safety net should focus on1624supporting the truly poor and vulnerable, for able-bodied1625individuals that need assistance. And I would say work1626requirements for welfare programs are essential because they1627encourage self-sufficiency, reduce long-term dependency, and1628help individuals gain the skills and experience needed to1629achieve financial independence.1630    Ms. Onwuka, in your testimony you stated that an estimated163124.6 million able-bodied adults on Medicaid reported no earned1632income, and no one ever drops off the program. So, are they1633always poor forever? And during the pandemic that picked up.1634    What factors contribute to this large number of non-working1635recipients?1636    Ms. Onwuka. Well, in part it has to do with how people are1637enrolled and whether they qualify. And whether you are talking1638about Medicaid, SNAP, TANF, some of these other programs, there1639are lots of loopholes that can easily either roll people into1640some of these programs or waive the eligibility requirements.1641So, I think that is where the concern is.1642    And if I may just make a quick point. I appreciated hearing1643some of the personal stories. I am an immigrant. I am a1644naturalized citizen. So, I came to this country, and I grew up1645in a very poor neighborhood. And a lot of people on programs1646that we are talking about today are my classmates. And I1647recognize that the ones who did well were the ones who had1648parents who were working and managed to move from dependency1649programs into independence. They saved and bought a house, like1650my family did, and moved out of the poor neighborhoods and away1651from the negative influences there.1652    So, I think that my colleagues who want to see welfare1653reform are not doing it from an uncompassionate place but1654actually from a compassionate place, to say, you know what, we1655want you to be able to be a master of your own destiny, and1656that is by making sure you are moving from dependency into1657independence and fruitfulness.1658    Mr. McGuire. I agree with that.1659    Ms. Onwuka. And that comes with some of these tougher1660things that need to be done.1661    Mr. McGuire. So, I was abandoned as a child, at 5 years1662old. I had been in the foster care system, nine different1663elementary schools. And we had some of those programs, as well.1664But we, by the strength of a family and working hard, we got1665our way out of that.1666    Mr. Linden, do you believe there is dignity in work?1667    Mr. Linden. Absolutely.1668    Mr. McGuire. You know, one of the things I hear all around1669my district is we cannot find workers at our restaurant and at1670our other business. So, it is irresponsible to not know how1671much money is being spent and where it is being spent. And that1672is why I am so glad that President Trump got a mandate, and I1673trust Elon Musk. In just 2 weeks he has identified millions and1674millions of dollars in waste, fraud, and abuse that American1675people suspected, but we could not get a clear answer. And he1676is just getting started.1677    And with that I yield back.1678    Mr. Grothman. Thank you very much. We will--Mr.1679Krishnamoorthi has a couple of things he wants to take care of.1680    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Yes. I just wanted to do a little bit1681of housekeeping here. First, I want unanimous consent to enter1682this article by the World Economic Forum titled, quote, ``New1683research busts the myth of welfare dependency,'' which1684summarizes economic research showing the belief that social1685safety net programs cause dependency is not based on reality1686and nothing more than a misleading myth. I would like to enter1687that into the record.1688    Mr. Grothman. OK. We will do that.1689    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. And then I would like unanimous consent1690to enter into the record a report by the Center on Budget and1691Policy Priorities titled, ``Medicaid work requirements could1692put 36 million people at risk of losing health coverage.'' This1693report estimates 36 million people could lose Medicaid coverage1694if Republicans conditioned health coverage on a variety of1695requirements that are currently under consideration by the1696Energy and Commerce Committee.1697    Mr. Grothman. Thank you. We will enter that into the1698record.1699    Mr. Grothman. Now I will ask you if you want to do a1700closing statement.1701    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Yes. Thank you very much. Thank you,1702Mr. Chair, and thank you to our witnesses for devoting your1703time, and thank you to the audience for your attention, as1704well.1705    First of all, I was moved by the different stories,1706personal stories, your own, Ms. Onwuka, as well as Mr. McGuire1707and Mr. Bell and Ms. Simon.1708    I think that where social safety net programs work, they1709are transformative, and they enable people who are in real need1710to overcome that need and do great things, and to live the1711American dream.1712    However, I will be the first to concede that there could be1713improvements. But can we do these improvements, can we work on1714these improvements in a thoughtful, bipartisan manner? I think1715the answer is yes.1716    And so, for instance, with regard to work requirements,1717which Ms. Onwuka talks about, I think that more Democrats would1718be interested in working on this issue if they also heard about1719potential supports with regard to career technical vocational1720education that enables people to get the skills to acquire and1721keep the jobs that are out there in the workforce, that we need1722them to fill.1723    I think more Democrats would also be very interested in1724working on this issue if we could talk about the issue of1725childcare, which is dramatically scarce, not only for poor1726people but for all people. I think everyone in this room who1727had ever had to pay for childcare knows how prohibitively1728expensive it is and how, we talk about a marriage penalty,1729there is a child penalty in this country right now that is1730operating to, in my opinion, really discourage family1731formation, and discourage all the things that we want good to1732happen in this country.1733    So, I would just respectfully submit, Mr. Chairman, that if1734we could also talk about these issues in the context of the1735ones that you are talking about, I think we could really have a1736thoughtful discussion.1737    Finally, I respectfully submit cuts of the magnitude being1738contemplated in the Energy and Commerce Committee or the Ways1739and Means Committee, cuts to the tune of $2 trillion to1740Medicaid, would absolutely be devastating to the tens of1741millions of families, especially on Medicaid expansion, who are1742benefiting from those supports today. In my home state of1743Illinois, about 700,000 to 800,000 Illinois residents are on1744Medicaid expansion. Are many of them able-bodied adults?1745Absolutely? Are many of them working? Yes. Are many of them1746incapable of affording private health insurance without these1747supports? The answer is absolutely, positively yes. That is why1748they crucially depend on Obamacare. They crucially depend on1749it.1750    So, if we are going to take those supports away from them,1751they will not have access to healthcare, plain and simple, even1752as they continue to work, even as they struggle, even as they1753raise their children.1754    So, that is the question on the table for my good friends1755on the other side, which is I understand you are looking for1756places to find money. I respectfully submit, do not find money1757on the backs of people--poor, working people who cannot get1758access to health care in any other way than through Medicaid1759and these crucial safety net programs.1760    With that I want to say thank you, Mr. Chair, for your1761indulgence, and I yield back.1762    Mr. Grothman. Thank you very much. I would like to make my1763closing statement and kind of go over where I, by the way, Ms.1764Onwuka, I wish we heard more from you. You are just tremendous,1765and I wish we did not have just 5 minutes per person here. We1766will have to bring you back for another panel on some other1767topic.1768    OK. First of all, when I put together this hearing it was1769not my intent that we wind up talking about tax policy at all1770or even money that can be saved through these programs. We can1771save money, but the problem with these programs--but the1772biggest problem to me is not that they cost too much. It is1773that our current programs, as Mr.--oh, and by the way, the only1774example that I heard today in which somebody threw out we can1775do something with the money we save is Mr. Rector, who1776suggested taking some of the money we save on the abuse and1777putting it into changing the Earned Income Tax Credit, so it1778was not so hating of married couples like it is today.1779    OK. The purpose of this Committee is saying that, well,1780while we expanded the welfare state overwhelmingly, what we did1781is we created a huge disincentive to raise children with a1782mother and father at home. That is incontrovertible. And there1783are all sorts of hypotheticals you can come up with, but Mr.1784Rector mentioned today a hypothetical in which you would1785penalize somebody $28,000 for marrying the father of her1786children. I would hope we would think that that was bad public1787policy.1788    We did not get into, though it would be interesting to look1789at, the fact that there are some very scary progressive-type1790people who dislike marriage and dislike men in the home. I am1791thinking, of course, Marx himself; the radical feminist, Kate1792Millett; and that crowd, who were hanging around in the 1960s,1793and really just wanted to get the man out of the home. And1794while I can say they were extremists that did not appeal to a1795lot of people, my good friends in the Democratic Party sometime1796have a hard time saying no to their extremist friends.1797    OK. I realize there are many great single parents. I know1798them. We all know them. Nevertheless, it is an uphill climb.1799And in my opinion, we pass bills in here dealing with crime1800problem, drug problem, even the education problem. I talk to1801school superintendents about this. All these things are made1802worse by the obvious incentive the Federal Government has right1803now in discouraging the old-fashioned nuclear family. And this1804is not something that just happened in a vacuum. Depending on1805the year you pick out, in the 1960s, in the 1950s, 4 to 71806percent of the American families, when there was a new birth,1807it was out of wedlock. We are, right now, at 40 percent. That1808is a huge difference, and, in my opinion, it happened largely1809because of this huge welfare system, with 90 programs, or1810whatever Mr. Rector said, all with a marriage penalty in them.1811And I think as a result, people have understandably changed1812their behavior. That might not be the only way they have1813changed their behavior, but when you are going from 4 to 401814percent, I think it is pretty obvious.1815    I was disappointed that, upon looking at the $28,0001816penalty that Mr. Rector laid out, that Mr. Linden came back and1817said our problem we have got to put more money in these1818programs. Twenty-eight thousand is enough. We do not need a1819$38,000 or $48,000 penalty for getting married.1820    So, in any event, otherwise I thought it was a good1821program. I think you all added something to the mix. And like I1822said, I hope people in Congress, both in the bill coming up in1823the near future and for a period longer than that, spend some1824time when they pass legislation and wonder, or spend some time1825analyzing whether their new program or old programs or the 901826programs Mr. Rector brought up, whether those programs are1827overly favoring the option of not being married or otherwise.1828    And I will say one other thing. When I get around my1829district there are two things I hear frequently, people who1830have relatives who are not getting married to get the1831benefits--it is so common--or friends not getting married to1832get the benefits, and, in something that was brought up by, I1833think, was it?1834    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Ms. Randall?1835    Mr. Grothman. Could have been. One of them brought up the1836idea that they, in their life, had to stop working because of,1837you could say, the generosity of these programs. But if you1838talk to your employers, particularly employers who hire people,1839say, in that $14 to $20 dollar range, you would again and again1840find examples of employees who will not work extra hours1841because it penalizes them, and they would begin to lose their1842benefits.1843    So, I was glad that she pointed that out, that that is a1844problem with these systems. I think the biggest problem is it1845discourages marriage, but the secondary problem is no question1846it discourages work and improving yourself along those lines.1847    So, in any event, I have to say something here. I have got1848to take care of my business too. With that, and without1849objection, all Members have 5 legislative days within which to1850submit materials and additional written questions for the1851witnesses, which will be forwarded to the witnesses.1852    If there is no further business, without objection, this1853Subcommittee stands adjourned. Thank you.1854    [Whereupon, at 3:37 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]18551856                                 [all]