H.R. 8646 – Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agency Appropriations Act, 2027; H.R. 7726 – Stop Child Care Scams Act of 2026; H.R. 7892 – No Aid for Ghost Students Act of 2026; H.R. 8872 – Preventing Waste, Fraud, and Abuse in TANF Act
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
House Rules U.S. House of Representatives
Follow its sittingsJames McGovern
And what is the Republican answer? Cut WIC.
I mean, to be clear, WIC helps pregnant women and postpartum moms. It helps babies and little kids. It helps families buy healthy food. It connects families to healthcare and nutrition support. It's one of the most successful public health programs in America.
And the Republicans want to cut it. This bill would force eligible families to be turned away from WIC for the first time in 30 years. Just think about that. And it doesn't stop there. This bill cuts fruit and vegetable benefits.
Not junk food, but fruits and vegetables. I mean, we hear a lot from this administration about make America healthy again. Well, what the hell is going on here? The MAHA commission's report praises WIC. It says WIC supports healthier moms and kids.
It says WIC helps families buy fruits and vegetables. It says WIC improves children's health. So which is it? Do you want to make America healthy again, or is that just another slogan? Do you want kids to eat healthier, or do you want to take away their fruits and vegetables?
This bill is a betrayal of everything MAHA claims to stand for. And while Republicans take food away from babies, this bill also cuts conservation, rural development, clean water, broadband, energy, and small business support. It slashes Food for Peace, a life-saving program that feeds people facing famine all around the world, and it supports American farmers here at home. Again, I mean, look at the priorities. Republicans have money for billionaires, big corporations, slush funds, and vanity projects.
But for pregnant women, little kids, farmers, rural towns, and hungry people, well, that's waste, fraud, and abuse. So spare us the lectures about fiscal responsibility. This is about who they think matters. And the people at the top always get protected, and everyone else gets screwed. And with that, I yield back.
Michelle Fischbach
Thank you, Mr. McGovern. Without objection, any prepared statements that our witnesses may have will be included in the record. I now welcome our first panel, Chairman Harris, Ranking Member Bishop, from the Committee on Appropriations. Your full statement will be submitted for the record, and we ask that you summarize your statement in five minutes. Chairman Harris, I welcome your testimony.
Andy Harris
Thank you very much, Madam Chair, Ranking Member McGovern, and members of the committee for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the FY 27 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill. I want to thank Appropriations Committee Chairman Cole for his leadership in moving the appropriations process forward. I also want to recognize the ranking member of the full committee, Ms. DeLauro, and the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Bishop, for their help in getting us to this point. Mr. Bishop and I have had some good conversations throughout this process, and I'm pleased that the bill received bipartisan support out of committee. We want to keep working with the minority as we move forward.
For fiscal year FY 27, as the chairlady said, the agriculture bill's discretionary allocation is 26.27 billion, a 380 million or 1.4 percent decrease from the FY 26 enacted level. Every day, American is impacted by this bill as we all depend on a safe food and drug supply overseen by both the USDA and the Food and Drug Administration. The bill targets funding to critical programs by supporting rural communities, providing US producers with the tools they need to feed, fuel, and clothe the world, and ensuring that all Americans who qualify for assistance through nutrition programs like WIC, SNAP, and school meals will be served.
This legislation reflects a clear, necessary commitment to fiscal responsibility while ensuring that America's farmers, ranchers, and rural communities remain a top priority. I look forward to working with all of you as this bill moves forward. Again, I want to thank you for considering amendments to this bill from members on both sides of the aisle. I appreciate your time and the opportunity to testify today, and I yield back.
Thank you, Mr. Bishop. You're recognized.
Sanford Bishop
Thank you very much, Madam Chair, Chair Foxx, Ranking Member McGovern, members of the committee. Let me thank also Chairman Cole, Ranking Member DeLauro, and Chairman Harris for the constructive conversations that we have had thus far in developing the bill. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the importance of funding the agencies within this bill. The Agriculture, Rural Development, FDA, and Related Agencies bill is of vital importance to farmers and rural communities across the nation. The programs and the workers that we fund through this bill affect the lives of every single American every single day.
It's about the food our families eat, the support for our rural communities, our entrepreneurs, and agriculture producers. It's about the safety of our medicines and medical devices and the cutting-edge research that's needed to ensure that America will continue to produce the highest quality, the safest, the most abundant, and the most affordable food and fiber anywhere in the world. That's why it is with great disappointment that I have to express my opposition to the bill before you today. Overall, the bill provides a 4% reduction below the FY26 enacted levels, driven largely by cuts that will hurt our families and our farmers. The bill would reduce the resources available to combat hunger in America by cutting $200 million from the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, known as WIC, and by not funding the fruit and vegetable vouchers recommended by the National Academy of Science, Engineering, and Medicine.
And you've heard about Food for Peace and the other programs. That means that 95% of women, infants, and children, for example, in Dr. Harris's home state of Maryland, will not receive their full fruit and vegetable requirements as established by the National Academy of Sciences. Mr. Harris is a big proponent of making America healthy again. I too want to make America healthy again. But in my own state of Georgia, 185,000 women, infants, and children are left asking the question that under this bill, and of course not only are they asking it, but inquiring minds everywhere want to know, how on earth does this reduced funding make America healthy again?
And in this tough farming economy, ag producers in rural America need our help now more than they ever did. 76% of agricultural economists say that the crop sector is in a recession, and 74% of the ag producers agree. Farm income is forecast to decline by $4.1 billion from last year, according to USDA's own economists. I know that ag producers have spoken to me and my staff concerned about closed or understaffed USDA offices and the hemorrhaging of experienced federal workers who knew how to provide them the assistance that they need. Yet this bill cuts staff at the agencies that our farmers and ranchers rely on the most: the Farm Service Agency, the Rural Development Agency, and the National Resource Conservation Service.
The bill also cuts water and wastewater grants nearly in half for the smallest and low-tax-base rural communities in yours and my districts. We have rural neighbors still living with clay pipes and without access to adequate sewer service.
That makes no sense. I'm also disappointed that the majority is once again offering poison pill riders that have nothing to do with how our ag producers keep the country fed and clothed with the highest quality, the most abundant, the most affordable food and fiber in the world. In fact, these riders simply take the focus away from agriculture and distract us from the real issues that face us every day. We can do better. Let's make sure that we don't leave our stakeholders, the stakeholders who are depending upon us in funding this bill, that we don't leave them behind, especially as they face the higher cost for food, higher cost for fuel, higher cost for housing, higher cost for medical care in this Trump economy.
The bill does not meet the moment. It does not do what is needed for the American people, and for that reason, I cannot support it. I hope that by the end of this process that we will come up with a product that we can all be happy with and that will serve the needs of the American people. I yield back.
Michelle Fischbach
Thank you, Mr. Bishop. I'm going to defer my questions until later. Ms. Fischbach, you're recognized.
Thank you, Madam Chair. And Mr. Harris, could you just give me some idea as to your—I appreciate your testimony was short and to the point, and so I appreciate that, but I'm just curious if you could give me some information on how this really does support our farmers, particularly in difficult times right now with, you know, we've got input costs that are high and all kinds of things going on. And so if you have a little more information on that, that would be interesting hearing that.
Speaker 10
Sure. Well, you know, what we did in this bill is deliver on the promise starting on day one to help our farmers be more profitable. So we delivered that in the Farm Bill and then appropriated adequate funds to follow up on that in this bill. We have, again, we have delivered what the farmers need and eliminated the honestly broad-based abuse, some of which goes on in every agency, and the USDA is no exception. Again, you know, we have a two-trillion-dollar deficit, we have a forty-trillion-dollar federal debt, and I believe that a 1.4% modest decrease from last year's enacted level, again, by doing things like restricting REAP grants but allowing REAP loans, you know, a billion dollars in REAP loans, things like that that just make sense going forward in an era of fiscal uncertainty.
But again, in terms of what the farmers are going to see, they're going to see the crop insurance that they need, they're going to see the protection they need, they're going to see the conservation services they need. This administration is delivering for the farmers what they're going to need going forward.
Michelle Fischbach
Thank you very much. And I appreciate that there are some—we're eliminating some programs that, you know, like the Conservation Corps, that we can—where we can save some dollars. And I appreciate your comments on the modest cut, but yet it's still a decrease. And when you mention the deficit that we're dealing with, we absolutely do need to—we need to be looking at spending less money, plain and simple. And so I appreciate that you've done this in this bill, and I'll be supporting the bill.
And with that, I yield back.
Mr. McGovern, you're recognized.
Yes I am.
James McGovern
And you're the person responsible for assembling the agriculture appropriations bill, right?
Yes I am.
James McGovern
So I assume, given that you're a doctor and you oversee the program at the Appropriations Committee, that you are very familiar with the long-term health benefits associated with participation in WIC.
Yes I am.
James McGovern
The USDA website says WIC is a program for pregnant and new moms, babies, and young kids. It improves birth outcomes, results in fewer infant deaths, reduces healthcare costs, improves diet, improves cognitive development, and more. And so Chairman Harris, that's why I'm a little bit confused here. So the bill that you're bringing before the Rules Committee right now cuts WIC by $200 million. Why would you do that?
Speaker 12
Because the participation rate is lower. It's very simple, the participation rate is lower, isn't it? Mr. Chairman, are you aware of that? Mr. Ranking Member, I'm sorry, are you aware of that? Are you aware that the participation rate is lower?
James McGovern
It may be because of all the red tape that you guys have put in place to make it more difficult for people. But the reality is, at a time when hunger is at an all-time high in this country, 48 million people are hungry, many of them are children, so don't tell me that the need for WIC is less. In fact, it is more.
Andy Harris
Can I answer the question and give you fact figures? The FY25 total is 6.863 million people and FY26 so far is 6.746. That's a lower number. You don't need as much to fund the program if there are fewer participants.
James McGovern
And that is kind of the rationale that you guys use when you cut SNAP and basically saying that fewer people are in the program, probably because you're throwing them off because people can't get their phone calls returned from the appropriate departments. But are you aware that hunger is at 48 million people in this country or no?
Andy Harris
Well, Mr. Ranking Member, you said that we don't fund working families. Let me tell you something, if you work, you're getting WIC. What we did in the one big beautiful bill and said, if you're able-bodied and you're not taking care of a young person or an adult or a disabled person and you choose not to work an average of 20 hours a week or train or volunteer, you are not going to get another taxpayer to pay for your SNAP benefits. So yes, we do fund people who work. People who don't work, we don't.
James McGovern
The WIC Association says that what you are doing is going to result in even fewer people being able to get WIC. The people will be thrown off the benefit. That's what the WIC Association says. I don't know if you've talked to them, but I would point out that that's what they're saying. And you also cut the fruit and vegetable benefits.
Why would you do that?
You mean the COVID-era benefit?
I mean, you don't think that there are other benefits?
Andy Harris
It's a COVID-era benefit. And perhaps the people who are so interested in maintaining that benefit would actually support cutting sugary beverages, a $10 billion cost to the SNAP industry, because I noticed the Ranking Member voted against that amendment on the farm bill. So the Ranking Member wants to have sugary beverages, but it's okay, we'll give $10 billion in sugary beverages, but we will have a little bit of vegetables and that's the solution to healthcare. I have a different opinion.
James McGovern
So you don't believe we should be incentivizing people to buy fruits and vegetables?
Speaker 13
That is what you're doing with this. Again, children are going to lose their benefit. People are going to, no, let me finish my question please.
I think you finished the question.
James McGovern
No, I didn't. I will say to you I'm done when I'm done. But I mean, if fewer people are going to be able to get this benefit, people are going to lose this benefit, fewer people are going to have access to fresh fruits and vegetables, you know, I just don't understand, you know, like how this is somehow in sync with Make America Healthy Again.
Andy Harris
Because are you done? Are you going to say you're finished? Okay. Ten billion dollars is spent in SNAP for sugary beverages. Ten billion dollars.
Fifty percent, fifty percent... can I finish my answer? Okay. Fifty percent of the WIC beneficiaries are on SNAP. Those fifty percent can take the money that they're not spending on sugary beverages and spend it somewhere else in a grocery store. So maybe they will spend it in the fruit and vegetable section.
Maybe we can incentivize that. But it's interesting that the ranking member voted against removing sugary beverages from the SNAP program, but is upset that we want to modestly dial back a COVID-era WIC program. Mr. Ranking Member, COVID is over.
James McGovern
Yeah, well, you know, the health crisis is not over. Hunger is not over. In fact, hunger is getting worse. Have you been to a grocery store lately? Do you see how prices are going up?
The people can't afford the most basic items, never mind nutritious food. Gas is through the roof. Everything is through the roof. And again, hunger is at forty-eight million people in this country. And again, the response by my friends on the Republican side is not to do anything to find a solution to end hunger.
It's to make it even worse. And I'm going to tell you that if you're talking about saving money, because I think that's all that you guys want to talk about is saving money, investing in programs like WIC, investing in the fruit and vegetable program saves money. And I'll tell you how it saves money. Because it results in babies growing up to be healthier adults. It results in people developing habits and getting access to nutritious food that will keep them healthy through their life.
And instead, we're going in the right direction. And I guess the deal is, I mean, you know, you guys are okay with spending a billion and a half dollars a day for an illegal war in Iran. I mean, we talk about deficit and debt. I'm just stunned by the fact that nobody on your side complained about the cost of the tax cuts for multimillionaires and billionaires that added trillions. So you have a problem with... so you have no problem with spending money to, you know, bomb people, and you have no problem spending money on tax breaks, but when it comes to feeding hungry people and making sure that kids get a healthy start, you know, all of a sudden we have a problem.
So I don't know how the hell that's America First. WIC has historically had strong bipartisan support. And that's something that, you know, I have been proud of. Trump's own MAHA report says WIC has a proven track record of improving children's health, pregnancy outcomes, and an increase in fruit and vegetable consumption. Those are Trump's, you know, administration saying that.
Trump's budget cuts WIC. I still can't figure that out. And your bill, the bill that you're asking us to send to the floor, also cuts WIC. Again, I think it's a betrayal of the MAHA movement. And so I guess my final question to you, Mr. Chairman, is why are Republicans in Congress and this administration walking back their support for MAHA?
Andy Harris
I don't understand the question. I reject the basis of the question. We aren't. For instance, you know I'm a strong supporter of cutting sugary beverages out of SNAP. Look, Mr. Ranking Member, you and I are going to disagree on that.
You want sugary beverages in SNAP, I don't.
Speaker 19
You want junk foods in SNAP, I don't. You want ultra-processed foods and junk foods, I don't.
James McGovern
We're not talking about SNAP right now. But we're talking about a fruit and vegetable benefit, and we're talking about WIC. And so I guess the question is, I'm assuming you're familiar with MAHA, right or not?
Andy Harris
I am going to go back, if I can answer the question, I'm going to go back to my original figures. The participation rate for WIC is down. Therefore, you don't need to appropriate as much money.
Speaker 16
The WIC Association is telling us that this will result in people not getting the benefits they need.
Speaker 15
And the WIC Association makes their money out of lobbying for WIC. So you support the lobbyists, I get it, Mr. McGovern, you support the lobbyists.
James McGovern
Who do I believe? The man in the White House who wants a billion dollars for a ball game?
Speaker 22
I support the figures that show that WIC participation rate is down. The WIC participation rate is down. Do you argue with the figures?
James McGovern
What I'm saying is that the demand is greater than you are acknowledging here. But you're asking me to believe the guy who is making billions of dollars off the American taxpayer. We're supposed to trust him, that he knows about WIC as he's fleecing the American taxpayer. I mean, how about a little less money for tax cuts for billionaires and let's put it toward making sure that struggling families can give their kids a healthy start? Look, there's no way I would support a bill like this.
No way I would. And I think anybody who supports a bill that cuts WIC by $200 million, especially now, especially now when hunger is at an all-time high and food prices are through the roof, you know, go home and explain that to your constituents. I yield back.
Speaker 23
Thank you, Madam Chair, and I just would point out to anybody who's watching this that total tax revenue for 2025 was $5.24 trillion, if I'm not mistaken. Is that your understanding, Mr. Harris?
That's right.
Speaker 24
Is that the highest tax collection we've ever had in the history of the country?
Speaker 18
That's right. And that's what happens when you cut taxes, tax revenues actually go up.
Austin Scott
Economic growth matters. I mean, unfortunately, the deficit is still too high and we have to hold the line on spending. In fact, I would tell you that tax revenues are a trillion dollars higher today than they were just five years ago, and if we had held the line on spending, we wouldn't have a $2 trillion deficit. We might still have a deficit, but it wouldn't be $2 trillion. I want to go back to an issue that you mentioned, and this gets brought up a lot on the cuts, if you will, and with regard to SNAP.
SNAP stands for Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program, correct? Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program.
Austin Scott
And I will tell you, I mean, one of the better things I think we did in the farm bill that we sent across is to allow rotisserie chicken. I mean, there are things that we can certainly do better where people, there is healthier food out there that is cheaper than some of the things that you can buy with SNAP benefits today. But I want to read this language from going back to as we talk about SNAP. So we exempted people, correct me if I'm wrong, if you work 20 hours or more per week average monthly, if you participate in and comply with the requirements for work program for 20 hours or more per week as determined by the state agency, not a federal agency, the state agency, then you're exempt from the work requirements with SNAP, is that correct?
That's correct.
Austin Scott
And then it says the work requirements also do not apply to an individual if the individual is under 18 or over 65 years of age, medically certified as physically or mentally unfit for employment, a parent or other member of a household with responsibility for a dependent child under 14 years of age, a pregnant woman. There's some additional exemptions, but all of those exemptions are current law as passed by Republicans, is that correct, from the work requirements?
Austin Scott
And this bill does nothing to change that. We leave those exemptions in place for work requirements.
Andy Harris
Absolutely. If you are work, if you're an able-bodied worker, you're not taking care of a disabled person, a young person, an old person, and you're not pregnant, and you're not disabled yourself, you are expected to work an average of 20 hours a week or volunteer or train. That's correct. That's all we're asking.
That's very good policy.
Austin Scott
It's good for us, it's also good to get people back to work. I think work is healthy. You know, as a member of the Ag Committee, one of the things that we watched over the last several years is that the the ratio of spending between SNAP or food and other food assistance and conservation and Ag production and all of the other things that are funded through this bill had shifted from approximately 70% SNAP and food assistance to over 80% SNAP and food assistance because of the way the programs had been administered under the prior administration, is that correct?
That's right.
Austin Scott
And so we call it the Farm Bill and it is a food assistance bill as well, but the what the previous administration did had been to shift all of the assistance from from the American farmer to to SNAP and food benefits. And when we look at at what's happening with production agriculture today, the American farmers are struggling. And they're extremely important to the food supply and I would tell you that a and this came from my granddad, you know, but a country that can't feed itself isn't a free country. And I would just tell you, I'm thankful that we have shifted back to providing significant support for the American farmers. I think that we are going to have more work to do with in combination with your committee and the House Ag Committee, but I'll I don't have any further comments.
I'll just if you have any anything else you'd like to say, Mr. Harris.
Andy Harris
I do, one thing that's very significant in this bill is in the committee report, we actually encourage the Secretary to investigate whether or not we should take that $100 billion that we spend under SNAP and put in what essentially is a Buy American requirement. Because that would be the largest infusion of money to our farmers would be actually to to to limit the ability to use that $100 billion in SNAP on buying things grown or raised overseas. I mean, it would dwarf anything else we do for our farmers. And I hope that the Secretary is able to to evaluate the ability to do that, that we can begin a limited Buy American program for SNAP and take some of that $100 billion and and put it where where it should be most properly spent, which is with our food producers.
Austin Scott
Well, I can tell you America's food producers comply with a tremendous number of rules and regulations that don't apply to the food that is imported into this country.
Andy Harris
That's absolute that's absolutely right and and that's why we should we should investigate why we are subsidizing that the the lack of regulation in other countries that actually impairs our abilities of farmers to compete. And again, we should take the largest single program for farmer for food and and livestock production, I think agriculture production, the largest single chunk is $100 billion in SNAP and we have not said that that we should prefer an American product.
This is stunning to me, because as you point out, you know, we're importing seafood from other countries where we don't know what's in them, we're not really doing good inspections. This is something that we can do, and we take a first step in this committee report.
Austin Scott
Madam Chair, before I yield to you, and I certainly want to be respectful of other times, I do want to point out that the American farmer today gets a smaller percentage of what the consumer spends at the grocery store than they ever have before. And that is one of the great challenges for America's agriculture producers today. Gentlemen, I appreciate both of you, I respect both of you a lot, and Madam Chair, I yield.
Thank you, I'll yield first to Mr. McGovern.
James McGovern
Yeah, I just have a newsflash for you. You know, as you're condemning all these nutrition programs, you know, guess who grows the food for those nutrition programs? I mean, American farmers do. And I want more American farmers to provide the food for our grocery stores and for our schools and for everything else, which is why I don't know why Republicans supported eliminating the farm-to-school program, which actually helped a lot of local farmers in my state and in other states because local schools would buy from local farmers and put them in the school meals. But you guys eliminated that.
And you know, and again, I still don't understand the rationale behind eliminating the fruit and veggie vouchers. Again, I mean, that helps American farmers. And the bottom line is, going back to the WIC program because that's what we're talking about here today, you know, the Republican government shutdowns may be one of the reasons why the enrollment is not where it needs to be, but I will guarantee you this: given the way food prices are right now, the demand is going to go through the roof because people right now cannot afford their groceries, and people are ending up buying more junk because you're eliminating all the incentives to buy locally grown fresh produce. So I point that out because the gentleman always likes to get into this thing about, oh, we're spending all this money on SNAP and WIC but we're not spending it on helping our farmers. Well, you know what, our farmers grow the food that actually support these programs.
And maybe you don't know that, but I just wanted to point it out. Mr. Bishop, can I yield to Mr. Bishop? Okay, yeah, go ahead.
Sanford Bishop
I appreciate this conversation, and I fully support making America great again, but I want to point out that this bill and the big what my colleague calls the big beautiful bill, I call it the big ugly bill, really pits farmers against families and families against farmers. I think that the nutrition is absolutely needed, and if you just look at the priorities that have been set by this administration and being reinforced by this bill, one week of the war in Iran will fund the WIC program for an entire year. It makes no sense, the priorities are just all screwed up, and I think that we need to recognize that these nutrition programs were set up and our support for agriculture and our farmers were really created so that they would work in tandem. The food and the nutrition that families need and the SNAP program and the WIC programs, they're very much needed. But the farmers, as the ranking member pointed out, are the ones that produce the food.
If you don't produce the food, you can't have the help, but the people should not have to struggle. It shouldn't be a tug of war between the families who need food and the farmers.
Speaker 26
Which is why I don't know why the fruit and veggie vouchers were cut. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mary Gay Scanlon
Thank you. I think this bill tells Americans everything we need to know about Republican priorities.
Americans are struggling with the cost of living. Families are paying more for groceries, for housing, healthcare, childcare. And as the war in Iran enters its fourth month, it has cost Americans nearly 100 billion dollars, not to mention its impact on energy costs and gas for our cars. Yet instead of focusing on lowering costs for working families, Republicans are once again proposing cuts to programs that help Americans make ends meet. And nowhere is that more apparent than in the Republican attack on WIC.
At a time when food costs are high and getting higher, this bill cuts funding for WIC by 200 million dollars and would force pregnant moms and kids off the program for the first time in 30 years. Now we've just heard a novel explanation for why the cut might be okay because there's less participation. But if you talk to the folks who run the WIC programs, as I have twice in the last week, you will hear that the paperwork, not the work requirements, the paperwork requirements in the big ugly bill are already kicking folks off SNAP and off WIC because they're related. So, you know, we see more need, but now we're going to have less dollars. Look, WIC is one of our most successful nutrition programs.
It helps low-income mothers and infants and young kids access healthy food and nutrition education during some of the most important periods in their lives. When a new mother is trying to afford formula, milk, fruits, vegetables, and other basic necessities, WIC helps fill the gap. But here we are, when families are struggling to buy groceries and gas, they're stretching every dollar, and the White House and Republicans looked at that situation and decided that assistance for pregnant women, babies, and kids was the place to cut. So think about what that means. The White House proposal would cut the allowance for fresh fruits and vegetables for a pregnant mom from 47 dollars a month to 13 dollars a month, and would cut the allowance for a child from 26 dollars to 10 dollars a month.
So let's get a good look at what we're talking about here. This morning, I went to a Head Start program in my district where they were educating families about the WIC program that provides farm market vouchers for healthy fruits and vegetables. So this morning, a local farmer came and delivered 30 dollars worth of fresh produce for each of the 160 kids at the school. That's what this is right here. This is one of the bags.
So it was three ears of corn, three apples, some beans and tomatoes, a few potatoes, a sweet potato, some peppers and green onions. That's it, right here. The kids were really excited about it. They got to pick their favorite fruits and vegetables. But under the cuts proposed by the White House, the contents of this 30 dollar bag is all the produce that a mom and two kids would get for an entire month.
I guarantee there are more crudités on the Mar-a-Lago salad bar than these kids are going to see over the course of a month. At the same time that Republicans are cutting healthy food for infants and pregnant moms, they're spending hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars for an illegal war in Iran and even more for immigration enforcement and corporate-run detention centers. Because our Republican colleagues can always find the money to pay for wars and private prisons, but not to help pregnant women and children eat healthy food. And it's not just as we've heard the pregnant moms and kids who suffered. These cuts are devastating to local farmers.
That's how they get paid. They're already struggling with skyrocketing costs for fuel and fertilizer, and now face the loss of a market with families who used to be able to purchase produce with their WIC vouchers. This bill also cuts rural development investments, cuts water, wastewater programs, cuts broadband deployment, cuts rural energy programs, and continues a pattern of shrinking the federal workforce that supports farmers and rural communities. At a time when many farmers are facing economic uncertainty, rising costs, and the consequences of tariff policies that have disrupted their markets, Republicans are making additional cuts to programs that help rural America compete and thrive. The common thread running through all of these decisions is simple.
Republicans are asking American families to sacrifice while the White House runs up deficits with foreign wars and tax cuts for billionaires. Um, Rep Bishop, I understand this bill would, um, not allow us to cover all of the eligible families for WIC, and that is something that hasn't happened in decades. Can you talk about that a little bit? It underfunds the people who the government has already said are in need. Yes, I'm sorry.
Sanford Bishop
The cuts in this bill actually just make it worse for American families, for people who are designed to have these programs. Uh, I just don't understand it. I'm a Matthew 25 person. I believe that we should help those people who are hungry and who are in need. And certainly, uh, I believe in good health, and I certainly support the principles of making America healthy again.
However, uh, this bill just doesn't do that.
Speaker 27
I think that's the only conclusion we can reach. I thank you for your testimony and I yield back.
Morgan Griffith
Chairman Harris, I heard a comment that people were already dropping off of SNAP because of, uh, things in the reconciliation bill. But my recollection was is that none of that actually kicked in until later, I think some in October, some next year, uh, that the paperwork hadn't actually kicked in yet, so how's non-existent paperwork causing people to drop off, or am I mistaken? Tell me if I'm wrong, I sometimes get my facts confused.
Speaker 32
Yeah, let me, let me address one thing that has been brought up, which is that we somehow eliminated the fruit and vegetable voucher. We didn't eliminate it, the administration didn't eliminate it. I think the gentleman's questions with regard to that, uh, vast basket of fruit and vegetables was what the administration's budget request was. That's not what's in the bill. I would suggest you read the bill.
Uh, we have a modest 10% reduction, and again, we hope that, we hope that some of the colleagues that are, oh, sorry about that. Uh, you know that we have a 10% reduction to the COVID enhancements in the fruit and vegetable voucher, but again, if we can enact as 22 states have, uh, requested waivers on, on junk food under SNAP, that frees up $10 billion in SNAP. Now $10 billion, the entire WIC program is only $8 billion. It frees up more money to be spent in other parts of the supermarket. Let me make one point, that without a Buy American requirement, 59% of fresh fruit is not American.
Andy Harris
It's from overseas. So let's not pretend that this is a complete American farm subsidy, you know, the subsidizing American farmers, the WIC program.
Andy Harris
That's right. And that's why in the bill, one thing we did is we actually allowed frozen vegetables to be purchased under WIC, because that will now allow more American vegetables to be consumed. But with regards to your question about SNAP, no, some of those provisions are in place. Several states have implemented them, Arizona the first one, which had a dramatic reduction, because remember, there are two major parts of what it did. It said you have to have work requirements, and then it said, oh by the way, the states actually have to check to make sure you qualify.
And that's why, look, if you qualify for these programs, you will get them. And if you don't qualify for them, you shouldn't be getting them. Remember, the states, and I'll tell you a little short story about my state, which had a 14% inaccurate payment rate, 14%. And what they chose to do is because they know the way we wrote the bill, we said, oh by the way, if you can't get it down very quickly, that improper payment rate, by the way, the vast majority of which are overpayments, then we're going to delay a penalty on that. So they actually in my state conspired to stop the reduction in the improper payment rate to keep it high enough so they don't have to pay a penalty.
The gaming in the system at the states was immense. And what we said in the bill is you have to work if you're able-bodied and you're not pregnant, you're not old, you're not taking care of a disabled person, you're not taking care of a young person, you have to work, train, or volunteer 20 hours a week. That's pretty modest. When I tell most people that, they go, why is it only 20 hours a week, because you're taking the tax money from someone who's working 40 or 50 or 60 hours a week.
And Mr. Chairman, let me... let me... short answer to your question, the other states have shown between 10 and 15% reductions when all they're doing is they are just making certain that, you know, the program integrity. You're actually making certain that the people qualify. That's pretty simple. And I hope everyone would agree that if you qualify you should get it, and if you don't qualify you shouldn't.
Morgan Griffith
Well, and let me just put in a little correction, this comes from my years of having been a divorce attorney. There are actually 4.33 weeks in a month, so if you take 80 hours a month and divide it by 4.33, it's not 20. It's 18.47. And since we average it out over a period of weeks and months, you really only have to average 18 and a half hours of work or volunteer work or education or drug treatment program or, or, or, in order to qualify. So there's all kinds of exceptions, isn't that accurate?
Andy Harris
That's absolutely right. And it appears that actually the projected decrease in SNAP in the mandatory side, what we budget for in the mandatory side, is actually going to be an underestimate. We actually probably will save more through program integrity, because again, the states had no skin in the game. They don't pay a dime toward the SNAP benefit. And what we're finding out is that when we make them conduct program integrity, that we're finding out that the federal government has been taken advantage of for years.
Morgan Griffith
Yeah, and I would say I voted for the soft drink amendment previously, and I agree with you, Mr. Chairman, that, you know, if we're trying to make folks healthy, even though I love my soft drinks with the sugar in them, if the government's paying for it, many of my constituents agree that things that are clearly unhealthy, particularly for young people, ought not be paid for by the government. And it would be nice, maybe we need an amendment that dumps all that money in, takes away the sugary drinks and dumps all that money into some of these things that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle seem to think are more important. With that, did you have anything else, Mr. Chairman, that you wanted to address?
Andy Harris
No, I would just say that I think you're absolutely right. I think we should begin to think of an incentive again, now that almost the close to majority of states have applied for that SNAP waiver. Again, as was pointed out by the gentleman from Georgia, nutrition is the middle name of the program. Sugary sodas are not nutritious. I don't care what anybody tries to say, they're just simply not.
They're fine, they taste good, they're fine. But when we have a childhood obesity epidemic and we have an epidemic going on, we ought to be very careful that with one hand we're not creating that childhood obesity epidemic and then with the other hand spending tens of hundreds of billions of dollars, you know, on the CHIPs program to not only treat children for obesity, but then the long-range problems with obesity that will cost our Medicaid and Medicare program long-term. So I couldn't agree with you more. I hope that there will be an amendment offered again and I hope that a lot of my colleagues, especially on the other side of the aisle, change their mind about sugary beverages on SNAP. I yield back, Madam Chair.
Speaker 33
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to yield just a moment to the ranking member.
James McGovern
I just hope you'll change your mind about cutting the fruit and veggie vouchers. And I hope that you'll change your mind about cutting WIC by $200 million and would maybe join with some of us in restoring the farm to school program, which you guys all eliminated, that hurts our farmers and means that our kids get less nutritious food in school. I thank the gentleman.
Speaker 34
Thank you. I want to yield a moment to the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Bishop from Georgia, if you care to respond to some of the comments from your colleague.
Sanford Bishop
Thank you. I'd just like to point out we are critiquing the bill with its deficiencies. And we've spent a lot of time, which is very meritorious, on the cuts to our nutrition programs. But there's some other things that help, that will hurt ordinary Americans, particularly in rural America. The rural utilities program is hurt by this bill.
It makes significant cuts to the rural utilities, which is a 44% cut for rural water and waste disposal grants. Those are essential for communities that don't have access to clean drinking water and wastewater treatment. It cuts the grants for wastewater projects in the Native Alaskan, Native Hawaiian, and tribal communities by 67%. They don't have access to running water at all. At a time when the costs are elevated, reducing the investments that are available for these communities is terrible.
In rural America everywhere, where they have a low tax base, they can't keep up with what's necessary to have clean drinking water and wastewater without these programs. And this bill just doesn't do what it should do. It reduces that.
Speaker 35
I want to follow up on that point, Mr. Bishop, and maybe ask a question for Mr. Harris, because sort of setting the playing field here, I represent a pretty rural district, and so I view it much through the same lens that Mr. Bishop does. The bill does cut the rural utilities program, correct?
The grant program.
Andy Harris
Yes. Uh, the grant program is that's right, there is a reduction in the grant program. Now there is an increase in the number of earmarks.
I got it.
Joe Neguse
And these aren't they're not designed as gotcha questions. I honestly just want to get a better sense of what the bill does and does not do. Cuts the rural utility program with respect to grants. Cuts to the Farm Service Agency, correct?
Joe Neguse
Okay. Cuts to the National, excuse me, cuts to the Natural Resources Conservation Service, correct?
Joe Neguse
Okay. You could understand, Mr. Harris, my skepticism about this bill being championed as, you know, some paragon for rural America when it cuts the Farm Service Bureau, when it cuts the rural utilities program, when it cuts the rural development program, when it cuts the Natural Resources Conservation Service, all of which folks in my district, ranchers, farmers in Northern Colorado and in Western Colorado rely on. And I just cannot for life of me understand why you all have decided on this course of cutting all of these vital programs that a lot of rural Americans, rural Coloradans rely on, particularly as was suggested at a moment when costs are going up through the roof across the board. Um, I want to dig in in particular I I understand we
Andy Harris
I didn't know if there was a question mark there. If there was, I will give you two trillion reasons why. We have a two trillion dollar deficit. We have to face it at some point.
Joe Neguse
Oh, I hear you. That hasn't stopped you all from spending. I I thank the chairman and I would just say that has not stopped
I yield back to you.
Joe Neguse
I thank you. I appreciate that. That is not stopped and I'm not talking about you specifically, but it certainly has not stopped your caucus from taking any steps to ameliorate the massive spending that's happening for, for example, the war in Iran. So I I think the the concerns about the deficit, as you could probably imagine, uh, at least from my perspective from, you know, your caucus are kind of on deaf ears given the realities of the way in which Republicans have engaged in in spending over the course of their time in the majority. But in any event, I digress.
Let's talk about something super technical in this bill that uh I was interested in discussing with you and that's section 758. Uh, section 758, as you are probably aware, is the section of the bill concerning the rules that were promulgated by the US Department of Agriculture concerning small stock producers, primarily in the poultry industry. Are you familiar with this?
Joe Neguse
Correct. Yes. So these are essentially a set of a rider that was attached to your bill that blocks the Department of Agriculture from proceeding with a series of different rules that benefit small stock farmers and producers. Would you disagree with that contention?
Andy Harris
Uh, yes, I've talked to my small stock farmers and producers and they, although they say that, for instance, and I'll only deal with poultry because that's that's the industry in my district.
Sure.
Andy Harris
Um, they'll say that the tournament system, which is and I don't I mean I won't get into the weeds on it, but
No, that's okay, proceed.
Speaker 38
I'm familiar with the tournament system. I have a lot of poultry farmers in my district. That's what I want to talk about.
Andy Harris
When I've talked to to and again, in my district there is a synergy between the most of the the people who have poultry houses in my district also have grow soybeans and corn. So they there is a synergy between those two. And they will tell you that although the tournament system is not perfect, there is an occasional year where because of disease, for instance, they are they are not beneficiaries of the tournament system, they will tell you that what it does is it uh rewards good animal husbandry. If you take good care of your animals, they grow bigger, they grow faster, they grow fatter if they're chickens, and you get paid more per pound for them. Um, it's actually a system that rewards good animal husbandry.
And I understand the administration's it goes from the pendulum goes one way and the
Joe Neguse
Well, let me let me explain the counterargument.
Okay. So you're familiar with the poultry grower payment systems and capital improvement systems final rule. Right? This is one of the four rules.
Joe Neguse
Correct. The Department of Agriculture promulgated this rule. The department earlier this year announced that it was delaying implementation of this rule until 2027. Right? Okay.
And the American Farm Bureau Federation issued a statement in response. Let me just read you a portion of this statement. The decision by the administration to tell contract poultry growers to take a backseat by delaying the effective date by a year and a half is disappointing. Growers have spoken on the need to level the playing field with more transparency surrounding how they are compensated and they believed progress was being made. AFB looks forward to reminding the administration, the Trump administration, during the public comment period that farmers come first and poultry companies should not be prioritized over the men and women who work to put food on the table for all of America's families.
Those farmers aren't going to have an opportunity to weigh in with the administration. Correct? You're blocking them from doing that.
Andy Harris
So the way our system works is I represent the first congressional district of Maryland. My farmers want the tournament.
Joe Neguse
No no no I hear you but what I'm saying is oh yes they have input through me. No no no no that's not what I'm saying. The rule has been delayed. Right?
Joe Neguse
By the Secretary of Agriculture. These farmers have said publicly they disagreed with the secretary's decision but they looked forward to at least making the case to the Trump administration over the course of this delayed period that this rule would benefit small poultry farms and basically you know behooving the Trump administration to not do the benefit do the bidding rather of these massive large agribusiness companies. And this bill will stop them from even having the ability to convey their opinion on this because the basically this bill blocks the rule entirely. Or am I missing?
No that's correct.
Joe Neguse
Correct. Yeah. I think so well I'm surprised I appreciate your candor I mean to be honest because I think it's pretty shocking. I don't understand why you wouldn't just let the Department of Agriculture proceed with their rulemaking and let small farmers and chicken producers in Maryland and in Colorado weigh in with the department, see where the department lands. You still have the ability in a future bill to take action to say I disagree with what the department has done and so we're going to proceed in a different direction but to cut off this process at the knees I just don't understand why you'd send a message to the American Farmer Federation Bureau and to countless farmers across the country that their voice doesn't matter.
That doesn't seem like a position that would benefit rural America.
Andy Harris
My view like I said I I can only speak for my district. The farmers and poultry growers in my district want the tournament.
Joe Neguse
But you're you're imposing their view on behalf of all the other poultry farmers in the country including the American Farm Bureau Federation. That's my point. That's why we have rulemaking processes. It's the ability for all the farmers in Maryland and Colorado and in Georgia and across the country send in weigh in with their views and then let the agency make a reasoned and objective decision. Mr. Bishop I know you want to get in on this.
Sanford Bishop
I do and I just want to say that the issues that you just raised have been raised in subcommittee not just this year but last year.
This has been a topic of discussion for a while. Ms. Kaptur, who is a member of the subcommittee, has repeatedly raised this issue over and over and over and has offered amendments on the floor to various bills to try to lift it up for discussion because I think all of us are concerned that small producers ought to have that protection and that this bill doesn't do what it should do to offer that protection. And to block the implementation of that rule will make it much more difficult for our small producers to be able to thrive.
Joe Neguse
I couldn't agree more and I would just say to close, Madam Chair, bottom line, if you are a small poultry farmer in Western Colorado or in different parts of the country, this bill would undermine hard-fought protections for those small farmers. This bill is great for the largest poultry companies on planet Earth. We know who we're talking about. So for the big agribusiness interests, I get it. I understand why they're big proponents of this bill.
But for everybody else, this is a big loss. And that's why I'll be voting against it. I yield back.
Erin Houchin
Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank Chairman Harris and Ranking Member Bishop for being before the Rules Committee today. Before I get into my comments and questions, Chairman Harris, is there any response to what you've heard already that you'd like to give?
Andy Harris
Well, the only again, you know, we won't belabor WIC, but the participation rate is down and the food cost per person is actually down about 2%, which is exactly the amount that we are under the enacted level. We are at what the administration asked, which will match the decreased participation rate and actual from FY25 to 26, the decreased cost in food per person. Now, as appropriators, we're supposed to look at numbers. We can read the headlines and I know it's like we're going to starve children and pregnant women and all the rest, but the facts are the facts. The participation rate is lower, the cost per person is actually lower, and it depends on what the food basket is.
So we appropriated what we thought was the appropriate amount, no pun intended, the appropriate amount for next fiscal year. And I will remind the gentlelady that we are in session every month of the year. If we come up short, God forbid that there is a problem, and we've done this in the past, we have passed supplemental WIC expenditures. But we shouldn't pass it because we think there might be something. We should appropriate to the actual numbers.
Erin Houchin
Well, I appreciate that comment. If WIC applications are down, food costs are down, wouldn't that responsibly prompt a need to review our own spending toward the program to readjust those amounts to be responsible with the tax dollars that we have received and have to appropriate?
And that's exactly what we did.
Erin Houchin
And as you mentioned, we can always come back and do a supplemental if it looks like we're not able to meet the need, but with applications down and costs down, you are as an appropriator trying to balance the needs of many different competing priorities in the best way that you know how.
That's right.
Erin Houchin
Well, the legislation before us, I think reflects a disciplined, targeted approach to support the core mission of the Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration, while still prioritizing farmers, rural communities, and taxpayers. It ensures that federal agriculture programs support American producers, protect the food supply, and strengthen rural communities without expanding an unnecessary bureaucracy.
For states like Indiana, and particularly rural and ag communities like in districts like mine, this bill has real-world impacts. Indiana is one of the nation's leading ag states, with agriculture contributing tens of billions of dollars annually to the state economy and supporting a major share of Indiana's rural employment base. The bill strengthens the programs that support corn and soybean producers, livestock operations, and food processing facilities that are central to Indiana's economy. It also reinforces rural development investments, broadband expansion, and homeownership opportunities in communities that depend on a strong federal and state partnership. So my question, Chairman Harris, is about the rural development funding in this bill.
Could you please talk about how the $3.81 billion in rural development funding supports infrastructure, housing, and broadband expansion in our rural communities across the country and like those in Southern Indiana?
Andy Harris
Absolutely. So the bill, that part of the bill, because we haven't talked about the FDA part, but that part of the bill not only helps farmers but helps the communities in which they live. And that's all part of the rural communities where they live. So we've dealt with, you know, some of the ways we've dealt with farmers, make sure the crop insurance programs are appropriate, make sure they're appropriately funded, make sure that they, that we protect the farmers in that way. With regards to the communities they live in.
So for instance, we increased the loan authority for what's called the Business and Industry Loan Program to $2 billion. It used to be much less than that. And these are for infrastructure investments that cost money. I mean, you want to build a hospital, you want to build something that costs a significant amount of money, we were restricted by the fact that the Business and Industry Loan Program had a relatively low loan authority. So we bumped it up to $2 billion, a very significant increase.
We increased the rural electric program loan authority to 8.3 billion. Again, part of the problems in the rural communities is that they need loan authority, whether it's for wastewater, which is at $1 billion, the loan authority for water and wastewater treatment, or 2 billion for the business and industry, 8.3 billion for rural electric. They will be able to get the loan with the, again, these are loans that are subsidized through the USDA in order to get that infrastructure done. We have level loan authority for what's called the Section 502 Homeownership Loan Program, again, to make sure that homeownership remains affordable and available in those areas. And then we continue to build on efforts to expand rural broadband.
We have $40 million for the ReConnect program, which is, which we are successfully, you know, progressing the very important internet expansion and broadband expansion into rural communities. Again, we are thankful that the administration is looking at, whereas if we were having this discussion 20 years ago, it was all laying fiber optic cable, and of course the last mile, very expensive, that farm, you know, mile down its dirt road, laying a cable is expensive. But we're looking at other options such as 5G, Starlink. I mean, you know, options that will, that I think very soon will enable every single rural family to have the broadband access that we have in urban and suburban areas.
Erin Houchin
Thank you. I really appreciate the emphasis on broadband deployment in this bill. I've long been working on this issue coming from a very underserved part of the state, looking forward to continued discussions and expansion of broadband for healthcare, for education, for precision agriculture. Appreciate your leadership and I yield back.
Michelle Fischbach
Thank you, Ms. Houchin. Ms. Leger Fernandez, you're recognized.
Teresa Leger Fernandez
Thank you very much. And Mr. Chairman of the subcommittee, my colleague went through all of the different cuts, right? And he asked you, we're cutting WIC, we're cutting SNAP, we are cutting in this bill. Now you try to say it's small cuts, but I want to go to something that I think makes a difference and ask about the different kinds of cuts. I understand that there is a $19 million cut for Farm Service Agency salaries and expenses, is that correct?
Andy Harris
That's right, the efficiencies in the department I think have allowed us to spend less and do the same amount.
That's right, there is, there is a decrease.
Teresa Leger Fernandez
There are cuts. And the reality is that when you cut programs and when you cut the people who are supposed to make those programs work, they don't work. And we are coming out of a period where Trump's DOGE ended up cutting all these people from USDA and from all our federal agencies and really handicapping our federal agencies at the same time that they were spending all kinds of money on their corruption and their fraud, but they were cutting the people who need to make the programs work. And our farmers and ranchers are not happy about it. Uh, we have a signed letter to Congress on NRCS and USDA staffing that's signed by over 540 farmers and ranchers who wanted to put their name on this.
And this is what they said. You said efficiency? Their quote is, "Efficiency should mean better service for farmers and ranchers, not fewer people available to do the work." "Cutting staffing without addressing growing demands risks creating bottlenecks that undermine the very programs farmers and ranchers rely on." You know, and I think that that's it.
You can't say we're going to have efficiencies when the ranchers and farmers you're supposed to serve are telling you it's not working because nobody is picking up the phone. I have one of the largest rural districts in America that's not a single state. Alaska has it on me, but my district is huge and my ranchers and farmers are upset because nobody is picking up the phone. Now when nobody picks up the phone, that might be really, really efficient, really efficient, right, because then you don't have to deal with anybody's problem, right?
Is that, is that a question?
Teresa Leger Fernandez
Yeah, yeah, that's, I don't know when you say efficiency, I don't see how it works by not providing people the help they need, the ranchers and farmers we're supposed to serve.
Andy Harris
I think if you ask the average American, is government efficient, the answer is an overwhelming heck no. So in an attempt to reorganize the, look, the reorganizations are always to...
Teresa Leger Fernandez
You just said you were more efficient. How can you now say that Americans will say heck no? You just said government is more efficient, so we're going to cut this funding, but they're not efficient.
Andy Harris
Prior to, prior to President Trump's reorganizations and even perhaps subsequent to it, the average American thinks government at almost every level is relatively inefficient.
Speaker 47
Do you know how, you know what the increase in farm bankruptcies is this year, Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman?
Andy Harris
I don't have the number on the back, but I will just sit back and just listen because you obviously are not interested in my answer, so I will just sit back and listen to your tirade.
Teresa Leger Fernandez
It's not a tirade. I mean, we're, we're in a hearing and do you know what, I mean, the problem is that these efficiencies that you're talking about, we have actual facts. Farm bankruptcies are up 46%. Farm bankruptcies are up 46%. Ranking Member Bishop, are you aware of this crisis that's happening in rural America?
Sanford Bishop
Yes I am. I'm hearing it from farmers in my district and I have access to the same information that you have access to and we raise that issue at every level of our hearings. However, in the drafting of this bill, it is not being taken into account. And the bill itself, with some of the cuts that are referenced to for rural America, for example, the cuts to the energy programs, they increase the cost. They will not allow funding of the programs that actually decrease the cost that would help some of these farms that are going into bankruptcy and some of the rural businesses that are going into bankruptcy not go because it would lower their cost for energy.
They're cutting the energy program, the REAP program, for example. The cuts to the Rural Energy for America Program by half, $50 million below last year, means that it's going to raise costs for rural communities, rural businesses, and our farmers. And they need energy in order to irrigate, to run their farm equipment, and just the communities themselves. And this bill actually cuts that. It eliminates funding for the High Energy Cost Grant Program, which helps reduce the cost of energy for families and individuals in communities where there's extremely high per-household energy costs of 270% of the national average cost.
These are things that help people and everybody knows now that with inflation, with the tariffs, with the war running up the cost of energy for everything that we do, that if anything, we should be trying to use the programs that are funded by this bill rather than cut them to reduce the cost for everyday Americans. But this bill doesn't do that.
Teresa Leger Fernandez
And I'm really appreciating the fact that you're talking about, we're not just talking about the fact that we're no longer going to be funding the ability of families to access fresh food and vegetables. It's not just about accessing fresh food and vegetables. Our rural economies depend on clean water. They depend on affordable electricity. They depend on farmers being able to get the help they need, especially our small and medium-sized farmers.
And this bill doesn't prioritize small and medium-sized farmers and poultry farmers, does it, Mr. Bishop?
Teresa Leger Fernandez
Right. Right. And I think that I find it very interesting that we've heard today several Republicans, open quote, "food costs are down." "We are cutting the Women, Infant, and Children program because," another Republican, the chairman's words, "because of the decreased cost of food." Now Americans, for those who actually people do watch the Rules Committee, interestingly enough, I find it interesting as do you, Madam Chair.
For anybody watching this, you can tell, look at the veracity. If Republicans are saying food costs are down and because there is decreased cost of food right now, who should you trust? I mean, who out there is walking around saying food costs are down? Republicans are walking around saying food costs are down. Trump is saying the economy is the greatest ever and inflation is going down.
It is not. And our ranchers and farmers and women, infant, and children. Let's say what it is. They are cutting funding for women, infant, and children. WIC, women, infant, and children.
They would take the food from their mouths.
They're cutting the funding for that because in their words, food costs are down. Okay, America, are food costs down or not? I don't know if there was anything you wanted to add, Ranking Member, I thought you wanted to.
Ah! Well, thank you.
Speaker 53
I've had it. So not enough time for me to get my rant out, so thank you for yielding.
Michelle Fischbach
Okay, well, if there is anything else, Ranking Member Bishop, if not, I will yield back to the chairwoman.
Chairman Harris, I've saved my questions till last. Thank you, Ms. Leger Fernandez. You have a chart there that you have been using related to the WIC program. Mr. McGovern said that the numbers you were using were coming from President Trump, but I take it that's those are numbers that are coming from an agency somewhere, is that correct?
Andy Harris
That's correct, the National Databank version, that's right, of the chart. There's 100,000 fewer people on, approximately 100,000, a little over 100,000 fewer people on WIC this year than last fiscal year.
Michelle Fischbach
And I'm assuming that this agency has been producing this information for many years?
Every month.
Michelle Fischbach
Correct. Would you like to submit that chart for the record to show that what you are talking about comes from an agency and not from the words of President Trump?
Michelle Fischbach
Okay, well without objection, I will submit that chart for the record because I think it's important that credibility be established here. I really want to do that in the Rules Committee. So I'd like to submit that. Do you want to talk a little bit more about how you've talked about this pretty much throughout the entire hearing here, but do you want to elaborate a little much more on how you balance priorities while advancing a bill that protects taxpayers by cutting spending in areas where it should have the cutting should have been done?
Andy Harris
Should, so that's absolutely right. So again, you know, we have a, for instance, the Farm Service Agency, we provide 1.1 billion, which is a 19 million dollar cut. That's like less than a tenth of 1%. I mean, it is a minuscule cut. And again, the the administration has been one of the focus of the administration is to actually do more with less.
This can be done in every single government agency I've ever been familiar with and I was in the military for 17 years, we could start there. Okay, every single government agency could deal with some efficiency. We made a minuscule cut, but every cut is significant because with a 2 trillion dollar deficit you have to do that. Reconnect program, for instance, as we build out broadband, there is less and less that needs to be done. So why would you level fund it from now until eternity?
You know, COVID-era programs, we should examine all the COVID-era programs and look them in a much more holistic fashion. So when we talk about a small 10% cut in the fruit and vegetable voucher, but yet we are limiting in 22 states 10 billion dollars worth of sugary beverages that has to be somewhere else in the supermarket, we just have to get a little more clever at how we actually incentivize that going to fruits and vegetables and then incentivizing it going to American farmers because again, 59% of fruits do not are not derived in America. So and we can deal with that and we should deal with that.
Speaker 51
May I follow up quickly while you're on that point? How is it that we have Buy America for some other things? This is the first time I've heard anybody accentuate the fact that we're not buying America for agriculture products. You know, we we make a big deal out of Buy America for uniforms for the military, correct?
That's right.
Speaker 51
And in a lot of other areas. What is wrong that we have not made Buy America a law for fruits and vegetables?
Andy Harris
Well, Madam Chair, I'm hoping that again, the USDA, we have language in the committee report that they look at a Buy American program. I will tell you nutritionally, there is almost nothing we don't grow in America or produce in America. We produce equivalents and some people say, well, but you can't buy X berry in the middle of winter that's made in America. Okay, we can buy it frozen or you can buy something else with equal nutritional value that's actually made in America. We should be doing that.
These our agricultural deficit, trade deficit is now $50 billion a year and that's over the past six years it went from zero to $50 billion a year, almost all in horticultural products, which of course are fruits and vegetables mostly. We should deal with that.
Michelle Fischbach
And and do you know of any agriculture program in this country or for that matter, any county or any state that can provide for the national defense of this country?
Speaker 51
That could provide for the national defense. You know, the number one reason we have a national government is to provide for the national defense. And yet things get compared, programs that could be funded by state, by localities. Mr. Bishop's talking about being a Matthew 25 person. In my mind, what Jesus was talking about was we as individuals.
He never said it's up to the government to take care of people. He said it's up to us as individuals to take care of our fellow human beings. It's up to us as individuals. And yet it's equated all the time that because we have a federal government designed for the defense of this nation, that somehow or another there's this equivalency that's out there. I I just don't buy that equivalency.
I think we as human beings should, yes, we should give till it hurts. I believe in that. I truly believe in that. But to our fellow human beings, not to bureaucrats who run the programs, who make a lot more money than the people they're supposed to be helping. I have one more question I'd like to ask you, I'm going way over the time I normally use.
SNAP stands for Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program. Every once in a while a phrase hits my brain in a strange way. So where what is the supplemental piece? I take it we are we as taxpayers are supplementing what the people receiving SNAP are providing for themselves. Is that correct?
Andy Harris
That's right. I mean, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program was never meant to be a to be a full program to provide all nutrition.
Obviously the states can help, obviously other programs help. Again, it is supplemental and we have given the data on obesity and overweight in this country, we have to look very, very carefully at whether or not our supplemental nutrition program is actually not a nutrition program. It's morphed into a program that I think promotes unhealthy food habits.
Michelle Fischbach
And I would agree with you because I think it's really as a result of the growth of that program that I think you can see a causation between the growth of the federal subsidy to people and obesity.
Andy Harris
Certainly with regards to unhealthy foods. There's no question about the fact that unhealthy food is not limited in any way and in fact that 10% at least 10%... We don't even keep good figures on this. At least and now I'm only talking sugary beverages. I'm not talking about ultra-high processed food, I'm not talking about salty snacks, I'm not talking about all the things that also can increase our disease burden.
We should take a very close look at it. That's all I'm saying, we should take a very close look at it.
Michelle Fischbach
Well thank you very much. I appreciate that and I thank you for amplifying these things and I apologize I spent a little more time than I normally do on this issue, but I thought some things needed to be clarified today because there had been some distortions of things that had been said. So thank you gentlemen, I believe all of the questions have been asked and you are excused.
Michelle Fischbach
I now welcome our second panel, my colleagues from the Education and Workforce Committee, Representative Owens and Ranking Member Scott. Your full statement will be submitted for the record and we ask you summarize your statement in five minutes. Representative Owens, I welcome your testimony.
Burgess Owens
Okay, sorry. I'm pleased to come before the Rules Committee with two common sense anti-fraud measures: Stop Child Care Scam Act of 2026 and No Aid for Ghost Students Act 2026.
Together these bills protect American taxpayer dollars, strengthen accountability in federal programs, and ensure public resources reach the working families and students they are intended to serve. Childcare is essential to helping working parents thrive and our local economy grow. The Child Care and Development Block Grant, CCDBG, is a federal program governing children's care programs for low-income working families. This block grant program exists to help working families access affordable childcare, giving them the freedom to remain in the workforce, increase their economic opportunity, realize financial freedom, and move beyond the need for a federal safety net. Protecting the integrity of childcare funding is essential.
Low-income working families rely on childcare assistance programs to remain in the workforce, expand their economic opportunities, and ultimately move beyond the need for federal assistance. But when bad actors are allowed to exploit the system, like we've seen in Minnesota, they divert resources from the families these programs are meant to serve. Recent events underscore the need for strong oversight and accountability at every level. H.R. 7726 includes simple, common-sense reforms that crack down on fraud and increase accountability. The solutions contained within this bill include differentiating between fraud and other payment errors and using state data to identify fraudulent trends, setting an improper payment rate threshold to keep states accountable, and requiring more regular audits of finances and ensuring consequences for program violations are enforced.
Without these reforms, the same failures will continue nationwide, wasting taxpayer dollars and diverting resources away from working families who actually need the help. Federal student aid is another area where public trust depends on strong program integrity. Each year, federal student aid helps millions of students and families afford a post-secondary education. However, ghost students fraud schemes are putting these tax dollars at risk. Bad actors use stolen or fabricated identities to submit FAFSA applications, enroll in courses, and collect the refund portions of the student aid.
Once the funds are dispersed, the alleged student vanishes. The Department of Education has taken steps to address this threat, including identity validation requirements and real-time fraud detection in FAFSA. Those efforts have already shown results, with the department blocking more than one billion dollars in financial aid theft in 2025. But under current law, the Higher Education Act does not require the department to maintain these safeguards on a continual basis. The No Aid for Ghost Student Act responds to this need by requiring the department to screen each FAFSA submission for identity fraud risk and requiring schools to verify the student's identity for suspicious applications before the student aid is dispersed.
The proposal in this bill garnered strong bipartisan support in committee, and I hope the same will happen as this bill moves to the floor. These bills address different programs, but they reflect the same principle: federal dollars should serve the people they are intended to help, not bad actors seeking to exploit public programs. By strengthening oversight in the childcare assistance and requiring strong identity verification safeguards in federal student aid, these bills protect taxpayer, preserve public trust, and help ensure that limited resources reach working families and real students, not fraudsters. Thank you, and I welcome your questions you might ask.
Thank you, Mr. Owens. Ranking Member Scott, you're recognized.
Bobby Scott
Thank you, Madam Chair, Ranking Member McGovern, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. Childcare is not a luxury, it's a necessity for millions of American families, yet in many communities, costs rival rent or mortgage payments, and in others, adequate supply simply does not exist. The consequences are real: our economy loses an estimated 122 billion dollars annually in earnings, productivity, and revenue due to childcare shortages. This isn't a failure of individual parents or providers, it's a policy failure. And that makes this legislation before us today even more disappointing.
H.R. 7726, the Stop Child Care Scams Act, does nothing to reduce childcare costs, increase supply, or improve conditions for providers. Instead, it creates an unnecessary and unnecessary uncertainty for the states and providers who administer our largest childcare assistance program while adding bureaucratic burdens without meaningful benefit. I support efforts to prevent fraud in government programs, but there's no evidence of widespread fraud in the childcare program, and states are already required to report error rates and undergo compliance reviews of the Child Care and Development Block Grant every three years. This bill would require them to triple their reporting obligations using accounting methods not used in any other federal program, diverting CCDBG dollars away from families and towards administrative costs. Beyond redundancy, H.R. 7726 is extremely vague.
It would allow the Secretary of Health and Human Services to designate states as high risk and subject them to additional monitoring without defining what high risk means or what additional monitoring entails, opening the door to weaponization of this bill to attack certain states' total funding. It provides no additional funding for support of these new responsibilities, even as the Office of Child Care has lost roughly half of its oversight staff in the past year. With limited administrative capacity, it is unclear if implementation of this bill is even feasible. It is at its core what my colleagues have decried for many years as an unfunded mandate. H.R. 7726 also mandates permanent debarment for providers found guilty of fraud, with no room for mitigating circumstances.
This could further threaten small providers that operate with limited administrative capacity. In communities already facing childcare shortages, permanently removing even one provider, especially one that serves nutritious meals and snacks through the Child and Adult Care Food Program, would leave families without options for both childcare and healthy meals. H.R. 7726 further fails to clarify whether a violation in one state would trigger a nationwide ban, or whether debarment applies to an individual or an entire franchise, or even whether or not state funding could be in jeopardy because of a finding of non-compliance. These are not minor drafting oversights, they are fundamental questions that could have serious consequences. Under current law, the Secretary has limited but important flexibility to account for unique circumstances, to correct technical errors, and prevent enforcement from inadvertently harming families.
This bill would eliminate that discretion entirely, substituting rigid federal mandates for administrative judgment.
Fraud must be addressed and it should be a bipartisan commitment, but smart accountability means strong enforcement paired with practical flexibility. Punishing states and providers for minor inadvertent mistakes does not protect children, it puts the programs that families depend on at risk. And therefore I cannot support H.R. 7726, which prioritizes inflexible mandates over real-world needs of working families. The other bill before us, H.R. 7892, the No Aid for Ghost Students Act, is not the anti-fraud measure its supporters claim it is and is entirely premature. It requires the Department of Education to establish a process within the Free Application for Federal Student Aid, FAFSA, to screen applicants the Secretary deems "reasonably suspicious of identity fraud."
It also codifies an expedited program review process for institutions of higher learning that still disburse federal student aid to a student whose application the Department has previously deemed as presenting reasonable suspicion of identity fraud. And let me clarify, the Department only just launched its new identity fraud prevention system, so it's too—it's still too premature for Congress to attempt to codify these efforts without evidence of success. Federal student aid is one of the most effective programs in the country for individual economic opportunity and collective economic prosperity, supporting nearly three million students annually. Protecting against fraud is critical, but this bill's punitive mandates, unclear enforcement standards, and lack of guidance for colleges and students do not protect students, it just puts higher education at risk. Finally, Madam Chair, I'd like to address my vote in committee.
I voted in favor of H.R. 7892 as a sign of good faith that we would continue to negotiate before the bill reaches the floor, but unfortunately we were unable to reach an agreement. And because the bill does not include changes I consider necessary, I will oppose H.R. 7892 on the floor and look forward to working with a broad range of education and fraud experts to address student aid fraud holistically. Both of these bills follow a similar playbook. They circumvent deliberative processes, they use taxpayers' funding as a weapon, and then call it accountability. We should pursue smart enforcement, strong where fraud is real and flexible where honest mistakes occur, and these bills do neither.
So I will oppose both bills and encourage my colleagues to do the same. Madam Chair, I yield back.
I yield back, Ma'am, I don't have any questions.
Okay. Mr. McGovern.
James McGovern
Representative Owens, I agree with you that we should be working together to target fraudsters and protect taxpayer funds from being stolen or misused. Would you agree that whether it's financial aid, child care, or anywhere else in the government, that we should be concerned about fraud and misuse of taxpayer funds?
In fact, with respect to fraud in our education system, you said in March, and I quote, "Every cent that is defrauded represents a lost opportunity for students in need and a serious offense to the American taxpayer," end quote. And that's—I'm quoting you accurately, right? Well, in 2017, Donald Trump had to pay $25 million in a fraud settlement to more than 100 student victims who paid for phony Trump University real estate seminars that turned out to be totally worthless. And now in your bill, you want to give this administration new sweeping powers to go after fraud, which I—it's like the fox guarding the henhouse. But Marco Rubio, who's Trump's current Secretary of State, said in 2016 that Trump University was a fake university that people borrowed $36,000 each to attend.
That's taxpayers' money, not ours or the government's. In every aspect of it, absolutely.
James McGovern
And you know what these students got in return, according to Marco Rubio, quote, "They got to take a picture with a cardboard cutout of Donald Trump," end quote.
So here's my question. Since you care about fraud, does your bill do anything to prevent places like Trump University from defrauding students to the tune of millions of dollars?
Burgess Owens
There has been over $350 million the last five years in the particular one bill I'm talking about with the ghost students. That's something that's happening today, not 2017. I have no idea about the 2017. I know in 2026 what we're dealing with.
James McGovern
But I just want to make sure that a Trump University scenario doesn't ever happen again.
Burgess Owens
Well, the goal is to stop fraud no matter where it is. And I'm not going to respond to that particular issue because that was back 2017. I have no idea what the background is on that. I will say this. I think we can all agree that when we have $40 trillion in debt and over a billion dollars of that just back a couple years ago was done in this particular area of fraud in the system, then we need to make sure we're addressing that.
James McGovern
Well, let me move on. Since you said you care about rooting out fraud wherever it is, are you as outraged as I am about Trump's recent settlement with his own administration? It looks like the $1.8 billion slush fund, according to the acting Attorney General, may be on hold now, but he worked out a deal for his allies and for his family, basically, you know, blanket immunity for him and his family for tax crimes or any other crimes that may have been committed. I mean, are you outraged by that?
Burgess Owens
Are you as concerned about... the reason I'm here is to talk about the Anti-Fraud Stop Child Care Scams Act and No Aid for Ghost Students. This is happening today.
James McGovern
Right, well this is happening today too, this settlement in which the president agreed to a deal with every agency in his administration to say we can never go after you, we can never investigate anything, you'll be held accountable for nothing. I mean, that sounds crooked to me.
Burgess Owens
Well, if we pass the Stop Child Care Scams Act and the No Aid for Ghost Students Act, we're holding people accountable, we're stopping the process of our kids that are very vulnerable. And right now we're $40 trillion in debt, we can stop that process as we start addressing this.
James McGovern
I want to ask unanimous consent to put in the record the kind of settlement agreement on this Trump thing.
Michelle Fischbach
Mr. McGovern, I think I need to point out to you that Trump University was not getting financial aid, students weren't getting financial aid.
James McGovern
They were defrauded. They were defrauded. And I'm just trying to... that's fraud. That's fraud.
Michelle Fischbach
But they were not participating... the subject matter today is financial aid.
James McGovern
Well, let me... I mean, the corrupt settlement that I just am talking about would give Trump and his family an unlimited number of get-out-of-jail-free cards for any crime, any crime that could be investigated and prosecuted by the federal government, including potential tax crimes, insider trading, bribes, or kickbacks, any allegations of sexual assault by Trump in the Epstein files, or any contracts that Trump has steered toward companies he and his family are invested in. I mean, do you think that's fraudulent?
Burgess Owens
I know that the reason I put these two bills together, Stop Child Care Scams Act, there's scams going on in our system right now that parents are taken advantage of, that they can't pay off their bills, taxpayers are paying trillions of billions of dollars because of this process. And the other one is the No Aid for Ghost Students, in which fraudsters take their income and disappear.
James McGovern
Well, how about this one? President Trump purchased more than $1 million in Dell Technologies stock. Nine days later, he said to the American people, quote, 'Go out and buy a Dell computer,' end quote. Three months later, the Pentagon announced a $9.7 billion contract with Dell. Is there any concern there at all about any of that?
Burgess Owens
Well, I would say this. I think we can agree that fraud is bad. So that means that you would be okay to support me in my Stop Child Care Scams Act and the No Aid for Ghost Students Act because obviously this is something that's happening today and I would imagine that we're on the same page and want to stop this fraud.
So does that mean you agree with me that these things are fraud?
James McGovern
No, I'm just saying that any fraud we find... Let me just say, last week we learned that the White House intervened to force the Pentagon to give a $620 million loan to a startup called Vulcan Elements, three months after Trump Jr.'s venture capital firm took a stake of undisclosed of an undisclosed size in Vulcan. The company's valuation grew tenfold after the deal was announced. Is there any concern about corruption there? I'm here to talk about the Stop Child Care Scams Act of 2026 and the No Aid No Aid for Ghost Students Act that's right now impacting our our country in a big way.
And you know, I appreciate you're here to talk about fraud, but you only want to talk about the fraud that you want to talk about. And this is this is happening right now. So I get it. The president, if the president or his family does it, it's not fraudulent or corrupt. None of you will call it out.
So don't get me wrong, there's real examples of waste, fraud, and abuse in government and we can talk about, you know, how to deal with that and I agree with Mr. Scott about that these bills could be better. But if we want to find it, I think we should start with the fraudster-in-chief who currently occupies the Oval Office. Let me ask Mr. Scott, I don't know if you want to have any comments on... I mean, I'm outraged by all this stuff and... Yeah, well, I think the answer suggests that we're only looking at fraud in certain areas and ignoring it in others, which really alerts us to the fact that it may be weaponized.
There's certain colleges that he wants to go after and he can use this bill, weaponize this bill, go after them for minor little mistakes, ignore everybody else. So if you can ignore fraud from people that you that are your friends and be vigorous in your attack on fraud with your enemies, these bills will be helpful to weaponize to be weapons of of those attacks. Yeah. It just it's just stunning to me what is happening before our very eyes and the silence, which is equal to complicity, quite frankly. You know, when Joe Biden tried to do a deal for his son, you know, many of us criticized that.
Thought it was inappropriate. Not a peep from any Republican about the fraud and I and I and I mean just the blatant fraud, the blatant corruption that we see unfolding in this White House. I've never seen anything like it. It makes me nostalgic for Nixon. That's how bad it is.
But anyway, with that, I yield back.
Thank you, Mr. McGovern. Mr. Scott, you're recognized.
Austin Scott
Thank you, Madam Chair, and um, we're here to talk about the Stop Child Care Scams Act of 2026, H.R. 7726. Is that correct, Mr. Owens?
Yes, exactly.
Austin Scott
I want to I want to just say this. The integrity of the programs matter because the taxpayers are not going to support them when they're filled up with fraud. And it doesn't matter if it's child care or SNAP, the the American citizens want the fraud eliminated from the system.
And I don't think it matters if you're a Democrat or a Republican, they want the fraud eliminated. I want to bring this to your attention: Child Care Assistance Program Assessment of Internal Controls Special Review, April 10th, 2019, Office of the Legislative Auditor, State of Minnesota. And if you pull this up, and I'm not asking you to pull it up, going all the way back to 2019, the legislators requested the investigation into the child care systems in their own state. Minnesota's state legislature requested investigations. And you get into the introduction, and it's a group of legislators asked the Office of the Legislative Auditor to conduct such a review because the state legislature in Minnesota knew there was fraud going on.
I served in the state legislature. When you're a state legislator, you don't ask for a review unless you've got information that there's fraud going on in a system in your state. And they have pretty good insight into it. And I don't know, Mr. Owens, were you in the state legislature? Were you, Bobby?
You were. So, I was on the Appropriations Committee. I mean, and the appropriators at the state level have a pretty good feel for when something's going on. Would you agree with me on that one?
Yes, sir.
Austin Scott
And so, I say this to just get to the point that, you know, the findings of this report, and I'm not going to get too far into this, DHS did not adequately identify and analyze the risk of fraud in the program and had weak processes to coordinate investigations statewide. So I, again, the point I want to make here is going all the way back to 2019, the state legislature in Minnesota thought there was fraud in the system, and yet the governor and the attorney general did nothing. And so, I think this legislation is necessary. I think it's well thought out. I think we have a responsibility that when federal funds are tied to it, that we mandate the integrity of the system.
And obviously, what we had in place failed because we had a governor and an attorney general, both of which I know, simply look the other way. Their own state legislature knew there was fraud going on, and yet they did nothing at the state level. So, Mr. Owens, if you have anything else to add, I'm ready to vote for this and look forward to seeing it on the floor of the House. But I want the American citizens to know: Minnesota 2019, their own state legislature knew that there was widespread fraud in that system, and the governor and the attorney general of their state did nothing about it.
Burgess Owens
I think, thank you for that. I think we're at a paradigm shift, well overdue. We've found out that the American people have been ripped off for quite a while. It's become muscle memory. People do it, they get away with it, and meanwhile the American people pay the price.
Our debt goes up, inflation goes up, and now we have both families, both members have to work two jobs because of this stuff. And we finally have a president who's putting this in order. So I'm excited about the fact that we can now talk about fraud, but really for the first time. And at the same time, wherever it is, whatever state it is, whatever department it might be found in, we need to find it and make sure people are held accountable. I'm of the belief that once you set law and order in place, not only do we know the parent, good people know the parameters they need to stay within, but also bad people realize if they step out, they might get caught and have to pay a price.
So I'm excited about having this conversation and these particular two bills I'm talking about right now, dealing with kids getting ripped off, their aid being ripped off through this ghost students. And of course, we see what's happened in Minnesota with what's going on with these children, autism, they cannot get their therapy because there's someone trying to make millions of dollars off the process. So I'm excited about the fact we're talking about this now today.
Austin Scott
The people that committed that fraud are just a bunch of thieves, and they deserve to be put in jail for a long, long time. And the politicians who turned their head and looked the other way are guilty of allowing it to happen.
Mary Gay Scanlon
Thank you. I have had experience over time in my life before Congress with, you know, the issue of students being defrauded of their student loans, being coerced into applying to places like Trump University or other various for-profit colleges and then the students being left holding the bag for loans. But this ghost student scam is something that I had not encountered until this bill came before us. So it sounds like from what I've read that the Inspector General system at the Department of Education started uncovering some of these issues and this is one of the reasons we have a Department of Education, which is still with us, because our Inspectors General are so important in uncovering fraud. Can you tell us a little bit about this because it's a new issue?
Bobby Scott
Well, there is a problem. There are some scams where people will apply, you'll round up some people, they'll apply to college with no intention of ever showing up. They get Pell Grants and student loans. There's an excess which is permissible because you have living expenses. And when the time comes, you get your refund and the fraudsters take the money and run.
There's no education being provided because they never even showed up in class. There are ways that are in effect now to try to discover this. They're in effect, they're being tried. What we're doing is trying to codify what's already going on and we're trying to see if it works or not. Well, let's see if it works or not, then we could codify it, or if it's working, you don't need to codify it because it's working.
So it is hard to see any added value to the legislation in terms of reducing fraud. There is plenty of opportunity to use this as a weapon because we can see through recent history that this administration will pick colleges and go after them with very little justification, just go after them, withholding research money and that kind of thing for things that are not related to fraud in research or anything like that. This would be an additional tool they would have. But obviously we need to go after those kinds of scams. They are real and we support the idea that we need to go after them.
But this bill, I mean, you stated a problem, you have a bill, that doesn't mean the bill solves the problem. Doesn't mean the bill does anything other than you have a problem and you have a bill. What's missing is how does a bill solve the problem? It doesn't.
Well, it sounds to me like it solves one problem: it allows our Republican colleagues to yell that they're combating fraud, waste, and abuse without really doing anything about it.
Speaker 59
And empowers the president to use this as an additional weapon to go after his enemies.
Mary Gay Scanlon
Well, I understand, I mean, it sounds like it is a bunch of fraudsters who are committing identity theft in order to get money from the federal government and absolutely we should be going over them, but it does sound like there's a mismatch in this bill. As I understand, you've offered to work with our colleagues across the aisle to have a bill that's more narrowly tailored to have an actual remedy that meets the issue.
Bobby Scott
One that actually remedies the situation. And all this time you are dismantling the Department of Education, all the oversight capabilities are being, are just evaporating. And so you have a bill that has more responsibilities and nobody to really fulfill the responsibility.
Mary Gay Scanlon
Sounds like one of those efficiencies we were just talking about in our last, our last panel, the efficiency of firing everyone and not having to pay them, but then the services don't get rendered either. Anything else you want to add?
Bobby Scott
No, that's the idea that you state a, it's often done, I mean, it's not the first time anybody has stated a problem and therefore you should vote for my bill without showing how the bill actually solves the problem.
Mary Gay Scanlon
Well, it sounds like it needs some more work, so thank you for your testimony. I yield back.
Morgan Griffith
Gentlelady yields back and now recognize myself for such time as I may consume in asking questions. Mr. Owens, is there anything that you wanted to add that you haven't previously said or that you wanted to say in response to previous questioners?
Burgess Owens
I think that we have to recognize over the last year and a half, we've found a lot of waste, abuse, fraud that we had not known about for years. So it's not a question if it's happening, we now realize it's happening. We realize the process was not working. I would say that the things we've already accomplished, let's go and codify. If it's working, we're saving $300 million, whatever it was that I just mentioned a little while ago, then that means something's working.
Let's go ahead and codify so we don't have to go back through this again, we get a bad president or a bad administration. Let's, let's make sure whatever we get, we can stack on top of that until we continue to get much better at this process and make sure that the American people realize they're not being ripped off.
Speaker 63
All right, anything else? Without, I yield back and now recognize Ms. Leger Fernandez for her time of questioning.
Teresa Leger Fernandez
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good to see you there. So, you know, I noticed that we have several bills this week dealing with issues of fraud. Mr. Burgess, do you know the definition of gaslighting?
Speaker 62
I know what it means but I can't define it for you at this moment. I know what it means for the process here.
Teresa Leger Fernandez
Yeah. You know, there's this whole process out there where one side wants to change the reality. That's kind of what it means, right? You want somebody to believe the opposite of what's actually happening. Is that kind of what your understanding of gaslighting means?
Well, today we're dealing with all these fraud bills. But the reality is we have an administration that has pardoned, that has pardoned people who have stolen, fraudulently been convicted of fraud over and over again. Do you know how many convicted fraudsters the president has pardoned, Mr. Burgess? Have you heard about the guy who $1.2 billion, I think, dollars worth of fraud? Trump pardoned him.
You're not aware of that, you didn't read about that in the newspapers?
Yeah. There was recently a court case dealing with a 1.7, like almost 1.8 billion, I always, I know they came up with some silly number to try to say it was 1776, but 1.8 billion dollar slush fund. The court has reopened that case because they want to determine whether it was a fraud on the court, a fraud on the court, right? Trump has made over four billion dollars and his family since he got to the presidency. So when we start talking about fraud, let's actually talk about the fact that there have been convicted fraudsters.
There is potentially a fraud on the court and there has been so much money paid to Trump and his families that we have never ever before seen in the history of the United States. Now that's I think something we should have is a week of looking at the level of fraud that is going on in the United States right now. So, Ranking Member, you know, I might be the last Democrat to ask any questions, so I didn't know if you wanted to respond to any of the issues that had been raised. I think that the issue is that Democrats, we, we want to go after fraud, but we want to do it in a way where we actually have a Department of Justice that is going to go after fraud and not go after states just because they are Democrat. And that is a pattern that we are seeing from this administration.
They are holding FEMA funding, they are holding disaster funding, they are holding childcare funding, they are holding funding just because of who you elected as a governor. Is that kind of a pattern we are seeing, Ranking Member?
Bobby Scott
And, and you've seen them go after states and withhold money from blue states. You've seen them go after colleges and these bills would empower them to do more of the same without reducing fraud. I mean you have a bill, you have a problem, there is, fraud exists. These bills do not do anything meaningful, meaningfully to actually reduce fraud. They empower the president to go after enemies in his revenge tour.
Speaker 64
And do they do anything to actually make daycare more affordable for anybody?
Bobby Scott
Nothing to make daycare more affordable, nothing to increase supply, nothing to improve quality.
Teresa Leger Fernandez
Right. By and you know, we've said it before in this committee, Trump actually said he doesn't care about those things. Open quote, this is Trump talking.
And mentioned daycare specifically.
Teresa Leger Fernandez
He did. He said, it's not possible for us to take care of daycare, Medicaid, Medicare, all those individual things. They can do it on a state basis. You can't do it on a federal. Right?
He's, he said he doesn't really care about Americans' financial situation. So he doesn't care about these things. So I think that all this, all these bills are just like let's talk about, let's put it in a title rather than taking care of it, especially if you're going to pour it in as many fraudsters as he did. And I'm sorry, I might have said the fraudulent billing scheme stole 1.3 million dollars, Mr. Burgess, from Medicare and Medicaid. So it was 1.3 billion dollars.
I'm sorry, Rep Owens, I used to always call you Burgess because that's the first name. We did work together. We, we, we worked on some bills together, so my apologies, Representative Owens. But yeah, it was, I'm sorry, it was 1.3, you don't remember that case?
Teresa Leger Fernandez
Oh my god. It was huge. This is what happens when you don't pay attention to what's happening, like sometimes we exist in our bubble alone, right?
Speaker 66
But 1.3 billion dollars, would you acknowledge that 1.3 billion dollars is a large amount of fraud?
Burgess Owens
That's exactly why we're talking about the bill we're talking about today, because American people are tired of the billions and billions of dollars that have been ripped off. Their children, talking about child care, the kids trying to go to college, inflation that we're now dealing with, everybody's working because it adds up. We're dealing with that finally. It's been years, and I'm thankful for that.
Speaker 69
It's been years, but your president just pardoned, or not just, but recently pardoned somebody who engaged in that level of fraud.
Speaker 70
I know my president is also our president is having us have a conversation we have not had in a long, long time. So I'm thankful for that.
Speaker 68
Okay. Well, thank you very much, and with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Erin Houchin
I'm going to struggle with where to begin, Chairman Owens. At the core, these bills are addressing loopholes in federal programs that have allowed bad actors to perpetrate fraud at the expense of taxpayers and some of the most vulnerable communities. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We must strengthen program integrity. But in these cases that we're talking about, there's been a lack of oversight and proper safeguards that allowed dollars to be diverted away from real beneficiaries and undermine the confidence in these child care programs.
Gentlelady yields back, now recognize the gentlelady from Indiana, Ms. Houchin, for five.
We have no doubt talked about the child care programs reported out of Minnesota, where providers were receiving child care assistance dollars without actually serving any children or families, which have raised serious concerns about oversight and accountability in how funds are administered at the state level. And this issue should be bipartisan. But one of the things that we have heard today is that fraud is not widespread. Would it surprise you, Representative Owens, to learn that the waiting list nationally for a child care voucher is more than 400,000 children?
Erin Houchin
Would it surprise you to know that just in the Minnesota fraud alone, the fraud that was found in Minnesota alone could account for an additional voucher for 20,000 children? So when we hear our colleagues, I heard Ranking Member Scott say Republicans aren't doing anything to increase supply. Doesn't it increase supply if we can cut out the fraud and put the funding toward real actual vouchers to fit the need of the waiting list that we currently experience?
Burgess Owens
What we're doing as a Republican party, we're looking at this as entrepreneurs, return on investment. And I want to read this to you guys because I've heard the same thing, there's no evidence of widespread fraud. The federal government has been seeing the opposite for decades. Waste, fraud, and abuse has been a real problem. Since 2002, the CCDBG has been identified as a program with significant improper payments.
2020 GAO report estimated for the year 2019 the program was approximately 325 million in improper payments.
We just went through the last few months seeing possibly billions of dollars that have been transferred to other countries. And these are American dollars, these are American people. These are folks who sign up or they've been signed up because they know that parents want their kids, if they have autism, to be able to be addressed. And we as American people know we want to help those folks out. So we wake up one day and find out we've been all ripped off.
Not only the kids not being served, but that money's going to some other foreign country. And folks here are actually demonstrating at the same time that our country is the worst place ever to live. So I would say I'm so thankful that this window of time we're going through, we're finally having this conversation. If we're ever going to get to where the family unit is important, that we can afford to live our lives, to build our dreams, to not be ripped off by inflation, that invisible tax, then we have to take care of making sure we're not ripped off with this fraud. And we have not had this conversation as long as I can remember.
So thank goodness for President Trump, who's a business owner, who wants the best return on investment for America.
Erin Houchin
Well, let's talk, thank you, and let's talk just about one of the child care centers in Minnesota. What is a leering center?
Well, that's a little bit of our educational problem also, I do believe, that we need to address, but we're getting to that. So.
Mr. Scott, what is a leering center?
I don't know.
Erin Houchin
The Leering Center was a child care facility in Minnesota that received 1.9 million dollars in 2025 and 10 million dollars since 2019 in Child Care Assistance Program funding even though it was empty. The Child Care Assistance Program in Minnesota also investigated nine day care centers across the Twin Cities that received 67 million dollars over eight years. But the fraud is not widespread. There was a Biden-era loophole. President Biden and Congressional Democrats, there was a requirement that forced states under a Biden-era rule to pay child care centers in advance, basing payments on enrollment sheets rather than actual attendance.
And between 2023 and 2025, after that rule was implemented, fraud spiked from 8 million in 2023 to 16 million in 2025, even though enrollment at a child care center in Minnesota remained flat. There was a 4.6 million dollar false reimbursement claim for Future Leaders Early Learning Center in Minnesota, and error rates in 2023 accounted for 231.4 million dollars for failure to provide proper attendance reporting. Now, Secretary Kennedy closed those Biden-era loopholes which allowed for rampant fraud to be perpetrated on the American people, resulting in children who are on these waitlists, waiting for a child care voucher, legitimately waiting for a child care voucher, being unserved. And it allowed bad actors to exploit the system across multiple states, including questions that have been raised in California, Colorado, Illinois, New York, and Minnesota, all coincidentally led by Democrats. Federal authorities cited concerns that child care benefits were being funneled through fraudulent child care operators.
Now, I believe this is the right strategy. Let's cut out this fraud. We know every dollar lost in fraud is a dollar that doesn't reach the children in need, even if it's not widespread.
But these are quite widespread when we think about the amount of money we could be redirected, that could be redirected to the voucher system where I know we have Hoosiers from my state and probably Utahns in your state still waiting for a child care voucher to help them participate both in education and the workforce. So my last question, Congressman Owens, is how does strengthening fraud prevention ultimately expand rather than reduce the resources available to eligible students and families?
Burgess Owens
I think you kind of highlighted it earlier. Every single dollar that is saved from fraud is another dollar given to those who were supposed to be giving it to. We have to keep in mind, we have a country that's really very good hearts. We don't mind paying our taxes. We try to keep as low as possible, but we understand it's supposed to go to the good of those who need it.
And when we find that we're being taken advantage of, at some point the American people just get sick of it, they're tired of it. We now have a conversation that we've needed to have for so long, and I keep bringing back to what it does to the family unit because I grew up at a time when families could afford to have one parent work. My dad was working, my mom was at home with five kids in the sixties. And my neighbors the same way across the neighborhood, matter of fact across the country. We can't say that today.
We have both parents working two jobs, the kids growing up working a job, they don't see each other. It's because of things like this. We're ripped off, money's been taken from our tax, our pockets and sent to other countries and people living the life, and we're sitting here acting as if there's something that's not something wrong about that. So this should be a very bipartisan process. We should all be looking at passing the Child Care Scam Act and the No Aid for Ghost Students.
They're ripping our kids off, they're ripping our students off. Why can't we agree this is something we can start with, we're codified so that no matter what comes later on, they won't change it and go back to what was happening before. And that's how we become a more perfect union, one step at a time, and this is a good step to start.
Speaker 71
Gentlelady yields back. Now recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr. Langworthy.
Nicholas Langworthy
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Most taxpayers assume that when federal assistance goes out the door, that it's going to the people that it was actually intended to help. And sadly, we've learned and have known that that's not always the case. Whether it's child care assistance or federal student aid, every dollar lost to fraud is a dollar that isn't available for a family who actually needs help or a student who is trying to pursue their dreams in an education the right way. And the ghost student scam is a great example of this.
Someone uses a stolen or fake identity, enrolls in classes, receives aid, takes the money, and then disappears into thin air. And meanwhile, taxpayers are left holding the bag, and in some cases, innocent victims are left trying to untangle a terrible, terrible mess. Chairman Owens, can you talk about why strengthening fraud detection and accountability, it protects both taxpayers and the legitimate recipients that these programs are intended to serve?
Burgess Owens
I think all of us, any American goes out and works very hard to save, to build their dreams, and to find out one day that the money they've been saving is not there anymore because somebody decided they wanted to take it. I think we all get that. But I think the most important thing about where we're at today is we're now realizing as a country it's been happening to us for a long time. So it's not just somebody else that's been dealing with it, it's all of us. And we see that it's not only happening where our kids, our children are being impacted in a negative way, but the money's going to other countries.
That adds another part of it. If you don't mind, I'd like to address also weaponization. Just this issue, I have something I'm going to read to you real quickly, but keep in mind, we are weaponizing against fraud.
We're weaponizing against those who want to rip our countrymen and countrywomen off. Republicans are rooting out fraud, waste, and abuse, no matter who sits in the governor's governor's mansion. If my colleagues feel that Democrat-led states seem to have more explaining to do, it's because they do. The data shows it. The numbers do not lie.
Democrat-run states have an average CCDBG improper payment rate more than twice of Republican-led states. That's a significant gap in those the funds that are being being being managed. But some of the anti-waste, fraud, and abuse measures Republicans have put together today will naturally implicate Republicans-led states also. No state should be above scrutiny, and every state should improve and can improve. Tackling fraud is a critical program like I'm sorry, tackling fraud in critical programs like child care assistance for working families should be a bipartisan priority.
So yes, this is something we should all agree on. If you've ever been ripped off, you know it's not a good feeling. That's what I think people are feeling right now.
Nicholas Langworthy
I I think you're exactly right, Chairman Owens. I mean, this this should be non-controversial. I mean, when you're going after the opportunity for fraudsters to steal, to steal opportunities, to steal the opportunities for people to create their their dreams and the lives that they hope to lead through a good education, and their lives do not get ruined by this fraud. At the end of the day, protecting taxpayer dollars and protecting legitimate recipients should go hand in hand. I appreciate the work that's gone into this legislation, and I look forward to its passage.
Could I say just one last thing?
Burgess Owens
Of course you may.
You said something a minute ago, I think it's so important. What makes our country so unique is we have the ability to dream. No matter where we start off, we can dream big and know we can get there. What takes away that dream is when we know that we've been ripped off, that no longer can we expect that the work we put in will always be there because we're realizing that the the game is rigged. And so we cannot do that to our American people.
Let them dream big, let them keep their money, let them make sure that those who need the help, we can get it to them, and let's make sure we hold those folks accountable that are doing damage to our kids and our dreams.
Speaker 75
Thank you so much for all of your work on this topic, and I yield back, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Langworthy. Mr. Jack, you're recognized.
Speaker 76
Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have one question for Mr. Owens. Eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse was a cornerstone campaign promise for so many of us and one of the reasons why we were elected to the majority. Can you expound to this committee in closing as to how these two bills will help us achieve that goal?
Burgess Owens
Let's start off with the child scam care scam act and the the no aid for children of for students act. Okay. When you when you start looking at what these these do, it's actually it's oversight. It's making sure there's accountability, make sure there's a system in which there is a sense of of when when you have reports going in results in there is there is reports that that that are looking at at what's happening with that. And so we can make sure that they're held accountable.
It's it's knowing that as you put the funds in, that there's a backup in which people can really see what how that fund is being addressed and make sure they're being taken care of. So it's just really oversight, more oversight on both in both cases.
Michelle Fischbach
Thank you. Um, I've saved my questions till the end. So, Mr. Owens, one of the most unconscionable crimes I can think of is a scam where fraudsters take money from needy families. Can you give us an example of one of these scams so everyone is clear that these are not victimless crimes?
Speaker 77
Bear with me. Yeah, we've seen so many, and I know we had... Thank you. Okay, great, thanks guys. Okay.
The one that we've been all talking about and I think everybody's been aware of is what's happening in Minnesota. In Minnesota, both the CC DGB and the Feeding Our Futures fraud in child and adult care programs were both seen. Very recently, you can imagine... Let's see, one second here. Okay, I'm sorry, bear with me guys.
In 2023, the DOJ prosecuted five defendants in a scheme stealing $94 million from government-funded child care programs for low-income families in New York. This is just one. Let's see here. I highlighted this particular example because the theft encompasses both CC DBG and CACFP programs and because of what the US Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General said at the time. The money stolen were intended to support New York families that greatly needed financial assistance in securing safe and quality care for their children.
He went on to say that instead, these individuals defrauded federally funded child care programs and deprived deserving enrollees in an attempt to gain personal wealth. I think if you start looking at what's been happening in not only Minnesota but California, we all know someone that has been impacted, trying to get on their feet. And we can relate to the fact of what's happening in those states, we can have the empathy to know that it's happening around us all over the place. So it's now time to address and get it taken care of.
Michelle Fischbach
You know, one of our colleagues said we're going to put in rigid judgments for administrative judgment. I've often said when I show people around the chamber that the person in the middle looking straight down on us is Moses. And that we really haven't needed much more by way of legislation since God sent down the Ten Commandments. Because they're pretty clear: thou shalt not steal. And in these cases, I don't think there was a real case for administrative judgments.
People were stealing money that was designed to go help working families. And so I think it's pretty clear to me that when people are doing that, that's both in the case of the Ghost Students Act as well as in this act. And so it's again pretty clear to me that when they stole money from these programs, they were hurting people. So they're not victimless crimes. They're hurting the people the money was supposed to help, and they're hurting hardworking taxpayers.
I'll ask you one more question about the Department of Education and the strides it's making to identify fraud in the FAFSA application process.
Given that progress, can you explain how the No Aid for Ghost Students Act will complement what the work is that the department is doing?
Burgess Owens
What the bill does is put some safeguards. It identifies fraud detection systems to screen and access the FAFSA. A requirement for institutions to verify the identity of flagged applicants before disbursement of federal dollars. It makes sense, before you send money out, make sure it's verified. And a new program review priority category for schools with patterns of dispersing aid to flagged applicants while excluding schools that demonstrate compliance with identity verification requirements.
The bill also makes sure the department can use existing fraud detection systems rather than having to create a new system from scratch. The bill also allows the department to innovate in the future as fraudsters' methods change and technology advances. Can I just say to that point, we have to understand these are entrepreneurs, they're just bad ones, they have bad intent. So for us to make sure we stay ahead of that, good entrepreneurs have to figure out how to be innovative. So we have to make sure we're always changing and adapting.
Although the bill complements the department's current efforts, altogether the bill complements the department's current efforts and ensures they protect students and taxpayers far into the future. Can I just add one last thing that I think is so important? I can't say this enough, what makes our country a great culture is we believe in family, we believe in dreams. And we've been under attack for a long time. I mean, in my time I've seen what it is to go from a two-family house to one where everybody's working.
This is how it happens when our money's taken, inflation goes up, we lose our dreams, and all of a sudden we're caught in this bind. So I would say that the two things that we're now, the two bills I'm now talking about, will start to deal with that. Let's make sure we're taking care of our kids. Stop Child Care Scams Act, make sure every child that needs to have help can get the help. And No Aid for Ghost Students, for students who want to get support, that money should be going to them instead of fraudsters.
Michelle Fischbach
I now welcome our third panel, Representative Smith and Representative Davis from the Committee on Ways and Means. Thank you very much. I believe, gentlemen, all the members who wanted to ask questions have asked questions, so you are excused. Your full statement will be submitted for the record. Thank you very much.
We ask you summarize your statement in five minutes. Representative Smith, I welcome your testimony.
Mr. Davis, while you're being seated, I'd like to recommend, I mean, I'd like to welcome Ms. McGovern to our room today. I'm not sure why she's choosing to spend her precious time here, but we welcome you, Lisa.
Make you behave.
Make you behave. Okay. Representative Smith, you're recognized.
Jason Smith
Thank you, Chairwoman Foxx and Ranking Member McGovern. I look forward to today's discussion about the committee's ongoing efforts to protect taxpayers and enhance the integrity of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, program. TANF provides over $16 billion annually to states, tribes, and territories. This funding supports local efforts aimed at delivering help to low-income families, including through direct cash assistance and non-assistance services. TANF was created to help families move from welfare to work, promote self-sufficiency, and support low-income parents and children.
But that mission is undermined when taxpayer dollars are not properly protected. When federal welfare funds are vulnerable to waste, fraud, and abuse, the consequences are real. States face weaker incentives to ensure dollars are spent appropriately. Taxpayers lose confidence in the program, and most importantly, families who truly need assistance lose out because resources are not preserved for them. Since my tenure as the chairman of the subcommittee overseeing TANF in the 115th Congress, we have been conducting oversight of the program, and what we've found is very concerning.
The Ways and Means Committee's investigation and hearings have exposed a critical need for reform to end the status quo that allows TANF funds to be diverted from supporting families in need, might I add, those families most in need across the country, that lessens the focus on work, and leaves tax dollars increasingly vulnerable to fraud. We have seen states treat TANF resources like a slush fund that politicians can dip into when bad governance leads to budget shortfalls. In fact, a series of reports produced by GAO last year determined that the non-assistance portion of TANF funding, which consumes nearly 80% of the program's total spending, lacked basic safeguards to ensure funds are spent empowering low-income Americans. This ultimately hurts not only TANF beneficiaries, but also taxpayers. The Preventing Waste, Fraud, and Abuse in TANF Act addresses four key areas when it comes to the lack of guardrails and the proliferation of fraud in our welfare system.
The first change focuses on ensuring states are using TANF funds appropriately and in a timely manner. Currently, states are holding nearly $8 billion in unspent funds. This bill requires states to spend down their funding within a defined three-year period, ensuring tax dollars benefit the low-income families they are designed to help. Secondly, the bill improves transparency by requiring better tracking and reporting of improper payments, a reform that will help policymakers and the public know whether vital resources are being well spent. TANF is one of the few federal programs not required to measure improper payments under the Payment Integrity Information Act.
This is a long-standing recommendation made by GAO. Under both the Trump and Biden administrations, HHS has requested authority to measure improper payments. Third, a policy in this legislation would prevent states from supplanting state and local spending with federal TANF dollars. Lastly, we have a policy that I have led to establish an income threshold of 200% of the federal poverty line for recipients to be eligible for TANF. This is a common-sense guardrail that targets critical welfare dollars to families most in need.
One case that I have always remembered is an example from Michigan where the state was found to have diverted upwards of $1 billion of TANF since 2007 to fund scholarships to middle-class and higher-income students to attend private schools in the state. That type of diversion of funds is indicative of the nobody's watching atmosphere that has made TANF vulnerable. That is not a partisan issue. Even the Biden administration acknowledged that TANF funds were not being used to help the individuals who need them most. If Congress is going to provide billions of dollars each year for TANF, we have a responsibility to ensure those dollars are helping the families who need them most.
The Preventing Waste, Fraud, and Abuse in TANF Act will reduce fraud, restore accountability, and help preserve TANF benefits for families who truly need them. Thank you for the opportunity to testify here to the Rules Committee. I look forward to your questions.
Danny Davis
Thank you, Madam Chair, Ranking Member McGovern, and members of the Rules Committee. This bill purports to be about protecting taxpayers by reducing fraud and waste in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, program. In fact, it has nothing to do with either. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the bill will produce no savings. The bill would not enable a single fraud investigation or recovery.
At our markup, the majority blocked us from even considering Representative Chu's amendment to create and fund a fraud control unit to go after contractors and subgrantees, which is the greatest source of fraud in TANF. Representative Chu and I, together with our Democratic colleagues on Ways and Means, introduced that proposal for the first time over two years ago. In contrast, our Republican colleagues held a hearing seemingly to excuse multimillionaire athlete Brett Favre from censure for stealing millions of TANF dollars from poor children in Mississippi to fund a volleyball stadium and invest in healthcare stocks. Rather than work with us, Republicans chose to introduce this bill with no fraud-fighting provisions less than 48 hours before our committee markup. What this bill would do is give the Trump administration Health and Human Services new power to define error rates for state TANF programs, which could in turn be used to freeze funding, levy financial penalties, or force states to hand over confidential personal information about beneficiaries that is otherwise protected by law.
The last time we were talking about TANF, it was because the Department of Health and Human Services abruptly froze $10 billion in critical social service funding for five states, including my home state of Illinois, to exact revenge on governors who stood up to President Trump. Fortunately, under current law, the administration's authority to weaponize TANF supports for low-income families is limited, and the courts issued a restraining order. If they had not, the Century Foundation estimates it would have cost struggling families $400 million in lost earnings and help.
TANF already assists far too few families in poverty because those who designed it intended it that way, just like those who are celebrating the 4 million people now going hungry because of SNAP cuts. This bill would give the administration power to make things even worse for those families. If Republicans want to reduce fraud, waste, and abuse, they should stop accusing hardworking parents and look to the graft and vanity projects they keep enabling. Over 17 months since he's been back in office, President Trump increased his net worth by over $4 billion selling cryptocurrency, insider trading, and leveraging his position. Most recently, the president spent $5 million of taxpayer money to coat bronze statues in gold leaf, enough money to buy 20,000 families' groceries for a week.
I urge you to make in order the amendments my colleagues and I have offered to add real fraud-fighting provisions to the bill and to hold the administration accountable if they do not use TANF to help families. And I urge you to open their eyes to the massive amounts of money this administration is stealing from our constituents. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I yield back.
Michelle Fischbach
Thank you, Madam Chair. And, you know, certainly TANF is a great program trying to help vulnerable families, but the program itself obviously needs to be strengthened against fraud because we have seen fraud rampant in all different kinds of programs. And there's always room for improvement. There we should not ever stop trying to improve and trying to save taxpayer dollars and make the reduce the fraud the best we can. But wasn't there a nonpartisan Government Accountability Office that issued five different reports on the need to improve TANF, Mr. Chair?
Jason Smith
Yes, that is correct, a pretty comprehensive study that was done over a two-year period of time.
Michelle Fischbach
And maybe you can speak to some of those vulnerabilities which were pointed out and puts TANF at higher risk for fraud.
Jason Smith
Well, I would say broadly speaking, we just don't have a very good handle on where the dollars are going, much less the we also lack the authority to go after the fraud that that is out there. So as I spoke about earlier, President Biden, his administration requested this same authority that the Trump administration has requested, that overall helps us make sure that the money gets to the folks who need it the most. I mean, that's what TANF is about. It's for needy families, I would say the neediest among us, to get the resources and to make a positive difference. And I think it's important that we have flexibility for the states, that we don't become overly prescriptive on how the dollars are spent, but we need to make sure that there is accountability out there, especially when we know, based on the report, that states have swapped out, you know, have used these dollars instead of general funds because the requirements are so loose, I guess, or lacking that there's that flexibility I think has gone too far because we're trying to tighten that up.
So there are various provisions in the bill to tighten that up, all because we want to get the resources to folks who need it the most.
Michelle Fischbach
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And it is it is critical because every dollar we spend is a taxpayer dollar that we collected.
And we we have a great responsibility to the taxpayers to make sure that we are doing everything we can to prevent fraud, to prevent their money from being wasted. And so I appreciate that we are addressing a lot of the fraud that's going on or trying to get at it, trying to make sure that we are most efficient because for every dollar we save in fraud is a dollar that could go to a needy family, an additional dollar, or an additional dollar we do not have to collect from taxpayers, those other working families that are working hard to pay their taxes. So I appreciate that and support your support the legislation and with that I yield back, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mrs. Fischbach. Mr. McGovern, you're recognized.
James McGovern
Yeah, well thank you. And let me just say first of all that, you know, since we're talking about taxpayer dollars, that every dollar spent on this illegal war in Iran is stolen from the American people. And nobody seems to care about that it's not offset and it's just adding to the to the to the debt. But in any event, having said that, Chairman Smith, I think we all agree that we should be working together to get go after fraudsters and protect taxpayer funds from being stolen or misused. I think there's nobody who disagrees with that.
And I just want to make sure I'm clear based on what you said. So I mean so you don't you can't tell us how much fraud is occurring or is estimated to be occurring in the TANF program in your home state or in the country, right? We you don't know, right?
James McGovern
Right. And with respect to section three of your bill, which sets new time which sets new income limits, can you tell me how many current TANF recipients would be kicked off of benefits from this provision?
Jason Smith
Well, when you look at do you mean the 200% of federal poverty level, that that requirement? And that that's the one that I've been working on for some time. That's, you know, that that would be an outer boundary in in its description of...
Jason Smith
How you know, how many scholarship recipients in in the state of Michigan that that would be considered middle class, that weren't really needing that kind of a especially those dollars, but they were checking the boxes of the federal requirements that are so loose, but not making it to folks who need it the most.
James McGovern
So so we don't know, we don't know a specific answer on that, right?
Correct.
James McGovern
And can you tell me what the median TANF benefit is for a family of three?
I can tell you, it's $552 a month.
Okay.
James McGovern
So, you know, and so I take it, I get I get the point that we, you know, that we should be concerned about fraud and the misuse of taxpayer funds everywhere, not just when it comes to social safety net programs like TANF, right? I mean, you care about fraud and abuse, I would assume, in all programs, right, in all aspects of our government.
Jason Smith
That that that's my sense. I mean, we've had discussions in the Ways and Means Committee from both sides of of concerns about fraud.
James McGovern
And in fact, with respect to Medicare fraud, you said in April, and I quote, "Fraud erodes trust and diverts resources away from the people who truly need care, which is why I will continue to call on my colleagues in Congress to come together to put an end to it," end quote. That was your quote. And I guess my next question is, why aren't you guys similarly concerned that Donald Trump has pardoned or reduced the prison time for 21 individuals who have been found guilty and were convicted of healthcare fraud?
This bill is not about that.
Speaker 84
Well, it's about fraud, right? I mean, so I mean, this is fraud too, and this is in the Medicare program.
Jason Smith
Well, when this is tailored very narrowly to TANF and the need to tighten up TANF so that resources get it to the folks who need it the most.
James McGovern
Yeah, I mean, you know, I mean, again, we're here talking about fraud. Why isn't there a bill on on this?
Jason Smith
Well, there could be a number of questions as to why we don't have bills for a lot of different things, but I'm here to talk about this.
James McGovern
Well, I mean, you guys are in charge. What about Philip Esformes? I mean, who was sentenced in 2019 to 20 years in prison for stealing $1.3 billion, that's billion with a B, from the Medicare program, the largest healthcare fraud scheme ever charged by the Department of Justice. And I'm sure you're aware of this, Trump commuted his sentence. Do you have any opinion on that?
Jason Smith
I'm here to talk about the bill at hand here that is making sure that the resources get it to folks who need it the most.
Jason Smith
I'm here to talk about TANF being more effective at helping the folks who need it the most.
James McGovern
Let's do a lightning round since I don't seem to be getting any answers here. If somebody intentionally commits tax fraud, should the IRS care about that? Yes or no?
James McGovern
Again, the topic really is fraud. I mean, and we're talking about, we had a bill before you were here talking about fraud, and we have another bill on fraud, this is fraud week apparently. I mean, I don't know, let me say, if somebody intentionally commits tax fraud, yes, the IRS should care about that. I don't know why that's such a controversial answer, answer, question. Do you think they ought to audit somebody if they're committing tax fraud?
Jason Smith
I'm here to talk about TANF, this legislation is about TANF and making sure that resources get it to the folks who need it the most.
James McGovern
Yeah, again, I'm a little puzzled because you are on the Ways and Means Committee, right? I mean, you write tax policy, you oversee the programs that we're talking about here today. What about Trump's recent settlement with his own administration, which initially resulted in a $1.8 billion slush fund for his allies, which now I'm told by the acting Attorney General may be on hold, but it also included blanket immunity for Trump and his family for tax crimes or any other crimes that they may have committed? I mean, yes or no, do you support that?
Jason Smith
I'm here to talk about TANF and how we can make sure that resources with TANF dollars make it to the folks who need it the most.
James McGovern
Yeah, I am outraged that Trump's recent settlement with his own administration resulted in what it all this basically protection from audits and potential criminal investigations. I think it's as corrupt as hell. And it would give the Trump family, as I read the settlement, and give Trump himself an unlimited number of get out of jail free cards for any crime that could be investigated and prosecuted by the federal government, including potential tax crimes, insider trading, bribes and kickbacks, any allegations of sexual assault by Trump in the Epstein files, or any contracts that Trump has steered toward companies he and his family are invested in. And again, I want to ask unanimous consent to put the settlement in the record if I could.
James McGovern
You know, I guess Representative Smith, I mean, I would just say if you guys really cared about fraud and corruption, you would commit right now to doing everything you could to kill this corrupt settlement because that's what it is. And it is stunning to me that given the fact that it is so blatantly corrupt that nobody on your side wants to say anything. Will you publicly commit right now to killing this illegal and corrupt settlement?
Jason Smith
I'm here to talk about TANF and the subject legislation and making sure that the resources of TANF make it to the intended recipients and those are Americans who need it the most.
James McGovern
I asked you if committing tax fraud is a bad, is bad, and you refused or couldn't answer the question. And I think it's because you guys are all afraid of the guy in the White House. And the American people, you know, are watching this, and quite frankly, they're stunned and horrified by the complicity of the majority in this House in allowing him to get away with all that he's getting away with. So I don't have any further questions. I yield back.
Austin Scott
Thank you, Madam Chair. And I'd just like to thank Lisa for coming today. Your husband's on very good behavior now, and I hope you'll come tomorrow too, or next week, or whenever we're back. But I do hope it's not tomorrow, but it's good to see you. And I would just like to point out to my colleague from Worcestershire that the, that the...
Austin Scott
Fair enough. All right. I would just remind you that the man in the White House, Donald J. Trump, got a record number of Electoral College votes. And with all of the things that y'all did to him through corrupt DAs and a corrupt FBI and everything else, the American citizens decided he was much better than what the Democratic Party had to offer. So Donald Trump's the President of the United States because the American citizens put him in the White House for a second time.
But that doesn't absolve him of his current crimes.
Austin Scott
He is the President of the United States after all of what y'all did to him, going all the way back to previous administrations where the FBI was spying on his campaign and all of the corrupt DAs and everything in all of the charges y'all drummed up against him. The President of the United States is Donald J. Trump with a record number of Electoral College votes.
Is he above the law?
Austin Scott
No, he's not above the law. But he's the President of the United States. He's the President of the United States. And so this is about getting rid of fraud and waste and abuse. Is that correct?
Speaker 90
That is correct. But more importantly, making sure that folks who need it the most receive the help that they need.
Austin Scott
Yeah. So I will tell you, I support a lot of these programs. But I think that the integrity in the programs matter. And most of the people I represent support the programs, but they want the integrity in the system. What they don't like is paying taxes that go to a bunch of fraudsters like they've seen Minneapolis, Minnesota, I think is the best example of it, where their own legislature said we need an investigation here because of the fraud in 2000, going all the way back to '19.
And you had a governor and attorney general and a bunch of other people that wouldn't touch it because it was going to mess up their political base, their donor base, and they didn't want to disrupt that in any way, shape, form, or fashion. So I don't have any further questions. Mr. Smith, if you've got anything that you would like to add, you're welcome to. Other than that, I'll yield my time back to the chair.
Ms. Scanlon, you're recognized. Thank you.
Speaker 91
I wasn't going to go here, but, you know, but Donald Trump has pardoned or issued commutations for 21 people convicted of healthcare fraud. This is at the same time when you guys have been kicking millions of hardworking families off of health coverage under the guise of preventing fraud and abuse. And here I want to ask unanimous consent to put this in the record, but here's the one thing all these people have in common: they're all supporters of Donald Trump. And, you know, and I agree with you, I will concede that Donald Trump is President. But he's not king.
James McGovern
And, you know, and I agree with you, I will concede that Donald Trump is president, but he's not king. And so when we see settlements like the one that he just, you know, negotiated with our government, with the IRS, which is basically a blanket pardon for him and his families, I gotta tell you, alarm bells should be going off in everybody's head, not just on the Democratic side, but on the Republican side. So, you know, this is a, you know, you want to talk about fraud, well, fraud is happening right before our very eyes and you guys are silent. And I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
Speaker 91
And so when we see settlements like the one that he just, you know, negotiated...
Mary Gay Scanlon
Thank you, and I do just want to correct the record. I mean, Calvin Coolidge got more Electoral College votes than Donald Trump did, and so if that's how we're measuring, whatever. At any rate, I think as as Mr. McGovern was suggesting, TANF is not a lavish program, with the average benefits for a family $550?
That's cash.
That's cash.
Yeah, cash.
Which is only part of the program.
Mary Gay Scanlon
Sure. Right, but when we see prosecutions for TANF fraud against an individual recipient, it tends to be in the hundreds or maybe the thousands, right? But the biggest TANF fraud we've seen in this country was in Mississippi, where an institution diverted $77 million intended for poor families, sent to wealthy and well-connected people for projects that had nothing to do with helping children. They built a volleyball arena, things like that. And after this president came into office, he excused the need to reimburse that money to the taxpayers.
So if we're talking about fraud, I don't see that this bill is going to address the kind of real theft and—
Jason Smith
It would. This bill would address that because every member of Congress that I've talked to, both sides of the aisle, was highly offended by the abuse of those TANF dollars in Mississippi. Oh no, it would.
Mary Gay Scanlon
Well, then they should be highly offended by the fact that this administration has said that they don't have to pay that money back, the $101 million restitution that was supposed to occur has been excused by this administration. We've also seen this administration regularly handing out no-bid contracts to friends and political allies to do things like repaint the reflecting pool. And this excusing of fraud when it's done on a massive scale seems to be a hallmark of this administration. What about Lawrence Duran? He was sentenced to 50 years for defrauding Medicare of $200 million.
That's $200 million taxpayer dollars. But this president gave him a get-out-of-jail-free card and he didn't have to make restitution. We've seen this happen time after time. So, you know, if if the concern is about fraud, then that's where we should be doing some investigation, but this bill isn't about fighting fraud. It's an attack on poor people.
If we were serious here about fighting fraud, waste, and abuse, you'd start with where the money is, where the corruption is, that start—they would start with the self-dealing that we're seeing coming out of this White House. So, I think this is yet another bill, we've seen several today, where there's a lot of talk about fraud, but the bills that we're seeing aren't attacking the massive fraud that is being perpetrated upon the American people.
Speaker 92
Yes sir, Mr. Smith, did you have anything that you wished to add onto the discussion?
I yield back.
Jason Smith
Well, I know that the Mississippi case was raised there and I want to add emphasis at how offended all of the members were of the Ways and Means Committee, both sides of the aisle, and that it's my understanding that there's not a final decision and that the overall case is still under review by the administration. So I don't think anything's been finalized there, but that case highlights the need to do our bill to make sure, like the portion that I've been working on for several years, to make sure that no one who makes above 200% of federal poverty receives the benefits because the benefits are intended for folks below that threshold. And that's even a pretty generous margin there to work with with the flexibility.
Speaker 51
Mr. Smith, would you give the figure for what 200% of poverty is for a family of three because people don't realize what a high number that is. I think it's important that you—
A family of three would be roughly $100,000.
A family of three.
$100,000.
I will yield to the Madam Chair.
Michelle Fischbach
I've been doing some calculations on this and I think it's really important. We're talking about percentages here. So a family of three, 200% of poverty, you said is $200,000.
$100,000.
Speaker 51
One hundred, excuse me, $100,000. The calculations I have are that you can be 200% of poverty, which is $100,000, and you could be drawing in addition to that from taxpayers $65,200 in terms of benefits. So you have people in this country on TANF making more money from taxpayers than the average working person in this country.
Jason Smith
Let me also add though that the practice of the states, even though the flexibility exists to go higher, the practice among most states is 100% of poverty for cash assistance.
Michelle Fischbach
Okay, so 100%, that's $50,000, right? So in addition to that money, you get SNAP, you get Medicaid, you get housing, um, and there's one other that I've left off. So you could have people in this country being paid from taxpayers—they are not taxpayers—they're being given money from hardworking taxpayers $165,000 in benefits. I just think that has been lost in this discussion tonight because it's not come up at all. And I find that really egregious.
The people in my district, their average salary I believe is about $58,000. Those are people who are out working construction, roofers, people in my own family working in the nursery landscaping business who make less than $58,000 a year.
Speaker 51
They're paying taxes to provide $165,000 in benefits. That, and we can't even track it because we do not have the accountability. Congresswoman Fischbach asked you the question I think I was going to ask you, and that is that GAO has asked us, both Democrats and Republicans, to look into the abuse. But this is my understanding, and I think the American people are pretty fed up that this is happening in our country and that we are not calling a halt to it.
Jason Smith
Okay, let me, if I might, correct the record here. 200%, there's a lot of numbers floating around here. 200% of federal poverty is $51,000 for a family of three.
Michelle Fischbach
Okay, you gave the figure of $100,000. $61,000. I didn't know what it was. Okay, so it's $61,000.
Speaker 51
But they get free medical care, which is the most expensive thing that we have in this country right now. So they qualify for Medicaid, okay? So they get $61,000 in cash payments, right? That's cash payments.
Jason Smith
No, the 100% of federal poverty is cash payments. That's the practice of the states, even though it's not required.
100% of federal poverty for a family of three is $25,000.
$25,000. So they're getting $25,000.
Jason Smith
Now, let me say that there are examples of beneficiaries of TANF making $100,000, families making $100,000 or perhaps even more, receiving a scholarship from states, a college scholarship, not necessarily to the local community college or the state university, but to private liberal arts schools in the state. I'm glad that there are opportunities for students. I think that's a good thing. That's not what these dollars are for.
Okay, let's go back. I want to make sure we got the right numbers. The cash benefits to somebody on TANF, let's say 100% of poverty. What is 100% of poverty?
Michelle Fischbach
$15,000. What's a family of three? Because that number was used.
Speaker 98
$28,000 is family of three. I'm sorry, $25,800. Family of three is $28,000.
Michelle Fischbach
Okay. All right. And so in addition to cash benefits from TANF, they get SNAP, they get Medicaid, which is, it's free. 25,800. They get total free healthcare.
There is no payment for it. They get housing benefits. And what are the housing benefits for a family of three? How much can you get for housing?
I can't speak to that as this is a TANF-related hearing.
Speaker 51
Well, it requires at least a two-bedroom house, right? I know I had a constituent in my district had four kids and they had to have a five-bedroom house paid for by the taxpayers. So we're talking about a lot of money going to these families when it sounds like they're not getting... They're getting food stamps, Medicaid, housing, and the cash payment.
Speaker 100
Well, I would argue that the beneficiaries of, say, a college scholarship program through a few states, they may, they're probably not qualifying for other benefits, but they're qualifying...
Jason Smith
Well, I would argue that the beneficiaries of say a college scholarship program through a few states, they may, they're probably not qualifying for other benefits, but they're qualifying for the TANF dollars and that's not what those dollars are for.
Speaker 51
To be sidetracked, it's being sidetracked into a scholarship. Yeah. But I do think it's important, I'm taking up Mr. Griffith's time, but I do think it's important that we put the total dollars in perspective for the American people because you're talking about poverty level, poverty level is pretty high in this country. And we add on to that a lot coming from taxpayers. People getting TANF are not taxpayers for the most part.
There're very few who would be taxpayers. So I think it, oh, they're getting free childcare. We had a program, we had before you, we were discussing childcare.
Jason Smith
But it is conceivable though that folks who do pay taxes still qualify for TANF dollars and that's what we're trying to rein in to make sure we channel these dollars in a better direction to help the folks who need it the most.
Michelle Fischbach
Yeah. So $65,000 tax free is what most people are getting. And Medicaid has no limit on it. So it could be a lot more than that. Thank you, Mr. Griffith.
I yield back.
Mr. Neguse.
Joe Neguse
Thank you, Madam Chair. First I want to say thank you to Mr. Smith for providing a really important clarification about midstream there because the numbers that, with all respect, that the chairwoman was using initially and she's describing a range of her constituents who, you know, were making $50,000, $55,000, $57,000 and so forth and that those individuals were paying for, you know, these benefits for others, you clarified and so we can now operate under this shared understanding of the facts. 200% of the federal poverty level for a family of three is $54,640. Does that sound about right to you, Mr. Smith?
Roughly, yes.
Joe Neguse
Okay, great. So under this bill, right, take a step back, under existing law, tell me if I'm wrong, any family that makes more than 100% of federal poverty level is ineligible for cash payments from TANF, correct?
Roughly speaking, yes.
Joe Neguse
Okay, great. Thank you for that. That's important clarification for the chairwoman to understand.
For the cash benefits, but that's only 20% of TANF dollars.
I understand. We're going to talk about the rest of the benefits.
That's only 20% of the people on TANF.
Joe Neguse
Correct. And we're going to go through all the other benefits. But let's just, I want to make sure we're all operating under this same set of facts. So if you are a family making 100% of the federal poverty level, you are not eligible for the cash payment part of TANF, right? This bill doesn't touch that, correct?
Correct.
Joe Neguse
Okay. Now, if you are making 201% of the federal poverty level, under your bill, you are no longer eligible under TANF for the other basket of benefits that are available in that program, correct?
Of TANF benefits?
Joe Neguse
Correct. Childcare, all of the other, the litany of benefits that you've described, this bill basically says, hey, you know what, we're capping it at 200% of federal poverty level, right?
Right.
It's Kearney, Nebraska.
Joe Neguse
Kearney. I apologize. Coloradans and Nebraskans, as you know, we've got a tortured history, so I apologize for the mispronunciation of the Kearney, Nebraska. If you're a family of three in Kearney, Nebraska making $55,000 a year, you are not eligible under your bill for any TANF benefits, right?
Joe Neguse
That is the, that's what I'm describing. The 200% is $54,640. So a family of three in Nebraska, in your district, that makes $55,000 a year would not be eligible for any of these benefits. Correct. Okay.
So you're making $55,000 a year. I was looking up, you know, spent some time on using Google, which is, I don't want to necessarily say that this is the most accurate barometer for costs. You would know better than I would about the costs in your district, but how much does it cost a family of three, you know, two-bedroom home for a mortgage, for a rent, what, $2,000 a month in your...
Jason Smith
It would vary considerably, but more affordable in my district than yours.
Joe Neguse
I'm not so sure that's the case. I've got a lot of rural areas in my district that, you know, it depends upon obviously the locality and all the rest. But based off of what I found, $1,500, $2,000 seems like an accurate barometer for a family in your district, different parts of your district. Fair enough?
Jason Smith
Now, that the 200% of federal poverty does not necessarily line up with other programs.
Joe Neguse
Sure. I'm not, I'm not saying that they might not be eligible for some other, you know, programs outside of the TANF program. I'm just asking you, for a Nebraska family, doesn't seem like I would be wrong to suggest that it might be costing them $2,000 a month, $24,000 a year for their housing, right?
Jason Smith
Family of three could, well, I, this is going to vary widely across the country. Again, this bill is a very diligent effort to make sure that folks who need the resources the most...
Joe Neguse
Let me walk you through my math. Let me walk you through my math. $55,000 a year, right? Family of three in your district. Paying $24,000 a year, so $2,000 a month to rent a home.
Okay. Paying, call it what, $2,400 a year for car insurance. They own a car. Paying $5,000 a year for their water bill, their electricity bill, right? Paying, I don't know, $1,000 a month for groceries.
How many, you have, how many children do you have?
Joe Neguse
I have two as well. I don't know how much money you're spending on groceries on an average basis, but, you know, $1,000 a month, $1,500 a month, right, $12,000 a year, $15,000 a year. It adds up pretty quick, Mr. Smith. And I guess what I'm suggesting to you is I don't think that the American people would quite understand your effort to prevent that family that's making $55,000 a year in Nebraska from being able to access childcare benefits at the same time that the Republican Congress has passed tax breaks for some of the richest Americans in our country. I just, I understand your larger point.
Obviously, you don't want, you know, families making 500% of the federal poverty level from accessing, you, I think the example you cited was a college scholarship.
But this is a really exacting standard that you all are imposing in this bill. And I guess that's what I'm trying to better understand. Why'd you pick 200%? Why not 220% or 250%?
Jason Smith
It's had considerable bipartisan support over time. And, you know, it's a recommendation by GAO as well that various components of the bill and that there's been bipartisan interest though at the 200% threshold because unlimited...
Joe Neguse
But you keep mentioning $100,000. I guess this is my point. Every example I've heard from you has been there's a family making $100,000 a year, they shouldn't access a scholarship, or there's a family making $100,000 a year, they shouldn't be able to access a particular, I don't know, job fair, whatever the case it is, a basket of benefits under TANF. Do you really, you honestly believe that a family making $55,000 in Nebraska shouldn't be able to access any TANF benefits? That that's your position?
Jason Smith
I've proposed that that number. That's in the legislation, and I think it's a thoughtful approach. And in many, many, many cases, that is more than sufficient. Now, there's going to be a variety of opinions. I get that.
But the fact of the matter is we were hearing about numbers in practice that are much smaller than this. But when you see dollars, TANF dollars escape to other areas, which is effectively away from the folks who need it the most, I hope that would concern all of us.
Jason Smith
When the state of California diverts more than $1 billion per year from TANF for 650, I mean, that helps 650,000 college students, and then there's documentation that they called the scheme a fund swap so that the state uses TANF funds to replace general fund dollars.
Joe Neguse
I hear you. So let's come up with a surgical tool to target what you're describing. My point is that the collateral damage here are going to be families making $55,000 a year in Nebraska, in Colorado, families making $60,000 a year. And I just don't understand why we can't negotiate and find that balance to say, you know what, okay...
Jason Smith
That's going to get away from us on several fronts because we have to establish the threshold because it makes sense that we help the folks who need it the most.
Joe Neguse
I think, and I hear you, and so we just agree to disagree. My view is that that family making $55,000 in Nebraska or in Colorado, that they deserve the ability to access, again, we're not talking about cash payments, the child care assistance programs, the job fair programs that exist under TANF. You want to talk about fraud? I'm happy to talk about fraud. Ms. Scanlon questioned you regarding the Mississippi case.
You said, I think, the word I wrote down, the phrase you gave was, where, I wrote it down because I was struck by it. You said you were deeply, what was it?
Offended.
What was it?
Probably deeply offended.
Joe Neguse
Offended. That's right. You said, so this is the Mississippi case, right, $100 billion, well, $77 million that was diverted fraudulently embezzled out of TANF in Mississippi.
Jason Smith
Correct. And it was a what seems to be a pretty concerted effort to get after those dollars knowing that it wasn't going to where the dollars are intended.
Joe Neguse
Correct. And there was a $100 million penalty imposed by the Biden administration. And the Trump administration rescinded that penalty. And you said you were...
It's under review.
Joe Neguse
It's under, well, it was issued a year and a half ago and the department, HHS, essentially clawed that back and as you said, that process is now ongoing, correct? Right?
They're reviewing it.
Joe Neguse
And you're deeply offended by it. My question is this. Okay, so my question is this. Have you asked or suggested to HHS that they ought to impose the penalty?
I've not done that at this point.
Joe Neguse
Well, but you said you were offended. If you're offended by it, why not tell HHS, you know what, the worst, one of the worst frauds in TANF history that the Biden administration went after and that the Trump administration rescinded and now supposedly they've... they've suggested it's in review, it's in limbo, right? This ongoing limbo. If you are so offended, you know what, why don't we do it together, Mr. Smith? Why don't you and I partner up and we will tell, we'll send a letter to HHS saying, you know what, we need to get after TANF fraud and you all need to take drastic action to ensure that the taxpayers of Mississippi who were swindled and bamboozled and embezzled from, that they ultimately are able to recover.
I'm in if you're in.
I'm here to talk about this legislation.
That's a no?
Jason Smith
That's not necessarily a no, but I'm here to talk about the legislation and I realize you want to talk about some other things.
Speaker 108
It's not other things, it's TANF fraud. That's what this bill is all about, Madam Chair, it's TANF fraud.
To your... to your question...
Joe Neguse
I think the chairwoman agrees with me. She may join me on this letter. I don't know. In any event, I'll yield back.
To your... to your question about the 200%...
Speaker 107
I mean, I'm happy to engage if the chairwoman would like. Okay. All right. Well, to be continued. This is happening.
Teresa Leger Fernandez
Thank you, Madam Chair, I do not have any questions for this panel.
Thank you very much. And, you know, thank you for engaging in this conversation because there's been a couple of words of what you've said that have also struck me. Because as you were describing what really angers you, it wasn't just TANF fraud and what happened in Mississippi, you also don't want states creating slush funds, right? You're opposed to the concept of these slush funds. I heard you say that in your...
With TANF dollars.
Jason Smith
With TANF dollars. Those are... those are federal dollars that are within our jurisdiction. What about... what about slush funds with taxpayer dollars?
TANF dollars? Within the TANF context, I'm here to talk about TANF.
Teresa Leger Fernandez
Taxpayer dollars. Taxpayer dollars. We should... would you also be opposed to any slush funds that were created with taxpayer dollars?
Jason Smith
I'm here to talk about TANF dollars and how we can make sure that TANF dollars reach the intended beneficiaries.
Teresa Leger Fernandez
Right, because nobody on in the House Republican side wants to talk about the slush fund that President Trump tried to set up with taxpayer dollars. And I think that that's the issue that we keep raising is this hypocrisy, right, that you're willing to give a 4.5 trillion dollar tax cut for in tax cuts that primarily benefited billionaires. In fact, you had earlier you said something about, you know, we don't want there were 650 college students that improperly accessed this money. Well, there were less than 800, less than 800 billionaires who benefited from those tax cuts. And you guys didn't seem to have a problem then.
Right, we don't believe in fraud. In fact, I believe that Democrats had an amendment in markup that would require HHS to search for and punish TANF fraud when states pay contractors or subgrantees or mislead the state or conspire to fraudulently use public funds. Did you vote for or against that amendment?
Speaker 109
I'm sorry, say that again. Did you vote for or against the amendment that would require HHS to go after and punish TANF fraud from states pay contractors or sub-grantees who mislead the state? Well, there were a number of amendments, and I don't remember the details of every single amendment, but there were amendments that were not germane. This sounds very germane. It's TANF, it's fraud.
Well, it sounds like it, that's right, but that doesn't always mean that it is actually germane to the legislation. TANF fraud, go after contractors and sub-contractors that engage in fraud. That sounds pretty germane to me. Well, I mean the legislation, I would say the legislation as written is an effort to make sure and in its... But you're not willing to go after families, but you're not willing to go after contractors and sub-contractors.
This is once again the hypocrisy. If we are trying to save money in the TANF program, we would want to also go after the contractors and sub-contractors who engage in the fraud, because that would then recover the money for the program, which was the issue that you were asking about, as far as why don't we recover the money. What's even better is when we can prevent the money from ending up in the wrong places in the first place, rather than the pay and chase. But the wrong places would include the contractors and sub-contractors. And I don't know why Republicans are always... they're always willing to go after the families, but they're not willing to go after the corporations and the actual fraudsters who engage in it in big time.
And we should not let anybody off, and that's what you're willing to do. And that's why we keep going back to where there is the willingness to engage, like with the slush fund. You don't like a slush fund here, but you're willing to turn your head and not pay attention to when it's a slush fund of taxpayer money that President Trump fabricates. And in fact, the judge in that case has reopened it because she needs to question whether there were these grievous allegations of whether the court was misled and whether that settlement was premised on a deception. She also pointed out that the idea that you could have a settlement, a separate settlement that does not allow the IRS to engage in audits and the other matters, whether that is at all related to this case.
So there are two problems with what happened in that court. Was one, there was collusion and corruption, and then a slush fund, and then something that Ways and Means should care about, which is we are not let the IRS engage in basic audits of the President, his family, and their businesses. And that wasn't even related to even the allegations in the case. I would think that all Ways and Means would be... what was the word? Deeply offended.
Deeply offended. That all Ways and Means members would be deeply offended for a settlement which prevented the agency that you oversee from conducting its basic business. Is there anything, Ranking Member, that you would like to add to this discussion, because I believe I am the last Democrat who will ask questions today. Is there any clarifications you would like to make to the discussion?
Danny Davis
Well, I've heard a lot of numbers, high numbers, but I also understand that the median TANF benefit is actually $6,600 a year. That is the median.
That the highest TANF benefit for a family of three in the country is $16,440. And so the fraud has to be coming from some place other than individuals who are eligible beneficiaries of TANF. And those are the individuals who need the most help. Those are the individuals who actually need the help. And that's where we need to focus on getting help to those individuals and not allowing crooks to siphon off the money that is supposed to go to TANF beneficiaries.
Teresa Leger Fernandez
Right, and that's the issue of what the your the amendment was intended to do was to go after those who are actually ripping taxpayers off in the millions of dollars. And the they refused to pass that Democratic amendment. And I take it you voted for that, Mr. Bishop?
Danny Davis
Yes, both myself and Representative Judy Chu have amendments, had amendments. And of course those amendments were not accepted as part of the bill.
Teresa Leger Fernandez
So and the other piece about this is not just that who you're going after, but who to whom are you granting this these broad powers? And and I think that there is a huge concern about who is going to have control over the direction. And is it going to be the Trump administration to act in a manner that is evenhanded or not? And that I think that concern is is now substantiated based on the manner in which this administration has used the Department of Justice, the USDA, name a department and he has used it to go after anybody he feels is not sufficiently in line with his policy priorities. And that is different than being the President of the United States.
So Representative Davis, I really want to thank you for bringing up the issues that you have today and if there's nothing else, I'll yield back.
Mr. Jack.
Michelle Fischbach
Well gentlemen, I believe everyone who wanted to ask questions has asked questions. I believe my as I said earlier, Miss Houchin, I mean, excuse me, Miss Fischbach asked my main question, but Representative Smith, is there anything else you want to say about the concerns GAO raised which caused you to get engaged in this issue?
Jason Smith
Suffice it to say that GAO identified significant shortcomings. This bill is tailored to take those studies and legislatively make the changes that need to be made.
President Biden's team suggested and called for the 200% of federal poverty threshold as well. That idea has been around for some time, proposed by both administrations, Biden and Trump, have requested similar dynamics across TANF in being able to overall make sure that the folks who need it the most receive the help they need so that we can be more effective with taxpayer dollars. I heard, you know, bipartisan interest here this evening pointing to that. And it's, but it's not always big fraudsters that are the situation here. It's the unintended aspects of dollars going to someone who doesn't need the help, like with a private liberal arts college scholarship when their income exceeds a lot of various thresholds that we've talked about here.
I'm glad they are getting an education. That's a good thing. That's not what TANF dollars are for. Thank you. I yield back.
Michelle Fischbach
Thank you very much for summarizing that so well. Gentlemen are excused.
Danny Davis
Thank you, Madam Chairman. Could I remain here for the amendment discussion?
Michelle Fischbach
Do you want to remain for the amendment? Certainly. Yes. Mr. Davis, my understanding is you're the only person who has an amendment, so if you want to go ahead while you're there, present your amendment.
Danny Davis
We have two amendments, one myself and one with Representative Judy Chu. And I support both of them to address the TANF fraud offered today by Representative Chu and myself. I want to commend the leadership of my colleague Bennie Thompson from Mississippi, who has fought for years to get state and federal officials to investigate misuse of TANF in Mississippi. And as ranking member of the subcommittee with jurisdiction over TANF, I am acutely aware of misuse of millions of TANF dollars from struggling families in Mississippi by Brett Favre and other organizations. I'm shocked that this bill fails to address the greatest source of fraud in TANF.
And unlike any other law, Republicans insisted on a statutory prohibition on federal oversight that limits TANF transparency, fraud detection, and enforcement. If the bill's goal is to make TANF accountable, then the Rules Committee should unequivocally support the Chu amendment of our bill to require a fraud control unit to search for and punish contractors and subgrantees committing TANF fraud and give HHS specific narrow power to target the real source of fraud in TANF. H.R. 8872, which willfully ignores this fraud and alarmingly includes no fraud fighting provisions.
In addition, my amendment would improve congressional oversight to limit political weaponization of TANF fraud allegations. In January, the Department of Health and Human Services abruptly froze 10 billion dollars in critical social services from five states: my state of Illinois, as well as California, Colorado, Minnesota, and New York. They never presented any evidence or even an example of fraud or errors in any of those states, leading to a court-ordered restraining order against the freeze. My amendment would require HHS to answer basic congressional questions about the Trump administration's freeze, including internal communications about the real cause of the freeze, the various contracts HHS has violated, in addition to the statutory provisions and how the freeze is being implemented. Congress must make sure we have this information before we trust HHS to implement any changes to TANF, particularly the broad new authority to penalize states for HHS-judged errors in section two.
Providing the administration with new undefined authority to modify TANF rules for states without answering congressional questions sets a dangerous precedent of letting the executive branch ignore Congress when implementing the laws Congress enacted governing mandatory funding streams for all states. H.R. 8872 would not result in a single fraud prosecution or payment recovery. Further, H.R. 8872 fails to address the greatest source of fraud in TANF. I would urge you to make in order the amendments my colleagues and I have offered to add real fraud fighting provisions to the bill and hold the administration accountable if they do not use TANF to help families. I thank you, Madam Chairman, and I yield back.
Michelle Fischbach
Is there anyone else seeking to testify on today's agenda? Oh, I'm sorry. Seeing none, this closes the hearing portion. I apologize. Anyone want have any questions for Mr. Davis?
Speaker 115
I just want to thank Mr. Davis for his testimony and I support your amendments. I yield back.
Speaker 117
I thank Mr. Davis for your amendment, as we discussed earlier, very important going after the big spots.
Speaker 118
Is there anyone else seeking to testify on today's agenda? Seeing none, this closes the hearing portion of our meeting.
Michelle Fischbach
The chair will be in receipt of a motion from the gentlewoman from Indiana, Ms. Houchin.
Erin Houchin
Madam Chair, I move the committee grant H.R. 8646, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agency Appropriations Act, 2027, a structured rule. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. The rule provides one hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their respective designees. The rule provides that the bill shall be considered as read. The rule waives all points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 or clause 5A of rule 21.
The rule makes in order only those amendments printed in the Rules Committee report, amendments en bloc described in section 3, and pro forma amendments described in section 4. Each amendment shall be considered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, except as provided by section 4 of the rule, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question. The rule waives all points of order against the amendments printed in the Rules Committee report or amendments en bloc described in section 3 of the rule. The rule provides that the chair of the Committee on Appropriations or his designee may offer amendments en bloc consisting of amendments printed in the Rules Committee report, not earlier disposed of. Amendments en bloc shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 20 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their respective designees, shall not be subject to amendment, except as provided by section 4 of the rule, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question.
The rule provides that the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their respective designees may offer up to 10 pro forma amendments each at any point for the purpose of debate. The rule provides one motion to recommit. The rule further provides for consideration of H.R. 7726, the Stop Child Care Scams Act of 2026, under a closed rule. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. The rule provides that in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Education and Workforce now printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee print 119-32 shall be considered as adopted and the bill, as amended, shall be considered as read.
The rule waives all points of order against provisions in the bill as amended. The rule provides one hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and Workforce or their respective designees. The rule provides one motion to recommit. The rule further provides for consideration of H.R. 7892, the No Aid for Ghost Students Act of 2026, under a closed rule. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill.
The rule provides that in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Education and Workforce now printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee print 119-31 shall be considered as adopted and the bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. The rule waives all points of order against provisions in the bill as amended. The rule provides one hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and Workforce or their respective designees. The rule provides one motion to recommit. The rule further provides for consideration of H.R. 8872, the Preventing Waste, Fraud, and Abuse in TANF Act, under a closed rule.
The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. The rule provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means now printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted and the bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. The rule waives all points of order against provisions in the bill as amended. The rule provides one hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means or their respective designees. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit.
Michelle Fischbach
Thank you very much. You have now heard the motion. Is there any discussion or amendment to the rule?
James McGovern
Madam Chair, first I have two unanimous consent requests. One, I ask unanimous consent to insert into the record written testimony from Resident Commissioner Hernandez in support of his amendment number 81 to H.R. 8646, which emphasizes the need for nutrition assistance program funding for Puerto Rico.
Without objection.
James McGovern
And then I ask unanimous consent to insert in the record written testimony from Representative Bynum in support of her amendments to H.R. 8646.
Without objection.
James McGovern
And Madam Chair, I have an amendment to the rule. I move the committee make in order amendment number 3 to H.R. 8872, offered by Representative Chu, which strikes sections 2 of the bill and inserts the text of H.R. 2108, the TANF State Expenditure Integrity Act, to prevent and address intentional misuse of TANF funds by contractors or sub-grantees. Madam Chair, I agree that more should be done to investigate and prosecute individuals who defraud the TANF program. That said, I'm especially concerned with section 2 of the underlying bill, which grants the Trump administration too much power that could be used to withhold funds to states for political reasons. Instead, I'm proposing that we swap that section out with language that would appropriate $10 million per year to create a new TANF program integrity unit tasked with combating fraud, paired with enhanced criminal penalties for those who intentionally defraud TANF, and I urge a yes vote on my amendment.
Michelle Fischbach
Is there further discussion on Mr. McGovern's amendment? Hearing none, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Those opposed say no.
In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.
I ask for a roll call, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Fischbach.
Mrs. Fischbach no, Mr. Norman, Mr. Roy.
Mr. Roy no, Mrs. Houchin.
Mrs. Houchin no, Mr. Langworthy.
Mr. Langworthy no, Mr. Scott.
Mr. Scott no, Mr. Griffith.
Mr. Griffith no, Mr. Jack.
Mr. Jack no, Mr. McGovern.
Mr. McGovern aye, Ms. Scanlon.
Ms. Scanlon aye, Mr. Neguse.
Mr. Neguse aye, Ms. Leger Fernandez.
Ms. Leger Fernandez aye, Madam Chair.
Speaker 120
Madam Chair no. The clerk will report the total. Four ayes, eight nays.
James McGovern
And the noes have it, the amendment is not agreed to.
Madam Chair, I have another amendment to the rule. I move the committee make in order amendment number 13 to H.R. 8646, offered by Representative Bynum, which prohibits the use of funds made available by this act to implement restrictions to SNAP eligibility made in the one big beautiful bill. Madam Chair, since the big ugly bill was enacted last July, more than 3.5 million people have lost their SNAP benefits. In 12 states where data is available, 700,000 kids, 700,000 kids have lost their benefits. Let me say that again.
This Republican Congress has forced 700,000 children off of nutrition benefits to pay for tax breaks for billionaires. And those are just the states where data is available. When you add in the other 38 states, that number must be astronomical. And things are about to get a whole hell of a lot worse as the full bill is implemented. So this amendment is simple.
It says no funds can be used to implement the big ugly bill's SNAP cuts. I hope my Republican colleagues will vote yes on this amendment to make sure that kids, seniors, and veterans continue to receive SNAP benefits, and I yield back.
Michelle Fischbach
Mr. McGovern yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? Hearing none, the question's on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Those opposed say no.
Speaker 119
In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it, the amendment's not agreed to.
Mrs. Fischbach.
Speaker 123
Mrs. Fischbach no, Mr. Norman, Mr. Roy.
No. Madam Chair no. Clerk will report the total. Four ayes, eight nays.
Mr. Roy no, Mrs. Houchin.
Michelle Fischbach
The nays have it, the amendment is not agreed to. Are there further, is there further discussion?
James McGovern
Yeah, Madam Chair, I have one final amendment to the rule. I move the committee add a new section to the rule providing for immediate consideration of H.R. 8914, the No Taxpayer-Funded Settlement Slush Fund Act of 2026, under a closed rule, debatable for one hour equally divided between the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Judiciary. Madam Chair, President Trump is trying to commandeer nearly 1.8 billion dollars in taxpayer funds to bankroll a slush fund for January 6th coup-plotters and aggrieved MAGA foot soldiers. This is an absurd and corrupt example of self-dealing, suing his own government to get taxpayer-funded settlement and blanket immunity. Now, after outcry from both sides of the aisle, the DOJ says it will follow a court's order pausing the fund.
Great, they're following a court order for a change. But that's not enough. Even Republican Senator Kennedy acknowledged that this is not enough, saying, quote, "I appreciate them saying that, but they don't have a choice." He goes on to say, "It doesn't tell me whether they're planning to appeal, it doesn't tell me whether the administration is backing off the idea, it doesn't tell me anything," end quote. Well, I'll tell you what Donald Trump's MAGA foot soldiers think of this pause.
Enrique Tarrio, the leader of the Proud Boys convicted of seditious conspiracy for his role on January 6th, told a reporter, quote, "This isn't an abandonment, they simply state they're going to wait two weeks." "I believe even if this fund is killed in the courts or at a congressional level, the president will find a way," end quote. Madam Chair, that should be all my Republican colleagues need to hear. And Congress needs to step up and stop this nonsense for good. That's why we should consider Ranking Member Raskin's bill, and I urge a yes vote, and I will yield back the balance of my time.
Michelle Fischbach
Is there further debate or discussion on the amendment from Mr. McGovern? Hearing none, the question is on the amendment. Those opposed say no. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye.
No. In the opinion of the chair, the nays have it, the amendment is not agreed to.
I ask for a roll call, Madam Chair.
Michelle Fischbach
Mr. McGovern requests a roll call, the clerk will call the roll.
Speaker 119
Mrs. Fischbach? No. Mrs. Fischbach no. Mr. Norman? No.
Mr. Roy? No. Mr. Roy no. Mrs. Houchin? No.
Mrs. Houchin no. Mr. Langworthy? No. Mr. Langworthy no. Mr. Scott?
No. Mr. Scott no. Mr. Griffith? No. Mr. Griffith no.
Mr. Jack? No. Mr. Jack no. Mr. McGovern? Aye.
Mr. McGovern aye. Ms. Scanlon? Aye. Ms. Scanlon aye. Mr. Neguse?
Aye. Mr. Neguse aye. Ms. Leger Fernandez? Aye. Ms. Leger Fernandez aye.
Madam Chair? No. Madam Chair no. Clerk will report the total. Four ayes, eight nays.
Michelle Fischbach
The nays have it, the amendment is not agreed to. Is there further discussion or amendment? Hearing no further discussion, the question is on the motion from the gentlewoman from Indiana. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye.
Those opposed say no. No. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, the motion is agreed to.
I ask for a roll call.
Michelle Fischbach
Mr. McGovern requests a roll call, the clerk will call the roll.
Speaker 119
Mrs. Fischbach? Yes. Mrs. Fischbach aye. Mr. Norman? Aye.
Mr. Roy? Aye. Mr. Roy aye. Mrs. Houchin? Aye.
Mrs. Houchin aye. Mr. Langworthy? Aye. Mr. Langworthy aye. Mr. Scott?
Aye. Mr. Scott aye. Mr. Griffith? Aye. Mr. Griffith aye.
Mr. Jack? Aye. Mr. Jack aye. Mr. McGovern? No.
Mr. McGovern no. Ms. Scanlon? No. Ms. Scanlon no. Mr. Neguse?
No. Mr. Neguse no.
Ms. Leger Fernandez?
Ms. Leger Fernandez, no.
Madam Chair?
Eight ayes, four nays.
Michelle Fischbach
The ayes have it, the motion to report is agreed to. Representative Houchin will be managing the rule for the majority.
And I will for the minority.
Speaker 126
Mr. McGovern for the minority. Without objection, the committee is adjourned.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.