Congressional Hearing - Hearing The Unemployment Pandemic Addressing America S Jobs Crisis Hearing Transcript Added 12 10 2020 At 10 10 Am

Summary

The printed record of a June 18, 2020 hearing of the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis of the Committee on Oversight and Reform, The Unemployment Pandemic: Addressing America's Jobs Crisis, Serial No. 116–98. The witnesses were William E. Spriggs of the AFL-CIO and Howard University, Michele Evermore of the National Employment Law Project, Rachel Greszler of the Heritage Foundation, and Jason Furman of Harvard University. In his opening statement Chairman Clyburn said more than 45 million Americans had lost their jobs in a few months and that 1.5 million had applied for unemployment benefits for the first time the previous week. He said the enhanced unemployment benefits in the CARES Act were set to expire the next month.

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: Hearing The Unemployment Pandemic Addressing America S Jobs Crisis Hearing Transcript Added 12 10 2020 At 10 10 Am

Cite this document

“Congressional Hearing - Hearing The Unemployment Pandemic Addressing America S Jobs Crisis Hearing Transcript Added 12 10 2020 At 10 10 Am.” Original at docs.house.gov. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/hearing-the-unemployment-pandemic-addressing-america-s-jobs-crisis-hearing-transcript-added-12-10-2020-at-10-10-am/, SHA-256 50376439a146f077608f6cb7cc54a53564bc74eebb0a3d7113b03c4f6f2f57a3.

Full text

THE UNEMPLOYMENT PANDEMIC:
ADDRESSING AMERICA’S JOBS CRISIS

HEARING
BEFORE THE

SELECT SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CORONAVIRUS
CRISIS
OF THE

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

JUNE 18, 2020

Serial No. 116–98

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Reform

(
Available on: http://www.govinfo.gov,
oversight.house.gov or
docs.house.gov

U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
41–891 PDF WASHINGTON : 2020
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM
CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York, Chairwoman
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of JIM JORDAN, Ohio Ranking Minority Member
Columbia PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona
WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina
STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky
JIM COOPER, Tennessee JODY B. HICE, Georgia
GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin
RAJA KRISHNAMOORTHI, Illinois JAMES COMER, Kentucky,
JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland MICHAEL CLOUD, Texas
HARLEY ROUDA, California BOB GIBBS, Ohio
RO KHANNA, California CLAY HIGGINS, Louisiana
KWEISI MFUME, Maryland RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina
DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida CHIP ROY, Texas
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland CAROL D. MILLER, West Virginia
PETER WELCH, Vermont MARK E. GREEN, Tennessee
JACKIE SPEIER, California KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota
ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois W. GREGORY STEUBE, Florida
MARK DESAULNIER, California FRED KELLER, Pennsylvania
BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan
STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands
JIMMY GOMEZ, California
ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, New York
AYANNA PRESSLEY, Massachusetts
RASHIDA TLAIB, Michigan
KATIE PORTER, California

DAVID HICKTON, Select Subcommittee Staff Director
RUSS ANELLO, Chief Oversight Counsel
SENAM OKPATTAH, Clerk
CONTACT NUMBER: 202-225-5051
CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Minority Staff Director

SELECT SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CORONAVIRUS CRISIS
JAMES E. CLYBURN, South Carolina, Chairman
MAXINE WATERS, California STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana, Ranking Minority
CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York Member
NYDIA M. VELÁZQUEZ, New York JIM JORDAN, Ohio
BILL FOSTER, Illinois BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri
JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana
ANDY KIM, New Jersey MARK E. GREEN, Tennessee

(II)
C O N T E N T S

Page
Hearing held on June 18, 2020 ............................................................................... 1

WITNESSES

William E. Spriggs, PhD, Chief Economist, AFL-CIO, Professor, Department
of Economics, Howard University
Oral Statement ........................................................................................................ 5
Michele Evermore, Senior Researcher and Policy Analyst, National Employ-
ment Law Project
Oral Statement ........................................................................................................ 7
Rachel Greszler, Research Fellow in Economics, Budget and Entitlements
at the Heritage Foundation
Oral Statement ........................................................................................................ 9
Jason Furman, PhD, Professor, Harvard Kennedy School of Government and
Department of Economics at Harvard University
Oral Statement ........................................................................................................ 11
Written opening statements and the written statements of the witnesses are
available on the U.S. House of Representatives Document Repository at:
docs.house.gov.

INDEX OF DOCUMENTS

Documents entered into the record during this hearing and Questions for
the Record (QFR’s) are listed below/available at: docs.house.gov.
* Politico, ‘‘GOP Memo Urges Anti-China Assault Over CoronaVirus’’, arti-
cle; submitted by Rep. Raskin.
* CNN Politics,‘‘The Many Times Trump Has Praised China’s Handling
of the Coronavirus Pandemic’’, article; submitted by Rep. Raskin.
* The New York Times ‘‘Bolton Book Says Trump’s Offenses Exceed
Ukraine’’, article; submitted by Rep. Raskin.

(III)
THE UNEMPLOYMENT PANDEMIC:
ADDRESSING AMERICA’S JOBS CRISIS

Thursday, June 18, 2020

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
SELECT SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CORONAVIRUS CRISIS
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 12:07 p.m., via
WebEx, Hon. James E. Clyburn (chairman of the subcommittee)
presiding.
Present: Representatives Clyburn, Waters, Maloney, Velázquez,
Foster, Raskin, Kim, Scalise, Jordan, Luetkemeyer, Walorski, and
Green.
Mr. CLYBURN. The committee 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.
Today, the select subcommittee is holding our first official hear-
ing which builds on the productive committee work briefings we
have held over the last several weeks. Today’s hearing will address
the catastrophic levels of unemployment the American people are
facing.
Our Nation’s job crisis is a direct result of a public health crisis.
As the virus spread throughout our communities in January and
February, we failed to control it, leading to an unprecedented out-
break that has killed more people in the United States than in any
other nation on Earth.
By March, only drastic measures could slow the spread, and
states were forced to shut down, severely limiting economic activ-
ity. The result has been the worst unemployment in more than 80
years. More than 45 million Americans have lost their jobs in just
a few months, jobs that they relied on for their incomes, their
health insurance, and their sense of security.
This jobs crisis has not hurt all Americans equally. The burden
has fallen hardest on those who can least afford it, people earning
the lowest wages and with the least wealth. This disproportionately
includes women, African Americans, and other people of color. Ac-
cording to a Federal Reserve survey, nearly 40 percent of those
earning $40,000 a year or less experienced job loss in March and
early April.
Today, many states are trying to reopen and put people back to
work. But without a nationwide plan to stop the virus, nearly half
of the states are now facing climbing rates of infections. Some cit-
ies, like Houston, Texas, are considering closing businesses again
(1)
2

to protect their residents. In other areas that have reopened, eco-
nomic activity is still far below normal, as many people remain
rightly concerned about the virus.
So, the jobs crisis is far from over. I was pleased to see an uptick
in jobs in May, but we are still facing an unemployment rate worse
than anything this country has faced since the Great Depression.
Just last week, 1.5 million Americans applied for unemployment
benefits for the first time. One-third of the jobless are still waiting
to receive the unemployment benefits for which they applied.
If there is one piece of positive news today, it is that Congress
acted and it worked. We came together on a bipartisan basis to
provide enhanced unemployment benefits in the CARES Act in an
effort to stave off an even worse economic decline.
But with those benefits set to expire next month and millions
still out of work, Congress once again must act to extend these ben-
efits. These $600 a week are standing between many American
families and financial ruin. And let’s be clear: If millions of Ameri-
cans cannot afford to buy groceries or pay their mortgages, it will
only cause a humanitarian disaster, but it also risks a broader eco-
nomic collapse.
In the long term, we can only resolve the unemployment crisis
if we first address the public health crisis with a strong national
plan for testing, tracing, isolation, and treatment. Only then will
businesses and communities be able to reopen in a safe and sus-
tained way.
As the Federal Reserve reported last week, prospects for the un-
employed, and I quote here, will largely depend on the course of
the COVID–19 outbreak and on actions taken to halt its spread,
end of quote. I couldn’t agree more.
Now, some have advanced a different view. The White House has
asserted that the economy is at a turning point and is now in the
recovery stage. Unfortunately, the administration is refusing to re-
lease economic projections that every modern President, both
Democrats and Republicans, has provided to Congress.
Today, I wrote to the White House, the Treasury, and the Office
of Management and Budget and asked of them to release this infor-
mation so we can work together on bipartisan solutions to help
struggling Americans and prevent further economic damage.
That brings us to today’s hearing. The question we will ask our
witnesses is how to meet the urgent needs of the 45 million unem-
ployed while also rebuilding our economy to put these Americans
back to work in the future. As we discuss this important issue, I
implore my colleagues to keep in mind that these numbers and sta-
tistics represent Americans. They represent mothers and fathers
supporting their children, workers in our local shops and res-
taurants, and our neighbors and friends. We need a plan that rec-
ognizes that the only way to protect their livelihoods is to protect
their lives.
I will now yield to my friend, the distinguished ranking member,
Mr. Scalise, for his opening statement.
Mr. SCALISE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to start off by first expressing my condolences to two of
our colleagues, Jim Sensenbrenner, who recently lost his wife
Cheryl, and of course Andy Barr, very shocking loss of his wife
3

Carol just a few days ago. We send our prayers and our love and
support to them and their families. I also want to express my sym-
pathies to Congresswoman Omar, who recently lost her father to
COVID–19.
So, Mr. Chairman, I know we are all joining together in lifting
our colleagues up in prayer at difficult times like this. I know Con-
gresswoman Waters has experienced a similar loss, and we con-
tinue to extend our prayers to her too.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for starting off with this
hearing talking about the economic recovery and what we can do
to continue to help people get back on their feet, get back to work.
The American recovery has definitely entered a new phase.
Back in March and April, the country made a decision to shelter
in place and to stop this novel unknown virus from overwhelming
our healthcare system and from costing needless more life being
lost. By necessity, that period required the government to step in
and provide relief, and provide relief we did.
President Trump and a bipartisan majority in Congress, we all
joined together to enact the CARES Act. As you mentioned, Mr.
Chairman, that act, which included the Paycheck Protection Pro-
gram, did just what we intended. It protected paychecks and it
saved millions of jobs.
The average PPP loan has an amount of less than $120,000,
which means the majority of those loans went to small businesses
so that they could keep paying their employees. As of June 12,
there are more than 4.5 million PPP loans that have been ap-
proved, totaling more than $512 billion.
Lenders of all shapes and sizes, including community banks,
credit unions, and even large banks, have participated in this pro-
gram, allowing the PPP to reach small business borrowers in every
state and territory in our country and around these territories.
More than 5,400 lenders have participated to date. In fact, the
majority of those lenders have less than $1 billion in total assets,
which means that most PPP lenders are local community banks
that serve exactly the job creators we set out to help.
The program reached far and wide, including underserved and
historically disadvantaged areas. 424 different community develop-
ment financial institutions and minority depository institutions
participated in this program. Those firms issued almost $16 billion
in PPP loans to their small business customers, many of which are
in distressed areas.
The PPP will continue to be an important resource moving for-
ward. President Trump just signed legislation that we passed a few
weeks ago, with overwhelming bipartisan support, to further
strengthen the PPP’s ability to save jobs and help small businesses
through this difficult time.
But America was not built to shelter in place. Americans do not
hide in the face of crises. Americans want to get back to work. We
want to care for our families. Students want to return to school.
Our children want to play with their friends, and Americans de-
mand the freedom to build a more prosperous country with greater
upward mobility and, of course, equal opportunity for everybody
who seeks it.
4

America has quite naturally entered a new phase, a recovery
phase, led by the energy, hopes, and determination of the American
people. The American people helped create 2.5 million new jobs in
May, which completely shocked the experts who predicted the oppo-
site, that there would be 7.5 million job losses. So, that’s a 10 mil-
lion job swing to the positive for our economy, which shattered
post-World War II records.
Retail sales had the biggest one-month increase ever, rising 17.7
percent. We just got those numbers the other day. But make no
mistake, we still have a great deal of work left to do. Over 40 mil-
lion Americans, as the Chairman pointed out, filed for unemploy-
ment since the shutdown began.
As we have discussed in previous briefings, the steep economic
costs were not borne equally. Low-income Americans have suffered
disproportionately. Forty percent of individuals earning less than
$40,000 lost their jobs.
A recent study by the National Bureau of Economic Research
found that the number of open Black-owned businesses fell 41 per-
cent, Hispanic-owned businesses fell 32 percent, Asian-owned busi-
nesses fell 26 percent, and immigrant-owned businesses dropped by
36 percent.
Reopening and recovery are critical to bettering the lives of our
fellow Americans. Unemployment Insurance can provide temporary
relief, but it cannot provide upward mobility that people want. The
recovery must include a resurgence of Made in America manufac-
turing. We’ve learned that too much of our PPE came from China,
and China lied to us, while hoarding PPE, and the world suffered
from that with the further spread of the coronavirus.
We can make ourselves better prepared while creating new jobs.
This subcommittee could be helping by investigating China, trying
to hold them accountable, and also finding out why they tried to
corner the market on PPE, hoarding that vital equipment while
lying to the rest of the world about the virus’ dangers.
The House Foreign Affairs Committee minority staff just re-
leased a 42-page report detailing China’s lies and coverup. I would,
Mr. Chairman, call on this subcommittee to hear from the Chinese
Ambassador to start focusing on holding China accountable for
what they did. Americans died because of the actions of the Chi-
nese, but the members of the majority will not let us bring that ac-
countability to this committee. I hope we can change that.
Last week, my Republican colleagues and I raised the disturbing
specter of the deadly decision by a handful of Governors to force
COVID-positive patients back to nursing homes. This was in con-
tradiction to CMS guidance. Those decisions led to thousands of
unnecessary deaths across our country just in those five states.
The Governor of New York recently resorted to name calling to
try changing the subject, rather than actually being transparent
and answering our questions. But, Mr. Chairman, no one has dis-
puted the facts that we raised last week. In fact, the fact checkers
have even called Governor Cuomo’s excuse false.
Once again, I would ask that this committee hear from those
Governors who violated CMS guidelines, resulting in thousands of
unnecessary nursing home deaths. We owe it to our Nation’s sen-
iors and their families who want to know why their parents and
5

grandparents died who shouldn’t have died. So, hopefully we can
work to get to the bottom of that to find out what happened, hold
people accountable, and prevent it from happening again.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing from our wit-
nesses, and I yield back.
Mr. CLYBURN. I thank the gentleman.
Now, I would like to introduce our witnesses. Our first witness
today is chief economist for the AFL–CIO and Howard University
economics professor, Professor William Spriggs.
We are also joined today by Michele Evermore, senior policy ad-
vocate with the National Employment Law Project.
We welcome Rachel Greszler, research fellow in economics, budg-
et, and entitlements at the Heritage Foundation.
And, finally, we will hear from Professor of the Practice of Eco-
nomics Policy at Harvard University, Dr. Jason Furman.
The witnesses will please unmute themselves so we can swear
them in.
Please raise your right hands. Do you swear or affirm that the
testimony you’re about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you God?
*Witnesses all testify ‘‘I do.’’
Mr. CLYBURN. Thank you.
Let the record show that each one of the witnesses replied in the
affirmative.
Without objection, your written statements will be made part of
the record.
With that, Professor Spriggs, you are now recognized for your
testimony.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM E. SPRIGGS, CHIEF ECONOMIST, AFL
CIO, PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS, HOWARD
UNIVERSITY
Mr. SPRIGGS. Thank you, Chairman James Clyburn and Ranking
Member Steve Scalise, and also thank you to committee Chair-
woman Maloney. I appreciate this invitation to give testimony be-
fore your committee today on the issue of our Nation’s unemploy-
ment crisis.
I’m happy to offer this testimony on behalf of the AFL–CIO,
America’s house of labor, representing the working people of the
United States, and based on my expertise as a professor in Howard
University’s Department of Economics.
My written testimony focused heavily on the $600 pandemic un-
employment compensation benefit, and I will mention briefly the
key points of that, but I also want to discuss other paths forward
in my oral testimony.
So, despite a slight improvement in May from the records re-
ported in April of unemployment, we remain in the worst crisis the
American labor market has faced on record. We faced this dilemma
because the United States chose to lay off workers and use the un-
employment service as its labor policy when companies were closed
to practice social distancing.
Most other industrialized nations instead chose to subsidize em-
ployers to keep workers on payroll while they shut down or reduced
hours to comply with social distancing. This is going to be a test
6

of what workers call just transition. A large segment of our work-
ers are unemployed because of a policy choice from which we all
benefit. Emerging studies show huge benefits from social
distancing. It has limited hospitalizations and deaths.
In an early attempt, beginning in March, to estimate the value
of this, it’s clear that we have saved $8 trillion conservatively. We
have saved $8 trillion because of the projected lives that we have
saved through social distancing.
The clear benefits mean we have large latitude at implementing
economic policies to mitigate the economic cost and still come out
ahead as a society, and the room to properly account for and ad-
dress the racial and gender inequalities that are becoming appar-
ent, and that will slow the recovery if not correct it.
I just want to highlight some parts of why the $600 is important
and these distortions that are ahead. First, clearly from the macro
policy perspective, as Chair Clyburn mentioned, the swift action by
Congress to step in and fix or at least amend a broken unemploy-
ment insurance system helped to save the economy.
In 2018, a typical labor market and the most recent data we
have from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and a normal labor mar-
ket, only 7.8 percent of unemployed workers in leisure and hospi-
tality industry, the industry most affected by this shutdown, re-
ceived unemployment benefits. Had Congress not stepped in, we
would have been in for a much worse situation.
The pandemic unemployment assistance helps those workers
with low wages that would not otherwise have received benefits.
And looking at the difference between March when that policy was
not in place and April when it was, the clear recovery of wages and
lost personal income is huge and significant and very different than
the experience we had in the 2009 recession.
So, this benefit is necessary for maintaining aggregate demand
and bolstering the economy. But it’s also necessary on a set of
other dimensions, key among them is maintaining equity. If you
are one of the workers in the affected industries, the effect of un-
employment rate, the unemployment rate to workers in those in-
dustries is 34 percent. If you are Black or Latino in those indus-
tries, it’s 38 percent.
So, it is fairer to interpret the experience that those workers are
having as if we were watching a massive plant shutdown. In that
event, we know that these workers have likely incurred permanent
income loss. So, despite people being concerned that they are being
overcompensated because the benefits may be higher than their re-
placement rate of wages lost, their wages lost need to be compared
to their permanent income loss, not just to weekly income loss.
I would also want to mention that because these workers face
discrimination, because disparately they are Black and Latino and
female in the labor market, they will have a harder time regaining
employment.
Further, we have to understand we do not want to reshift the
balance away from American workers in this labor market. Em-
ployers are at a huge advantage. Workers are going to work with
symptoms because they are so desperate to keep their jobs. A high
share of workers, particularly women, particularly Hispanic
women, are going to work despite saying that they have symptoms.
7

So, workers are fearful. The idea that workers facing such a high
unemployment rate do not want to return to work misses the risk
they face in this job market. So, a fair modeling of the job search
model would say that these workers are at high risk of not being
able to find employment. And they return to work.
I see the Chair leaning in. Let me conclude with this point.
Going forward, we have two recessions. We have the pandemic re-
sponse, but we also have a massive regular recession. We need a
jobs program to address the young people who are disproportion-
ately affected by this downturn. We need a jobs program because
hiring now is at a record low level, much lower than during the
Great Recession.
We need, going forward, a jobs program to make sure that young
people can be absorbed to do the things we know we need to con-
tain the virus, to do tracing, to help isolation, and we need that
now. We need that put in place now.
Thank you, Chair.
Mr. CLYBURN. Thank you very much, Dr. Spriggs.
The Chair now recognizes Ms. Evermore. Ms. Evermore, you are
now recognized.
STATEMENT OF MICHELE EVERMORE, SENIOR RESEARCHER
AND POLICY ANALYST, NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT LAW
PROJECT
Ms. EVERMORE. Good afternoon, Chairman Clyburn, Chairwoman
Maloney, Ranking Member Scalise, and members of the committee.
I’m grateful for the opportunity to testify today. I’m Michele Ever-
more, a senior researcher and policy analyst with the National Em-
ployment Law Project.
The unemployment rate, higher in the past two months than the
highest month of the Great Recession, would have been higher had
it not been for the bold action that Congress has taken. However,
the difficulty states had paying benefits exposed a system that has
been at best neglected and at worst undermined.
Now we must work together to fill in the gaps on unemployment
insurance coverage, increase equity, and maintain benefits for
those who are already eligible until the economy sufficiently im-
proves. NELP applauds the bold action that Congress has taken,
but more can and must be done.
Unemployment insurance was built to distribute funds during an
economic crisis. Created in the wake of the Great Depression, UI
succeeds in achieving several key goals: Helping workers make
ends meet, supporting people in their job search, keeping people
connected to work, upholding living standards, and providing mac-
roeconomic stability in a recession by maintaining worker buying
power which supports businesses in the economy.
It’s also important to understand that our unemployment system
is a patchwork of state systems, some of which have been inten-
tionally modified to make it more difficult to get benefits. Since the
last recession, states cut benefits by cutting benefit duration, cre-
ating confusing hurdles to access benefits, and narrowing qualifica-
tion requirements.
As a result, too few workers qualify for benefits, and those bene-
fits are inadequate. Systems have also been calibrated to prevent
8

overpayment at the expense of paying appropriate benefits, causing
erroneous denials and false fraud accusations. That means slower
benefits payments in a crisis like the one we’ve experienced.
The Urban Institute found that during the Great Recession,
Black workers were 13 percent less likely than White workers to
receive benefits, and Latinx workers were four percent less likely.
Structural racism inherent in occupational segregation in the
U.S. plays a role in benefit access. But it’s also clear there were
hurdles in the UI system disproportionately affecting workers of
color that have since been exacerbated by new cuts.
The new CARES Act program helped to cover over some of those
inequalities by establishing PUA for workers who would’ve been
left behind by UI. Currently, about a third of benefits paid are
going to PUA recipients. It made up for the decline in benefit levels
by providing a life changing $600 PUC benefit, without which
workers in communities would’ve been devastated.
Don’t take my word for it. Listen to Cindy from Ohio. She’s a
self-employed painter who waited 10 weeks to get benefits, and
said: After finally receiving the $600 addition, my weekly backpay,
which is less than my normal income, I can make sure my overdue
mortgage can be brought close to current and that my taxes due
in July will get paid, and that several other bills will get partially
paid. That $600 is the security that I need while trying to move
forward into an unknown work scape. Due to the public health cri-
sis, my projected work is about 30 percent of what’s normal for the
last three months. I have to protect my parents’ health first, but
without the $600 benefit, we’re being forced to choose between our
health, the health of our loved ones, or our jobs when we did not
choose this path. This is unacceptable and beyond cruel. I’m certain
none of our public officials would choose to walk in our shoes, but
I hope they can imagine being in them.
As the CBO has made clear and as evidenced by the unemploy-
ment rate not only not increasing but dropping in May, the $600
kept the economy afloat and is not a disincentive to return to work.
There’s more to a job than a paycheck. In uncertain times, workers
seek stability, and the reassurance of continued work is something
many workers no longer have.
I would also stress the importance of employer-sponsored health
insurance during a pandemic. Employers who want to bring work-
ers back part time should consider using work sharing so that
workers can get partial benefits plus the $600 PUC.
There’s no comprehensive plan to address the unemployment cri-
sis. There can’t be until the disease is addressed. It’s important to
remember that workers cannot refuse suitable work and receive UI
benefits, but unsafe work is not suitable work. The DOL needs to
clarify that workers can refuse work that endangers them and
their loved ones and establish standards employers must abide by
as they reopen.
This is both a workers’ rights issue and a public health issue. If
workers are forced to go back to unsafe conditions, employer neg-
ligence could result in workers getting sick and COVID spreading
further throughout the community, prolonging the duration of the
pandemic.
9

Moving forward in the near term, states need more administra-
tive funding. The $600 must remain in place until economic and
health conditions improve. And we need an automatic way to scale
benefit durations tied to the health of the economy.
Long term, we must focus on the inherent inequalities baked into
the system and set a Federal floor for benefits with meaningful ac-
cess to adequate benefits. Without comprehensive UI reform, states
face greater pressure to cut lower taxes and cut benefits than they
did after the last recession.
I look forward to working with you as we look to building a more
just system in the future.
Mr. CLYBURN. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Next, Ms. Greszler. You’re now recognized.
STATEMENT OF RACHEL GRESZLER, RESEARCH FELLOW IN
ECONOMICS, BUDGET AND ENTITLEMENTS, THE HERITAGE
FOUNDATION
Ms. GRESZLER. Good morning, and thank you for the opportunity
to testify.
I’d like to look at what’s happened in the labor market and then
discuss how Federal unemployment benefits are both helping and
hurting the recovery, consider some proposals to alter or extend
those benefits, and then last, to propose policies that will foster
flexibility and employment opportunities for all Americans.
America’s economy was strong and the unemployment rate was
at a half century low in February. But then came COVID–19, and
the actions taken to mitigate the health pandemic led to a spike
in unemployment unlike anything America has ever experienced.
Over the past three months, about one in four workers has filed
for unemployment. But even as the shutdown’s lasted much longer
than planned, the economy added 2.5 million jobs in May as state
and local lawmakers eased economic restrictions, and Americans
showed their willingness to return to work, restaurants, and stores.
The employment figures also indicate that Americans are weaning
off of Federal support, and society is ready for a gradual and safe
reopening.
The widely expanded unemployment benefits have both helped
and hurt the recovery. Increased eligibility and larger-than-ever
unemployment benefits provided an important bridge to workers
whose livelihoods were put on hold and to those whose jobs were
lost for good.
And because of the bonus $600 per week benefit that has re-
sulted in increased incomes for most unemployed workers,
JPMorgan actually projects that personal income will be slightly up
in 2020. That will help boost state and local governments and com-
mon sales tax revenues. And with households having saved a third
of their incomes in April, many Americans will be ready to spend.
But the $600 bonus benefit has resulted in about 70 percent of
unemployed workers receiving higher unemployment checks than
they did regular paychecks. It never makes sense for unemploy-
ment benefits to exceed wages because this incentivizes unemploy-
ment. It’s bad for small businesses that are having a hard time get-
ting their workers to come back. It’s bad for local economies that
count on business activity. And it’s ultimately bad for unemployed
10

workers, because longer unemployment can increase the negative
consequences of unemployment, such as a decline in physical and
mental well-being and lower incomes and opportunities in the fu-
ture.
This unemployment incentive can also have spillover con-
sequences. For example, if childcare teachers don’t go back to work,
day cares can’t open and many parents also can’t go back to work.
That’s why it’s not surprising that CBO’s analysis of extending the
$600 bonus benefit into 2021, as was proposed in the HEROES Act,
it showed that it would hurt instead of help the economy in the
long run by reducing employment and output in 2021.
And the higher business cost that would come from it could con-
tribute to increased prices and some business closures. Fraud and
abuse have also been a significant problem in the expanded bene-
fits. Washington state, for example, has an estimated $650 million
in fraudulent claims of which it’s fortunately been able to recovery
about half.
But despite the problems that the $600 bonus benefit created,
trying to eliminate those work disincentives with one-time return-
to-work bonuses or continuing to pay workers the $600 benefit even
after they go back to work would be inefficient and inequitable.
It doesn’t make sense to use limited resources to benefit individ-
uals who actually have job options, and it would be unfair to the
individuals who have been on the front lines day in and day out
to have their coworkers come back and receive $600 more per week
than they do.
Instead, policymakers should end benefits that exceed workers’
paychecks and instead provide temporary and targeted support to
workers who do not have job opportunities. This could include a
partial Federal match, perhaps 40 percent or 50 percent on top of
the state benefits. This would also ease the administrative burdens
on the states and allow them to better meet their population’s
unique needs.
While unemployment benefits can alleviate the symptoms of un-
employment, the cure is a job, and that requires environments that
offer flexibility instead of rigidity and that open doors to work op-
portunities for all Americans.
Some helpful policies include providing liability protection for
workers and employers who follow CDC guidance, encouraging in-
stead of restricting freelance and gig economy work opportunities,
ending wage restrictions and forced union dues, and repealing re-
strictions that limit flexibility in telework options.
By coupling employment opportunities and flexibility with tem-
porary and targeted unemployment supports, policymakers can
help limit the economic damage and personal hardships caused by
COVID–19 and set the stage for a solid recovery.
Thank you.
Mr. CLYBURN. The Chair now recognizes Professor Furman.
STATEMENT OF JASON FURMAN, PROFESSOR OF THE
PRACTICE OF ECONOMIC POLICY, HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Mr. FURMAN. Thank you so much, Chairman Clyburn, Ranking
Member Scalise, and members of the committee. My name is Jason
Furman. I’m a professor of the Practice of Economic Policy at Har-
11

vard University. In my written testimony, I made eight points. I’m
going to shorten and summarize the four most important.
The first is that the United States is facing a major jobs crisis.
The unemployment rate in May was the second highest it’s ever
been, second only to what it’s been in April—ever been on record.
That unemployment rate of 13.3 percent was actually realistically
around 17.1 percent, when you correct for a classification error and
when you take into account all the people who left the labor force.
Even if all of the temporary laid off people were brought back to
work immediately, a highly, highly optimistic scenario, the unem-
ployment rate still would’ve been seven percent, a recessionary
level.
Moreover, the unemployment rate was higher for Black Ameri-
cans, for Hispanic Americans, for those with lower levels of edu-
cational attainment. And for Black Americans, the overall employ-
ment rate was below 50 percent.
My second point is that we have made some progress. In May,
we saw record retail sales growth. We saw that helped support a
decline in the unemployment rate and the creation of 2.5 million
net jobs. That progress could only have happened with the tremen-
dous support that this Congress gave through the CARES Act.
Disposable personal income would have fallen in the month of
April but for expanded unemployment insurance and stimulus
checks. With those, disposable personal income rose by a record
amount, and that helped support the record consumption increase
in May and the decline in unemployment.
So, policy is working, but make no mistake, the economy is not
doing this on its own. It is doing this with a tremendous, tremen-
dous amount of support from public policy.
That brings me to my third point, that prematurely ending the
policies that did help foster the progress we saw in May would risk
a terrible outcome for the economy. Ending any form of increased
unemployment insurance after it expires by the end of July would
not just hurt the tens of millions of people receiving those benefits;
it would also reduce their purchasing power, hurting the small
businesses that they buy from; hurting the workers at those busi-
nesses; hurting the banks whose mortgages they wouldn’t pay,
risking the increased probability of a financial crisis; and hurt the
economy overall.
An analysis that I did in my written testimony using a method-
ology and parameters very similar to those used in the past by the
Council of Economic Advisers, the Congressional Budget Office, and
the Federal Reserve Board staff model, I estimate that ending un-
employment insurance would subtract 2.5 percent from GDP in the
second half of this year.
To put that in context, that’s about one year’s worth of economic
growth, more than one year’s worth wiped away. And over the next
year, it would cost 2 million jobs spread throughout the economy.
My fourth point is that there is a much better way forward. Con-
gress needs to continue to invest in the public health response,
testing, tracing, isolation, and treatment, what it can in terms of
treatment, vaccines, health system preparedness.
In addition, assistance to states and localities is essential. Nutri-
tional assistance is essential. A plan for reconstruction and rebuild-
12

ing and job creation is essential, and extending expanded unem-
ployment insurance benefits is also essential.
My recommendation, Mr. Chairman, would be that all of these
measures are tied to economic conditions, so that when the unem-
ployment rate goes up, they automatically scale up; when the un-
employment rate goes down, they automatically scale down. But
what’s most important is that there continues to be a very vig-
orous, ambitious response and that response lasts as long as it is
needed.
Thank you.
Mr. CLYBURN. Thank you. Thank you very much. And thanks to
all of our witnesses.
Now, we are going to go into a series of questions. Each member
will have five minutes to make whatever statement he or she may
want to make and ask a question. Be sure to note, a five-minute
statement means no time left for questions. So, you’ve got five min-
utes. Right, Mr. Ranking Member?
I’ll now yield myself five minutes for questions.
My first question goes to you, Professor Furman. The most recent
jobs report shows that unemployment declined slightly last month
from 14 percent to 13 percent. Now, the White House has sug-
gested that this means that our economy has reached a, and I
quote, turning point, and I’m quoting, is now in the recovery stage.
Professor Furman, does the data indicate that unemployment
will quickly snap back to pre-pandemic levels or should we expect
continued economic pain?
Mr. FURMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In May, the United
States was in among the worst economic positions it’s been in since
the Great Depression. Moreover, the job growth in May and the job
growth that I expect us to see again in June, was in some sense
the easiest economic progress to make, because it’s some businesses
calling back their workers.
Today we saw another 1.5 million people file for unemployment
insurance. That’s twice as large as the largest amount in any reces-
sion prior to the pandemic. So, economic conditions continue to be
very difficult, and I know of no forecast that expects a rapid re-
sumption of something like the 3.5 percent unemployment we had
before this.
Mr. CLYBURN. Thank you.
Professor Spriggs, I’m particularly concerned about the disparate
impact of the jobs crisis on communities of color and workers in
low-wage jobs. The May jobs report shows unemployment for Black
Americans is nearly 17 percent and rising. Unemployment for His-
panic women is even higher at 19 percent. What’s causing this dis-
parity?
Mr. SPRIGGS. Thank you, Chair Clyburn. So, a sign that we real-
ly weren’t hitting a turning point is the fact that the Black unem-
ployment rate went up. If we were actually in a turning point, the
Black unemployment rate tends to fall even faster.
The rise in the Black unemployment rate is a sign that the por-
tion of the experience of workers today is also from a regular reces-
sion. During a regular recession, the Black unemployment rate, un-
fortunately, is very sticky because of labor market discrimination.
13

As a result, that sign that the Black unemployment rate did not
fall is a sign of things to come that are worse for Black workers.
For Hispanic women, there are all sorts of things working
against them. They are the hardest hit by the closings due to the
pandemic. They face a great deal of labor market discrimination
and reconnecting, and as seen by their willingness to work despite
evidencing symptoms. It’s clear that they are fearful of job loss.
Added to that is the unprecedented jump in the lack of health
insurance in the Hispanic community. This is the crises among
Black and Brown workers. Black workers face a huge crisis because
of the work-related COVID cases. In both the Black and Brown
work forces, if you look at who’s being hospitalized, you see it’s
working age Black and Brown people who are being hospitalized.
Mr. CLYBURN. Thank you.
I now yield to the ranking member.
Mr. SCALISE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Again, I thank all of our witnesses for your testimony and for ap-
pearing before this committee.
I know we’ve talked about the health crisis, and clearly that is
the biggest concern that we’ve had from the very beginning, but
we’ve also seen now with data that’s out there that’s very clear,
that scientists have shown that the shut-in, people staying at
home, people not going back to their doctor and not going and get-
ting their regular checkups, or just the depression that’s tied to
people losing their job, or losing their business has led to a dra-
matic increase in non-COVID-related deaths. A lot of medical stud-
ies have backed that up, have shown real numbers and in con-
cerning data that shows that we need to reopen the economy. And
that is the next step. That’s where we are now. Each state is at
some level of reopening, which is really important.
But, Ms. Greszler, I know there’s been—we’ve had some con-
versations within our committee and some witnesses have said the
reason we shut down is because there’s not a cure for the virus or
a vaccine or it might come back in the fall, but others have pointed
out accurately that the reason that we had the shut-in is because
we want to make sure our hospitals weren’t overwhelmed. Can you
address what, in your position, what the reason for the shutdown—
shut-in was?
Ms. GRESZLER. Yes. Well, I think initially we didn’t know much
about this new virus and we didn’t know what would be the most
effective measures, and so we did want to protect lives, and we im-
plemented, you know, very drastic, widespread shutdowns.
But as we have learned more over time about who is at risk, you
know, the elderly population in particular and children not being
at risk, and as we have learned what are the safety precautions
that will be most effective, we’ve seen that you can have a safe re-
opening of society, you know, a gradual one and one that meets the
needs of people who need additional protections.
That’s really the only way that we can have a recovery. No mat-
ter how much money we pump into the economy, there are real
services that have to be provided. And, you know, you brought up
the healthcare of people. My grandfather’s turning 90 years old
today.
Mr. SCALISE. Happy birthday to him.
14

Ms. GRESZLER. But I’ve seen the impacts. You know, he has real-
ly been affected by the shutdown and just the decreased level activ-
ity and not, you know, receiving services that he otherwise would
have. So, we can’t ignore those consequences.
Mr. SCALISE. You know, hopefully—I appreciate that. Hopefully
we balance all of that. And, again, there’s a lot of data right now,
very good scientific studies that have shown that the shut-in has
had a very devastating adverse impact on so many millions of
Americans and, again, loss of life there, a loss of life with COVID
that we’re focusing on.
Again, we’ve seen over 40 percent of all the American deaths
from COVID–19 are seniors in nursing homes, which is 0.6 percent
of our population. That obviously is something we want to continue
to get the facts on, and we don’t have all the data we need. We
need to keep pressing to get the facts there because that was such
a large population.
Obviously, we talked about the disparate impact on minority
communities and people with underlying conditions like diabetes or
hypertension or heart disease, and so those are all things that we
can hopefully learn from and help prevent in the future.
But opening the economy is a big part of this. And I know we’re
seeing jobs numbers, we’re seeing real numbers, we’re hearing
about projections. And I know some people want to see projections
for the next 10 years, but as we saw just last week, the experts
are usually way off right now in these volatile times.
The experts said we were going to lose 7.5 million jobs. We ended
up gaining 2.5 million jobs. So, you know, getting projections from
experts for what might happen years from now really doesn’t tell
us what’s going on today and, in fact, usually is very different and
wrong from what’s happening. And that jobs report in May shows
that.
Of course, we’ve seen 11 weeks in a row of declining jobless
claims, which the jobless claim numbers are still high. And I agree
with the Chairman, we want to keep bringing that number down.
But the fact that it has been going down 11 weeks in a row shows
you that as more economies are opening up, that really is paying
off for those underprivileged people, the people that are impacted
the most disparately from unemployment.
So, again, Ms. Greszler, in terms of what we’ve seen with reopen-
ing and what we see with unemployment, do you think that we
need to keep pushing for more safe reopening to address the dis-
parity on which communities are hit the hardest with unemploy-
ment?
Ms. GRESZLER. Absolutely. I mean, the only way that we can
have a cure to this is to actually have people be going back to work
as soon as it is safe for them to do so and to have actual things
being produced and to go out there and reopen society. And if we
continue these unemployment supports, there is a real disincentive
in there.
I’ve talked to dozens of business owners across the U.S. who
want to reopen and they want to start providing services to their
community, and they have workers who are just reticent to come
back or who have not returned their calls. There were even work-
ers who walked out of the job after Congress passed this act.
15

So, while I know that the majority of people who, you know, are
unemployed and want a job and they will take the job that’s avail-
able to them, there are nevertheless a number of people out there
who are using, you know, this additional benefit there to their fi-
nancial gain. But in the end, it’s not only going to negatively im-
pact them but our economy as well.
Mr. SCALISE. Thanks. Hopefully we can——
Mr. CLYBURN. Thank you, Mr. Scalise.
Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. CLYBURN. Thank you. Let me remind all members that
under the rules, we must keep our videos on. We must be able to
see you. The rules are very clear on that, so please keep your vid-
eos on.
With that, I’d like to yield five minutes to Ms. Waters.
Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I too would like to send condolences to Mr. Sensenbrenner for his
wife’s passing, but also Mr. Andy Barr, who serves on my com-
mittee, lost his wife, only 39 years old, with two children. And, of
course, Ilhan Omar, who lost her father. Our prayers and condo-
lences go out to them.
I am so pleased about this discussion today because there are
some issues that we must confront. And I want to address my
questions to both Michele Evermore and Jason Furman. This busi-
ness about getting rid of the $600 in addition to the unemployment
that a worker would receive must be addressed.
I hear on this committee right now that Ms. Greszler is talking
about we must not continue that $600 supplement because some-
how this is a grave disincentive to work. I don’t believe that. I be-
lieve that we have workers who really love their jobs, want to be
back to work. I have many of them who like to serve as role models
to their children, getting up going to work every day.
I believe that some were on the track for upward mobility, and
they wanted to continue their work so that they could have more
opportunities in their jobs. I also believe that, yes, some of these
businesses are going to close down, and that $600 that they’re re-
ceiving is going to be the difference between whether or not they’re
going to be able to pay their rent and put food on the table.
So, this suspicion—because certainly there’s no evidence that
people don’t want to go back to work because of $600. But this lack
of confidence in our workers that’s demonstrated by those who are
adamant against us having $600 added to the unemployment is
baffling to me, and I have more confidence in Americans than that.
We know and we have heard over and over again about the dis-
proportionate number of Blacks who are suffering in this pandemic,
the loss of jobs for Blacks and people of color, and many of these
people are on unemployment and they’re receiving the extra $600,
and it is making the difference between whether or not they can
simply feed their children, pay their rent, and basically have at
least a semblance of a decent quality of life.
So, I’d like to ask Ms. Michele Evermore and then Mr. Furman
to comment on this lack of confidence we are hearing and this busi-
ness about we must not have an extra $600 supplement to the un-
employed. Ms. Evermore first.
16

Ms. EVERMORE. Thank you so much for the question, Congress-
woman Waters. Yes. So, first of all, I would point out that a lot of
employers aren’t fully opening up. They’re only opening up part
time. And in that case, work sharing is a perfect way to get the
workers back to work part time and spread the income loss across
workers and then they can get their unemployment insurance
check plus the extra $600.
In terms of the disincentive piece, as I mentioned in my testi-
mony, people are really looking for stability right now. People know
that unemployment is going to extend for quite a while, and attach-
ment to work is important to them. But also, you know, that $600
doesn’t go very far toward buying a COBRA benefit, and people
want health insurance during a pandemic, and that’s something we
also shouldn’t overlook.
Ms. WATERS. Well, thank you.
Would you share your thoughts about that, Mr. Furman?
Mr. FURMAN. Yes. The main constraint on jobs in our economy
now is that businesses aren’t hiring, not that there are people who
don’t want to work. There are many millions of people who aren’t
covered even by unemployment insurance who are available to
work. If an employer calls back a worker from temporary layoff,
they have to go back. They cannot continue to receive their unem-
ployment benefits.
Finally, unemployment benefits do have actually some benefits in
terms of the labor force. They keep people attached to the labor
force. They can prevent somebody from going on disability insur-
ance, which is—often means you’re lost to the work force. And for
those workers that aren’t going back to their old jobs, it gives them
a little bit of extra time so that rather than taking the first job that
comes along, they can take the one that’s best for them, which will
also probably be best for the economy as a whole.
Ms. WATERS. $600 is not an awful lot of money. Do you believe
that this $600 is making a difference in the lives of people, many
of them who were on very low-paying jobs, entry-level jobs? Do you
think it’s making a difference?
Mr. CLYBURN. Thank you very much, Ms. Waters. Your time is
expired.
Ms. WATERS. Thank you.
Mr. CLYBURN. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Jordan.
Mr. JORDAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Greszler, I don’t have lack of confidence in the American
worker. I have lack of confidence in Democrat Governors in these
states who did things like Governor Cuomo did, sending COVID-
infected people back to nursing homes, and, more importantly—or
as importantly, a lack of confidence in Democrat Governors who
kept their states—who are keeping their states locked down.
So, Ms. Greszler, the ranking member, Mr. Scalise, talked about
this earlier, why, in fact, did we lock down?
Mr. CLYBURN. Ms. Greszler?
Ms. GRESZLER. I’m sorry. I’m having connection issues here.
Could you repeat the question?
Mr. JORDAN. Ms. Greszler, Ranking Member Scalise earlier
talked about the reason we locked down the economy was to make
sure our hospitals weren’t overrun. It seems to me we met that—
17

you know, we accomplished that goal, because, in fact, what we did
is our hospitals—if anything, we bankrupted some of our hospitals.
Ms. GRESZLER. I’m really sorry. I haven’t been able to hear the
question.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Chairman, could I go later? Because my ques-
tions are for Ms. Greszler. If I could go later.
Mr. CLYBURN. OK. Very good. We’ll come back to you, Mr. Jor-
dan.
Mr. JORDAN. Thank you.
Mr. CLYBURN. Mrs. Maloney, you are now recognized.
Mrs. Maloney, would you unmute yourself? Mrs. Maloney? We
can’t hear you.
Chairwoman MALONEY. Can you hear me now?
Mr. CLYBURN. I hear you now.
Chairwoman MALONEY. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I, first of all, want to be associated with the comments of my col-
leagues with my condolences to our colleagues who have lost loved
ones, including a member of our committee today, Mrs. Waters,
and to welcome all of our distinguished panelists, particularly Mr.
Furman, who is a constituent in the district I am honored to rep-
resent.
So, first of all, I’d like to say that in New York, the state that
I represent, we have seen some of the highest rates of infections
and deaths from this terrible crisis. And thanks to the sacrifices of
New Yorkers and the bravery of our frontline essential heroes, we
have finally bent our curve, and we are cautiously seeking to re-
turn to some increased activity.
But I’m very concerned for other communities all over the coun-
try that are witnessing dangerous increases in infections and hos-
pitalizations. We are still in the first wave, and clearly this virus
is not contained.
Professor Furman, the steps we take over the next few weeks
and months could have a direct and significant effect on our econ-
omy. If coronavirus continues to resurge, like it is doing now across
the country, what effect will that have on the short-and long-term
economic consequences for communities, states, and the Nation?
Mr. FURMAN. The damage to the economy has primarily been
done by the virus, not by the lockdown orders to contain the virus.
You saw people pulling back their consumption even before the
lockdown orders went into effect, and they didn’t raise it even
when it was lifted. That means that taking more vigorous steps
now to contain the virus is like an investment, an investment that
would pay off not just in lives saved, but a stronger economy down
the line.
Chairwoman MALONEY. Thank you.
When people who lose their incomes, they lose the ability to af-
ford necessities like housing, food, and healthcare. That’s why we
work so hard to ensure that the CARES Act included additional
benefits for unemployed workers. And here in the House, we also
passed an extension of those benefits in the HEROES Act. But the
Senate has failed to act today.
Professor Spriggs, what does current economic data tell us about
the impact of the enhanced unemployment benefits in the CARES
Act for people?
18

Mr. SPRIGGS. Thank you, Congresswoman. The CARES Act has
been a savior to the economy. The boost to personal income saved
us in the month of April and launched us into the job gains we saw
in May. But it’s important to remember, with that extension, the
large share of workers who are now getting Pandemic Unemploy-
ment Assistance because they would not otherwise have qualified,
and disproportionately those are the low-wage workers in the in-
dustries directly affected, like the leisure and hospitality industry.
Unfortunately, as Ms. Evermore stated, states have been slow in
building up to that, and, disproportionately, African Americans
have not had access so far to the PUA and have been in states
where states have been very aggressive at stamping out what they
perceive to be people filing falsely, making it more difficult to
apply.
So, currently, African Americans, as was the case in the Great
Recession, are far less likely to be receiving unemployment bene-
fits, even though they would otherwise qualify. This is one of the
great tragedies of letting states have control of the policies. Again,
as Ms. Evermore has mapped out for you, you can see that those
states that have made it the hardest are the states where Black
workers live disproportionately.
These benefits are necessary for the economy, and they are sav-
ing the economy because, after all, if people don’t pay rents, that’s
debt building up in banks because somebody else isn’t getting paid
who isn’t getting paid. We don’t want to turn this into a financial
crisis as well as to a real economy crisis.
Chairwoman MALONEY. Now, in New York, while being hit hard
by the coronavirus, unemployment rates in April went up to more
than 14 percent. At the May jobs report from the Bureau of Labor
Statistics show that we still have dire levels of unemployment
throughout the country.
Yesterday, Fed Chairman Powell warned our Financial Services
Committee about the dangers of cutting off assistance to the unem-
ployed at this point in the crisis. He said, and I quote: People are
right now, they’re getting enhanced unemployment insurance. Per-
haps many have gotten support checks as part of the CARES Act.
But over time, they don’t have a secure income. And to the extent
they lose those benefits they’re getting, then they are going to come
under financial pressure right away, end quote.
Ms. Evermore, what will happen——
Mr. CLYBURN. Mrs. Maloney, your time has expired.
Chairwoman MALONEY. All right. I’ll submit the question in writ-
ing to her.
Mr. CLYBURN. Thank you. Thank you.
Ms. Greszler, can you hear us? I can see you. Can you hear us?
Well, we can’t hear you.
Ms. GRESZLER. Can you hear me now?
Mr. CLYBURN. I can hear you now.
Ms. GRESZLER. OK. Great. Thank you.
Mr. CLYBURN. OK. Let’s hope that we have got your—so I go
back to Mr. Jordan.
Mr. JORDAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Greszler, Mr. Furman just said that the virus itself is the
reason for the economic downturn, not the lockdown, not the idea
19

that we’ve locked down our economy. Do you agree with that state-
ment?
Ms. GRESZLER. No. I think that was the problem at the begin-
ning, but now that things have been reopening, that’s no longer the
case.
Mr. JORDAN. Yes. When you don’t let people go to work, that has
a negative economic impact, right?
Ms. GRESZLER. Yes.
Mr. JORDAN. And when you let them go to work, you have got
a stronger economy. Shazam. Figure that one out. That means—
that makes no sense to me that the lockdown has no impact on the
economy? Well, how about states who opened up earlier, are they
seeing higher economic growth in states that are still largely locked
down?
Ms. GRESZLER. We’ve seen a bigger decrease in the unemploy-
ment rate in those states.
Mr. JORDAN. Of course. So, let me go back to something you said
in your opening statement. Was our economy humming along? Was
it doing well prior to the coronavirus?
Ms. GRESZLER. It was. And that’s what’s different here. We actu-
ally had seen the strongest gains among lowest income workers
prior to this.
Mr. JORDAN. Wages were up, taxes have been cut, regulations re-
duced, unemployment at its lowest in 50 years, unemployment for
African Americans, Hispanic Americans, stock market up, the best
economy we’ve seen. I have had businessowners in our district say
best economy they’ve seen in their entire 30, 35 years in business,
best economy ever. And yet we’re telling people—now we’re saying,
oh, oh, the idea that we won’t let people go back to work when we
had that great economy, somehow that’s not impacting the num-
bers. That makes no sense to me.
So, is it time to let people go back to work?
Ms. GRESZLER. Absolutely. As I said, that’s the only way that
we’re going to grow the economy is if people are actually doing
work.
Mr. JORDAN. Yes. Time to reopen our economy.
And, again, remember, we shut down the economy because we
said we didn’t want to overwhelm our hospitals. We certainly didn’t
overwhelm our hospitals. This is where we started before we had
technical difficulty. We didn’t want to overwhelm the hospitals. We
didn’t do that. In fact, some hospitals are in financial trouble be-
cause they couldn’t do elective surgery, couldn’t do the scanning,
and all the other things that they normally do. It was—in fact, we
sent—the President sent a ship to New York Harbor to New York,
and the ship’s back in Virginia now. Been back for six weeks be-
cause we definitely met that goal.
So, it is time to reopen our economy. Let this thing that was hap-
pening so strongly prior to the coronavirus, let the great American
comeback happen. Do you agree?
Ms. GRESZLER. I do. And we have to recognize that this is all the
more reason we need flexibility. We need income opportunities to
reopen. We can’t be driving up the cost of employing people. We
can’t be closing doors to gig work and to people being their own
bosses. There’s going to be kind of a new shift here coming out.
20

People need more flexibility. We shouldn’t be shutting options that
prevent people from having that.
Mr. JORDAN. And you don’t have any lack of confidence in the
American worker, as one of my Democrat colleagues—I mean, I
have the utmost confidence—like I said, I got the utmost confidence
in the American people and the American worker. I have very little
conference—confidence, excuse me, in some of these Democrat Gov-
ernors in these states that continue to keep things locked down,
particularly after they’ve made the decision to send people with the
coronavirus back into nursing homes, as Governor Cuomo did.
It’s not about a lack of confidence in the American worker. We’ve
got the utmost confidence in them. In fact, it’s the American work-
er, the American people who gave us that great economy we had
prior to the coronavirus outbreak.
Ms. GRESZLER. Absolutely.
Mr. JORDAN. Yes. So, we got to let them—we got to let them get
back to work as quickly as we can.
Last thing, talk about this unemployment issue that has been
discussed already in our hearing today. The concerns that some are
raising. Look, people who were entitled to unemployment wanted
to have them. But better than unemployment is back to work. It’s
almost like we got this at, oh, no, let’s keep people—I would rather
people be back to work. It’s better for the individual. It’s better for
the family. It’s better for the American economy. It’s just better.
But somehow it seems that that is a no, no, no, let’s keep things
locked down and let’s keep people—that makes no sense to me.
Let’s let people go back to work.
Ms. GRESZLER. Absolutely. Let’s let them, you know, go back in
ways and consider, you know, certain targeted support. So, instead
of just throwing $600 to anybody, you know, if you have that par-
tial match, and you talk about these unemployment programs that
will provide for the short time comp or the work sharing that Ms.
Evermore was talking about, that’s a far better solution with more
targeted provisions than just giving $600 to everybody who re-
mains unemployed.
Mr. JORDAN. Thank you, Ms. Greszler, I appreciate your time. I
appreciate your input.
Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.
Mr. CLYBURN. I thank the gentleman for yielding back.
As I go to Mr. Luetkemeyer, let me just remind my friend Mr.
Jordan that 21 states have seen a tremendous increase in infec-
tions over the last week, one of them being my state. Arizona, Flor-
ida, Oklahoma, Texas, all have got one thing in common—or two
things in common: They set records last week, and all of them had
Republican Governors.
Mr. JORDAN. Let me ask you this. Are the coronavirus cases, is
it worse in states that have opened up versus states that have
locked down? And, frankly, but for a few isolated incidents, it’s not.
So, there is no difference in overall numbers in states that opened
up early. The difference is the states that opened up early, they
have stronger economic growth. There has been, but for a few iso-
lated places, it has been no difference in the outbreak of people
contracting the coronavirus. But that’s my point. Let’s open up.
21

Mr. CLYBURN. I beg to differ. Florida, Texas opened up early, and
they set records and have Republican Governors.
Mr. JORDAN.
[Inaudible.]
Mr. CLYBURN. With that, I will yield to Mr. Luetkemeyer.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and ranking
member——
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I think that I’m next.
Mr. CLYBURN. I’m sorry?
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Since Mr. Jordan was the one asking questions,
isn’t it my turn?
Mr. CLYBURN. No. We come to you next. We had to go back to
Mr. Jordan because of a malfunction.
Ms. Velázquez, you are after Mr. Luetkemeyer, according to what
I have here. Mr. Luetkemeyer now, then we come to you, Ms.
Velázquez.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank
you, Ranking Member Scalise and all of those who are briefing the
subcommittee today. We appreciate your attendance and your testi-
mony.
In many parts of the country, including much of Missouri where
I’m from, the effects of the economic downturn caused by blanket
shutdowns have been just as, if not more, damaging to human
health and safety than the virus itself.
Just to give you perspective, I speak regularly to a funeral direc-
tor based in my district. During this pandemic, he has seen more
deaths related to suicide than from COVID–19.
Scientists have repeatedly found that unemployment leads di-
rectly to things like substance abuse, depression, child abuse, do-
mestic abuse, violent crime, and suicide. A study performed by the
University of Missouri found that 1 in 5 suicides are related to un-
employment. That same study showed, in 2009, the suicide rates
jumped 12 percent due to the economic crash in 2008.
Additional studies that we have discussed in this subcommittee
have found that for every $17 million Americans lose in collective
income, we lose in American life. That translates to 65,000 Amer-
ican lives lost each month due to the economic shutdown. Roughly,
that’s 50 percent more lives lost than due to the coronavirus.
I don’t want to minimize the devastating impact the virus has
had on many American families. It is important that we look at—
but I believe it’s important that we look at the whole healthcare
picture on how many Americans have also been impacted by the
forced shutdown of businesses across the country. With the curve
flattening and all 50 states open in some capacity, it’s time we
focus on getting our economy back on track, and we are fortunately
headed in that right direction.
Now, I would like to address a question to Ms. Greszler. Now,
one of the things that everybody is talking about through this situ-
ation is we need to do—make the decisions based on data and
based on science. I just gave you some statistics a minute ago with
regards to data—65,000 deaths per month on the other side. The
rest of our healthcare concerns with the rest of our society.
The CDC and Dr. Fauci both now believe we need to be opening
up. The CDC indicates that our death rate on the coronavirus is
22

less than four-tenths of one percent, which is right in the area of
the common flu that we get all the time.
Last week, in our hearing, one of the gentlemen that testified in-
dicated that children now are at greater risk with the flu than they
are with COVID, and the lockdown costs our economy over $25 bil-
lion per day.
You know, one of the things also that came out that I read re-
cently here in one of the journals is that University of Pittsburgh
has made a cumulative study that said that the virus is now mu-
tating to a less virulent strain. There are two separate doctors in
Italy that now say that they recognize that the strain is much less
virulent than it was. And, anecdotally, in the same article, there
was a statement that New York also sees this happening as well.
We now know the disease is very targeted. You know, we see this
for seniors and high-risk individuals. So, we have lots and lots of
data. I can continue on. I’ve got reams of it in front of me. But we
have the data. We have the scientific evidence and the scientists
who tell us now how we can do to this responsibly.
Why do you think it is—there’s a bunch of states that are very,
very slow at reopening, when the data shows that we need to be
reopened for the healthcare of the rest of our society, and that we
can do it responsibly. Why do you think those states are not doing
that?
Ms. GRESZLER. Yes. I think that there is a lot of fear about what
the consequences will be, but those aren’t acknowledging the non-
COVID health-related consequences, things like talking about chil-
dren not having great access to school. Your saving lives and liveli-
hoods go hand in hand, as you pointed out here. And as we look
forward, there’s absolutely no reason why childcare centers and
schools should not be reopening when we know now that the risks
to children are actually less than the seasonal flu.
There are ways to provide, you know, a more data-driven and
surgical approach to reopening things than to just keep these shut-
downs in place longer term, as we really are taking away people’s
livelihoods. Because the longer that you have a business closed, the
more likely it is they’re never going to be able to reopen their
doors.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. One more quick question and comment here.
I just got off a conference call earlier before this meeting with
Larry Kudlow, National Economic director, and he made the com-
ment that housing is strong; the last month, travel is up; new busi-
ness apps are up; existing business, 80 percent of them now are up
and running. And so his comment was, it’s important that we don’t
put any sort of policy barriers in place to stop this recovery that
we’re in.
What do you see as a policy barrier that we should not imple-
ment, to make sure we continue along the line of a recovery?
Ms. GRESZLER. Well, I think that there shouldn’t be barriers that
keep businesses unnecessarily closed for longer, the schools closed
longer. And we absolutely need to put some liability protections in
place so that these smaller businesses, you know, have the assur-
ance that if they reopen and they have their workers come back,
they’re not going to be sued for things that are really none of their
own doing.
23

Mr. CLYBURN. Your time has expired. Thank you very much.
The Chair now recognizes Ms. Velázquez.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to briefly respond to the claim that extending the $600
enhanced benefit is stopping people from going back to work. The
evidence simply doesn’t bear that out. Treasury Secretary Steve
Mnuchin addressed this point in testimony before the Senate last
week, and he was clear that additional $600 benefit has not dis-
couraged people from going back to work. He said, and I quote: I
think we have seen from the recent numbers that didn’t have a big
impact because people want their jobs. The real reason people
aren’t going back to work is because the jobs are not there.
The Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Chairman Powell, testified
just yesterday that in hard-hit industries, like hospitality and tour-
ism, workers, and I quote, will struggle until the pandemic is writ-
ten into the history books. He explained it may be difficult to find
jobs in that industry at all.
So, the facts are clear. Americans want to work, and they will
when given the chance. But until these jobs return, we must con-
tinue to support the millions of Americans who are out of work.
Ms. Evermore, consumer spending is at the heart of the U.S.
economy, especially for millions of small businesses. With CBO pro-
jecting unemployment to reach 50 percent in the coming months,
what potential harm could come to small businesses and our econ-
omy if Congress does not extend the unemployment insurance?
Ms. EVERMORE. Thank you for the question, Representative
Velázquez. Yes, you’re absolutely right, there is tremendous local
spending effects when it comes to the $600. In the last recession,
it was estimated that every dollar spent in unemployment insur-
ance benefits generated $1.61 in local economic activity.
But to get to your point about people not returning to work, first
of all, you know, we expected over 20 percent unemployment for
the May jobs numbers based on initial claims. So, looking at an ac-
tual drop in unemployment, it looks like a lot of people went back
to work.
For example, Alicia, a worker from the District of Columbia, she
was laid off in March. She needed to be home to handle distance
learning for her two children. She got the $600 pandemic benefit.
She said, I don’t know how I’d do anything without it. She had to
reach out to her mortgage lender, and they allowed her just one
month of deferment. She wouldn’t have been able to keep her mort-
gage if she hadn’t got it. But she went back to work as soon as they
made telework available for her job.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Thank you. Thank you.
Dr. Furman, Chairman Powell testified this week that there is
a reasonable probability that more will be needed from the Con-
gress and the Federal Reserve. He stated that for those most im-
pacted by the economy downturn, like Blacks, Latinos, and house-
holds making less than $40,000, that fiscal stimulus is more bene-
ficial than any actions that the Federal Reserve can take.
Do you agree with that statement and, if so, why?
Mr. FURMAN. Yes, I very much agree with Chairman Powell in
that statement. The Federal Reserve, I think, has done a very good
job, but its tools are really limited, especially because interest rates
24

are stuck at zero and they couldn’t lower them very much. You can
very directly get money to the households who are most in need,
who are facing the greatest challenges, through unemployment in-
surance, through SNAP, through stimulus checks. And that has
happened to be the same households that are most likely to spend
the money. It has what economists would call the highest marginal
propensity to consume, and that’s the largest positive impact on
the economy overall.
So, it’s really—the Federal Reserve has mostly done its job. It’s
Congress that needs to do its job. And, of course, the House did its
job by passing the HEROES Act.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Thank you.
Ms. Evermore, a recent report noted that Black American
businessowners plummeted from 1.1 million in February to
640,000. And that is why I as Chair of the Small Business Com-
mittee continue to call for funds to be set aside in the Paycheck
Protection Program.
Can you talk about the need to prioritize minority business as-
sistance and other policies we should consider to help them?
Ms. EVERMORE. Yes. I think, actually, Dr. Spriggs would be the
most well-equipped to answer this. But, you know, building on a—
considering decades of systemic and structural racism, targeting
funds to the people who’ve most been left out means that you are
going to build a policy that works best for everyone.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Thank you. My time is up.
Mr. CLYBURN. Thank you very much.
The Chair now recognizes, Mrs. Walorski.
Mrs. WALORSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would also like to extend to my colleagues’ sympathy and pray-
ers toward the great losses that they have suffered just in the last
couple of months, including my colleague Andy Barr as well.
The CARES Act provided $600 per week in temporary supple-
mental unemployment benefits to support public health by allowing
businesses and workers to get through closures, stay-at-home or-
ders, and to flatten the curve. This was a necessary step back in
March. But if we want a V-shaped recovery as states and cities
safely reopen, we need to take a different tact on this benefit so
that it doesn’t inadvertently disincentivize people from returning to
work.
So, for instance, in my home state of Indiana, workers receiving
the $600 Federal supplement will be getting about three times as
much as they otherwise would on unemployment. So, factor in the
comparatively low cost of living in my district and, in many cases,
a worker would make more unemployment than they would if they
return to work.
In fact, the University of Chicago estimates that over two-thirds
of unemployment insurance recipients nationwide are in this situa-
tion, and over 20 percent are receiving double their salary.
I want to be clear; I have no issue with any worker who took this
benefit. Congress made it available at a time when much of the
economy was going to be shut down for an undetermined amount
of time. That additional benefit did help workers pay rent, put food
on a table, and have peace of mind as they found themselves unem-
ployed or furloughed through no fault of their own. But now busi-
25

nesses are reopening and rehiring and shouldn’t have to compete
with a temporary government benefit.
That’s why Ways and Means Ranking Member Brady and myself
have supported looking at a back-to-work bonus proposal that
would make work pay by allowing workers to keep up to 2 weeks’
worth of that additional benefit after accepting a job, essentially a
$1,200 sign-on bonus. We also want to make sure that states pro-
vide clear notice to unemployment claimants about work, to work
obligations, and good cause exceptions.
I also think there’s a better policy than the Democrats’ partisan
bill, the HEROES Act, which would extend the $600 work incentive
through January 2021. The nonpartisan CBO said that doing this
would weaken incentives to work, decrease economic output, and
decrease employment. In short, it would kill our economic recovery.
Another misguided policy in the partisan HEROES Act is restor-
ing unlimited deductions for state and local taxes, or SALT. The
nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation has found that only one
percent of the benefits of this policy would go to those making less
than $100,000 a year. So, instead, over half of the projected bene-
fits would go to those with annual incomes of $1 million or more.
This does nothing to rebuild our economy. In fact, it gives the
wealthiest a whole cake while the middle class is stuck with the
crumbs. Tax experts on the left and right agree that restoring an
unlimited SALT deduction is a bad policy.
Just a few weeks ago, Mr. Furman, who’s with us today, report-
edly said restoring SALT was a waste of money, that it would not
help the economic recovery.
So, as we climb out of this crisis, we need serious substantive bi-
partisan proposals that incentivize people to go back to work and
to rebuild, and to rebuild our economy and their lives, not bloated
partisan bills that incentivize—disincentivize work and provide
rich things as giveaways.
Ms. Greszler, would we be more or less likely to see a V-shaped
recovery if we extend the $600 a week unemployment benefit for
six more months and restore the SALT deduction as the Demo-
cratic HEROES Act does?
Ms. GRESZLER. No. I think the CBO report that came out evalu-
ating that $600 proposal shows that it will actually hurt the econ-
omy in the long run. We will see lower output employment next
year. And all this push with the $600 benefit is just keeping with
the inertia.
But we have to recognize that when Congress established this
benefit, it wasn’t because it was the best-designed program. It was
simply the quickest way to get the money out the door, you know,
recognizing that we were going to have these problems. Now that
we see what the problems have been, that’s all the more reason to
let that benefit expire and then to more properly target the benefits
to people who actually need them, and talk about ways that if you
have a reduction in hours of income, maybe you could have that
partial benefit that’s coming in, so that you go back to work 20
hours a week and you still get something from unemployment. But
we don’t want it to be manipulated.
There are too many cases, you know, Portland, Oregon, has what
they call furlough Fridays. They’re laying their teachers off or fur-
26

loughing them for one day a week so that they can collect the $600
benefit, plus a partial unemployment benefit, the workers are bet-
ter off. The taxpayers are better off. It’s Federal taxpayers who are
going to bear the brunt of that.
Mrs. WALORSKI. I appreciate it, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. CLYBURN. Thank you very much.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Foster.
Mr. FOSTER. All right. Can people hear me? My internet keeps
coming and going.
Mr. CLYBURN. Yes.
Mr. FOSTER. All right. I’m now operating with my iPhone
hotspot, so we’ll see how that works.
Mr. CLYBURN. OK.
Mr. FOSTER. So, one of the things that struck me was the way
that, one—some people have been using the $600 benefit simply to
be able to maintain their mortgage payments. And, you know, as
was mentioned, so far, the residential housing market has held up
all right. However, many people are very worried that if this is
withdrawn, that there will be a wave of foreclosures and that we’ll
see the sort of downward spiral that we saw in the Great Recession
where houses—people couldn’t make their payments, they were
foreclosed upon, the house was sold, this caused real estate prices
to drop, and wiped out a huge fraction of the wealth of really a
large fraction of Americans. And we may be very close to such a
tipping point if we decide to pull back that $600 suddenly.
Now, I was wondering, do the projections that are being made ac-
tually reflect that risk accurately and include the regenerative
downward spiral that could result?
Mr. SPRIGGS. I would be willing to answer for you.
Mr. FOSTER. Please, Mr. Spriggs.
Mr. SPRIGGS. Absolutely, Congressman. There is that risk. We
must remember that household income has to be maintained to
maintain the rest of the economy. And we know from the Great Re-
cession that unemployment benefits were important in diverting
more foreclosures from happening. In this case, it’s even more nec-
essary because we don’t want to complicate the current crises that
is rising in the economy. Banks are amassing debts that it’s not
clear will be able to be paid off, and they’re going to have to even-
tually write off some of this bad debt. We need to keep that level
down. So, your concern is a very valid one and one that has to be
added into the calculus.
Mr. FOSTER. Yes. And then what I’ve heard from many individ-
uals is that, yes, you can get one month of forbearance or maybe
two months, but you cannot get six months. So, if this is yanked
away, I think we’re going to be facing a wave of foreclosures here,
and that could end badly.
I’d also like to draw attention to the words of the Chairman of
the Federal Reserve yesterday in our Financial Services meeting.
He said, quote: It’s important to just keep in mind that some of the
jobs are not coming back soon. And they’re going to have a hard
time finding a job, so I think it’s better to keep them in their apart-
ment, better to keep them paying their bills. And that this is a nat-
ural disaster. It isn’t their fault. I think that we should find ways
as a country to support these people.
27

And, you know, I really agree with that, that, this is, you know,
it’s not going to go away, you know, in a month, but it’s probably
not going to last a year. So, I think we really owe it to all of our
fellow citizens to make sure that they’re able to survive that year
in reasonable shape.
But in the long term, there may be big structural changes. Many
people have learned that working at home is a very efficient thing
to do, and so they won’t be going out to the restaurant for lunch,
and on and on. There are some estimates that as many as 40 per-
cent of the jobs that were lost will not come back.
So, how do we wrestle with that situation, if it takes place, be-
cause then reopening the economy won’t be effective for those peo-
ple?
Mr. SPRIGGS. Again, Congressman, you are absolutely on point,
which is why I think the $600 has to be compared to the loss of
permanent income that many workers are experiencing, and look-
ing at it as a replacement rate only on a weekly basis is an incor-
rect calculation. But we need more. We need to make sure that our
state and local governments do not lay off more workers as they
face creating budgets that will have to be balanced, realizing the
loss in revenue they are currently suffering from. And we will lose
even more jobs if the HEROES Act is not passed to stabilize state
and local governments and ensure that schools can open so that we
can get workers back to work.
The greatest fear isn’t workers taking the $600 and not return-
ing to work. The greatest fear is workers being unable to return
to work because we haven’t done the things to reopen schools.
Mr. FOSTER. And when that happens, of course, that will depress
the wages of everyone competing for those jobs being much scarce
than it needs to be.
Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. CLYBURN. Thank you very much, Mr. Foster.
The Chair now recognizes Dr. Green.
Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Chairman Clyburn and Ranking Member
Scalise. And thank you to our witnesses.
Ever since the Democrats captured the House, the loudest voices
in the Democrat Party have done nothing but work to take power
away from people. Take House Resolution 1, for instance, the
Democrats’ flagship bill, For the People Act, or maybe more appro-
priately, ‘‘for the politicians act.’’ This piece of legislation would
mandate a colossal takeover of state election processes to empower
big government levels. Or perhaps H.R. 5, which removes religious
freedoms granted in previous legislation in the Constitution. Or
what about their desire to dictate what vehicle we can drive or ride
in in the Green New Deal? Now, AOC is out there pushing uni-
versal rent control. That’s right out of Karl Marx.
Take a more recent bill, House Resolution 965. Through the Yel-
low Fever of 1793, the burning of the Capitol during the War of
1812, the Civil War, the Spanish flu of 1918, and 9/11, the House
has always assembled in person to conduct votes.
And while the Republican-controlled Senate continues to do so,
Speaker Pelosi forced through proxy voting without the minority’s
consent, further concentrating her power while disregarding the
Constitution, over 200 years of historical precedent. Concentrated
28

power is tyranny. And despite flattening the curve, some Demo-
crats have consistently urged for a slower reopening of the Amer-
ican economy.
What about the waitress, though, the bus driver, the construction
worker, who are not sure how they’re even going to make next
month’s rent or put food on the table? Why should the government
force them not to work when we’ve already accomplished the goal
of flattening the curve? It begs the question, why are some leaders
in the Democrat Party willing to put power over people?
Let me explain. In an article in Politico titled, and I quote, ‘‘The
general election scenario that democrats are dreading,’’ end quote,
the reporter quotes Jason Furman, Dr. Furman who’s here today,
and I quote, ‘‘We’re about to see the best economic data we’ve seen
in the history of this country,’’ end quote.
The article mentions that Dr. Furman’s comments regarding a
strong economic recovery has caused some Washington Democrats,
especially Dr. Furman’s fellow Obama alumni, to panic. Quote,
‘‘This is my big worry,’’ said former Obama White House official.
Asked about the level of concern among top party officials, he said,
‘‘It’s high, high, high, high,’’ end quote.
Senior political operatives of the Democrat Party are dreading a
massive economic recovery? Is it possible Democrats would rather
the American economy not bounce back up so quickly so that they
can see President Trump defeated? I hope everyone realizes what
this article is saying.
Top Washington Democrats, some on Vice President Biden’s cam-
paign team, are lamenting a rapid economic recovery. They want
unemployment to remain sky high: They want 401(k)’s of Ameri-
cans to tank? They should be celebrating people getting their jobs
back. These Democrats, not all, these are clearly more concerned
about power than they are about people. They’d rather defeat
President Trump than help their fellow Americans.
As a physician, I understand how the shutdown is severely im-
pacting the health and well-being of Americans. Take our seniors,
it’s common knowledge in the medical community that social isola-
tion and loneliness heightens mortality. According to one study
conducted by researchers at Brigham Young University, loneliness
increased the odds of mortality by 26 percent. It should be consid-
ered a risk factor, like obesity and high blood pressure.
Or take suicides. According to research from Well Being Trust,
the coronavirus pandemic and related shutdowns will probably
cause 75,000 additional deaths from suicide, drug overdose, and al-
cohol abuse. A poll by the Kaiser Foundation found that 45 percent
of U.S. adults reported their mental health as already negatively
affected. Additionally, diagnostic panels and cancer screenings
plunged by as much as 68 percent, and even more in some
coronavirus hotspots.
As a doctor and a cancer survivor myself, I know from both sides
of the stethoscope that these screenings are crucial in diagnosing
cancer before it spreads. There’s more than an election at stake
here. The lives of our fellow Americans are at stake.
I urge Speaker Pelosi and the entire Democrat Party to join us,
encourage these states to speed up the opening of this economy.
That’s how we save lives, save jobs, and save Americans.
29

Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. CLYBURN. Your five minutes have expired.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Raskin.
Unmute yourself. Unmute yourself.
Mr. Raskin?
Mr. RASKIN. Yes. You got me?
Mr. CLYBURN. Got you now.
Mr. RASKIN. All right. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
And I also want to add my voice in sympathy and for condolences
for our colleagues Sensenbrenner and Barr and Ilhan Omar for the
losses in their family. And I also want to express my condolences
to the families of 117,832 Americans that we’ve lost in the last four
months of this nightmare.
I noticed that my colleagues and friends across the aisle never
seem to mention the number of people that we’ve lost. And they’re
acting as if somehow this crisis is going away. But, you know, Flor-
ida and Arizona and California reported record highs today in
number of cases. The hospitalization rate is up in Tennessee by 30
percent. Record rates going on in Alabama. Nothing can get away
from blaming Governor Cuomo for what’s taking place all across
the Southern and Western parts of the United States.
Mr. Chairman, you know, I wish I could go right to unemploy-
ment, but there’s too much disinformation and propaganda in
there, and I’ve got to address some of these things.
The ranking member started off by going back to the tried and
true China excuse, so I decided to do a little research on this to
see where it’s coming from. Turns out there’s a whole article about
it in Politico. I’m going to ask for unanimous consent at the end
of the meeting to introduce it, called, GOP memo urges anti-China
assault over coronavirus. It’s all about how in order to deflect and
divert people from President Trump’s miserable and legal failure to
develop a public health strategy for testing and contact tracing and
public health containment of the disease, what needs to be done is
to blame China over it. It’s a 57-page memo that goes into things
like what to do when people suggest that this is a racist strategy
and so on.
One thing that’s not addressed in the memo is the real glaring
fault of this, which is that President Trump in January, in Feb-
ruary, in March and in April, on 37 different occasions praised
China and President Xi and his response to the pandemic and said
he was working very closely with them. I don’t have time to read
all of it, but I’m going to introduce this for the record too. It’s
called, the many times Trump has praised China’s handling of the
coronavirus pandemic. And it’s a collection of all of the President’s
statements about it. I’ll read just a couple, because every time that
our Republican colleagues go back to blaming China, I’m just going
to continue reading the President’s statement.
So, I will start at the beginning on January 22 when he’s asked,
do you trust that we’re going to know everything we need to know
from China? He says, yes, I do. I do. I have a great relationship
with President Xi, and we just signed probably the biggest deal
ever made.
Two days later, on January 24, he says, China has been working
very, very hard at containing the virus. The United States greatly
30

appreciates their efforts and their transparency. January 27, We
are in very close communication with China concerning the virus.
Very few cases reported in the USA. And on and on and on.
So, either the greatest deal maker of all time, the master of the
art of the deal got suckered by the Chinese Communist Party, or
maybe he was in cahoots with them. I didn’t think that was pos-
sible until I picked up today’s New York Times and I read about
the President’s former National Security Advisor John Bolton, who
says that President Trump actually approached President Xi about
helping him win his reelection, saying that, If you buy crops from
the United States, you’re going to help me in the farm states,
you’re going to help me in agriculture states that have been hit
very hard.
Well, that’s the reality of the situation. If you guys want to keep
talking about China, I would love to do it next time you do report
on China. Please get into the President’s absolute cooperation with
the Chinese government and defense of Chinese government.
Now, it’s also being said that somehow the cure to the pandemic
is to get everybody back to work. But we don’t have to choose be-
tween the economy and public health. On the contrary, the best
way to get the economy going again is to address the public health
crisis, which they now completely ignore. And it’s not only the best
way to do it, it’s the only way to do it.
Mr. Furman, do you want to address the comments that were
made about you and your role in trying to address this pandemic
which makes America the leader in death count worldwide and the
leader in case count worldwide now?
Mr. FURMAN. Yes. The United States economy is in a much worse
place for the second half of this year because of the lack of success
in containing the virus. Even with that, I do expect you’ll see
months like the month of May with very large numbers. I also ex-
pect, even with that, you will be in a very, very deep hole. And,
you know, if major legislation is passed along the lines of the HE-
ROES Act, that would speed the economic recovery and mean the
economy was in better shape in the month of November, something
that most Democrats seem more than happy to want to do, as
judged by their vote for that act.
Mr. RASKIN. Ms. Evermore, what can we do to expedite relief
right now in states where the unemployment system does not seem
to be correctly addressing all of the findings that have come in
from the people?
Ms. EVERMORE. Thank you for the question.
Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Raskin?
[Inaudible]
You may go ahead and answer, Ms. Evermore.
Ms. EVERMORE. Oh, OK. Thank you.
The most important thing that I think Congress could do right
now is just get additional administrative funding out. When the
original billion dollars was passed in Families First, that was the
first week in March, nobody had any idea how big this crisis was
going to be. And a billion dollars only represented a 50 percent in-
crease for state agencies who’ve seen a thousandfold increase in
new claims. So, I think doing that, investing in technological infra-
structure immediately would go a long way.
31

Mr. RASKIN. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. CLYBURN. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Kim.
Mr. KIM. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for pulling this together.
I want to start by just addressing that I think I can safely say
that every single one of us here today wants to see our economy
strong, wants to see American workers going back to work as soon
as possible. Any type of false debates about that is really just dis-
tracting from the issues at hand here. We should not be getting
into debates here about whether partisan politics is getting ahead
of our desires for a strong economy. That is absolutely not true. Ev-
eryone here wants to make sure that we have a strong economy
and getting people back to work. And I think that I can safely say
that here today, and I want to be very declarative about the impor-
tance of making sure we’re working out for the American people
and that they can have confidence that their Congress is working
for them.
When it comes to our issues of how do we get people back to
work as quickly as possible, it comes a question of how do we do
this safely and responsibly? And if that is where the debate is, then
let us talk about that and talk about what we can do to be able
to help the work standards of environment to be able to get the
public health tools needed to be able to get us to that place.
Ms. Evermore, I wanted to ask you a question here, because last
week, Secretary of Labor Scalia testified that the Trump adminis-
tration had received, quote, several thousand workplace safety com-
plaints during the coronavirus crisis. Yet the Department of Labor
had issued only one workplace safety citation the entire time.
Now, this is worrisome, because as we’re trying to get people
back to work, we need to make sure we have a safe environment
for them to be able to get back to. And it feels like based on this
that the Department has failed to issue any enforceable safety
standards to protect workers during this pandemic.
I want to ask you if stronger OSHA standards or other steps that
the government and this administration should be doing right now
would allow us to be able to reopen in a safer and more responsible
and sustainable way, and how so?
Ms. EVERMORE. Absolutely. OSHA and the Employment and
Training Administration should be working hand-in-hand first to
issue workplace standards so employers know how they can open
up in a safe way. And then also the Employment and Training Ad-
ministration needs to give clear guidance to workers and the state
agencies what standards apply in terms of refusing unsafe work.
Because if workers are empowered to take a look at a workplace
and decide that it’s not safe to go back, and going back is going to
exacerbate the public health crisis, then we go a long way toward
mitigating some of these public health concerns regarding trying to
reopen.
Mr. KIM. That’s a huge part of the equation in terms of getting
people back to work. All of us would like it if we’re able to have
people on unemployment insurance for less time and making sure
that we can invest in the workplace and make that safe and re-
sponsible is critical.
When we look at the steps that we can take to try to help people
get through this difficult time until they’re able to get back in safe
32

and responsible way, it’s not just about the kind of income that
they’re getting or support they’re getting, whether through unem-
ployment insurance or something else, but it’s also about what
costs they are still incurring and the difficulties that they’ll have
to be able to then provide for their family.
Ms. Evermore, you raised the question about healthcare, and I
think that that’s a huge one that we all feel particularly strong
about given this pandemic. And I just recently saw that last
month, the Economic Policy Institute estimated that over 16 mil-
lion workers had likely lost their employer-provided health insur-
ance since the start of the pandemic. And that is something that
I’m deeply concerned about, not only because we want people to
have health coverage during the pandemic, but because we know
how much of an out-of-pocket expense that can be and could really
draw down and negate some of the benefits that we’re trying to
provide through unemployment insurance and other means, like
the Paycheck Protection Program.
So, I wanted to ask you here, you know, what steps can Congress
be taking to reduce the burdens of these high healthcare costs for
unemployed individuals and their families? You’ve also mentioned,
you know, work share, and other efforts like that, how does that
fit into sort of the puzzle that we already have here about the Pay-
check Protection Program, partial unemployment, and how would
work share protection fit into that?
Ms. EVERMORE. Sure. So, first, in past recessions, Congress had
subsidized COBRA, which is a thing that I think would be worth
considering again in order to help with the health insurance costs.
Second, when it comes to work sharing, this is a great program.
It’s criminally underutilized, but what it allows for is employers
can say, instead of bringing back 30 percent of our work force,
we’re going to bring everybody back at 30 percent of time. And
then they get—still get 70 percent of their unemployment insur-
ance benefit, plus the $600. It’s win, win, win for everybody. And
I just—I wish more employers knew about this great opportunity.
Mr. KIM. Well, I appreciate your time. I will end there. But all
of us, again, just recommitting ourselves and trying to help us get
through this time and get a strong economy. Thank you.
Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Mr. CLYBURN. Thank you.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Raskin for unanimous consent.
Mr. RASKIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have three articles, the one—the aforementioned GOP memo
urges anti-China assault over coronavirus in Politico. I can send
you that one. In CNN Politics, The many times Trump has praised
China’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic, detailing those 37
occasions. And then I also mentioned today’s New York Times
where John Bolton alleges President asked President—Chinese
President Xi to buy crops to help him win reelection, titled, Bolton
Book Says Trump’s Offenses Exceeded Ukraine.
If I could introduce those for the record.
Mr. CLYBURN. Reserving the right to object, though I do not in-
tend to object. In order to minimize interruptions and to be fair to
everyone, we requested that any exhibits be circulated in advance
via the Oversight clerk’s email circulated in the hearing notice. If
33

you have not sent the item yet, we ask that you do so now. We
want to ensure that we have seen copies of all materials before
they go into the hearing record. So, I’m going to hold off agreeing
until after we have ensured that we’ve received and seen the docu-
ments.
I thank the member for the request. The member may be assured
that his request will be dispensed with before the end of the hear-
ing.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I was not aware we were
going to talk about China today. I was prepared to talk about un-
employment, and that was why I went into my China folder. But
I appreciate your indulgence. And now we’ll have it on the record
in the event this comes up again.
Mr. CLYBURN. Thank you very much.
With that, I would like to yield to the ranking member for any
closing statement he would like to make.
Mr. SCALISE. OK. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and for the
members and witnesses for all of the different information that we
discussed today. Clearly, getting our economy reopen is where we
need to be focused, because we’ve seen that the devastating con-
sequences of people staying at home is costing lives.
We’re going to continue to learn more about this virus. We know
that China lied to us, hid information, corrupted the World Health
Organization to say things like human-to-human contact wasn’t
happening. All of those things are things we’re going to continue
to call on this committee to investigate because it’s a key part of
how we got here. And then we want to focus on how we get back
to a healthy economy.
We were in, as many of our members—I know Mr. Jordan talked
a lot about how strong our economy was before. I would hope there
are not people rooting against an economic recovery for their own
political benefit. But we know that we’re starting to see an uptick
in people getting back to work and jobless claims dropping. The
numbers are still high. We want to continue to see that number go
down. And the number is going down. That’s the direction we want
it to go.
In terms of testing, I know everybody’s been saying we need
more testing. And, frankly, President Trump is putting strong em-
phasis in getting more testing. You know, if you just go back to
March, we were struggling to get a thousand tests a day. Today,
we are doing 450,000 tests a day. We should all be glad that we’re
increasing testing. Of course, the more tests you do, the more
positives you’re going to find. And so to just look at the number of
positives doesn’t really talk about the concern we’ve always had.
The reason for the shut-in, as all of our witnesses have con-
firmed, was to make sure our hospitals didn’t get overrun. And, in
fact, Mr. Chairman, they did not get overrun. Not one hospital de-
nied anybody a ventilator. You know, we saw the ship in New York
get returned because they didn’t have that overrun at their hos-
pitals, even in the states that had the highest numbers.
But we did see, Mr. Chairman, some states handle this worse
than others. And this isn’t a partisan issue. Forty-five Governors,
Republican and Democrat, followed CMS guidelines in properly
protecting their nursing home patients who would be most vulner-
34

able. Again, 42 percent of all the COVID deaths in America only
resulted from 0.6 percent of America’s population. And then as we
have found out, thousands of those deaths should not have oc-
curred because a few Governors, five Governors, chose to go against
CMS guidelines.
I just got this letter, Mr. Chairman, from the Governor of New
Jersey, just sent it in during this hearing, where he denied our re-
quest to give data, to be transparent. And he said, the minority
can’t request data for Oversight. It’s got to come from the majority.
So, I would ask the majority to join us. I don’t know what the Gov-
ernor of New Jersey is hiding. We have asked him for very specific
information leading to deaths of thousands of his citizens.
Just like we’ve asked in those other four states where they went
against CMS guidelines and said you have to take the patients
back to the nursing home. Even if you don’t have the ability to care
for them, you, in fact, are prohibited, in New Jersey and New York,
prohibited from testing them for COVID so that you can properly
protect the other seniors. And it didn’t happen, and thousands of
people died unnecessarily.
We absolutely ought to get that information. And so we’re going
to continue to push for that as we try to seek answers to continue
reopening our economy.
And I will finish with this. I know Mr. Jordan also talked about
having full confidence in the American worker, which I share. And
I have concerns about some of the Governors who went against pro-
tocols. By large, most Governors, Republican and Democrat, did the
right thing. Eighty percent of our nursing homes didn’t have these
problems. But some Governors decided to ignore those CMS guide-
lines, and it led to death sentences for thousands of Americans.
And we ought to get those answers. We’re going to continue press-
ing for that.
And with that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. CLYBURN. Well, I thank the gentleman for his statement.
I would like to say, first of all, I want to thank the panelists for
being here today. And I commend all of my colleagues for their par-
ticipation. I would hope, though, that if it is true, as you said, my
friend, that things are getting better, that we are at the turning
point, I am failing to understand why it is we cannot get the data,
why it is that they have stopped putting out the data. It would
seem to me that if things are getting better and we are at the turn-
ing point, that Mr. Mnuchin and this administration would gladly
share that data with us. Why is it that they are refusing to have—
let the American people see the numbers? This has been a tradition
for as long as any of us have been in government, but they’re not
giving it to us.
The experts’ analysis we have heard today has made three things
pretty clear. First, we are dealing with a widespread of employ-
ment of a magnitude that we haven’t seen in generations. And the
pain is not over yet. Tens of millions of American families have lost
their livelihoods. While some may wishfully think we have turned
the corner, the experts are clear, this job crisis will be with us for
many months. And I suspect that’s pretty clear with the adminis-
tration as well, and I suspect that that’s why they’re not giving us
the data that I’ve asked for as recent as this morning.
35

So, we cannot let critical, crucial support for unemployed Ameri-
cans expire next month. It’s clear that we need to do something for
working men and women.
It’s interesting to me, as we said when we were setting up this
committee, to pattern this committee after the Truman Committee
of 1941. Harry Truman said in that occasion that he found it very
interesting that no matter how much money we spent, the big cor-
porations, especially those doing business with defense contractors,
nobody would say a word. But you try to get a little bit of money,
a little bit of help to some poor soul, nearly unemployed, and all
hell breaks loose.
All we can hear now is $600 will be a disincentive for people to
work. That’s an insult. People want to work. The jobs are not there.
And that’s why—they’re not there. That’s why we passed the HE-
ROES Act. And just after we passed that $3 trillion HEROES Act
in the House, without any—well, we did get one Republican to vote
for it—when we passed it, Chairman Powell said at the time, $3
trillion may not be enough.
And so I would hope that we would set aside all this partisan
bickering and let’s do what we can for the American people.
Now, the second thing to be made clear here is that without a
comprehensive plan to combat the ongoing public health crisis, we
will never have a solution to the unemployment crisis. I—, I don’t
blame this spike that’s taking place here in South Carolina on my
Republican Governor. Henry McMaster is a good guy. I’m not blam-
ing him for the spike. But I see my state in the news every evening
now for setting a record. I don’t blame Texas Governor or Florida’s
Governor that they’re setting records in this spike. This may not
be a second wave, but it is definitely a spike in the first wave. And
we need to do something about that.
Reopening without a clear nationwide plan to stop this virus will
only lead to more infections, more deaths, and more economic
harm. That’s why Houston is now talking about shutting down
businesses again.
Sky-high unemployment will continue until the economy can be
opened in a sustained way that protects the health of all Ameri-
cans.
I want to see this economy open back up. All of us want to see
this economy open back up. But I don’t want to see people dying
like flies. I want to see people healthy. So, let’s do it in a healthy
way. And we can do that if we work together, talk about what we
can do, talk about what we can do to fix the nursing home crises
that we all talked about here last week. There’s a lot that we could
do together if we just stop the partisan bickering.
We need the administration to finally take the leadership role in
developing that plan and getting states the testing and the protec-
tive equipment they need to beat this virus.
Last, the harms of this unemployment crisis have not been even-
ly distributed. The poorest Americans, Black Americans, and other
people of color are facing the gravest impacts. We must work
proactively to address racial and inequality in jobs, earnings,
wealth, and prosperity. The comprehensive Federal response must
provide the resources for retraining for workers whose jobs are sim-
ply not returning, after seeing the report that said that 50 percent
36

of the jobs lost during this pandemic will not be coming back. The
HEROES Act that we have just passed in the House would be a
good beginning.
So, let me just say to all of my colleagues, we cannot bury our
heads in the sand and hope that our economy will miraculously re-
cover. It won’t. Congress and this administration must meet this
moment to support Americans in need and prevent even more eco-
nomic destruction.
And with that, this meeting is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:11 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
Æ

File and source

File: hearing-the-unemployment-pandemic-addressing-america-s-jobs-crisis---hearing-transcript-added-12-10-2020-at-10-10-am.pdf
Size: 129,802 bytes
SHA-256: 50376439a146f077608f6cb7cc54a53564bc74eebb0a3d7113b03c4f6f2f57a3
Our copy: hearing-the-unemployment-pandemic-addressing-america-s-jobs-crisis---hearing-transcript-added-12-10-2020-at-10-10-am.pdf
Original: docs.house.gov