▶ 0:13:04Well, one more time, we're about to begin a very uh interesting hearing on on the uh subcommittee on healthcare and financial services. Um, and we're going to have a lot of people here, but there are other hearings going on as well today. I got two other hearings today. Um, but what are we here? We're about four minutes late.
▶ 0:13:32We'll wait one more minute and then we'll start because I think that's a good idea and easy going. This hearing
▶ 0:14:02on the subcommittee on healthcare and financial services will come to order. Welcome everyone. Without objection, I may declare a recess at any time. I recognize myself for the purpose of making an opening statement. For the people in the room today, I'll point out there are a lot of other hearings going on, so a lot of the congressmen are going to be jumping in and out, which I don't like, but that's what we've got. Uh, okay.
▶ 0:14:26Um, at our last hearing, we talked about some of the disincentives that happened because of our welfare program. And the fact is the federal welfare system they're talking about food stamps, low-income housing, uh Medicaid, Pell grants, everything, uh is filled with horrible incentives and disincentives. It certainly discourages marriage.
▶ 0:14:49And I know there's a kind of a Marxisty 60s sort of thing that kind of makes fun of the oldfashioned leave it to Beaver family. Uh so we have a program that discourages marriage and hard work and uh at the same time encouraging dependency cost taxpayers more than a trillion dollars annually while failing to lift people out of poverty.
▶ 0:15:15Today's hearing and this kind of the second one we're taking up this topic will provide an opportunity to hear from three witnesses who are experts in federal rental assistance programs. Dr. Ben Carson, the former secretary of HUD, who good friend of mine. The program uh um these programs are textbook examples of good intentions gone arry. I don't know they're even good intentions. And I can't see how you could put programs like this out there not knowing what had happened.
▶ 0:15:45Uh for example, section 8 housing vouchers and public housing programs contain marriage penalties, making it foolish to get married. In many cases, individuals risk losing a section 8 voucher if they marry somebody with a even average income and their combined threshold brings them out of eligibility for those programs.
▶ 0:16:08Uh, as we discussed during part one, marriage and a strong family unit are uh the wellestablished way to get people out of poverty. And not just out of poverty. We know that uh you're going to be raising children, less likely to commit crime, uh more likely to do well at school, less likely to have drug problems. Um less likely to have depression, anxiety, other disorders.
▶ 0:16:36Yet, our current welfare system, including housing assistance payments, discourages marriage. And it's not hard to find people who say, "I can't work more. or I can't get married or I'll lose my benefits. Uh due due partially to these penalties, the number of children born to unmarried women has skyrocketed. In 1960, 5% of the children were born to unmarried women. 5%. We're now at 40%.
▶ 0:17:03And of course, it's not coincidence that things began to shoot up after Lynden Johnson in the 60s declared war on marriage. like marriage, the current system uh discourages rental assistant recipients from seeking employment, higher wages or overtime um if the increased income pushes them out of eligibility. We are fostering a cycle of dependency on government assistance.
▶ 0:17:28The average section 8 tenant spends 10 years on the program and the average public housing tenant 12 years. Welfare also benefits the middle man and administrative state more than the low-income Americans. It purports to be four. Section 42 low-income housing tax programs give the developers tax incentives to build affordable housing for low moderate income people.
▶ 0:17:52Yet the program's complicated design mostly benefits developers, law firms, accounting firms, and state bureaucrats. I don't know who thought that thing up, baby, but man, that's a mess. Middlemen and administrators can take advantage of section 8 and public housing as well. The Milwaukee Housing Authority reported in January that its leadership misused 2.8 federal dollars, million uh federal dollars intended for the tenants to pay its staff.
▶ 0:18:23The the problem had apparently been ongoing since 2019, but wasn't caught for six years. Meanwhile, taxpayers are on the hook for more and more spending on these programs every year. But of course, the biggest problem is not the fact that we're overspending on this at a time when we're broke out of our mind. The biggest problem is what it does to the people who become part of the program. Rental assistance programs account for more than 53 billion dollars of federal spending each year, which is just amazing.
▶ 0:18:52And nearly every program we will discuss today applies to dozens of other programs and hundreds of billions of taxpayers dollars. We owe it to our constituents to be responsible stewards. During a recent interview, Senator Schumer criticized our constituents for expecting this of their officials. He said their attitude is, "I made my money all by myself.
▶ 0:19:17How dare the government take my money from me?" To that I say I mean this is just horrible. You everybody knows back home people are mad at the welfare system. Um of course people are mad because they know people in the system who don't have to be in the system which creates hatred and dislike of the system and somehow we got to get back trust of the um of the American worker.
▶ 0:19:42To do that we must attempt to disentangle the web of welfare programs and find ways to fix it. I hope today's discussion will provide an opportunity to learn more about how the current housing assistance program is failing taxpayers and program participants participants alike and how we might fix it so we stop discouraging people from getting married and discouraging people from work and like I said I think the current system it's like designed by somebody who like makes fun of the leave
▶ 0:20:12it to beaver sort of family and you know I think there were a lot of radicals in the 60s He's Kate Mlette in that crowd who actively discourages keeping the man in the family and it's like their dream program. I don't know whether Lyndon Johnson was intentionally trying to destroy the family in the 60s, but that was his effect.
▶ 0:20:33In any event, with that, I yield to my good buddy, ranking uh member Christa Mory for your opening Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, thank you for convening this hearing, though I must once again express uh my frustration with its premise. I myself am a product of the very life life sustaining programs this hearing is attacking.
▶ 0:20:57Programs that time and again have proven to lift individuals out of poverty, stabilize families in times of crisis, and build the foundation for long-term economic stability, mobility, and growth. At our last hearing, majority witnesses spent their time in part demeaning beneficiaries of the social safety net rather than offering bipartisan solutions to make these programs more effective.
▶ 0:21:22Slashing the budgets of these critical lifelines will not magically eliminate inefficiencies. What they will do is inflict real immediate harm on our constituents. No matter if they live in red states or blue states, children will will go to bed hungry. Seniors will forego life-saving medications. Hard-working families, many of whom are already working multiple jobs, will face the agonizing choice between paying rent and putting food on the table.
▶ 0:21:53We must not lose sight of the real life consequences of these policy debates. The truth is that the overwhelming majority of recipients of these programs are not abusing the system. They are doing everything they can to survive and improve their lives while continuing to contribute meaningfully to our society. I'm so passionate about the benefits of the safety net because I've experienced them.
▶ 0:22:19When my family legally immigrated to this country, we fell on hard times and utilized for a short period public housing and SNAP's predecessor, the food stamp program. These programs sustained my parents until my father got a great job in, of all places, Peoria, Illinois. My parents realized the American dream and they never took it for granted. And I haven't either.
▶ 0:22:45Every night in Peoria, my father would say, "Think of the greatness of this country and whatever you do, make sure it's there for the next families who need it." That has been and will continue to be my mission statement in Congress.
▶ 0:23:00According to H Conres 14, the House Republicans instruction with regard to the budget reconciliation process, social safety net programs, very likely Medicaid and SNAP will be cut to the tune of $1.1 trillion. That's trillion with a T. There is no plausible way that such deep budget cuts will only rid those programs of waste, fraud, and abuse.
▶ 0:23:28If Republicans go through with this plan, kids will go to sleep hungry because their parents lost their SNAP benefits. Millions millions will lose their health coverage. These cuts will be catastrophic. Funding tax breaks for special interests and the wealthiest among us by gutting life sustaining programs is disgraceful. I am proud of what these programs have allowed my family and millions of others to achieve.
▶ 0:23:56I have no intention of sacrificing these programs on the altar of tax cuts for the wealthiest among us. Not only is such a plan fiscally imprudent, it is flatout morally wrong. I yield back. Thank you. Thank you. I'm pleased to welcome today our witnesses for today. Uh Dr. Ben Carson, we said uh Mr. Chris Edwards, Mr. Howard Husseek, and Mr.
▶ 0:24:25Indivar Dudagupa. Is that pretty good? Pretty good. Pretty good. Uh Dr. Carson is the former secretary of HUD and founder of the American Cornerstone Institute. Dr. or Mr. Chris Edwards occupies the Kilts family chair at the fiscal studies at the KON in the Kilts family chair in fiscal studies at the Ko Institute. And Mr.
▶ 0:24:50Husseek is a senior fellow in the domestic policy studies at the American Institute. Mr. Dudagupta is an advisor for the community change and Doris Duke distinguished visiting fellow at Georgetown University's McCort School of Policy. Pursuant to committee rule 9G, the witnesses will please stand and raise your right hand.
▶ 0:25:19Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? So, I help you God. Let the record show the witnesses have answered in the affirmative. Thank you. You may take a seat. We appreciate you guys all being here today and look forward to your testimony. Let me remind the witnesses that we have read your written statement and this will appear in full in the hearing record. Please limit your uh opening statements to five minutes.
▶ 0:25:45As a reminder, please press the button on the microphone in front of you so that the members can hear you. When you begin to speak, the light in front of you will turn green. After four minutes, the light will turn yellow. When the red light comes on, your five minutes have expired. And we would ask that you please wrap up. Okay. We'll start with you, Mr. Carson, for your opening statement. Dr. Carson, I'm sorry. Well, thank you, Mr. chairman, uh, ranking member, and members of the committee.
▶ 0:26:15By the way, he's got a great autobiography. I strongly encourage everybody in the room to read it. Okay, go ahead. Reclaiming time. Uh, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I'm Benjamin Carson, senior, former Secretary of the Department of Housing and and Urban Development, where I had the honor of leading an agency that serves the housing needs of millions of Americans. After my tenure at HUD, I founded the American Cornerstone Institute, where I currently serve as chairman of the board.
▶ 0:26:44I appreciate the subcommittee's commitment to examining federally assisted housing policies and programs, and I welcome this chance to share my perspective on improving affordable housing delivery, safeguarding taxpayer dollars, and ensuring program integrity while strengthening American families and communities. I would like to address one of the most critical factors undermining American societies today.
▶ 0:27:09How public policy, particularly housing assistance programs, disincentivizes family formation and contributes to the dissolution of American families. Marriage is an essential social institution. And while many societal factors influence family formation, federal housing assistance programs even unintentionally create barriers to marriage.
▶ 0:27:32We have created a system where growing numbers of citizens have become reliant upon government subsidies, incentivizing government dependency over self-sufficiency. The so-called marriage penalty embedded in the assistance programs creates a tangible disincentive to family formation. For example, when two adults marry and live together, their incomes are combined to determine eligibility and rent contribution.
▶ 0:27:57If their combined income exceeds program limits, they may lose eligibility or face substantial rent increases. Conversely, if they remain unmarried and maintain separate residences, each may independently qualify for benefits such as separate vouchers, lower rent contributions, or continue eligibility.
▶ 0:28:17This financial reality causes many individuals to delay or entirely forego marriage, undermining traditional family structures, particularly among lower income Americans. Instead of functioning as a temporary safety net, government assistance has increasingly replaced the family as the primary provider for many Americans. If America is to reclaim its strength and spirit, we must once again elevate the role of marriage and family rather than replacing it with bureaucracy.
▶ 0:28:48Economic mobility is a cornerstone of the American dream. Yet, this dream is increasingly out of reach for many. Onethird of children who grew up poor in the United States remain poor in adulthood. Addressing this perpetuating cycle of poverty requires prioritizing programs that support economic mobility and self-sufficiency as the true key to escaping generational poverty.
▶ 0:29:13Programs that emphasize work, education, family stability, and home ownership are essential tools to breaking cycles of poverty and building lasting prosperity. It is with this vision that public assistance can transform from a final destination into a stepping stone. As we all know, one of the keys to the American dream is home ownership, as it represents more than a place to live.
▶ 0:29:38Owning a home is a personal achievement that favors a sense of investment in one's community. Home ownership are homeowners are more likely to engage in civic organizations, local businesses and schools, and community affairs, which strengthens the bond of civil society.
▶ 0:29:57Yet, home ownership has become out of reach for far too many Americans, and housing unaffordability has become a stumbling block to family formation as young people unable to afford home ownership often delay marriage. Protecting access to home ownership is not just an economic imperative and vital to the keeping of the American dream alive. It is a cornerstone to support family creation. Yet too many believe that government involvement in housing must expand.
▶ 0:30:28Government should not be in the business of owning, operating, or constructing housing projects on a large scale. History has shown that government-run housing often leads to inefficiency, neglect, and the erosion of individual dignity. Government can facilitate opportunity, but it should not replace private initiative. Therefore, the lowincome housing tax credit, when properly administered, can be an important tool for addressing America's housing challenges.
▶ 0:30:56The program leverages housing market forc's entrepreneurial innovation and private accountability to increase housing supply. Private sector leadership through LITC allows communities to benefit from high quality development and local expertise by allowing aligning incentives towards self-sufficiency, promoting upward mobility and reducing long-term taxpayer burdens by avoiding the pitfalls of direct government construction.
▶ 0:31:26LIT tech can continue to play a role in building a future where housing is available, communities are strengthened, and the American dream remains well within reach. Programs that uphold dignity of work, strengthen traditional family structures, and offer real hope for upward mobility are the ones that truly serve American people.
▶ 0:31:49This is why I support the efforts of the president and secretary Turner and the Doge team in their goal of restoring fiscal health to America. This work is essential to safeguarding the future of the American dream and promoting true upward mobility. Americans rightfully demand responsible stewardship of tax dollars. Every dollar lost to mismanagement and fraud is a dollar that could have helped a struggling family secure stable housing.
▶ 0:32:18Government waste and fraud undermine public trust in programs meant to lift Americans out of poverty. We must restore integrity to the system, preserve opportunity for the future generations, and ensure the American dream remains within the reach of all who strive for it. Thank you for your attention to these critical issues, and I look forward to your questions. Chris Edwards, thank you for inviting me to testify.
▶ 0:32:45Uh I will discuss federal subsidies for affordable housing in particular the lowincome housing tax credit which provides 14 billion a year of income tax credits to multifamily housing developers. Uh the housing tax credit or LITC as it's often called while well-meaning uh it's a complex and inefficient solution to housing affordability. Uh the program displaces market-based housing and part of the benefits go to developers not to tenants.
▶ 0:33:13A better way to reduce housing costs is tax and regulatory reforms. As I will discuss, LITC is an incredibly complex program with vast amounts of regulations. A standard industry guide book to LITC is 1,940 pages in length. Uh there is a huge bureaucratic overhead and lawyers in place for the LITC program. It's not a simple tax cut.
▶ 0:33:36LITC apartment buildings cost substantially more than market-based projects because the financing is complex and because the construction is micromanaged by state imposed blueprints. A 2024 article in a Chicago Business magazine reported that local litc projects cost up to $900,000 per unit. The article said quote costs are driven by the Byzantine rules of the federal tax credit system.
▶ 0:34:03One litec project in the city, quote, took nearly four years to get the project financed with legal fees three times the cost of a market rate apartment tower," unquote. A 2024 article in the Wall Street Journal compared subsidized housing projects in Los Angeles that had an average cost of $600,000 per unit to a market-based low-income apartment project that cost half of that per unit.
▶ 0:34:27The market-based apartment developer said, quote, "We believe there's a different way than using government money, which really becomes slow and arduous and increases costs. Studies by the GAO and academics confirm that LITC projects cost substantially more than market-based projects. Uh, there's a fraud problem with the LITC program. Developers have been found to inflate construction costs to take excessive tax credits. The GAO noted that there's little policing of contractor costs in LITC.
▶ 0:34:57Uh the LITC program program has encouraged corruption in some cities. Officials have handed out housing subsidies to developers in return for bribes and contributions. IRS oversight of LITC to police such abuse is minimal according to GAO. So who benefits from the LITC program? Well, statistical studies suggest that a large share of LITC benefits go to investors and developers, not to tenants.
▶ 0:35:23One 2024 study by MIT economist uh Ivan Sultas found quote developers capture around half of the litec subsidy in profits unquote. LITC housing substantially displaces market marketbased housing. Many academic studies uh that I cite in my written testimony find that only half or less of high-tech uh low-tech housing units actually increase the overall housing stock.
▶ 0:35:50The rest uh are displaced uh displaced market-based units that would have been built. The 2024 MIT study I mentioned found quote lit has little impact on the overall size of the housing stock as LITC heavily displaces private development that would have otherwise occurred unquote. So how do we boost affordable housing which is of course uh a very important goal.
▶ 0:36:14Uh the state should liberalize zoning and building regulations that reduce housing supply and raise costs for multif family housing. Another problem is property taxes. This is often overlooked. Across 50 US cities, the average effective tax rate on apartment buildings is 44% higher than on owner occupied homes for no good reason. Uh cities should cut these high property taxes to boost multif family investment. As for Congress, uh, it should reform tax depreciation rules for multif family investment.
▶ 0:36:45Apartment buildings have a lengthy 27.5year write-off period, which raises effective tax rates. Uh, the tax foundation estimated that depreciation reforms for apartment building would boost construction by 2 million units over 10 years. So, in some with tax and regulatory reforms, markets in my view would supply more housing for moderate income families. Congress should reform depreciation rules for apartment buildings.
▶ 0:37:11Uh, and the state should cut property taxes on apartment buildings and liberalize zoning and building regulations that reduce supply and increase costs. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Hznet. Morning, Chair Grman, Ranking Member Krishna Morty, and members of the subcommittee.
▶ 0:37:32I'll suggest changes in the regulation of governing tenencies in public and subsidized housing that I believe will help the housing voucher and public housing programs cease to encourage dependency instead encourage upper mobility and in the process allow them to serve more of those who currently languish on waiting lists. First as background let me turn to a comparison between one aspect of our social safety net housing subsidies and another temporary assistance to needy families which provides casual here. I'll tell you do you want to move next door and maybe use a different microphone? There's something wrong with yours.
▶ 0:38:03Okay. Okay. If I start over. Yep. Yep. Yep. Yep. I I I did push the button. I don't want this attribution. That's right. Once again, good morning, Chair Grman, ranking member Krishna Morty, and members of the subcommittee.
▶ 0:38:26I will suggest changes in the regulations governing tenencies in public and subsidized housing, I believe, will help the housing voucher and public housing programs cease to encourage dependency, instead encourage upward mobility, and in the process allow them to serve more of those who currently languish on waiting lists. First, as background, let me turn to a comparison between one aspect of our social safety net, housing subsidies, and another, temporary assistance to needy families, which provides cash welfare.
▶ 0:38:52It's little appreciated that we budget twice as much for housing vouchers alone, 30 billion, as for cash welfare, 16 mill billion. Although both are intended to alleviate poverty, the rules governing the two programs are strikingly different. Beginning with the personal responsibility and work act of 1996, there's been a 5-year time limit as well as a work and education requirement for those receiving public assistance. The effect was dramatic. Ret 12 welfare roles declined from 13.6 6 to 1.9 million.
▶ 0:39:22Over the past 35 years, the child poverty rate has declined from 18.7 to 8.6%. Housing voucher recipients, in contrast, qualify for a lifetime stay in almost all localities. The median stay 9 years. In New York City, as of 2025, 23% of public housing tenants have lived in their unit 40 years or more.
▶ 0:39:47New research we are currently undertaking at AEI between myself and University of Chicago economist Bruce Meyer indicates that 87% of current voucher recipients, excluding the elderly and disabled will, based on past data, likely spend more than five years in subsidized housing, including 73% who will spend more than 10 years. I've submitted this data in my written testimony. It's worth noting that according to HUD data, the largest percentage of non-elderly subsidized tenants are single parents with children.
▶ 0:40:17Only 3% of all tenants are two married adults. What's more, if even one resident of a multi-bedroom apartment is a legal citizen or legal immigrant, the remaining tenants may be undocumented migrants. It's time to align the rules for a housing subsidy programs with those of public assistance. To begin to support housing policy in line with those values, we should begin by permitting a ceiling on length of tenure, a time limit for new non-elderly non-disabled tenants. A 5-year limit as with TANF makes sense.
▶ 0:40:46It would not affect the majority of new tenants. It would encourage planning for a post subsidy future as well as an up an out and up turnover to make way for those on waiting lists such as those as the 22,000 households currently on active waiting lists in the city of Milwaukee and 6.5 million housings households on housing authority waiting lists nationwide. Currently, this should be complemented instead with a voucher and housing system to replace the 30% rule. Sounds like a good deal if you only pay 30% of your income.
▶ 0:41:16But that means as your income goes up, so does your rent. I don't think anybody on this committee would sign a lease like that. As household income rises, instead of paying more in rent, that what would have been an increase should be deposited in an escrow account like a health savings account. And so on exit that would be available for a down payment on on home ownership. As Secretary Carson has emphasized, an increase in income would in require employment, which should also be uh required.
▶ 0:41:44Nor should rents increase if marriage occurs. A as the chair has so importantly pointed out. At the same time, there is enroll for local discretion. Across the country, many new housing authorities are use many housing authorities are using the rental assistance demonstration program to draw private capital into the renovation of aging deteriorated housing projects. These require long-term guarantees of housing vouchers. These upgrades, which bring in private money, should not be undermined and may require local adjustment of time limits.
▶ 0:42:15It's worth noting that time limits are not unprecedented. There have they've been implemented, for instance, in San Bernard Bernardino, California, where most housing authority tenants moved out before the 5-year time limit saw their incomes increase and their employment levels increase. Finally, at a time when waiting lists are long, the scarce housing assistance safety net benefit should go to US citizens and legal immigrants.
▶ 0:42:38This is not to take a stand on long-term immigration policy and how we might deal with the undocumented, but to give priority to those who work hard and play by the rules, as President Clinton once put it. Taken together, these suggestions, I believe, should should draw bipartisan support in order to encourage over turn turnover, reduce waiting lists, and reduce penalties for earned income.
▶ 0:43:03Our housing subsidy policy should switch from being a dependency trap to what Lyndon Johnson had hoped his war on poverty would be, not a hand out, but a hand up. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. And now we'll trade places again. Sorry. Okay, Mr. Dagupta. Thank you, Chairman Gothman, Ranking Member Christian Murthy, and members of the subcommittee.
▶ 0:43:33Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I'm Indie Dagupta, and I'm here as an adviser to community change and as a Doris Duke distinguished visiting fellow at Georgetown University's Mccort School of Public Policy. So, we're here to discuss America's basic needs programs.
▶ 0:43:49While the framing of the hearing focuses on the growth of the welfare state, I believe it's more accurate and productive to view these basic needs programs as essential components of a social protection system, helping families afford health care, groceries, caregiving, and housing, which helps stabilize communities and raises employment and earnings over time. Instead of cutting vital services like healthcare, food assistance, and childare, Congress should improve their effectiveness by expanding them and removing burdens like asset limits that hold people back.
▶ 0:44:19This can be done by ensuring that the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes, helping us all afford these essential needs. Proposals moving through Congress now are moving unequivocally in the wrong direction and would inflict enormous harm. Now, the vast majority of our families depend on income from work. But the United States does far less than other wealthy countries to ensure adequate wages for our workers. For example, we rank 31 out of 32 OECD countries for a high share of low paid jobs.
▶ 0:44:50Partly because of this, we need more robust investments in basic needs programs than other wealthy Western nations. And indeed, these programs should be understood as investments, especially in children and families, rather than solely as spending. The evidence shows that they provide dramatic immediate benefits, significantly reducing hardship. In 2023, programs like Social Security, SNAP, rental assistance, the child tax credit, and the earned income tax credit kept over 34 million people above the poverty line.
▶ 0:45:20Furthermore, these programs provide stunning long-term benefits. Research on the introduction of the food stamps program, now SNAP, shows that early childhood access led to increased educational attainment, higher adult earnings, and even greater life expectancy. The benefits to the per participants have been estimated to be 62 times the cost to the government. And the net fiscal cost to the government was estimated to be zero.
▶ 0:45:47Similar evidence exists for other programs including Medicaid, cash support, Head Start, and more. So Mr. Christian Murthy's story is actually much more the norm with these programs. Proposed cuts to basic needs programs like SNAP, Medicaid, housing assist and housing assistance threaten to undermine these positive impacts. We're seeing a recurring theme in these proposals. Bureaucratic work reporting requirements, harsh and counterproductive time limits, and shifting financial burdens onto states and localities who are illquipped to absorb them.
▶ 0:46:16For SNAP, proposals could take away or reduce food assistance for millions of low-income families, including by requiring states to pay a portion of benefit costs and expanding existing harsh work mandates. For Medicaid, proposals repeat failed work mandates, and shift costs to states, in turn, leading to reduced coverage and services. Housing assistance programs face potential funding cuts, rent hikes, and damaging time limits, which threaten to increase homelessness.
▶ 0:46:46Instead of cuts and new red tape, policy makers should prioritize strategies that boost employments and incomes. We need to raise the minimum wage, expand their ear income tax credit and child tax credit, fund jobs programs, invest in care infrastructure and ensure housing affordability. Cash supports have proven effective with long-term benefits to children. Research shows that these funds are primarily used for essential needs and they can increase employment in some instances.
▶ 0:47:11Subsidized employment and other jobs programs have proven effective at preventing divorce and facilitating more two parent families. Investing in care enables parents and other caregivers to work and creates jobs in the care sector here at home. A large sustained commitment to expand affordable housing and rental assistance would bridge the gap between incomes and housing costs for many. In conclusion, we should embrace basic needs programs as an investment in opportunity.
▶ 0:47:41We should strengthen and expand proven strategies, and we should move away from outdated narratives and burdensome mandates on families. Rising costs are hurting families who are often just one paycheck away from a crisis. Basic needs programs have been there when Americans fall on hard times. And they provide millions of us the foundation we need to access and take advantage of opportunity in this country.
▶ 0:48:08We should protect and strengthen them so they're there and always there when we or our loved ones need them. Thank you. Thank you very much. Um I'm going to call upon myself to begin to ask some questions. Just a brief comment. I think you look the earned income tax credit is just one more program. The more you work, the more you lose the money. If you marry somebody with an income, you lose the benefit.
▶ 0:48:36But um I'll start with uh Mr. Edwards. Um this this this lie stuff um I really delved into it for the first time in the last week. And I have a feeling whoever came up with it and lobbyed Congress to begin it was not the poor people. It was designed to benefit. It was the property developers. But uh you you've said that uh it benefits the developers and middlemen more than the average American.
▶ 0:49:07Could you elaborate on that a little bit bit? I think it's so The uh the reason why that is is because as the recent MIT study that I I mentioned uh which was a very detailed study, it collected data from hundreds of LITC projects across 40 states found that the average rent savings from LITC uh buildings compared to uh nearby private market unsubsidized buildings is only 12%. Uh other studies find there's really not that much difference between rent and lit buildings.
▶ 0:49:37So the the feds give 14 uh uh billion in tax credits. So where do the benefits go? A number of studies find that most of the benefits go to the developers because the system is so complex. Uh we also know this is true because the there's a mass there's a huge intense competition uh for uh at the state and city level to get these credits by the developer. That's how we know they're extremely lucrative because they all want to get these benefits.
▶ 0:50:06So that that's been the general conclusion from the academic literature. Do you know about percentage-wise and that we're we're working on a change in LITC right here. Do you know percentage-wise how much the cost of a building is paid for by the tax credits about well essentially all the cost of the building is is is paid by the I mean the 9% credit covers 70% of the cost of construction. That's kind of the standard. But uh the investors get more benefits than just the credit.
▶ 0:50:35They get the benefit of the tax losses that flow from the projects and they get the benefit potentially in 15 or 30 years from selling the buildings and getting a capital gain. My god. You mean 70% of the building is paid for by the government, but the developers and the syndicates are the ones who wind up owning it. Uh that's that's right. The the the investors own it. The 9% credit gives a 70% uh covers 70% of the cost of construction.
▶ 0:51:02And again, that's only part of the the tax benefit that the the investors get. Oh my god, no wonder so many people are running around here trying to keep that program going. Uh is there a better way to uh if it's the government's business, a better way to set up uh housing to help people? Well, I mean, I I talked in my testimony about deregulation and tax cuts.
▶ 0:51:25One thing that's striking that is often overlooked is property taxes on apartment buildings are far higher than uh single family homes. There's no good reason for that. Property tax rates should be the same across the board. So there is a bias in local government tax codes against people who live in apartment buildings for Congress. I think that the uh in 1986, Congress increased the the uh depreciation uh lifespan on buildings. That was a mistake. It increased taxes on apartment buildings.
▶ 0:51:53I think Congress ought to fix that mistake and reduce the write-off period for apartment building to get more private sector investment. Okay. Uh Mr. Carson, you know, we we're talking about housing here and we can talk about section 8, but we're also talking about SNAP. Uh we're talking about a variety of other programs. And it's not unusual.
▶ 0:52:13Is this your experience that if say a a single mom if she wants to marry a guy maybe even the father of her children the guy's making 40 50 grand a year that she would lose tens of thousands of dollars in benefits. Unfortunately that is the case and it becomes a lifestyle a way of living.
▶ 0:52:38You know, I I grew up in poverty and I listened to a lot of the people who were on these programs and the various schemes that they would come up with rather than trying to figure out how to get out of poverty, rather than trying to figure out how to improve. Can you I think you're we can't hear you. Can you can you press the Is that It is It is It is not Okay. Okay. Go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead. Yeah.
▶ 0:53:01But rather than trying to figure out how to improve their lives, improve their education, improve their uh income, they were always trying to figure out how to get around the various rules. I've heard that too. It's like a full-time job to make sure you keep the keep the money coming. Yeah. Um Mr. uh uh Husach, um yes or no. Are there marriage penalties and housing assistance programs like section 8? Definitely.
▶ 0:53:30And it's because of the the rule, the 30% rule. You pay 30% of your income in rent. So as your income goes up, you pay higher rent. If you get married and there's two incomes, you pay higher rent still. Does that sometimes cause people not to get married? You think? I think it's a logically it is a disincentive to marriage, right?
▶ 0:53:51And I think if if more more congressmen got out of the showing up at fundraisers and spend time with average people, they would come up with tons of examples of people who are specifically not married to keep these things going. Uh in in any event, I I used up my time. We're going to give ourselves a chance to ask questions later, but I'll I'll turn to Mr. Chris Mory to ask his qu Thank you, M. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh good morning, Mr. Edwards.
▶ 0:54:21Uh the title of this hearing is quote examining the growing welfare state. And I actually have an article here um which talks about cutting corporate welfare. You remember this article, right? And and in this article it says one ripe area for reform is corporate welfare which is uh which a new KO study estimates cost the federal budget $181 billion a year. That's what you said right in this Absolutely.
▶ 0:54:51And your study helpfully breaks down by a the number $181 billion by agency and program. Right. That That's right. Unfortunately, however, HC Conraz 14, this is the Republican House Budget Resolution, does not use your study, believe it or not, to find savings.
▶ 0:55:13For example, um you've identified subsidies to different corporations, but this particular budget resolution doesn't actually use your study or any study to cut those subsidies. You don't dispute that, right? No. Right. I think Congress should cut corporate welfare and low-income welfare. Well, let me talk about corporate welfare for a second and what this particular budget resolution tries to do. HC Conres 14 targets social safety net programs.
▶ 0:55:43It directs the Energy and Commerce Committee which oversees the Medicaid program to cut $880 billion from its budget. You don't dispute that, right? I I haven't looked in detail, but I assume that's right. Additionally, H Conres 14 directs the A committee, which oversees SNAP, to cut $230 billion from its budget. You don't dispute that, right? Right.
▶ 0:56:09When I was young, I relied on the food stamp program, which was the predecessor to SNAP, and it was critical for my family. And I believe that cutting food aid is just plain wrong. Let me turn to another topic. Dr. Carson, you said the following. Obamacare is really the worst thing that has happened in this nation since slavery. You don't dispute you said that, right, sir? I don't dispute that. Well, let's look at the facts.
▶ 0:56:38Obamacare is really the Affordable Care Act or the ACA. In 2024, the government reported that over 65 million people have health insurance because of the ACA. You don't dispute that, right, sir? What I uh am making a point in when I said that is that all of the socialists and the Marxists say that socialized medicine is the lynchpin to providing socialism throughout the entire system.
▶ 0:57:08And that is a system that moves us much closer to socialized medicine. Well, I I let me ask you this. The ACA prohibits health insurance companies from refusing coverage for pre-existing conditions. You don't dispute that, right? I would have to have a little more context than you just gave. Well, believe me, the ACA prohibits health insurance companies from refusing coverage for people with pre-existing conditions.
▶ 0:57:38It also allows children to stay on their health parents' health plans until the age of 20 26. You know, it doesn't sound like the catastrophe that you paint it to be akin to slavery. On the contrary, the ACA isn't keeping people down. It's lifting people up. And I find your pri prior comments about Obamacare being the worst thing since slavery really appalling. Mr.
▶ 0:58:04Data Gupta, right now, according to realtor.com, the US has a shortage of nearly four million homes causing a housing crisis. Right. Yes. In addition, since Donald Trump took office, the Bureau of Labor Statistics found that price hikes for food have accelerated. Correct. Yes. The Wall Street Journal also found that new Trump tariffs are expected to cost American households at least $2,100 annually.
▶ 0:58:34You don't dispute that, right? I believe it's a analysis from the budget lab at Yale, but yes, the affordable housing crisis is squeezing families today and these new tariffs will make everything from rent to groceries even more unaffordable, unfortunately. Um, let me turn to Dr. Carson. Dr. Carson, you did not live in public housing, right? That's correct. I spent part of my childhood in section 8 housing.
▶ 0:59:03Uh this is actually a picture of the h public uh housing that I lived in. It gave my family the stability we needed to work, breathe, and build a new life. And my parents were actually married. Um my family story is not unique, sir. HUD found that for every year a woman spends in public housing as a teenager, she generated $925 additionally in adult earnings than someone with unsteady housing. You don't dispute that, right?
▶ 0:59:33Well, the the issue is not whether public housing is helpful or not. The issue is are there things that we can do to improve the situation and to make people more likely to exit from public housing. Real success is the number of people we can get off of assistance, not how many we can put on it. I agree with you 100%. I exited public housing, sir. My family exited public housing. We moved to Peoria, Illinois.
▶ 0:59:59We enter the middle class and I sit before you as a United States congressman. That is the hallmark of a successful program. That's good. But unfortunately, thank you and I yield back. Thank you. Unfortunately, that doesn't happen for everybody. Okay. I now recognize Mr. Gosire for five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We're over 36 trillion in debt and public housing has only contributed to that cost.
▶ 1:00:28Section 8 housing, for example, does not have a time limit. Participants can receive subsidized housing for decades, while these in most need are stuck on a wait list. But the housing cost crisis is not the result of just one regulatory requirement, but rather a series of challenges that forces forced costly and unattainable standards on local communities.
▶ 1:00:50Not only did Biden's HUD inflate the cost of housing welfare, but it also reinstated Obama's effect affirmative further fair housing initiative or the FFH rule. You're very familiar, aren't you, Dr. In 2015, Obama introduced the AFH rule to to dictate zoning requirements in any community across the country that applied for a community development block grant. According to the KO Institute, Mr. Edwards.
▶ 1:01:16AFH required federal and local agencies to spend $55 million each year to comply with its regulations, thus increasing local taxes, reducing property values, and causing greater harm than good in impoverished communities. Luckily, President Trump terminated this role and my legislation, the Local Zoning Decisions Protection Act, will codify that termination. I invite my all my colleagues to join in on me help me with that. Dr. Carson, it's great to see you again. Thanks for testifying.
▶ 1:01:45Uh, as secretary, you worked to give Americans a hand up, not a hand out. How does the AFH rule harm local communities? Well, it's just a very good example of how the government insinuates itself into places where they don't need to be. You know, communities have developed on their own uh throughout the time that we've existed as a nation. uh many of them thrived extremely well.
▶ 1:02:15They had people who came from different countries. They couldn't speak to each other because they didn't have the same language. But they understood one important thing that's called the common good. It was a phrase used frequently by our founders. It means not what's good for this group versus that group, but what's good for everybody. AFH and has a bunch of bureaucrats who impose their rulings in a situation like that.
▶ 1:02:42The reason that those communities thrived is because if it was harvest time and Mr. Jones broke his ankle, everybody else harvested his crops. They didn't ask what his religion was or what his politics were. They ne they said, "This is my neighbor. They need help." That's the kind of communities we need to get back to, not government uh sponsored and dictated communities. That's absolutely great. Thank you, Mr. Husach.
▶ 1:03:08In February of 2024, 70 New York City Housing Authority employees were charged with accepting cash from contractors in exchange for awarding certain contracts to these entities. Is it correct that public housing authorities that administer these HUD programs are required to place tenants who receive housing benefits on their housing authority boards? There's there are representatives required vary state by state, but that certainly is possible.
▶ 1:03:37And uh that was one of the largest corruption cases in New York municipal history. Mhm. In your opinion, what's the first step to address the abuse of these public housing authorities? Well, I I think they should not be in the management business at all. Yeah. Right. What we have and I live in the Metro New York area. There are a lot of companies that really know how to manage buildings and one of them is not the housing authority of New York.
▶ 1:04:04Now, there may be well-meaning people who could oversee contracts. That's a proper role for government. Happens all the time. This Congress does it. But we should have private management and we are moving slowly in that direction through the rental assistance demonstration program where we're bringing in private management. You have some people yell out that's privatization and it's bad. But no, we need to bring in private management and not let these housing authorities which have a proven record of corruption and incompetence.
▶ 1:04:32The New York City Housing Authority, the largest one in the country, is under the oversight of a federal monitor because of the dilapidated conditions. Uh, Mr. Edwards, uh, and first of all, thank you very much for your Institute for KO looking into the national emergencies that I was so hyped up about and showing that there's 12 trillion dollars that between uh, Bill Clinton and Joe Biden, all that time in between, we ran out 12 trillion dollars worth of our debt, one-third of our debt with no receipts.
▶ 1:05:02So, thank you very much for that applause. Um, in in my legislation, putting trust and transparency act would would require any NGO that receives even a penny of federal funding to disclose it extravagant donors. So, Congress can see what NOS's have nefarious intentions. So, in the case of of affordable housing, the American people would have access to the books of NOS's that house illegal aliens at the expense of the taxpayer. Is that true?
▶ 1:05:30If if that were to pass, would is this a place to be looking? There's a entities that receive federal grants uh do require are required do have required financial disclosure, but the threshold is very high. It's like a million dollars or something like that annually. Yeah. Thank you. I'll have more questions later. Thank you. Yeah. The gentleman from Missouri. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Ranking member.
▶ 1:06:01Um, with all due respect, Dr. Carson, I really I I just don't understand the logic. Um, we're talking about schemes and housing assistance and people who need these programs. And we're and labeling it as schemes is is off-putting and offensive to be perfectly frank.
▶ 1:06:27as someone who lived in housing projects and housing and had and families, my family when we were younger had housing assistance. Uh let me tell you about a scheme. this woman that I know, she um um was a single mom at the time and she took an entry- level position because that's the best position she had because she didn't have a degree at the time and she worked her way up.
▶ 1:06:56But in the meantime, she had to she didn't make a lot of money. And so, um she had a son who she worked so that he could go to go to law school um and then eventually sit before you on this DAZ as a congressman.
▶ 1:07:18Um then she went on after she did that for her son to get her degree and her master's degree, but without having some assistance early on, none of those things would have happened.
▶ 1:07:34And so when we look at the worst offender or we we cherrypick a particular offender and say, "Oh, well, this is the rule for all of these hardworking people who are just trying to um move up in life." And and and aren't asking for handouts, but just and I'll even say this, it's not even about handouts.
▶ 1:07:59if if if the rules fair, a lot of these folks wouldn't wouldn't ask for anything. But a lot of them are starting from a position where they're where they're handcuffed and their and their shoelaces are tied and then they're told to go run a race and win the race.
▶ 1:08:20so it just seems it just seems disingenuous when we talk about schemes when when we should be supporting these individuals. Um, so as a as a and I'll say this as a Christian, I don't believe that anything is that anything that is man-made is going to be perfect.
▶ 1:08:47So you can pick any program that a Democrat or a Republican started. You'll find something that's not perfect about it, but instead of gutting the program, perhaps we could actually sit down, work together, and improve those programs. And so I want to paint a picture of how how urgent these issues are.
▶ 1:09:12The low low-income assistance programs we're discussing aren't just numbers on the page. They're lifelines. And despite what some of my Republican colleagues may suggest, what hap what's happening here is not isolated. It's part of a troubling pattern. And right now, this administration is targeting programs like Medicaid, not to reform them, but to bankrupt them and gut them to fund for tax breaks for billionaires. Cuts.
▶ 1:09:42Cuts to Medicaid aren't just don't just hurt on paper. They hurt real people in every community. Medicaid funds critical mental health care from school counseling to crisis and and addiction services. In Missouri, in my state, more than 48,000 people rely on Medicaid expansion. Without it, many would have nowhere else to turn.
▶ 1:10:07And yet, while some Republicans claim mental health is the root of tra tragedies like mass shootings, they are cutting the very programs designed to help. So, if mental health is truly a priority, why are we slashing Medicaid? If mental health is truly a priority, why are proven mental health programs on the chopping block?
▶ 1:10:30If mental health is truly a priority, why was funding just frozen for the bipartisan Safer Communities Act, which improves school safety and expands mental health care? That law, which was a bipartisan bill, has been unraveled in a 100 days. And President Trump's budget would make even deeper cuts.
▶ 1:10:52If Republicans were serious about mental health, they wouldn't be cutting student support, slashing Medicaid, and undermining community safety. And as a prosecutor, mental health and public safety shouldn't only matter after tragedies. We need to act before lives are lost. Protecting Medicaid, SNAP, housing, and other vital programs is how we do that. And this is not rocket science. The choice is simple.
▶ 1:11:23Protect billionaires or protect communities. Um, I have a quick question for Mr. Dudag Gupta. Given that stable long-term housing is essential to children's development and mental health, does it make sense to push millions of families onto the streets? Absolutely not. It's completely counterproductive. And your life experience and Mr.
▶ 1:11:46Christian Northeast is the norm that these programs substantially improve the outcomes especially of children. Okay, we're we're like we have a minute. I yel back. Thank you, Mr. Magcguire. Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to our witnesses for being here today to answer our questions. Uh you know, I grew up in poverty as well. Uh my older sister and I were abandoned. The police found us and we bounced around uh different foster homes.
▶ 1:12:15I attended nine different elementary schools. But through the grace of God, uh my grandparents who had already raised their children, rescued uh me and my older sister and raised us until my dad got sober. And I think uh God gives us adversity to chisel us into the men and women we're supposed to be. I decided I wanted to serve our country because my grandfather served in the Navy in World War II. Uh to become a Navy Seal. Typically 200 men per class, usually 20 graduate.
▶ 1:12:44One class graduated zero out of 200 because not everybody gets a trophy. But what you learn in the military, it's not what you look like, it's what you fight like. And if somebody saved your life on the battlefield, you wouldn't care if they were pink or blue, male or female, if they called themselves a Democrat, Republican, or an independent. We're all Americans. We uh we qualified for free lunches when we grew up. We did not have healthcare.
▶ 1:13:07and we uh somehow someway we work we learn to improvise, adapt, overcome, and work hard. I want to commend President budget. President Trump's budget request ensures taxpayers will not continue paying for housing for illegal immigrants. It also ensures that the Department of Housing and Urban Development concentrates its funding on our most vulnerable, including the elderly, disabled, and foster children.
▶ 1:13:34Importantly, it puts a two-year cap on rental assistance for able-bodied adults, which I believe will help address many of the challenges we are speaking about today. So, I have a question for Dr. Carson. We really appreciate you being here today. Um, thank you so much uh for all you've done. We appreciate your expertise and what you did. You did a phenomenal job uh at the um leading the Department of Housing and Urban Development during President Trump's first administration. Earlier this year, this committee looked at welfare programs like Medicaid and SNAP.
▶ 1:14:04What we found is there are incentives for these programs to discourage work, marriage, and other behavior that may reduce their need for welfare. In fact, we looked at every single safety net program and witnesses said that every single one of them incentivized single parent homes. And I think the breakdown of the nuclear family is what's threatening our country. I heard the chairman say that in 1960 5% of American homes had a single parent. Today it's 40% and growing.
▶ 1:14:34That is a recipe for destroying our country and everything that so many men and women military or not gave their for. Dr. Carson, when you arrived, did you see these bad incentives at welfare programs at the Department of Housing and Urban We definitely had uh uh many disincentives for self-sufficiency and I thought, you know, coming into the department that it would be
▶ 1:15:04easy uh coming to Capitol Hill and getting bipartisan support for self-sufficiency programs and getting rid of the dependency. I was wrong. Uh there are many people who were not interested in doing that and perpetuating the situation because it gave them a power base. And I think it's time for us really to sit down, put the facts in the middle of the table and think about what are our goals.
▶ 1:15:32Our goals are not just to support uh people who have difficult situations. Our goals are to get them out of that situation and help them to be able to realize the American dream. So, you know, I don't disagree with some of the things the congressman from Missouri was saying, but the Bible tells us we have an obligation to the poor, but we don't have an obligation to keep them poor. I love it. Makes sense. You know, a hand up, not a hand out. Let's see, Mr. Husach.
▶ 1:16:03Uh, for a couple living in poverty, how significant are the financial penalties they face if they get married while on welfare? Well, I'm not an expert on on temporary assistance to needy families, although we've in 1996, this Congress passed a five-year limit on cash welfare, and cash welfare dropped tremendously in terms of the number of people on it and helped reduce the poverty rate.
▶ 1:16:27Uh, in terms of public housing and and voucher housing, uh, it just doesn't make sense to have two incomes or certainly it doesn't make sense to declare two incomes. And so those of us who are concerned about having uh formal marriage arrangements as opposed to uh partners living together or not having you know the biological parents in the same house, there's a tremendous disincentive for those who would declare legally uh the incomes that they have.
▶ 1:16:57It's worth noting that in the New York City Housing Authority, which is by the largest in the country, 177,000 units of public housing in New York City, right? They estimate there's there's 400,000 legal residents. They estimate based on the amount of garbage that's picked up that there's 600,000 people living in public housing. So, there may be many uh other partners in the in the home, but they're not declared legally, and that's not a good thing either. Thank you. And I yield back.
▶ 1:17:29Thank you, Miss Simon. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank the witnesses for being here today. Where do I even, you know, begin? Um, the issues surrounding families who are low-income and the working poor, supporting them in their plight, I believe is what we're all here to do.
▶ 1:17:56Um, but this conversation is extremely troubling. I came to Congress to represent those families. Clearly, one of those families is the Sue family in district, multigenerational family in the Bay Area, and they overcame decades of anti-Asian laws and housing covenants to live the American dream. A family that bought a home and season tickets to the A's, although they've left. Very, very sad.
▶ 1:18:28But for many families like this family, changes did happen. The Sue family incurred medical bills like my family did. Divorce and the 2008 recession changed everything, broke down their safety net. Derek. So, he lost his home during that period and his car and he couldn't afford rent on his $1,000 a month income that came from disability once he was disabled.
▶ 1:18:57Today, Derek is leading advocacy efforts for dignified dignified folks who are too low income to afford rent. And I'm so thankful for that work. Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record San Francisco Chronicles: Homegrown and Homeless in Oakland. Well, I hope that can go in without Oh, sure. Yes. Thank you, sir.
▶ 1:19:24I just want to say right here in this building, the daycare workers make $30,000 a year to take care of the children, school age children of members of Congress. $30,000 a year. Suppose two of these folks who work are married. They're married working in this capital. They can't afford a one-bedroom in Washington DC. So few people who make laws for the poor have been poor. Many of you all know that I was a teen mom.
▶ 1:19:54I went to college. I got food stamps. $26 a month. Every other week I was at the counter putting back putting back food because again people were making policy for poor folks who had no idea what it was like having to move through an economy that that didn't understand what it was really like to be poor. I want to be clear. Those daycare workers in this building, don't you think they want a better income or do you want for them to leave the daycare here in two years?
▶ 1:20:24You want full economies to shift to have people leave because being poor to many folks in this room is a crime. Being poor or doing literally working at Walmart where you still when you work at Walmart, do you know across this country you still qualify for SNAP these low-wage jobs that folks are working with their bodies cannot afford health care, cannot afford the rents in their community.
▶ 1:20:53I apologize to the folks who are watching this who are strong and amazing and beautiful and patriotic folks. Folks are punching down on you and it's not just not fair. It is extremely cruel. The permanence of poverty in this country is clear. There is a permanence of poverty of folks who again are working day in and day out and in my district cannot afford $2,400 for a twobedroom for a onebedroom. I just want to be clear.
▶ 1:21:22The reality is, and I've been there, being poor is hard. Being poor is hard. And the federal government should not be making poverty harder. When we ask a family that's paying 50% of their income to rent to afford child care, I have been there. And elder care and medical insurance. We are sentencing them to lifelong debt, housing insecurity, and hunger.
▶ 1:21:48I want to be clear that any reduction in SNAP, any reduction in Medicaid, any reduction in housing benefits for the working poor or services that could be the difference between life and death or living on the streets for so many vulnerable individuals and families is what we're President Trump this week, actually last week, released a budget that would slash housing vouchers,
▶ 1:22:19public housing, housing programs for seniors and people with disabilities is clear. We've read it. cut the liap, which regardless, we know it helps working families afford heat in the winter and cool air in the summer.
▶ 1:22:40It would limit homeless individuals who are at risk of future homelessness because you want to give a clear-cut cap on how long these deserving people need to get out of poverty. Believe me, I've gotten out of poverty. It takes longer than two to four years. My constituents have been clear with me.
▶ 1:23:03They've brought me here because they're hardworking and they deserve a government that's going to work with them as they move through an economy that has no idea what it means to move through poverty. And I yield back. Thank you, Miss Randall. Thank you, uh, Mr.
▶ 1:23:32Chair and and our guests. Um, I'm also grateful for the remarks of my colleague, uh, Miss Simon. I think we so often seek to depersonalize uh the work that we do in this chamber in this capital.
▶ 1:23:58We talk about it in terms of funding levels and dollars saved, but we are talking about programs that impact real people, real families who are trying to live their lives.
▶ 1:24:17And you know, in addition to the budget reconciliation package that we have seen and been discussing in committees that make steep cuts to Medicaid, SNAP, and other critical programs to pay for tax cuts for billionaires, the Trump administration's skinny budget proposal that they released last week would slash many of the federal programs that families around the country rely on at a time when
▶ 1:24:48this president's radical tax and tariff agenda is driving the country into a recession and making daily life, housing, child care, baby strollers more expensive for working families.
▶ 1:25:04This Republican budget reconciliation package that we're discussing would cut federal housing support by nearly billion and limit rental assistance to only two years for I'm using big air quotes here able-bodied adults. What this means is that millions are going to get forced out of their homes. millions more are going to be couch surfing or on the street.
▶ 1:25:33And I hear from a lot of uh business interests that more people on the streets is not they don't tell me it's a humanity challenge. They tell me it's bad for their And we can we these are problems we can solve.
▶ 1:25:56We can solve homelessness by ensuring that people have housing through housing and rental assistance programs. It's not magic. It's housing. We can ensure that people aren't forced out of their tenuous living situations by continuing lie, the program that Miss Simon was just talking about. It's a lowincome energy assistance program.
▶ 1:26:23Now, I don't know if anyone on this panel has ever had to decide whether they pay for medication or medical appointment or your electricity bill, whether you can like let it go for three or 4 days or whether you let it go for another month. Maybe you live in a state that has protections or they can't cut off your heater in the winter. Maybe you don't. families are making these challenging decisions every day.
▶ 1:26:53And for us to come in here and hear lines of questions and testimony about the expanded welfare state as if human beings are a drain on our economy when they are just trying to build lives for themselves is truly horrifying to me. Housing programs in my district are saving people's lives.
▶ 1:27:20New Horizons in Mason County is a program targeted at homeless veterans. It's housing first, tiny homes that allow veterans who have been chronically homeless living on the street, dealing with challenging medical issues the chance to have security, stability, a roof over their head, and be connected with job support programs.
▶ 1:27:46Peninsula Services is a housing program in downtown Birminton focused on supporting people with disabilities. The top floor has a Hoyer lift in the ceiling so that someone wheelchair bound who is also a parent can get from bed to the shower or the bathroom while also taking care of their kids.
▶ 1:28:04In Jefferson County, Habitat for Humanity is building 134 affordable housing units close to a school and public transportation so folks in a rural community can get where they need to go and find stability. We're seeing housing programs like Wheaten Landing that is ensuring that homeless families with school age kids can find stability and not be forced to live in the shelter or the woods. Now, I'm reaching the end of my time, but I hear we may have a few extra minutes later for questions.
▶ 1:28:34So, I will yield at this moment to the chair. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, this is such a great hearing. I thought we'd go another 10 minutes and I'd call on myself first and we'll give you guys some more time. I I I want to point out what the the goal of the committee is and I'll ask another couple questions.
▶ 1:28:51Uh first of all, the benefits right now uh the the support benefits be it housing, be it food, be it um earn income tax credit, whatever, all uh discourage work and even more discourage marriage. Because if you marry somebody who is worth making 40 50 grand a year, it takes takes all these benefits away from you.
▶ 1:29:18I think anybody who goes back home and talks to people, not lobbyists or other congressmen, will find examples of people who even out of the shoot don't get married because they don't want to lose their benefits. Um but but that's where we stand.
▶ 1:29:36And I wanted to focus a little bit on the LITC program, which the more you look at it, overwhelmingly the primary beneficiary is a bunch of well-off property developers, not the so-called poor that they claim to be helping. But in any event, I'll ask Mr. Carson one more time.
▶ 1:29:54Do you believe that these benefits collectively have changed society in which there are less children raised in marriage and uh um over time more people adapting like you said they spend time looking how to get the government benefits instead of getting a job. Do you think that's true Mr. Carson? Uh it's true.
▶ 1:30:18I don't I don't think it may have been done intentionally, but we have to be smart enough to look at the effect of what's happening and ask ourselves what can we do to change this outcome. I don't think anybody uh disagrees with helping poor people and uh giving them a hand up. I think the issue here is do we perpetuate that situation?
▶ 1:30:43And I think uh some people actually do not realize that if we continue down the pathway we're going uh with waste, frost, and and abuse, our whole country will go bankrupt and everybody will be in a terrible shape at that time. It's being able to look at the big picture that sometimes people aren't able to do. Okay.
▶ 1:31:02In your experience, and I know you came out of a tough background, but to your experience, can you see benefits not just to the children, but to the men as well who frequently our society has set up programs designed to make sure the men aren't in the household.
▶ 1:31:20uh benefits not only to the to the um to the father of the children as well as benefits to the children if we had more of a a society in which marriage was the goal. Well, marriage is an institution that was set up by our our God and it is a perfect environment for children to be raised in.
▶ 1:31:44There was a recent study uh done by the Brookings Institute in Princeton University looking at the effect of traditional nuclear families on the well-being of the state. And it was pretty dramatic that those states that had the largest number of traditional nuclear families did much better, provided a much better environment for the raising of their children. It's something we need to be concerned about as a nation. Okay. Thank you much. Uh Mr.
▶ 1:32:12Edwards, I did want to focus a little bit more uh on the on the LITC stuff and the fact that, you know, lobbyists are always moving around this building. Uh uh do you believe one more time that this program primarily benefits the so-called lowincome or working poor? Uh or does it primarily benefit the property developers, the lawyers, the accountants?
▶ 1:32:39The statistical studies that have been done have shown that half or more of the benefits go to the investors and the developers and not to low-income tenants. You could see that for example, but by the fact that the the the rent uh average rent payments in the LITC buildings are not much lower than nearby market uh housing. To build on something quickly what Dr. Carson touched on, there's a big difference between the intentions of programs. All these programs are well-meaning. The actual reality is often different.
▶ 1:33:09The SNAP program, the N is for nutrition, a quarter of the benefits go to junk food. So the results are actually different than the intention. And that's the same with the LITC program. The intention is to benefit tenants. But the reality of the program, it's been take over taken over as you mentioned by the corporate lobbyists, the banks, the investors, and most of the benefits go to them. We're we're gonna go to Mr. Goar, but first of all, Mr.
▶ 1:33:37Chrismore, do you want to say anything else briefly? Uh, are you are you going to yield us five minutes total? Total. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. I'll yield myself one minute. Um, let me ask uh Mr. Da Gupta Gupta.
▶ 1:33:56Look, I think that um there's a misconception that somehow um uh Democrats um would would want to discourage marriage or harm the institution of marriage. Um as you know, in my own particular story, my parents remained married and then we exited successfully from public housing and and went on to live a middle class life. But uh to address the issues that Dr.
▶ 1:34:26Carson and other others raised, what what is a reform that you would suggest? Well, for one thing, we have um we have a lot of evidence of programs that do reduce divorce, which we need to think about too, and uh facilitate marriage with positive outcomes. These are not the uh unfortunately the Bush era healthy marriage programs uh some of whom actually increase domestic and intimate partner violence.
▶ 1:34:56These are really jobs and income programs. So we have a track record with some jobs and income programs particularly in the Midwest that while by helping people have health coverage, decent paying jobs which the United States has way too few of in fact we found that then people chose to get married at higher rates and they chose to stay together and avoid divorce at higher rates.
▶ 1:35:22So jobs and income support programs can be the best way to promote that outcome. Thank you. I yield back to you. Okay, we'll kind of I guess Paul Goser has another Yeah, Dr. Carson, I I want to give you ample time to come back at something that was said about Medicaid, slashing Medicaid. Only in Washington DC is cutting a increase a cut, you know.
▶ 1:35:48So, one of the core tenants of Obamacare was to expand Medicaid, was it not? and and during uh Biden's term, we saw a 60 plus percent increase in the number of p people that were placed on Medicaid. Key here is placed. Would you agree? Yes. So part of the problem here is is that um when you're looking at debt service of $36 trillion and Mr. Edwards, thank you again from KO from my bottom of my heart from looking at that national emergencies.
▶ 1:36:17Um you've got to do some hard choices. Now, if you're just going to cap those rates, let's just say you're going to cap them as inflated as they are, you increase it by the medical inflationary aspect, which is twice what normal inflation is. Sounds to me like that would be something that could work. Would you agree? I'd agree. But I I I also would bring up the point that we spend 13 over $13,000 per capita per year on health care in this country.
▶ 1:36:48That's more than most concierge practices cost. So obviously there's a lot of money going places where it need doesn't need to be going. What do you need? You need a patient. You need a health care provider. Along comes the middleman to facilitate becomes the principal entity sucking out most of the money of the system and people are not getting the care that they need. We need some major reforms there. Oh, I'm glad you said that because you know it's now cool to eat well. You know, maybe when Miss Mrs. uh Obama was around when she wanted to eat well.
▶ 1:37:17It wasn't cool, but it's cool now to eat really good food. And so we ought to be pushing as pay for pay to play to pay for well health. Thank you. I appreciate how you go back. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um you know, I talk tongue and cheek tongue and cheek about schemes.
▶ 1:37:40Um when I was referring to my mom obviously um I was um um making a point but I do think there's a scheme when we talk about um how these programs it was mentioned that these programs um benefit lawyers they benefit developers and I guess rich folks for the most part.
▶ 1:38:04So I mean another side of that is we could talk about the fact that how about improving these programs so that they don't but instead it seems like Republicans are saying okay we're also going to give benefits to the rich in the form of tax cuts because those tax cuts aren't they're not impacting or they're not helping poor folks they're helping millionaires and billionaires.
▶ 1:38:28Um when we look at these tariffs that have been implemented um wholeheartedly or are holistically across everything without any kind of target or plan. The the benefit does not go to poor and workingclass people because the cost of food, the cost of housing, that all goes on the back of poor folks. Folks who are making good money doesn't impact them as much.
▶ 1:38:54ood folks who are trying to the um um um rise to to to take a step up and move out of public housing, move off of assistance makes it a whole lot more difficult when the cost of food is ridiculously high when we see people kids get out of high school or college and there's no way they can afford a house. So, how does this work out when we have we have these benefits that go to rich people?
▶ 1:39:24we say we're gonna cut Medicaid. We're gonna cut all these programs that help people um make that step up and then we turn around and say, "Oh, well, this is just a scheme and we need to gut all of these programs." I I think it's completely out of whack.
▶ 1:39:41I think everyone on this DAZ and in this room should be focusing on workingclass families and the things that are going to help people move their move themselves out of poverty um and not handcuff them um to the the to the to the situations that they that they that they're in. I yield back. Thank you. Okay, Miss Simon, thank you so much. I wanted to quickly comment and ask a quick question to uh Mr. Duda Gupta.
▶ 1:40:10Um there was a there's been conversations about SNAP and I really love that you brought up that poor folks with SNAP just buy junk food. Um Mr. Duda, can you give us 40 seconds and talk to this room and folks who are watching about food deserts particularly in urban and rural communities and what's usually available to poor people? I understand that the administration that's in power right now wants to cut the program where farmers actually bring fresh fruits to communities that allow folks to to use their snaps.
▶ 1:40:39Give us a little bit, educate us. Fresh, healthy produce in particular can be far more expensive than processed and ultrarocessed food that often shelf stable and is often unavailable precisely where uh people with the lowest incomes live. So that would be a move completely in the wrong direction. And we call those food deserts, communities without grocery stores, with bodeas and corner stores and candy shops, but no fresh food.
▶ 1:41:06If you haven't seen it, Brian said, Brian Stevenson says, "Let's get proximate." I'll take you on tours all across the country of food deserts. It's important for folks who are making policy around this stuff to see those places. Thank you. We have Miss Randall. Thank you um so much, Mr. Chair, for this uh extra bit of time. You know, some of my colleagues have mentioned programs that help get folks out of poverty.
▶ 1:41:36And you know, we we about jobs that even in a two fam, two parent household, two adult working household barely allow you to uh pay for housing in your community near where you work. you know, maybe maybe you have public transit, but in my district, you don't have a lot of public transit to get to your job as you get pushed farther and farther and farther out into rural communities.
▶ 1:42:03Um, I spent a lot of time working in the state legislature on housing and food assistance programs for particularly community and technical college students, students of all ages who were trying to build themselves out of poverty. Uh, one in every two college students in Washington state is housing or food insecure. That's half half of the students. Um those who persist anyway.
▶ 1:42:31Uh many of them don't because they lose child care subsidy because they're going to school and not working. They lose um you know some of the other assistance programs which we have tried to expand in Washington state. But some of the programs that really work are projectbased vouchers that allow working student parents who are doing like six jobs yet at the end of the day a little bit of stability.
▶ 1:42:59Now I think I'm seeing some nods. I think some of these project vouchers are at risk of being cut. Can anyone on the panel um attest to that under this budget reconciliation package? Mr. Duta Gupta maybe. Well, under the the skinny budget that the administration put forward, we know that for sure. And by the way, M.
▶ 1:43:21Randall, you've hit on exactly the sort of population that's doing everything right, everything we want them to do, and you put some new bureaucratic work reporting requirements, and you will ensnare them. You will bump off people who should be eligible and who deserve the support and for whom, not that we need this in every instance, but we will get a huge return on investment. Sometimes we do things because it's the right thing to do and in this case that happens to be the smart thing to do Thank you.
▶ 1:43:51Thank you, Mr. Chair. Okay. Uh we'll yield to ranking member Christa Mory for your closing remarks. Well, thank you so much uh Mr. Chair.
▶ 1:44:08Look, I think that um what we need to re recognize is that uh we have a large number of programs designed to help people um who are struggling in this country. Um as I mentioned before, my family was one of them. So I have personal experience with the safety net. And I can say without a without a doubt, I would not be here but for that safety net.
▶ 1:44:34I would not here I would not be here but for that food stamp assistance now known as SNAP. I would not be here but for that public housing. And so you know my father would say you know think of the greatness of this country and whatever you do make sure this this country is there for the next families who need it. That's become the mission statement of my my office and indeed my why at this point. My why.
▶ 1:45:02And so when I hear repeated attacks on those programs and proposals to cut them to the tune of we're talking $1.1 trillion dollars with a T. We're talking about programs that are going to hurt real people and people just like me. Um and so I would just make two comments.
▶ 1:45:26one uh do those programs uh require improvements that could make them more efficient? The answer is yes. But do those programs um require such deep cuts that tens of millions of people who are already struggling would then fall further into poverty or become more sick or become more unable to work. No.
▶ 1:45:57And so we have to work together. I think people of goodwill among Republicans and Democrats to make the programs more effective, more efficient, and uh make sure that the people who need help get the help in a timely fashion. And so I welcome the opportunity to to work with anybody on any side to to make them uh you know hit their marks.
▶ 1:46:27But cutting them or sacrificing them on the altar of tax cuts is a bridge too far, completely unacceptable, fiscally imprudent and morally repugnant. Thank you and I yield Thank you. A few final comments. Um, we have gone from a society in which the married couple was the norm to much less common.
▶ 1:46:55I do want to point out that there are many tremendous single parents out there. Looking at Dr. Carson, his mom is uh grandparents, real heroes in that regard. And we we heard several other uh testimony from people up here on on the committee. Um uh I do believe whether it's right or wrong, I don't know. But we we do have many examples of this country of particularly immigrants who come here.
▶ 1:47:23I'm think in my district who came here straight from Laos who needed some of these programs when they first landed here. Um however um there there's been some question as to whether the uh overwhelming prejudice against married couples was intentional or not. I'd like to believe it was not.
▶ 1:47:45However, it's not hard to find like very powerful feminists in the 60s or Karl Marx himself who were very hostile to the traditional nuclear family. It was their goal to break it down. how much uh influence they had on the programs that were created in the 60s and which survive today. I don't know.
▶ 1:48:08Um, but in any event, I hope everybody here when they continue to work on public policy dealing with poor people remembers that we should not be expanding or coming up with new programs designed to put a married couple at a disadvantage compared to um couples without both mom and dad at home.
▶ 1:48:33And right now it's not unusual to be at a 20 or $25,000 disadvantage, which is preposterous. Uh, and I did try to highlight the LITC program as an example of a program that um I think benefits it. It's corporate welfare at its worst. Um, I I kind of didn't like it when I found out that the credits were going to be equal to 70% the value of the cost of a building.
▶ 1:48:59If you build a new building to help the poor and the government kicks in 70% of the cost of the building, but winds up none of the ownership of the building on its face, it ought to cause people to wonder what in the world is going on here. So, uh hopefully we can find if we have to have low-income housing, uh a way for somebody else to benefit.
▶ 1:49:22Earlier today, we also talked about food stamps and the huge degree that you buy junk food with food stamps, which is not really helping anybody and probably causing people's health to decline. But again, I think just like the LITC, the program is sometimes uh used to benefit big corporations or welloff people, not the people it's designed to help.
▶ 1:49:47But in any event, I'd like to thank well this is very good, very honored to have all four of you stay here to the bitter end. That's good. So now we will um with we got a little uh script here. With that and without objection, all members have five legislative days which to sub within which to submit materials and additional written questions for the witnesses which will be forward to the to these witnesses. If there's no further business without objection, the subcommittee stands adjur adjour. Thank you.
▶ 1:50:17Thank you. Sure. Sure. Great. Okay. Thanks. You can get me