“Unfair Play: Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports”

1[House Hearing, 119 Congress]2[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]34                                 ______56                     EXAMINING THE GROWTH OF78                           THE WELFARE STATE,910                              PART II1112=======================================================================1314                                HEARING1516                               before the1718                      SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH CARE19                         AND FINANCIAL SERVICES2021                                 of the2223                         COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT24                         AND GOVERNMENT REFORM2526                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES2728                    ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS2930                             FIRST SESSION3132                               __________3334                              MAY 7, 20253536                               __________3738                           Serial No. 119-243940                               __________4142Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform4344                       Available on: govinfo.gov45                         oversight.house.gov or46                             docs.house.gov47              COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM4849                    JAMES COMER, Kentucky, Chairman5051Jim Jordan, Ohio                     Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia,52Mike Turner, Ohio                        Ranking Minority Member53Paul Gosar, Arizona                  Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of54Virginia Foxx, North Carolina            Columbia55Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin            Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts56Michael Cloud, Texas                 Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois57Gary Palmer, Alabama                 Ro Khanna, California58Clay Higgins, Louisiana              Kweisi Mfume, Maryland59Pete Sessions, Texas                 Shontel Brown, Ohio60Andy Biggs, Arizona                  Melanie Stansbury, New Mexico61Nancy Mace, South Carolina           Robert Garcia, California62Pat Fallon, Texas                    Maxwell Frost, Florida63Byron Donalds, Florida               Summer Lee, Pennsylvania64Scott Perry, Pennsylvania            Greg Casar, Texas65William Timmons, South Carolina      Jasmine Crockett, Texas66Tim Burchett, Tennessee              Emily Randall, Washington67Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia      Suhas Subramanyam, Virginia68Lauren Boebert, Colorado             Yassamin Ansari, Arizona69Anna Paulina Luna, Florida           Wesley Bell, Missouri70Nick Langworthy, New York            Lateefah Simon, California71Eric Burlison, Missouri              Dave Min, California72Eli Crane, Arizona                   Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts73Brian Jack, Georgia                  Rashida Tlaib, Michigan74John McGuire, Virginia75Brandon Gill, Texas7677                                 ------7879                       Mark Marin, Staff Director80                   James Rust, Deputy Staff Director81                     Mitch Benzine, General Counsel82              Reagan Dye, Senior Professional Staff Member83                Peter Spectre, Professional Staff Member84      Mallory Cogar, Deputy Director of Operations and Chief Clerk8586                      Contact Number: 202-225-50748788                  Jamie Smith, Minority Staff Director8990                      Contact Number: 202-225-505191                                 ------9293           Subcommittee on Health Care and Financial Services9495                  Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin, Chairman96Paul Gosar, Arizona                  Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois97Pete Sessions, Texas                     Ranking Member98Anna Paulina Luna, Florida           Emily Randall, Washington99John McGuire, Virginia               Wesley Bell, Missouri100Brandon Gill, Texas                  Lateefah Simon, California101                         C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S102103                              ----------104105                                                                   Page106107Hearing held on May 7, 2025......................................     1108109                               Witnesses110111                              ----------112113The Honorable Dr. Ben Carson, M.D., Former Secretary, U.S.114  Department of Housing and Urban Development115Oral Statement...................................................     4116117Mr. Chris Edwards, Kilts Family Chair in Fiscal Studies, The Cato118  Institute119Oral Statement...................................................     6120121Mr. Howard Husock, Senior Fellow, Domestic Policy Studies, The122  American Enterprise Institute123Oral Statement...................................................     8124125Mr. Indivar Dutta-Gupta (Minority Witness), Advisor, Community126  Change127Oral Statement...................................................    10128129Written opening statements and statements for the witnesses are130  available on the U.S. House of Representatives Document131  Repository at: docs.house.gov.132133                           Index of Documents134135                              ----------136137  * Article, San Francisco Chronicle, ``Homegrown and Homeless in138  Oakland''; submitted by Rep. Simon.139140Documents are available at: docs.house.gov.141142                          ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS143144                              ----------145146  * Questions for the Record: to Dr. Carson; submitted by Rep.147  Gosar.148149  * Questions for the Record: to Mr. Edwards; submitted by Rep.150  Gosar.151152  * Questions for the Record: to Mr. Husock; submitted by Rep.153  Gosar.154155These documents were submitted after the hearing, and may be156  available upon request.157158                      EXAMINING THE GROWTH OF159160                           THE WELFARE STATE,161162                                PART II163164                              ----------165166                         Wednesday, May 7, 2025167168                     U.S. House of Representatives169170              Committee on Oversight and Government Reform171172           Subcommittee on Health Care And Financial Services173174                                                   Washington, D.C.175176    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m.,177Room 2247, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Glenn Grothman178[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.179    Present: Representatives Grothman, Gosar, McGuire,180Krishnamoorthi, Randall, Bell, and Simon.181    Mr. Grothman. This hearing on the Subcommittee on Health182Care and Financial Services will come to order. Welcome,183everyone. Without objection, I may declare a recess at any184time.185    I recognize myself for the purpose of making an opening186statement. For the people in the room today, I will point out187there are a lot of other hearings going on, so a lot of the188Congressmen are going to be jumping in and out, which I do not189like, but that is what we have got. OK.190    At our last hearing, we learned about some of the191disincentives that happened because of our welfare program. And192the fact is the Federal welfare system--I am talking about food193stamps, low-income housing, Medicaid, Pell grants, everything--194is filled with horrible incentives and disincentives. It195certainly discourages marriage, and I know there is kind of196Marxist, the 1960s sort of thing, that kind of makes fun of the197old-fashioned ``Leave it to Beaver'' family. So, we have a198program that discourages marriage and hard work, and at the199same time encouraging dependency.200    It costs taxpayers more than $1 trillion annually while201failing to lift people out of poverty.202    Today's hearing, and this is kind of the second one we are203taking up on this topic, will provide an opportunity to hear204from three witnesses who are experts in Federal rental205assistance programs, including Dr. Ben Carson, the former206Secretary of HUD, a good friend of mine.207    These programs are textbook examples of good intentions208that have gone awry. I do not even know if they are good209intentions. I cannot see how you could put programs like this210out there, not knowing what would happen.211    For example, Section 8 housing vouchers and public housing212programs contain marriage penalties, making it foolish to get213married. In many cases, individuals risk losing their Section 8214voucher if they marry somebody with an even average income, and215their combined threshold brings them out of eligibility for216those programs.217    As we discussed during Part I, marriage and a strong family218unit are a well-established way to get people out of poverty.219And not just out of poverty. We know that you are going to be220raising children, less likely to commit crime, more likely to221do well at school, less likely to have drug problems, less222likely to have depression, anxiety, other disorders.223    And yet, our current welfare system, including housing224assistance programs, discourages marriage. It is not hard to225find people who say, ``I cannot work more. I cannot get married226or I will lose my benefits.''227    Due partially to these penalties, the number of children228born to unmarried women has skyrocketed. In 1960, 5 percent of229children were born to unmarried women--5 percent. We are now at23040 percent. And, of course, it is not coincidence that things231began to shoot up after Lyndon Johnson, in the 1960s, declared232war on marriage.233    Like marriage, the current system discourages rental234assistance recipients from seeking employment, higher wages, or235overtime if the increased income pushes them out of236eligibility. We are fostering a cycle of dependency on237government assistance.238    The average Section 8 tenant spends 10 years on the239program, and the average public housing tenant, 12 years.240    Welfare also benefits the middlemen and the administrative241state more than the low-income Americans it purports to be for.242The Section 42 Low-Income Housing Tax Credit give the243developers tax incentives to build affordable housing for low-244and moderate-income people. Yet, the program's complicated245design mostly benefits developers, law firms, accounting firms,246and state bureaucrats. I do not know who thought that thing up,247but man, that is a mess. Middlemen and administrators can take248advantage of Section 8 and public housing as well.249    The Milwaukee Housing Authority reported in January that250its leadership misused $2.8 million Federal dollars, intended251for the tenants, to pay its staff. The problem had apparently252been ongoing since 2019 but was not caught for 6 years.253Meanwhile, taxpayers are on the hook for more and more spending254on these programs every year.255    But of course, the biggest problem is not the fact that we256are overspending on this at a time when we are broke out of our257mind. The biggest problem is what it does to the people who258become part of the program. Rental assistance programs account259for more than $53 billion of Federal spending each year, which260is just amazing. And nearly every problem we will discuss today261applies to dozens of other programs and hundreds of billions of262taxpayers' dollars.263    We owe it to our constituents to be responsible stewards.264    During a recent interview, Senator Schumer criticized our265constituents for expecting this of their elected officials. He266said, ``Their attitude is, 'I made my money all by myself. How267dare the government take my money from me?' '' To that I say--I268mean, this is just horrible. Everybody knows back home people269are mad at the welfare system. Of course, people are mad270because they know people in the system, who do not have to be271in the system, which creates hatred and dislike of the system,272and somehow we have got to get back trust of the American273worker. To do that, we must attempt to disentangle the web of274welfare programs and find ways to fix it.275    I hope today's discussion will provide an opportunity to276learn more about how the current housing system is failing277taxpayers and program participants alike, and how we might fix278it, so we stop discouraging people from getting married and279discouraging people from work. And like I said, I think the280current system, it is like designed by somebody who, like,281makes fun of the ``Leave it to Beaver'' sort of family. And,282you know, I think there were a lot of radicals in the 1960s,283Kate Millett and that crowd, who actively discourages keeping284the man in the family. And it is like their dream program. I do285not know whether Lyndon Johnson was intentionally trying to286destroy the family in the 1960s, but that was his effect.287    In any event, with that I yield to my good buddy, Ranking288Member Krishnamoorthi, for your opening statement.289    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for290convening this hearing, though I must once again express my291frustration with its premise.292    I, myself, am a product of the very life-sustaining293programs this hearing is attacking, programs that time and294again have proven to lift individuals out of poverty, stabilize295families in times of crisis, and build the foundation for long-296term economic stability, mobility, and growth. At our last297hearing, Majority witnesses spent their time, in part,298demanding beneficiaries of the social safety net rather than299offering bipartisan solutions to make these programs more300effective. Slashing the budgets of these critical lifeline will301not magically eliminate inefficiencies. What they will do is302inflict real, immediate harm on our constituents, no matter if303they live in red states or blue states. Children will go to bed304hungry. Seniors will forego lifesaving medications. Hard-305working families, many of whom are already working multiple306jobs, will face the agonizing choice between paying rent and307putting food on the table.308    We must not lose sight of the real-life consequences of309these policy debates. The truth is that the overwhelming310majority of recipients of these programs are not abusing the311system. They are doing everything they can to survive and312improve their lives while continuing to contribute meaningfully313to our society.314    I am so passionate about the benefits of the safety net315because I have experienced them. When my family legally316immigrated to this country we fell on hard times and utilized,317for a short period, public housing and SNAP's predecessor, the318food stamp program. The programs sustained my parents until my319father got a great job in, of all places, Peoria, Illinois. My320parents realized the American Dream, and they never took it for321granted, and I have not either.322    Every night in Peoria my father would say, ``Think of the323greatness of this country, and whatever you do, make sure it is324there for the next families who need it.'' That has been and325will continue to be my mission statement in Congress.326    According to H.Con.Res 14, the House Republicans'327instruction with regard to the budget reconciliation process,328social safety net programs, very likely Medicaid and SNAP, will329be cut to the tune of $1.1 trillion. That is trillion with a T.330There is no plausible way that such deep budget cuts will only331rid those programs of waste, fraud, and abuse. If Republicans332go through with this plan, kids will go to sleep hungry because333their parents lost their SNAP benefits. Millions--millions--334will lose their health coverage. These cuts will be335catastrophic. Funding tax breaks for special interests and the336wealthiest among us by gutting life-sustaining programs is337disgraceful.338    I am proud of what these programs have allowed my family339and millions of others to achieve. I have no intention of340sacrificing these programs on the altar of tax cuts for the341wealthiest among us. Not only is such a plan fiscally342imprudent, it is flat out morally wrong.343    I yield back.344    Mr. Grothman. Thank you. I am pleased to welcome today our345witnesses for today, Dr. Ben Carson, Mr. Chris Edwards, Mr.346Howard Husock, and Mr. Indivar Dutta-Gupta. Was that pretty347good?348    Mr. Dutta-Gupta. Pretty good.349    Mr. Grothman. Dr. Carson is the former Secretary of HUD and350founder of the American Cornerstone Institute. Mr. Chris351Edwards occupies the Kilts Family Chair in Fiscal Studies at352the Cato Institute. Mr. Husock is a Senior Fellow in Domestic353Policy Studies at the American Enterprise Institute. Mr. Dutta-354Gupta is an Advisor for Community Change and Doris Duke355Distinguished Visiting Fellow at Georgetown University's356McCourt School of Public Policy.357    Pursuant to Committee Rule 9(g), the witnesses will please358stand and raise your right hand.359    Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are360about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but361the truth, so help you God?362    [Chorus of ayes.]363    Mr. Grothman. Let the record show the witnesses have364answered in the affirmative. Thank you. You may take a seat.365    We appreciate you guys all being here today and look366forward to your testimony. Let me remind the witnesses that we367have read your written statement and this will appear in full368in the hearing record. Please limit your opening statements to3695 minutes. As a reminder, please press the button on the370microphone in front of you so that the Members can hear you.371When you begin to speak the light in front of you will turn372green. After 4 minutes the light will turn yellow. When the red373light comes on your 5 minutes have expired, and we would ask374that you please wrap up.375    OK. We will start with you, Mr. Carson, for your opening376statement. Dr. Carson. I am sorry.377378                    STATEMENT OF THE HON. BEN CARSON379380                            FORMER SECRETARY381382            U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT383384    Dr. Carson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and385Members of the Committee.386    Mr. Grothman. By the way, he has got a great autobiography.387I strongly encourage everybody in the room to read it. OK. Go388ahead.389    Dr. Carson. Reclaiming my time.390    [Laughter.]391    Dr. Carson. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.392I am Benjamin Carson, Sr., former Secretary of the U.S.393Department of Housing and Urban Development, where I had the394honor of leading an agency that serves the housing needs of395millions of Americans.396    After my tenure at HUD, I founded the American Cornerstone397Institute, where I currently serve as Chairman of the Board. I398appreciate the Subcommittee's commitment to examining federally399assisted housing policies and programs, and I welcome this400chance to share my perspective on improving affordable housing401delivery, safeguarding taxpayer dollars, and ensuring program402integrity while strengthening American families and403communities.404    I would like to address one of the most critical factors405undermining American society today: how public policy,406particularly housing assistance programs, disincentivizes407family formation and contributes to the dissolution of American408families. Marriage is an essential social institution, and409while many societal factors influence family formation, Federal410housing assistance programs, even unintentionally, create411barriers to marriage.412    We have created a system where growing numbers of citizens413have become reliant upon government subsidies, incentivizing414government dependency over self-sufficiency. The so-called415``marriage penalty'' embedded in assistance programs creates a416tangible disincentive to family formation. For example, when417two adults marry and live together, their incomes are combined418to determine eligibility and rent contribution. If their419combined income exceeds program limits they may lose420eligibility or face substantial rent increases.421    Conversely, if they remain unmarried and maintain separate422residences, each may independently qualify for benefits such as423separate vouchers, lower rent contributions, or continued424eligibility. This financial reality causes many individuals to425delay or entirely forgo marriage, undermining traditional426family structures, particularly among lower-income Americans.427    Instead of functioning as a temporary safety net,428government assistance has increasingly replaced the family as429the primary provider for many Americans. If America is to430reclaim its strength and spirit, we must once again elevate the431role of marriage and family rather than replacing it with432bureaucracy.433    Economic mobility is a cornerstone of the American Dream,434yet this dream is increasingly out of reach for many. One-third435of children who grow up poor in the United States remain poor436in adulthood. Addressing this perpetuating cycle of poverty437requires prioritizing programs that support economic mobility438and self-sufficiency as the true key to escaping generational439poverty. Programs that emphasize work, education, family440stability, and homeownership are essential tools for breaking441cycles of poverty and building lasting prosperity. It is with442this vision that public assistance can transform from a final443destination into a stepping stone.444    As we all know, one of the keys to the American Dream is445homeownership as it represents more than a place to live.446Owning a home is a personal achievement that fosters a sense of447investment in one's community. Homeowners are more likely to448engage in civic organizations, local businesses and schools,449and community affairs which strengthen the bonds of civil450society. Yet, homeownership has become out of reach for far too451many Americans, and housing unaffordability has become a452stumbling block to family formation as young people, unable to453afford homeownership, often delay marriage.454    Protecting access to homeownership is not just an economic455imperative and vital to keeping the American Dream alive, it is456a key cornerstone to support family creation.457    Yet, too many believe that government involvement in458housing must expand. Government should not be in the business459of owning, operating, or constructing housing projects on a460large scale. History has shown that government-run housing461often leads to inefficiency, neglect, and the erosion of462individual dignity. Government can facilitate opportunity, but463it should not replace private initiative.464    Therefore, the Low Income Housing Tax Credit, when properly465administered, can be an important tool for addressing America's466housing challenges. The program leverages housing market467forces, entrepreneurial innovation, and private accountability468to increase housing supply. Private sector leadership through469LIHTC allows communities to benefit from high quality470development and local expertise. By aligning incentives toward471self-sufficiency, promoting upward mobility, and reducing long-472term taxpayer burdens by avoiding the pitfalls of direct473government construction, LIHTC can continue to play a role in474building a future where housing is available, communities are475strengthened, and the American Dream remains well within reach.476    Programs that uphold the dignity of work, strengthen477traditional family structures, and offer real hope for upward478mobility are the ones that truly serve the American people.479This is why I support the efforts of the President, Secretary480Turner, and the DOGE team in their goals of restoring fiscal481health to America. This work is essential to safeguarding the482future of the American Dream and promoting true upward483mobility. Americans rightfully demand responsible stewardship484of tax dollars. Every dollar lost to mismanagement and fraud is485a dollar that could have helped a struggling family secure486stable housing.487    Government waste and fraud undermine public trust in488programs meant to lift Americans out of poverty. We must489restore integrity to the system, preserve opportunities for490future generations, and ensure the American Dream remains491within reach for all who strive for it.492    Thank you for your attention to these critical issues. I493look forward to your questions.494    Mr. Grothman. Thank you. Chris Edwards?495496                       STATEMENT OF CHRIS EDWARDS497498                  KILTS FAMILY CHAIR IN FISCAL STUDIES499500                           THE CATO INSTITUTE501502    Mr. Edwards. Thank you, for inviting me to testify. I will503discuss Federal subsidies for affordable housing, in particular504the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit, which provides $14 billion a505year of income tax credits to multifamily housing developers.506    The Housing Tax Credit, or LIHTC as it is often called,507while well-meaning it is a complex and inefficient solution to508housing affordability. The program displaces market-based509housing, and part of the benefits go to developers, not to510tenants.511    A better way to reduce housing costs is tax and regulatory512reforms, as I will discuss. LIHTC is an incredibly complex513program with vast amounts of regulations. A standard industry514guidebook to LIHTC is 1,940 pages in length. There is a huge515bureaucratic overhead and lawyers in place for the LIHTC516program. It is not a simple tax cut.517    LIHTC apartment buildings cost substantially more than518market-based projects because the financing is complex and519because the construction is micromanaged by state-imposed520blueprints. A 2024 article in a Chicago business magazine521reported that local LIHTC projects cost up to $900,000 per522unit. The article said, quote, ``Costs are driven by the523byzantine rules of the Federal tax credit system,'' unquote.524One LIHTC project in the city, quote, ``took nearly 4 years to525get the project financed, with legal fees three times the cost526of a market-rate apartment tower,'' unquote.527    A 2024 article in The Wall Street Journal compared528subsidized housing projects in Los Angeles that had an average529cost of $600,000 per unit to a market-based, low-income530apartment project that cost half of that per unit. The market-531based apartment developer said, quote, ``We believe there is a532different way than using government money, which really becomes533slow and arduous and increases costs.'' Studies by the GAO and534academics confirm that LIHTC projects cost substantially more535than market-based projects.536    There is a fraud problem with the LIHTC program. Developers537have been found to inflate construction costs to take excessive538tax credits. The GAO noted that there is little policing of539contractor costs in LIHTC.540    The LIHTC program has encouraged corruption in some cities.541Officials have handed out housing subsidies to developers in542return for bribes and campaign contributions. IRS oversight of543LIHTC to police such abuse is minimal, according to GAO.544    So, who benefits from the LIHTC program? Well, statistical545studies suggest that a large share of LIHTC benefits go to546investors and developers, not to tenants. One 2024 study by MIT547economist, Evan Soltas, found, quote, ``Developers capture548around half of the LIHTC subsidy in profits,'' unquote.549    LIHTC housing substantially displaces market-based housing.550Many academic studies that I cite in my written testimony find551that only half or less of LIHTC housing units actually increase552the overall housing stock. The rest are displaced market-based553units that would have been built. The 2024 MIT study I554mentioned found, quote, ``LIHTC has little impact on the555overall size of the housing stock, as LIHTC heavily displaces556private development that would have otherwise occurred,''557unquote.558    So, how do we boost affordable housing which is, of course,559a very important goal? The states should liberalize zoning and560building regulations that reduce housing supply and raise costs561for multifamily housing.562    Another problem is property taxes. This is often563overlooked. Across 50 U.S. cities, the average effective tax564rate on apartment buildings is 44 percent higher than on owner-565occupied homes, for no good reason. Cities should cut these566high property taxes to boost multifamily investment.567    As for Congress, it should reform tax depreciation rules568for multifamily investment. Apartment buildings have a lengthy56927.5-year write-off period, which raises effective tax rates.570The Tax Foundation estimated that depreciation reforms for an571apartment building would boost construction by 2 million units572over 10 years.573    So, in sum, with tax and regulatory reforms, markets, in my574view, would supply more housing for moderate-income families.575Congress should reform depreciation rules for apartment576buildings and the states should cut property taxes on apartment577buildings and liberalize zoning and building regulations that578reduce supply and increase costs.579    Thank you very much.580    Mr. Grothman. Thank you. Mr. Husock?581582                       STATEMENT OF HOWARD HUSOCK583584                 SENIOR FELLOW, DOMESTIC POLICY STUDIES585586                   THE AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE587588    Mr. Husock. Good morning, Chair Grothman, Ranking Member589Krishnamoorthi, and Members of the Subcommittee. I will suggest590changes in the regulation governing tendencies in public and591subsidized housing that I believe will help the housing voucher592and public housing programs cease to encourage dependency,593instead encourage upward mobility, and in the process allow594them to serve more of those who currently languish on waiting595lists.596    First is background. Let me turn to a comparison between597one aspect of our social safety net, housing subsidies, and598another, temporary assistance to needy families, which599provides----600    Mr. Grothman. Here, I will tell you. Do you want to move601next door and maybe use a different microphone? There is602something wrong with yours.603    Mr. Husock. OK if I start over?604    Mr. Grothman. Yep, yep, yep, yep.605    Mr. Husock. I did push the button.606    [Laughter.]607    Mr. Husock. Once again, good morning, Chair Grothman,608Ranking Member Krishnamoorthi, and Members of the Subcommittee.609I will suggest changes in the regulations governing tendencies610in public and subsidized housing that I believe will help the611housing voucher and public housing programs cease to encourage612dependency, instead encourage upward mobility, and in the613process allow them to serve more of those who currently614languish on waiting lists.615    First is background. Let me turn to a comparison between616one aspect of our social safety net, housing subsidies, and617another, temporary assistance to needy families, which provides618cash welfare.619    It is little appreciated that we budget twice as much for620housing vouchers alone, $30 billion, as for cash welfare, $16621billion. Although both are intended to alleviate poverty, the622rules governing the two programs are strikingly different.623    Beginning with the Personal Responsibility and Work Act of6241996, there has been a 5-year time limit as well as a work and625education requirement for those receiving public assistance.626The effect was dramatic. Welfare rolls declined from $13.6 to627$1.9 million. Over the past 35 years, the child poverty rate628has declined, from 18.7 to 8.6 percent.629    Housing voucher recipients, in contrast, qualify for a630lifetime stay in almost all localities. The median stay, 9631years. In New York City, as of 2025, 23 percent of public632housing tenants have lived in their unit 40 years or more.633    New research we are currently undertaking at AAI, between634myself and University of Chicago economist Bruce Meyer,635indicates that 87 percent of current voucher recipients,636excluding the elderly and disabled, will, based on past data,637likely spend more than 5 years in subsidized housing, including63873 percent who will spend more than 10 years. I have submitted639this data in my written testimony.640    It is worth noting that according to HUD data, the largest641percentage of non-elderly subsidized tenants are single parents642with children. Only three percent of all tenants are two643married adults.644    What is more, if even one resident of a multi-bedroom645apartment is a legal citizen or a legal immigrant, the646remaining tenants may be undocumented migrants.647    It is time to align the rules for our housing subsidy648programs with those of public assistance. To begin to support649housing policy in line with those values, we should begin by650permitting a ceiling on length of tenure, a time limit for new,651non-elderly, non-disabled tenants. A 5-year limit, as with652TANF, makes sense. It would not affect the majority of new653tenants. It would encourage planning for a post-subsidy future654as well as an out-and-up turnover to make way for those on655waiting lists, such as those of the more than 22,000 households656currently on active waiting lists in the city of Milwaukee, and6576.5 million households on housing authority waiting lists658nationwide.659    Currently, this should be complemented instead with a660voucher and housing system to replace the 30 percent rule. It661sounds like a good deal if you only pay 30 percent of your662income, but that means as your income goes up, so does your663rent. I do not think anybody on this Committee would sign a664lease like that. As household income rises, instead of paying665more in rent, what would have been an increase should be666deposited in an escrow account, like a Health Savings Account.667And so, on exit, that would be available for a down payment on668homeownership, as Secretary Carson has emphasized. An increase669in income would require employment, which should also be670required, nor should rent increase if marriage occurs, as the671Chair has so importantly pointed out.672    At the same time, there is a role for local discretion.673Across the country, many housing authorities are using the674Rental Assistance Demonstration Program to draw private capital675into the renovation of aging, deteriorated housing projects.676These require long-term guarantees of housing vouchers. These677upgrades, which bring in private money, should not be678undermined, and may require local adjustment of time limits.679    It is worth noting that time limits are not unprecedented.680They have been implemented, for instance, in San Bernardino,681California, where most housing authority tenants moved out682before the 5-year time limit, saw their incomes increase, and683their employment levels increase.684    Finally, at a time when waiting lists are long, the scarce685housing assistance safety net benefit should go to U.S.686citizens and legal immigrants. This is not to take a stand on687long-term immigration policy and how we might deal with the688undocumented but to give priority to those who work hard and689play by the rules, as President Clinton once put it.690    Taken together, these suggestions, I believe, should draw691bipartisan support in order to encourage turnover, reduce692waiting lists, and reduce penalties for earned income. Our693housing subsidy policies should switch from being a dependency694trap to what Lyndon Johnson had hoped his war on poverty would695be, not a handout but a hand up.696    Thank you very much for your time.697    Mr. Grothman. Thank you. Now trade places again. OK, Mr.698Dutta-Gupta.699700                    STATEMENT OF INDIVAR DUTTA-GUPTA701702                                ADVISOR703704                            COMMUNITY CHANGE705706    Mr. Dutta-Gupta. Thank you. Chairman Grothman, Ranking707Member Krishnamoorthi, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank708you for the opportunity to testify today. I am Indi Dutta-709Gupta, and I am here as an advisor to Community Change and as710the Doris Duke Distinguished Visiting Fellow at Georgetown711University's McCourt School of Public Policy. We are here to712discuss America's basic needs programs.713    While the framing of the hearing focuses on the growth of714the welfare state, I believe it is more accurate and productive715to view these basic needs programs as essential components of a716social protection system, helping families afford health care,717groceries, caregiving, and housing, which helps stabilize718communities and raises employment and earnings over time.719    Instead of cutting vital services like health care, food720assistance, and childcare, Congress should improve their721effectiveness by expanding them and removing burdens like asset722limits that hold people back. This can be done by ensuring that723the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes, helping us all724afford these essential needs. Proposals moving through Congress725now are moving unequivocally in the wrong direction and would726inflict enormous harm.727    Now, the vast majority of our families depend on income728from work, but the United States does far less than other729wealthy countries to ensure adequate wages for our workers. For730example, we rank 31 out of 32 OECD countries for our high share731of low-paid jobs. Partly because of this, we need more robust732investments in basic needs programs than other wealthy Western733nations.734    And indeed, these programs should be understood as735investments, especially in children and families, rather than736solely as spending. The evidence shows that they provide737dramatic immediate benefits, significantly reducing hardship.738In 2023, programs like Social Security, SNAP, Rental739Assistance, the Child Tax Credit, and the Earned Income Tax740Credit kept over 34 million people above the poverty line.741    Furthermore, these programs provide stunning long-term742benefits. Research on the introduction of the Food Stamps743program, now SNAP, shows that early childhood access led to744increased educational attainment, higher adult earnings, and745even greater life expectancy. The benefits to the participants746have been estimated to be 62 times the cost to the government,747and the net fiscal cost to the government was estimated to be748zero. Similar evidence exists for other programs, including749Medicaid, cash support, Head Start, and more. So, Mr.750Krishnamoorthi's story is actually much more the norm with751these programs.752    Proposed cuts to basic needs programs like SNAP, Medicare,753and housing assistance threaten to undermine these positive754impacts. We are seeing a recurring theme in these proposals--755bureaucrat work reporting requirements, harsh and756counterproductive time limits, and shifting financial burdens757onto states and localities who are ill-equipped to absorb them.758    For SNAP, proposals could take away or reduce food759assistance for millions of low-income families, including by760requiring states to pay a portion of benefit costs and761expanding existing harsh work mandates. For Medicaid, proposals762repeat failed work mandates and shift costs to states, in turn763leading to reduced coverage and services. Housing assistance764programs face potential funding cuts, rent hikes, and damaging765time limits, which threaten to increase homelessness.766    Instead of cuts and new red tape, policymakers should767prioritize strategies that boost employments and incomes. We768need to raise the minimum wage, expand the Earned Income Tax769Credit and Child Tax Credit, fund jobs programs, invest in care770infrastructure, and ensure housing affordability.771    Cash supports have proven effective with long-term benefits772to children. Research shows that these funds are primarily used773for essential needs, and they can increase employment in some774instances.775    Subsidized employment and other jobs programs have proven776effective at preventing divorce and facilitating more two-777parent families. Investing in care enables parents and other778caregivers to work and creates jobs in the care sector here at779home. A large, sustained commitment to expand affordable780housing and rental assistance would bridge the gap between781incomes and housing costs for many.782    In conclusion, we should embrace basic needs programs as an783investment in opportunity. We should strengthen and expand784proven strategies, and we should move away from outdated785narratives and burdensome mandates on families. Rising costs786are hurting families who are often just one paycheck away from787a crisis.788    Basic needs programs have been there when Americans fall on789hard times, and they provide millions of us the foundation we790need to access and take advantage of opportunity in this791country. We should protect and strengthen them so they are792there, and always there when we or our loved ones need them.793Thank you.794    Mr. Grothman. Thank you very much. I am going to call upon795myself to begin to ask some questions.796    Just a brief comment. Look, the Earned Income Tax Credit is797just one more program, the more you work, the more you lose the798money. If you marry somebody with an income, you lose the799benefit.800    But I will start with Mr. Edwards. This LIHTC stuff, I have801really delved into it for the first time in the last week, and802I have a feeling whoever came up with it, and lobbied Congress803to begin it, was not the poor people it was designed to804benefit. It was the property developers. But you have said that805it benefits the developers and middlemen more than the average806American. Could you elaborate on that a little bit? I think it807is so true.808    Mr. Edwards. The reason why that is, is because as the809recent MIT study that I mentioned--which was a very detailed810study, it collected data from hundreds of LIHTC projects across81140 states--found that the average rent savings from LIHTC812buildings compared to nearby private market, unsubsidized813buildings was only 12 percent. Other studies find there is814really not that much difference between rent and LIHTC815buildings.816    So, the Feds give $14 billion in tax credits, so where do817the benefits go? A number of studies find that most of the818benefits go to the developers, because the system is so819complex.820    We also know this is true because there is a huge, intense821competition at the state and city level to get these credits by822the developer. That is how we know they are extremely823lucrative, because they all want to get these benefits.824    So, that has been the general conclusion from the academic825literature.826    Mr. Grothman. Do you know about what percentage-wise--and827we are working on a change in LIHTC right here--do you know828percentage-wise how much the cost of a building is paid for by829the tax credits, about?830    Mr. Edwards. Well, essentially all of the costs of the831building is paid by the tax credits. I mean, the 9 percent832credit covers 70 percent of the cost of construction. That is833kind of the standard. But the investors get more benefits than834just the credit. They get the benefit of the tax losses that835flow from the projects, and they get the benefit, potentially,836in 15 or 30 years, from selling the buildings and getting a837capital gain.838    Mr. Grothman. My god. You mean 70 percent of the building839is paid for by the government, but the developers and the840syndicates are the ones who wind up owning it?841    Mr. Edwards. That is right. The investors own it. The 9842percent credit covers 70 percent of the cost of construction.843And again, that is only part of the tax benefit that the844investors get.845    Mr. Grothman. Oh, my god. No wonder so many people are846running around here trying to keep that program going. Is there847a better way to, if it is the government's business, a better848way to set up housing to help people?849    Mr. Edwards. Well, I mean, I talked in my testimony about850deregulation and tax cuts. One thing that is striking, that is851often overlooked, is property taxes on apartment buildings are852far higher than single-family homes. There is no good reason853for that. Property tax rates should be the same across the854board. So, there is a bias in local government tax codes855against people who live in apartment buildings.856    For Congress, in 1986, Congress increased the depreciation857lifespan on buildings--that was a mistake, it increased taxes858on apartment buildings. I think Congress ought to fix that859mistake and reduce the write-off period for apartment buildings860to get more private sector investment.861    Mr. Grothman. OK. Mr. Carson, you know, we are talking862about housing here, and we can talk about Section 8, but we are863also talking about SNAP. We are talking about a variety of864other programs. And it is not unusual--is this your experience?865To say, a single mom, if she wants to marry a guy, and maybe866even the father of her children, the guy is making $40, $50867grand a year, that she would lose tens of thousands of dollars868in benefits?869    Dr. Carson. Unfortunately, that is the case. And it becomes870a lifestyle, a way of living. You know, I grew up I poverty and871I listened to a lot of the people who were on these programs,872and the various schemes that they would come up with, rather873than trying to figure out how to get out of poverty, rather874than trying to figure out how to----875    Mr. Grothman. We cannot hear you. Can you press the----876    Dr. Carson. It is pressed.877    Mr. Grothman. OK. Go ahead. Go ahead.878    Dr. Carson. It is. Yes. But rather than trying to figure879out how to improve their lives, improve their education,880improve their income, they are always trying to figure out how881to get around the various rules.882    Mr. Grothman. I have heard that too. It is like a full-time883job to make sure you keep the money coming.884    Dr. Carson. Yes.885    Mr. Grothman. Mr. Husock, yes or no, are there marriage886penalties in housing assistance programs like Section 8?887    Mr. Husock. Definitely, and it is because of the 30 percent888rule. You pay 30 percent of your income in rent. So, as your889income goes up, you pay higher rent. If you get married and890there are two incomes, you pay higher rent still.891    Mr. Grothman. Does that sometimes cause people not to get892married, do you think?893    Mr. Husock. Logically, it is a disincentive to marriage.894    Mr. Grothman. Right. And I think if more Congressmen got895out of showing up at fundraisers and spent time with average896people, they would come up with tons of examples of people who897are specifically not married, to keep these things going.898    In any event, I used up my time. We are going to give899ourselves a chance to ask questions later. But I will turn to900Mr. Krishnamoorthi to ask his questions.901    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning, Mr.902Edwards. The title of this hearing is ``Examining the Growing903Welfare State,'' and I actually have an article here which904talks about cutting corporate welfare. You remember this905article, right? And in this article, it says, ``One ripe area906for reform is corporate welfare, which a new Cato study907estimates costs the Federal budget $181 billion a year.'' That908is what you said, right, in this article?909    Mr. Edwards. Absolutely.910    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. And your study helpfully breaks down911the number $181 billion, by agency and program. Right?912    Mr. Edwards. That is right.913    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Unfortunately, however, H.Con.Res 14--914this is the Republican House budget resolution--does not use915your study, believe it or not, to find savings. For example,916you have identified subsidies to different corporations, but917this particular budget resolution does not actually use your918study, or any study, to cut those subsidies. You do not dispute919that, right?920    Mr. Edwards. No, right. I think Congress should cut921corporate welfare and low-income welfare.922    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Well, let me talk about corporate923welfare for a second and what this particular budget resolution924tries to do. H.Con.Res 14 targets social safety net programs.925It directs the Energy and Commerce Committee, which oversees926the Medicaid program, to cut $880 billion from its budget. You927do not dispute that, right?928    Mr. Edwards. I have not looked in detail, but I assume that929is right.930    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Additionally, H.Con.Res 14 directs the931Ag Committee, which oversees SNAP, to cut $230 billion from its932budget. You do not dispute that, right?933    Mr. Edwards. Right.934    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. When I was young, I relied on the Food935Stamp program, which was the predecessor to SNAP, and it was936critical for my family. And I believe that cutting food aid is937just plain wrong.938    Let me turn to another topic. Dr. Carson, you said the939following: ``Obamacare is really the worst thing that has940happened in this Nation since slavery.'' You do not dispute you941said that, right, sir?942    Dr. Carson. I do not dispute that.943    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Well, let us look at the facts.944Obamacare is really the Affordable Care Act, or the ACA. In9452024, the government reported that over 65 million people have946health insurance because of the ACA. You do not dispute that,947right, sir?948    Dr. Carson. What I am making a point, and when I said that949is that, all of the socialists and the Marxists say that950socialized medicine is the linchpin to providing socialism951throughout the entire system. And that is a system that moves952us much closer to socialized medicine.953    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Well, I--let me ask you this. The ACA954prohibits health insurance companies from refusing coverage for955preexisting conditions. You do not dispute that, right?956    Dr. Carson. I would have to have a little more context than957you just gave.958    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Well, believe me, the ACA prohibits959health insurance companies from refusing coverage for people960with preexisting conditions. It also allows children to stay on961their parents' health plans until the age of 26.962    You know, it does not sound like the catastrophe that you963painted to be akin to slavery. On the contrary, the ACA is not964keeping people down. It is lifting people up. And I find your965prior comments about Obamacare being the worst thing since966slavery really appalling.967    Mr. Dutta-Gupta, right now, according to realtor.com, the968U.S. has a shortage of nearly 4 million homes, causing a969housing crisis, right?970    Mr. Dutta-Gupta. Yes.971    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. In addition, since Donald Trump took972office, the Bureau of Labor Statistics found that price hikes973for food have accelerated. Correct?974    Mr. Dutta-Gupta. Yes.975    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. The Wall Street Journal also found that976new Trump tariffs are expected to cost American households at977least $2,100 annually. You do not dispute that, right?978    Mr. Dutta-Gupta. I believe it is analysis from the Budget979Lab at Yale, but yes.980    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. The affordable housing crisis is981squeezing families today, and these new tariffs will make982everything from rent to groceries even more unaffordable,983unfortunately.984    Let me return to Dr. Carson. Dr. Carson, you did not live985in public housing, right?986    Dr. Carson. That is correct.987    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. I spent part of my childhood in Section9888 housing. This is actually a picture of the public housing989that I lived in. It gave my family the stability we needed to990work, breathe, and build a new life, and my parents were991actually married. My family story is not unique, sir. HUD found992that for every year a woman spends in public housing as a993teenager, she generated $925 additionally in adult earnings994than someone with unsteady housing. You do not dispute that,995right?996    Dr. Carson. Well, the issue is not whether public housing997is helpful or not. The issue is, are there things that we can998do to improve the situation and to make people more likely to999exit from public housing. Real success is the number of people1000we can get off of assistance, not how many we can put on it.1001    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. I agree with you, 100 percent. I exited1002public housing, sir. My family exited public housing. We moved1003to Peoria, Illinois. We entered the middle class. And I sit1004before you as a United States Congressman.1005    Dr. Carson. And I applaud you.1006    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. That is the hallmark of a successful1007program.1008    Dr. Carson. That is good, but unfortunately----1009    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Thank you, and I yield back. Thank you.1010    Dr. Carson. Unfortunately, that does not happen for1011everybody.1012    Mr. Grothman. OK. I now recognize Mr. Gosar for 5 minutes.1013    Mr. Gosar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are over $361014trillion in debt, and public housing has only contributed to1015that cost. Section 8 housing, for example, does not have a time1016limit. Participants can receive subsidized housing for decades1017while those most in need are stuck on a wait list.1018    But the housing cost crisis is not the result of just one1019regulatory requirement but rather a series of challenges that1020forced costly and unattainable standards on local communities.1021Not only did Biden's HUD inflate the cost of housing welfare,1022but it also reinstated Obama's Affirmatively Furthering Fair1023Housing Initiative, or the AFFH rule. You are very familiar,1024aren't you, Doctor?1025    In 2015, Obama introduced the AFFH rule to dictate zoning1026requirements in any community across the country that applied1027for Community Development Block Grant. According to the Cato1028Institute, Mr. Edwards, AFFH required Federal and local1029agencies to spend $55 million each year to comply with its1030regulations, thus increasing local taxes, reducing property1031values, and causing greater harm than good to impoverished1032communities. Luckily, President Trump terminated this rule, and1033my legislation, the Local Zoning Decisions Protection Act will1034codify that termination. I invite all of my colleagues to join1035in on helping me with that.1036    Dr. Carson, it is great to see you again, and thanks for1037testifying. As Secretary, you worked to give Americans a hand1038up, not a handout. How does the AFFH rule harm local1039communities?1040    Dr. Carson. Well, it is just a very good example of how the1041government insinuates itself into places where they do not need1042to be. You know, communities have developed on their own1043throughout the time that we have existed as a Nation. Many of1044them thrived extremely well. They had people who came from1045different countries. They could not speak to each other because1046they did not have the same language. But they understood one1047important thing. That is called the common good. It is a phrase1048used frequently by our founders, that means not what is good1049for this group versus that group but what is good for1050everybody.1051    AFFH has a bunch of bureaucrats who impose their rulings in1052a situation like that. The reason that those communities thrive1053is because if it was harvest time and Mr. Jones broke his1054ankle, everybody else harvested his crops. They did not ask1055what his religion was or what his politics were. They said,1056``This is my neighbor. They need help.''1057    That is the kind of communities we need to get back to, not1058government-sponsored and dictated communities.1059    Mr. Gosar. That sounds great. Thank you.1060    Mr. Husock, in February 2024, 70 New York City Housing1061Authority employees were charged with accepting cash from1062contractors in exchange for awarding certain contracts to these1063entities. Is it correct that public housing authorities that1064administer these HUD programs are required to place tenants who1065receive housing benefits on their Housing Authority boards?1066    Mr. Husock. There are representatives required--it varies1067state by state, but that certainly is possible. And that was1068one of the largest corruption cases in New York municipal1069history.1070    Mr. Gosar. In your opinion, what is the first step to1071addressing abuse of these public housing authorities?1072    Mr. Husock. Well, I think they should not be in the1073management business at all. We have--and I live in the metro1074New York area--there are a lot of companies that really know1075how to manage buildings, and one of them is not the Housing1076Authority of New York.1077    Now, there may be well-meaning people who could oversee1078contracts. That is a proper role for government. It happens all1079the time. This Congress does it. But we should have private1080management. And we are moving slowly in that direction, through1081the Rental Assistance Demonstration Program, where we are1082bringing in private management. You some people yell ``That is1083privatization and it is bad.'' But no, we need to bring in1084private management and not let these housing authorities, which1085have a proven record of corruption and incompetence. The New1086York City Housing Authority, the largest one in the country, is1087under the oversight of a Federal monitor because of dilapidated1088conditions.1089    Mr. Gosar. Mr. Edwards--and first of all, thank you very1090much for your institute, Cato, looking into the national1091emergencies that I was so hyped up about, showing that there is1092$12 trillion that between Bill Clinton and Joe Biden, all that1093time in between, we ran up $12 trillion worth of our debt, one-1094third of our debt with no receipts. So, thank you very much for1095that.1096    In my legislation, Putting Trust in Transparency Act, would1097require any NGO that receives even a penny of Federal funding1098to disclose its extravagant donors so Congress can see what1099NGO's have nefarious intentions. So, in the case of affordable1100housing, the American people would have access to the books of1101NGO's, that house illegal aliens at the expense of the1102taxpayer. Is that true? If that were to pass, is this a place1103to be looking?1104    Mr. Edwards. There are entities that receive Federal1105grants--are required, do have required financial disclosure.1106But the threshold is very high. It is like a million dollars,1107or something like that, annually.1108    Mr. Gosar. Yes. Thank you. I will have more questions1109later. Thank you.1110    Mr. Grothman. The gentleman from Missouri.1111    Mr. Bell. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Ranking Member. With all1112due respect, Dr. Carson, really? I just do not understand the1113logic. We are talking about schemes, and housing assistance and1114people who need these programs, and labeling it as ``schemes''1115is off-putting and offensive, to be perfectly frank. As someone1116who lived in housing projects and had families--my family, when1117we were younger, had housing assistance--let me tell you about1118a scheme.1119    This woman that I know, she was a single mom at the time,1120and she took an entry-level position because that is the best1121position she had because she did not have a degree at the time.1122And she worked her way up. But in the meantime, she did not1123make a lot of money. And so, she had a son, who, she worked so1124that he could go to undergrad, go to law school, and then1125eventually sit before you on this dais as a Congressman. Then1126she went on, after she did that for her son, to get her degree,1127and her master's degree. But without having some assistance1128early on, none of those things would have happened.1129    So, when we look at the worst offender, we cherry-pick a1130particular offender and say, oh, well this is the rule for all1131of these hardworking people who are just trying to move up in1132life, and are not asking for handouts, but just--and I will1133even say this. It is not even about handouts. If the rules were1134fair, a lot of these folks would not ask for anything. But a1135lot of them are starting from a position where they are1136handcuffed and their shoelaces are tied, and then they are told1137to go run a race and win the race. So, it just seems1138disingenuous when we talk about schemes, when we should be1139supporting these individuals.1140    And I will say this. As a Christian, I do not believe that1141anything that is man-made is going to be perfect. So, you can1142pick any program, that a Democrat or a Republican started, and1143you will find something that is not perfect about it. But1144instead of gutting the programs, perhaps we could actually sit1145down, work together, and improve those programs.1146    So, I want to paint a picture of how urgent these issues1147are. The low-income assistance programs we are discussing are1148not just numbers on a page. They are lifelines. And despite1149what some of my Republican colleagues may suggest, what is1150happening her is not isolated. It is part of a troubling1151pattern. And right now, this Administration is targeting1152programs like Medicaid, not to reform them but to bankrupt them1153and gut them to fund for tax breaks for billionaires. Cuts to1154Medicaid do not just hurt on paper, they hurt real people in1155every community. Medicaid funds critical mental health care,1156from school counseling to crisis and addiction services. In1157Missouri, in my state, more than 48,000 people rely on Medicaid1158expansion. Without it, many would have nowhere else to turn.1159And yet, while some Republicans claim mental health is the root1160of tragedies like mass shootings, they are cutting the very1161programs designed to help.1162    So, if mental health is truly a priority, why are we1163slashing Medicaid? If mental health is truly a priority, who1164are proven mental health programs on the chopping block? If1165mental health is truly a priority, why was funding just frozen1166for the bipartisan Safer Communities Act, which improves school1167safety and expands mental health care? That law, which was a1168bipartisan bill, has been unraveled in 100 days, and President1169Trump's budget would make even deeper cuts.1170    If Republicans were serious about mental health, they would1171not be cutting student support, slashing Medicaid, and1172undermining community safety. And as a prosecutor, mental1173health and public safety should not only matter after1174tragedies. We need to act before lives are lost. Protecting1175Medicaid, SNAP, housing, and other vital programs is how we do1176that, and this is not rocket science. The choice is simple--1177protect billionaires or protect communities.1178    I have a quick question for Mr. Dutta-Gupta. Given that1179stable, long-term housing is essential to children's1180development and mental health, does it make sense to push1181millions of families onto the streets?1182    Mr. Dutta-Gupta. Absolutely not. It is completely counter-1183productive. And your life experience and Mr. Krishnamoorthi's1184is the norm that these programs substantially improve the1185outcomes, especially of children.1186    Mr. Grothman. OK. We are like over a minute.1187    Mr. Bell. I yield back. Thank you.1188    Mr. Grothman. OK. Mr. McGuire?1189    Mr. McGuire. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to our1190witnesses for being here today to answer our questions.1191    You know, I grew up in poverty, as well. My older sister1192and I were abandoned. The police found us. And we bounced1193around to different foster homes. I attended nine different1194elementary schools. But through the grace of God, my1195grandparents, who had already raised their children, rescued me1196and my older sister and raised us until my dad got sober. And I1197think God gives us adversity to chisel us into the men and1198women we are supposed to be. I decided I wanted to serve our1199country, because my grandfather served in the Navy in World War1200II, to become a Navy SEAL. Typically, 200 men per class.1201Usually 20 graduate. One class graduated 0 out of 200, because1202not everybody gets a trophy.1203    But what you learn in the military, it is not what you look1204like. It is what you fight like. And if somebody saved your1205life on the battlefield, you would not care if they were pink1206or blue, male or female, if they called themselves a Democrat,1207Republican, or an independent. We are all Americans.1208    We qualified for free lunches when we grew up. We did not1209have health care. And we somehow, some way, we learned to1210improvise, adapt, overcome, and work hard.1211    I want to commend President Trump's budget. President1212Trump's budget request ensures taxpayers will not continue1213paying for housing for illegal immigrants. It also ensures that1214the Department of Housing and Urban Development concentrates1215its funding on our most vulnerable, including the elderly,1216disabled, and foster children. Importantly, it puts a 2-year1217cap on rental assistance for able-bodied adults, which I1218believe will help address many of the challenges we are1219speaking about today.1220    So, I have a question for Dr. Carson. We really appreciate1221you being here today. Thank you so much for all you have done.1222We appreciate your expertise and what you did. You did a1223phenomenal job leading the Department of Housing and Urban1224Development during President Trump's first Administration.1225    Earlier this year, this Committee looked at welfare1226programs like Medicaid and SNAP. What we found is incentives1227for these programs to discourage work, marriage, and other1228behavior that may reduce their need for welfare. In fact, we1229looked at every single safety net program, and witnesses said1230that every single one of them incentivized single-parent homes.1231And I think the breakdown of the nuclear family is what is1232threatening our country. I heard the Chairman say that, in12331960, 5 percent of American homes had a single parent. Today it1234is 40 percent and growing. That is a recipe for destroying our1235country and everything that so many men and women, military or1236not, gave their life for.1237    Dr. Carson, when you arrived, did you see these bad1238incentives at welfare programs at the Department of Housing and1239Urban Development?1240    Dr. Carson. We definitely had many disincentives for self-1241sufficiency. And I thought, you know, coming into the1242Department, that it would be easy coming to Capitol Hill and1243getting bipartisan support for self-sufficiency programs and1244getting rid of the dependency. I was wrong. There are many1245people who were not interested in doing that and perpetuating1246this situation because it gave them a power base.1247    And I think it is time for us, really, to sit down, put the1248facts in the middle of the table, and think about what are our1249goals? Our goals are not just to support people who have1250difficult situations. Our goals are to get them out of that1251situation and help them to be able to realize the American1252dream.1253    So, you know, I do not disagree with some of the things the1254Congressman from Missouri was saying, but the Bible tells us we1255have an obligation to the poor, but we do not have an1256obligation to keep them poor.1257    Mr. McGuire. I love it. It makes sense. A hand up, not a1258handout.1259    Let us see, Mr. Husock, for a couple living in poverty, how1260significant are the financial penalties they face if they get1261married while on welfare?1262    Mr. Husock. Well, I am not an expert on temporary1263assistance to needy families, although we, in 1996, this1264Congress passed a 5-year limit on cash welfare, and cash1265welfare dropped tremendously in terms of the number of people1266on it, and it helped reduce the poverty rate.1267    In terms of public housing and voucher housing, it just1268does not make sense to have two incomes, or certainly it does1269not make sense to declare two incomes. So, those of us who are1270concerned about having formal marriage arrangements as opposed1271to partners living together or not having the biological1272parents in the same house, there is a tremendous disincentive1273for those who would declare legally the incomes that they have.1274    It is worth noting that in the New York City Housing1275Authority, which is the largest in the country, 177,000 units1276of public housing in New York City. They estimate there are1277400,000 legal residents. They estimate, just in the amount of1278garbage that is picked up, that there are 600,000 people living1279in public housing.1280    So, there may be many other partners in the home, but they1281are not declared legally, and that is not a good thing either.1282    Mr. McGuire. Thank you, and I yield back.1283    Mr. Grothman. Thank you. Ms. Simon?1284    Ms. Simon. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank the1285witnesses for being here today.1286    Where do I even begin? The issues surrounding families who1287are low income and the working poor, supporting them in their1288plight, I believe is what we are all here to do. But this1289conversation is extremely troubling.1290    I came to Congress to represent those families, clearly.1291One of those families is the Tsu family in my district, a1292multigenerational family in the Bay Area, and they overcame1293decades of anti-Asian laws and housing covenants to live the1294American dream, a family that bought a home, and season tickets1295to the A's, although they have left. Very, very sad.1296    But to many families like this family, changes did happen.1297The Tsu family incurred medical bills, like my family did,1298divorce, and the 2008 recession changed everything, broke down1299their safety net. Derek Tsu, he lost his home during that1300period, and his car, and he could not afford rent on his1301$1,000-a-month income that came from disability once he was1302disabled. Today Derek is leading advocacy efforts for1303dignified--dignified--folks who are too low income to afford1304rent. And I am so thankful for that work.1305    Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record1306the San Francisco Chronicle's, ``Home Grown and Homeless in1307Oakland.''1308    [Pause.]1309    Ms. Simon. Well, I hope that can go in without----1310    Mr. Grothman. Oh, sure, yes.1311    Ms. Simon. Thank you, sir.1312    I just want to say, right here in this building, the1313daycare workers make $30,000 a year, to take care of the1314children, school-aged children, of Members of Congress, $30,0001315a year. Suppose two of these folks, who work, are married. They1316are married, working in this Capitol. They cannot afford a one-1317bedroom in Washington, DC. So, few people who make laws for the1318poor have been poor.1319    Many of you all know that I was a teen mom. I went to1320college. I got food stamps, $26 a month. Every other week I was1321at the counter putting back food because, again, people were1322making policy for poor folks who had no idea what it was like1323having to move through an economy that did not understand what1324it was really like to be poor.1325    I want to be clear. Those daycare workers in this building,1326don't you think they want a better income, or do you want for1327them to leave the daycare here in 2 years? You want full1328economies to shift, have people leave, because being poor, to1329many folks in this room, is a crime. Being poor, or literally1330working at Walmart, where you still, when you work at Walmart,1331do you know, across this country, you still qualify for SNAP?1332These low-wage jobs that folks are working with their bodies,1333cannot afford health care, cannot afford the rents in their1334community. I apologize to the folks who are watching this, who1335are strong and amazing and dutiful and patriotic folks. Folks1336are punching down on you, and it is not just not fair, it is1337extremely cruel.1338    The permanence of poverty in this country is clear. There1339is a permanence of poverty of folks who, again, are working day1340in and day out, and in my district cannot afford $2,400 for a1341two-bedroom, for a one-bedroom.1342    I just want to be clear. The reality is--and I have been1343there--being poor is hard. Being poor is hard. And the Federal1344Government should not be making poverty harder. When we ask a1345family that is paying 50 percent of their income to rent, to1346afford childcare--I have been there--and elder care, and1347medical insurance, we are sentencing them to lifelong debt,1348housing insecurity, and hunger.1349    I want to be clear, that any reduction in SNAP, any1350reduction in Medicaid, any reduction in housing benefits for1351the working poor, or services, that could be the difference1352between life and death, or living on the streets, for so many1353vulnerable individuals and families is what we are proposing.1354    President Trump, this week, actually last week, released a1355budget that would slash housing vouchers, public housing,1356housing programs for seniors and people with disabilities. It1357is clear. We have read it. Cut the LIHEAP, which, regardless,1358we know it helps working families afford heat in the winter and1359cool air in the summer. It would limit homeless individuals who1360are at risk of future homelessness because you want to give a1361clear-cut cap on how long these deserving people need to get1362out of poverty. Believe me, I have gotten out of poverty. It1363takes longer than 2 to 4 years.1364    My constituents have been clear with me. They have brought1365me here because they are hard-working and they deserve a1366government that is going to work with them as they move through1367an economy that has no idea what it means to move through1368poverty.1369    And I yield back.1370    Mr. Grothman. Thank you. Ms. Randall?1371    Ms. Randall. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and our guests. I am1372also grateful for the remarks of my colleague, Ms. Simon. I1373think we so often seek to depersonalize the work that we do in1374this chamber and this Capitol. We talk about it in terms of1375funding levels and dollars saved. But we are talking about1376programs that impact real people, real families who are trying1377to live their lives.1378    And, you know, in addition to the budget reconciliation1379package that we have seen and been discussing in committees,1380that make steep cuts to Medicaid, SNAP, and other critical1381programs to pay for tax cuts for billionaires, the Trump1382Administration's skinny budget proposal that they released last1383week would slash many of the Federal programs that families1384around the country rely on, at a time when this President's1385radical tax and tariff agenda is driving the country into a1386recession and making daily life, housing, childcare, baby1387strollers, more expensive for working families.1388    This Republican budget reconciliation package that we are1389discussing would cut Federal housing support by nearly $271390billion, and limit rental assistance to only 2 years for--and I1391am using big air quotes here--able-bodied adults.1392    What this means is that millions are going to get forced1393out of their homes. Millions more are going to be couch surfing1394or on the street. And I hear from a lot of business interests1395that more people on the streets is not--they do not tell me it1396is a community challenge. They tell me it is bad for their1397business. And these are problems we can solve. We can solve1398homelessness by ensuring that people have housing, through1399housing and rental assistance programs. It is not magic. It is1400housing.1401    We can ensure that people are not forced out of their1402tenuous living situations by continuing LIHEAP, the program1403that Ms. Simon was just talking about. It is a Low-Income1404Energy Assistance Program. Now, I do not know if anyone on this1405panel has ever had to decide whether they pay for medication, a1406medical appointment, or your electricity bill, whether you can1407let it go for 3 or 4 days, or whether you let it go for another1408month. Maybe you live in a state that has protections, where1409they cannot cutoff your heat in the winter. Maybe you do not.1410    Families are making these challenging decisions every day,1411and for us to come in here and hear lines of questions and1412testimony about the expanded welfare state, as if human beings1413are a drain on our economy, when they are just trying to build1414lives for themselves, is truly horrifying to me.1415    Housing programs in my district are saving people's lives.1416New Horizons, in Mason County, is a program targeted at1417homeless veterans. It is housing first, tiny homes, that allow1418veterans who have been chronically homeless, living on the1419street, dealing with challenging medical issues, the chance to1420have security, stability, a roof over their head, and be1421connected with job support programs.1422    Peninsula Services is a housing program in downtown1423Bremerton focused on supporting people with disabilities. The1424top floor has a Hoyer lift in the ceiling, so that someone1425wheelchair-bound, who is also a parent, can get from bed to the1426shower or the bathroom while also taking care of their kids.1427    In Jefferson County, Habitat for Humanity is building 1341428affordable housing units close to a school and public1429transportation, so folks in a rural community can get where1430they need to go and find stability. We are seeing housing1431programs like Wheaton Landing, that is ensuring that homeless1432families with school-aged kids can find stability, and not be1433forced to live in a shelter or in the woods.1434    Now I am reaching the end of my time, but I hear we may1435have a few extra minutes later for questions. So, I will yield1436at this moment to the Chair. Thank you.1437    Mr. Grothman. Thank you. Yes, this is such a great hearing,1438I thought we would go another 10 minutes, and I would call on1439myself first, and I will give you guys some more time.1440    I want to point out what the goal of the Committee is, and1441I will ask another couple questions. First of all, the benefits1442right now, the support benefits, be it housing, be it food, be1443in earned income tax credit, whatever, all discourage work, and1444even more, discourage marriage, because if you marry somebody1445who is making $40, $50 grand a year, it takes all these1446benefits away from you. I think anybody who goes back home and1447talks to people, not lobbyists or other Congressmen, will find1448examples of people who even out of the chute do not get married1449because they do not want to lose their benefits. But that is1450where we stand.1451    And I wanted to focus a little bit on the LIHTC program,1452which, the more you look at it, overwhelmingly the primarily1453beneficiary is a bunch of well-off property developers, not the1454so-called poor that they claim to be helping.1455    But in any event, I will ask Mr. Carson one more time. Do1456you believe that these benefits, collectively, have changed1457society in which there are less children raised in marriage,1458and over time more people adapting? Like you said, they spend1459time looking at how to get the government benefits instead of1460getting a job. Do you think that is true, Mr. Carson?1461    Dr. Carson. It is true. I do not think it may have been1462done intentionally, but we have to be smart enough to look at1463the effect of what is happening, and ask ourselves what can we1464do to change this outcome? I do not think anybody disagrees1465with helping poor people and giving them a hand up. I think the1466issue here is do we perpetuate that situation? And I think some1467people obviously do not realize that if we continue down the1468pathway we are going, with waste, fraud, and abuse, our whole1469country will go bankrupt, and everybody will be in a terrible1470shape at that time. It is being able to look at the big picture1471that sometimes people are not able to do.1472    Mr. Grothman. OK. In your experience, and I know you came1473out of a tough background, but in your experience can you see1474benefits, not just to the children but to the men, as well, who1475frequently our society has set up programs designed to make1476sure the men are not in the household, benefits not only to the1477father of the children as well as benefits to the children if1478we had more of a society in which marriage was the goal?1479    Dr. Carson. Well, marriage is the institution that was set1480up by our God, and it is the perfect environment for children1481to be raised in. There was a recent study done by the Brookings1482Institute and Princeton University, looking at the effect of1483traditional nuclear families on the well-being of the state.1484And it was pretty dramatic, that those states that had the1485largest number of traditional nuclear families did much better,1486provided a much better environment for the raising of their1487children. It is something we need to be concerned about as a1488Nation.1489    Mr. Grothman. OK. Thank you much.1490    Mr. Edwards, I did want to focus a little bit more on the1491LIHTC stuff and the fact that, you know, lobbyists are always1492moving around this building. Do you believe, one more time,1493that this program primarily benefits the so-called low-income1494or working poor, or does it primarily benefit the property1495developers, the lawyers, the accountants?1496    Mr. Edwards. The statistical studies that have been done1497have shown that half or more of the benefits go to the1498investors and the developers and not to low-income tenants. You1499could see that, for example, by the fact that the rent, the1500average rent payments in the LIHTC buildings, are not much1501lower than nearby market housing.1502    To build on something quickly that Dr. Carson touched on,1503there is a big difference between the intentions of programs--1504all of these programs are well meaning. The actual reality is1505often different. The SNAP program, the N is for Nutrition, a1506quarter of the benefits go to junk food. So, the results are1507actually different than the intention, and that is the same1508with the LIHTC program. The intention is to benefit tenants,1509but the reality of the program is it has been taken over, as1510you mentioned, by the corporate lobbyists, the banks, the1511investors, and most of the benefits go to them.1512    Mr. Grothman. OK. Thank you. We are going to go to Mr.1513Gosar, but first of all, Mr. Krishnamoorthi, do you want to say1514anything else, briefly?1515    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Are you going to yield us 5 minutes1516total?1517    Mr. Grothman. Total, yes.1518    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. OK. I will yield myself 1 minute. Let1519me ask Mr. Dutta-Gupta. Look, I think that there is a1520misconception that somehow Democrats would want to discourage1521marriage, or harm the institution of marriage. As you know, in1522my own particular story, my parents remained married, and then1523we exited successfully from public housing, and went on to live1524a middle-class life.1525    But to address the issues that Dr. Carson and others raise,1526what is a reform that you would suggest?1527    Mr. Dutta-Gupta. Well, for one thing, we have a lot of1528evidence of programs that do reduce divorce, which we need to1529think about too, and facilitate marriage, with positive1530outcomes. These are not, unfortunately, the Bush-era Healthy1531Marriage programs, some of whom actually increased domestic and1532intimate partner violence. These are really jobs and income1533programs.1534    So, we have track record, with some jobs and income1535programs, particularly in the Midwest, that by helping people1536have health coverage, decent-paying jobs, which the United1537States has way too few of, in fact, we found that then people1538chose to get married at higher rates, and they chose to stay1539together and avoid divorce at higher rates. So, jobs and income1540support programs can be the best way to promote that outcome.1541    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Thank you. I yield back to you.1542    Mr. Grothman. OK. I guess Paul Gosar, and then another.1543    Mr. Gosar. Yes, Dr. Carson, I want to give you ample time1544to come back at something that was said about Medicaid,1545slashing Medicaid. Only in Washington, DC, is an increase a1546cut. You know, so one of the core tenets of Obamacare was to1547expand Medicaid, was it not? And during Biden's term, we saw154860-plus percent increases in the number of people that were1549placed on Medicaid. Key here is ``placed.'' Would you agree?1550    Dr. Carson. Yes.1551    Mr. Gosar. So, part of the problem here is that when you1552are looking at debt service of $36 trillion--and Mr. Edwards,1553thank you again, from Cato, from the bottom of my heart, for1554looking at that national emergencies--you have got to make some1555hard choices. How, if you are just going to cap those rates--1556let us just say you are going to cap them, as inflated as they1557are--you increase it by the medical inflationary aspect, which1558is twice what normal inflation is. It sounds to me like that1559would be something that could work. Would you agree?1560    Dr. Carson. I would agree, but also would bring up the1561point that we spend over $13,000 per capita, per year, on1562health care in this country. That is more than most concierge1563practices cost. So, obviously there is a lot of money going1564places where it does not need to be going. What do you need?1565You need a patient. You need a health care provider. Along1566comes the middleman to facilitate, and becomes the principal1567entity, sucking out most of the money out of the system, and1568people are not getting the care that they need. We need some1569major reforms there.1570    Mr. Gosar. Oh, I am glad you said that, because, you know,1571it is now cool to eat well. Maybe when Mrs. Obama was around,1572when she wanted to eat well, it was not cool. But it is cool1573now to eat good food. So, we ought to be pushing pay-to-play to1574pay for well health.1575    Thank you. I appreciate it. I yield back.1576    Mr. Grothman. Thank you. Mr. Bell.1577    Mr. Bell. Thank you, Mr. Chair. You know, I talked tongue-1578in-cheek about schemes when I was referring to my mom.1579Obviously, I was making a point. But I do think there is a1580scheme when we talk about how these programs, it was mentioned,1581that these programs benefit lawyers, they benefit developers,1582and I guess rich folks, for the most part.1583    So, I mean, another side of that is we could talk about the1584fact that, how about improving these programs so that they do1585not. But instead, it seems like Republicans are saying, OK, we1586are also going to give benefits to the rich in the form of tax1587cuts, because those tax cuts, they are not helping poor folks.1588They are helping millionaires and billionaires.1589    When we look at these tariffs that have been implemented1590whole-heartedly, or holistically, across everything, without1591any kind of target or plan, the benefit does not go to poor and1592working-class people because the cost of food, the cost of1593housing, that all goes on the back of poor folks. Folks who are1594making good money, it does not impact them as much. But folks1595who are trying to rise, to take a step up, and move out of1596public housing, move off of assistance, makes it a whole lot1597more difficult when the cost of food is ridiculously high, when1598we see kids get out of high school or college and there is no1599way they can afford a house.1600    So, how does this work out when we have these benefits that1601go to the rich people? We say we are going to cut Medicaid. We1602are going to cut all these programs that help people make that1603step up, and then we turn around and say, oh well, this is just1604a scheme, and we need to gut all of these programs. I think1605this is completely out of whack. I think everyone on this dais1606and in this room should be focusing on working-class families1607and the things that are going to help people move themselves1608out of poverty, and not handcuff them to the situations that1609they are in.1610    I yield back. Thank you.1611    Mr. Grothman. OK. Ms. Simon?1612    Ms. Simon. Thank you so much. I wanted to quickly comment1613and ask a quick question to Mr. Dutta-Gupta. There have been1614conversations about SNAP, and I really love that you brought up1615that poor folks with SNAP just by junk food.1616    Mr. Dutta-Gupta, can you give us 40 seconds and talk to1617this room and folks who are watching about food deserts,1618particularly in urban and rural communities, and what is1619usually available to poor people? I understand that the1620Administration that is in power right now wants to cut the1621program where farmers actually bring fresh fruits to1622communities, that allow folks to use their SNAP. Give us a1623little bit. Educate us.1624    Mr. Dutta-Gupta. Fresh, healthy produce, in particular, can1625be far more expensive than processed and ultra-processed food1626that is often shelf stable, and is often unavailable precisely1627where people with the lowest incomes live. So, that would be a1628move completely in the wrong direction.1629    Ms. Simon. And we call those food deserts, communities1630without grocery stores, with bodegas and corner stores and1631candy shops, but no fresh food. If you have not seen it, Bryan1632Stevenson says, ``Let us get proximate.'' I will take you on1633tours all across the country of food deserts. It is important1634for folks who are making policy around this stuff to see those1635places.1636    Mr. Grothman. Thank you. We have Ms. Randall.1637    Ms. Randall. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair, for this extra1638bit of time.1639    You know, some of my colleagues have mentioned programs1640that help get folks out of poverty, and, you know, we talked1641about jobs that even in a two-parent household, twoadult1642working household, barely allow you to pay for housing in your1643community, near where you work. You know, maybe you have public1644transit, but in my district you do not have a lot of public1645transit to get to your job, as you get pushed farther and1646farther and farther out into rural communities.1647    I spent a lot of time working in the state legislature on1648housing and food assistance programs for particularly community1649and technical college students, students of all ages who are1650trying to build themselves out of poverty. One in every two1651college students in Washington State is housing or food1652insecure. That is half, half of the students, those who1653persist, anyway. Many of them do not because they lose1654childcare subsidy because they are going to school and not1655working. They lose some of the other assistance programs, which1656we have tried to expand in Washington State.1657    But some of the programs that really work are project-based1658vouchers that allow working student parents, who are doing like1659six jobs, at the end of the day, a little bit of stability.1660    Now, I think--I am seeing some nods--I think some of these1661project vouchers are at risk of being cut. Can anyone on the1662panel attest to that, under this budget reconciliation package?1663Mr. Dutta-Gupta, maybe?1664    Mr. Dutta-Gupta. Well, under the skinny budget that the1665Administration put forward we know that for sure. And by the1666way, Ms. Randall, you have hit on exactly the sort of1667population that is doing everything right, everything we want1668them to do, and you put some new bureaucratic work reporting1669requirements, and you will ensnare them. You will bump off1670people who should be eligible and who deserve the support, and1671for whom, not that we need this in every instance, but we will1672get a huge return on investment. Sometimes we do things because1673it is the right thing to do, and in this case that happens to1674be the smart thing to do, economically.1675    Ms. Randall. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.1676    Mr. Grothman. OK. I will yield to Ranking Member1677Krishnamoorthi for your closing remarks.1678    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Well, thank you so much, Mr. Chair.1679Look, I think that what we need to recognize is that we have a1680large number of programs designed to help people who are1681struggling in this country. As I mentioned before, my family1682was one of them, so I have personal experience with the safety1683net. And I can say, without a doubt, I would not be here but1684for that safety net. I would be here but for that food stamp1685assistance, now known as SNAP. I would not be here but for that1686public housing.1687    And so, my father would say, ``Think of the greatness of1688this country, and whatever you do, make sure this country is1689there for the next families who need it.'' That has become the1690mission statement of my office, and, indeed, my why, at this1691point. My why.1692    And so, when I hear repeated attacks on those programs and1693proposals to cut them to the tune of, we are talking $1.11694trillion, with a T, we are talking about programs that are1695going to hurt real people, and people just like me.1696    And so, I would just make two comments. One, do those1697programs require improvements that could make them more1698efficient? The answer is yes. But do those programs require1699such deep cuts that tens of millions of people who are already1700struggling would then fall further into poverty, or become more1701sick, or become more unable to work? No.1702    And so, we have to work together, I think people of1703goodwill among Republicans and Democrats, to make the programs1704more effective, more efficient, and make sure that the people1705who need help get the help in a timely fashion. And so, I1706welcome the opportunity to work with anybody, on any side, to1707make them hit their marks.1708    But cutting them or sacrificing them on the altar of tax1709cuts is a bridge too far, completely unacceptable, fiscally1710imprudent, and morally repugnant.1711    Thank you, and I yield back.1712    Mr. Grothman. Thank you. A few final comments. We have gone1713from a society in which the married couple was the norm to much1714less common. I do want to point out that there are many1715tremendous single parents out there. I am looking at Dr.1716Carson. His mom, his grandparents, real heroes in that regard.1717And we heard several other testimoneys from people up here on1718the Committee.1719    I do believe, whether it is right or wrong, I do not know,1720but we do have many examples in this country of particularly1721immigrants who come here. I am thinking of the Hmong in my1722district who came here straight from Laos, who needed some of1723these programs when they first landed here.1724    However, there has been some question as to whether the1725overwhelming prejudice against married couples was intentional1726or not. I would like to believe it was not. However, it is not1727hard to find, like very powerful feminists in the 1960s or Karl1728Marx himself, who were very hostile to the traditional nuclear1729family. It was their goal to break it down. How much influence1730they had on the programs that were created in the 1960s and1731which survive today I do not know.1732    But in any event, I hope everybody here, when they continue1733to work on public policy dealing with poor people, remembers1734that we should not be expanding or coming up with new programs1735designed to put a married couple at a disadvantage compared to1736couples without both Mom and Dad at home. And right now, it is1737not unusual to be at a $20,000 or $25,000 disadvantage, which1738is preposterous.1739    And I did try to highlight the LIHTC program as an example1740of a program that I think benefits--it is corporate welfare at1741its worst. I kind of did not like it when I found out that the1742credits were going to be equal to 70 percent of the value of1743the cost of a building. And if you build a new building to help1744the poor, the government kicks in 70 percent of the cost of the1745building, but winds up with none of the ownership of the1746building. On its face, it ought to cause people to wonder what1747in the world is going on here. So, hopefully we can find, if we1748have to have low-income housing, a way for somebody else to1749benefit.1750    Earlier today, we also talked about food stamps, and the1751huge degree that you buy junk food with food stamps, which is1752not really helping anybody and probably causing people's health1753to decline. But again, I think, just like the LIHTC, the1754program is sometimes used to benefit big corporations or well-1755off people and not the people it is designed to help.1756    But in any event, I would like to thank--well, this is very1757good, very honored to have all four of you stay here to the1758bitter end. That is good.1759    Now, we have a little script here. With that, and without1760objection, all Members have 5 legislative days within which to1761submit materials and additional written questions for the1762witnesses, which will be forwarded to these witnesses.1763    If there is no further business, without objection, the1764Subcommittee stands adjourned.1765    [Whereupon, at 11:41 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]