[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]






                      THE INFLATION REDUCTION ACT: 
                            A YEAR IN REVIEW

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               before the

                      SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH CARE
                         AND FINANCIAL SERVICES

                                 of the

                         COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
                           AND ACCOUNTABILITY

                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                           SEPTEMBER 14, 2023

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-65

                               __________

  Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability







    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]






                       Available on: govinfo.gov
                         oversight.house.gov or
                             docs.house.gov 
                                   _______
                                   
                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
                 
53-383 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2024 
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
               COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

                    JAMES COMER, Kentucky, Chairman

Jim Jordan, Ohio                     Jamie Raskin, Maryland, Ranking 
Mike Turner, Ohio                        Minority Member
Paul Gosar, Arizona                  Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of 
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina            Columbia
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin            Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts
Gary Palmer, Alabama                 Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia
Clay Higgins, Louisiana              Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Pete Sessions, Texas                 Ro Khanna, California
Andy Biggs, Arizona                  Kweisi Mfume, Maryland
Nancy Mace, South Carolina           Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York
Jake LaTurner, Kansas                Katie Porter, California
Pat Fallon, Texas                    Cori Bush, Missouri
Byron Donalds, Florida               Shontel Brown, Ohio
Kelly Armstrong, North Dakota        Jimmy Gomez, California
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania            Melanie Stansbury, New Mexico
William Timmons, South Carolina      Robert Garcia, California
Tim Burchett, Tennessee              Maxwell Frost, Florida
Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia      Summer Lee, Pennsylvania
Lisa McClain, Michigan               Greg Casar, Texas
Lauren Boebert, Colorado             Jasmine Crockett, Texas
Russell Fry, South Carolina          Dan Goldman, New York
Anna Paulina Luna, Florida           Jared Moskowitz, Florida
Chuck Edwards, North Carolina        Vacancy
Nick Langworthy, New York
Eric Burlison, Missouri

                                 ------                                
                       Mark Marin, Staff Director
       Jessica Donlon, Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel
                    Tyler Sanderson, Senior Counsel
                 Reagan Dye, Professional Staff Member
      Mallory Cogar, Deputy Director of Operations and Chief Clerk

                      Contact Number: 202-225-5074

                  Julie Tagen, Minority Staff Director
                      Contact Number: 202-225-5051
                                 ------                                

           Subcommittee on Health Care and Financial Services

                   Lisa McClain, Michigan, Chairwoman
Paul Gosar, Arizona                  Katie Porter, California Ranking 
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina            Minority Member
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin            Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York
Russell Fry, South Carolina          Jimmy Gomez, California
Anna Paulina Luna, Florida           Greg Casar, Texas
Nick Langworthy, New York            Summer Lee, Pennsylvania
Eric Burlison, Missouri              Jasmine Crockett, Texas
Vacancy                              Vacancy   











































                         C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                              ----------                              

                                                                   Page

Hearing held on September 14, 2023...............................     1

                               Witnesses

                              ----------                              

Mr. Preston Brashers, Senior Policy Analyst, Tax Policy, Grover 
  M. Hermann Center for the Federal Budget, The Heritage 
  Foundation
Oral Statement...................................................    10

Mr. Joel White, President, Council for Affordable Health Coverage
Oral Statement...................................................    11

Mr. Trevor Higgins (Minority Witness), Senior Vice President, 
  Energy and Environment, Center for American Progress
Oral Statement...................................................    14

Written opening statements and statements for the witnesses are 
  available on the U.S. House of Representatives Document 
  Repository at: docs.house.gov.

                           Index of Documents

                              ----------                              

  * Statement for the Record; submitted by Rep. Raskin.

  * Article, Time Magazine, ``Trump Allies Are Attacking Biden 
  For a Plan to Hire 87,000 New IRS Agents That Doesn't Exist''; 
  submitted by Rep. Casar.

  * Letter, September 13, 2023, from Schizophrenia & Psychosis 
  Action Alliance to the Committee; submitted by Rep. McClain.

  * Letter, from the PFCD Coalition to the Committee; submitted 
  by Rep. McClain.

  * Statement for the Record, Associated Builders and Contractors 
  (ABC); submitted by Rep. McClain.

Documents are available at: docs.house.gov.

 
                      THE INFLATION REDUCTION ACT:  
                            A YEAR IN REVIEW

                              ----------                              


                      Thursday, September 14, 2023

                     U.S. House of Representatives

               Committee on Oversight and Accountability

           Subcommittee on Health Care And Financial Services

                                                   Washington, D.C.

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:22 p.m., in 
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lisa C. McClain 
[Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives McClain, Grothman, Langworthy, 
Porter, Casar, and Lee.
    Mrs. McClain. The hearing of the Subcommittee on Health 
Care and Financial Services will come to order.
    Welcome, everyone.
    Without objection, the Chair may declare a recess at any 
time.
    I recognize myself for the purpose of making an opening 
statement.
    Again, thank you all for being here. I appreciate your 
patience.
    We are here today to examine the Inflation Reduction Act, a 
year since its passage. Not surprisingly, the Inflation 
Reduction Act has not delivered on its promises that the 
Democrats claimed it would. Americans still are struggling 
under the weight of inflation. Americans are paying more for 
just about everything: groceries, rent, gas.
    The most recent Consumer Price Index for August 2023 
increased to 3.7 percent. When President Biden was sworn into 
office in January, he inherited a 1.4 percent inflation rate. 
Inflation today is more than 2.5 times the rate he inherited. 
And remember, inflation is cumulative. Over the past 2 years, 
total inflation has increased by over 17 percent, and prices 
are likely only going to tick up.
    Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve continues to raise interest 
rates in an attempt to curb inflation and the inflation brought 
about by the excessive spending. Frankly, this frustrates me. 
When Americans were first experiencing the highest inflation in 
40 years last summer, Democrats claimed their Inflation 
Reduction Act would do what the bill's name indicated, help 
curb inflation. Republicans saw it for what it really was, a 
radical spending spree to implement a leftist wish list for the 
Green New Deal.
    A year later, President Biden says that he regrets the 
title of the bill. Instead, he has labeled the $369 billion 
spending package as the single greatest investment in climate 
change ever. Not a word about inflation, because it was never 
intended to reduce it.
    When Americans needed inflation relief the most, the IRA 
was a lie that the Democrats told to push their Green New Deal. 
Not only does the IRA do little to reduce inflation, but it 
will continue to add to the deficit with rampant spending. It 
is estimated that the Federal deficit will hit $2 trillion as 
the Fiscal Year ends later this month. The IRA's green energy 
slush fund is expected to cost us more than $633 billion over 
the next 10 years. Goldman Sachs estimates that the IRA's green 
energy credits will cost taxpayers as much as $1.2 trillion by 
2032.
    Further, the IRA's Medicare price control provisions are 
harming the market. The IRA allows Federal Government to 
dictate arbitrary prices on drugs, disrupting normal market 
mechanisms of supply and demand, and putting drugs already in 
short supply at further risk. Drug price control risk for the 
future of investment in research and development of the 
innovative treatments Americans need the most.
    I, as well as others on this Committee, understand that 
healthcare is getting more expensive, but this is not the way 
to fix it. And, in fact, it is making the problem worse. Just 
like hiring 87,000 more IRS agents and wishy-washy 
unenforceable promises to not target regular Americans is not 
going to help reduce the deficit, right? We need the money 
that--one, we have a spending problem, but, two, we also need 
to pay attention to where this money is going. Government's 
micromanagement of the economy is not the solution. Maybe we 
should micromanage where the money is actually going.
    We have seen it fail before. In the late seventies, 
President Jimmy Carter tried to ease inflation by imposing 
energy price controls. It failed then, and Americans suffered. 
It will fail this time as well.
    The solutions are free-market, pro-competition policies, 
like shrinking the deficit; promoting economic growth; cutting 
regulatory red tape; simplifying the Tax Code; eliminating 
government waste, fraud, and abuse, really following the money 
and holding these agencies accountable as well; and investing 
in American energy and independence.
    The IRA did not do any of these things, and that is why the 
American people are worse off today than the day it passed.
    I am looking forward to hearing from the experts on the 
impacts and what should be done to help Americans.
    I now recognize Ranking Member Porter for the purpose of 
making her opening statement.
    Ms. Porter. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman.
    We have 16 days until the government shuts down. Speaker 
McCarthy, who is slow walking government funding bills one by 
one, has only passed 1 of 12. I am a former professor, so I 
know what 1 of 12 means. The Speaker is getting an F. And these 
bills do not even have enough support to pass in the Senate.
    The Speaker is not on pace to significantly improve his 
grade before the deadline. So, what does that mean for the 
American people? It means that House Republicans are driving us 
off a cliff to a shutdown and to the corresponding economic 
harm. That is not the type of action that is going to bolster 
our economic growth and fight inflation.
    Our constituents, Democrats and Republicans alike, are 
wondering what the plan really is around here. Make no mistake, 
today's hearing tells us a great deal about the plan. Someone 
who is driving you off a cliff wants to distract you, and that 
is what Republicans are trying to do with this hearing. While 
House Republicans struggle to figure out any kind of real plan 
to keep the government open and to lower costs for the American 
people, they come up with hearings like this to attack the 
progress that was made and is being made.
    The Inflation Reduction Act is paying down our national 
debt, lowering our energy costs, and making prescription drugs 
and healthcare more affordable. It is a testament to what 
happens when Washington stops delays, gets to work, and makes a 
genuine effort to adjust problems that Americans are facing. In 
other words, it is what Washington looks like when it is doing 
the opposite of what it is doing right now.
    Look, you do not have to believe me when I say the 
Inflation Reduction Act is lowering costs for Americans and 
saving us money. Let me give you a couple of examples. The 
Inflation Reduction Act includes legislation that I wrote that 
recovers tax dollars from drug companies that hike drug prices 
faster than the rate of inflation. For years, Big Pharma has 
lined its pockets by jacking prices up way faster than 
inflation, and now patients are already paying less.
    My bill would recoup $63 billion over 10 years. Let us be 
clear, with my legislation alone, which is just one part of 
this landmark law, we are stopping drug companies from ripping 
off Americans and we are saving our government billions of 
dollars. That is one small part of the law alone that is 
meaningfully lowering people's costs.
    The Inflation Reduction Act is also saving our constituents 
money when it comes to energy. The Inflation Reduction Act 
includes another piece of legislation that I wrote to charge 
polluters a fair rate when they lease Federal land. It was the 
first increase in that rental rate in over 100 years. Big Oil 
has been cheating all Americans by drilling on public lands for 
pennies on the acre. No more. My legislation is already saving 
taxpayers millions by making Big Oil finally pay a fair price.
    Whether you are a Republican or a Democrat and whether you 
agree with every single aspect of the Inflation Reduction Act 
or not, one thing is clear: We all win when we have people in 
charge who make a genuine effort to lower costs for families, 
not shut the government down.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Langworthy. [Presiding.] Thank you, Ranking Member.
    I am pleased to welcome our witnesses for today: Mr. 
Preston Brashers, Mr. Joel White, and Mr. Trevor Higgins.
    Mr. Brashers is a senior tax policy analyst at the Grover 
M. Hermann Center for the Federal Budget at The Heritage 
Foundation. Mr. White is the president of the Council of 
Affordable Health Coverage. And Mr. Higgins is the senior vice 
president for Energy and Environment at the Center for American 
Progress.
    We look forward to hearing what you all have to say on 
today's important subject.
    Pursuant to the Committee Rule 9(g), the witnesses will 
please stand and raise their right hands for the oath of 
office.
    Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony that you 
are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 
but the truth, so help you God?
    Let the record show that the witnesses answered in the 
affirmative.
    Thank you. And you all may take a seat.
    We appreciate you being here today and look forward to your 
testimony. So, let me remind the witnesses that we have read 
your written statements, and they will appear in full in the 
hearing record. Please limit your oral statements to 5 minutes. 
As a reminder, please press the button on the microphone in 
front of you so that it is on, and the Members can hear you. 
When you begin to speak, the light in front of you will turn 
green. After 4 minutes, the light will turn yellow. And when 
the red light comes on, your 5 minutes have expired, and we 
would ask that you please wrap up.
    I now recognize Mr. Brashers for his opening statement.

                 STATEMENT OF MR. PRESTON BRASHERS, PHD

                   SENIOR POLICY ANALYST, TAX POLICY

            GROVER M. HERMANN CENTER FOR THE FEDERAL BUDGET

                        THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION

    Mr. Brashers. Chairwoman McClain, Ranking Member Porter, 
and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for giving me the 
opportunity to testify today.
    My name is Preston Brashers. I am the senior policy analyst 
for Tax Policy at The Heritage Foundation. The views I express 
today are my own and should not be construed as representing 
any official position of The Heritage Foundation.
    August 16th marked the 1-year anniversary of the signing of 
the Inflation Reduction Act. The IRA, as the name--as the 
bill's title suggests, was intended to reduce inflation 
primarily through deficit reduction. But 1 year in, the 
Inflation Reduction Act has contributed to significantly higher 
deficits compared to last year. These deficits and 
malinvestments spurred by the IRA have added to inflationary 
pressure, which has forced the Fed to dramatically raise 
interest rates. Rates on a 30-year mortgage are at 20-year 
highs, putting the American Dream out of reach for many 
American families.
    The IRA is making Americans poorer and turning them into 
debtors to the special interest green agenda. Although CBO and 
some other groups originally scored the IRA as achieving a 
small surplus over the 10-year budget window, the surpluses 
were backloaded at the end of the decade while deficits were 
frontloaded into the first 4 to 5 years. And the IRA is much 
more fiscally irresponsible than it appeared on paper. It uses 
gimmicky and questionable pay-fors and expirations, and some of 
the provisions are proving much more costly than forecasters 
expected, especially the bevy of tax credits for green energy, 
electric vehicles, carbon sequestration, and other things 
ostensibly connected to the climate agenda.
    CBO initially scored these provisions as having a $270 
billion budget impact through 2031, but in May, government 
forecasters estimated the cost of these credits was double the 
initial estimate. Some outside estimates have put that figure 
closer to a trillion dollars or roughly four times what the 
American public was originally told.
    The IRS' implementation of the green tax credits has not 
helped matters. When the IRA passed, analysts expected that 
relatively few vehicles would qualify for the EV credits 
because of strict limitations on foreign manufacturing, 
critical mineral content, and income limitations for the 
purchaser. However, the IRS has dramatically weakened those 
restrictions.
    First, Treasury delayed issuance of guidance for the 
battery component rules, so EVs sold between January 1st and 
April 16th qualified for the EV credits even if they did not 
meet the domestic battery content requirements.
    Second, the IRS created a regulatory loophole by treating 
EVs that businesses leased to consumers as commercial clean 
vehicles. As a result, wealthy EV buyers and foreign 
manufacturers can circumvent income thresholds and domestic 
requirements by simply leasing the EVs instead of buying and 
selling them.
    Third, the IRS further extended the credits to foreign 
manufacturers by taking an incredibly expansive interpretation 
of the term ``free trade agreement'' to include extremely 
narrow trade deals covering EV critical minerals. Therefore, 
car sales with Japanese-produced batteries can qualify for the 
credits.
    The costly expansion of the green tax credits will not have 
a material effect on global temperatures because the U.S.' 
share of global emissions is a mere 11 percent. And that number 
has been falling as China and India account for an increasingly 
large share year after year.
    Even if you accept dire predictions about global warming 
and even if the U.S. completely eliminated greenhouse gas 
emissions, by the end of the century, it would only reduce 
global temperatures by no more than about one-fifth of a degree 
Celsius, but the IRA will not completely eliminate U.S. 
emissions, far from it.
    Based on the level of emissions reductions from the IRA--
that the IRA is expected to achieve, you are looking at less 
than a 0.03 degree difference in temperatures by the end of the 
century. And I think that is being generous, as that is only if 
you extend the emissions reductions out for the rest of the 
century at the cost of many more trillions of dollars.
    Lawmakers must weigh the benefits against the costs of the 
Inflation Reduction Act, and in my estimation, the IRA's 
benefits to special interest green companies are not worth the 
cost to American taxpayers and consumers.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Langworthy. Thank you.
    I now recognize Mr. Higgins for his opening statement.

                           (MINORITY WITNESS)

                    STATEMENT OF MR. TREVOR HIGGINS

             SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT

                      CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS

    Mr. Higgins. Thank you to Chair McClain and to 
Representative Langworthy and Ranking Member Porter, and other 
Members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to 
appear today to provide testimony on the anniversary of the 
Inflation Reduction Act.
    Little over 1 year ago, Congress enacted the Inflation 
Reduction Act, building on the achievements of the 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the CHIPS and 
Science Act. This groundbreaking legislation is already at work 
today, growing the economy by investing in the middle class.
    The new law connects good-paying jobs and apprenticeship 
programs to clean energy incentives for the first time. It 
builds supply chains and domestic manufacturing that will equip 
America to compete in the global clean energy economy for 
decades to come. It cleans up air pollution that is 
concentrated in low-income communities. It modernizes the IRS 
to deliver better service to taxpayers and fair enforcement, 
and it cuts healthcare costs and household energy costs in 
every region of the country. Together, these investments are 
laying a foundation for continued climate action in ways that 
will bring benefits to people in their everyday lives and put 
the U.S. climate goals within reach to achieve an emissions 
reduction of 50 to 52 percent below peak levels by the end of 
this decade.
    I would like to briefly take each of these points in turn. 
First, IRA is not only expected to create more than a million 
new jobs in 2030. It has already created, in just this last 
year, more than 170,000 clean energy jobs across the United 
States. These are not just jobs of the future. These are jobs 
right now. And importantly, the full value of the new clean 
energy tax credits is only available for project developers who 
pay prevailing wages and employ people in apprenticeship 
programs, ensuring that the clean energy economy will be built 
with good jobs.
    Second, IRA is investing in domestic manufacturing and 
resilient supply chains by requiring increased proportions of 
domestic content, incentivizing domestic production of 
batteries and critical mineral processing, and supporting 
reinvestment in energy communities.
    According to a recent report from the Rhodium Group, more 
than $200 billion has already been invested, public and 
private, to deploy clean energy since the passage of the 
Inflation Reduction Act, and Climate Power has documented 
examples of new clean energy projects across 44 states and 
counting.
    Third, IRA investments help cleanup air pollution that is 
concentrated in low-income communities, which is projected to 
save more than 4,000 lives every year by the end of this 
decade. The Justice40 Initiative has already organized more 
than $90 billion across 24 Federal agencies to ensure these 
programs are actually bringing benefits to disadvantaged 
communities as intended.
    Fourth, IRA is cutting costs for American households, 
including both energy costs and healthcare costs. By offering 
tax incentives, grants, and rebates, IRA is helping households 
to choose to install heat pumps or purchase an electric 
vehicle. Investments in affordable clean electricity and 
reduced fuel demand across the economy are actually projected 
to lower the price of natural gas. So, even households that do 
not take up these tax incentives will still benefit.
    And when it comes to healthcare costs, IRA is reining in 
high drug prices. Last month, the Centers for Medicare and 
Medicaid Services announced the first 10 drugs for which it 
will negotiate prices, and it is estimated by CBO that this 
will cut prices for these drugs in half. This will be a 
lifeline for millions of seniors and disabled people.
    IRA also cracks down on pharmaceutical companies that hike 
drug prices above the rate of inflation, caps out-of-pocket 
spending for Medicare enrollees at $2,000 a year, provides 
lifesaving vaccines at no cost, saves $800 per year for 
premiums through the Affordable Care Act, and limits out-of-
pocket spending on insulin to $35 a month.
    When you look at inflation, this is what it is. It is about 
household energy costs. And when IRA passed, inflation rate was 
8.3 percent annually. This month it is 3.7 percent. That is 
progress. And, in fact, the United States is experiencing lower 
inflation than comparable countries. The rate last month in 
Germany was 6.2 percent and the United Kingdom was 6.4 percent.
    Finally, the Inflation Reduction Act made long overdue 
investments in the IRS to modernize its technology, improve 
customer service, and audit wealthy taxpayers. Thanks to the 
new funding, the IRS reduced call wait times this tax filing 
season from almost half an hour to just 3 minutes. And tax 
enforcement is about not just collecting needed revenue but 
also unrigging the economy for workers and honest taxpayers, 
while making sure that the wealthy pay the taxes they legally 
owe.
    So, in conclusion, these benefits are just beginning to 
take effect. We are only 1 year in. But already, the Inflation 
Reduction Act has created hundreds of thousands of jobs, 
delivering clean energy across the country, and has begun to 
onshore supply chains that China has long sought to dominate. 
The new job quality domestic content and place-based investment 
incentives for clean energy are building a sector that will 
serve as an example for the rest of the economy.
    I thank you for the opportunity to testify here today.
    Mr. Langworthy. Thank you.
    I now recognize Mr. White for his opening statement.

                      STATEMENT OF MR. JOEL WHITE

                               PRESIDENT

                 COUNCIL FOR AFFORDABLE HEALTH COVERAGE

    Mr. White. Congressman Langworthy, Ranking Member Porter, 
thank you for the opportunity to present my views here today on 
the Inflation Reduction Act. My comments will focus on the new 
Medicare drug price setting program, but I am happy to answer 
any questions you may have.
    I want to start off by discussing the human impact of the 
law. I have two dear friends with teenage daughters who have 
serious and rare medical conditions. Their names are Ella and 
Harper. Ella has EB, and she should have died years ago. EB 
causes the skin to become so fragile that it tears and blisters 
at the slightest touch. There is no cure, and the current 
treatment includes daily wound care management and protective 
bandaging. Ella's dad told me once he spends $10,000 a month on 
bandages alone.
    In May, the FDA approved the first and only medicine to 
treat EB. This gene therapy heals the wounds and prevents new 
blisters caused by the disease. So, Ella has hope. But this is 
a treatment, not a cure.
    Under the IRA, if the company investigates another use of 
their product, say, for skin cancer and it is approved, the 
original product could be subject to the IRA's price controls. 
As a result, the company likely will not investigate new 
indications, and people with skin cancer and EB will lose out.
    My other friend's daughter is Harper. She has ITP and was 
diagnosed when she was 6 years old. Her immune system attacks 
and destroys her platelets by mistake, leading to bleeding and 
bruising that can be life-threatening. It is unknown why this 
happens. People with chronic ITP do not have a host of 
treatment options and there is no cure.
    So, I get angry when I hear some politicians talk about the 
IRA's benefits and none of the downsides, such as how the law 
may lead to fewer cures for people like Ella and Harper.
    We have decades of experience in other countries about how 
similar price setting systems impact patients, including less 
access and fewer innovations. In the U.S., since the enactment 
of the IRA, we have already seen investments shift away from 
pills and entire research programs for blindness and cancer 
pulled since the enactment of the law. All of the experts, all 
of them--CBO, the CMS actuary, and private academics--agree 
that the IRA will result in fewer therapies. They simply 
disagree on the extent of the damage.
    The most optimistic estimate is from the Congressional 
Budget Office. They say there will be two fewer treatments or 
cures over the next few years. Some are willing to accept that. 
Ella and Harper are not, and neither am I. They need two more 
cures.
    With respect to the law's implementation, CMS recently 
announced the 10 drugs selected for Medicare's drug price 
setting program. Congress exempted the price setting program 
from the normal rulemaking process enshrined in the 77-year-old 
Administrative Procedure Act. The Democrat author of the APA 
said it is a Bill of Rights for the hundreds of thousands of 
Americans whose affairs are controlled or regulated by Federal 
Government agencies.
    The U.S. General Services Administration has noted, quote, 
``The APA ensures public transparency in the rulemaking 
process, while holding the government accountable to address 
public input. Transparency and accountability ensure integrity 
throughout the process,'' end quote.
    By exempting the program from the normal process, 
politicians and bureaucrats can set prices that impact our 
healthcare in secret. Practically, this means CMS can change 
the rules on a whim. The agency does not have to accept 
feedback from stakeholders, and it does not have to explain its 
decisions or provide an analysis of the impact on their 
patients.
    In addition, CMS will spend $3 billion to set up six new 
divisions to replace private sector expert negotiators. This 
raises obvious questions. How many private sector jobs are 
being replaced by new bureaucrats? If new employees come from 
the industry, will CMS preclude employees from being lobbied by 
their former employers? The Biden Administration should answer 
these questions, and this Committee should ask them.
    Finally, I am concerned the law will increase costs and 
worsen health disparities. For example, Medicare's price 
controls apply to pills 9 years after FDA approval versus 13 
years for biologics. This small-molecule penalty creates 
powerful incentives to create more biologics and less pills. 
The problem is that biologics are harder to genericize and are 
typically administered by a doctor in a more expensive setting. 
For patients who lack access to doctors, such as people in 
rural areas or low-income urban communities, they will find 
getting their drugs much more difficult. To address this, 
Congress should eliminate the small-molecule penalty.
    In conclusion, I think we all want lower healthcare costs, 
but we also want good access to care and new innovative 
products. I have outlined seven solutions in my testimony that 
will not harm innovation and access. But Congress should start 
by repealing the drug price setting program. Ella and Harper 
would thank you.
    Mr. Langworthy. Thank you all for your opening statements.
    I now recognize myself for 5 minutes of questions.
    I want to start by asking you, Mr. Bashers, whether or not 
you believe so-called green energy subsidies are effective at 
reducing inflation.
    Mr. Brashers. So, the green energy subsidies will benefit 
people that want to buy electric vehicles, which is 
predominantly going to be very wealthy people. The typical 
lower-to middle-income person is probably not going to benefit 
from the EVs in the same way.
    The general--the overall effect of the Inflation Reduction 
Act's green tax credits is going to dramatically increase 
deficits, and that is the primary cause of the inflation that 
we have been experiencing. The inflation--when the Federal 
Government is spending substantially more money than it is 
taking in, there are two ways that that can manifest itself. It 
can either manifest itself in higher inflation or in higher 
interest rates. For a while the Federal Reserve was absorbing a 
lot of that Treasury debt that was being issued and, therefore, 
it was--what we were seeing was inflation. Since then, it has 
changed its tact and it started raising interest rates, but 
that has got its own set of problems.
    Mr. Langworthy. Well, thank you.
    It is funny that the Biden Administration claims that this 
act is there to reduce inflation when one of the primary 
strategies they are using is inflationary by nature. The 
subsidies themselves, while supposedly funded to relieve 
financial pressure on consumers, instead, impose radical, 
shortsighted and incredibly expensive so-called green energy 
policies on working families.
    And that is exactly what we are seeing in my home state of 
New York. The IRA allocates almost $9 billion on two separate 
rebate programs, all for electric appliance installation and 
one known as the Homes Rebate Program. These rebates are 
offered to consumers who make improvements to their homes that 
achieve energy savings benchmarks. However, last month, the DOE 
issued guidance telling states to ban homes from accessing 
these rebates if they intend to upgrade their liquid or gas-
fired appliances to more efficient models. The document says 
they should only be allowed to do envelope improvements, such 
as install efficient doors, windows, or insulation, even if 
their HVAC technician suggests a heating system upgrade will 
realize the greatest energy savings for their home.
    Dr. Brashers, I am sure you will agree that these rebates 
do not seem to benefit consumers?
    Mr. Brashers. In my estimation, it would be no.
    Mr. Langworthy. So, Dr. Brashers, who do green energy 
subsidies largely benefit?
    Mr. Brashers. The companies that are engaged in the green 
industry, they will obviously benefit. The overall effect I 
think on the economy, though, is not going to be creating jobs, 
it is not going to be creating new wealth. It is simply 
reallocating it. And, in fact, the size--the total size of the 
pie is going to be diminished because we are moving to less and 
less efficient companies, less and less efficient products.
    Mr. Langworthy. And, Dr. Brashers, have you heard of the 
Drive Clean Rebate for electric cars? It is an offer in New 
York State through the state's Charge New York Initiative. I 
know there is similar rebates in other states as well.
    Mr. Brashers. I am not familiar with that one.
    Mr. Langworthy. OK. You know, most green energy rebates, 
including the electric vehicle subsidies, do not benefit the 
majority of consumers. You have many states, they offer them 
through the IRA, and this is concerning due to China's control 
over critical mineral supply chains.
    The Oversight Committee, we recently discussed the 
possibility of Chinese firms funding litigation to hinder 
American energy development. If we do not produce our own 
energy and mine critical minerals, we risk dependence on China 
for the Biden Administration's priorities. And if China cuts 
off our access to critical minerals, it could lead to a 
significant price increase affecting all of these priorities.
    Do you think America could face a green energy bailout if 
there was a significant supply chain interruption?
    Mr. Brashers. I think the possibility of a green energy 
bailout is actually pretty high given what you are seeing in 
terms of all the grants and loans in the program. I think we 
already saw it today. Ford was noting that they were having 
large losses from their EV business. So, I think the 
probability of that is not--it is certainly not low.
    Mr. Langworthy. Yes. I spent a lot of my time in recess 
talking to different, you know, retailers, especially auto 
dealers, and they cannot move this product. I mean, this is the 
government picking winners and losers, and right now it is 
looking like a loser, from my perspective.
    Thank you.
    This mistitled Inflation Reduction Act is nothing more than 
an attempt to push the green agenda by the Biden Administration 
on American citizens. Subsidies that were sold as economic 
relief have actually led to increased inflation that has 
disincentivized investment in industries not eligible for tax 
credits. The Administration's green agenda hurts the everyday 
American, and I am glad we are able to have this conversation 
with you today to bring this to light.
    I now recognize Ranking Member Porter from California for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Porter. Thank you very much.
    We have a major heat wave harming portions of the United 
States during most of July and August, and in southern 
California where I live, we saw temperatures get as high as 110 
degrees.
    Mr. Higgins, if you were experiencing this kind of extreme 
heat, what would you turn on in your home to keep yourself safe 
and comfortable?
    Mr. Higgins. The air conditioner.
    Ms. Porter. The air conditioner. We would all prefer to 
turn on the air conditioner. But not every American can afford 
an air conditioner, let alone pay for the energy needs of that 
system.
    I know a resident of California's 47th congressional 
District who got frustrated during the heat wave. They got 
literally hot and bothered. Throughout the summer they did not 
have air-conditioning in their home, and this constituent is 
concerned about the increase in temperatures, the air quality 
issues with wildfires, and they want to buy an energy efficient 
heat pump to cool their home, bring down their heating costs, 
and reduce their dependence on volatile fossil fuels. But she 
cannot just go spend the money because she also needs to 
replace her broken gas stovetop, which has one working burner, 
and her 20-year-old dishwasher.
    Mr. Higgins, how can the Inflation Reduction Act help this 
Californian afford a heat pump and lower their bills without 
breaking the bank?
    Mr. Higgins. Thank you for the question. For the first time 
there are new incentives for heat bumps because of IRA. It 
includes a tax incentive of $2,000, but that only helps 
households that have the tax liability. So, there is also a 
program to create rebates for low-income households, which will 
be administered through the states, which for participating 
households it can cover up to the entire expense, including 
installation, and electric upgrades.
    Ms. Porter. OK. So, this household has tax liability, so I 
think they are going to be able to get the $2,000 per year for 
a heat pump. This sounds like this really would help this 
Californian be able to afford this heat pump, really bring down 
the costs, reduce the carbon footprint, help her save money on 
energy bills in the long term.
    Mr. Higgins, can this hot and frustrated Californian go get 
this heat pump using this credit?
    Mr. Higgins. Yes. And Treasury is working on guidance 
right----
    Ms. Porter. Oh, stop, stop there, Mr. Higgins. This 
Californian is hot today. Can they go get a heat pump using 
this credit today?
    Mr. Higgins. They would have to wait until they file their 
taxes to get their rebate, but Treasury is working on the 
guidance to make that much clearer so that by next summer, this 
will be a much smoother option for households than it was this 
summer.
    Ms. Porter. Ah. So, right now, the Department of Energy, 
Department of Transportation, they are still preparing to roll 
this out?
    Mr. Higgins. That is right.
    Ms. Porter. So, it has been a year since the Inflation 
Reduction Act passed. And as a practical matter, I think it is 
cold comfort to a lot of people to hope that they can figure 
out somehow with Turbo Tax how to get this credit. They want to 
be able to go in the store and get it for less now up front. 
When can this Californian go do that?
    Mr. Higgins. So, as soon as the Treasury puts together 
their new guidance for 25C, which is that part of the tax 
credit, which they are expecting--I think the Treasury just 
announced that was one of the next priorities they are working 
on for the end of this year, so that it will be in place for 
the next tax credits and I think a way that is much more 
intuitive than it was this summer.
    Ms. Porter. OK. Because the Department of Energy's website 
says that DOE expects households to be able to access these 
rebates in much of the country in 2024. You are talking about 
Treasury and the credits. So, this Californian without air-
conditioning all summer has to wait basically another year to 
get an energy efficient heat pump. You testified that these 
households can save hundreds of dollars. You give aggregate 
figures. Did you adjust those aggregate figures downward for 
the fact that nobody has been able to use these programs yet?
    Mr. Higgins. No. Those numbers are based on the projections 
of once this is implemented. So, I agree with you that these 
programs are still being rolled out, particularly for the 
consumer-facing credits.
    Ms. Porter. Yes. You might be interested to know that this 
Californian is me. Like many Americans, I want to reduce my 
greenhouse gas emissions. I want to save money on my energy 
bill, and I would like air-conditioning. And many of us cannot 
make our homes greener, and we have heard about this Inflation 
Reduction Act. We have heard about these tax credits, but we 
are not able to take advantage of them.
    I understand that the Treasury's working on it, that DOE is 
working on it, that the states are working on it. But the 
takeaway is the Inflation Reduction Act is the law of the land. 
How each of us feels about this law is not going to change, but 
we can make the law work. We can ask tough questions, on a 
bipartisan basis, about what the holdup is. And I personally 
think it would be a much better use of this Committee's time to 
conduct meaningful oversight of how the programs are being 
rolled out and whether they are working as intended, to 
relitigate whether we should have passed this or not. So, we 
can continue to go back and forth on whether this bill is good 
or bad or we can get serious about trying to conduct oversight 
on whether it is actually helping people and what we need to do 
to push the Administration to deliver.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Chair, if you will accommodate me. I also wanted to ask 
unanimous consent to insert into the record a statement from 
the full Committee Ranking Member, Congressman Raskin.
    Mr. Langworthy. Without objection, so ordered.
    Mr. Langworthy. I now recognize the gentleman from Texas, 
Mr. Casar, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Casar. Thank you, Chair.
    The Republican Majority is hurdling toward shutting down 
basic services for people across the country in just 2 weeks, 
shutting the government down, shutting the country down. And 
while Democrats and, frankly, even Republicans in the Senate 
have said, no, we want to keep this government open, let us 
just keep it open the way it is or let us stick to the deal 
that we already agreed to keep it open, it seems like the 
Republican Majority wants to close it, while demanding 
unreasonable things that will never pass, like kicking 100,000 
kids out of their Head Start and preschool programs, kicking 
20,000 working class people and seniors out of their housing, 
slashing funds for things like public education and climate 
action.
    And I get asked by my constituents back home in Texas, why 
would they do that? And to me, I think back to the very first 
votes I took on legislation under this Republican Majority, 
which were votes to cut IRS funding so that billionaires could 
get away with cheating on their taxes, cut IRS funding so that 
big corporations could get away with not paying their fair 
share.
    And that is what we are dealing with again in this hearing. 
As we have--keep on walking down this path where we could wind 
up in another government shutdown caused by the Republicans, we 
are having a hearing blasting the Inflation Reduction Act. And 
the Inflation Reduction Act, signed by President Biden, is the 
first time in my lifetime that I have seen a bill pass that 
finally holds corporations accountable to paying their taxes.
    Remember, in 2021, before the Inflation Reduction Act was 
passed, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy reported 
that at least 55 of the largest corporations in America paid no 
Federal income taxes. And a 2021 paper from the Treasury 
Department estimated that the wealthiest one percent owe $160 
billion in unpaid taxes each year. But finally, under this law, 
we take climate action, we address rising energy costs, we 
address rising healthcare costs and hold corporations 
accountable by setting a 15 percent minimum corporate tax rate.
    This is overwhelmingly popular with the American people, so 
House Republicans have taken up to making false claims about 
the Inflation Reduction Act to scare people. I have been asked 
in union halls, walking down the street, in grocery stores by 
people saying, well, doesn't the Inflation Reduction Act hire 
like 87,000 new IRS agents? And they have heard this propaganda 
on the radio. They have heard it pushed out by rightwing 
officials. In fact, it was stated by the Chair as she opened up 
this meeting. But to put this politely, that is false.
    The IRS funding in the Inflation Reduction Act, one, 
improves technology and customer service so constituents do not 
have to keep waiting for days or weeks to get answers from the 
IRS. And, second, it sets up the resources necessary to make 
sure large corporations and the wealthy have to pay their fair 
share.
    Mr. Higgins, is it correct or incorrect that the Inflation 
Reduction Act is hiring 87,000 new IRS agents?
    Mr. Higgins. That is incorrect.
    Mr. Casar. Thank you.
    In fact, according to one article and to much of our 
research, the IRS funding is just to get the number of 
employees back at the IRS where we were a decade ago. This 
article appeared in Time Magazine, titled, ``Trump Allies Are 
Attacking Biden For a Plan to Hire 87,000 New IRS Agents, but 
That Plan Doesn't Exist.''
    I ask unanimous consent to insert this article into the 
hearing record.
    Mrs. McClain. [Presiding.] So, ordered.
    Mr. Casar. Thank you, Chair.
    We are facing a government shutdown which could impact tens 
of thousands of Americans, hundreds of thousands of Federal 
employees. We know that the government does not need to shut 
down. Those services can be paid for if billionaires and big 
corporations finally pay their fair share.
    The budget deal that Republicans forced holding the economy 
hostage earlier this year eliminates much of the IRS funding 
that we need for enforcement, but now we are hearing in this 
hearing more and more attacks from the Republican Majority 
trying to cut IRS funding from the Inflation Reduction Act, and 
that funding we need, not only to go after billionaires and big 
corporations, but we need it in order to reduce our deficit.
    Mr. Higgins, do you know that if we fund the IRS agents 
that we need--do we know, if we fund them, does that increase 
the deficit or does it actually decrease the deficit?
    Mr. Higgins. That will help recoup lost revenues right now 
to close the tax gap and will reduce the deficit.
    Mr. Casar. So, we can reduce the deficit and have better 
funding for our programs if we stick with things in the 
Inflation Reduction Act and have those minimum corporate taxes.
    I discussed this in a July Committee hearing, and I asked 
the Chairman if we can finally have a hearing in this Committee 
to start looking at corporate tax cheats and how the wealthiest 
people in this country get away with not paying their taxes. 
And I heard from Mr. Sessions that he was open to that. And I 
hope, Chair, that we consider finally having a hearing on this 
important topic.
    And I yield back.
    Mrs. McClain. Thank you.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Grothman for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Grothman. Thanks.
    I will start off with Mr. Brashers. And it concerns me that 
some of these trillion-dollar bills that come through here 
basically benefit the very wealthy in our society. OK. I do 
realize we have some problems with our Tax Code, but the 
problem is Congress who passes the bills.
    But the IRA has been described as a massive transfer of tax 
dollars from the working class to the wealthy, big banks, and 
large corporations.
    Do you agree with this characterization, and why do you 
feel that is true?
    Mr. Brashers. I think many of the beneficiaries of the 
green tax credits are going to be the very wealthy, so I think 
there is a lot of truth to your statement.
    Mr. Grothman. OK. Can you give me some examples?
    Mr. Brashers. So, for example, the green--the EV tax 
credits have proven to be much more expensive than they were 
going to be. The way that the IRS is implementing it has 
expanded that, so that wealthy people that are leasing can 
claim these credits even though that was not really in the 
intent of the original bill. So, that is one example. There are 
others within these green tax credits.
    Mr. Grothman. OK. Are there any tax credits which influence 
the purchase of electric cars?
    Mr. Brashers. Yes. So, there is the Clean Vehicles Credit, 
there is the Clean Commercial Vehicles Credit, there is Used 
Clean Vehicles Credits.
    Mr. Grothman. As I understand, I was talking to some car 
dealers the other day, some of these green cars, electric cars 
can cost 100 grand a year. So, almost by definition, the really 
wealthy show-offs of our society are the people building them. 
You mean they give special credits to the rich guy who likes to 
show off with his 100 grand a year Chevy, but you do not get a 
credit if you are an average guy trying to buy a car for 35 
grand?
    Mr. Brashers. Yes. I think for the average person, the 
average taxpayer, middle class probably do not even have a lot 
of awareness about all of these tax credits. If you do not have 
your own home, it is hard to have these energy efficiency 
improvements. There are many other things that are--you know, 
installing solar panels, all these things are very difficult 
for a middle-class person to afford.
    Mr. Grothman. OK. We right now--particularly with regard to 
housing, housing and cars are the two big ones that stick out 
to me. Inflation has just completely run amok. I mean, at least 
in my district, the ability to buy a house today compared to 3 
or 4 years ago, I think a lot of times the cost of housing has 
gone up 40, 50 percent. Could you--and I think it is because we 
are still printing so much money. I mean, we are borrowing 22 
percent of our budget.
    Could you indicate again, are we hitting the average guy 
more or the ultra-wealthy as we drive up the cost of housing by 
having the Fed print money?
    Mr. Brashers. Yes, that is a great question. Thank you for 
that.
    Mr. Grothman. It was a great question. I agree.
    Go ahead.
    Mr. Brashers. Yes. So, inflation is a silent tax that hurts 
everybody, but I think it particularly hurts middle class and 
lower income people. And what you are referring to in terms of 
housing costs, the fact that interest rates are through the 
roof, that is going to be very hard on a----
    Mr. Grothman. And the cost of a house. I do not know how a 
young person is going to get going in life after we get done of 
4 years of this guy. I mean, how can you afford a house when in 
my district you cannot build a new house for under 700-, 
$800,000, unless it is tiny.
    Mr. Brashers. Yes. The interest rates have gone up 
dramatically since the Inflation Reduction Act was signed. I 
think the continued deficit spending is a big contributor to 
why that is and why the Federal Reserve is having such a hard 
time getting inflation under control. We saw it just yesterday 
that the inflation----
    Mr. Grothman. And not just interest rates; the cost of the 
house to boot. You have the initial cost going up and then the 
cost of interest rates going up.
    Mr. Brashers. Yes.
    Mr. Grothman. Isn't that the function of these trillion-
dollar bills that come shooting out of here?
    Mr. Brashers. Yes. And another thing to keep in mind; is 
all of the money and the investments and capital that are going 
into the green energy, that has got to come from somewhere. The 
government is not coming in and creating wealth. They are not 
creating these programs--these goods and services for people. 
They are simply reallocating them. And so that is helping to 
drive the interest rates up. That is helping to drive the costs 
up across the economy.
    Mr. Grothman. There is no more green state than California. 
What has been the effect of their policies on the average guy, 
say, compare the average guy to the average Hollywood type, 
movie star type?
    Mr. Brashers. Yes. Well, I mean one of the big things you 
see there is the gas prices are through the roof. You see 
housing prices----
    Mr. Grothman. How much is gas now in California?
    Mr. Brashers. It is over $5.
    Mr. Grothman. Oh, my goodness. Oh, oh. I hope we never have 
those people run the country.
    But go ahead. I am sorry I interrupted you.
    Mr. Brashers. Yes. So, it is absolutely unaffordable for 
middle-class people to live in a lot of these areas that have 
been pushing these policies.
    Mr. Grothman. Oh. Well, thanks. I hope we work our way out 
of this in the next few years.
    Mr. Brashers. Thank you.
    Mrs. McClain. Thank you, Mr. Grothman.
    The Chair now recognizes Ms. Lee for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    I would like to start by expressing my shock and surprise 
at the concern for young people in our country that I would 
like to say that the thing that keeps young people from being 
able to buy a house are stagnant wages that have not increased 
in decades, is the busting of unions that we are seeing 
consistently across the country, but also is the cost of a 
college education and the loan burden that these young people 
are carrying that keeps us from starting families or from 
buying homes, and yet we see that the loan debt period is going 
to end in a few days.
    But today, I wanted to actually talk about some of our 
environmental issues. According to a report issued in April of 
this year by the American Lung Association, quote, ``Out of the 
nearly 120 million people who live in areas with unhealthy air 
quality, a disproportionate number, more than 64 million, 54 
percent, are people of color.''
    I came to environmental justice through necessity, not 
expertise. Where I grew up in Braddock in the Mon Valley of 
western Pennsylvania, our air is so dirty that we have some of 
the highest rates of pollution-causing childhood asthma, COPD, 
and emphysema, and other respiratory illnesses in this country.
    The American Lung Association's 2023 State of the Air 
report found that ozone smog pollution levels in the 
Pittsburgh, New Castle, Weirton metro area have declined, which 
is phenomenal. However, the metro area I represent, quote, 
``continues to rank among the worst 25 metro areas in the 
country for both short-term and year-round particle 
pollution.''
    Dirty air is killing people, and it is disproportionately 
harming minoritized communities. Black people are exposed to 
1.54 times more fine particulate matter than White people and 
are three times more likely to die due to air pollutants. And 
Black women have the highest death rates because of asthma.
    Mr. Higgins, I note that a paper published in April of this 
year by the Center for American Progress stated, quote, ``A key 
insight driving many of the Inflation Reduction Act's 
investments is that Federal dollars go a lot further in places 
that have experienced underinvestment in a private market often 
due to historical and ongoing racial discrimination, including 
low-income and disadvantaged communities that face the greatest 
effects of climate change.''
    Mr. Higgins, how can we maximize our Federal impact through 
investments in communities that have historically experienced 
underinvestment?
    Mr. Higgins. It is such an important question because you 
are right that the effects of fossil fuel pollution and climate 
change are disproportionately affecting Black and Brown 
communities and low-income communities. That is why the 
Inflation Reduction Act takes pains to create new programs that 
will help to serve these areas, including set-asides for low-
income investment through the tax credits, a Greenhouse Gas 
Reduction Fund which requires 40 percent of its spending to be 
for the benefit of disadvantaged communities echoing the 
Justice40 Initiative. There are climate pollution reduction 
grants, climate justice block grants.
    I will give a couple of examples of projects that have 
already been funded, if I may----
    Ms. Lee. Yes, please.
    Mr. Higgins [continuing]. That I think help to demonstrate 
the promise of Justice40 already.
    So, for example, we recently saw a $19 billion investment 
in the electricity distribution grid in Jefferson Parish, 
Louisiana, to help protect against future hurricanes. There is 
a new grant supporting the Chicago Transit Authority's plans to 
run an all-electric bus fleet which will disproportionality 
benefit the air quality in communities that are facing the 
worst pollution now. And this extends to all sorts of 
disadvantaged communities, including in Tulare County in a 
rural area. There is new money to retrofit an old hydroelectric 
system.
    So, these sets of investments, I think, benefits 
communities all across the United States, but you have to be 
intentional about it, and the Inflation Reduction Act provides 
new tools to make it possible.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you.
    Southwestern Pennsylvania groups have already received more 
than 2 million to monitor levels of harmful air pollution. The 
EPA is issuing an additional $236 million in IRA funds 
nationwide for air monitoring, including grants for monitoring 
near industrial facilities, multipollutant monitoring, and air 
quality sensors in disadvantaged communities. The IRA includes 
a program called the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund which will 
help reduce polluting emissions particularly in low-income and 
disadvantaged communities.
    Mr. Higgins, I thank you for your answer about how the IRA 
will benefit those disadvantaged communities and also your 
answer earlier to our Ranking Member about how the IRA will 
help low-income households reduce their energy bills.
    But to put it in more perspective, the provisions in the 
IRA could lower energy bills for Pennsylvanian families by more 
than $341 per year. The IRA provides precisely the investments 
we need to combat climate change and helps the communities that 
have suffered disproportionately from air pollutants.
    And while we are also seeing investments in our workforce, 
Pennsylvania's Governor Shapiro recently announced a commitment 
to reserve at least three percent of all funding they receive 
from the IRA to fund workforce development and on-the-job 
training, investing as much as 400 million over the next 5 
years in workforce training.
    So, to sum it up very quickly, the IRA's investments to 
fight pollution across the country will not only help improve 
air quality and preserve a level of future for our children, it 
will lower energy costs for working families, protect us from 
the impacts of climate disaster, and create thousands of good-
paying union jobs.
    I would like to thank my Republican colleagues for holding 
this hearing and giving us the opportunities to highlight such 
strong investments in America's future.
    Thank you. And I yield back.
    Mrs. McClain. Thank you, Ms. Lee.
    I now recognize myself for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Brashers, simply put, does the Inflation Reduction Act, 
in fact, reduce inflation?
    Mr. Brashers. No.
    Mrs. McClain. Do you have any data to support that? Is that 
your opinion?
    Mr. Brashers. The Inflation Reduction Act was intended to 
reduce inflation by reducing the deficit, but the deficit has 
doubled from last year, from about 1 trillion to 2 trillion. 
So, the evidence is--and even if you looked at the original 
estimates, it was not going to be reducing the deficits in the 
initial years. So, the fact that everything has blown up in 
costs, that tells me that, no, it has not reduced inflation.
    Mrs. McClain. So, facts and evidence. Crazy.
    OK. What impact does the IRA have on prices Americans are 
paying at the gas pump and in the supermarkets?
    Mr. Brashers. So, what we have seen so far since the 
Inflation Reduction Act went into place--and most of the 
provisions went into place in January 1 of this year, and the 
average gas price of gasoline was $3.09 at the time. Now it is 
up to $3.84. So, the evidence is that the prices of gasoline 
are going up, prices----
    Mrs. McClain. I am sorry. Could you repeat those numbers 
again?
    Mr. Brashers. It has gone up from $3.09 to $3.84 since 
January.
    Mrs. McClain. OK. And under normal, $3.09 is less than 
$3.84.
    Mr. Brashers. That is correct.
    Mrs. McClain. I mean, I realize Bidenomics, it might be a 
little different, but I just wanted to make sure.
    OK. Switching gears, Mr. White, will the IRA increase the 
costs of prescription medicines?
    Mr. White. Absolutely. I mean, the first thing is for the 
inflation rebates CBO said repeatedly that those will lead to 
higher launch prices. So, yes, it will increase drug prices.
    Mrs. McClain. And can you expand on that just a little bit 
more?
    Mr. White. Sure. So, if a drug company is subject to an 
inflation rebate, what it says is that if my drug price 
increases faster than inflation, I have to pay a rebate back to 
the government. So, as a company launches a product, what the 
Congressional Budget Office has said is that they will take 
that into account when pricing their product and try and price 
it as high as they possibly can so that as they increase prices 
over time, they are not subject to----
    Mrs. McClain. And is there any evidence of this or is this 
just your opinion?
    Mr. White. This is the--experts of the nonpartisan 
Congressional Budget Office have said this.
    Mrs. McClain. I am just making sure we are following the 
facts as opposed to opinions.
    So, to follow up on that, the IRA uses the term 
``negotiations,'' right, as code language for government price 
controls on drugs. In your assessment, what impact will price 
controls have on the ability for Americans to access 
medications?
    Mr. White. It will make it much more difficult to access 
new and innovative medicines. It will also lead to drug 
shortages. I think we have decades of evidence from other 
countries that have tried this approach, and in every instance, 
access----
    Mrs. McClain. Can you give us an example?
    Mr. White. Sure. So, in the U.K., for example, they have 
had this system in place--a similar system in place for several 
decades. They have access to about half as many medicines as 
people in the United States have.
    Mrs. McClain. Interesting. Thank you.
    Mr. Brashers, are green energy subsidies effective at 
reducing inflation?
    Mr. Brashers. No, I would say they are not.
    Mrs. McClain. Can you expand on that for me?
    Mr. Brashers. These are subsidies that are merely shifting 
the incentives around to push people into purchasing certain 
items and not other items, but they are not expanding the 
supply. They are merely rearranging, I guess, the distribution 
and the allocation of people's money. But there is no increase 
of supply.
    Mrs. McClain. Would it be safe to say that if a policy was 
so effective and it worked so well and it helped so many 
people, that a policy like that would not need a subsidy 
because people would go and buy that product, whatever it may 
be?
    Mr. Brashers. I think that is a very good way of stating 
it. If you did not----
    Mrs. McClain. Seems like common sense.
    Mr. Brashers. It does seem common sense, yes.
    Mrs. McClain. Right. And, Mr. Brashers and Mr. White, were 
Americans better off in 2019, or are they better off now under 
Bidenomics?
    Mr. Brashers. I would say they are better off--they were 
better off in 2019.
    Mrs. McClain. Based on what?
    Mr. Brashers. Based off of real incomes, based off of 
inflation, I think that the economic statistics have 
deteriorated significantly.
    Mrs. McClain. Thank you.
    Mr. White?
    Mr. White. I would agree with that.
    Mrs. McClain. Based on?
    Mr. White. Real wages are down. As health costs increase, 
our take-home pay declines, our standard of living declines, so 
families are worse off by paying more. The average family 
policy this year will cost about $22,000. It is the equivalent 
of buying a new Kia and shoving it into the Potomac River every 
year and then buying a new one.
    Mrs. McClain. I mean, at the end of the day, I think both 
sides want a better America. I really want to believe that in 
my heart of hearts. And how we--where we differ is how we get 
there. And I think we have to be stewards of the taxpayers' 
money, because I believe you said earlier, sir, that the 
government really does not produce anything, right? They really 
do not produce everything. And with this layer upon layer of 
regulation and this layer upon layer of bureaucracy, it is 
people like my colleague over here that actually supported the 
bill but cannot even take advantage of it.
    Where is this money going? I will share with you where it 
is not going. It is not going to the American people. It is 
going somewhere, but I can assure you the Americans in my 
district, they are not benefiting from these policies.
    So, with that and without objection, all Members have 5 
legislative days within which to submit materials and 
additional written questions for the witnesses which will be 
forwarded to the witnesses.
    And if there is no further business, without objection, the 
Subcommittee stands adjourned. And I thank you all for your 
patience. It was kind of squirrelly today, but I truly 
appreciate it. Thank you.
    [Whereupon, at 3:22 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                 [all]