Hearing — From Recession to Recovery: American Rescue Plan Fiscal Recovery Funds (House Oversight and Reform, 2022)

Summary

Hearing before the Committee on Oversight and Reform of the House of Representatives, examining the impact of the State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds of the American Rescue Plan, dated March 1, 2022. The listed witnesses are J.B. Pritzker, Governor of the state of Illinois; Fawn Sharp of the National Congress of American Indians; Victoria Woodards, Mayor of the City of Tacoma, Washington; Gary Moore, Judge-Executive of Boone County, Kentucky; Michael Leachman of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities; and Marc Joffe of Reason Foundation. In the opening statement, Chairwoman Maloney says the plan included $350 billion in Recovery Funds for States, tribes, territories, and local governments. An index lists documents submitted for the record.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Issuer: Congressional materials
Document type: Congressional Hearing
Case: Chrg Chrg 117Hhrg47065 Chrg 117Hhrg47065

Cite this document

“Hearing — From Recession to Recovery: American Rescue Plan Fiscal Recovery Funds (House Oversight and Reform, 2022).” Original at www.govinfo.gov. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/chrg-chrg-117hhrg47065-chrg-117hhrg47065/, SHA-256 18fe4486175beca75be33cc5fb3e327583b84a57480b7476315ddf4fd0cab593.

Full text

FROM RECESSION TO RECOVERY: EXAMINING
THE IMPACT OF THE AMERICAN RESCUE
PLAN’S STATE AND LOCAL FISCAL
RECOVERY FUNDS

HEARING
BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON
OVERSIGHT AND REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION

MARCH 1, 2022

Serial No. 117–67
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Reform

(

Available on: govinfo.gov,
oversight.house.gov or
docs.house.gov

U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
47–065 PDF WASHINGTON : 2022
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM
CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York, Chairwoman
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of JAMES COMER, Kentucky, Ranking Minority
Columbia Member
STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts JIM JORDAN, Ohio
JIM COOPER, Tennessee VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina
GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia JODY B. HICE, Georgia
RAJA KRISHNAMOORTHI, Illinois GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin
JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland MICHAEL CLOUD, Texas
RO KHANNA, California BOB GIBBS, Ohio
KWEISI MFUME, Maryland CLAY HIGGINS, Louisiana
ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, New York RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina
RASHIDA TLAIB, Michigan PETE SESSIONS, Texas
KATIE PORTER, California FRED KELLER, Pennsylvania
CORI BUSH, Missouri ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
SHONTEL M. BROWN, Ohio ANDREW CLYDE, Georgia
DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois NANCY MACE, South Carolina
DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida SCOTT FRANKLIN, Florida
PETER WELCH, Vermont JAKE LATURNER, Kansas
HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., Georgia PAT FALLON, Texas
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland YVETTE HERRELL, New Mexico
JACKIE SPEIER, California BYRON DONALDS, Florida
ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois VACANCY
BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan
MARK DESAULNIER, California
JIMMY GOMEZ, California
AYANNA PRESSLEY, Massachusetts

RUSS ANELLO, Staff Director
EMILY BURNS, Policy Director
ELISA LANIER, Chief Clerk
CONTACT NUMBER: 202-225-5051
MARK MARIN, Minority Staff Director

(II)
C O N T E N T S

Page
Hearing held on March 1, 2022 .............................................................................. 1

WITNESSES
The Honorable J.B. Pritzker, Governor, state of Illinois
Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 8
The Honorable Fawn Sharp, President National Congress of American Indi-
ans
Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 9
The Honorable Victoria Woodards, Mayor, City of Tacoma, Washington, First
Vice President, National League of Cities
Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 11
The Honorable Gary Moore, Judge-Executive Boone County, Kentucky, Imme-
diate Past President, National Association of Counties
Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 12
Dr. Michael Leachman, Vice President for State Fiscal Policy, Center on
Budget and Policy Priorities
Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 14
Mr. Marc Joffe (Minority Witness), Senior Policy Analyst, Reason Foundation
Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 15
Opening statements and the prepared statements for the witnesses are avail-
able in the U.S. House of Representatives Repository at: docs.house.gov.

INDEX OF DOCUMENTS

The documents listed below are available at: docs.house.gov.
* Moody’s Analytics Report on Global Fiscal Policy in the Pandemic; sub-
mitted by Chairwoman Maloney.
* MissionSquare Research Institute on Public Sector Workforce; submitted
by Rep. Connolly.
* Mayor Vince Williams’s Statement for the Record; submitted by Rep.
Raskin.
* National Conference of State Legislatures Letter; submitted by Chair-
woman Maloney.
* National Conference of State Legislatures Report on Stimulus Spending;
submitted by Chairwoman Maloney.
* National League of Cities Fiscal Report; submitted by Chairwoman Malo-
ney.
* Questions for the Record: to Dr. Michael Leachman; submitted by Rep.
DeSaulnier.
* Questions for the Record: to The Honorable J.B. Pritzker and Dr. Michael
Leachman; submitted by Rep. Welch.

(III)
FROM RECESSION TO RECOVERY: EXAMINING
THE IMPACT OF THE AMERICAN RESCUE
PLAN’S STATE AND LOCAL FISCAL
RECOVERY FUNDS

Tuesday, March 1, 2022

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM,
Washington, D.C.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m., in room
2154, Rayburn House Office Building, and via Zoom; Hon. Carolyn
Maloney [chairwoman of the committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Maloney, Norton, Lynch, Connolly,
Krishnamoorthi, Raskin, Khanna, Mfume, Tlaib, Porter, Bush,
Brown, Davis, Wasserman Schultz, Welch, Johnson, Sarbanes,
Kelly, Lawrence, DeSaulnier, Gomez, Pressley, Comer, Foxx, Hice,
Grothman, Cloud, Gibbs, Higgins, Sessions, Keller, Biggs, Clyde,
LaTurner, Herrell, and Donalds.
Chairwoman MALONEY. The committee meeting will come to
order.
Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess of
the committee at any time.
I now recognize myself for an opening statement.
Before we begin, I just want to say that our hearts go out to the
Ukrainian people. Russian President Putin personally provoked
this conflict with a peaceful neighbor, and he alone bears full re-
sponsibility for the tragic and bloody consequences that are unfold-
ing. I am grateful to President Biden for rallying the world to sup-
port the brave people of Ukraine. As we begin our work today, I
want to make clear that this committee stands with Ukraine as
well.
Two years ago, global attention was seized by a different crisis
as the Coronavirus pandemic disrupted life across the world. Under
the last Administration, the American economy experienced its
worst contraction since 1946, and in April 2020, the unemployment
rate skyrocketed to almost 15 percent, the highest rate since the
Labor Department began collecting this data more than 70 years
ago. In the months that followed, hundreds of thousands of Ameri-
cans died, and millions more suffered the loss of their family mem-
bers, jobs, and income.
The country had a decision to make. Faced with a destructive re-
cession and public health crisis, would we show the courage nec-
essary to save lives, support communities in need, and revive our
stalled economy? President Biden’s answer was ‘‘yes.’’ He proposed
(1)
2

the American Rescue Plan on his very first day in office along with
the National Vaccination Program and direct support for families
and small businesses. The plan included $350 billion in Recovery
Funds to States, tribes, territories, and local governments. I am
proud to say that this committee in a bipartisan way played a key
role in designating and passing these crucial Recovery Funds. We
received input from hundreds of bipartisan stakeholders, including
Governors, tribal leaders, mayors, union, industry leaders, and
public health officials, and we listened to what they had to say.
First, Congress provided aid directly to governments of all sizes,
many of which had been left to fend for themselves during the pre-
vious Administration. Second, rather than a top-down one-size-fits-
all, we ensured the aid was flexible so that states, and cities, and
local governments could invest in the solutions that fit their com-
munities and priorities. Third, we ensured the aid would help re-
store the 1 million public sector jobs already lost due to the pan-
demic, including teachers, healthcare workers, and first responders.
Fourth and finally, this aid was designed to promote an equitable
recovery, ensuring those hit hardest by the pandemic received the
help they deserved. One year later, I am pleased to report that the
American Rescue Plan worked and has put our communities and
our country on the path for a strong recovery from the recession
and public health crisis that began under the previous Administra-
tion.
Adjusted for inflation, America’s gross domestic product rose by
5.7 percent in 2021, far surpassing earlier forecasts. Last quarter’s
growth was an impressive seven percent. The American Rescue
Plan has also led to a strong jobs recovery. Last month, the unem-
ployment rate dropped to four percent, and that is lower than ear-
lier forecasts predicted for all of 2022. That means more money in
Americans’ pockets. Even adjusted for inflation, Americans’ in-
comes rose by an average of 5.6 percent in 2021. And those in the
lower 50 percent of income distribution have raised their income at
almost double that rate, helping to make our recovery more equi-
table. Making sure economic gains are distributed equitably across
income brackets is one of my top priorities and is the focus of our
bill, the Measuring Real Income Growth Act.
According to independent experts at Moody’s Analytics, if Con-
gress had not passed the American Rescue Plan, the country could
have plunged into a double-dip recession. That would have meant
lower growth and millions more people without jobs. Of course
economies around the world have many challenges in the last year,
including supply chain issues and inflation, which have been made
worse by recent Russian aggression, but the American Rescue Plan
has put America in the best position to manage these headwinds.
In fact, the U.S. was the first Nation in the G7 group of large, de-
veloped economies to reach its pre-pandemic level of GDP, and our
economy has grown at least three times faster than any other G7
country since the start of the pandemic. That is twice as much
growth as that of all G7 countries combined.
But what matters most is how this law, and especially the state
and local Recovery Funds, are impacting the lives of Americans
every day. In New York City where the virus hit early and hard,
Recovery Funds are supporting the Vaccine for All Corps, which
3

brings vaccination opportunities to hard-to-reach populations, while
creating entry-level clinical jobs for disadvantaged populations. The
funds have also helped small businesses survive the pandemic
through efforts, like the Open Restaurants, Open Streets, and
Open Storefronts Programs, which helped save more than 100,000
jobs.
Our witnesses today will share many more stories from around
the country and from the state, tribal, and local levels. The Amer-
ican Rescue Plan has been transformative in savings jobs and
small businesses, protecting public health, and promoting an equi-
table recovery that supports opportunity for all. The Recovery
Funds have helped move our country from a deep recession to a
strong recovery, and today’s investments will strengthen our coun-
try for decades to come.
I now recognize the distinguished ranking member, Mr. Comer,
for an opening statement.
And I just want to mention that our bill that we worked on to-
gether in a bipartisan way from the ground up is under consider-
ation before the U.S. Senate. It passed overwhelmingly in the
House with strong bipartisan support, and we are hopeful that it
will pass the Senate and put our Post Office on a firmer financial
standing going forward to serve the American people. I want to
publicly thank Mr. Comer for his leadership on that bill. Thank
you.
I yield to Mr. Comer.
Mr. COMER. Thank you, Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you for
calling this hearing today. I want to welcome our witnesses here
today, and thank you for your testimony and input, especially my
very good friend for many, many years, Boone County Judge-Exec-
utive Gary Moore. And, Judge Moore, I have to throw this in. I was
in your county Saturday night. I spoke to the Kentucky Letter Car-
riers Association, Madam Chair, and gave them a very positive up-
date on the progress of our bipartisan bill and what is going on in
the Senate. And so I always enjoy going to Boone County, and it
is just amazing the growth that you continue to experience up
there. Very, very impressive.
But, Madam Chair, despite our great bipartisan work and accom-
plishments with postal reform which this committee has legislative
jurisdiction over, I must say that I question the underlying premise
of this hearing today. While states and localities surely appreciate
billions of dollars in Federal aid, what exactly are we doing here?
This is certainly not conducting oversight, and, as you can see, our
side of the aisle, we are passionate and interested about conducting
oversight. The bill Democrats passed might have sent plenty of
money out the door, but they refused to put guardrails in place to
ensure that it was spent well.
Democrats simply threw money out the door like they were
throwing beads off a Mardi Gras float on Fat Tuesday. But econo-
mists across the political spectrum warned sending trillions of dol-
lars out under the guise of COVID relief—money well in excess of
what was needed—would result in a world-class hangover, and that
is what we have got now in the form of the highest inflation rates
we have seen since the early 1980’s. Instead of celebrating Demo-
crats’ reckless spending binge today, we should instead address the
4

many crises and issues that matter to the American people: infla-
tion, the origins of the COVID pandemic, the energy crisis, the bro-
ken border, the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan, and now
the war in the Ukraine. Sadly, this list continues to grow almost
daily. These are the issues Republicans on the House Oversight
Committee are concerned about.
Yet Democrats think the best use of our time is to give them-
selves a pat on the back, a job well done, giving out piles of cash
for anything, any need, real and perceived, needs like green homes,
stimulus payments for illegal immigrants. Yes, stimulus payments
for illegal immigrants. This morning, I spoke at the Kentucky
Farm Bureau meeting at the JW Marriott, and I had two farmers
come up to me and say, is there anything you can do about these
stimulus payments my H–2A workers are getting? I mean, is that
where taxpayer dollars are supposed to go: stimulus payments for
state parks and trails, golf courses, and the local zoo, and who
knows what else? Who knows, because it is unclear if anybody is
keeping track. There is no required public reporting.
I am sure states and localities can point to projects important to
their communities, and I am sure Democrats will try to point to
such projects in my home state of Kentucky, but that doesn’t make
the underlying facts disappear. Congress gave out trillions of recov-
ery dollars that weren’t needed for recovery, which has led to
record-breaking inflation and kicked the door open for waste, fraud,
and abuse. But it seems like the Oversight strategy is simply to not
look. I am confident that strategy will change in January.
Madam Chair, I yield back.
Chairwoman MALONEY. The gentleman yields back, and today’s
hearing is very important. It is oversight. It is oversight of the
$350 billion that this committee voted on and sent out to our com-
munities across the country. We have leaders from tribes, from cit-
ies, from states here to testify on what it meant in their commu-
nities or what problems are still there, and I think the proof is in
the pudding. The facts tell a story that is very different. We have
over 6.6 million new jobs created since President Biden took office,
and, in fact, the U.S. was the first Nation out of the G7 group of
large, developed economies to reach our pre-pandemic level of GDP,
and our economy has grown at least three times faster than any
other G7 country since the start of the pandemic. And if you look
at that, that is twice as much growth as that of all of the G7 coun-
tries combined. And I have reports from the League of Cities, and
from Moody’s, and others that say that the American Rescue Plan
contributed to this.
And I just want to say that I am disappointed that my Repub-
lican colleagues continue to make misleading claims about the
Biden Administration’s response to the pandemic and, I would say,
the oversight work of the committee. The truth is the Select Sub-
committee held 14 hearings and briefings last year. In January,
they held a member briefing with top health officials, including
CDC Director Walensky and one of the witnesses that Republicans
have required, and they have another hearing planned for tomor-
row on the impacts of the Coronavirus on childcare. The Biden Ad-
ministration has made tremendous progress in expanding access to
vaccines and testing, saving thousands of lives in the process. We
5

have held numerous oversight hearings on the F–35, on contracts
that were let for the Coronavirus, reclaiming funds, and we are
conducting very, very vigorous oversight.
So with that, I would like to turn to the distinguished chairman
of the subcommittee on this committee, Mr. Connolly.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and let me join
you in wanting to have this kind of oversight hearing. My friends
on the other side of the aisle want to avoid talking about things
that are uncomfortable. My friend, Mr. Comer—and I respect
him—he and I had an exchange a number of months ago in which
he actually raised the question: why should his constituents in
Kentucky be paying for certain things that benefited largely other
parts of America? But then a tornado hit your district, and all
Americans responded, including this one, in wanting to provide re-
lief, emergency relief, for people who were affected by a tragedy be-
cause we are all Americans.
A senator of Kentucky, minority leader of the U.S. Senate, in
talking about the plight of local governments at the height of the
pandemic, said, ‘‘Let them file for bankruptcy.’’ That was his ethos.
By the way, the fact that constitutions in many states prohibit that
notwithstanding, if local governments had, in fact, followed Mitch
McConnell’s advice, the bond market in the United States would
have been destroyed. Services would have collapsed at the height
of the worst pandemic in over 100 years.
Criticism of President Biden is fascinating to listen to if you
want to forget that his predecessor, Donald Trump, was advocating
drinking Clorox as a possible solution to the virus. We have come
a long way. Economically, we have come a long way because of the
investments we have been willing to make with some Republican
support. The bill we passed in March of last year is one of the most
transformative investments in response to this pandemic we could
have made. We cut child poverty in half. And instead of having an
economic collapse as was being predicted at the height of the pan-
demic, we had, as the chairwoman said, robust growth, the most
robust growth of any industrialized nation in the world during this
pandemic. We had a 5.7 percent GDP growth rate last year. We
haven’t had that since 1984. We had the lowest number of unem-
ployment filings the last quarter of last year since 1969. We had,
as the chairwoman said, the largest number of job growth in the
history of America in the first year of any President.
I am proud of the investments we made, but I, like the chair-
woman, and I hope all members of this committee, want to know
what did we get right and what did we get wrong. How can we
learn best lessons so that we do it even better as we move forward?
So I am glad we are having this hearing, Madam Chairwoman. I
thank you for convening it, and I would hope we will focus on the
subject at hand instead of political gimmickry and posturing that
helps nobody as we are trying to come out of this pandemic and
continue the economic growth pattern that President Biden has
overseen.
Thank you.
Mr. COMER. Point of order, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman MALONEY. The gentleman is recognized.
6

Mr. COMER. I just want to make the point, and Mr. Connolly
knows this. There is a difference between emergency relief funding,
which is a function of the government, and unnecessary pork
spending. I yield back.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Madam Chairwoman?
Chairwoman MALONEY. The gentleman——
Mr. CONNOLLY. I think a pandemic is an emergency.
Chairwoman MALONEY. I agree with the gentleman, but we have
so many important witnesses that have flown in from all over the
country, including Kentucky, so I want to hear what they have to
say. So I hope we can focus on the topic before us. I thank Mr. Con-
nolly for his opening statement, and I now recognize Mr. Hice, who
is the ranking member of the Government Operations Sub-
committee.
Mr. HICE. Thank you, Madam Chair. And, you know, it is amaz-
ing to me, Madam Chair, that you mentioned creation of 6 million
new jobs. It is stunning that you did not mention the tens of mil-
lions of jobs that were lost by Democratic policies to pay people not
to work, nor was mentioned the fact of the millions upon millions
of jobs that were lost by the ridiculous vaccine mandates and so
forth. And here we are yet again. Like so many of the hearings in
this committee as of late, this is yet another one that is but a farce.
Here we have the Democrats trying to take a victory lap, and, quite
frankly, they are not even in the race, trying to somehow claim
that the American Rescue Plan has created a booming economy.
That is laughable that somehow we have a booming economy
now. I wonder if my friends on the other side of the aisle even look
at what is happening in our country. Nobody is buying this argu-
ment, nor should they. We have rising energy costs, we have rising
rent costs, we have got grocery bills skyrocketing, and we are going
to try to sit here today and listen to the Democrats claim that we
have a booming economy. The American Rescue Plan literally
spewed—spewed—money on states and localities under the guise of
pandemic relief, in spite of the fact that economists all across the
political spectrum were arguing that that kind of money was not
even needed.
And as has already been mentioned, I am sure these states and
localities were happy to receive all that money, but it is absolutely
reckless spending, like throwing lighter fluid on a bonfire of infla-
tion, and now we literally have a wildfire of inflation that is out
of control. In fact, we haven’t seen rates like this since the miser-
able days of Jimmy Carter’s Administration. The rising rates are
obviously the result of a toxic brew of bad Democratic policies, tril-
lions of dollars in spending for pet projects and liberal wish lists
a mile long.
And I will say it again: the only reason that unemployment num-
bers might be falling is because Democrat policies, like paying peo-
ple not to work and enforcing vaccine mandates that kept workers
off the job—and by the way, those things didn’t have any impact
on preventing COVID—but those things are finally coming to an
end. That is why we are seeing a change. It is not because of this
American Rescue Plan. There are so many other things this com-
mittee should be spending its time on, but, quite frankly, time is
7

a resource, and like money, Democrats are more than happy to
waste it.
With that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
Chairwoman MALONEY. The gentleman yields back, and the facts
tell a very different story than my good friend. And I would like
unanimous consent to place in the record a Moody’s report on the
American Rescue Plan and inflation, and it is an economic analysis
published just last week by Moody’s Analytics where our minority
witness worked for over five years.
This report completely debunks my Republican colleagues’ claims
that the American Rescue Plan is responsible for the inflation we
are seeing today. The report states, and I quote, ‘‘The American
Rescue Plan has been criticized as being too large, overstimulating
an already fast-improving economy and significantly contributing
to the currently uncomfortably high inflation. This perspective is
not consistent with our results.’’ Moody’s found that any inflation
from the American Rescue Plan occurred primarily early in 2021
and was actually a positive sign that businesses were finally re-
turning to normal prices after the pandemic had forced them to sell
below market rates. According to Moody’s, the inflation we have
seen recently is caused by the Delta and Omicron surges and the
global supply chain, not the American Rescue Plan. In fact,
Moody’s found that the American Rescue Plan is, and I quote, ‘‘re-
sponsible for adding well over 4 million more jobs in 2021,’’ and
that it sped up our Nation’s jobs recovery by more than a year and
helped our country avoid a double-dip recession.
I ask unanimous consent to put this in the record, and I urge my
Republican colleagues to read this report. It is a very important
one.
Without objection.
Chairwoman MALONEY. I would now like to yield briefly to my
colleague, Congressman Krishnamoorthi, to introduce our first wit-
ness. Raj?
Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. Thank you, Chair Maloney. As an
Illinoisian, and I am proud to introduce my Governor, Illinois Gov-
ernor J.B. Pritzker. A descendant of immigrants from the Ukraine,
Governor Pritzker has heralded a renaissance in Illinois’ finances
as well as its health and well-being. He has balanced the budget,
he has reduced debt and pension obligations, and because of his ef-
forts, all three credit rating agencies have upgraded Illinois’ credit.
On top of that, during the pandemic, he led a robust vaccination
program and very, very strong relief for small businesses. In short,
it is a new day in Illinois, and we look forward to hearing Governor
Pritzker explain why. Thank you, Governor Pritzker.
Chairwoman MALONEY. After Governor Pritzker, we will hear
from Fawn Sharp, who is the president of the National Congress
of American Indians. Next, we will hear from Victoria Woodards,
who is the mayor of Tacoma, Washington. Next, we will hear from
Gary Moore, who is the judge-executive of Boone County, Ken-
tucky. Next, we will hear from Dr. Michael Leachman, who is the
vice president for state fiscal policy at the Center for Budget and
Policy Priorities. Finally, we will hear from Marc Joffe, who is a
senior policy analyst at the Reason Foundation.
8

The witnesses will be unmuted so we can swear them in. Please
raise your right hands.
Do you swear to affirm that the testimony you are about to give
is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help
you God?
[A chorus of ayes.]
Chairwoman MALONEY. OK. Let the record show that the wit-
nesses answered in the affirmative. Thank you.
Without objection, your written statements will be made part of
the record.
With that, Governor Pritzker, you are now recognized for your
testimony.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE J.B. PRITZKER, GOVERNOR,
STATE OF ILLINOIS
Mr. PRITZKER. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. I
want to thank my friends who represent us in Illinois who are on
this committee: of course, Congressman Krishnamoorthi and Con-
gresswoman Robin Kelly. To you, Chair Maloney, Ranking Member
James Comer, distinguished members of the committee, thank you
for the opportunity to speak with you this morning.
I’ve governed through this pandemic focused on a central tenet,
and that’s the role of government in a crisis is to end the crisis as
quickly as possible and to alleviate the pain it inflicts on the people
that we serve. Roughly one year into the pandemic, the American
Rescue Plan injected a burst of resources into the national economy
at a critical time. With all our efforts over the last two years, our
investments in working families and small businesses are paying
off. In 2021, our Illinois job growth rate outpaced all our neigh-
boring states and exceeded the national average. Also in 2021, Illi-
nois grew new startups at a faster clip than all other midwest
states and at a higher rate than the top eight most populous states
nationally, states like California, and Texas, and Florida. There’s
no doubt in my mind that the ingenuity and resilience of our peo-
ple played a huge role in shaping that trajectory.
I also know that my administration has used our resources, in-
cluding ARPA funds, to provide as much short-and medium-term
stability as possible to fuel our progress with great results. The
program we discuss today provided the state of Illinois with $8.12
billion. Our local governments, including Chicago, are on track to
receive another $5.93 billion. We view these resources as one-time
recovery opportunities. We put half a billion dollars toward some
of the most direct building blocks of our recovery: small businesses,
tourism support, work force development, and restoring our com-
mercial corridors. That includes $300 million for our Back to Busi-
ness Grant Program, building on our $500 million 2020 program to
bring relief grants to small businesses all across Illinois.
Our ARPA funds also made a significant impact on the No. 1
challenge of the last two years: our ability to manage and mitigate
the virus itself. The state coordinated almost 8,000 mobile vaccina-
tion clinics for some of our most vulnerable residents, including
more than 2,000 school and youth vaccination clinics. And at the
peak of the Omicron surge, Illinois had nearly 3,000 healthcare
workers deployed across the state to keep our healthcare system
9

operating. That is in addition to the healthcare workers we already
employed. We increased support for immigrant welcoming centers.
We ensured continuous government services at frontline agencies
like the Department of Public Health. We launched an unprece-
dented commitment to combat firearm violence. We accelerated in-
frastructure investments, including our Internet Connectivity Ex-
pansion Program, and the list goes on.
I have always believed that our economic recovery, both as a Na-
tion and as a state, goes hand-in-hand with our recovery from
COVID–19, a truth that played out after the 1918 pandemic, and
a truth that I expect history will tell of the moment that we live
in now. The virus has remained a threat for far longer than any
of us would like, but we continue to find ways to live our lives,
grow our economy, and protect the vulnerable all at the same time.
I appreciate the Federal Government’s ongoing support of that mis-
sion, and I thank you, all of you, on the committee for the privilege
of presenting my testimony to you and look forward to your ques-
tions.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman MALONEY. Thank you. President Sharp, you are
now recognized for your testimony.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE FAWN SHARP, PRESIDENT,
NATIONAL CONGRESS OF AMERICAN INDIANS
Ms. SHARP.[Speaking native language.] Good morning, Chair-
woman Maloney, Ranking Member Comer, and members of the
House Committee on Oversight and Reform. I am Fawn Sharp, vice
president of the Quinault Indian Nation and president of the Na-
tional Congress of American Indians. Thank you for holding this
hearing on the impact of the American Rescue Plan’s Fiscal Recov-
ery Funds.
Like all other governments, tribal nations strive to ensure the
health and well-being of their citizens and all those who reside
within their communities. Like all other governments, when the
COVID pandemic struck, tribal nations deeply felt the toll on our
collective health, economies, and cultures. And like all govern-
ments, tribal nations led the charge in ensuring that our commu-
nities were as safe as possible, using the resources we had avail-
able. While no government was fully prepared for all of COVID’s
impacts, Indian Country began the pandemic on unequal footing
compared to state and local governments. Our needs, especially in
the areas of healthcare funding and infrastructure development,
have historically been neglected or, in some cases, completely ig-
nored.
Since the COVID outbreak in the early 2020, we have lost many
of our elders, those who help protect our languages, our cere-
monies, and our cultures, and we have lost some of our youth, the
future leaders of our nations. These devastating losses will no
doubt have impacts for generations to come. Also, due to the pan-
demic, Indian Country has been dealing with unprecedented eco-
nomic impacts. Where Federal, state, and local governments rely
heavily on tax revenues, we in Indian Country do not have the
same ability because of dual taxation and other economic policies
and barriers. Most tribal nations rely on our businesses for com-
10

mercial profits, as opposed to governmental revenues, through a
system of taxation to provide essential services and make up for
the Federal funding gaps that have existed for decades or longer.
Further, because much of our governmental revenue is generated
from tourism and service industries, when reservations closed for
public health reasons, when travel stopped, and when tribal offices
were shut down for extended periods of time, it took a dispropor-
tionate toll on our economies. Tribal gaming lost $4.4 billion in rev-
enue in 2020 alone and another $1 billion in lost wages. After one
year of the pandemic, only a fifth of tribal governments, tribally
owned businesses, and tribal organizations had stable revenues,
and over half of those lost at least 40 percent of their revenues,
while most tribes saw operational costs rise by 20 percent or more.
It will take time to fully quantify the economic impacts of
COVID–19 to Indian Country, but there is no doubt that the pan-
demic has had a uniquely devastating effect on tribal nations’
economies and our ability to provide essential governmental serv-
ices. The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 was a crucial measure
to support the immediate needs and help address the systemic
under funding of Indian Country. Its $31 billion in funding to In-
dian Country represents the largest single infusion of Federal fund-
ing to Native Americans in history, and we thank Congress and the
Administration for hearing our call and acknowledging the needs
of our nations.
I would like to share with you some of our success stories, from
Alaska to the Southwest, to the Heartland in Oklahoma, to the
Great Lakes, up into the New England area, and down into the
Gulf of Mexico. In healthcare and wellness, many tribes, like the
Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, invested in improving their
healthcare centers, and the Cherokee Nation made investments in
healthcare services while also emphasizing mental health. Several
tribes invested funding into healthcare mobile units, like the
Northern Arapaho Tribe’s mobile medical unit and Gila River In-
dian Community’s mobile COVID–19 vaccination unit. The Osage
Nation expanded its farming and meat processing, while the Round
Valley Tribes developed a much-needed food bank to address food
insecurity. To support our economies and infrastructure, we saw
tribes, like the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe, create a pandemic re-
covery business support program to help nearly 300 tribally reg-
istered businesses. Tribes like the Navajo Nation and many others
are investing in new water lines, electric lines, broadband, road im-
provement, and housing. To support operations, several tribes, like
the Oglala Sioux Tribe, constructed new infrastructure for their
emergency management, and many tribes addressed housing
issues, like the native village of Saint Michael in Alaska, who con-
structed 26 small homes, increasing the number of homes in the
village by nearly 25 percent.
The Fiscal Recovery Funds acknowledge our inherent sovereignty
and bring us one step closer to achieving governmental parity. It
provides not just funding but the deference and flexibility to use
funds as we see fit. Parity, deference, and acknowledgement of our
tribal nations’ inherent rights are the foundation for building a
stronger Nation-to-nation relationship. This must be the new
standard for engagement between our tribal nations and the Fed-
11

eral Government going forward. We have seen what we can do
when we began to work together as sovereigns. We must continue
down that path, and only then will tribal nations fully flourish.
We thank you.
[Speaking native language.]
Chairwoman MALONEY. Thank you. We now recognize Mayor
Victoria Woodards, and she is the vice president of the National
League of Cities. You are now recognized for your testimony.
[No response.]
Ms. WOODARDS. Sorry about that. Got to get myself off mute this
morning.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE VICTORIA WOODARDS,
MAYOR, CITY OF TACOMA, WASHINGTON, ON BEHALF OF
FIRST VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES
Ms. WOODARDS. Good morning, Chair, and thank you so much for
having me here this morning to be able to speak to you about the
work that you all have done that has been so helpful to my commu-
nity.
Chairwoman Maloney, Ranking Member Comer, and members of
the committee, I am Mayor Victoria Woodards of Tacoma, Wash-
ington, and I am also, as it’s been said, the first vice president of
the National League of Cities, or NLC, an organization that rep-
resents 19,000 cities, towns, and villages nationwide. I am honored
to testify before the committee today on the State and Local Fiscal
Recovery Funds Program, which was a part of the American Res-
cue Plan Act of 2021. I want to thank the committee for their re-
lentless work drafting ARPA and for working closely with outside
stakeholders, including NLC, to ensure that every local govern-
ment, regardless of size, received an SLFRF grant.
In the spring of 2020, our Nation faced an unprecedented public
health emergency with devastating economic repercussions for our
communities. There was a nationwide shutdown of businesses,
schools, services, entertainment, and more to stop the spread of
COVID–19. This shutdown, which was needed, halted all local
economies, resulting in the national economic crisis at the same
time of a national public health crisis. Local governments, like Ta-
coma, continued to provide critical services during this time to keep
our city running and meet the needs of our most vulnerable citi-
zens.
As the pandemic continued, city of Tacoma employees continued
to provide essential services, and the city absorbed unforeseen costs
across every municipal department while overseeing the local pub-
lic health response and addressing community needs. Pre-existing
problems and inequities within our city were exacerbated by the
crisis. Sadly, many constituents got caught in the virus and experi-
enced related health problems while the broader community con-
tended with its impacts, including job loss, income insecurity, hous-
ing insecurity or homelessness, food insecurity, and declining busi-
ness. The Federal Government relied on their partners at the local
level to address these challenges, and we did so for nearly a year
without access to any direct or flexible funding.
That changed in March 2021 when lawmakers passed the Amer-
ican Rescue Plan Act, providing $350 billion to inter-government
12

partners, including $45.57 billion worth of assistance for metropoli-
tan cities, like the city of Tacoma. My colleagues and I heralded the
arrival of those critical resources last spring, which empowered us
to manage the public health emergency, address the urgent needs
of our community, anticipate long-term impacts, and pave the way
for a more equitable recovery. We would not have been able to ac-
complish that without the critical Federal funding provided by the
American Rescue Plan Act.
Tacoma faced over $59 million worth of estimated revenue loss
due to the COVID–19 pandemic and public health emergency. Dur-
ing 2020, the city took quick action to reduce expenses through pro-
gram elimination, time reductions, and temporary furloughs to ad-
dress the projected revenue losses based on the projected losses of
2021 and 2022. The city of Tacoma planned significant cuts to our
central and basic community services. Our story is not unique, but
what is unique is that the SLFRF Program transferred the deci-
sion-making process from the Federal Government to local govern-
ments, empowering those of us who know their communities best
with resources to enact real, immediate, impactful change. This is
a major step forward in recognizing the vital role of local econo-
mies, and stabilizing our national economy, and bolstering our col-
lective recovery.
In Tacoma, this Federal funding allowed us to sustain essential
services and to meet emergent needs of our community across a va-
riety of issues. Most importantly, the funding makes a difference
in the lives of our residents. Tacoma leveraged ARPA dollars and
existing resources to increase services and support programs tar-
geting our city’s most vulnerable populations. Though our partner-
ships, we provided shelter, case management, and other supportive
services to our homeless youth and adults. We are expected to
serve almost 10,000 bed nights in 2022. Those stabilization efforts
included health and wellness appointments, employment services,
and financial counseling for those in need. Our service providers
connected our veterans with benefits, housing, employment, and
other resources. And as a veteran myself, I am particularly proud
of our work to support this population.
While this work in recovery is very much still under way, I want
you to know that there is a long road ahead of us, and I am thank-
ful to the members of this committee for your leadership and advo-
cacy. Thank you again for allowing me to be here this morning to
testify, and I look forward to your questions.
Chairwoman MALONEY. Thank you so much for your testimony.
We will now hear from Honorable Judge Moore, judge-executive,
Boone County, Kentucky. He will be testifying on behalf of the Na-
tional Association of Counties. You are now recognized, Judge
Moore.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE GARY MOORE, JUDGE-EXEC-
UTIVE, BOONE COUNTY, KENTUCKY, AND IMMEDIATE PAST
PRESIDENT, ON BEHALF OF NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
COUNTIES
Judge MOORE. Thank you, Chairwoman Maloney, Ranking Mem-
ber Comer, my friend and fellow Kentuckian, and distinguished
members of this committee. My name is Gary Moore. I am the
13

elected judge-executive in Boone County, Kentucky. I’m also here
today in a role as the immediate past president of NACo, the Na-
tional Association of Counties. Since the onset of the Coronavirus
pandemic, counties have served on the frontline. We support over
1,900 local public health departments, nearly 1,000 hospitals and
critical access clinics, more than 800 long-term care facilities, and
750 behavioral health centers. We’re also responsible for emergency
operations, 9–1–1 service, protective services for children, for sen-
iors, and for veterans, among many other responsibilities.
I am here today to discuss the impacts of the American Rescue
Plan’s Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund and the
critical importance to this program, which is needed to help sup-
port Federal, state, and local recovery.
I would like to begin first by expressing counties’ appreciation for
the work and passage of the American Rescue Plan, which provided
aid to all counties of all sizes. As the pressing challenges and needs
continue to outstrip depleted resources of many counties during
this unprecedented national emergency, this law recognizes coun-
ties’ vast responsibility to care for our most vulnerable residents:
our sick, unemployed, elderly, and our youth. Counties are stead-
fastly committed at the local level to good financial stewardship, in-
vesting these Recovery Funds quickly and effectively to support the
health and safety of our residents and strengthen the economy. I
want to add we were also supportive of guardrails for these funds.
Since the enactment of ARPA, American counties have been
working hard to develop Recovery Fund implementation plans that
will spur an equitable economic recovery across our Nation. NACo
analyzed 200 county ARPA Recovery Fund plans, revealing county-
designed community investments across key areas of the need. In
my home county of Boone County, Kentucky, we’re investing funds
to address critical infrastructure challenges. With the help of our
ARPA dollars, we’ve been able to expand and improve broadband
accessibility to 40,000 households. We’re in the middle of our plan
now. It’ll be completed by March of next year. We have also used
Recovery Funds to ensure access to clean drinking water for
schools and improve sewer and water systems for our residents.
Beyond infrastructure investments, counties are using funds to
support children, families, and individuals. Los Angeles County,
California was able to implement a comprehensive homeless strat-
egy to provide 24-hour emergency shelter services to individuals
over the course of the pandemic. In Arizona, a significant portion
of Recovery Funds have been invested to provide educational, so-
cial, emotional, and mental health services tailored to the commu-
nity’s high veteran population. And in Howard County, Maryland,
the county has used $8 million in Recovery Funds to address staff-
ing challenges from the pandemic and to provide support to public
school employees. These stories are being replicated across the
country as counties of all stripes are eagerly investing Recovery
Funds. To date, over 99 percent of the Nation’s 3,069 counties have
accessed their Recovery Funds—99 percent. This bipartisan de-
mand of access to the funds demonstrates the critical need of the
program.
While the American Rescue Plan offered vital relief to local gov-
ernments and is an important critical step toward supporting our
14

Nation’s recovery, there are additional tools that our Federal part-
ners can leverage to further help local governments address budget
challenges, stagnant revenue pools, and unfunded state and local
mandates. Counties urge Congress to pass the bipartisan State,
Local, Tribal, and Territorial Fiscal Recovery, Infrastructure, and
Disaster Relief Flexibility Act. Passage of this legislation on a bi-
partisan compromise that unanimously passed the U.S. Senate is
key to successfully achieving our shared goals of helping our resi-
dents thrive.
Once again, I want to thank this committee, Chairwoman Malo-
ney, and Ranking Member Comer. Thank you.
Chairwoman MALONEY. Thank you very much for your testi-
mony.
We will now hear from Dr. Leachman, who is the vice president
for state fiscal policy of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
Thank you. You are now recognized.

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL LEACHMAN, PH.D., VICE PRESIDENT
FOR STATE FISCAL POLICY, CENTER ON BUDGET AND POL-
ICY PRIORITIES
Mr. LEACHMAN. Chairwoman Maloney, Ranking Member Comer,
distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the oppor-
tunity to testify today. I am Mike Leachman. I am vice president
for state fiscal policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities,
a nonpartisan research and policy institute in Washington, DC.
After the Great Recession hit a decade ago, Congress provided
fiscal relief to states that was important, but it was too small and
it ended too soon. So states laid off hundreds of thousands of work-
ers and cut services just when the need for services was particu-
larly high. Cities, counties, and tribal governments got no direct
fiscal help at all. As a result, the economy’s recovery was much
slower and weaker than it needed to be. For the first two years
after the recession ended, the private sector added 1.3 million jobs,
but states and localities cut 450,000 jobs. They were effectively still
in recession, and that limited the economy’s recovery. This time,
the Federal response has been much more robust with aid and
multiple pandemic bills in 2020, and the American Rescue Plan has
also been a huge success, helping to make the recession the short-
est on record and creating much less hardship than we otherwise
would’ve seen. In fact, Mark Zandi and other economists at
Moody’s Analytics recently found that if Congress hadn’t enacted
the Rescue Plan in early 2021, the economy would’ve been at seri-
ous risk of a double-dip recession.
The Rescue Plan’s State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds were
an important part of that success. Before the Rescue Plan, mid-
sized and small cities and counties received no direct flexible fiscal
aid, and tribal governments received much less than they needed.
States received some flexible aid in the CARES Act of 2020, but
they couldn’t use the aid to cover revenue losses. And before the
Rescue Plan, states had to spend their fiscal relief on a short
timeline. Fiscal Recovery Funds, by contrast, can be allocated
through 2024, giving governments time to better address the
pandemic’s ongoing impacts on, for instance, mental health and
15

children’s learning, which are key steps to building a stronger re-
covery.
States are putting most of the funds to work already. As of a few
weeks ago, states had appropriated 72 percent of the funds they’ve
received so far, and many states are in legislative sessions right
now developing plans for using the rest. The limited data that we
have about local governments suggest they also have allocated
most of their funds. So far, states are using most of the funds for
four primary purposes: first, to pay for existing government serv-
ices that they were finding harder to provide because of pandemic-
induced revenue losses; second, to provide healthcare and human
services for people affected by the pandemic; third, to help affected
businesses and for needed economic development and infrastruc-
ture; and fourth, to shore up state unemployment trust funds,
which were hit hard after the pandemic and resulting spike in un-
employment. Localities, tribal governments, and territories also are
using the funds in ways that help achieve the Rescue Plan’s goals.
Since December 2020, states and localities have added back
470,000 jobs. The Moody’s analysis that I mentioned earlier esti-
mates that without the American Rescue Plan and earlier Federal
pandemic aid, states and localities would’ve laid off another 1.2
million workers in 2021. In other words, they would be holding
back the recovery like they did after the Great Recession. The bot-
tom line is that unlike after the Great Recession, states, localities,
territories, and tribal governments are contributing to the recovery
instead of constraining it and are well positioned to leave the coun-
try more prepared when the next downturn hits.
In the future, policymakers should avoid the mistakes of the
Great Recession’s fiscal aid response and provide enough aid to en-
able states and other governments to meet the needs of residents
and businesses. Congress should also enact a system of automatic
stabilizers, such as automatic increases in Medicaid matching
rates, when unemployment rises and other automated aid that
links the amount and duration of aid to economic conditions. And
they should require states and other governments to spend sizable
portions of their aid to help low-income people, communities of
color, and others who are particularly likely to be hurt by an eco-
nomic crisis.
Thank you again, and I’d be happy to take your questions at the
appropriate time.
Chairwoman MALONEY. We will now hear from Mr. Joffe, who is
a senior policy analyst for the Reason Foundation. Mr. Joffe.
STATEMENT OF MARC JOFFE, SENIOR POLICY ANALYST,
REASON FOUNDATION
Mr. JOFFE. Chair Maloney, Ranking Member Comer, and Over-
sight Committee members, thank you for giving me the opportunity
to share my observations about the state and Local Fiscal Relief
Funds provided under the American Rescue Plan Act. My name is
Marc Joffe, and I am a senior policy analyst at Reason Foundation,
specializing in fiscal policy issues.
When U.S., Federal, state, and local governments began imple-
menting COVID–19 public health measures two years ago this
month, it was reasonable to expect that states, counties, cities, and
16

smaller government jurisdictions would face large and widespread
revenue losses. But by early 2021, in the run-up to the passage of
ARPA, it had become apparent that the severe revenue losses gov-
ernment entities were expecting had not materialized and were un-
likely to occur. Thanks to recent technological innovations, such as
cloud computing and video conferencing, large parts of the Amer-
ican work force were able to work remotely without significant pro-
ductivity losses. While some sectors of the economy, like travel and
hospitality, were hit hard, consumers substituted online purchases
for visits to retail stores. Most Americans received Federal stim-
ulus checks, and Federal Reserve stimulus helped elevate stock
and real estate values. As a result, tax receipts from income, cap-
ital gains, sales, and property taxes all remained robust.
In February 2021, I determined from a review of interim state
fiscal reports that state governments had suffered an overall rev-
enue decline of just 0.01 percent between calendar years 2019 and
2020. Similarly, quarterly Census Bureau data on local government
revenues also suggested that they had not suffered much through
that point of the pandemic. These totals hid variability across gov-
ernments. Entities heavily dependent on tourism, such as Hawaii,
Nevada, and the city of Anaheim, home to Disneyland, were hit
harder than other places. California also suffered significant rev-
enue losses at the beginning of the pandemic, but these losses were
offset by a gusher of income and capital gains taxes from tech-
nology companies and their employees, who benefited from the pan-
demic-driven boom in online activity. While the facts available to
us last March may have justified a targeted revenue program for
a small number of government entities, it clearly did not support
a generalized Federal aid program. Unfortunately, advocates of the
stimulus largely relied on stale revenue projections as well as over-
ly pessimistic responses from a survey of city officials that was
taken at the start of the crisis.
The Federal funds were not only excessive, but they were also
poorly targeted. The state of California, which received $26.5 bil-
lion, or 7.6 percent of the total aid package, went on to report
record state budget surpluses. There was also a disturbing discrep-
ancy in per capita aid distributions. While Florida’s state, county,
and local governments were allotted $739 per capita, the Common-
wealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and its local governments
are receiving more than $10,500 per capita. The Commonwealth
itself was allotted $482 million to spend on its 47,000 residents.
The most recent interim report submitted by states, counties, and
metropolitan cities to the Treasury Department indicated that gov-
ernments had spent less than $10 billion of the revenues as of July
31, 2021. The largest share of expenditures went to replenishing
depleted state unemployment funds. While this was a judicious use
of relief proceeds, it is not one that provides any near-term stim-
ulus. With so little of the Federal funds being spent on employee
supplies and services, it is clear that state and local ARPA spend-
ing had little impact on economic growth during the 2d quarter of
last year. In hindsight, this result undermines another dubious jus-
tification that was used to call for the quick passage of ARPA: that
it would provide a quick stimulus to lift the economy out of the
17

pandemic-induced recession. In fact, we know the economy had al-
ready been growing for 11 months before ARPA was signed.
Legislative restrictions on the use of the Federal proceeds and
complex Treasury regulations have compounded challenges to effec-
tively use the funds. Several states are litigating a ban on using
the money to backfill tax reductions, which could stimulate eco-
nomic activity. Other states, like Illinois, which might have used
ARPA funds to pay down debt from their unfunded public pension
liabilities, were prohibited from doing so. The Treasury Depart-
ment did not publish final regulations on the usage and reporting
of funds until January 2022 after most of the money had been dis-
tributed. The Department was also slow to publish reports it re-
ceived from recipient governments, and, contrary to the spirit of
the bipartisan GREAT Act of 2019, did not provide machine-read-
able reporting standards for grantees. As a result, our under-
standing of the overall impact of the Federal funding is based more
on anecdotes than on rigorous data analysis.
Thank you for your time today, and I look forward to answering
your questions.
Chairwoman MALONEY. Thank you so much. I now recognize my-
self for five minutes for questions.
The Great Recession left a tremendous drag on the economy that
slowed growth for many years, and a major reason was insufficient
Federal support for state and local governments. Thanks to the
American Rescue Plan, the recession caused by the Coronavirus
pandemic was the shortest on record, and the country was able to
avoid a double-dip recession in the spring of 2021. This chart says
it all. Since the beginning of the pandemic, U.S. GDP has grown
at more than three times the rate of any other G7 country. That
is a remarkable achievement, and this chart expresses it.
Dr. Leachman, what was the role of the State and Local Fiscal
Recovery Funds in contributing to this really remarkable outcome?
[No response.]
Chairwoman MALONEY. Can you speak up and turn on your mic?
Mr. LEACHMAN. Excuse me. Thank you.
Chairwoman MALONEY. Mm-hmm.
Mr. LEACHMAN. After the Great Recession, states and localities
really held back the economic recovery. You know, they were still
laying off workers when the rest of the economy was trying to get
back on its feet, and this time, states and localities are contributing
to the recovery, and that is very important. The Fiscal Recovery
Funds are helping to make that happen by providing funds to con-
tinue pushing back on the virus, hire back workers, and restore
cuts that were made earlier in the pandemic to help people strug-
gling due to the pandemic to eat, and to remain housed, and to pay
their basic household expenses, help businesses that were hurt by
the pandemic to get rolling again, and tackle some of the chal-
lenges that the pandemic caused that will take sustained invest-
ment to unravel, as I mentioned, like increased mental illness and
helping children to recover the learning time that they have lost,
and, finally, to address the structural inequities that have made
the pandemic especially harmful in some communities. Those are
the people that are hardest hit, and so investments there will have
the biggest bang for the buck.
18

Chairwoman MALONEY. Thank you.
And after the catastrophic job and income losses under the pre-
vious administration, wages have also seen strong growth in the
last year. Even after adjusting for inflation, incomes in the U.S.
rose on average of 5.6 percent in 2021, and incomes for the bottom
50 percent of wage earners rose by nearly 11 percent.
This is a very rapid recovery, as you can see. In contrast, after
the Great Recession, it took more than a decade for job growth to
reach just three percent. So I would like to ask Governor Pritzker,
did the recovery funds in the American Rescue Plan help boost the
job growth in your state over the last year, and how has this im-
pacted the people you represent?
Mr. PRITZKER. Madam Chairwoman, we had significant growth
during 2021, in part because of ARPA. We made investments that
would make it so because of those resources. Just one example is,
as you know, one of the challenges people faced was childcare. The
pandemic itself limited the availability of childcare. We had people
who wanted to go back to work but needed childcare and needed
help to get that childcare.
We used a large amount of resources to keep our childcare sys-
tem going and to reward people for staying in that line of work and
then helping people get into the business of providing childcare. So
that’s one area that helped us achieve significant growth. Our
growth, by the way, was higher in 2021 than all of our neighboring
states, and we’re proud of the growth that we saw during that pe-
riod.
One other item I’d point out is our Back to Business grant pro-
gram, which supported our small businesses across Illinois, helped
people stay in business, helped people to grow their business, to
bring back workers they may have had to lay off or keep them on.
So we’re very pleased about the results of the ARPA dollars that
we got and the investments that we made on a state level with our
own GRF dollars to invest in training programs to get people into
jobs that they may not have otherwise been able to obtain.
Chairwoman MALONEY. Thank you.
President Sharp, I would like to hear from you. What would the
forecast look like for tribal governments right now if they did not
have the access to the recovery funds?
Ms. SHARP. Yes, thank you for that question.
The outlook would certainly be bleak, and I can’t help but think
actual lives were saved. I remember in the early days of the pan-
demic, we saw images coming out of Italy and Spain, and at that
time, we didn’t have even direct access to the National Strategic
Stockpile for PPE. And tribal nations are disproportionately af-
fected, both in terms of infection rate and death. So the outlook
would not only be grave for economies and jobs, but actual loss of
massive life.
And we know historically when tribal nations have gone through
pandemics, including the 1918 pandemic, entire communities were
wiped out. So this was a significant safety net for all of Indian
Country.
Chairwoman MALONEY. Thank you. I am glad that our country’s
growth rate for the GDP, the gross domestic product, is booming,
thanks to the American Rescue Plan.
19

My time has expired, and I yield back.
And I now recognize the distinguished chairman—nope. We are
going to go to the gentleman from Georgia. Mr. Hice is recognized
for five minutes.
Mr. HICE. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Joffe, let me begin with you. The total price tag of this al-
leged COVID bill was nearly $2 trillion, and Congress had actually
already spent and passed a $4 trillion COVID relief package, of
which, by the way, about more than $1 trillion of that had not been
spent when this bill was passed. What, in your opinion, was the
impact of this unprecedented spending on inflation?
Mr. JOFFE. I think it was—it was very inflationary, as the—as
the numbers show. The state and local funds didn’t really have
much of an effect in 2021 because they really were not spent. But
a lot of the other stimulus, including the individual checks that
went out, clearly went right back into the economy, and drove up
prices at a time that we had supply chain issues.
Mr. HICE. As of January this year, in fact, the inflation rate has
risen to a record-breaking 7.5 percent, higher than at any point in
the last 40 years. I think we all know, but what are some of the
impacts that this has on the average American family?
Mr. JOFFE. It really undermines people’s sense of security. People
who have saved a fixed amount of money for retirement, for exam-
ple. Now they have to worry, in fact, is that going to run out? The
people who are living paycheck to paycheck. Are their wage in-
creases going to be keeping up with the increased price of gas, food,
and other—other essentials?
So I think it really undermines people’s sense of security.
Mr. HICE. You know, one of the other issues of this whole thing
that is greatly disturbing to me is the fact that this massive Demo-
cratic spending bill included some $350 billion for state and local
governments, in addition to $100 billion that Congress had spent
just the year before. But $350 billion in this alone with no guard-
rails.
So how in the world are we even having a hearing today sup-
posedly regarding oversight on $350 billion that had no guardrails
on it? Do you know of any guardrails?
Mr. JOFFE. Well, there was one guardrail, which I think was very
unfortunate, which is the restriction on making deposits into an
underfunded pension fund. And I think a lot of state and local gov-
ernments could have used that to have achieved more long-term
fiscal stability. Another unfortunate guardrail was the restriction
on using it to backfill tax cuts, and tax cuts in many states would
help stimulate economic growth.
Other than that, I agree, there were very few restrictions on how
the money could be used, and it clearly has not been used in a uni-
form way to recover from the pandemic. It’s been used really to
fund a wish list of preexisting ideas.
Mr. HICE. So here we are, having a fake oversight hearing on
money that we don’t have any idea where it went, really. It is my
understanding that you have submitted a FOIA request to the
Treasury Department to try to get a report on the funding in this
ARPA bill. Have you been successful?
20

Mr. JOFFE. Right. Last September, I submitted a FOIA request
asking for all of the interim fiscal recovery reports, and that was
not—that was not handled. I resubmitted the request in January,
and I’m still waiting for a response.
Oddly enough, while I was preparing for this, I stumbled across
a page on the Treasury’s website where they had, in fact, posted
all the reports, and I analyzed them for my testimony today. But
they haven’t really made much of an effort to alert the public to
where they can find all of that information.
Mr. HICE. So what reason have they given you, or have they
given you any reason for not providing an ARPA funding report?
Mr. JOFFE. The response was really strange. The FOIA rep-
resentative in Treasury last year told me our FOIA office doesn’t
have these reports so we can’t fill your request. But Treasury clear-
ly had these reports because they had to be submitted on Treas-
ury’s online portal. So I didn’t find the fact that the FOIA office
itself didn’t have the reports to be a very convincing reason to not
fill the FOIA.
Mr. HICE. Well, I thank you for being here today.
And yet again, Madam Chair, I mean, without these reports
being made public, there is simply no one, including this com-
mittee, that is having any degree of oversight over the money that
has been spent. This is unacceptable.
And with that, I yield back.
Chairwoman MALONEY. The gentleman yields back, and the
gentlelady from the District of Columbia, Ms. Norton, is now recog-
nized.
Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And let me thank you for giving us the opportunity to indicate
what the American Rescue Plan has done in the kind of detail we
are doing here today. The CARES Act was one of the starkest ex-
amples in recent years of why Congress should grant statehood for
the District of Columbia. The Republican-led Senate intentionally
treated D.C. as a territory instead of a state for fiscal relief in the
CARES Act, depriving the District of $755 million during the most
critical time of the pandemic.
Republicans did so even though the District residents not only
pay the same Federal taxes, but the highest per capita in the
United States, more than 27 states. So we are grateful that the re-
covery funds in the American Rescue Plan retroactively provided
that $755 million to the District and treated D.C. as a state, coun-
ty, and city to reflect the reality that D.C. provides services to each
of these levels, and I thank the chairwoman for her support for
these provisions.
The District of Columbia is allocating—and this question is for
Dr. Leachman—is allocating $900 million of its recovery fund allo-
cation allotment for services for disproportionately impacted com-
munities. That is more than we are investing in any other expendi-
ture category.
Dr. Leachman, based on the data we have available, is the Dis-
trict of Columbia unique in prioritizing this expenditure category
above others, and should other states and localities follow what the
District is doing?
21

Mr. LEACHMAN. Excuse me, Representative Norton, could you
please repeat the area in which the District is focusing its—I didn’t
quite hear.
Ms. NORTON. Its services for disproportionately impacted commu-
nities.
Mr. LEACHMAN. Oh, thank you. You know, this is—this is a very
important response. The impact of the pandemic has been very un-
equal by race, by gender, and by community. And so directing re-
sources in ways that—that help those communities particularly is
a really central part of what the response needs to be.
We are seeing communities and states around the country focus-
ing attention in that way, and the Treasury Department’s guidance
really encourages it. You know, I could give you a couple of good
examples. In California, for instance, they’re revamping their youth
mental health system using fiscal recovery funds in ways that will
have—will have equitable impact, will improve particularly the
mental health services that are received by youth of color and low-
income—and low-income youth.
In Maryland, the fiscal recovery funds are going to invest in edu-
cation investments that will particularly benefit communities that
have historically been disinvested in the education system. So I
really appreciate the District focusing its funds in that way. I think
it’s right in line with what Treasury has been encouraging and in
line with what will help build a strong recovery.
Ms. NORTON. Governor Pritzker, you have been a leader in in-
vesting recovery funds to support disadvantaged communities,
which is my focus in these questions. Can you review some of the
highlights of these investments, and do you believe they have cre-
ated a more resilient future in your state?
Mr. PRITZKER. Well, thank you for the question.
Let me begin by saying that, as you know, Coronavirus had its
most devastating effects on the most disadvantaged communities,
communities that have been disinvested from for many, many
years. And so we focused many of our resources precisely on those
communities, not just in the vaccination and other healthcare re-
covery efforts, but also in the economic recovery effort.
So, for example, within our Back to Business program and the
prior small business program in 2020 from the CARES Act dollars,
we focused on making sure that businesses that were owned by
people in those disadvantaged communities were getting a large
piece of the pie. Remember, the PPP didn’t cover everybody, and
in fact, many people—black and brown people, people of color
across the state of Illinois—couldn’t access PPP—they didn’t have
the right resources—or navigate it.
We created community navigators to help those small businesses
access funds not just at PPP, but very importantly, our state funds
that came through the dollars that were provided by the Federal
Government. So those are just examples of things that we were
doing and continue to do to this day because the recovery hasn’t
completed. I mean, we have much more work to do to lift up com-
munities that have been disadvantaged and affected by COVID–19
more than others.
22

Chairwoman MALONEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. So I
now recognize the gentlelady from North Carolina, Ms. Foxx. She
is now recognized.
Ms. FOXX. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
My questions are going to be for Mr. Joffe. Mr. Joffe, under the
Obama-Biden administration’s $800 billion American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act in 2009, or stimulus, there was extensive over-
sight and accountability provisions. There was even the Recovery
Accountability and Transparency Board to provide transparency in
relation to the recovery-related funds and prevent and detect fraud,
waste, and mismanagement, specifically in the law.
Does the American Rescue Plan contain any oversight and ac-
countability provision similar to the Recovery Accountability and
Transparency Board? And as large fiscal stimulus packages are im-
plemented, is there a potential for waste, fraud, abuse, and mis-
management?
Mr. JOFFE. The controls seem to me not as strong as they were
under ARRA. There is a reporting requirement for state, local gov-
ernments, territories, and tribal entities to periodically account for
what they’ve spent, but many of those entities have not been re-
quired to report yet. Their first report will not be due until April
30 of this year.
So some of the money will have been spent and committed, or
much of the money will have been spent and committed without
any documentation about how it’s—how it’s being spent.
There is the Pandemic Recovery Accountability Committee,
which I think is doing some good work. So there is—there is
some—there is some oversight being conducted, but it doesn’t seem
to me to be as complete as what we had under ARRA.
Ms. FOXX. Do you have any insights into why common sense
oversight and accountability measures were not included in the leg-
islation?
Mr. JOFFE. I mean, I have a—I have an educated guess. I think
there was a rush to pass this, and so a lot of the kinds of bells and
whistles and belts and suspenders controls that would normally go
in didn’t because it was—it was so rushed.
Ms. FOXX. OK. My next question is Congress passed the CARES
Act in March 2020, now two years ago, to deal with the economic
turmoil and uncertainty at the time. Despite, again, the fact that
the bill was drafted quickly, did it include any mechanisms to pro-
vide for oversight and accountability?
Mr. JOFFE. Congresswoman, I’m not as familiar with that. I be-
lieve there were, but I cannot speak to the details of that.
Ms. FOXX. Well, since every CARES Act program falls under the
jurisdiction of at least one oversight mechanism, I think it is rea-
sonable to expect that the American Rescue Plan would do the
same. Had Democrats worked with Republicans, who were willing
to provide oversight and accountability mechanisms, the American
people might have known how their tax dollars given to state and
local governments were spent.
My last question is the American Rescue Plan Act has an official
price tag of nearly $2 trillion. This is in addition to the nearly $4
trillion in COVID relief that was spent before. Can you tell us how
23

this exorbitant spending has fueled inflation and the higher prices
Americans are facing?
I know that the Democrats are trying to blame everything on
high gas prices and Ukraine, but let us talk about how that spend-
ing that was done has fueled inflation.
Mr. JOFFE. Certainly. I mean, we have to look no further than
Larry Summers, who’s on the Democratic side, who warned that an
oversized stimulus package could be inflationary, and I think his
warnings were prescient. It should really be no surprise to anyone
that we’re experiencing the inflation that we are now, given the ex-
cessive amount of spending that was authorized under ARPA.
Ms. FOXX. And many of us absolutely warned that that was going
to happen and warned that without strong accountability measures
the hard-working taxpayer dollars would be wasted.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
Chairwoman MALONEY. The gentlelady yields back. The gen-
tleman from Illinois, Mr. Krishnamoorthi, is now recognized for
five minutes.
Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. Thank you, Chairwoman Maloney.
I want to ask a few questions of Governor Pritzker. Governor
Pritzker, before you became Governor, the state faced a $17 billion
backlog of unpaid bills. Correct?
Mr. PRITZKER. That’s correct.
Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. You have eliminated this backlog of bills,
right?
Mr. PRITZKER. That’s correct. Actually, even before the ARPA
dollars or support from the Federal Government.
Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. And before you became Governor, the
state did not have a surplus, right?
Mr. PRITZKER. That’s correct.
Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. And now you almost have a $2 billion sur-
plus, with surpluses projected for years to come, right?
Mr. PRITZKER. Yes, sir.
Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. And before you became Governor, the
credit rating agencies downgraded Illinois’ credit multiple times,
right?
Mr. PRITZKER. That’s correct.
Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. And now you have seen Illinois’ credit up-
graded at least twice, right?
Mr. PRITZKER. Exactly.
Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. Have you seen a single Governor, Repub-
lican or Democrat, return the ARPA money that their states re-
ceived?
Mr. PRITZKER. I have not.
Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. Are you aware of a single representative
or Senator of either party demanding that their state or local gov-
ernments return any of the ARPA money that they have received?
Mr. PRITZKER. No.
Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. Let me turn your attention to Connect Illi-
nois for a second. This is a fascinating program that expands
broadband free of charge to all K through 12 students in Illinois
public schools, right?
Mr. PRITZKER. Correct.
Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. Why is that important?
24

Mr. PRITZKER. Well, as we all saw during the pandemic, if you’re
not connected, it was nearly impossible to get your homework as-
signments or to turn in your homework assignments or to have on-
line classes or to connect with your teacher or a tutor. We—you
know, we needed to expand and speed up.
There were Internet connections, and our schools are connected,
but many of them are slow connections. And more importantly, out-
side of school, many people don’t have a high-speed connection to
their homes. And so the Connect Illinois dollars, both at the state
level and then the dollars that we’ve received from the Federal
Government, really have helped us to accelerate the program that
we had in place to make high-speed Internet ubiquitous.
Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. And indeed, I think 40 percent of rural
areas do not have access to high-speed Internet, and so this was
a—and many urban connections lack high-speed broadband speed.
So thank you for doing that.
Let me talk about Back to Business, this B2B program that you
started. Can you talk about a couple stories or at least one story
where this Back to Business program actually made a material dif-
ference for Illinois small businesses?
Mr. PRITZKER. Well, I think you’re aware that many restaurants
and bars, because there were limits to capacity that they had to ad-
here to in order to keep their patrons safe, suffered throughout the
pandemic. And there’s a terrific bakery that I visited, the Blackbird
Bakery in Staunton, Illinois, where a couple had started their busi-
ness there. It’s a very popular local place. And you know, they real-
ly—they raised their family there, too. Their kids are running
around while they’re baking in the back and serving up front.
And they suffered mightily in the early days of the pandemic.
They needed a little bit of help to stay on their feet, and they got
that. And they’re back. They’re doing very well, and the family is
doing well, too, I might add.
Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. Well, they are back to business. That is
exactly what the grant program envisioned.
Let me talk about re-imagining public safety. This is something
that obviously is incredibly important to so many Americans. I
guess, can you talk a little bit about how the ARPA funds allowed
you to reduce significant gaps in mental health treatment for youth
and young adults, who unfortunately are sometimes in the middle
or in the crossfire of firearm violence?
Mr. PRITZKER. Yes. So let me be clear. We have seen an increase
in gun violence across the state in various urban environments,
and that’s something that’s happened all across the Nation, I might
add. But it doesn’t make it any easier to know that.
We have to address those problems directly. And putting dollars
in this year and in the coming two years, as we have pledged to
do, helps us to support violence interruption programs, youth job
programs, to make sure that we’re addressing the fundamentals of
the causes of crime, as well as our support for police training, for
example, and our state troopers.
Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. Thank you so much. I yield back.
Chairwoman MALONEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. The
gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Grothman, is recognized for five
minutes.
25

Mr. GROTHMAN. Yes, Mr. Joffe, I would like your comments on
a few things as we look at the economic situation right now.
I am not a big fan of Mr. Powell at all, at all, at all. I wasn’t
a fan of him under the last administration either. I am looking
right now at a graph of the M2 money supply, and it shows that
in the 1970’s, which we think of as kind of the heyday of inflation,
there were times at which the year-to-year change just got a little
bit over six percent, almost seven percent. More recently, the
change in M2, month over, you know, a year ago, is up to almost
45 percent.
When I tour my local manufacturers, and I have more manufac-
turing jobs in my district than any other congressional district in
the country, when I hear of the particularly dramatic increase in
the cost of metals, increase in the cost of getting things from
abroad, almost uniformly my owners of manufacturing or the peo-
ple who run those firms feel that things are only going to get
worse.
I would like you to comment on the year-to-year change in M2
getting over 40 percent and the role increased Government spend-
ing has in that and whether you think we can continue with these
massive increases.
Mr. JOFFE. Thank you, Congressman.
I certainly share your concerns. And when the Government runs
large deficits, it has to issue more bonds. And when bonds are pay-
ing negative real yields, it’s hard to find private investors who are
willing to buy them. And so the Fed necessarily has to step up and
buy them by printing new money. And so that is exploding the
money supply right now, and I think the long-term effects are very
concerning.
You know, when we had the episode of inflation back when a lot
of us were little kids, it started in the late 1960’s, and it wasn’t
taken care of really until the early 1980’s, and there was a lot of
misery in between. And I’m just afraid that the current Federal Re-
serve has really, you know, let the—let the bulls out of the barn,
and it’s going to be very, very hard to bring them back in, you
know, with so much money supply growth.
Mr. GROTHMAN. Do you agree with my manufacturers that infla-
tion is actually only going to get worse?
Mr. JOFFE. You know, it’s really hard to project month-to-month.
I think over the next couple of months because of the gasoline
prices, we’ll definitely see a worsening. It may calm down after
that, but I think over the long term, unless the Fed really tightens
up, we are destined for much higher rates of inflation.
Mr. GROTHMAN. And this is, to a certain extent, caused by exces-
sive Government spending. Correct?
Mr. JOFFE. Right. The Fed has to monetize all the debt that’s
being created because private investors won’t buy it.
Mr. GROTHMAN. Right. Right now, again, when I tour my manu-
facturers—and to me, manufacturing is the backbone of any econ-
omy—they are experiencing an across-the-board shortage of work-
ers for any job whatsoever. Actually, the same thing is true of re-
tail. Same thing is true of tourism. Same thing is true of ag.
Do you think now is the time to increase Government spending
or hire more Government workers? Or now, when we have I think
26

record number of job openings, is maybe the time to rein in Gov-
ernment spending out of necessity? As a matter of fact, given all
the jobs out there, I can’t think of a time in my lifetime in which
it is more demanding of decreasing Government spending and free-
ing up some of those jobs for the private sector.
How do you feel about that?
Mr. JOFFE. I agree. I think that the labor shortages in the pri-
vate sector are very concerning, and there’s really no need for Gov-
ernment to be competing for able-bodied, competent people. They
can work in the private sector right now.
Mr. GROTHMAN. Do you think now is a good time to maybe cut
back on Government with the economy booming so much?
Mr. JOFFE. Absolutely.
Mr. GROTHMAN. OK. One other thing. There has been kind of an
increase in a variety of benefits they are trying to do in this Build
Back Better bill. They have increased SNAP benefits, President
Biden on his own.
We have near record numbers of men sitting on the sideline not
working now, from ages 25 to 55. Do you think any of that can be
attributed to an excessively generous safety net?
Mr. JOFFE. Yes. I think when the stimulus checks went out and
the child tax credit was available, and there were other sources of
free money, I think people were—had less of an incentive to work.
And I think we’re continuing to pay the penalty for that.
Mr. GROTHMAN. Thank you, Mrs. Chairman.
Chairwoman MALONEY. Thank you. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize the gentleman from Virginia. Mr. Connolly, you are
now recognized.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
And it is kind of interesting to hear my friend refer to the econ-
omy as ‘‘booming.’’ I thought I had heard just earlier what a mess
the economy was under the current administration. So good to hear
it is booming.
State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds were designed to prevent
a crisis from turning into a depression. As we learned from the
Great Recession 10 years ago, bolstering state and local budgets in
times of great economic hardship can be a key to recovery.
Today, we have heard the sentiment across the aisle that dire
warnings about state and local budget shortfalls really were over-
stated, and actions weren’t warranted at all. To that, I would direct
you to the chart on the screen, Slide 8. State government job losses
peaked in October 2020 at 340,000, and we are still below pre-pan-
demic levels by 210,000 in mid–2021.
Governor Pritzker, welcome. How have these losses had an effect,
from your point of view, on the delivery of government services,
particularly during Coronavirus peaks and surges?
Mr. PRITZKER. Well, I think the first way in which it’s affected
things is just the number of people that we’ve needed to deliver
healthcare services across the state. I’m talking now about deliv-
ering vaccines into people’s arms, making sure that we’re pro-
viding, you know, access to medical care that people need. These
are all things—we have a Department of Public Health that is
understaffed still, even though we’ve had a complete focus on staff-
ing it to the necessary level.
27

Don’t forget that in our Department of Health and Family Serv-
ices and in our Department of Human Services, they have been—
had to double or triple the number of people that they’re helping
in a variety of areas, mental health being one of them, substance
use treatment, et cetera. And so the idea that we could provide
more and more and more services with fewer people in state gov-
ernment is just—it’s an impossibility. These things don’t go to-
gether.
And so the assistance that we got from the Federal Government
in a variety of ways to help us staff up was vital. And I’ll just say
as one, I know we’re focused on ARPA, but being able to hire
healthcare personnel for our hospitals to augment what hospitals
needed during the omicron surge, which took us to our highest
level of hospitalizations throughout this pandemic, was vital. And
I want to express my gratitude to you for that as well as for the
many other ways in which you alleviated the burden on state gov-
ernment and allowed us to go hire people that we needed.
Mr. CONNOLLY. So hardly unwarranted assistance?
Mr. PRITZKER. We needed it.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you.
Judge Moore and Mayor Woodards, local governments suffered
even worse than state governments, losing 1.2 million jobs in May
2020, at the height of the pandemic. By mid–2021, a year later, we
were still short at the local level 500,000 jobs compared to pre-pan-
demic levels.
Same question. How has that affected your ability to deliver
services at the county and city levels?
Judge MOORE. Well, an example that we are facing in Kentucky
currently is an extreme shortage of State Highway Department
workers.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Did you say Kentucky, Judge Moore?
Judge MOORE. Yes, in Kentucky.
Mr. CONNOLLY. In Kentucky?
Judge MOORE. In my county.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Yes.
Judge MOORE. The State Highway Department informed us that
they had a severe employment shortage and that they were asking
the county to supply manpower and—and equipment to be able to
clean the streets with snow and ice treatment just recently. So we
have contracted for one year to treat state highway roads with
county crews and funds for the next 12 months.
We are being compensated some by the state, but not 100 per-
cent. So then that responsibility falls to the county to then fill jobs
and add personnel to be able to pick up that additional require-
ment. And we decided to do it because our residents often don’t
know the difference between a county road and a state road. So we
wanted to get services done, and that’s one example.
Mr. CONNOLLY. And would you say that the Federal funding pro-
vided in the various COVID relief bills was helpful to you in that
endeavor?
Judge MOORE. I’m not sure where the state is finding the funds
to pay us for that service, but that would have to—someone would
have to dig deeper there.
Mr. CONNOLLY. My time is up, Madam Chairwoman.
28

I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a January sur-
vey by MissionSquare Research Institute showing that more than
half of state and local government employees are considering leav-
ing their jobs because of burnout and heavy workload because of
the pandemic.
Chairwoman MALONEY. Without objection.
Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank the chair.
Chairwoman MALONEY. Thank you so much. And the gentleman
from Ohio, Mr. Gibbs, is now recognized for five minutes. Mr.
Gibbs?
Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I think I want to reflect back a little bit. When this pandemic
started in early spring of 2020, we didn’t know what we were fac-
ing. We were facing a virus that society could carry and transmit
and not exhibit symptoms. So we locked down the economy. We
shut the economy down.
And in a bipartisan basis, we passed legislation to get liquidity
out there to businesses and households to prevent a depression and
just a total disaster, and I think that program has worked pretty
well. And then, a year later, the administration changed, and then
we started to come out with this new package of nearly $2 trillion
when there still was $1 trillion unspent from the previous packages
that we passed in 2020.
And so now, you know, we have had the supply chain crisis. We
have got a worker shortage crisis. And because those kind of go
hand-in-hand, we saw the economy turn around before we passed
this nearly $2 trillion. Things were getting better. One of the evi-
dence that things were getting better because nobody expected de-
mand to pick up the way it did. So we had supply chain shortages
because demand all of a sudden perked up, and I think we have
seen some of that in some of the testimony already.
And so what has happened, we have got supply chain, worker
shortages. We pay people not to work, pay people to stay home, and
then we put in another nearly $2 trillion in the economy this time
a year ago and to fuel that demand. So the textbook definition of
inflation is too many dollars chasing too few goods and services,
and that is exactly I think what happened.
And then, when you couple that on with this administration’s en-
ergy policy, we just added to the inflationary crisis and all the way
across the board, and putting more money into it, especially with-
out guardrails, creates a huge problem. And I will give you a couple
of examples, what we saw happen at the local level, at state level
here in—let us see.
The unemployment checks for illegal aliens. In New York State,
lawmakers used nearly $2 billion of this rescue money to pay ille-
gal aliens. They call it the Excluded Workers Fund.
We also saw another example in Georgia. A surprise holiday
stimulus payment of $6,300 went to medical students. And accord-
ing to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, they also stated colleges
and local governments have occasionally found themselves scram-
bling to find ways to spend these funds.
I have seen that back in my state. Privately, I have county com-
missioners telling me, hey, we have got a lot of money we don’t
know what to do with. Some of them said don’t send us anymore.
29

You know, so I think with what we have done here is we have
funded a lot of wish lists and caused a lot of other problems.
I would like to say I also see another example. Washington, DC,
Mayor Bowser used $70 million of this allocated state and local
fund to transition homes to green energy. Was that really help with
the pandemic when we have kids who couldn’t go to school, or was
this an agenda?
We also had different areas of the county using these funds for
things like why would that affect anything to help these people?
So, Mr. Joffe, would you agree that a lot of this funding has really
been wasted, is really just answering a wish list that a lot of states
and localities had before the pandemic, and now we just fully fund-
ed it? Especially when we have seen states like California and Illi-
nois that had massive deficits before the pandemic now have large
surpluses?
Mr. JOFFE. Yes, it seems that there were a lot of categories of
possible spending—I think about 70 different categories—and
many of them have little or nothing to do with pandemic relief or
revenue loss replacement. So, yes, there are preexisting wish lists
that are being fulfilled.
In California, for example, a lot of the money went to homeless
services, and yes, we’ve been spending billions of dollars here in
California on homeless services, and we’re not taking care of the
homeless problem. So it’s not clear to me how this is really bene-
ficial.
Mr. GIBBS. Would you agree, too, that this massive inflation that
we haven’t seen in 40 years—I lived through the inflation of the
President Carter years and how that affects, adds to costs and peo-
ple’s take-home wages are going down. Their buying power is going
down. And so we should really be addressing this inflationary cost
and how we can address that.
Of course, one reason I think we can address that is by opening
the spigots here and producing energy again, and it solves a lot of
the problems that we are seeing around the world. But that infla-
tion, would you agree, causes massive hardships to families, more
so than just giving a wishful list to our local governments, Mr.
Joffe?
Mr. JOFFE. Yes, definitely. It makes—it makes it harder for peo-
ple to make ends meet.
Mr. GIBBS. I thank you. I yield back. I am out of time.
Chairwoman MALONEY. The gentleman yields back. The gen-
tleman from Illinois, Mr. Davis, is recognized.
Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
And I want to thank all of our witnesses for being here.
And given the fact that I am a proud resident of the state of Illi-
nois, I want to acknowledge and thank you, Governor Pritzker, for
the tremendous leadership you have provided to our state during
the last three-plus years. And I was, indeed, pleased and proud to
stand beside you on Sunday and with Mayor Lightfoot at the very
impactful Support Ukraine rally held in my district in a community
we call Ukrainian—fondly Ukrainian Village.
In President Biden’s first year in office, the country gained 6.6
million jobs, by far the strongest job growth record of any Presi-
dent’s first year in office. If we look at the slide that is on the
30

board, we will see that this chart shows that job growth has re-
mained strong since passage of the American Rescue Plan, despite
the unpredictability of new Coronavirus strains.
But as people’s everyday lives have changed during the pan-
demic, the work force has also been forced to change to account for
new spending patterns. To ensure that businesses have the work
force they need and workers are prepared for today’s opportunities,
states and local governments are using recovery funds to provide
training programs for their residents.
Governor Pritzker, because Illinois is one of the states leading
the way on this, let me ask you how has Illinois supported work
force development with its recovery funds, and why have these in-
vestments been a priority?
Mr. PRITZKER. Well, thank you, and I want to thank you for your
leadership, Congressman Davis, and your partnership in helping us
address these challenges.
Workforce development enormously helpful throughout Illinois
during this pandemic as we were trying to, you know, get people
back into jobs that were available. Some of those jobs came back
faster than others, and some of them required skills development,
‘‘upskilling’’ as I would like to say, at our terrific community college
system. And so we made investments in programs at those commu-
nity colleges to allow people to gain new skills to get the kind of
job that they were hoping to get.
We—I heard other congresspeople mentioning the challenges of
there are too many ‘‘help wanted’’ signs out there. Well, that’s
right. But there are also people who are unemployed who don’t
have the skills for those jobs that are available.
So, you know, we have put in place grants for our community col-
leges to address those work force needs. For example, trucking.
Helping people get their commercial driver’s licenses. In areas like
in electric vehicle development, which are new jobs, good-paying
jobs that are available in Illinois, and we need people to get the
proper skills to take those jobs.
So we’ve taken some of those ARPA dollars, as well as our Gen-
eral Revenue Fund dollars, and put them together in order to cre-
ate new programs for people to access. And it’s really all across the
state.
Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much.
Dr. Leachman, are other states making similar investments?
Mr. LEACHMAN. Yes, Representative Davis, they are. The use of
ARPA dollars to invest in people who have lost their jobs, to help
them get back on their feet, to make sure that they have the funds
that they need to meet their basic household expenses, those are
key uses that we’re seeing so far for states and localities.
Mr. DAVIS. Thank you.
And let me ask you, Mayor Woodards, how is Tacoma using its
recovery funds to support this activity?
Mayor Woodards. Thank you for the question.
We’re doing it in a couple of ways. One, I want to be clear that
we are making investments in work force training and skills devel-
opment. We have set up two programs in Tacoma that have been
helpful for us. One is a transitional employment pathway, which is
a low-barrier transitional employment approach to move displaced
31

individuals into part-time work that is structured and monitored
and allows residents to focus on barrier reduction while trans-
forming—while transitioning back into the work force.
The other thing I’ll just say real quickly is we’re also investing
in medical workers, both mental health and nurses, by providing
a free apprenticeship training program for residents to get into for
seven weeks and then take that training that they’ve gotten and
branch out into other potential opportunities in healthcare.
Mr. DAVIS. Thank you all, and I yield back, Madam Chairman.
Chairwoman MALONEY. Thank you. And the gentleman from
Pennsylvania, Mr. Keller, you are now recognized.
Mr. KELLER. Thank you, Chairwoman Maloney, Ranking Member
Comer, and our witnesses, for being here today.
This time last year during this committee, Republicans warned
Democrats of potential pitfalls with the American Rescue Plan’s
State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, or SLFRF. Republicans
were not alone. Even President Obama’s chief economic adviser,
Larry Summers, cautioned against reckless spending that the then-
proposed funding would be three times as large as the projected
shortfall.
Unfortunately, Democrats ignored all words of caution and
pushed $350 billion through committee after giving Republicans
only 48 hours to review the text. Americans are now living with the
direct ramifications of the Democrats’ spending spree, with infla-
tion topping 7.5 percent.
Mr. Joffe, at the time the SLFRF was passed, had all $4 trillion
from the previous COVID funding been spent?
Mr. JOFFE. No.
Mr. KELLER. How much—do you know how much was still left
at that point in time or——
Mr. JOFFE. I think something on the order of $1 trillion, but I’m
not——
Mr. KELLER. OK. Does the additional $1.9 trillion Democrats in-
jected into the American economy correlate with the 40-year high
inflation?
Mr. JOFFE. Definitely. I think one thing to point out is some
analogies have been made to ARRA before, but that was during the
recession. The 2009 stimulus was passed during the recession.
ARPA was passed 11 months after we got out of the recession.
So it was fueling a rocket that had already taken off.
Mr. KELLER. So that caused prices to increase because you had
people with money to spend, and we weren’t producing goods? I
mean, I guess I would say that because——
Mr. JOFFE. Exactly. We were pumping more money into the econ-
omy, and it was—it wasn’t really necessary to stimulate employ-
ment. In the chart that we saw just a little earlier, you could see
that employment was rising steadily after April 2020. So we had
many months of employment growth, and then this came, and it
was something that really was more inflationary than stimulus.
Mr. KELLER. Well, and we would have seen that—I am sure
would have seen that growth regardless of who was in the White
House because we had an economy where nothing was being pro-
duced or almost nothing was being produced prior. So to take credit
32

for jobs that were coming back simply because people were going
back to work I think is, I guess, the ultimate in how politics work.
You don’t need to answer that one. Just another thing. Ameri-
cans are paying more for everything, including gas, energy to heat
your homes, clothing. In retrospect, did the American Rescue Plan
do what the Democrats claimed it would?
Mr. JOFFE. Well, it certainly didn’t make that much difference to
economic growth, at least the state and local funds, in mid–2021.
Because as I mentioned during my testimony, only $10 billion of
the $350 billion was spent by July 31. So that money is really long-
term money. They have until 2024 to obligate the money and 2026
to spend it.
So it’s just sort of this ongoing padding of state and local govern-
ment budgets that in some cases may be needed, but in most cases
aren’t.
Mr. KELLER. So there is up to another four years to spend money
that was voted on last year?
Mr. JOFFE. That’s correct.
Mr. KELLER. I wonder why politicians would give up to four
years, particularly even-numbered years, to spend money in econo-
mies to prop things up? I mean, particularly during the middle of
a recovery.
I mean, there are two things that happen. There is an election
in 2022, there is one in 2024, and there is one in 2026. Just gives
me pause to think why people would support doing that when we
are supposed to be having a pandemic recovery, which we are, by
all accounts—not wearing masks now—coming out of it. So why
would we continue to be spending money that far into the future
unless there were some other reason to do it? And I can’t come up
with that reason right now.
So, with that, I yield back. Thank you.
Chairwoman MALONEY. The gentleman yields back.
Unfortunately, I have an announcement. Governor Pritzker has
a hard stop at 12 p.m. because he has pressing business in the Illi-
nois state government. Members may still submit questions for the
record to Governor Pritzker. We thank the Governor for his time,
and you are excused.
And we now recognize the gentlelady from Ohio. Ms. Brown, you
are now recognized.
Ms. BROWN. Well, thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much,
Madam Chairwoman, for holding this hearing.
And thank you to all the witnesses for joining us today.
America’s small businesses have faced considerable hardship
during the pandemic, faced with decreased demand and unpredict-
able operating challenges. They were forced to cut hours, lay off
workers, decrease production, or shut down completely.
In late 2020, a Federal Reserve survey showed that about 25 per-
cent of surviving small businesses feared they would not fully re-
cover without additional assistance, and 57 percent of small busi-
nesses reported fair or poor financial conditions.
According to the National League of Cities, almost half the Na-
tion’s work force is employed by small businesses, and the success
of small businesses hinge on significant engagement by local gov-
ernment. Mayor Woodards, how are America’s cities using recovery
33

fund dollars to support small businesses, and can you list some ex-
amples of the great work being done?
Mayor Woodards. Right. Thank you, Representative Brown.
So the Federal dollars have supported really the continued revi-
talization of our small businesses. Here in Tacoma, we were able
to support our most vulnerable local businesses and instead of with
grants we were—I mean instead of with loans we were able to pro-
vide them grants. These grants went to small businesses owned by
residents not exceeding 80 percent of the area median income. So
these, and with 15 or fewer full-time employees. And so this means
that we were providing support to our smallest of businesses who
struggled the most.
In San Jose, California, I’ll give you another example, all of the
large metro cities included NLC—even those that NLC is tracking,
San Jose has the most projects related to small business support.
They are investing approximately $9.1 million out of their $83.6
million to support local business.
Those are just two examples of what’s happening across our
country.
Ms. BROWN. Thank you very much.
I also know my constituents are anxious to see recovery funds
put to work as well. Cleveland, a city I represent, has said it plans
to use these funds to increase private sector financing, access to
capital, and access to contracting markets for minority-owned small
businesses and startups. The recovery funds are also supporting
this work at the county level.
Judge Moore, how are counties choosing to support small busi-
nesses with their recovery fund allocations?
Judge MOORE. So some examples we have is Howard County,
Maryland. Howard County has allocated approximately $15 million
to address COVID–19 negative economic impacts and $10 million
to fund services for disproportionately impacted communities.
Within those funding categories, the county will focus on children
and families as a key priority to fully address the breadth of the
economic challenges residents continue to face.
Montgomery County, Maryland, supporting a variety of equity
programs, including expanding the Working Families Income Sup-
plement to financially assist households with children, allocating
$2.9 million to implement holistic and culturally competent wrap-
around services for Latino communities in the county, $1.7 million
for African-American health programs, $1.15 million for an Asian
American health initiative, and $3.6 million for health and human
service hubs to promote lasting equity in the county’s immediate
pandemic response.
Ms. BROWN. Thank you very much, Judge.
When Cuyahoga County invested CARES Act funding in its
Small Business Stabilization Fund, it used an equity lens to ensure
that 50 percent of this funding support went to minority-owned
businesses. So, Dr. Leachman, why is equity such an important
consideration as states and localities consider small business sup-
port through recovery investment funds?
Mr. LEACHMAN. Thank you.
34

The pandemic had very unequal impacts by race and gender and
community, and so our response needs to address those disparities.
That is how we build a strong recovery.
Ms. BROWN. Right. Thank you. Thank you for that.
So, clearly, I think we can all agree small businesses are the
backbone of America’s economy, and I just look forward to seeing
how recovery funds can continue to support small businesses and
jobs in our community.
And with that, thank you again, and I yield back.
Chairwoman MALONEY. The gentlelady yields back. The gen-
tleman from Texas, Mr. Cloud, is now recognized.
Mr. Cloud?
Mr. CLOUD. Thank you, Chairwoman, and thanks for being here
today for this hearing. As has been mentioned, we are seeing infla-
tion at 40-year highs. Disproportionately, this affects lower middle
class families and, you know, what is tragic about this, of course,
is that it was predictable.
It has been said many people predicted this, including, of course,
former Obama chief economic adviser Larry Summers, who pointed
out that we are spending three times as large as the projected
shortfall.
And so, Mr. Joffe, could you speak to how inflation impacts fami-
lies and the disproportionate effect of it upon our constituencies?
Mr. JOFFE. Right. You know, if you don’t have a lot of money in-
vested in the stock market and you are living paycheck to pay-
check, it can be very worrying when gasoline prices, food prices,
and other key staples that you need for your family keep going up,
especially in an unpredictable way.
So it is definitely something that really hurts our working class
and middle class families.
Mr. CLOUD. Yes. Some estimates have said it is costing American
families over $250 a month and that, of course, during this time
where we are trying to rebuild our economy is very, very chal-
lenging.
It has been said that, you know, a lot of the spending is—we are
not really fiscally sound right now and it has been said that if the
Federal Reserve is projected—raises interest rates that our interest
spending will surpass our military spending.
Could you speak, generally speaking, to the importance of sound
fiscal policy even as it relates to our national security and
wellbeing as a nation?
Mr. JOFFE. Sure.
Well, we have about $23 trillion in federally—in publicly held
debt right now. So if the interest rate on that went up to five per-
cent, on average, you know, you would be looking at $1.2 trillion
of annual spend, which does exceed the defense budget by quite a
margin.
So, yes, it does have national security implications.
Mr. CLOUD. But even in the sense of how great nations rise and
fall, how important is sound fiscal policy to us continuing to be a
strong economy and a premier influence in the world?
Mr. JOFFE. Well, I am glad you asked that. I am a student of
Roman history, and if you look at what happened during the 3d
century A.D. you can see how the emperors gradually reduced the
35

precious metal content in coins to the point where they became al-
most unrecognizable from what they had been seven—in years ear-
lier, and the empire collapsed, largely, as a result of that.
Mr. CLOUD. Now, in Washington, DC, politicians often get away
with kind of measuring our personal compassion by how much of
other people’s money we give away. I have always thought, you
know, true compassion would be having the due diligence to make
sure that the investments we are making are actually having the
impact that they desire.
You have had some—you put forth some effort in bringing ac-
countability to the spending, submitting FOIA requests to the
Treasury Department and just trying to get a handle on what is
going on.
Can you speak to that experience and what you have been able
to find?
Mr. JOFFE. Well, as I said in my testimony, one thing that is a
huge frustration with the disclosure that we are seeing is that it
is not organized, structured, machine readable data like Congress
envisioned with the GREAT Act of 2019.
So you have just a lot of anecdotal information. You have, you
know, an essay test here and it depends on how the professor reads
the essays.
If you are sympathetic to more government programs and more
government spending, you are going to find the anecdotes in this
mound of documentation that are going to support your narrative.
But that is not really a rigorous way of looking at the effect of
this program.
Mr. CLOUD. So you would say that the data coming forth is not
very transparent, not usable, really, for the American people to
make a good analysis or bring accountability?
Mr. JOFFE. Definitely not as convenient and easy to use and as
transparent as it should be.
Mr. CLOUD. What recommendations would you have us, as an
Oversight Committee, going forward, as we continue to look at the
spending here and its effects on the American family?
Mr. JOFFE. I think we could have more granular classifications
of how the money is being spent. I think that we should have ma-
chine readable data standards for disclosing that information and
the Treasury should, on a real time basis, update the totals and the
details as they come in. That would provide much more ability for
your committee and others to monitor the spending.
Mr. CLOUD. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Chairwoman MALONEY. Thank you. Thank you. The gentleman
yields back.
The gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, is now rec-
ognized.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you, Madam Chair. As a moth-
er of three, I have seen firsthand how hard the past two years have
been on young people. Children’s lives were disrupted at a critical
time in their development and many still struggle with depression,
anxiety, and stress.
Thankfully, many states, including Florida, devoted state and
local recovery funds from the American Rescue Plan to various edu-
cation initiatives, and those investments helped K through 12 stu-
36

dents recover lost ground in the pandemic, steered financial aid
help to help students attend college, and delivered funds for higher
education campuses.
In my district, Florida’s 23d, recovery funds hired school nurses,
fed the larger school community, and implemented the New Worlds
Reading Initiative, a free book delivery program designed to help
grade school children achieve their potential through the power of
reading.
Dr. Leachman, we already know that the COVID–19 academic
slide is taking a mounting toll on many students across the coun-
try. How are other states and local governments using recovery
funds to support children who need to make up lost educational
time due to the pandemic?
Mr. LEACHMAN. Thank you.
Yes, this is another important reason why the fiscal recovery
funds are needed now and over the next—over the next three or
four years because that learning loss that so many of our children
have sustained as a result of the pandemic is both a crucial, impor-
tant, immediate need that we have to help them get back on track
and it is going to take time.
It is not just one summer school or some tutoring that is going
to recover from what in some cases is a year or more loss of learn-
ing time and, of course, that matters not only for those kids and
their families but for our country’s future. These kids will be to-
morrow’s work force.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. In drafting the American Rescue
Plan, Congress recognized the adverse effects in learning loss the
pandemic might manifest—might manifest over months or years
and, subsequently, gave governments until the end of 2026 to
spend recovery funds.
Mayor Woodards, why is it extended time horizon so important
when considering investments to support children?
Ms. WOODARDS. Thank you for the question.
And so there are a couple things. One, we still don’t know and
won’t know for quite some time the effects of COVID–19 and this
pandemic on our young people.
So a rush to spend that money quickly would be devastating to
all of our communities. We need the time to make sure that as we
recover from COVID that we can make those investments where
they are needed.
It also gives us the time to do a couple of other things—one, to
be innovative, to be creative in thinking about how we can solve
some of the issues that will face our young people in our commu-
nities across America.
And the only other thing that I will add on top of that is that
it also gives us the ability and the time to engage with our commu-
nity, which was—which is so incredibly important.
As policymakers, we don’t know everything, but being able to
make sure that there is community engagement and relying on en-
gaging with our residents who have young people or are actually
engaging with our young people as to what their needs are, being
able to take that time and get it right is what is going to be so in-
credibly important for most of our communities.
37

So having that additional time to address all of those issues is
really important to cities, towns, and villages across America.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. The very fact that there
will be education concerns and setbacks after the peak of the pan-
demic is over makes clear that we must ensure states utilize every
tool at their disposal to support students.
While Florida utilized some of the recovery funds for student suc-
cess, we were the last state to apply for the bulk of the critical edu-
cation dollars in the American Rescue Plan, the Elementary and
Secondary Education Emergency Relief ESSER funds, and, dis-
tressingly, Governor DeSantis is still refusing to distribute them.
These dollars would address learning loss, provide access to crit-
ical mental health resources, and offer more staff to support stu-
dents’ needs. Florida knows that our students in schools des-
perately need this funding, which is exactly why they listed these
items in their plan to the Department of Education months ago.
Dr. Leachman, what long-term impact of delays like these have
on schools, communities, and, most importantly, students?
Mr. LEACHMAN. Well, very serious ones. Already the pandemic
has caused very concerning problems in our schools for our chil-
dren’s learning. So many kids have had difficulty during the pan-
demic receiving schooling and staying on track, and that is vital for
us to address as soon as possible.
The longer we delay the worse it is going to be and the longer
it is going to take for those kids to get back to a place where they
need to be where they can—where they can succeed in school
and——
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you.
Mr. LEACHMAN [continuing]. Be well in the future. Thank you.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you.
Madam Chair, Governor DeSantis must make these badly needed
dollars available to Florida school districts immediately or our chil-
dren, teachers, and local taxpayers will suffer and bear the long-
term burden, and that will rest squarely on his shoulders.
Thank you. I yield back.
Chairwoman MALONEY. The gentlelady yields back.
The gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Biggs, is now recognized.
Mr. BIGGS. I thank the chair.
And I am disappointed that there has been some misinformation
coming from the Democrats in this hearing today as we start con-
sidering inflation, and the chair mentioned that there have been
wage increases.
Yes, there have been wage increases. Fortune Magazine, CBS
News, CNN, all point to wage increases. But they all also point to
the fact that the inflation that has been caused by this particular
bill that we are discussing about today has eroded and actually, ba-
sically, superseded any kind of a wage increase. The only areas
where you see that differential is in restaurants and bars and a
few other small sectors.
And why? Because of the baseline effect. It is the baseline effect
that changes this, not the fact that you have—you haven’t—you,
basically—let us just face it, you haven’t taken into account the
real impacts of inflation here.
38

And nobody here today has mentioned what inflation does to
fixed income families and households. It is devastating to fixed in-
come families and households, of which many are in my district.
So I am kind of surprised that we didn’t hear about that. You
know, the classical definition of inflation and, quite frankly, Lud-
wig Von Mises said it is the increase in the stock of money.
That is it. That is what inflation is. An increase in prices is
sometimes an effect of inflation. But when you are a fixed income
family, you really get hammered by inflation.
So let us get back to this bill for a second. And this is interesting
to me because at the start of this bill, you had—and a lot of people
talked about former Obama chief economic adviser Larry Summers,
who said they don’t need this. The states don’t need this. They are
going to be fine without this.
Jason Furman, also chairman of President Obama’s Council of
Economic Advisers, told the Washington Post the state fiscal relief
total in this bill that we are talking about today exceeds the
amount states immediately need.
CBO said that already the states have been coming back and
GDP had risen and was at a pre-pandemic level by 2021 by the
time this bill kicked in.
Others, Manhattan Institute, and the reality is this money came
out anyway. So let us just talk about this. California. California
had a surprising result. What was their result? A lot of people were
able to work from home and the state’s coffers were flush.
So after we gave them more money, they found themselves in-
stead of having a $27 billion budget surplus having a $75 billion
budget surplus. Other states, similarly. New Jersey, instead of hav-
ing a small surplus, went to $7 billion. My home state of Arizona,
instead of having a billion dollar surplus, expanded on that and re-
ceived, I think, it was $5 billion from this bill.
Texas went from having a very small deficit contextually to hav-
ing just under a billion dollar surplus.
So I guess my question for you, Mr. Joffe, is this. How many
states went from being at budget balance or from a small surplus
to having an even bigger surplus through the bailout to states in
this bill?
Mr. JOFFE. I would say that the vast majority of states got to a
point where they had more money than they needed or more money
than their 2019 baseline suggested that they should expect to have.
So I think it is the vast majority.
Mr. BIGGS. So and what was the total amount of impact with
those budget surpluses that were given to most states?
Mr. JOFFE. Well, again, in 2021 very little of this money was
spent. So it is really a long-term issue of over the next four or five
years how much of this extra money is going to be spent for things
that, you know, may or may not have anything to do with the pan-
demic.
Mr. BIGGS. And when you put that kind of money without a pro-
ductive or a consumption background to it, primarily without pro-
duction creating it and you are just flooding the market, if you
will—the money market with dollars—Federal dollars—what does
that do to the value of the dollar?
39

Mr. JOFFE. It is driving it down and we are seeing that day by
day last year and now this year.
Mr. BIGGS. Which is another way of saying you got inflation.
Mr. JOFFE. Yes.
Mr. BIGGS. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairwoman MALONEY. The gentleman’s time has expired.
The gentlelady from Michigan, Ms. Tlaib, is recognized.
Ms. TLAIB. Thank you so much, Chairwoman and thank you so
much for our panelists for being here.
Mr. RASKIN. I would like to submit for the record a written state-
ment by Mayor Vince Williams of Union City, Georgia, who serves
as the president of the National League of Cities.
Chairwoman MALONEY. Without objection.
Ms. TLAIB. We all know the American Rescue Plan’s local fiscal
recovery fund, Union City qualifies as, quote, ‘‘a nonentitlement
unit of government,’’ or I think some would refer to as NEU, which
is, generally, a city or a town or a village of less than 50,000 resi-
dents.
So, Mayor Woodards, since you work closely with Mayor Wil-
liams, can you tell us what the recovery funds have meant to the
Nation’s NEUs?
Ms. WOODARDS. Absolutely. Again, thank you for the question.
You talked about Union City already. But let me share with you
Cheney, Washington, a city right here in my own state, a city of
just more than 12,000 residents.
The City Council approved a $50,000 grant to help with rental
assistance as the current eviction moratorium was extended and is
set to expire at the end of October.
Many families fall behind on rent nationally due to job loss and
reduced hours, and the SLFRF funds allow the community to en-
sure that residents who struggle to pay their rent would not lose
their home.
In Henderson, North Carolina, the city has designated $1 million
of its money from the American Rescue Plan to not—to give to non-
profit organizations serving the Henderson area.
Two hundred and fifty thousand dollars will be awarded to non-
profits each year over the next four years through an application
process, and we know that a lot of our CBOs—community based or-
ganizations—and nonprofits are on the front line delivering the
many services that are most needed during this time.
Ms. TLAIB. Thank you so much. I know Mayor Woodards—I
mean, while I was proud to, obviously, help authorize the historic
relief effort, I was concerned to see, you know, especially my NEUs’
allocations would be first sent to the states, who would then dis-
tribute the funds to our smaller cities.
And so, Dr. Leachman, you know, why were the recovery funds
dispersed in this way?
Mr. LEACHMAN. Well, it is just an administrative challenge for
Treasury to deliver funds to thousands of towns. This is the way
that it works in the CDBG program, the Community Development
Block Grant Program, so they have that sort of structure to go to
states and then out to these smaller places.
You know, I would say that states have—I understand that they
have distributed 95 plus percent of the funds to NEUs with some—
40

with the exceptions just being because for a variety of reasons that
a little town isn’t able to respond, they may have been annexed—
the town officials may be understaffed or facing other challenges.
Ms. TLAIB. Sure. You know, and I know that—you know, this
makes sense. But I also think there should have been a limit to
how many extensions states could request to provide small cities
with their rightful allocations.
For example, you know, Treasury documents show that the state
of Michigan requested at least eight extensions, which really im-
pacted, again, my local communities that really were the ones who
lacked the most capacity to crush this virus.
And I know the American Rescue Plan was a historic endeavor
to provide relief to our local governments. Unfortunately, when the
critical allocations were delayed, it is our small town residents who
suffer the most. You know, most of my constituents in Romulus
City, Ecorse, Garden City, Wayne, Inkster, they really deserved us
to move with that urgency.
So I also wanted to touch, you know, based on the flexibility of
the funds. You know, the minority witness has previously, you
know, claimed that the recovery funds have, quote, ‘‘so many
strings attached’’ as Congress limit how state and local govern-
ments would—you know, could allocate aid in various ways.
But, Dr. Leachman, would you call the ways the funds can be
spent, quote, ‘‘limited?’’
Mr. LEACHMAN. No, I wouldn’t characterize the funding as being
particularly limited or having a lot of strings. It is really quite
flexible and Treasury’s guidance has made it even more so.
You know, anything that counts under the revenue loss provision
can be used for government services. You can use the funds to ad-
dress the pandemic and its negative economic effects defined in a
way that gives governments room to really evaluate the cir-
cumstances in their local environment and do what is best.
And the final rule that Treasury has set up the rule so that
when funds are targeted to lower income communities or commu-
nities that have been particularly hit hard that recipients have a
wide range of options of use in those areas.
Ms. TLAIB. Thank you.
You know, Mayor Woodards, have you found that there aren’t
enough eligible uses that weren’t funding in Tacoma or has your
experience been that there isn’t enough funding to meet all your
city’s eligible demands?
Ms. WOODARDS. Definitely not. As I talk to mayors across the
country and I have heard the conversation today about their sur-
pluses, I don’t know anybody talking about they have extra money.
We are still struggling to provide all of the services that are needed
coming out of this pandemic.
Ms. TLAIB. Absolutely. Yes, it takes time. So thank you again,
Chairwoman, for this hearing, and I yield.
Chairwoman MALONEY. The gentlelady yields back.
The gentleman from Kansas, Mr. LaTurner, is now recognized.
Mr. LATURNER. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
My colleagues have called this committee hearing to attempt to
draw a causal relationship between the American Rescue Plan and
any economic growth that occurred in 2021 following the early days
41

of the Coronavirus pandemic. The truth is that the American Res-
cue Plan Act and its flawed disbursement formula turned into a
$350 billion slush fund, and rural communities in my home state
of Kansas received fewer Federal aid dollars per capita, while
Democrats, mayors, and Governors who chose to implement crip-
pling lockdowns were rewarded with large slush funds.
Adding insult to injury, Kansas is now among the states that are
experiencing the greatest fallout from the bill with inflation rates
higher than the national average.
Over the course of 2021, prices in Kansas rose by about 7.6 per-
cent, outpacing the national average inflation rate of 6.8 percent.
Countless economic experts on both sides of the aisle warned
that this reckless spending would have a significant inflationary
impact. But the Democrat majority failed to heed those warnings
and now hardworking Americans are paying for that mistake.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle often talk about help-
ing the working class. But that is exactly who feels the pain of in-
flation. One year ago, a Kansan could buy a gallon of gas at just
over $2.50. Today, that price has risen to $3.38 per gallon with no
end in sight to the increase, and it doesn’t stop there.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the cost of eggs is
now 11 percent higher and milk is 9.2 percent higher. My state is
facing the highest inflation we have seen since the 1980’s and my
working class constituents are the ones who are hurt the most.
As a former state treasurer, I understand the value in helping
state and local governments implement changes that the Federal
Government has mandated, and at the time that ARPA was
passed, I implored the Biden administration to responsibly allocate
the $1 trillion in COVID relief already provided for by Congress.
Unfortunately, Democrats authorized trillions of dollars of waste-
ful deficit spending that, ultimately, had little to do with pandemic
recovery and which disproportionately impose the consequences of
the resulting inflation on my constituents.
Mr. Joffe, the Democrat-stated purpose of this hearing is to ex-
plore how the American Rescue Plan contributed to low unemploy-
ment and record high GDP. Yet, the Congressional Budget Office
released a report prior to ARPA’s passage that GDP would return
to pre-pandemic levels without any new congressional stimulus
package.
In your view, to what extent is there a causal relationship be-
tween ARPA passage in March 2021 and the growth in national
GDP?
Mr. JOFFE. I think it is fairly limited, as you stated. CBO and
many other experts already noted that the economy was bouncing
back very smartly from the recession. So this added stimulus at the
wrong time in the business cycle. It was really very sub-optimally
spent.
Mr. LATURNER. I am going to stick with you, Mr. Joffe. There is
a lot of concern on the Republican side that $350 billion of ARPA
was used mainly as a rainy day fund for a lot of institutions.
Here in D.C., for example, Mayor Bowser used $70 million dol-
lars to transition homes to green energy. Now, we can debate the
merits of that project, but it hardly falls into the category of pan-
demic-related expenses.
42

I am concerned about the unsustainable debt burden that Con-
gress is placing on the backs of our children and grandchildren
with these sweeping spending bills, which is why I co-sponsored a
balanced budget amendment earlier in my service as a representa-
tive.
Can you discuss the broader impact of ballooning our national
debt, which just exceeded $30 trillion, and the threat that publicly
held Federal debt poses to our economic future?
Mr. JOFFE. Yes, definitely. Because this publicly held debt has
become so large, now over 100 percent of GDP and, of course, the
total government debt is well over 100 percent of GDP, this really
is a systematic threat to budget stability.
If interest rates return to normal levels, if, for example, we get
to the point where interest rates match the inflation rate, that is
going to blow a giant hole in the Federal budget and it will be at
a time when it will be very difficult for us to borrow more money
because financial markets will be losing faith in America’s ability
to and willingness to repay its debt.
Mr. LATURNER. One more quick question. In your testimony, you
discussed the limited effects of the pandemic on state tax revenues
and compared those findings to Census Bureau data. Can you ex-
plain how you came to your conclusion and elaborate on your find-
ings as quickly as you can?
Mr. JOFFE. The census does a quarterly survey of state and local
revenues and I was basing it on that.
Mr. LATURNER. Appreciate it. Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield
back.
Chairwoman MALONEY. The gentleman yields back.
The gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes, is now recognized.
Mr. SARBANES. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, for this im-
portant committee hearing. As we have been hearing, the American
Rescue Plan provided critical resources to help communities stay
strong, to recover from the Coronavirus pandemic.
In my district, for example, these funds are helping to hire and
retain school bus drivers in Anne Arundel County, expand
broadband access in Baltimore City, provide rental aid and food
distribution in Montgomery County. So it has really been felt posi-
tively across my district.
As members of the Oversight Committee, we work, as you know,
to identify and prevent waste, fraud, and abuse of taxpayer dollars,
and we have to balance this effort to get the aid out broadly and
as flexibly as we possibly can, on the one hand, with accountability
for how those dollars are spent, on the other hand.
And in the state and local fiscal recovery funds there are safe-
guards that were put in place to make sure that these invest-
ments—these historic investments—are being made wisely.
Judge Moore, what must states and local governments do to re-
ceive their allocations? In other words, what did they have to
present in order to have those moneys flow?
Judge MOORE. Thank you for that question.
You know, one of the things, I think, that we maybe have missed
is that, you know, the final—the final Treasury standup did not
happen until May 10 of 2021.
43

Counties had the opportunity until August 31 to identify projects,
and if you identified and you certified for those funds by July 15,
by the way—so if you certified by July 15 you had a report due on
August 31.
Many of our counties across the Nation were still waiting for
states to stand up their programs so that they would know what
was being—what opportunities might be funded by state funds
through ARPA versus using their direct allocation.
For that reason, not a large number of counties had submitted
their request for funds or their—or their plans. So I think that is
part of why we are seeing some small numbers in that first report.
However, since then, 99 percent of all counties have done so and
have their first half of their allocation. We know that counties with
populations of 250,000 or more are required to post on their
websites what they are using the funds for.
So when we think about transparency, that is a component that,
I think, is very important, and many other counties are doing it
willingly on their own, listing what their funds are being used for.
One of the things that occurred to us was that during the nego-
tiations with the $360 billion, when the local—$350 billion—when
the local aid dropped out, the total bill spending did not go down.
The $350 billion did not increase the overall passage of the bill, ac-
cording to our legislative leaders.
So I would suggest that decisions made at the local level, closest
to the people, were the most efficient, and I think as we see this
play out through the years we will find that these counties made
wise investments into their community.
They are very broad. In some cases, it is more about work force.
It may be about childcare. In other communities it is infrastructure
based.
But I think that indicates that the flexibility at the local level
and especially in the $10 million exemption for lost revenue, that
we will find that communities allocated the funds best suited for
their local community where they are elected by the people and
where they know that community best.
Mr. SARBANES. Thank you for that description of the process. I
mean, obviously, combining flexibility in terms of where the funds
can flow, on the one hand, with accountability, as I said, is impor-
tant.
You indicated there is an initial certification of need that has to
be presented, and then the states and localities have ongoing com-
pliance reporting that they have to do to demonstrate how these
funds are being spent.
And I understand as well that there is a community input com-
ponent that the states and localities, in particular, are being asked
to assess the communities’ feeling about how these investments are
being made.
Mayor Woodards, briefly, because we are running out of time,
why is it so important that governments are accountable not only
to Congress but also to their communities when they make these
expenditure decisions?
Ms. WOODARDS. Well, I think as I just mentioned earlier, that
nobody knows their needs better than those who have them. So our
ability to engage with our local communities to assess and to be
44

really clear about what is important to them, just like you give the
authority to us to make the decisions because we are closest to
those, then we then pass on that opportunity to engage with our
communities to make sure that we are providing the right pro-
grams and services to address their needs.
Mr. SARBANES. Thank you very much. I yield back, Madam
Chair.
Chairwoman MALONEY. The gentleman yields back.
The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Clyde, is now recognized.
Mr. CLYDE. Thank you, Madam Chair.
One year ago, President Biden and his Democrat colleagues reck-
lessly pushed through the American Rescue Plan, a $1.9 trillion
spending package which they claimed was for COVID relief. The
spending package came after Congress had already passed $4 tril-
lion in COVID relief, $1 trillion of which had not yet been spent.
Both President Biden and the Democrats chose to ignore the
warning that this spending package would only fuel the infla-
tionary fires. This spending package also gave $350 billion directly
to state and local government without proper guardrails in place to
protect against waste, fraud, and abuse.
After this $350 billion was recklessly handed out, we have seen
countless instances where this money has not been used for its in-
tended purpose. These funds were intended to be used to respond
to the woes of the pandemic.
But we have seen that pumping billions of dollars of free money
into the economy simply drives hyperinflation.
Mr. Joffe, thank you for your testimony today. We are seeing
record rates of inflation higher than any point in the past 40 years.
Can you tell me, in your estimation, how long do you think this
runaway inflation might last?
Mr. JOFFE. I think it could go on for many, many years because
Federal Reserve interest rates are now well below the inflation rate
and I think they are very worried about raising interest rates too
much because of the fear of its effect on the stock market and eco-
nomic growth.
So if the Federal Reserve continues to follow this low interest
rate policy we could see many, many years of inflation.
Mr. CLYDE. Wow. Thank you. That is not good news. But thank
you for that that testimony.
Congress gave $350 billion to states and localities. However, we
do not know whether these billions of dollars went to Americans in
need.
Dr. Leachman, you said that the American Rescue Plan funds
were not distributed fairly based on need and you defined that as
race, gender, and community, I believe.
I understand you to say that minorities were disproportionately
affected and, therefore, they didn’t get their fair share. Is that cor-
rect?
Mr. LEACHMAN. No, sir that is not what I said.
Mr. CLYDE. OK. Well, you made a comment—that I heard it
twice in your testimony.
Mr. LEACHMAN. Excuse me. My point was that the pandemic and
the economic impacts have been felt disproportionately in certain
communities and unequally by race, gender, and community.
45

Mr. CLYDE. OK. And the American Rescue Plan did not then dis-
tribute the moneys in that way. Is that correct?
Mr. LEACHMAN. No, sir. The American Rescue Plan was designed
to distribute its funds based—to states based on unemployment,
which is a good measure of hardship, given that it is measured—
we have data monthly——
Mr. CLYDE. OK.
Mr. LEACHMAN [continuing]. And at the city and county level
based on a combination of population and poverty.
Mr. CLYDE. OK. Thank you for that understanding. I appreciate
that.
While Republicans were not able to see the American Rescue
Plan’s complete text until 48 hours before the markup of the bill,
we are—we were still able to offer common sense amendments to
try and protect American taxpayer dollars from misuse.
However, Democrats in this committee refused to adopt any of
these amendments to allow for guardrails to be in place. So in the
ARP I noticed that the city of D.C. received $3.3 billion of funding
and I am—and I also saw that $70 million dollars of which was
used to convert homes to green energy.
So I am certain that when Congress acts next term—that would
be the 118th—to realign the government of Washington, DC, back
to the Constitution’s original intent of Article One, Section 8,
Clause 17, that $3.3 billion dollars will have the appropriate guard-
rails under the jurisdiction of this committee.
And with that, I yield back.
Chairwoman MALONEY. The gentleman yields back.
The gentlelady from California, Ms. Porter, is now recognized.
Ms. PORTER. Thank you. We have a childcare crisis in this coun-
try. One of the biggest challenges for working families over the
past few years has been the rising cost of childcare, and the pan-
demic has led to the permanent closure of thousands of daycare fa-
cilities across the country.
I want to play a short clip from CBS News about the closure of
a childcare facility in Billings, Montana, that served about a hun-
dred kids.
[Video.]
Ms. PORTER. This same story is playing out across the country.
A 2021 survey found that four in 5 daycares were understaffed and
78 percent said low wages were a contributing factor.
Dr. Leachman, how can the recovery funds be used to help ad-
dress the childcare crisis?
Mr. LEACHMAN. Thank you, Representative Porter.
The lack of affordable quality childcare is just a huge problem,
as your powerful video showed. It is just, for one thing, making it
just much more—much harder for people to get back into the labor
market, and the underinvestment in childcare has made it inacces-
sible and unaffordable for decades.
So the fiscal recovery funds can really help to help providers to
get back on their feet. Some have been forced to close, and to meet
the need that is out there to provide quality and affordable care it
can also be used to help make childcare more affordable to parents.
Of course, because of the time horizon on these funds it is a tem-
porary measure only and doesn’t obviate the need for long term
46

Federal investment in expanding access to affordable quality
childcare.
Ms. PORTER. And my understanding is that the final rule on ex-
panded clarified—excuse me, the interim final rule clarified that
childcare workers are eligible for premium pay through the recov-
ery funds.
Judge Moore, the National Association of Counties has high-
lighted some great projects to address the childcare crisis.
In my city, Irvine, we have a wonderful partnership between the
school district and the city and nonprofit providers. It leases facili-
ties on elementary school campuses to nonprofit agencies to provide
childcare for about 2,000 children and my own family is one that
has used this service for care. My daughter, Betsy, still goes to
these care centers.
Can you highlight a few of the projects that you are aware of
that address the childcare crisis?
Judge MOORE. Well, the childcare crisis is a huge issue, espe-
cially in the—in regard to work force development shortages and
worker shortages.
In San Diego County in California it allocated $16 million to im-
plement a new pilot program within local schools and universities
to provide apprenticeship services work force development for early
childhood educator professions.
This funding also supports continuing education and increased
wages to promote staff retention for educational professionals.
Travis County, Texas, also, $2.5 million for child care assistance.
York County, Pennsylvania, $1 million distributed over 30 organi-
zations to support early childhood development, and there are
other examples.
Ms. PORTER. I think what we are seeing here is that municipali-
ties and cities, counties, across the country are telling us with their
choice of how to use these funds that childcare is one of the biggest
needs.
It is a social justice issue to make sure that we value child care
workers but it is also fundamentally an economic issue. Whether
you have children or not, every American benefits from a strong
economy and every business, small and large, benefits from having
the workers that it needs to stay productive.
So I encourage Congress, both sides of the aisle, to continue to
invest in childcare.
With that, I yield back.
Chairwoman MALONEY. The gentlelady yields back.
The gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Higgins, is now recognized.
Mr. HIGGINS. I thank Chairwoman Maloney and Ranking Mem-
ber Comer for having this hearing today.
Madam Chair, I have been listening to the testimony of my col-
leagues and the witnesses here today. Here is the glaring message.
We don’t have the money. We are mortgaging our children, our
grandchildrens’, our great grandchildrens’, future.
Congress is mortgaging the future of generations yet unborn. We
are $31 trillion in debt. If this body were to run a $1 billion sur-
plus, which it will not do, without some serious conservative ad-
justment—if this body were to run a $1 billion surplus, it would re-
quire 31,000 years to address a $31 trillion debt.
47

Shifting to the pandemic and the money that we have spent,
since March 2020, America has spent $6 trillion just on COVID.
That is six thousand billion dollars. That would be $120 billion for
every sovereign state, or broken down by working families, accord-
ing to the 2020 Bureau of Labor and Statistics, just over 83 million
American families had at least one member of the family employed.
Every working family could receive $70,000 in cash tax free. You
think maybe that would have helped American working families?
America, would you like to receive $70,000 in cash?
Because Congress has, certainly, spent that money and it is your
money. There is no such thing as Federal money. Every dime that
gets spent out of this body is seized from the paycheck of a working
American.
We are speaking in platitudes here today. In this committee that
is responsible for oversight for government expenditure, my col-
leagues across the aisle are in a fantasyland. We don’t have this
money.
Talk about childcare and child welfare—good Lord, what kind of
a family would dump unserviceable crippling debt upon their yet
unborn great grandchildren in order to have, you know, solar pan-
els on your roof right now?
Some of us are quite passionate about actually preserving our re-
public and restoring our constitutional rights and freedoms and re-
storing fiscal responsibility to this body.
And Congress talks about trillions of dollars like it is nothing
saying. It is insane.
Mr. Joffe, let me give you my remaining time, so a couple of min-
utes. Just please address, if you don’t mind, exactly what kind of
actual long-term economic impact these very poorly written and
loosely corralled massive spending bills that get pushed through
Congress—what is the impact long term on the American economy
for generations to come?
Mr. JOFFE. Well, you know, as you said, Representative Higgins,
we didn’t have this money to spend, and so it is a combination of
printing it up and destroying the value of the dollar and then—or
borrowing it and putting it on future generations and both of those
have serious long-term effects.
You know, we are now getting into the period where most of the
Baby Boom generation is retiring. That is going to put a lot of pres-
sure on Social Security and Medicare expenditures through the rest
of the 2020’s and the 2030’s, and we just don’t have the gas in the
tank right now to finance that sort of thing.
So it is very worrying. I do agree with you that Congress should
be a lot more careful with how taxpayer money is being committed.
Mr. HIGGINS. When the CARES Act was written, which my office
participated in—we helped launch the CARES Act—that was a cou-
ple of weeks of sleepless nights, bringing 4,500 community banks
and credit unions online to serve this SBA product that they had
not prior. We had heavy guardrails on the CARES Act, which I
supported. That was a time we weren’t quite sure what this pan-
demic was going to be. But it required action.
But since then, we have learned a lot about this virus and we
have also seen a lack of guardrails on new spending. Would you
agree with that assessment, Mr. Joffe?
48

Mr. JOFFE. Yes, I would.
Mr. HIGGINS. Thank you, sir. Thank you for appearing, to all our
witnesses today, and Madam Chair, I yield.
Chairwoman MALONEY. The gentleman yields back.
The gentlelady from Illinois, Ms. Kelly, is now recognized.
Ms. KELLY. Thank you so much, Madam Chair.
As vice chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee and a
member of the Subcommittee on Health, I am very concerned about
expanding access to health care and advancing the health of vul-
nerable communities across this country.
I was encouraged to hear that the majority of states and local-
ities that were required to submit initial reports decided to invest
their recovery fund dollars in public health to prevent and mitigate
the spread of the Coronavirus.
We heard from my Governor, Governor Pritzker, earlier today
that Illinois is one of those states. Our state has appropriated $786
million for a wide range of public health needs including support
for vaccinations, testing, contact tracing, long-term care services,
mental health rehabilitation facilities, and hospitals.
As chair of the CBC Health Brain Trust, it was clear that there
was a divide between white and minority communities early in the
pandemic.
President Sharp, indigenous Americans suffered higher
Coronavirus infection and death rates than other populations, espe-
cially at the onset of the pandemic. What public health impacts
would tribes have experienced if Congress had not passed the re-
covery funds?
Ms. SHARP. Yes, thank you for that question.
The impacts would have been devastating. As I mentioned in an
initial question, we are disproportionately impacted and already
vulnerable prior to the pandemic.
As evidenced in the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Report
called the Broken Promises Report that was delivered to Congress
in 2018, that report detailed on every sector—education, health
care, even our business and private sector economies—have been
chronically and long-standing underfunded. We can only dream of
having the resources and opportunity to even get to a base level of
providing for our citizens.
But with this investment, we are not only able to meet the needs
but now we are in a position to look long term to make strategic
investments in our communities and where things like
broadband—there is a community in Alaska, the Akiak tribe, in-
vested in broadband to service the second largest broadband gap in
the United States and that means being able to access telehealth.
That means education for children. These are key strategic invest-
ments that have kept us away from just being at a basic level of
existence for decades, if not generations.
Thank you.
Ms. KELLY. Thank you. So that sounds like something that you
are doing that could be a promising public health program or
project that may be a model for other areas in the United States
in regard to reducing health inequities.
Ms. SHARP. Yes.
49

Oh, yes, I was just going to say yes, absolutely, because public
health is not, like, just the, you know, doctors and nurses. Public
health is mental health. It is having an economy and educational
opportunities.
Ms. KELLY. Early reviews suggest that almost three-quarters of
metropolitan cities and counties are investing in recovery funds
and public health.
Mayor Woodards, what are some of the best ways cities are using
their recovery fund allocations to support public health?
Ms. WOODARDS. Well, I stated in my opening comments a little
bit about what we are doing here in Tacoma as we talk about sup-
porting our homeless community in terms of providing shelter and
case management.
There is an opportunity there that we are using to provide more
mental health services directly to those impacted.
I would also say that in Houston, Texas, they are funding a clini-
cian officer remote evaluation program, which is a telehealth strat-
egy for responding to behavioral health crisis calls.
So when an officer—when there is a contact made with law en-
forcement, they can immediately call a mental health clinician at
the time of the 911 dispatch to provide appropriate intervention. So
they use real-time on-the-ground innovative solutions.
Ms. KELLY. Thank you.
And, Judge Moore, talk about the best ways counties are using
their funds and would you comment on are counties and cities with
their programming complementing each other?
Judge MOORE. Yes, thank you for your question.
Hamilton County, Ohio, which is Cincinnati, just to the north of
my county, they allocated $5 million for a community outreach for
vulnerable populations to ensure health and social service informa-
tion is more effectively provided to underserved populations in
their county.
This program will include acquisition, programming, and mar-
keting for permanent tech bus and ongoing outreach to educate mi-
nority and underserved populations to improve health outcomes.
In Louisville, Jefferson County, an initial $30 million in ARPA
funds were allocated to address urgent needs related to the pan-
demic.
Of those funds, $15 million was allocated for COVID-related pub-
lic health expenditures, $9.8 million for COVID–19 response and
vaccination activities, $1.5 million for childcare center, emergency,
and surplus supplies, and so on.
So across America, we have examples of the large urban counties
investing their funds in the area of public health. And I should say
that this funding is historic to rural populations—to rural counties
across America.
While I don’t have exact examples here, we know that our rural
counties across the Nation have received these funds and that they
have exciting plans for their funding.
Ms. KELLY. Thank you. My time is expired.
Chairwoman MALONEY. The gentlewoman’s time has expired.
Thank you.
Ms. KELLY [continuing]. To this committee. Thank you.
50

Chairwoman MALONEY. Thank you, and the gentlelady yields
back.
And the gentlewoman from Massachusetts, Ms. Pressley, is rec-
ognized.
Ms. PRESSLEY. Thank you, Chairwoman Maloney, for convening
today’s hearing about the unprecedented relief provided in the
American Rescue Plan.
As we approach the two-year mark since the onset of the pan-
demic, we have to be candid about its disproportionate impact on
the lives of Black, brown, indigenous, immigrant, and low income
communities.
The American Rescue Plan put forth by the Biden/Harris admin-
istration and passed by Democrats in Congress, was a lifeline for
families across the Massachusetts 7th congressional District, and
because we were intentional in centering equity, states had ade-
quate flexibility to prioritize lifesaving resources to our hardest hit
communities.
Cities like Chelsea, Everett, and Randolph in my district were
among the most severely impacted communities and they needed
additional relief, regardless of esoteric funding formulas, to support
their necessary recovery from the pandemic.
That is why I, along with Senators Warren and Markey, repeat-
edly called on our Governor to use this flexibility to ensure equi-
table distribution of more than $5 billion.
Dr. Leachman, how did Congress and the Treasury Department
structure the recovery funds to allow state governors to address the
inequitable impact of the pandemic?
Mr. LEACHMAN. Thank you for that question. It is very impor-
tant.
So the act itself emphasized that the funds were to be available
to address the impact of the pandemic and its negative economic
impacts, and the Treasury guidance has been very clear in encour-
aging states and localities and tribal governments and U.S. terri-
tories to spend to spend funds in ways that that address the in-
equities that the pandemic made so apparent. They have been in-
visible for us to see but the pandemic made them especially appar-
ent.
And so what Treasury guidance has made clear and encouraged
states and localities and other recipients to do is to focus on those
communities that are hardest hit and address the disparities that
will help—by addressing those disparities will—that is the only
way we can really recover.
How can the community—if the communities that have been
most hard hit aren’t recovering because we aren’t investing prop-
erly and then how can we really call that an effective recovery?
Ms. PRESSLEY. Thank you, Mr. Leachman.
And could you just speak to the reporting aspect of that so just
in terms of, you know, that oversight and that accountability? So
we gave that guidance. But what were the guidelines in terms of
Treasury’s reporting to make sure that, in fact, the funds were eq-
uitably distributed and going to the hardest hit and impacted com-
munities?
Mr. LEACHMAN. Sure.
51

Well, each recipient—each state recipient and larger cities and
counties have to submit an annual performance report that details
a number of facts about their spending of their funds, including de-
tails about each project and their use of funds for—in that detailed
level.
They also have to describe the impact on equity and the commu-
nity engagement process that they used when determining how to
spend the funds, both of which can work together to make sure
that the funds are allocated in ways that address community
needs, especially in the communities most impacted, and that the
recipients are thinking about the longer-term impacts on equity so
that we cannot repeat the same problems in the future.
Ms. PRESSLEY. Exactly. And, in fact, in my district, the Mass.
7th, investments with the American Rescue Plan were used—di-
rected toward community health centers who were critical in com-
bating health disparities, affordable housing, free transit, bonus
payments to low income essential workers who risked their lives
during the pandemic and showed up for their community, folks like
grocery store clerks and bus drivers.
Mayor Woodards, how are you and other mayors across the coun-
try—I have heard some of your testimony but if there is more you
would like to unpack—how do you use recovery funds to ensure
that people who are disproportionately vulnerable to Coronavirus
and economic hardship are specifically and uniquely supported? Is
there anything you would like to lift up?
Ms. WOODARDS. Yes. Sure. Just so a couple things that I would
like to talk about.
So one, in terms of the fact that we could use some of our money
to support our rental assistance. Here in the city of Tacoma, we
had an opportunity to partner with a BIPOC nonprofit to get that
money out the door, and because we partnered with them, we were
able to allocate over 50 percent of our funding directly to BIPOC
community members for rental assistance.
I would say that in other cities, Los Angeles has created a fund
called LA REPAIR and it gave grants to support job creation and
organizational support and community intervention on racial heal-
ing and justice work, again, focused on our BIPOC community.
So I have lots of other examples. But those are just a few addi-
tional examples of how we are focused on those who need it the
most.
Ms. PRESSLEY. Thank you.
Chairwoman MALONEY. The gentlelady’s time is expired. Thank
you. The gentlelady yields back.
The gentleman, the ranking member of the committee, the gen-
tleman from Kentucky, Mr. Comer, is now recognized.
Mr. COMER. Thank you, Madam Chair.
You know, Republicans voted against this American Rescue Plan
because we knew that when the government prints more money
you are going to have more inflation.
Now, we will all be able to celebrate projects that were funded
with this that were beneficial. But there are going to be many,
many horror stories about wasted money and I will get to that in
just a moment.
52

But, Mr. Joffe, I want to talk about another bill, because when
you look at this $1.9 trillion that we are talking about here, this
came on the heels of trillions of dollars passed for stimulus at the
end of the Trump administration during the beginning of COVID,
and then after this another several trillion dollar infrastructure
bill.
Now, Mr. Joffe, historically, from my studies in history and eco-
nomics, the government passes spending to stimulate the economy.
But we had an economy—and Republicans kept saying this—that
was on fire from stimulus that had been appropriated from Con-
gress prior to this.
So we are historically—wouldn’t you say that if and when the
government stimulated the economy it would be at a time when the
economy was sluggish and at a time when there was a high unem-
ployment rate? Did we have a high unemployment rate when this
$1.9 trillion was passed?
In other words, do you think that this $1.9 trillion was needed
to stimulate the economy or, I guess, and also how much do you
think this contributed to the current inflation we are seeing now?
Mr. JOFFE. I think it is the direction that you have to look at.
So employment was rising rapidly at the time that this was en-
acted. So it really wasn’t necessary.
Now, certainly, unemployment was still higher than it was before
the pandemic, but because the economy had already developed a
head of steam we didn’t really need this.
And, you know, to your point about the infrastructure bill, Con-
gressman, I just want to point out that a lot of the wins that have
been presented here have to do with state and local government
spending money on broadband. But that is also in the infrastruc-
ture bill as well.
So you have a lot of duplication of effort across these bills and,
naturally, you are going to have a lot of waste.
Mr. COMER. The reason that I was concerned about an infra-
structure bill when we passed it, I don’t feel like we are going to
get a lot of infrastructure.
I don’t feel like we are going to get a lot of roads and bridges
for the amount of money we are spending because we have massive
inflation right now.
What the administration should have done is tried to get infla-
tion under control and then see where the government needed to
step in to help with infrastructure.
So I think the American people are going to be very dis-
appointed, at the end of the day, when they see how little infra-
structure is going to be constructed considering the massive
amount of money that was spent.
Now, I want to ask some questions of my good friend, Judge
Gary Moore. Boone County, the fastest growing county in the state
of Kentucky, a real success story.
I have to respond again to Mr. Connolly. I have a lot of respect
for Mr. Connolly but sometimes he competes with Adam Schiff for
the most misinformation a single day as a Member of Congress.
But one thing that he was trying to compare was this spending
to relief fund, and, as you know, Judge Moore, we had terrible tor-
53

nadoes. Three different tornadoes on the same night went to my
whole congressional district from one end to the other.
But we get calls daily from county judge executives and mayors
in those counties asking if they can use some of this money we are
talking about today—the state local money for tornado relief and
we are trying to get the answer from the Treasury Department,
and all they respond to us is with a link—the frequently asked
questions, and that is not one of the questions, can you use this
money for tornado relief.
So can you talk about if you have had any challenges in Boone
County or you heard from any county judges, not just in Kentucky
but in other parts of America that have had trouble getting an-
swers from Treasury about how to properly spend this money?
Judge MOORE. Early in the process, yes. The rollout from Treas-
ury took longer than we had hoped. At NACO what we did we, ba-
sically, created a list of frequently asked questions.
We assembled those because a lot of them were the same across
the country. We would submit those questions to Treasury, and by
the end, once they got things stood up, we were getting answers
back usually in 24 to 36 hours of yes or no or here is how you
might.
We posted those on our websites for our county members. So
there are still frustrations at times in some of those areas that are
gray. We have been told that the Federal match for FEMA, that
local ARPA funds can be used for a local match, and that is one
thing that we have gotten answers for.
The flexibility with the $10 million for lost revenue, we feel like
that that is going to be helpful to those counties that need this
flexibility.
What we did with the funds, of course, was broadband is our
main expenditure and we have found that there were areas of our
county that would not have had broadband if not for these funds.
It is something we knew was important, but there just wasn’t fund-
ing within our budget to do it. This provided gap funding to be able
to make that happen.
Mr. COMER. And it is a good thing that money went directly to
you and you didn’t have to funnel it through Kentucky Wired so—
or you never would have gotten a penny of that. But, again, thank
you, Judge Moore.
Madam Chair, I yield back.
Chairwoman MALONEY. The gentleman yields back.
The gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Raskin, is now recognized.
Mr. RASKIN. Madam Chair, thank you very much. I remember
when the committee was considering creating the state and local
fiscal recovery funds back in February 2021 and there was a deluge
of bipartisan demand from all over the country for this help.
We heard from Democratic Governors. We heard from Repub-
lican Governors like the Governor of my state, Governor Hogan. We
heard from Republican mayors.
We heard from Democratic mayors, corporations, labor unions,
you name it, and they all described the immense challenges they
were facing due to the economic and public health consequences of
COVID–19, ranging from plummeting tax revenues across the
54

board to government furloughs and layoffs at the state, county, and
local level.
Judge Moore, you are the president of the National Association
of Counties, or you were at the time, and you helped lead the
charge for this legislation. Why was there such unified support for
the recovery funds coming from Republican and Democratic leaders
alike, and was there anything partisan about this legislation in
terms of how the money was distributed?
Mr. MOORE. I would say that there were differences between our
members, not just Republican and Democrat but others on whether
spending should occur. Once we discovered that when the state and
local aid, especially the local aid, was removed from the bill,
through several of the negotiations, the total amount, the $1.9 tril-
lion, did not change.
It was then that many conservatives, not all but many conserv-
atives chose to support the state and local aid component of the
bill. We didn’t have a vote in Congress, but if the money was going
to be allocated we felt that direct aid to every county of every size
was the way to go. So we locked arms and advocated for that, that
if the funding was—if the bill passed, that local aid was a compo-
nent of it.
Counties chose to distribute that based on population across the
country. We thought that was the most fair and equitable way to
do it. Every county, every size received direct funding, and they
were able to make the decisions at the local level. We believe in
local control. We support local control.
Mr. RASKIN. Well, and that provision, in fact, gave unprece-
dented decision-making authority to states and localities in the dis-
tribution and direction of funding where the communities needed
it most. For example, in my district, in Montgomery County, the
funds helped to provide financial assistance to low-income working
families. It supported the broadband infrastructure program. It ex-
panded the county’s public health services. Frederick County plans
to use recovery funds to expand broadband services, to provide eco-
nomic aid, and improve infant and maternal health, just to name
a few examples.
So do you believe that this flexibility in the allocation of the re-
covery funds, Judge Moore, contributed to the progress of our eco-
nomic recovery?
Mr. MOORE. Yes. I would say that it has contributed to the eco-
nomic recovery. It has been wonderful gap funding for those needs
in our communities that otherwise would not have been funded.
And my example once again, getting one gig of speed to every home
in our county would not be happening without these funds. We
found, during the pandemic, that connectivity was so critical.
So I do believe that it is creating jobs, it is creating economic in-
vestment, it is supplying a need that would not have been ad-
dressed without the funds.
Mr. RASKIN. Thank you. And Mayor Woodards, can you describe
how flexibility in the eligible uses and distribution of the recovery
money has helped your city?
Ms. WOODARDS. Certainly. I like the theme of the question be-
cause clearly giving us the opportunity to decide what is best, we
are the ones who are on the ground every single day. We knew our
55

residents in the grocery stores and in the gas stations, so we clear-
ly understand the need. So the ability to have flexible spending and
to be able to pivot quickly on the ground has been incredibly impor-
tant to us.
I think about the fact that one of the things that we faced was
we had to shut down an engine, a fire engine in our city. We were
able to use ARPA dollars to recover that engine. That was so im-
perative for us because in the midst of everything that was hap-
pening with COVID we have had a string of arsons in our commu-
nity. So being able to have that engine available and being able to
pivot to see the importance of that was good for us, and saved lives.
Mr. RASKIN. Forgive me for interrupting. I just want to say there
are a lot of us who are former state officials and local officials who
serve on this committee and in Congress. We are great champions
of strategic and cooperative federalism, and I think that these pro-
visions have exemplified what it means to actually get power, get
control, and get money to the county and local governments closest
to the needs of the people.
I yield back to you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman MALONEY. The gentleman yields back. The gen-
tleman from Georgia, Mr. Johnson, is now recognized.
Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Georgia’s Fourth congressional District, which I am proud to rep-
resent, received about $62.5 million from President Biden’s Amer-
ican Rescue Plan, which was passed by congressional Democrats
without a single Republican vote. Americans received stimulus
checks, extended unemployment benefits, and $300 per month ad-
vance tax cut income from the earned income tax credit cut.
In additional to rental and mortgage assistance and moratoriums
on evictions and home foreclosures, plus support for the businesses
forced to close due to the pandemic, Democrats also provided finan-
cial support to state and local governments and money to support
school systems.
Because of the Joe Biden American Rescue Plan, we put shots in
arms, money in pockets and pocketbooks, we put kids back in
school safely, and we put Americans back to work in good-paying
jobs. Democrats ensured that local school systems could keep the
doors open to Head Start programs, that county medical centers
had the wherewithal to make it through the pandemic, and that
small business owners could have a fair chance to survive and
prosper. The ARP has saved so many from the catastrophic reper-
cussions of the COVID–19 pandemic, and Democrats gave our econ-
omy a boost that surpassed pre-ARP forecasts by both the Federal
Reserve and the Congressional Budget Office.
This landmark legislation proves that Congress and the Presi-
dent are working together for the American people, and not a sin-
gle Republican in either the House or the Senate voted to pass the
American Rescue Plan. But when they go back home they always
take credit for legislation that they vote against, and American vot-
ers are not fooled.
My friends on the other side of the aisle are left to argue during
this hearing that the American Rescue Plan was too much money,
helped too many people, and caused inflation. I guess they would
have preferred that President Biden leave the Nation stuck in a re-
56

cession with families out of work and impoverished, unable to af-
ford groceries and unable to afford paying the rent and keeping a
roof over their head. They whine about the $1.9 trillion American
Rescue Plan that helped working people, families, and small busi-
nesses, but when they had control of the House and Senate, under
an insurrectionist in chief, they shoved out the door a $5.8 trillion
tax cut, 83 percent of which went to the top one percent. And my
friend, Mr. Joffe, was cheerleading on the sidelines with two
pompoms.
The American Rescue Plan was help for those who needed that
help, and I am proud to have voted for this transformative legisla-
tion, which is part of President Biden’s vision to build a better
America. And don’t forget that Congress passed the American Res-
cue Plan just two months after the insurrection.
Dr. Leachman, my office assisted small business owners with
over $50 million in Economic Injury Disaster Loan and Paycheck
Protection Program loans as well as with $500,000 in minority
small business disaster loans. There is no doubt that the American
Rescue Plan provided essential aid that allowed businesses to keep
their doors open. Unfortunately, the Federal Government has a
well-documented history of failing to spend advertising dollars in
black and minority-owned media outlets, including when adver-
tising to black and minority communities. The ARP provided a
wide variety of investments targeted to minority communities, from
SBA programs to funds to provide vaccines.
Are you aware of any effort to ensure that ARP advertising dol-
lars were invested in black and minority-owned firms, and how
well do you think those loan opportunities were advertised in mi-
nority communities?
Mr. LEACHMAN. Thank you for the question, sir. This is not an
issue that I have studied closely. I will say that the Treasury guid-
ance that requires states and the larger cities and counties to re-
port on the impacts of each project spending on equity and to de-
scribe their community engagement processes will help in this re-
gard in helping to assure that recipients, when they receive the
funds, are engaging their communities properly and thinking about
what are the equity impacts. But I would certainly encourage you
to continue to advocate with state and local officials there to do the
outreach and engagement necessary to go hand-in-hand with the
direction of these funds.
Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairwoman MALONEY. The gentleman yields back. The gen-
tleman from California, Vice Chair Gomez, is now recognized.
Mr. GOMEZ. Thank you, Chairwoman Maloney. First let me
thank all the speakers. One of the things that I like to focus on
is just how cities and states are definitely the backbone of our de-
mocracy and the backbone of how do we get services to the people
in need. A lot of folks on the other side of the aisle always say that
we shouldn’t be helping—the Federal Government should be out of
people’s lives, but yet they refuse to help the cities and counties
that are there day in and day out.
Most people don’t know but I actually worked for the National
League of Cities once upon a time, in 2005–2006, so it is good to
57

see you, Victoria, and I also just understand the work that you do
to advocate on behalf of the cities.
The funds, as everybody knows, that would have come into the
coffers of cities and local municipalities and states because of just
shutting down to make sure that people were protected from the
pandemic really took a toll on cities and counties, and that is some-
thing that we saw across the board. In the city of LA, they had al-
most a $700 million budget shortfall if it wasn’t for what we did
here at the Federal level, and the money that they did get allowed
them to make sure that their employees had their paychecks, that
they didn’t have to go without, which are crucial when it comes to
any economic downturns, because oftentimes local governments are
the ones that can stay afloat longer than, say, a small business or
a medium-sized business.
So those dollars are crucial to be circulating within the economy.
They are the ones that are keeping that small business afloat be-
cause they can still continue to purchase those goods and services.
So what we were doing was not just to help cities but it was also
to help the local economy to help everybody, and that is why it was
so crucial. And these cities, what did they do? They stepped up on
their own to do COVID testing sites, vaccination sites, made sure
that people were getting their food distributed, taking care of sen-
iors, making sure that the first responders did not go without a
paycheck and could respond to an emergency.
So it was so crucial, and I want to say if it wasn’t for that Cali-
fornia would be devastated. California received about $27 billion,
invested in affordable housing and homelessness resources; $1.75
billion to fund the construction of new affordable homes; $1.2 bil-
lion for Project Room Key, to acquire hotels and motels to providing
housing for individuals and families who were experiencing home-
lessness; $300 million for affordable housing preservation; and $40
million for eviction and foreclosure prevention and defense. That is
just to name a few.
The County of LA received $1.95 billion. That is huge. What did
they do? Build more affordable housing. They were working to keep
people off the streets so that we wouldn’t be dealing with a bigger
health care crisis. And the city of LA received $1.27 billion, and a
lot of that is still going out as we speak. But it has made a big dif-
ference.
Dr. Leachman—is he still here? I can’t see him.
Mr. LEACHMAN. Yes, sir. I am here.
Mr. GOMEZ. OK. Can you describe how severe the need of hous-
ing assistance has been throughout the pandemic?
Mr. LEACHMAN. Yes, absolutely crucial. You know, a new census
survey that started up right around the time of the pandemic
kicked in has been valuable in helping us understand what the im-
pact of the pandemic has been on people’s ability to pay for their
rent. As of October, still one in six renters were not caught up on
their rent, and as in other areas, the disparities here are quite
stark by racial and ethnic categories. For example, among black
renters, the share was more than one in four. And still, you know,
even before the pandemic, 23 million people who lived in low-in-
come households were paying more than half their income for rent
and utilities.
58

So the need is quite stark, and as California has shown in its al-
locations and many other states and localities, using fiscal recovery
funds to help address this crisis, to keep people housed, at this
very difficult time has been a very important and vital use of these
funds.
Mr. GOMEZ. And that was something that I wanted to really
highlight. These are not folks that are not working. These are often
the working poor. They are working two, three, four jobs a week
to make ends meet, and they still have barely enough money to
survive. But when the pandemic hit they were really in a bad place
and they were really struggling. So this has helped millions of peo-
ple stay off the street and make sure that our communities are
kept as full as possible and that we have limited the emotional and
economic devastation for people of color and the working class
throughout this country.
With that I am glad I am supporting. We are still helping these
cities and counties, and I yield back.
Chairwoman MALONEY. The gentleman yields back. The
gentlelady from Missouri, Ms. Bush, is now recognized.
Ms. BUSH [continuing]. St. Louis, and I thank you, Madam
Chair, for convening this important hearing today.
The state and local funding in the American Rescue Plan in-
cluded critical targeted investments that have empowered our local
leaders with the resources they need to save lives. The American
Rescue Plan helped deliver over $700 million to our St. Louis re-
gion, an unprecedented and much needed infusion of direct assist-
ance during this pandemic and economic crisis. These funds are
proving crucial in helping to alleviate existing injustices such as
gun violence, economic inequality, and access to health care that
the pandemic exacerbated. Moreover, I see the success of these in-
vestments as a blueprint for how this committee can work with
local governments and advocates to broaden our public investments
in the many crises of our day.
Judge Moore, you frequently referred to the recovery fund sup-
port for counties as critical. How does providing these critical re-
sources to counties empower them to respond to emergencies?
Mr. MOORE. Thank you. In many of America’s counties these dol-
lars are being utilized to fund communication systems, 911 sys-
tems, and other tools to be able to respond to emergencies. We
have already talked about public health and how additional facili-
ties are being added and programs to deal with the health emer-
gency component of it.
Overall, I would say that once again many of these funding needs
were on the radar for capital plans or other funding requests, but
probably would not have been met as quickly, or in many times not
at all without the assistance and the flexibility that counties re-
ceived across the country.
But I do believe it was critical. It was a critical time, and it did
create jobs and provide resources for local governments.
Ms. BUSH. Yes, it did. Thank you.
One of the many things I am most proud of in the way our recov-
ery fund was disbursed is that the city of St. Louis, under the lead-
ership of our mayor, Tishaura Jones, engaged in an extensive com-
munity consultation process that considered over 2,500 public com-
59

ments, another crucial step of the process that takes time. I am in-
credibly proud of the way St. Louis is pursuing evidence-based,
community-informed expenditures, including $500 checks—
checks—in direct cash, that are going to our community members
that need it the most, aid to help boost the vaccination rates, fund-
ing to prevent evictions, and investments that have helped to pro-
mote safer communities.
Now I believe we must build on the success of this committee’s
contributions for addressing this pandemic and make similar in-
vestments in ongoing emergencies, including the climate crisis. The
Federal Government should also support states, tribes, territories,
and local governments in delivering climate and environmental jus-
tice investments, just as we did in responding to this pandemic. My
Green New Deal for Cities bill, H.R. 2644, would apply Green New
Deal framework to do just that.
Mayor Woodards, do cities around the country need additional
Federal resources to appropriately combat the climate crisis?
Ms. WOODARDS. Simple answer, yes, we do. So these towns and
villages have been leading on climate action, as you know, for
years, and because local leaders are the first responders, and we
are seeing the impacts of climate change every day in our commu-
nities.
We have also been calling for a Federal partner in these efforts
to enact national policy that will support local efforts and to pro-
vide resources and assistance to communities, including financial
assistance, and we are so pleased that the Bipartisan Infrastruc-
ture Bill makes considerable investments in building communities’
resilience, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and investing in re-
newable energy.
Ms. BUSH. Thank you. Ms. Sharp, should this committee make
the climate justice investments in every Native American nation in
this country, as we do in our bill and as we did for COVID–19
funding?
Ms. SHARP. Yes, absolutely. Not only are tribal nations dispropor-
tionately impacted by the pandemic, we are also disproportionately
impacted by the climate crisis. My nation, the Quinault Nation, is
currently under five states of emergency—one for the pandemic,
one for sea level rise, one for a landslide that potentially will take
out Highway 101, the only access road to our community.
So yes, when we convene our board of directors and we hear re-
ports all across Indian country, we are facing the climate crisis, we
are on the front lines, and we are so very grateful not only for this
investment but the future investments that are on the horizon. We
absolutely need it.
Ms. BUSH. Thank you. I look forward to working with each of you
to fight environmental racism using the most successful framework
we used to combat the pandemic, close partnerships, and resource
support for states, tribes, territories, and local governments.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Chairwoman MALONEY. The gentlelady yields back. Before we
close, since she was our last colleague asking questions today, I
want to offer the ranking member an opportunity to offer any clos-
ing remarks you may have. Ranking Member Comer, you are now
recognized.
60

Mr. COMER. Thank you, Madam Chair. I feel like Representative
Hank Johnson just delivered my closing remarks, because he re-
minded every American that every Democrat voted in favor of this
bill and every Republican opposed this bill. And the reason that the
Republicans opposed this bill is because we warned of inflation.
And here we have it: inflation.
You learned this in Economics 101 in college. I went to Western
Kentucky University. When the government prints money it de-
values the dollar. The government has printed a lot of money in
the name of COVID. Thank goodness for Joe Manchin and Kyrsten
Sinema in blocking that Build Back Better bill in the Senate, be-
cause I can only imagine what the inflation rate would be when
that money hit the economy. And Representative Bush said this is
a model of how this committee can help with local governments?
I mean, what this committee did was just approve a blank check
for the local governments.
Now I can tell you in Kentucky there will be counties, like Boone
County, a progressive county, affluent county, a fast-growing coun-
ty, that will spend the money wisely. There are counties in Ken-
tucky that I can say, without hesitation, will not spend the money
wisely. That is a fact.
Now, the government and this Congress and what Republicans
wanted to do—what the government should do, what Republicans
wanted to do—put guardrails. That is what this committee should
do, Representative Bush. If we are going to oversee Federal money
being reappropriated back to the local level we need to make sure
there are guardrails and that this money is transparent, and that
this money is actually needed. And there are needs, but again, the
government is going to have to stop spending money, stop printing
money, because our children and grandchildren are going to have
to pay for this, and it is going to lead to more inflation.
So you are going to continue to hear Republicans talk about the
ways that we need to control inflation, to stop inflation. This is one
of many crises that I mentioned in my opening statement, in addi-
tion to a lack of border security, in addition to a disastrous energy
policy that probably led to what is going on in Russia and Ukraine
right now. So we are going to continue to talk about the issues that
the American people want on this side of the aisle. The No. 1 issue
that most Americans are concerned about is the issue that they
face every day, when they go to the grocery store, when they go to
the gas pump, when they pay rent, when they pay for their pre-
scription drugs, inflation. And you can’t continue to print and
spend money without suffering the consequences of inflation.
Madam Chair, I yield back.
Chairwoman MALONEY. The gentleman yields back. I recognize
myself for closing statement.
As we have seen here today, President Biden’s American Rescue
Plan and the state and local fiscal recovery funds have worked.
They have put our communities and our country on a path for a
strong recovery from the recession of 2020. Independent economists
have told us that if Congress had not passed the American Rescue
Plan the country would likely have plunged into a double-dip reces-
sion, with lower incomes and millions more Americans left without
jobs.
61

Instead, the country is benefiting from strong GDP growth, low
unemployment, and a faster recovery than any other develop coun-
tries. And while Republicans tried today to blame the American
Rescue Plan for the inflation we face today, independent econo-
mists say this is simply not true.
As we track the progress of the recovery funds it is important
that we have data to ensure our recovery is equitable. That is why
I co-sponsored the Targeting Resources to Communities in Need
Act, a bipartisan bill that would direct Federal investments to
areas of persistent poverty.
I am thankful to our witnesses today for sharing their knowledge
and stories from their state, tribal, and local governments. Your
testimony has demonstrated the transformative impact the recov-
ery funds have had on our communities, and we thank you.
I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a number of
documents and reports, including a letter from the National Con-
ference of State Legislatures, reports from the National League of
Cities and Administration.
Without objection, so ordered.
Chairwoman MALONEY. The country is grateful that President
Biden announced the American Rescue Plan on his very first day
in office that Congress took quick action to pass President Biden’s
plan, and that a year later we are in a better position than we
could have hoped for. I am proud of this committee’s role in design-
ing and passing these recovery funds that are leading to an equi-
table recovery and helping Americans most affected by the public
health crisis.
In closing, I want to thank our panelists again for their remarks,
and I want to commend my colleagues for participating in this im-
portant conversation.
With that, and without objection, all members will have five leg-
islative days within which to submit extraneous materials and to
submit additional written questions for the witnesses to the chair,
which will be forwarded to the witnesses for their response. I ask
for our witnesses to respond quickly as you can to any requests,
and this hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:36 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
Æ

File and source

File: CHRG_CHRG-117hhrg47065_CHRG-117hhrg47065.pdf
Size: 270,085 bytes
SHA-256: 18fe4486175beca75be33cc5fb3e327583b84a57480b7476315ddf4fd0cab593
Our copy: CHRG_CHRG-117hhrg47065_CHRG-117hhrg47065.pdf
Original: www.govinfo.gov