[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
FISCAL YEAR 2023 BUDGET PRIORITIES:
MEMBERS' DAY
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, D.C., MAY 17, 2022
__________
Serial No. 117-11
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Budget
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available on the Internet:
www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
47-768 PDF WASHINGTON : 2022
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET
JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky, Chairman
HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES, New York JASON SMITH, Missouri,
BRIAN HIGGINS, New York Ranking Member
BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania, TRENT KELLY, Mississippi
Vice Chairman TOM McCLINTOCK, California
LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin
DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania
JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois CHRIS JACOBS, New York
DANIEL T. KILDEE, Michigan MICHAEL BURGESS, Texas
JOSEPH D. MORELLE, New York BUDDY CARTER, Georgia
STEVEN HORSFORD, Nevada BEN CLINE, Virginia
BARBARA LEE, California LAUREN BOEBERT, Colorado
JUDY CHU, California BYRON DONALDS, Florida
STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa
JENNIFER WEXTON, Virginia BOB GOOD, Virginia
ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, Virginia ASHLEY HINSON, Iowa
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas JAY OBERNOLTE, California
JIM COOPER, Tennessee MIKE CAREY, Ohio
ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
SCOTT H. PETERS, California
SETH MOULTON, Massachusetts
PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
Professional Staff
Diana Meredith, Staff Director
Mark Roman, Minority Staff Director
CONTENTS
Page
Hearing held in Washington, D.C., May 17, 2022................... 1
Hon. John A. Yarmuth, Chairman, Committee on the Budget...... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 4
Hon. Jason Smith, Ranking Member, Committee on the Budget.... 6
Report submitted for the record.......................... 7
Prepared statement of.................................... 22
Hon. Robert Wittman, A Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Virginia................................... 24
Prepared statement of.................................... 26
Hon. Ed Case, A Representative in Congress from the State of
Hawaii..................................................... 31
Prepared statement of.................................... 33
Hon. Sylvia R. Garcia, A Representative in Congress from the
State of Texas............................................. 35
Prepared statement of.................................... 37
Hon. Michael Cloud, A Representative in Congress from the
State of Texas............................................. 44
Prepared statement of.................................... 47
Hon. Katie Porter, A Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 53
Prepared statement of.................................... 55
Hon. Blake Moore, A Representative in Congress from the State
of Utah.................................................... 57
Prepared statement of.................................... 59
Hon. Fred Keller, A Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania............................... 62
Prepared statement of.................................... 64
Additional Statements submitted for the record............... 70
FISCAL YEAR 2023 BUDGET PRIORITIES: MEMBERS' DAY
----------
TUESDAY, MAY 17, 2022
House of Representatives
Committee on the Budget
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., in
room 210, Cannon Building, Hon. John A. Yarmuth [Chairman of
the Committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Yarmuth, Plaskett; Smith, Kelly,
Grothman, Smucker, Carter, Donalds, Obernolte, and Carey.
Chairman Yarmuth.
[Audio malfunction] participating remotely, the Chair or
staff designated by the Chair may mute a participant's
microphone when the participant is not under recognition for
the purpose of eliminating inadvertent background noise. If you
are participating remotely and are experiencing connectivity
issues, please contact staff immediately so those issues can be
resolved.
Members participating in the hearing room or on the remote
platform are responsible for unmuting themselves when they seek
recognition. We are permitted to unmute Members unless they
explicitly request permission. If you are participating
remotely and I notice you have not unmuted yourself, I will ask
you if you would like staff to unmute you. If you indicate
approval by nodding, staff will unmute your microphone. They
will not unmute your microphone under any other circumstances.
Members must have their cameras on and be visible on screen
in order to be recognized. Members may not participate in more
than one committee proceeding simultaneously. If you are on the
remote platform and choose to participate in a different
proceeding, please turn your camera off.
Finally, we have established an email box for submitting
documents before and during committee proceedings. And we have
distributed that email address to your staff.
I now yield myself five minutes for an opening statement.
Good morning once again and welcome to the Budget
Committee's Members' Day hearing. This day is a longstanding
tradition for the Budget Committee, and each year I look
forward to this opportunity to hear from our colleagues on
their budget priorities.
Our last Members' Day hearing was in March 2021, and the
world looked undeniably different then. In the year since, we
have made tremendous progress in our fight against COVID and in
our economic recovery. We have gone from approximately 53
million Americans fully vaccinated to more than 220 million
Americans fully vaccinated.
A record number of jobs were created in the U.S. last year,
with 8.3 million created since President Biden took office. The
number of people relying on unemployment benefits has dropped
from 18 million to approximately 1 million, the lowest level
since 1970. And just last year, Americans started 5.4 million
new businesses, more than any other year on record.
This progress was neither predicted nor guaranteed. It was
largely the result of the investments in the American Rescue
Plan and it is the main reason our economic recovery is far
outpacing most of our global competitors.
But Congress' work is not done. American families and our
economy still face interconnected challenges that threaten to
destabilize households and slow our record-breaking recovery.
Vladimir Putin's unprovoked war in Ukraine, a persistent
mismatch between supply and demand, and pandemic-related supply
chain issues have put upward pressure on prices not just in the
U.S., but around the world. The U.S. is among the many advanced
economies that are experiencing inflation above 5 percent right
now. This includes countries that did not enact major recovery
legislation like the American Rescue Plan.
So, we have a global, multinational problem and our
Republican colleagues are insisting it has a uniquely American
cause. Why? I think we all know why and it is certainly not
helpful to the American people, but I will move on.
The Federal Reserve is best positioned to tackle immediate
inflation concerns, and Congress can and must do everything it
can to lower costs for American families overall. Smart and
necessary investments in early education and childcare,
healthcare, and affordable housing would be enormously helpful
to families while expanding opportunities for parents and
children.
Commonsense reforms to rebalance our tax code to reward
work, not wealth, will cut taxes for families and ensure that
huge corporations are paying their fair share. In the short
term, these investments will improve the lives of American
families and strengthen our recovery. In the long term, they
will foster increased opportunities and a more equitable and
productive economy. That is what the American people want from
their government, and that is what the American people need
from their government.
I am sure my colleagues on the other side of the dais will
have lots to say about inflation today. I, for one, would
welcome an explanation on how the American Rescue Plan also
managed to cause high inflation in France, the UK, Brazil, and
so many other countries around the world. I would also like to
know why on Earth they think raising taxes on half of
Americans, from teachers to firefighters, is a solution to high
inflation. That is the only Republican leadership plan I have
seen put forward, and it would be devastating to American
families.
But the true purpose of this hearing is to get as much
helpful input as possible. We are here to listen to our
colleagues and learn about the concerns of their constituents.
It is my hope that today's hearing will provide insight into
the issues and longer-term budgetary challenges this Committee
should examine as we work to build an economy that works for
all Americans.
Once again, I want thank Members for taking time out of
their busy schedules to appear before our Committee today, and
I look forward to their testimony.
With that, I would like to yield to the Ranking Member, Mr.
Smith, for five minutes for his opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Yarmuth follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Yarmuth. Thank you, Chairman
Yarmuth. It is fair to say the country is in a different place
since our last Members' Day and not a good place. Inflation has
risen 11 percent since President Biden took office and it
continues to run at a 40-year high. Gas hit its highest price
ever this week, and over 2.4 million illegal immigrants have
been apprehended at the southern border; and now families are
facing a national shortage of baby formula.
The President's signature piece of legislation, the so-
called ``American Rescue Plan,'' was jammed through this
Committee before we even had a chance to organize. It added $2
trillion to the deficit and sparked an inflationary fire that
has driven a massive rise in prices to all Americans.
Then, a few months later, you were at it again, pushing
through the President's $5 trillion Build Back Broke agenda--
the most expensive bill in American history. But since this is
our annual ``Members' Day'' hearing--I would like to mention
the things that Members on our side wish this Committee would
focus and spend its time on:
No. 1--can we actually debate a budget this year? It's been
over 1,400 days, Mr. Chairman, 1,400 days since we marked up a
budget resolution in this Committee. Are we going to keep
spending without a plan? Will Democrats once again forfeit
their responsibility and smuggle topline spending numbers into
another bill, so they don't have to debate them?
No. 2--can we fulfill our obligation under Committee and
House rules to actually hold some oversight hearings? It is
beyond time for this Committee to examine the trail of waste
and abuse left behind by the American Rescue Plan. $783 million
for checks to prisoners, $40 million for libraries in the
President's home state of Delaware, $2 million for trees to be
planted in New York, and the list goes on and on. If we are not
doing a budget this year, then perhaps we can use that time to
have an oversight hearing on that spending--an idea, Mr.
Chairman, that one of your Democrat colleagues on this
Committee agreed was needed at a recent hearing.
No. 3--when are we going to talk about the impact mounting
debt is having on our budget and American families? The Federal
Reserve is raising interest rates to deal with the President's
inflation crisis. Higher rates will make it even harder for
families to buy a house, small businesses to expand, and
farmers to buy equipment. But it will also impact our
government's bottom line.
Earlier this month, I released a report that shows the
destructive effects higher interest rates would have on the
federal budget. For example, if rates return to their 50-year
average, the federal government will be paying $1.3 trillion in
interest on our national debt today. If they rise to the levels
we saw the last time inflation was this high, today's interest
payments would be $2.6, $2.6 trillion.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to insert the report
into the record.
Chairman Yarmuth. Without objection.
[Report submitted for the record follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
No. 4--how about getting to the bottom of the causes and
consequences of inflation? President Biden's strategy of
blaming inflation on a new villain every month is failing.
First he denied inflation existed, then he called it temporary,
and now it is Putin's fault. The truth is, is that inflation
rose 7 \1/2\ percent before Putin's army stepped foot in
Ukraine. The real culprit that helped spark inflation,
according to economists, was the American Rescue Plan.
And No. 5--this Committee should examine the billions
President Biden is spending through executive orders. The
endless student loan moratorium costs $4.3 billion every month.
Six million is being paid every day to DOD contractors to
babysit $350 million in unused border wall materials. Taxpayers
who are struggling to pay for basic necessities should not be
on the hook for these costly executive actions.
These are things this Committee should be focused on. I
yield back, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Jason Smith follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Yarmuth. I thank the Ranking Member for his
opening remarks.
Members appearing before the Committee today will have five
minutes to give their oral testimony and their written
statements will be made part of the formal record. I ask
unanimous consent that Members have until the end of the day to
submit any written materials for the record. Without objection,
so ordered.
In addition, Members of the Committee will be permitted to
question witnesses following their statements. But out of
consideration of our colleagues' time, I would ask that you
please keep your comments brief.
We will have two panels today. I would now like to call up
our first panel, the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Wittman; the
gentleman from Hawaii, Mr. Case; the gentlewoman from Texas,
Ms. Garcia; and the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Porter,
who will testify virtually.
I now recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Wittman,
for five minutes. You may begin when you are ready.
STATEMENTS OF HON. ROBERT WITTMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; HON. ED CASE, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF HAWAII; HON.
SYLVIA R. GARCIA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE
OF TEXAS
STATEMENT OF ROBERT WITTMAN
Mr. Wittman. Well, thank you, Chairman Yarmuth and Ranking
Member Smith. I want to thank you for allowing me to testify
before you and the Members of the Budget Committee today. I am
honored to highlight some of the perspectives I, as well as may
constituents, have to improve the operations of the U.S.
Congress and the budget process.
In order to craft a responsible budget plan that addresses
the needs of the United States, Congress must make the
difficult decisions, but essential decisions, about spending
and challenging head-on the fiscal threats we face. Our
repeated failure to control federal spending and address our
mounting debt truly is the greatest long-term danger to this
nation. Congress should fulfill their constitutional duty to
produce a budget resolution that puts our nation on a fiscally
sustainable path.
Sound fiscal footing fosters an environment for a strong
economy, opportunities for growth, and prosperity for all
people. If we keep letting our debt spiral out of control, we
put our country at risk of a financial crisis.
The federal government has an outstanding public debt of
more than $30 trillion. Every year since 1997, Congress has
failed to maintain a fiscally responsible budget and, instead,
has relied on too much raising of our debt ceiling.
Our current normal of not passing a balanced budget is
irresponsible and poses a major national security threat. In
fact, at the time, Admiral Mike Mullen, who was Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs, was asked what is the greatest threat to our
national security? And he said the national debt. Both parties
have failed to restore regular order in the budget and
appropriations process and become comfortable with passing
irresponsible continuing resolutions and omnibus spending
legislation.
To address this issue, I have introduced multiple pieces of
legislation. First, the No Budget, No Pay Act. The No Budget,
No Pay Act would prohibit Members of the House or Senate from
receiving pay if their respective chamber does not pass a
budget by April 15th of each year, which is a requirement. You
cannot continue to budget on this step-by-step process and
create the certainty necessary for the federal agencies and the
American people.
Next, Inaction Has Consequences Act. The Inaction Has
Consequences Act mandates that if Members of Congress do not
complete appropriations bills by the end of the fiscal year,
their pay is withheld. If Members cannot get their most basic
responsibility of funding our government done, we must be held
accountable.
Finally, the Stay on Schedule Resolution. The Stay on
Schedule Resolution changes congressional procedures to
prohibit the House from taking a recess in August unless it has
passed all 12 appropriations bills individually by July 31st of
2022. This resolution, in conjunction with my other
legislation--the No Budget, No Pay Act and the Inaction Has
Consequences Act--will put the proper accountability measures
in place to ensure Congress gets its primary job done on time.
It is time to finally pass measures like mine that will
hold Members to a higher standard and complete the work of the
people.
Chairman Yarmuth and Ranking Member Smith, thank you for
allowing me the time to testify before you today. And I look
forward to working with you and the rest of the Committee to
restore America's fiscal footing.
[The prepared statement of Robert Wittman follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Yarmuth. Mr. Wittman, thank you for your comments.
Is there any Member who wishes to ask a question of Mr.
Wittman?
Mr. Smucker. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Yarmuth. Yes, sir.
Mr. Smucker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr.
Wittman. I just want to point out that is an interesting
comment from the admiral. And at the time he made that, we were
at about 60 percent debt-to-GDP, I believe.
Mr. Wittman. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. Smucker. If I remember correctly. And how we are at
about 133 percent debt-to-GDP. And so I think you are exactly
right in identifying this as a major threat potentially to the
country going forward and something that we should be
addressing in Congress.
And I think looking at that particular measure, debt-to-
GDP, it is going to be tough to balance the budget anytime in
the future, but it took us a long time to get here.
Mr. Wittman. Mm-hmm.
Mr. Smucker. And we should be thinking about how we can
change the trajectory. And instead of continuing to grow that
debt-to-GDP, we could start to see that tail off. And if we do
that, I think we do have a pathway out of this. If we don't, if
we continue to spend trillions and we continue to add to the
debt, particularly as a measure compared to GDP I think is a
great way to look at it, we are in potentially serious trouble.
We have had--every time in history when a country has gone that
path and not changed course, it hasn't ended well.
And so, really appreciate you bringing that to our
attention. I think any kind of measures like that that can hold
us accountable are very, very important. And I think it is
really important what that budget looks like, as well. And we
have to change the trajectory going forward.
So, thank you so much. Appreciate you speaking out on this.
Mr. Wittman. Thank you. Yes, I agree and especially with
inflation today. It is going to exacerbate what we pay in
interest on the national debt. The fiscal challenges to this
nation are only going to get greater.
Mr. Smucker. Yes, I think every percentage in inflation--I
mean, I am sorry, every percentage in interest we are spending
about $150 billion more in interest, and so that is a real
problem going forward. Thanks.
Chairman Yarmuth. I thank the gentleman. Is there any other
Member who wishes to ask for time?
I will just make one comment. Just kind of for the record,
back in 2017, we had a Joint Select Committee on Budgetary and
Appropriations Processes. Steve Womack, who was then the
chairman of this Committee, was the chair of that group. And
many of the ideas that you mentioned were discussed at length
in both in hearings that that Joint Committee had and also in
deliberations of the group. But, unfortunately, we couldn't get
any of those proposals even put before the House through that
process.
And I think the conclusion of the group was that while they
all seemed to make some sense, that ultimately, if the will of
the individual Members of Congress is not there, that no
procedures are going to change things. But those proposals are
certainly worthy of further discussion. I thank you.
I now yield five minutes to the gentleman from Hawaii, Mr.
Case.
STATEMENT OF ED CASE
Mr. Case. Thank you so much, Chair Yarmuth and Ranking
Member Smith, Members of the Committee. Thank you so much for
the opportunity to share some broader thoughts with you today.
And I do deeply appreciate this Committee's Member Day
tradition.
I need not dwell on the true state of our national budget.
By any measure--annual deficits, total debt, debt-to-GDP,
interest as a percentage of, and on and on--it is severe and
worsening. The only measure cited as positive, year-over-year
deficit improvement, is meaningless against a baseline of
necessary but actual record COVID deficit spending.
For those dwindling few who care about budgets and deficits
and debts and other such annoying and obstructive concepts,
these are hard times. We are told they don't matter, that we
can have our cake and eat it, too. Budgets are treated as pure
balancing exercises, if that, as opposed to fiscal, monetary,
economic, and social policy direction. Guardrail rules like
PAYGO against our worst inclinations toward rationalization,
short-term gratification, and avoidance are ignored; budget
rules like reconciliation are co-opted; the honest reporters,
like the Congressional Budget Office, are demonized. We are
stuck in an endless debate and gyration between feed the beast
and starve the beast, united only by a common purpose of
driving the budget into a deeper hole.
How do we return to a fiscally and, yes, thus economically
and socially sustainable path? Do we dare to start by
attempting to agree on some common principles as in stabilizing
annual deficits and the national debt will fight inflation,
will promote economic growth, work, and investment, will slow
the growth of federal interest costs, and will secure our major
trust funds for future generations?
Can we also agree that the inverse is equally true and
destructive? Can we then pursue some difficult but constructive
advances toward some restored discipline and stability? Here
are just a few.
No. 1, the Sustainable Budget Act. This proposal,
introduced by me and others this Congress on a bipartisan,
bicameral basis, would establish a National Commission on
Fiscal Responsibility and Reform to identify policies to
achieve fiscal sustainability over the long term. This
commission would have access to expedited legislative
procedures to pass recommendations to balance the budget and
meaningfully improve the long-term fiscal outlook. Yes, similar
approaches in the past have not ultimately succeeded, but it
was not for lack of constructive effort and, measured against
the alternative of the current status quo, which is virtually
nothing, it is at least demonstrated effort and progress.
No. 2, the TRUST Act. This proposal, also bipartisan and
bicameral by me and others, would take steps to secure the
endangered species of Social Security and Medicare by similar
means. To critics, same comments as the Sustainable Budget Act.
No. 3, transparent budget information and analysis. It
seems so obvious that accurate information about the true
impacts of legislation on the fiscal health of the nation is
essential. Yet from the sounds of it, that is a mortal threat.
This year, for example, over puzzling obstacles, the House
passed the Fiscal State of the Nation Resolution, a good first
step.
However, in many ways, we are still legislatively blind to
the full impacts of our own decisions by our own hands. We too
often proceed with floor votes without COB scoring.
Furthermore, CBO scoring does not include the cost of servicing
the debt, which means every time legislation increases the
debt, we are not accounting for the full cost of that
legislation on the federal budget. We must change all that.
And finally, the Conrad Rule. We must reexamine how
Congress approaches budget reconciliation, a process that was
and is focused on budget discipline and decision, not as a
general filibuster circumvention tool. We should adopt
legislation that I have introduced to reinstate the Conrad
Rule, which would require all reconciliation bills to be
budget-neutral, to go with renewed scrutiny on any appropriate
reconciliation.
These are just a few baby steps down a long and difficult
road back to some form of fiscal sustainability. I hope we can
take them step by step before it is too late. Thank you very
much.
[The prepared statement of Ed Case follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Yarmuth. Thank you, Mr. Case. Is there any Member
who would like to speak or ask a question of Mr. Case? If not,
we thank you for your testimony.
And now I yield five minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas,
Ms. Garcia.
STATEMENT OF SYLVIA R. GARCIA
Ms. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And good morning,
everyone. I, too, want to thank the Chairman, Ranking Member
Smith, and Committee Members for having me here today to share
my priorities for the Fiscal Year 2023 budget. I am proud to
represent the 29th congressional District in Texas, which
includes parts of Houston, South Houston, Pasadena--yes, there
is a Pasadena in Texas--Jacinto City, and Galena Park. My
district is 77 percent Latino and, therefore, adequate
government funding is critical to support our communities in my
district and to help my constituents.
I thank President Biden and your leadership, Chairman
Yarmuth, in delivering a responsible, caring budget that
intends to serve all Americans and robustly funds critical
antipoverty programs. I want to discuss a portion of the
President's Budget under the Department of Transportation,
which I am particularly pleased with and I urge your
consideration of the Consolidated Railroad Infrastructure and
Crisis Improvements Grants Program.
Trains are a problem in my district. This program supports
a wide range of freight and intercity passenger rail projects
that furthers the Department of Transportation's safety,
economic, equity, and climate goals. Specifically, the
Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements Grants
are intended to improve the safety, efficiency, and reliability
of passenger and freight rail systems.
These grants can also provide the values of the Justice40
Initiative and, as such, the Fiscal Year 2023 President's
budget proposes to dedicate at least $200 million to this grant
program to mitigate the detrimental safety and quality-of-life
effects rail transportation can have on underserved and
disadvantaged communities like mine. Mr. Chairman, trains
sometimes block traffic for more than 30 minutes, sometimes
even as high as an hour, blocking children from getting to
school, EMS services and ambulance services getting to their
patients, and other critical needs. I am here today to request
Members of the Budget Committee do what it can to maintain the
strong funding levels championed by the President for this
critical program.
Further, I wanted to flag a bill which I have championed
since the last Congress, which encourages a $200 million
investment in institutions of higher education which provide
high-quality training for careers in maritime education. My
bill was H.R. 987. Educating the next generation of maritime
workers is a huge priority of mine, and this is a bipartisan
effort, which I hope to see reflected as we work on the budget
this year.
But broadly speaking, Mr. Chairman, we need to focus on
helping Americans recover from the economic impacts of the
COVID-19 pandemic through work force training, investments in
research, and development of and in up-and-coming industries
and STEM.
I would also encourage us to look at budget priorities to
advance the President's Build Back Better agenda as much as we
can. And also any priorities that would help the uninsured.
Recently, after we got the latest community surveys numbers, my
district was named the district in the country with the highest
number of uninsured people. That is the number one list I do
not want to be on. Anything that we can do to better fund,
robustly fund programs to help the uninsured would be really
great for my district. And the other programs, like expanding
the Child Tax Credit, free childcare and preschool, and clean
energy tax credits, would also be a boost.
Let us buildupon the great work President Biden has done,
what appropriators have achieved, and, Chairman Yarmuth, people
like you have worked on for many years. So, thank you again for
your consideration and I yield back the balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Sylvia R. Garcia follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Yarmuth. Thank you for your testimony. Is there
anyone who has a question for Ms. Garcia? Yes, Mr. Grothman.
Mr. Grothman. We are going to give it to all three of you.
First of all, I was a little bit amazed by that testimony. I
mean, our big problem in this country right now is inflation,
which is entirely caused by past excessive spending. And you
just gave us a long list of programs which you could argue
really aren't even constitutional programs. And I think, at
least in Wisconsin, and I am under the impression in other
states, the states are running surpluses, big surpluses. So,
why we under any circumstances would allow people back home to
believe it is up to ask the federal government for more things
when the states are running surpluses, I don't know.
But I am going to give the same question to all three of
you. Just a quick yes or no. And by the way, this is a shot at
Republicans, just like Democrats, because when we were in
charge and had all three we did an abysmal job. Would each one
of the three of you, would you be supportive of a budget out of
this Committee that is zero across the board, just, boom, zero
across the board? Because I know there is waste everywhere.
Should we ask them that?
That is what I am going to try to talk to Mr. Yarmuth
about.
Chairman Yarmuth. It is your time. You can ask them if you
want to. You wanted to ask them, so, I mean, they can respond.
Mr. Wittman. Mr. Grothman, I am in full support of zero-
based budgeting.
Mr. Grothman. I mean zero budget on all----
Ms. Garcia. No, he is saying zero budget, not zero-based
budget.
Mr. Grothman. It is just out of this Committee zero, same
as last year.
Mr. Wittman. Oh, zero increase. Yes, OK, zero increase.
Yes, I am all for whatever we can on fiscal control, zero
increase, whatever we can do to be able to manage our spending,
yes.
Mr. Case. I mean, sir, I am for PAYGO, bottom line. I think
there are areas that we do need to increase spending, but they
should be budgeted and controlled.
Mr. Grothman. Rare. Rare. You should be able----
Mr. Case. Well, we could have a debate over that. But my
point to you and the testimony is at least do that on a budget-
responsible basis. And so that is going to lead you to
reductions or increases in taxes, reductions or increases in
spending as long as you do it on a budget-sustainable basis
over time. We can then engage in a broader policy debate about
what we are actually talking about right now. But unless we get
to that baseline of responsible fiscal principles, the bottom
line is we are going to drive the bigger picture budget into a
hole and that is going to have consequences.
Ms. Garcia. I would not support just zero. I think it is--
frankly, I have never heard such a recommendation before. I was
formerly the city controller at Houston and oversaw the budget
and investments for a very large city, multibillion-dollar
budget and investment portfolio. I think if anyone would have
presented that to me back then I would have, frankly, just
laughed because there are just so many things that happen that
are out of control: insurance increases, cost of employees,
budget things that are out of our control that just happen with
time that you couldn't run a government if you just did zero.
So I would say no.
Mr. Wittman. Mr. Chairman, too, if I can add the one place
where there would need to be some sort of statutory exception
would be for national security in case of a national emergency.
I think you would have to have that provision there.
Ms. Garcia. His proposal would not allow any if it is at
zero.
Mr. Grothman. I don't think we--maybe if something happens
in the future, but not now. We are not in an emergency yet.
Chairman Yarmuth. OK. Anyone else? With that--oh, yes, I am
sorry. Mr. Donalds.
Mr. Donalds. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members, thanks for
coming.
I am going to piggyback a little bit off of Mr. Grothman. I
know Mr. Grothman's essential proposal is a 0 percent increase
in the budget baseline. And then you having us basically have a
flat budget outlook moving forward, so we are not dealing with
CBO essentially coming back to us with an inflation kicker
that, frankly, nobody examines except for many a handful of
staff and maybe the Chair and Ranking Member of the Budget
Committee and the relevant appropriating committees.
I am going to tack a different way. In the budget apparatus
there are 20 budget functions that basically create the 12
budgetary categories that we appropriate off of. These budget
functions range from income security down to I forget the
smallest one. What do you guys believe or what do you think
about essentially taking the largest budget function and the
smallest budget function, there are 20, and then Congress
basically, for lack of a better phrase, zeroing out those
budget functions and then in each calendar year you rebuild
those two budget functions from the ground up? That way, let us
take income security, that way if you zero it out, the relevant
agencies that spend money in those budget functions would have
to come to Congress and actually advocate for the money. Then
Congress would have the responsibility of rebuilding the budget
function from the ground up.
It is not saying there will be no money spent on income
security. What it is saying is that in this calendar year we
zero out income security, the relevant agencies come and
actually have to ask for the money. And then Congress has the
responsibility of rebuilding it so we can actually get at
waste, get at ineffective programs that are outdated, probably
get rid of programs that we just fund where there is no
legislative authority anymore to fund them.
My question to the panel is what is your viewpoint on a
proposal like that, which is a hybrid of Mr. Grothman's?
Mr. Wittman. Mr. Donalds, what you describe is exactly what
zero-based budgeting is. Everybody starts at zero and then you
build a budget each year based upon what the priorities are.
And then you have to come in and substantiate what your request
is. I am 100 percent in favor of zero-based budgeting.
Mr. Case. Yes, I think it is different from what Mr.
Grothman has described. You are just talking about basic zero-
based budgeting, which I think is a concept that is wise and
appropriate. I sit on the Appropriations Committee. We do try
to go back and ask the basic questions every year, starting
back to the beginning. Is this function a good function? Is it
spending wisely? Should it be increased? Should it be reduced?
That is also, by the way, of course, the responsibility of
all of the authorizing committees and the House Committee on
Oversight. So, we all have a responsibility in taking ourselves
back to the beginning every fiscal year. That is how our system
is set up. The question is whether we are doing it wisely or
not.
But I agree with you in principle, we need to be asking
these questions every year.
Ms. Garcia. I think the current budget system lends itself
to doing that. I think each Member could start at zero and then
move in whatever direction they want to when they come here,
when they go through the whole process.
I think the bigger challenge, because our budget is so
large and is so diverse in terms of those categories that you
are talking about, the bigger challenge would be is to decide
which is the most important function. And where are you going
to start with zeroing out which function? And that is going to
be--would be a bigger battle.
I think it is an interesting thought and it certainly
merits some discussion.
Mr. Donalds. Well, actually I have got a proposal for you.
Glad you mentioned that. The proposal basically is----
Ms. Garcia. I am not looking for a proposal of my life.
Mr. Donalds. Well, here you go. So, I got one.
Ms. Garcia. I wasn't talking about that kind of proposal.
Mr. Donalds. We will talk about that later. Anyway, so what
you essentially have is we have the 20 budget functions that do
exist. Let us say we wanted to start next year. OK? So, next
year Congress would essentially take the larger--or the House.
Forget the Senate. The Senate can do their own thing. The
House----
Ms. Garcia. They always do.
Mr. Donalds. I know, right? The House could essentially
take the largest and smallest budget function next year----
Ms. Garcia. You are saying largest and smallest by budget
number?
Mr. Donalds. By the amount that is spent.
Ms. Garcia. OK.
Mr. Donalds. So every budget function has their own dollar
amount. Income security is the largest. It is about $1.7, $1.8
trillion. We zero out the largest, we zero out the smallest,
leave the other 18. Congress just focuses, the House just
focuses on those two.
Then in the subsequent year, we then take the second
largest and a second smallest, focus on those. In the third
year, so on and so forth. So, that what the House is really
doing is that over a 10-year period, you have truly examined
the budget because, to your point, it is so voluminous where is
the time and the manpower to actually zero out the entire
budget in one calendar year? I would argue it doesn't exist.
Ms. Garcia. So, what happens to the other functions while
you are examining the other two?
Mr. Donalds. It would stay in place. They would stay in
place and would follow the baseline that CBO would produce. But
it would put Congress on a path to actually clearing out
certain sectors of the budget in a systematic approach.
Sorry, Mr. Chairman, I am 20 seconds over. I yield back.
Chairman Yarmuth. Thank you, Mr. Donalds. I now yield five
minutes to the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Porter.
Ms. Porter. Hello. I apologize, but due to this panel
running late, I am now boarding a flight following the shooting
in my district. So, if I can go on the next panel, I will try
to do that, but I have to board my flight after having to fly
back because of the shooting. So, I unfortunately cannot give
this testimony from an airplane jet bridge, so. But I enjoyed
hearing all of the thoughtful ideas about budget processing, so
I will try to log back on once I take my seat----
Chairman Yarmuth. Thank you, Ms. Porter. And obviously, you
can submit your ideas and comments for the record if you can't
work that out. We appreciate you trying.
With that, we will now seat the second panel. We have Mr.
Fred Keller, Mr. Blake Moore, and Mr. Michael Cloud, and that
is the panel.
Thank you for that quick transition. Our second panel today
includes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Keller; the
gentleman from Utah, Mr. Moore; and the gentleman from Texas,
Mr. Cloud. Welcome all of you.
As we mentioned in the first hearing, your testimony will
be included in full in the record. You have five minutes to
give your oral remarks. And I now recognize Mr. Cloud.
STATEMENTS OF HON. MICHAEL CLOUD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS; HON. KATIE PORTER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA; HON. BLAKE MOORE, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH; HON. FRED
KELLER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF
PENNSYLVANIA
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL CLOUD
Mr. Cloud. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I would--I am from
Texas, so. Not a big deal, but certainly want the folks at home
to know.
Chairman Yarmuth. Yes, please. The gentleman from Texas.
Mr. Cloud. Appreciate it, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon,
Chairman Yarmuth, Ranking Member Smith, and Members of the
Committee. Thank you for having us here today.
This Committee is tasked with the important constitutional
obligation placed on Congress in Article I, Section 8, to
determine how the federal government should spend the revenue
collected from taxpayers. The budget process is vital because
it is within the budget framework that we evaluate the proposed
legislation to ensure we are spending within agreed upon
spending limits.
You mentioned, Mr. Chairman, that this Member Day is a
longstanding tradition. My testimony today is becoming one. I
was here last year and the year before. I came to talk to you
about a bill I introduced, H.R. 638, the Cost Estimates
Improvement Act. I have reintroduced the bill again and ask you
to consider it and make it a permanent part of the
congressional budgeting.
The bill would require the CBO and JCT to include debt
servicing costs in their estimates. I have sent letters to this
Committee in the past, asking it direct CBO and JCT to include
debt servicing costs in their estimates. It is my understanding
that this Committee has the authority to achieve this. We
actually don't need the legislation. You could order it.
Otherwise, I hope to see the Committee to hold a markup on
my bill and others that would help hold Congress accountable
for how we spend taxpayer dollars.
While this issue is not new, it has now become even more
pressing given our historically high levels of inflation
burdening American families across the country. According to a
new report from Penn Wharton Budget Model, inflation is costing
the typical family $3,500 a year. Meanwhile, the Fed has begun
raising interest rates, which means the amount we pay as a
nation for interest on the debt will begin to rise even more
rapidly.
Mr. Chairman, we do not have the luxury of ignoring the
true costs of our spending decisions. Our nation's outstanding
debt is 30 trillion. For reference, when I testified a little
over a year ago, our nation's debt stood at 28 trillion. The
year before it was at 23.4 trillion. These numbers are so big,
it is hard for the average person to comprehend, but they
represent a real threat to our nation's financial future.
And we are increasing the deficits and debts at these
alarming rates without a full and complete picture of the
legislation we are voting on in Congress because we regularly
do not consider the interest costs.
As the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget pointed
out just a couple weeks ago, the federal government spends $330
billion per year, or $2,207 per taxpayer, on interest payments.
That is more than on food stamps and disability insurance
combined. Two-thirds of our debt is slated to roll over in the
next five years, likely into higher interest rate bonds.
The folks back home understand this phenomenon. If they
were to budget for their monthly car payment and not count the
cost of interest in their payment, they would find that they
were short month by month on what they expected to pay. In
essence, Congress does this same thing by not considering the
comprehensive budgetary impact of spending and taxing
proposals. This distorts congressional decisionmaking in favor
of more spending and debt accumulation than what otherwise
might be the case. Simply put, including debt servicing costs
in legislative cost estimates will better equip lawmakers to
make informed spending decisions.
My legislation also does one more important thing that
would help lawmakers make better spending decisions. It
requires the cost estimates to include a list of duplicative
programs with the covered legislation. If cost estimates were
required to point out such duplication, it might give Members
pause before voting to spend more taxpayer dollars that create
new duplicative programs or expand existing programs that
duplicate others.
But the good news is that while legislation requiring
consideration of the interest cost is preferred, we do not need
to wait for legislation to pass, as I have mentioned. Last
month, I sent the Chairman and Ranking Member of this body, as
well as your counterparts in the U.S. Senate, a letter signed
by myself, Senator Mike Lee, and 40 of our colleagues. In the
letter we asked that you direct the CBO to begin including debt
servicing costs in all legislative cost estimates produced.
Mr. Chairman, reigning in our debt and deficits only gets
harder the longer we wait. That is, in part, because our
interest rates have been historically low. But that is already
changing.
In order to address our inflation crisis, the Federal
Reserve has already begun raising the interest rate, and has
signaled it will implement a total of seven increases by the
end of the year. Higher interest rates mean we can no longer
afford to ignore the cost of interest on our debt.
Again, as the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget
pointed out just a couple weeks ago, for every 1 percentage
point increase in interest rates, deficits grow by $2 trillion
over a decade. That is on top of the nearly $13 trillion in
projected borrowing over the next decade. This isn't a red or
blue issue, Republican or Democrat. This is simply good
governance and I hope you will consider this.
Thank you again and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Michael Cloud follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Yarmuth. I thank the gentleman from Texas. I am
going to use the discretion of the Chair to now recognize Ms.
Porter, who is ready to testify. We will hold any questions for
Mr. Cloud until after her testimony.
The gentlewoman from California is recognized for five
minutes.
STATEMENT OF KATIE PORTER
Ms. Porter. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I do appreciate
that. Chairman Yarmuth, Ranking Member Smith, and Members of
the Budget Committee, thank you so much for the opportunity to
testify today.
As you prepare the Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 2023,
I urge you to consider increasing the budget authority for
federal law enforcement programs included in Budget Function
750. This budget category includes important agencies, such as
the Department of Justice, the Drug Enforcement Administration,
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, and
the U.S. Customs and Border Protection. These agencies are
responsible for confronting enormous challenges for our country
and they need more resources to better serve Americans.
Just last week, the CDC reported that more than 107,000
Americans died from drug overdoses in 2021, the highest annual
death toll on record. Since the 1970's, the number of drug
overdose deaths has increased every year except one.
This devastating drug epidemic is happening at the same
time as the nation grapples with an epidemic of gun violence.
Last year was the worst year--there was a shooting in a church
in my district on Sunday. More than 45,000 Americans died in
gun-related incidents in 2020, an all-time high, with no sign
of a decline in gun deaths over the past year. The record
number of Americans dying from drugs and guns demands a crisis
from our law enforcement agencies.
Law enforcement must also respond to the humanitarian
crisis on our southern border. In March, Customs and Border
Protection encountered the third-highest number of migrants
entering the United States in a single month ever. Over the
past decade, tens of thousands of unaccompanied children and
families have arrived at our border seeking asylum. I have
advocated for Congress to pass legislation as soon as possible
to provide supplemental funding for law enforcement and
humanitarian organizations at the border. This funding would
improve our capacity to respond to the immediate crisis, but
Congress needs to act now to address border and immigration for
future years.
Congress must also act to address inflation, another crisis
that demands a law enforcement response. For decades, antitrust
enforcement has declined while corporations have grown bigger
and stronger. Corporations now have market power to raise
prices for consumers far beyond what is necessary to cover
their costs. This is great for big business, but a disaster for
ordinary Americans. Corporate profits hit a record high last
year, growing 25 percent in just one year, while wages for
workers only increased 4.5 percent.
President Biden's proposed budget would decrease the
deficit, which will help slow down inflation. But cutting
spending for law enforcement would be the wrong approach if we
want lower prices for consumers. Instead, we need to increase
the size of the Antitrust Division at the Department of Justice
so that it can crack down on massive corporations that are
exploiting their market power to price gouge Americans.
These four crises demand the attention of our federal
government. They will not be solved without a sustained federal
response over the next decade. Congress needs to provide our
law enforcement agencies with adequate budgets to make real
progress on addressing these long-term challenges.
As you consider fiscal priorities for 2023, I urge you to
consider increasing legislative budgets related to oversight.
As a Member dedicated to oversight work, my experiences have
shown me firsthand that our oversight committees are not
sufficiently funded to actively monitor our federal programs
and agencies. Too often, we are sending money out the door
without the safeguards in place to make sure that every dollar
is spent wisely. The American people expect better stewardship
of their taxpayer dollars, and they deserve more in the effort
to prevent fraud and reduce waste. It is not enough to provide
funding for inspector generals to conduct investigations and
write reports. Congress has a constitutional duty to conduct
its own oversight and we must fulfill that duty to the American
people. The buck stops with us.
Thank you again for the opportunity to speak today and
especially accommodating my travel situation. Thank you again.
I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Katie Porter follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Yarmuth. I thank the gentlewoman. We are in a very
strange and uncomfortable position. We are obligated, we are
required by House rules to adjourn for the joint session, which
begins at 11. We have two witnesses left. If the two witnesses
think they can get their testimony done in that period of time,
we will proceed. And then we can have--if there is time for
questions, fine. If not, we could have people submit questions
or comments for the record. Is that agreeable?
All right. I recognize the gentleman from Utah, Mr. Moore.
STATEMENT OF BLAKE MOORE
Mr. Moore. Excellent. And I will be--I will make my
comments brief. I won't regurgitate a lot of the things. We
know we are at $30 trillion in debt.
I appreciate the opportunity, Chairman and Ranking Member,
to be here because this matters to every single office, whether
you are on Budget Committee, whether you are on Ways and Means
or not. This matter to every single congressional office. This
matter to every single American. And I wanted to use this as an
opportunity to share and highlight something that I have done
in my district.
I have a group of about 15--10 to 12 people that are
experts in their own fields, whether they are in manufacturing
or they are an economist, they have engaged with me, whether
they are former general in the Air Force, they have engaged
with me on a deficit task force. This is not just a task force
where we wanted to meet once and have a roundtable. We met
quarterly and we put together an eight-page document with a
framework that actually talks about what are some of the things
that we can do.
And I am actually really excited as I have been listening
to previous testimony that some of those ideas have already
been incorporated. And I just wanted to communicate through
this Member Day my commitment from Utah for Utahans to be one
of the most financially--fiscally responsible states in the
nation that carries a balanced budget and a rainy day fund
every single year, to help share some of the ideas and ways
that we can get this under control.
I remember when I first ran for office. The commentary that
I would share was it has been 20 years, but we were able to do
it. Congress was able to find a way to work together and get
this to a balanced budget.
We have sustained a strong economic growth period up until
2020. And we need to take that as an opportunity to go after
this.
I have four basic elements, four pillars for this
framework: grow the economy, save and strengthen vital
programs, focus America's spending, and fix Congress' budget
process. And I think for this Committee the two that are most
relevant given your area of jurisdiction is focus America's
spending, that largely deals with discretionary, and fixing the
Congress' budget process.
GDP, Americans will look to gross debt often as an
indicator of economic health. Debt-to-GDP ratio is particularly
useful in measuring our fiscal wellbeing. Our debt-to-GDP--our
GDP has not grown to keep pace with our growing debt. And we
are talking we are at a conservative estimate of 1.25, but it
is well over. It could even be well over 1.3, back to World War
II levels on what our debt-to-GDP ratio is, and this is
dangerous.
And one of the items in here is to get it so we can have
this debt-to-GDP markers instead of a debt ceiling. The debt
ceiling has become almost an arbitrary thing every few years
where we just constantly raise it and it is not really tied to
how can go about, you know, achieving success and achieving
results. And so, areas on that that are important that we can
have really good, you know, progress that we need to make here.
The American people need to see that we are adults in the room
and we are making progress toward this crippling national
security risk and that is what our debt is.
There are several other ideas. I will just, you know,
highlight this today and I will hope to share it with every
Member on the Committee, Republican and Democrat, so we can
start to be serious about how we are going to go about taking
some of this back.
And I will yield back my time. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Blake Moore follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Yarmuth. I thank the gentleman. And I have said,
your entire statement will be included in the record in full.
I now recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr.
Keller.
STATEMENT OF FRED KELLER
Mr. Keller. Thank you, Chairman Yarmuth and I thank the
Ranking Member Smith for having this hearing and listening to
what the Members have to say.
I just want to highlight what we all know, that every
American who earns a paycheck understands that raising a family
and they are running their business, they know that they make
decisions, and they know that their expenses cannot exceed
their income. You can't do that. That is not sustainable.
But, you know, with inflation hitting a--recently it hit a
40-year high and Americans are paying historically high prices
for things like gas, food, if they travel, air travel. We in
Congress need to make government more efficient and get
spending under control, just like families and businesses do
with their own budgets.
You know, and I heard some of the testimony here about, you
know, how you can and can't do things. But I tell you what,
businesses do it all the time. I heard somebody said in the
previous panel that, oh, we don't understand, you know, things
increase that are out of our control. Well, I will tell you
what, we have a lot more impact on that than the families and
the businesses that rely on us to make good decisions.
And, you know, one thing that has impact is seeing the
President's budget. His plan for fiscal 2023, it is clear that
he doesn't understand how to budget responsibly. And it is
likely because he has been in Washington, DC, since 1973.
President Biden's budget will spend $73 trillion over the
next 10 years and grow our debt to $45 trillion by 2032. That
is not responsible. We can't do that.
In 2019, the Congressional Budget Office said if we did
nothing differently, by the year 2025 we would spend more on
debt service than we do defense. We need to abandon this
reckless proposal. It should raise a red flag for everyone in
Washington, Democrats, Republicans, anybody that wants to
facilitate this kind of reckless spending. Americans have
already seen the cost of President Biden's tax-and-spend
policies at the pump, at the grocery store, and on the farm, as
well as Main Street America.
In response to the President's budget proposal, to date
Democrats in the House have yet to release a budget resolution
for Fiscal Year 2023. The national debt is nearly $30 \1/2\
trillion and we are seven months into 2022. The Democrats
haven't produced a solution. It is poor planning and, quite
frankly, it is irresponsible.
Meanwhile, we are--when it comes to providing oversight for
federal programs authorized by the American Rescue Plan, how
much fraud and waste have we seen come from this law? And how
effective have those dollars been at providing the stated
purpose of COVID-19 pandemic relief? It is estimated that only
9 percent of the ARPA funds went directly to combatting COVID-
19. This raises some serious questions on how we hold
accountable and how we do our budgeting.
You know, many states, as was mentioned earlier, many
states are holding onto recovery funds. Some of them are
showing surpluses. It is more important than ever that these
funds are being spent responsibly and are actually tied to the
pandemic. And an example of what we can see is that, you know,
there is still roughly $1 trillion of unspent funds that are
still remaining. It might be time to consider reevaulating what
should be considered pandemic relief in some of these areas. It
has caused a fiscal mess and record high inflation.
The example I want to mention is there is $2 billion that
have been diverted from COVID-19 vaccines and tests to house
illegal immigrants due to President Biden's border crisis.
Additionally, our team recently discovered that sponsors who
house unaccompanied alien children, or UACs, are not required
to lawfully be present in the country themselves. On top of
that, according to the Department of Justice, only about half
of the unaccompanied alien children actually show up for their
required court hearings.
We are spending money on these things and it is creating a
crisis. This should be concerning on many fronts. And it begs
the question how much taxpayer money is going to fund different
things other than what it was intended to, like, you know, the
crisis we are seeing with the unaccompanied minor children?
One way to better provide accountability over these
programs is for this Committee to produce a budget resolution
that puts us on a path to fiscal sanity. It is time to stop
leaving the financial disaster for the next generation and put
together a budget that meets the needs of the American people,
not of President Biden or Speaker Pelosi.
Thank you and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Fred Keller follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman's time has expired. And as
I mentioned before, we are required by House rules to adjourn
at this point. And so any questions from Members or comments
can be submitted for the record. And we appreciate the Members
coming and spending their time and testifying for us.
With that, if there is no further business, this hearing is
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[Additional statements follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]