variety of topics. and the about books podcast takes you behind the scenes of the nonfiction book publishing industry with interviews, updates and bestseller lists. find all of our podcasts by downloading the free c-span now app or wherever you get your podcasts. and on our website. c-span.org/podcasts. the house will be in order. >> this year c-span celebrates 45 years of covering congress like no other. since 1979, we have been your primary source for capitol hill. providing balanced, unfiltered coverage of government. taking you to where the policy is debated and decided. all in support of america's cable companies. c-span, 45 years and counting. powered by cable. next, white house budget director testifying on

president biden's 2025 budget request before the house budget committee. she highlights with the administration sees as fiscal and legislative successes in the presidents priorities for his latest proposal which totals $7.3 trillion. this runs three hours 20 minutes. a three hours and 20 minutes. a three hours and 20 this hearing will come to order but welcome to the committee on the budget hearing regarding the president's fiscal year 2025 budget request. i welcome director this hearing will come to a order. welcome to the committee and budgets hearing regarding the fiscal year 2025 budget

request. welcome director young, director of office and management budget. thank you for being here. i have enjoyed working with you, you are one of the most likable people. on capitol hill and in my experience in politics. kudos to you. as i've said before, i like you a lot. i don't like the presidents budget and i'm going to outline that with respect. probably some sharp criticism. i appreciate your service to our country. is a former staff person here and capitol hill, and now in this very important job as the director of omb. welcome back to capitol hill. thank you for your time this morning. i'm going to yield such time as i may consume for an opening statement. you just thought that was my opening statement. so, i'm not going to read my

statement. i just want to talk. to you, i want to talk to my colleagues, i want to talk to the american people, the president says, and i wholeheartedly agree, that budgets are more than just numbers on the ledger, they are statement of values. they are a vision for this country. they are a set of policies, and so, when he says show me your budget, i will show you your values, i agree. i say it's different, show me your budget and i will show you your beliefs. and, i'm not going to question his motives or your motives about your beliefs, values, and policies outlined in the budget, i'm simply going to say, that there is not a clearer or starker contrast between the president's beliefs and the

beliefs of at least the folks, republicans, who serve me on the budget committee. and so, what the beliefs, i'm talking about, are the beliefs in the role of government in the lives of its citizens, the role of government in solving the problems of our country. leafs in where we are, conditions we are living in, and the cause-and-effect of the policies of this president over the last few years. and beliefs, quite frankly, in what the president thinks the american people think about the last three years and the policies and the outcomes in the current conditions the people are living with. a better way to say that is, if the president is going to double down on the last three years, i've got to give him credit. and i mean this with all respect. he puts on paper, and he

continues to stay committed to his beliefs on the policies that he has advanced over the last three years. now, i would say disconnected from the american people. and their reality, and their needs, and desire for different direction. i think it is disconnected from the pain that they are feeling, especially when it comes to their pocketbook, and the record inflation, the interest of the payments on their home. payments on their car, we have more consumer debt that we have ever had. more credit card debt that we have ever had. people are taking more money out of their 401(k) than they ever have. it is a crisis. i know we all have a view of what is a crisis, and i hear a lot about the climate crisis for my democratic colleagues. the folks in west texas, i grant you, i don't travel as much around the country as i do my own district, but my folks,

would say the biggest crisis right now is the safety and security of their families. because of the policies at the border. and the flow of crime and criminals and drugs that threaten their neighborhoods and families and friends. and their fellow citizens. and they would say, their pocketbook and the cost of living, groceries, gas. the quality of life. that is why, i think, the american people, when you look at the polls, i don't put a lot of stock in polls, but i think it is representative of our citizenry saying, we want something totally different. so here are some things i've taken away from beliefs. this budget, suggests that the president, and those who

support the president believe that we should expand entitlements, but we haven't even paid for the two most important in my opinion, social security and medicare, they're going to be insolvent but we are creating more. we have more people trapped, in my opinion, with dependence on the government than we ever have because we don't have real consideration for capable people going back to work to receive assistance. so we expand medicaid for example, i say we, the president, without consideration for kind of work requirements he supported when he was senator. there is an expansion of obamacare subsidies to people making even $600,000 because you all repealed basically the eligibility. the studies showed during the temporary expansion of obamacare, more than half the people on their were above the 400% poverty level. you suggest and the president suggests in the budget that they are going to use somehow

the ira drug price control savings, which is $100 billion, and expanded it to $200 billion in savings. the you're going to use that somehow to shore up medicare. listen, we have to work together to shore up medicare, no question. kudos, i guess, to the president for at least outlining a way to do that. he grabs for a tax hike -- tax hike and the savings from the drug price control. i disagree with the strategy and policy. nevertheless, here's my question. why should we believe the president is going to use those savings when the last time, through the ira, there were savings and medicare that were used to subsidize clean energy tax giveaways? it didn't go back into medicare and sure it up. so you are saying things in this budget that in practice haven't been followed, let me be clear, there are things republicans have said that we haven't followed up on. we have a piece of paper that

is very different in terms of our beliefs. yes you can go back to the biblical admonition, show me the fruit of your works. faith is dead and belief is that without work. let me tell you, there is much deficiency falling through the balanced-budget as some of the criticism i am levying on you and the president, do understand? entering to be an equal opportunity criticize or. now, our budget is different, we don't leave $16 trillion or $18 trillion in debt, we take that off of the next 10 years to balance. you all raised taxes $5 trillion when the economy was teetering on recession, a lot of those taxes would be passed in higher expenses and exacerbating inflation, we don't use taxes. we try to reinvest and reignite growth, tax reform and

regulatory reform, trade. there two different worlds, two different belief systems. and what i think i would summarize as saying in closing, might democratic colleagues in my present leave and more government, in more spending, in more taxing. as the answers to the problems that our country faces. i think very strongly our belief system, articulated in our budget, suggests we believe in less government, less spending, less taxes, more empowerment of the american people and more freedom for a better quality of life. for prosperity that will raise all of those, that will create the greatest and type poverty program ever known to man, which is more jobs, more opportunities, higher paychecks. better quality of life and standard of living. that is my perspective. i think those two worldviews, those two belief systems are is clear to the american people as you can get. like i said, i respect the president is not just staying

with the horse he is been writing on, he is galloping at a pace that we haven't seen yet, which i think will end an even greater disaster than what we have been experiencing. with that, i know i have gone over my time but will let you use as much time as you consume. >> thank you. it's great to have you back here , director young, it's common this time of year in this cycle to hear the question, are you better off than you were four years ago? four years ago today, then president trump was busy tweeting out crazy conspiracy theories about covid-19. by the end of the month, 1.5 million americans would lose their jobs. by the end of the following month, a record 20.5 million americans would lose their jobs. many american families were stuck inside, probably like my

family. i was on zoom in a little office in my house, my wife teaching her second grade class from our dining room on zoom. and our daughter, he can garner at the time, in her kindergarten class sitting at her kitchen table. most american families were worried about keeping ends meeting and frankly keeping the mental health. let's look at where instead we are today. all of the jobs that were lost during covid have been earned back and more. unemployment has been below 4% for a record 25 consecutive months, the longest in more than half century. in 2023, contrary to what we heard about supposedly teetering on recession, and despite the predictions of all the doomsday errors, 2.5%

economic growth, more than any other peer economy in the world. inflation, it has cooled considerably. we are now almost at the fed target. and as we confirmed yesterday's projection, the fed will got rates by 75 basis points over the course of this year. it has gotten so good, mr. chairman, that the center-right economist, out with this latest headline, america, americas pumped up economy. so when we consider the fact that this economy has come all the way back from the depths of where we were four years ago today, why in the world would we ever go back to where we were just four short years ago? that is exactly where republicans want to lead us.

just yesterday afternoon, and i appreciate the timing for this hearing today, the republican study committee released its 2025 budget. here is what they proposed. cutting social security by $1.5 trillion. raising the retirement age. cuts to benefits for those who are currently paying into the system and your retirement age. medicare, $1 trillion worth of cuts. it would end the medicare guarantee and turn medicare into a premium support system. seniors would have to fend for themselves on the open market with nothing but a coupon to offset as much of the cost is they could find. medicaid, c.h.i.p. and the affordable care act, cut by an additional $4.5 trillion. this is the republican budget and what they plan to do if

they were to gain full control here in washington, d.c. so mr. chairman, you are right, there is a stark and clear difference between the two visions. one is a vision that would take us back to the depths of where we were just four years ago. the other is a vision that has literally led the world in economic growth. i look forward to hearing more about the details of both of those visions today. i look forward to your testimony here, director young. thank you. >> i thank the gentleman, ranking member from pennsylvania. in the interest of time, if any other members have opening statements, i ask you submit for the record. we will hold the record open to the end of the day to accommodate members who may have not yet made statements. i'd like to recognize director young. thank you for being with us today. i yield five minutes.

>> thank you, chairman. ranking member and numbers of the committee. i'm going to say something and mean it that some may not mean, it's a pleasure to be with you here today. it's a little like coming home. i like to thank the staff, as the chairman noted, i was a staffer in the house the appropriations committee and i take anything bad about the budget committee i may have said back, it was certainly before the chairman and ranking member warheads of this esteemed committee. you are right today, a lot of my remarks will be about contrast. where this president stands and i'm proud to present his budget for the fiscal year 2025. from day one of this administration, president biden has tackled challenges head-on will delivering long-lasting results. over the past three years, he has overseen a strong economic recovery, one of the most successful legislative records in a generation, grown economy

from the middle out and bottom up and delivered important progress for the megan people. under the leadership we've added about 15 million jobs. the and employment rate has remained below 4% for over two years, a more than 50 year record. while inflation has fallen by two thirds. this administration has taken action to lower costs for working families on everything from prescription drug costs and health insurance premiums to everyday goods and services. and the president's top priority remains lowering costs for hard-working americans. at the same time, the president has restored used leadership on the world stage while keeping americans safe and promoting democracy here and abroad. the president has delivered this progress for the american people all well the filling his commitment to fiscal responsibility. the deficit is more than $1 trillion lower than when the president took office. thanks in large part to a strong economic recovery. in addition the president has

also enacted another $1 trillion in savings over the next decade through the fiscal responsibility act. the 2025 budget details the president's vision for a more equitable, prosperous and powerful america with proposals for responsible progrowth investment in american people. the budget protects and builds on the progress made over the last three years and proposes additional policies to lower -- lower costs for hard-working families including for health insurance, prescription drugs, childcare, utilities, housing, college, energy and more. these investments will help working families keep more of their paychecks. and also it invests in american working families, president biden has shown us we can be both fiscally responsible and invest in america. the budget will bolster manufacturing and industry across the nation, make our communities healthier and safer and provide paid leave.

support research and cancer for veterans. cut taxes for families with children. promote a dynamic workforce and more. the budget protects medicare and social security. bedrock programs the generations of americans have counted on as seniors have paid into their entire working lives. extends medicare solvency indefinitely requiring wealthy people to pay their fair share toward medicare and reducing prescription drug costs. and reflects the president's commitment to reject any benefit cuts to social security , extend solvency by asking the highest income americans to pay their fair share, and improve financial security for seniors and people with disabilities and ensure americans can access the benefits they earned. and in what will be a decisive decade for america, and the world, this budget reflects the national security strategy. by including robust investments in military readiness, diplomatic and development tools

and honors a sacred commitment to our veterans. the budget achieves all of this well building on the proven record of fiscal responsibility. and honoring the president's promise that no one earning less than $400,000 per year will pay one penny more in new taxes. his budget reduces the deficit by roughly $3 trillion over the next 10 years. on top of paying for new investments, by cracking down on fraud, wasteful spending, and abuse. including by reducing prescription drug costs and making the wealthy corporations pay their fair share. thank you, mr. chairman, thank you ranking member, thank you for the opportunity to appear here today. >> thank you, director young. we now move to the question-and- answer portion. i yield myself five minutes. you mentioned the president policies have lowered the debt about $1 trillion. let's be clear, the president

was in hiding for 100 days, chuck schumer swore he would never negotiate a debt ceiling, we had colleagues on this committee saying, it is reckless, you should never do it. and sort of, the sky is falling. and because republicans said, we cannot let, we cannot just have a clean debt ceiling, we don't consider three virtually dollars record it for this country. virtually dollars that will be added. the unsustainable fiscal path. republicans, this is the truth, i can look you in the eyes and tell you, republicans led, bring democrats to the negotiating table and we actually do guest -- together reduced spending year-over-year. and the 10 year window, about $1.5 trillion. i appreciate the president administration worked with this, have the republicans not pushed back we wouldn't have that. so, i think the people need to

understand that that is the kind of pushback and political courage that republicans and democrats have to exercise to bring the debt down. i don't believe that the president is fiscally responsible. but not because he says he is or doesn't say he is, in speeches, it is because the last three years we have seen 6+ trillion dollars in new debt added to the national debt. and, because his budget the we're talking about today puts us on a path of the highest sustained spending taxes and debt in history of the country, that is a fact, there is nothing fiscally responsible about that. leaving an average debt of $1.6 trillion per year is not fiscally responsible. that is a deferred tax on her

children. we are going to bankrupt the country. again, there is no perfect plan and republicans are not a profile encouraging reducing spending like i think is the driver of our debt. this is making things worse. this is gasoline on the fire consuming only the money and the pocketbooks of our fellow americans, but it's going to burn up any hope for a bright and prosperous future for children. you thought i had a question in here. i might have a question. the question is, if i asked you, i want to trap you, i don't to play gotcha, we had an fra agreement, fiscal responsibility agreement, it was a spending cap. i thought it was a pretty good deal and i still think it's a good deal but not nearly as good as i thought, most members feel the same way. because, and you are an expert, 8th degree black belt in appropriations jujitsu, we had a bunch of side deals that were

off-balance-sheet spending. the american people have no clue, director young, about what is budget authority and what is outlay. what we do is we stuff the turkey of emergency spending, we stuff the turkey of other gimmicks like rescissions and the american people never see it. we go out and do press conferences and releases and say, got a top line of 1.59 trillion dollars. we reduced spending. does that bother you? because i think if the american people deployed the same budget gimmicks they would go to prison, literally. i think it is criminal. either way, republicans do it, every bit as much as democrats. we work with me to clean that up? whether the spending is more or less of the same, can we all agree, we can't hide the ball from the american people and

that this is accounting fraud? >> mr. chairman, you will be surprised to hear my response. i think you would see two different press releases that came out of that budget deal. i think democrats were very happy to point out that we were going to be able to maintain spending for childcare and nih and all the other things and produce what we call nondefense discretionary in applied scenario. we were honest about that, that was necessary to seek 76% of democrats but for that package. >> how did we put in the budget authority, why do we have to stick nonemergency and emergency? why do have to put chimps and suggest we are reducing spending when we are actually adding more? it's fair enough to say we committed to spending more. but it's not 1.59, it's money in addition, shouldn't we at least deal with the numbers the reckon people can understand so they know what their government leaders are doing and what

they're paying for the government? that's what i'm saying, i am not saying you are arguing for more spending, you are arguing for less, no question. more bureaucracy, more government. less argosy, less bureaucracy. we thought we had to right size the bureaucracy. fairness to debate that. i'm talking about transparency. can we work together on making that more transparent? >> matters to me, what matters to the president is what we are able to invest in, programs that help working families across the country. weather it is in will you call chimps which is changes in mandatory programs or emergency spending, what matters is how much goes to childcare block grants, how much goes to headstart. mr. chairman, if there's interest in doing that with the budget authority, we are with you. we were negotiating in good faith within speaker mccarthy, who had his own outline of how

he would like to see the numbers come in. and we, as you point out, came to the table and worked out a deal. the bill you'll see today, and that you're going to vote on fiscal year 2024, complies with that deal. i appreciate the complaints about it, but it is a show of bipartisanship the both parties were able to come together six months late and we certainly hope, and you'll hear from the president, that that bill is passed as soon as possible to avoid a shutdown. you have my commitment to work, if the other side wants this all in budget authority, or chimps, it doesn't matter to us. what matters is the investments we can make for the american people. >> i reserve my comments so other colleagues can asked the questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i saw this recent economist,

all of these news outlets as well, i thought i would read off a couple in terms of the performance of the economy, by the ministration. u.s. to meet rising growth quells recession fears. bloomberg, u.s. is still world's biggest economy as it extends its lead. over china. u.s. economy is powering ahead. cnn, another shockingly good report shows america's economy is booming. the guardian, biden is right to say the us economy is world's strongest trump allie says. i could go on and on about the record of this administration as it relates to economic strength. let me turn, to social security and medicare. i talked about the republican budget leased yesterday. the republican study committee

which includes 80% of house republicans, proposing trillions of cuts in social security and medicare, that does seem aligned with what former president trump said, just last week on cnbc for president trump said, "there is a lot you can do in terms of entitlements, in terms of cutting.". i wonder if the president agrees, if president biden agrees with former president trump's view about a lot to do in terms of cutting entitlements for the house republican budget which cuts social security and medicare. do you agree with that approach and what approach does president biden's ministries and take in the new fiscal year budget? >> you heard from the president himself, he will not assign any legislation, and we will do anything to prevent benefit cuts . you heard me speak about

this, these are not just programs, people paid into them their entire lives. imagine having the rug pulled out from under you. think you are going to retire in social security and medicare are there for you. we think there should be plans to make sure they are solvent. in addition to no benefit cuts, we believe the highest income earners in this country paying more into both of those programs. it would create a solvency situation. without having to cut benefits. >> let me interject their to segue to what i think you are about to speak to. where there has been bipartisan agreement, a number of us, both the chair and me is ranking member have acknowledged that was social security, the trust fund expected to expire 2034. in medicare they are set to insolvent before that. so no one up here is saying we can't do anything. i was wondering, if you could address that and talk about the president's approach.

>> i talked about the principles he believes in in social security. one that doesn't get as much attention including the benefit cuts, asking the wealthiest americans to pay more in social security, we need to make sure americans can access their social security benefits. look at the social security administration budget. as beneficiaries grow, the number of staff and resources or in a complete opposite curve on the way down. we have asked for increases, speaking of non-discretionary, when we don't fund that we don't fun things like social security administration. we implore you, please pass social security administers 9% increase. on medicare solvency, you have seen this proposal before, from the president, that asks the wealthiest individuals to pay 1.2% more into medicare. also prescription drug savings. if we expand the prescription

drug provisions allowing medicare to negotiate, that saves for seniors and the government. we also closed tax loopholes. those who find ways not to pay into the care ensure they do. those things would extend medicare insolvency emperor patootie. that is a big deal. i hope we can take that proposal seriously and get it debated. >> i want to remind folks that the ability, for the first time ever, for medicare to negotiate down the cost of prescription drugs, was thanks to the inflation reduction act which every single republican member of the house and senate voted against. with that i think the director and yield back. >> i think the gentleman for only using five minutes. >> democratic efficiency. >> i.t. that up for you.

>> thank you, miss young, for being there, thank you for your call. you're always good about that. you know, is the chairman mentioned, the president has been hiding. he did come out of hiding, i don't call it the state of the union, called the state of the screen. he pretty much screamed the whole time. he did read the teleprompter pretty well. let me ask you this, how do you find that define pay your fair share? >> thank you, in our proposals on revenues, i can talk about a few. one corporations before 2017 tax law paid 35%. we would ask the corporations go to 20%. not even as far back as they were paying before the 2017 tax law. taking capital gains. ordinary income.

we are trying to get revenues back to, when we talk about surplus in 2000 and 2001, back to those historical averages that allow for the room to create surplus. >> let me ask you, if you ask everyday americans, with a agree with a $4.7 billion southwest water security fund that absorbs illegals into the country? with the average american agree with $3.2 billion for advanced gender equity and equality worldwide, whatever that means? with a agree with $2.5 billion for the centers of disease control to address the causes of violence in communities? define that for me? when he is letting everybody from 160 countries including gang members come into america. $60 million for gun violence research across the cdc and the

national institute of health. and you are letting everyone come in as is been seen, the crime in this country is skyrocketing, what americans agree with that? americans agree with $11 million at the doi to preserve stories of cultures and histories across america? someone to find that. i love to follow those checks and see where they are going. my issue is, the priorities, i think if you ask everyday americans, they would vote against this, that's why he is going even lower. a question i have that many people, that is buried somewhere, either the budget or appropriations, 2018 there was a bill that put up to basically set up a gps backup system, which is the security of america. 2018. up to this date, cbo scored it as a revenue producer.

it hasn't been enacted since 2018. it may not be a fair question because you might not know it, but could i get an answer on why this isn't a top priority? who is stopping this at the d.o.t., , the omb has undermined this. this is a national security concern. would you give it back to me in writing? >> happy to, congressman. happy to look into it. you said not enacted yet, i am assuming it's an active. you're trying to figure out implementation. >> implantation of the gps system which everybody in this room uses. it's a national security issue. the fact that we are, as the chairman mentioned, $35 trillion in debt and rising, we can ignore the other agencies if we want to. but they are running in the red

too for medicare and medicaid, social security, highway trust fund. it's unconscionable what does it ministration is doing to not solve the problem. now particularly as we have got national threats that are being highlighted by our own people in this administration's cabinet. the fbi director sang the blinking lights are going off. i guess it's going to take, i don't know how many more we have to have, ignoring the immigration issue, i don't know how many, he did get the name out but didn't get it right. how many we have to have before we say enough is enough. and the money the priorities have to be redirected. i have 20 seconds if you like to respond. >> i would. immigration, i've been in this town for 20 years, is a difficult issue as any that faces congress or any resident. >> and we had a chance to do

something about bipartisan basis. that would've helped stem flow and allow us to have -- >> 5000, >> with the resources needed. >> that's not right. thank you, i appreciate you coming. >> i think the gentleman from south carolina. now yield five minutes to my friend, scott peters. >> thank you, i guess we reached the point where you just insult the person who gave it, i heard he does not the energy to be resident, was get too much energy. whatever. we are here to talk about budgets. i'm sorry to hear that. that is the common thing we hear now. president biden's proposal for fiscal year 2025 lower the cost of childcare for families, make healthcare more accessible to all and help realize our clean energy future will cutting the deficit by $3 trillion. i don't agree with everything in it. i think the $400,000 tax floor

is probably unrealistic. i'm concerned about the lack of appreciation for investment in life sciences. we have the life sciences leadership in our country. we are about to spend $50 billion to bring back in industry that we let go. and concerned about undervaluing public and private partnership that life-sciences is in this country. but, the president's budget outlines a vision for america that i share. now we have to talk about appropriations. just this week republicans threatened to shut down ice, cbp and other home insecurities for their own political gain. and the immigration system has been broken for far long. president biden proposed billions of dollars in new funding and lead bipartisan negotiations with the senate on a conference of border package.

that would propose more than $20 billion for border security. could increase the number of border patrol agents and asylum offers, we could've deployed more scanners to prevent fentanyl through ports of entry. we could've streamlined the asylum process in a way that would've made education faster and cut people out who didn't qualify, which is about 90% of the folks. and, the 5000 limit was the point at which you would be required to shut the border, mandatory shutdown. when people complain about hundreds of thousands of people coming across, 5000 was the point at which you had to do a mandatory shutdown. we had a bipartisan agreement on that. apparently 22 to 25 mulligan centers were going to vote for until trump came out and said

he was against it. because he wanted a problem for his campaign, he didn't want us to solve the problem, independently elected people. and in the senate people with six-year terms, two thirds aren't even up for reelection. the deal was supported by the national border patrol council. but they would rather campaign about the problem than actually do anything about it. i think it is quite appalling. americans are tired of that political theater. and they want leaders who will make the choices needed to solve big problems. i have proposed a very practical thing, which is bipartisan, to help a number of decisions on taxes and spending through a bipartisan fiscal commission and everyone hates the arp was here when we did the hearing on it, i have heard from all the groups, they don't want to do anything with social security, even as we watch 10 years from now, we're looking at across-the-board cuts. they say don't cut social security, that is the wrong answer. since then, newt gingrich has come out hard against it, because they are afraid it will raise taxes. think we must be in the right place. we must be in the right place. but, the point is, the politics

here are as real as the numbers. you need votes from both sides of the aisle to get this thing under control. and, i much prefer the values set out in the budget, but this process is not working. personal insults won't solve it by the way, either. i do want to thank you, director, for the work you did in his last budget, this last agreement we will vote on tomorrow on the wastewater treatment plant. it's a critical facility and it is a threat to not just our committees, but our navy seals who train. have wonderful colleagues from across the political spectrum helping with that. we will continue to work on that. we didn't get all the money we will need but we got all the money to get started. i think that is great. director, i want to thank you for your work, i am proud to be

part of a group of people on this hill that are more concerned about getting things done and solving problems than yelling at the other side. i will continue to work with you to do that. i'm sorry i don't have a question for you. >> that is okay, i want to say this budget supports the critical project. we are sending seal somewhere else to train because the water is so dangerous to swim in. but, i am hoping we can find a way to get this done even before the fiscal year 2025 process. >> bouncing from one friend from california to another, five minutes. >> thank you. madame director, as i listen to you and my democratic colleagues, i wonder if you're ever going to learn you cannot spin the economy. everyone knows in their own lives how they are doing and if you try to spin them, you just end up looking foolish and out of touch. the fact is, the day that donald trump left office,

gasoline cost $2.39 per gallon. inflation was 1.4%. a 30 year mortgage was 1.9%. the jobs you posted bringing back are largely part-time jobs being taken largely by foreign immigrants and not americans. by flooding the market with cheap, illegal labor you're killing the wages of american working families. 18% inflation since you took office. that means a retirement fund on inauguration day of $100,000 now only buys $82,000 in goods. that is the price of all of the free money that you handed out. that you deliberately allowed more than 6 million illegal aliens into the country in the last three years. that is a population larger than the entire state of missouri which is zapping

billions of dollars from public schools, hospitals, public housing, law-enforcement, homeless shelters, food banks. driving up housing prices and suppressing working family wages. one thing i do agree with the ranking member on is the most important question that americans are going to be asking themselves is simply this, you better off today than four years ago? please don't sit here and try and gaslight us, you're not fooling anyone except yourself. you produce the budget with nearly $5 trillion in new tax increases over the next 10 years. you divide that by the number of households in america, that is roughly $40,000 of the average earnings of every family in this country. i know you will say don't worry, those are mainly corporate taxes that we paid for the wealthy corporations. family still need to be concerned. but corporations don't pay corporate taxes. there only three possible ways that a corporate tax can be paid. it is paid by employees, lower

wages, it's paid by consumers through higher prices, and it's paid by investors through lower earnings. that is your 401(k). i don't know any other way a corporate tax can be paid, do you? >> corporations could stop doing as many stock buybacks and not pay their people less and not pass on costs to the megan people. >> that is not true. that comes directly out of their earnings that they use to pay employees. the earnings they used to keep prices down in a competitive market and the earnings they paid to investors which are people's retirement funds. you've already required taxpayers to pay off $132 billion in loans taken out by college students. how much more are you proposing in this budget? >> i'm having a hard time hearing you. what was the question? >> you've now required taxpayers to pay off $132 billion of

loans from college students. how much more you proposing? >> the president has been unapologetic in saying we need to do whatever we can to reduce the burden of student loans that for students -- >> that's clear. i think he should be very apologetic in this respect, take two and people. one takes out a loan to get a degree in ethnic and gender studies and that gives them eight dei position at the university of michigan. average pay is $96,000 for such a staff position. the other young person takes out $100,000 loan to buy a truck. brings an average of $40,000 for a truck in your. to bring all the things that we need in life. how is it fair for the truck driver to be forced to pay for college graduate loans in addition to paying off his own loans? >> there also truck drivers who have taken on student loan debt hoping for a brighter future

and have not got the jobs they been promised. >> are you proposing the college student making $96,000 should pay off the truckers loan? >> i think you're using one example. there are many truckers who have benefited from this policy. >> here's a fine point of the matter. in a free society every consumer votes every day with every dollar he spends on with the colony will produce. when government takes that dollar it reduces by just so much, only the choices he can make his own family, it reduces by just so much incentive he has to produce goods and services for others. that is why socialism produces misery and poverty words impose on society. you just proposed the highest peacetime government spending ever. that takes away the choice of individual consumers to meet their own needs with their own earnings. and it destroys the incentives of individual producers to meet consumer needs. that in turn destroys

prosperity we once took for granted. nothing good will come of this. if you can't understand that, it's time you be replaced by those who do. i yield back. >> i think the gentleman from california. and now yield five minutes to ms. . >> thank you for your leadership and for the budget that does reflect i think the values of our country. but also, let me just say, i also believe the budget is a moral document. director young, i think is fundamentally wrong, to allow the size of the defense budget to increase, even though the pentagon recently failed, i believe it was six audits in a row. the presence request now is 184.5 billion more for defense the non-defense programs. and so i guess, speaking about the morality of this, how in the world do we allow this to happen?

and why should we have confidence that the pentagon will spend taxpayer dollars responsibly, and they can't even pass six audits? and secondly, where could we spend it to support grams that would protect the middle-class and key people out of poverty, and i know there are programs consistently underfunded because of defense spending increases. i don't understand how the department could make this kind of a commitment when they can't even pass, not just one clean audit but six audits. how could we allow that to happen, director young? we penalize taxpayers for scamming the system and for cheating on their taxes. something is fundamentally wrong . >> thank you, congresswoman. the budget we put forth for defense and non-defense comply with the disco responsibility act. many members here support it.

this president, from day one, has been committed to holding our nations sacred obligation to protect and equipped and prepare our servicemembers. i appreciate the concerns on audits. i share those. and defense in all of our agencies we expect to be good stewards. but we believe this budget is not only complying with the fra deal but also meets the needs of our troops. we are in a complicated world, as you see, but we also believe in diplomacy. i know the subcommittee you are ranking member on, we believe we put a balanced approach between our military and our diplomatic presence in the budget we put forth. >> okay, director, that's fine. but i still want to know how an agency, a department, can get away with failing six audits and still get an increase in

their budget? and believe you me, when i talk about defense spending, am talking about, and i know where a lot of waste, fraud and abuse is, i notes with arms dealers, it's not with our troops, i fully support making sure our troops are taken care of, and a readiness is where it should be, but for the life of me, i can't understand why taxpayers spend hard earned dollars or ask for an increase when the defense budget continues to get scammed. failing six audits is unacceptable. >> that is unacceptable, but as you pointed out, and i have pointed out, the mission of the department means that we have to put forward a budget that is aligned with our national security strategy, which means we have to provide the funds to update our equipment and provide for servicemembers. a

lot of this budget is also a pay increase of military personnel. and we have to remain prepared and on a footing given the complexities around the world. >> i understand that. okay, so how is the pentagon penalized? what triggers, if you fail six audits, how do you recoup those investments, taxpayer dollars? and what penalties, ordinary folks get penalized for wrongdoing. for not living by the rules. >> part of the pentagon issue on audits, and i want to make clear, failing an audit from this standpoint does not mean the pentagon doesn't know where most of their money is being spent. one they need to get there real estate and knowledge of what they own and how to set out. i.

you would think until they goti. it right we would at least ensure that all of our national security because if they are not penalized and they don't get it under control and taxpayers to know why in the world are they being penalized rather than getting are flunking audits? rather than getting an increase. something is fundamentally, morally long -- wrong with that . >> your time has expired. we will now go to the gentleman from wisconsin for five

minutes. >> thank you. that was a good point. there are a lot of things in his budget that i wonder about but i will start with the earned income tax credit. we have found there has been an improper payment rate of 31.6%. could you comment on that? if we have such a high improper payment rate, now would be the time to bring more people into t this program? >> the program and tax credit has helped millions of working families across this country. we are absolutely concerned and we report the improper payments . they get that report from us, so we are transparent about the need to fix. i would be remiss if i said i didn't see similarities between the last two questions. we can try to fix the program without taking away from those who need it most and working families with eitc.

>> i've never been a fan of the eitc and the people in my district are struck by the low income housing market or employers who hire people who take advantage of the eitc . as far as employers, they see the earned income tax credit as phaseout, people don't want to work anymore, right? depending upon the family size, somewhere between 16 and $20,000, it kind of discourages work, right? because they begin to take it away and of course you are discouraging work by taking away the eitc and at the same time, low income housing and s.n.a.p. and everything else. are you aware when you are employing people in the 10 to $15 an hour range it is common for them to recite stories of

employees who don't want to work more or don't want raises because it will take away their government benefits. >> we had a similar exchange last year. with eitc, child tax credit, we haven't seen data that supports that. we have actually seen the opposite. the research i've seen on the child tax credit for example, families who have enough income who need to put their touch kids -- kids in childcare. we haven't seen that data. >> i asked about that last year. >> in similar vein does it discourage work. >> right. they also obviously as with many programs like this, and with pell grants, by the way, which are increasing as well, i have heard complaints among

constituents that their children don't get pell grants or complain their siblings' children get pell grants who don't work as much. usually if you get married, it makes you ineligible because it moves you up the percent of poverty or under. do you ever hear complaints of people saying i am middle-class, my child has to take out student loans. my child is not working and her child gets free college? are you aware of that? >> you brought up something you have heard from your constituents. i've not heard that complaint about pell grants before. typically pell grants have enjoyed wide range support because they do help working families. not people who sit at home but working families who send their kids to school when they couldn't afford it any other way which is why we are committed to doubling the size of pell grants. >> and it doesn't bother you

those pell grants, if you're middle-class, you are ineligible if you are not working or working very little, you're getting an even more generous grant? >> we have a wider issue of college affordability that we have to do something about. you are right. people with pell grants have to take on debt so you are hitting on issues that we have to find solutions to but one of the key ways to help working families is through the pell grant program . >> one more thing, you are expanding s.n.a.p. as well. when i tore my food banks, i like to tour them and it's so nice to see people helping those in need . when i tour the food bank in my district, the food is all unhealthy food. when i go to a food bank privately operated, operated by insurance or what have you, you never see mountain dew or pop tarts on the shelf.

it is always better stuff. would you consider, if you are going to expand s.n.a.p., restricting it more to programs like we have for the wic, where he no longer give unhealthy food? at this period in time, we have an obesity epidemic and diabetes in young people. will you change the s.n.a.p. program to make it more like the wic? >> this gentleman's time has expired. >> i am happy to talk about the nutritional requirements in s.n.a.p. and i want to thank everyone here for their support in wic and thank you for bringing up that program. i will take it to agriculture, the idea of a nutritional guideline. >> the gentleman from wisconsin will yield to the gentleman from illinois for five minutes.

>> it is such a pleasure to see you here today. thank you so much for what you have done and i really think this budget reflects what the president and actually what ther democrats in congress have wanted to see for everyday americans and to ask the wealthiest people to pay more, which i think is absolutely fair. so, i just wanted to ask you what would actually be the effect of asking a small amount of people to pay an additional 25% in taxes, which i know -- and correct me if i am wrong -- would raise about $500 billion for our economy over the next decade. but i'm wondering if

you could tell us, director young, if you could give an estimate of how many people would actually be subjected to this larger tax and what is their average net worth? >> i think you're talking about the billionaire tax? it is also the hundreds of millionaire tax and it affects the wealthiest 0.01% of taxpayers. it hits the top 1% billionaires and millionaires. it raises $500 billion, even though this is a small population so that speaks to the wealth in this population. that speaks to the ability for them to use taxes in ways that are not available to working families, most of whom work, get a paycheck, get taxed a certain rate and have no idea

and cannot unveil themselves the same loopholes that is top 1% can, so we think it is common sense. omb and our cea at the white house have a report that says some of these hundreds of millionaires and billionaires, the richest americans, paid a tax rate of just 8% from 2010 to 2018. >> and that compares to what the average american might pay? >> that's right. you should not get to pay over 10% less than nurses, firefighters, teachers, people who go to work every day and get taxed on their work. >> i certainly think most americans think that, but most americans also think what is in this budget is really going to help them and isn't that what we are really supposed to be about? we know the permanence of the child tax credit, which we saw in the one year it worked that

it reduced child poverty by almost half, that we are going to have universal preschool, which would be so fantastic. a doubling of pell grants, which would help so many people that would go to college. we are going to see a lowering of the cost of healthcare for most americans. this budget answers the needs of most americans and i am so much in favor of it and i think regardless of party, ask people if these are the things that you want to see the federal government do for you. then this is it in the budget that u has been presented. i'm just wondering if there is

anything else you wanted to add? >> as the parent of a 2 1/2- year-old, we live in a place with universal pre-k through 4th . all-american should have access to that. >> what about child and family leave too. i mean family leave? >> one shouldn't have to choose. think about our workers. your job is threatened if you take time off. you shouldn't be worried about t whether it is an illness, child being born and worry about losing your job. it is about how we view ourselves as americans and what should be available to people and what is treated as a right for people. it's also an investment in what we believe is economic growth. this isn't about spending and

taxes. we want to invest in programs that will allow the economy to stretch. bring more people into the workforce. childcare, pre-k paid leave will help do that. >> so, no downside? we help the economy and the american people. thank you. i yield back. >> i know yield to my friend for five minutes from the keystone state. >> mr. chairman, you aren't making me cry. i'm having a lot of allergy problems, so feel free to have added, mr. smucker. >> please be gentle with the director here. i think they are tears of joy over the reversal of the budget . >> absolutely. >> good morning, director. good to see you. you are familiar with the financial report produced by the treasury on an annual basis? >> i am.

>> and you have read the 2023 report? >> i have seen the 2023 report. >> what would you say are the outcomes over the next 75 years? >> it depends on if it is a baseline. i am assuming the president's budget is enacted and will show something similar to our baseline budget. >> let me -- i'm sorry? >> the debt will increase if we don't do things like the president has presented in the budget. >> okay, we will get to that. let me show you this chart fromo the report showing you the debt to gdp. this is a long-term outlook showing that debt to gdp will go from its current level of 97% to about 500% in the next 75 years and in the report, the treasury, your administration, says -- you can put that away now. if changes in fiscal policy are not so abrupt -- i'm sorry.

it says first of all the projections show current policy is not sustainable. it says that multiple times. i think that is the underlying conclusion to be drawn from that. absolutely not sustainable. it talks about the urgency of addressing it sooner rather than later. if changes are not so abrupt as to slow economic growth and policy changes are adopted earlier the required changes will be smaller to return the government with sustainable fiscal path. couldn't agree more with what they are saying here. what are the drivers of that increase in debt? what programs? >> so, mr. smucker, the majority of government outlays are what we call entitlement programs. >> security, medicare, medicaid? >> yeah. >> you said earlier your budget would create sovereignty without needing to cut benefits. that is not true and in fact, i would like to submit for the

record, mr. chairman, a report from the tax foundation showing that if we indeed did with the biden administration is recommending, raising taxes for those 400,000 as outlined in this budget, it would raise about $3 trillion over a decade. the shortfall -- >> objection. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the shortfall over a 30 year period in these programs as outlined in this report from your administration shows that shortfall is about $78 trillion . raising revenue does not come close to fixing the problem long-term. do you agree with that? >> mr. smucker, i think you are using the cost over a longer period -- >> yes, but it is $70 trillion compared it to $3 trillion. $70 trillion is far more than three times. on the facts are what they are.

raising revenue will not be able to fix the problem. it is why i agree with scott peterson. we need to have a real conversation with the american people about how we fix this going forward. it will not work. it is not sustainable. you can't tax your way out of this. it is impossible. the numbers are what they are and that is why i believe the fiscal omission is so critical so we can come together, administration, members of congress, bipartisan and have a real discussion. the american people are willing to make sacrifices, willing to step up when they understand we have to do it or they'll -- the alternative is the fiscal conclusion was not included in the latest package and i was disappointed the biden administration did not support it and i would like to hear from you why that maybe and whether there would ever be a time the biden administration would support this kind of discussion that we need to have. >> mr. smucker, probably for

different reasons, biden administration has issues. republican leadership has shown issues with the fiscal commission of the nature that came out of committee, probably for different reasons than we do. our concern lies exactly in your line of questioning. the one thing on the table would be benefit cuts. not some of the tax proposals, not asking high income owners. it would be born on the backs of those who paid into the system and rely on this program to retire in peace. >> but your administration, your administration produced a report that says this is not sustainable over a long period of time. >> we believe taxing high income earners would add to the sovereignty. >> not true. i hope we can continue to have this discussion and i hope we can get to the point where the american people have a better understanding of the situation

that we are in. what you are saying today does not add to that and i think and i hope we can get to a point we can have a real conversation about this and i think, again, a fiscal commission would be a really great way to do that. thank you. >> i thank the gentleman for his leadership on the bipartisan path mechanism for addressing the sovereignty. i am only speaking because you s mentioned the leadership, the republican leadership. our speaker supports this. it was a priority coming into this speakership as a new speaker and we marked it up and got a bipartisan outcome that said everything is on the table and so there is plenty of criticism on both sides. there are folks saying it is a backdoor way to cut social security and other state as a backdoor way to raise taxes. i generally think when you've got criticisms being lobbed in

from both sides, you're in the sweet spot for actually doing something meaningful. mr. smucker has encouraged through this process all the long way the white house and administration be at the table, even when many people said that is a liability. just one more way to kill it. i would encourage you to take that back and think long and hard about a way we can work together to solve the biggest problems. one of the biggest problems for the country. i yield five minutes to the gentle lady from virginia. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. chairman.

[inaudible] or i'm going to come back to the general lady from virginia and i'm going yield to the gentleman from -- who should i >> [ inaudible ] >> i will come back to the gentle lady from virginia, let you gather your notes and i will yield to the gentleman from -- who should i pick on? oh, we will let the hoosier state champion have five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. director young, is the southern border secure? >> we absolutely need more resources. >> let me show you a chart of southern border crossings for the first 37 months of the last six presidential terms. can you tell me which one of these lines represents the biden administration?

>> you picked me on a bad day. even if it wasn't, i tend not to guess any situations so i'm sure you will tell me. >> it would clearly be the top lines of the highest number of border crossings in the first 37 or 38 months of this administration, the last six presidential terms -- you know, you talk about needing resources . the house republicans, the very second bill we passed was hr 2 and the senate has done nothing about that. this border, the southern border crisis, is a crisis of president biden's own making. he created this crisis with a stroke of the pen. he can fix it with a stroke of the pen and emma mr. chairman, i would ask unanimous consent to submit a record -- into the record a list of 64 executive actions taken by the biden administration to create this border crisis, all of which they refused to take to overturn their own executive actions which would fix the

southern border. instead of acknowledging the crisis at the border, the playbook has been to cast blame on others hand downplay it. it is the same playbook we have seen with inflation when we were told it would only be temporary or transitory but americans still feel the pain inflicted by biden a mix wherever they turn. director young, i've got another chart to show you. this is the cumulative inflation of all items for the first 38 months of the last 6 presidential terms. can you tell me which one would you believe would be the biden administration's inflation? >> again, mr. yakym, i'm sure you will tell me. >> you don't gas? >> not usually. >> it is no surprise to anyone listening that the top line showing the highest inflation for the last six presidential terms is, indeed, the biden administration.

it is fair to contrast that with house republican budget framework which proposes no new taxes and actually balances the budget over the course of the next 10 years. director young, what will adding an additional $18.2 trillion to the national debt of a 50% increase of where we are today in terms of national debt, what do you believe that will due to inflation, which again, is your budget proposal and the president's budget proposal? >> mr. yakym, please look at our budget proposals . that is why we are asking the top 1% to pay for things like childcare and paid leave but reduce the deficit and stabilize that. >> how do you get to the $1.2 trillion reduction? >> we are talking about the budget and policies and how they put us on a better fiscal path. >> the cbo said prior to the fiscal responsibility act last year we would add an additional $20.3 trillion by 2033 and they

revise that after the republican led fra got it down to $18.9 trillion but your budget calls for an additional $18.2 trillion of debt with $5 trillion of tax increases. i'm a little bit confused on how the biden administration is saying they saved $3 trillion when on the current baseline as you say, it is $18.9 trillion but again you're proposing $18.2 trillion of additional debt on top of $5 trillion in tax increases? >> as someone who helped negotiate the fra, i heard a lot of indications we were dragged to the table and didn't see it for a long time doing that, this president supported where we ended up. we never believed that debt ceiling should be used as a political tool which would jeopardize 1 million jobs but we did this deal, signed this deal, and this president worked in a bipartisan way and democrats voted for it in a bipartisan way to save trillions of dollars over the next decade. >> director young, yesterday the president said and i quote,

wages are up more than prices and inflation is down dramatically. is that true? >> yes, inflation is down to two-thirds. >> this is the first 37 months of the president's term. one of those is inflation and the other is real wage growth. which one do you think would be inflation? >> have you ever thought about labeling these lines? i'm sure you will tell us. >> it is the highest, the top line. inflation continues to grow at a pace faster than real wage growth. these numbers are pulled from your own federal agencies, the federal bureau of labor statistics. who is right and wrong here? the president of the united states or his federal bureau of labor statistics? >> we gave you a lot of proposals to help families with childcare costs, healthcare costs, to help families with -- >> the president's own words

are in conflict of his own agency so i'm just wondering, who's right here, the president of the united states or the federal agency that reports to him? >> inflation has come down two- thirds. there is more work to do and that is why we have the proposals in the budget. >> i thank the gentleman from indiana. as i yield five minutes to my colleague and friend from virginia, i say she is battling a health condition. we all know that and there are some limitations but she is fighting through that and i am inspired by her. there are people who make committee meetings, they don't make committee meetings. we are all busy people. she shows up. she shows up every time we have committee hearings and she represents her people and god bless her. the people she is representing are getting a hell of a deal with her, so thank you. >> [ applause ]

>> the floor is yours. >> as you know, i was diagnosed with psp, i kind of parkinson's on steroids which impacts my ability to speak. i am using an assistive applications you can understand me. i want to thank the chair, all of the members of the committee for allowing me to do so today. director young, it is good to see you again. thank you for being with us today. as you know, investments in childcare and prekindergarten education are critically important to grow our economy, bolster kids development and ensure families have the support they need to thrive. it is estimated the u.s. economy loses $122 billion a year to the childcare challenges . reliable childcare helps parents reenter or stay in the workforce which can generate $94,000 in lifetime earnings

for mothers. we must break down the cost of childcare which in my district costs many families more than public college tuition and ensure our kids are set up for lifelong success. i have been proud to advocate for policies to bring down the price of childcare and address the severe childcare shortage in the united states including securing funding for program in my district to expand the number of childhood educators. i was glad to see the major childcare and president biden's budget including a program to guarantee childcare for millions of low and middle income families. i have a three part question for you president biden's proposed plan. first, how will this program work? second, will the monthly cost of childcare be for most families under the president's plan? and third, what impact will

this have on women in the workforce and the overall economy? >> thank you. and to echo the chairman, thank you for being an inspiration to me. i touched on preschool a little with congresswoman schakowsky but we believe the budget reinforces preschool. it should be free and will be free for most families and most families will pay no more than $10 a day for childcare. as someone who relies on childcare and daycare every day, i wouldn't have this job if it wasn't for childcare and the ability to take my child somewhere, so we believe the research, i have personal experience to suggest women will be able to reenter the workforce at larger numbers if we gave them affordable quality childcare. too many families have to leave their children in places where frankly they don't feel comfortable doing so but they have little other choice.

second, you already fund a program that is helpful, but we believe we need the full childcare room. this budget keeps the discretionary program. this budget would add $1 billion from 2023 two headstart programs, both critical for families who need healthcare or childcare slots to make sure they can work and their children are properly taken care of. >> [ inaudible ] plan work we need to ensure that there are enough child care workers with knowledge of early childhood education and early develo >> thank you. finally, to make president ow biden's plan work, we need to ensure there are enough skilled

childcare workers with knowledge of early childhood education and development. how would the president's plan work to expand the pipeline of childcare professionals? >> one, we talked many times today about doubling pell grants to give people the ability to go to college and pursue a career in teaching. we have a proposal that would make community college free and those students who are given the opportunity to go to school and do it in an affordable way, not taking on enormous amount of debt, would be free to choose education as a career path. like my grandmother disproportionately chosen by women and we believe one of the ways that we can make sure people continue to choose that noble profession is to make sure college is affordable and

we have proposals to do that. >> your time has expired. again, for her steadfast commitment to this committee, to our constituents, and our great country, you -- we are all better off and well served. ben cline from virginia, i yield five minutes to you. >> thank you, mr. chairman and i would like to echo your comments about the gentle lady from virginia. you are blessed. you have four virginians on this committee, two on each side, and we bring with us a wealth of knowledge. the gentle lady and i worked together on the state level and appropriations and now we are together on the budget committee so there are lots of places we can agree and seek the betterment of people in this country, so director young, thank you very much for being here and as a former appropriations director, i want

to thank you for your service on that committee as well. as you know our country is currently on the hook for $34 trillion in debt with interest payments rising in the ranks to the second-highest government expense. the budget proposal proposed by the biden administration was one less opportunity to change course before the american people are presented with the opportunity to make the decision for him. instead the president has decided to double down on the same unsustainable tax policies that brought us to this point proposing a plan to further subject american families and producers to the so-called transitory inflationary pressures while increasing our national debt to $52 trillion. $52.7 trillion by 2034. with the past prologue, we can look to the last three years and see the bleak trajectory the biden proposal would take our nation. among the many troublesome policy proposals within this budget includes $4.9 trillion on new taxes. this would serve to slow our economy and put increased pressure on families and give

more license to spend beyond their means. perhaps one of the most incredulous tax proposals of the lot is the so-called minimum tax on assets and unrealized gains that would turn the irs into a glorified property assessor. director young, i don't know of a single country that has the sort of tax, do you? >> mr. klein, this tax as you pointed out would go after unrealized gains. i would point out those gains also not treated like income can be taken to a bank, used as collateral, and millions of dollars in loans against it. if you -- if it is good enough to use as that kind of collateral, shouldn't it be taxed like income? >> okay. if such attacks were created, what would stop the government from expanding it in the future to apply to middle-class

families in order to supplement its spending habits? >> this president, the one asking for it, as you know has an ironclad commitment. he is not going to sign a bill that taxes those making under $400,000 and certainly unrealized gains is only applied to billionaires and hundreds of millionaires, certainly not middle-class families. not even close to middle-class families. >> you are saying there isn't anything in the proposal that would stop that? >> our proposal stops billionaires and hundreds of millionaires. >> do you think those who can pivot can connect s.n.a.p. benefits? >> mr. cline, those that are eligible as you know, we as part of the deal painstakingly found ways to ensure those who were eligible in providing waivers, we have sought reforms

with republicans in ways that protected that program -- >> you think it is common sense? >> i am not aware of millionaires who are getting s.n.a.p. benefits. >> well, there is something called the broad-based categorical loophole that has resulted in over 5 million people who shouldn't -- who don't pass the asset test but are collecting s.n.a.p. benefits today. this is a big problem and that is why i introduced legislation to close this loophole and i would hope i could get the administration's support on that because millionaires should not be eligible or collecting s.n.a.p. benefits. i heard agreement on that. >> i said i'm not aware of anyone doing that, but i'm happy to look at that piece of legislation. >> thank you. in august of 2021, president biden's department of agriculture defined congressional intent and led to

a 20% increase of s.n.a.p. benefits $300 billion over 10 years. as a former pro staffer, do you think the president is justified in ignoring congress, expanding these programs to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars in violation of the 96 congressional review act which requires government agency to submit policy updates to congress? >> mr. cline , we have every authority for the food plan. >> that was a major policy change and you ignored the cra. correct? >> we have every legal ability to undertake that plan to provide hungry people with more resources. >> i disagree and yield back. thank you, director young. >> thank the gentleman from virginia and i yield to the gentleman from new york for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman and director young. i am keenly aware of your great

work on this side of congress and my efforts and your commitment to our nation. director young, you have seen an effort here to weaponize immigration once again as it happens every four years. we petal some narrative to try to get a vote, to try to get reelected, yet this is the budget committee. i will share with you some statements that we may have forgotten but i think we will all remember. i believe in the idea of amnesty for those that had put their roots and live here. 1984, ronald reagan. we must bring undocumented workers already in the country out of the shadows. george w. bush. rather george bush. george w. bush propose to sign into law a program to address

immigration. immigration is not a new thing. it has been dragging long for decades and this house has failed in its duties to address comprehensive immigration reform. to try to say that it is something that just happened now under the biden administration is an effort to weaponize it politically. they do that because they don't want to talk about daycare and childcare. they do that, director young, because the president's budget includes significant funding level for childcare. in your program, families making under $200,000 a year would guarantee affordable, high-quality daycare. daycare has become really expensive. in my district, it could be $700. it could be half or even at the

levels of rent every month. moms that want to go back to the workforce can't do it because it is so expensive, yet the president has addressed that in his budget. the other side fails to want to engage in this discussion. they want to talk about immigration because they are weaponizing it , as they do every four years. and so i want to ask you, director young, how important is this initiative that the president has included in his budget? funding child care for working families. >> if anyone has sent a child to child care in the last 10 years, i'm in the middle of it now, it is unaffordable. i don't have the words to quite outdo unaffordable, but if i had it, i would use that. we have a proposal that says some families wouldn't pay more than $10 a day for affordable,

quality childcare. in addition, the appropriations committee, there is a bipartisan program, a head start that has seen bipartisan support but to really affect the affordability prices we have to do something like the president's mandatory proposal so families are not burdened frankly with childcare and left with decisions where they have to leave their children in places that are not of quality and they cannot enter the workforce because of those decisions. >> another issue they don't want to talk about, they want to weaponize immigration, director young, and it's included in this budget. that's for head start staff and teachers. so important.

it's the longest surviving program since the 1960s and it literally gives kids a head start. talk to me about pay parity. how important is that? >> well, we can't recruit the teachers we need for head start. they are often not paid what a teacher could get going to a public kindergarten and we want quality teachers who have the certifications and -- in head start as we do in public school . we need the funding necessary to recruit quality, certified teachers to teach our kids, to give them a head start but if we don't get funding, we are going to lose slots. we have to make sure we fund this teacher proposal as well as provide enough to keep the slots. head start is only covering 650,000 kids now. it used to be much higher than that and i'm very worried that we don't keep up and will continue to lose

slots in that very critical program in communities like the one i am from. >> thank you. i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman from new york and i yield to my friend from virginia, mr. bob good for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you, director young for being back with us. it is astonishing that the president's most recent proposed budget actually increases over last year's record largest proposed budget ever. this budget proposes $4 trillion more in spending. some $5 trillion more in taxes on the american people. last time you were with us, you had a little trouble with this question. i assume you won't have trouble today. the national debt is how much now? >> as you know, $34 trillion. >> how quickly are we acquiring another $1 trillion now? >> if you -- i don't believe we

take on debt by average each day, but -- >> if it is increasing by $1 trillion every so -- how often? >> interest rates, as you know -- >> the debt is going up a trillion dollars how many days, weeks, months? are you aware of that? >> one of the cost drivers -- >> that's not what i'm asking. thank you. thank you. mr. chairman, thank you. you know how quickly the debt is going up by $1 trillion? >> i think we just -- >> i think that would be an important thing to know. about every 100 days or so, another trillion is being added to the diet. what will the debt for taxpayers be by the end of the president's projected 10 year budget? how much does an average citizen oh -- how much would each citizen oh in debt? >> mr. good, we don't tax citizens for debt . >> the projected budget will go

from $35 trillion roughly to how much by his projection? without extra supplemental, emergency, extra spending. by his projection and his budget how much is he proposing to take the national debt to over 10 years from the 34, 35 to how much in 10 years? >> first, mr. good, debt is cumulative . >> i am asking for number. >> mr. chairman, if -- is the witness allowed to answer the question without constantly being interrupted? >> the clock is running. >> we will give you more time. he is asking a question, director young. answer his question to the best of your ability. if you don't know, say you don't know and we will keep going. >> let me re-ask my question. it is in writing. at the end of the president's proposed budget the national debt in 10 years will be how much? >> i want a dollar.

not an explanation. >> if you look -- >> let me stop you again. the only thing i want to hear is a dollar amount. let me stop you. this is my time. $52 trillion. $52 trillion is what his proposed budget is. i didn't make it up. it's in writing. would go from $34 trillion-$52 trillion in 10 years. what does that equate to per citizen? if we take 300 -- it is estimated we will have 350 million americans in 10 years. 350 million. if you take a $52 trillion divided by 350 million americans, how much per citizen is that? >> mr. good, that is -- >> it is a math question. >> if we take $52 trillion and divided by 350 million americans that comes out to how much? how much do we owe?

>> i'm not playing into this narrative. >> let me answer the question for you. $150,000 per citizen is what the president is projecting without any emergency supplemental or extra spending to take on the national debt. that is what he is projecting, which equates to $400,000 per household by his projection. we've never had this level of debt in history. we've never had this level of debt to gdp since world war ii . i'm sure you are aware of that. how would the president propose we respond to a major crisis, like world war iii, or the next virus situation or what ever with this level of debt? how would he respond? >> what about what's going on in ukraine or the middle east? >> isn't it interesting -- i am reclaiming my time. i'm reclaiming my time. mr. chairman, i am reclaiming my time because i have a question now. it's interesting that the first thing you proclaim is a crisis

is what's going on in ukraine. i would submit the president has created a debt crisis and he proposes to make it worse over the next 10 years because he wants to increase the debt by $18 trillion and has created a border crisis further exacerbated by this budget, by the way, which does nothing to address the border crisis he has created yet when you speak of crisis you bring up ukraine because the president wants to borrow or print, what, $60 billion and send it overseas to ukraine. i think it is great you are illustrating for the american people what this president's priorities are both illustrated by his budget today and your inability to answer basic questions about the budget today and the impact upon the american people by the debt he is willfully created and you go right to ukraine. >> 30 seconds. >> thank you. >> the gentleman will get 30 more seconds and i will give the director time to respond. 30 more seconds.

>> does the president have an understanding what the impact is of his spending, deficits, growing it -- that? does he understand the impact of his spending, borrowing, printing, his debt that is causing the biden inflation under which the american people are suffering? does he understand that? >> with that, the gentleman's time has expired and you have as much time as you want to respond. >> thank you. i understand why they don't want to give the president credit for all of the jobs added. i get that. i get the grandstanding but if you want to do something about the border which i've heard a lot about, there was a bill right in front of congress to provide resources and authorities more than anybody could have dreamed of. >> the amnesty bill? >> we chose to come to rooms like this to talk about the budget and last the president who tried to do something about it. >> you are the budget director. >> listen.

i've got the mic. the border has a cost. it is fair to bring it up . your time has expired. now you have the floor for five minutes to talk about whatever she would like to. >> thank you, mr. chair. thank you, director young for being here. we truly appreciate both your professionalism and your expertise. you are not new to the hill. we appreciate the time that you have given us today. i have a question. we just heard this back and forth about the debt. was kind of hard to tease out the parts because there was quite a bit of talking over your answers. my understanding is that president trump added $8.4 trillion to the debt and i'm wondering if i had that correct. >> you do and the point i would like to make is it is cumulative over

administrations. >> and do you know was that the largest increase in the debt in modern history? >> in modern history, yes. >> thank you. i appreciate that direct answer. one of the things i talk a lot about a lot in this community is housing, not just because it is greatly impacting vermonters . we have the second highest rate per capita of homelessness in the nation, which is surprising because we are a rural state but i like to bring it up in this community because it is something that cuts across party line. it doesn't matter what congressional district you are representing, you have probably experienced a housing crisis and it is a growing crisis in rural america and so across the country, we have seen skyrocketing rates. we have seen predatory landlords and hedge funds buying up half a million homes. for me, i think of housing as the basis of stability for families and so it enables children to thrive. it enables people to get better

healthcare outcomes. and i know we can end homelessness through more humane cost-effective solutions that ensure everyone has access not just through permanent housing but with supportive services and i'm wondering if you could this morning tell us how does the president's budget advance those goals of ending homelessness through more permanent supportive housing so people stay housed? >> so when we talk about lowering costs, which i think i've heard agreement that we need solutions. the president has put forward many proposals on housing and i would like to talk about first- time homebuyers and home seller tax credit of $10,000 over two years would improve affordability for middle-class first-time homebuyers. it also unlocks starter home inventory. it helps middle- class families locked in because of rates. we know rates

will come down over two years. this will be a two year bridge. those middle-class families can move into larger homes. they will also unlocks starter homes. $10 billion in funding for new first generation down payment assistance program. we believe that is critical. we know most americans hold wealth through homeownership. my family being one of them is a way to the middle class is to own a home and to address the critical shortage of affordable housing communities the budget provides $20 billion in funding for innovation funds for housing which would be a competitive grant program for communities that want to expand housing supply. so these are -- this is critical . part of, you know, lowering costs, what families will tell you they are hurting over his housing costs. we need more housing supply,

more affordable housing. these proposals would do that. >> people discount the impact that a program like down payment assistance can really have on helping people build up equity. i know that was true when i was in my state legislature. i remember being in a committee meeting with members of my committee saying well, does this really make a difference to offer a down payment assistance program? it was a successful in vermont, we reauthorized it numerous times because the rate was incredible. it gives people an opportunity to get new homes and build up equity. i am wondering too if you could just touch a little bit on the housing supply issue. there is a critical need right now. how does the president's budget address the shortage and supply over all because it is locking up basically at every level of the housing market? >> the $20 billion i spoke about , if communities wanted to apply for those grants and take

on the zoning challenges and many of the local challenges that there are to affordable housing, this would allow communities to take their own local approach. each has their own issues as to why they can't build enough housing and that is why we would have a competitive program so people could send in proposals that work for them and work with our housing agencies to develop things that fit for your communities. >> i appreciate it. i know i am over time. i just wanted to say how important it is for me that the president and administration understand the housing impacts the entire economy and this is a way for us to have solid footing for individuals, families, communities and i appreciate the attention to this issue. thank you, director young. >> miss balint, i lost control of the clock a long time ago

but that's okay. we need to make our points. they are important. my friend, the general, the highest ranking officer in the house and my classmate from michigan, take it over. >> thank you, mr. chairman. as a marine, i am used to high intensity situations. this is not one of them. as i have listened here, it reminds me of a time about 40 years ago, i was probably five years into the private sector medical market and i had the opportunity to work for a wonderful leader and boss who believed all of life could be boiled down to analogies of two types, sports and family living . so, let's talk about, you know, family living. 10 years after he made that statement to me, so 30 years ago, i had a chance to realize when going through a tough part of our family life, we realized

that i know when no communication is going on because i was sitting with my then soon-to-be ex-wife figuring out how to end a long- term marriage when kids were involved. i would suggest to you that the kids -- when we think about what we have talked about here, i have been trying to put myself in the mind of my daughters at the time, who are 16, what they would think of the conversation here. how would it apply to them? i think there is probably not a person in this room that doesn't say that what we are trying to do here is for the betterment of our kids or our grandkids. so i would suggest to you until in this case we figure out a way to repair the relationship between the parents, which in this case is the executive branch and the legislative branch and all that are within each, we are still going to go

further down the abyss to where we can't climb out. so, i would just suggest to all of my colleagues that we stop with the rhetoric that doesn't add value to what we are leaving for our kids, our grandkids, and our great grandkids and whatever future generations. i think we can all do better. first term when the chairman mentioned that some of us that were freshman eight years ago were on budget committee, there was a data point in front of us. you can tax the wealthy. 100%. doesn't come anywhere near what we need to begin grabbing fiscal control of our country for the betterment of our people . i would suggest we could probably stop with that. so,

let's get now -- you know, i have sucked up three minutes of oxygen here of my time, but you know, let's -- this cycle has created taskforces. i had the honor of leading the task force on improper payments so i would like to focus on that for the remainder of my time. let me read something here. despite improper payments totaling more than $236 billion in fiscal year 2023, up from $150 billion in 2017 alone, the president's budget does not propose a governmentwide effort to begin to solve the issue. i'm not saying we are going to completely solve it, but begin to take a deep look. so, what specific actions is omb taking to improve the accuracy and the efficiency of payment systems to reduce the rate of improper payments?

>> one, thank you for your remarks, congressman. i believe you tell me what our children would be left with and we have an opinion on that as well and a respectful dialogue is happy to fix these problems in the country. as you know the program is one of the largest drivers in improper payments. the thing that makes that difficult, these are state run. >> let's look at the federal level. let's talk at the federal level. . we are seeing some traction and here in our own backyard. >> in our budget we have significant new proposals, second year asking for them. see something traction in committees of jurisdiction to move on legislation. we have a proposal that will

save $2 billion by modernizing and protecting and strengthening the ui program. i am saying there is a federal responsibility. the defendanty is that each state runs a difficult one. >> okay. difficultly is that each state runs a difficult one. >> i know my time passed and i don't want to abuse the time but unless we look at, in one example, the fraud related to covid pandemic that is federal. we are missing an opportunity and with that i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman from michigan. and director young. we passed the first bipartisan process reform budget process reform legislation in a decade out of this committee and then this week on the floor. and mrs. omar, my colleague served as the ranking member. i got to say. >> i heard this. >> better watch your back, man.

she was good. it was efficient. i appreciate her leadership. >> i fully support her promotion. i think it will be unanimous. >> that is only because you sat here for so long next to me. [ laughter ] >> mrs. omar you have five minutes. >> thank you, chairman. i don't want to get in trouble so i will say as the vice ranking. director it is really good to see you again, thank you very much for joining us. i want to talk a little bit about addressing the opioid crisis that we are seeing throughout the country. especially in my district. according to the cdc the national overdose rate topped over 100,000 deaths again in 2023. federal spending teon the crisi

has s surged with roughly 40% s more dollars flowing to our states. states like minnesota have recently been allocated hundreds of millions for opioid overdose prevention as well. while all of this funding has helped, there is still much more to be done. that is why it was encouraging to see the president's budget request continuing to prioritize vital investment. it prevents substance misuse and provides treatment and recovery support director young can you outline the new proposals that can support our state and community in the frontlines of this epidemic. >> i don't think there is anyone here who would disagree we have to use every tool at

our disposal to do something about the opioid epidemic. this president put forward robust budget. this president is nashowing it his priority to do something about this epidemic, congresswoman, $44.5 for the international drug control agencies and almost $900 million increase over continuing resolution level funding. this boget prioritizes expanding harm reduction, expanding access to treatment for substance abuse disorder. overdose combating narcotics networks, fentanyl at the border. disrupting the international drug trade. i know we have gotten into a little back and forth on the border bill. one place that always had support was in the president's border supplemental request to put more of the equipment,

putting it at the land ports of entry to catch fentanyl from coming into our border. i hope we can find a way to do something about this. >> thank weyou very much. i hope so. i hope so, too. i want to talk a little bit about the housing shortage as well. many of our communities are experiencing. i am glad that this budget proposal keeps pushing for pro housing policies especially at a time when the dream of homeownership seems increasingly unreachable. to address our housing shortage we must build more affordable housing .and more different on types of housing. this idea is the core of my homes for all act. investing billions of dollars in development of permanent affordable public and private housing units with a focus on mitigating residential

displacement and segregation. congress can and must lead here. since it has done before by delivering funds to our public housing authorities. the federal government once directly help build so much housing. we renovated and repaired homes and provided subsidies to increase homeownership on the massive scale. it is time to repeal the amendment and get back to directly assisting our low calities with developing and guaranteeing -- localities with developing and guaranteeing it for all. can you tell us what the administration is prioritizing to improve affordable housing stock. >> again, inflation is moderated two thirds. but, families are still struggling. one place is housing, lack of affordable housing that is why this president says lowering the cost is theme and housing

is second. helping first time homeowners and middle class families with tax credits who might be locked in with low interest rates who need a bigger house for a surprised third child. first time homeowners need more housing stock. there budget would do something about that to allow a two-year tax credit. also, $20 billion in funding to have municipalities apply. if they have a zone problem. use the funding to do something about that. build affordable housing. we know every solution is different depending where you live. we look forward to working with those who want to take on those pieces of legislation. >> wonderful. i know a little bit about that surprise third child. i felt like that was directed at me. >> it wasn't, actually >> but i appreciate the concern and care that is given to increasing more affordable

housing both in ownership and just in stock. thank you very much. >> i thank the gentlelady >> thank oyou in advance for your phone call and conversation earlier in the week. appreciate you very much doing that. li i have been focal about this. a lot of what we are doing here is talking about ideology and different views on how you accomplish various things. and i hate to see us rely consistently and argue back and forth on congressional budget numbers. budget numbers that are consistently wrong. we had director here and we conveniently use those numbers when they help us and we dismiss them when they don't. that is true of both sides. so, while i respect that you have your opinions on how to

solve some of the challenges facing america, you know, many of us on the other side see things differently. one thing that i want to address right off of the bat, because i think it is really important, is this discussion on social security, okay? we will have the new administrator in today to talk, in our subcommittee about that and i am the chairman to that to discuss the budget. look forward to that discussion. let's be real about the rhetoric and the commentary around social security right now. we hear constantly from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle and we have seen nothing but really harsh language from president biden over social security. constantly. okay. and first of all i can tell you as chairman of social subcommittee there are no cuts to those in social security

benefits to those retireris and near retirement. i said that consistently. we have to be honest about what we are doing and how we are talking enabout it. it will be a bipartisan solution. it will require adjustments to the program. and that includes adjustments to revenue. i think we are realistic in that discussion. so, i would just make this simple request that we, that we have an honest discussion. give you an example. the president has really hammered us and hammered republicans with a false narrative that we want to cut social security. in this very budget, in this very budget you are going to cut social security payroll tax receipts by $17 billion over the 10 year period. how do you square that? i mean we have -- we have a

huge spending problem at social security administration, when you look at this, this budget cut $17 billion. >> as an effort to take you up on your creed and honesty in budgeting, that is pure interaction with the tax policies in the president's budget. not a cut, not policy decision it is interwacks the revenue p proposal. >> doesn't that move money away from recipients down the road. >> it does not compared to the sheer amount of money that comes into the social security. payroll taxes are around $15 trillion. we are talking about a small amount based on revenue proposals interaction. also it does not take into account the president's ask that we ask high income americans to pay more into the social security program. >> in a roundabout way you kind of said yes, i will take that, sometimes you hear, you say

what you want to say i hear what i want to hear. i think we all heard it takes revenue away 97 your words a smaller amount. look. as you know, your colleague from treasure, secretary yellen is at the senate having her discussions with the senate panel. in that oshe had an exchange with senator kennedy. in that she said, secretary, when kennedy was going down the road what is the number generated by raising epayroll taxes on people making over $400,000? and in essence she said the president does not have a plan, he his principals. he wants to work with congress to protect social security and extend its solvency. there is no plan. when we get, when the president makes a campaign issue out of

social security his own treasure secretary says he does not have a plan, this, there goes to the problem that i am talking about with social security which is, really tough word comes out of his mouth but he does not even have a plan according to his own treasure secretary. again, mr. chairman i know we are out of time. i just hope on an important issue like this that we put down, we put down the political swords, we drop the rhetoric, we work in a bipartisan way to get the system as clean and efficient as topossible and the as we do that let's find a way to protect this great program together. i yield back. >> i associate myself with gentleman from georgia in eliminating the issues as a

political foughter and bringing them together for something great and important that is good step for our seniors and our country. it is a good segue to gentleman who has been a leader on bipartisan effort to address the safety net issues, programs, rather, and the long- term viability of our country's finances. with that, jimmy penetti from california. >> thank you, thank you for your intersection. director young good to have you back and good to see you. i thought i was special that i had a phone call with you until i heard my good friend from georgia had one too. that says not a lot just about him but you, that you were willing to reach out to member and know how important member engagement is. thank you very much for your prioritizing member intersection. that we have always had based

on my interaction with you. >> today we want to talk about priorities and regulations. i wish we could be dealing with 2025 instead of 2024 six months late. i want to say a word that probably only you and one other person in this room and myself will .5understand and that is - [indiscernible] thank you, thank you for what you have done. in securing emergency repair money to the river project. i appreciate that. and applaud the administration for making strong investments in something that is very, very important to my district and that is affordable housing, tax

incentives. this arbijt increases medicare trust fund and i believe that we must do the same thing for social security by putting forward concrete solutions. what i have rete solutions. seen in this committee in that fiscal responsibility, thanks to leadership of the chairman, and ranking member that fiscal responsibility is a priority. now, as you heard, i firmly expbl most members of the committee support a creation of a fiscal commission to draft the plan to get our fiscal house in order and that hopefully it is one that congress will take a vote on. now, i know there has been skepticism for the fiscal commission. trust me. i heard it in my district. if there are other ways to clear the political hurdles needed for deficit reduction, i am well open to hearing about them. today, today i commend you on this budget that i believe sets a good example for fiscal

responsibility. now, as i fsaid, in my distric housing is the top issue. i was pleased to see the first time homeowners that can help families afford the higher cost of homes in districts like mine. i introduced legislation to create a tax credit for eligible first time home buyers and making it available at the point of sale. i think that is an important aspect of that bill. director, why >>is it important to have these types of credits in this budget to encourage homeownership? >> most people, as you know, while they may be able to afford a mortgage need help with anyone who has bought a house knows the expense needed up front. and these credits allow them during their tax season to get a lot of that money back if this was adopted. it is a simple of we want more people to own homes, we need to

provide this tkind of credit. especially for first time homeowners who, as we know, people who bought second and third homes gets to use what they made on those homes to move into a larger home. first time homeowners do not have that ability. >> exactly, thank you. i introduced legislation that prioritizes low income tax credits but i want you to be aware of a piece of legislation that i introduced called the workforce housing tax credit. many people in my district who work and can't make too much to afford low income housing. we need the incentives for middle income housing and that is why we developed the workforce tax credit and more homes on the market bill. doubles the cap, doubles the exception for capital games to incentivize people who want to sell their home and protect their nest egg. yesterday i was speaking to a

group that finance low income housing and noticed hod promoted regulations to streamline permitting but they need approval from omb. how can they play a part in the permitting requirements? >> i have to look at that specific crule if it is at omb as you know, we often are a place where agency rules and guidance come in to make sure they are one that they have other agencies have had a o chance to look at them and inner agency process. i am happy to look at that particular piece e and make sur that it is on track. >> understand. outstanding, thank you, director. >> i thank the gentleman from california, now yield five minutes to my friend from the great state of texas. chip roy. thank you for appearing and for

your service. a couple of questions, the first question, with respect to revenue assumptions under the president's budget. i believe and have that it assumes revenue 19.7% of jdp year over year over the course of a window, is that correct? >> that is correct. i believe it goes up. >> yes. >> assumes 19.7% over the window. >> yes. >> one year in 2031. it assumes 20% gdp. my question, putting aside debates over tax policy and what it does or does not do. we can have a debate on that, a hearing on that, true or false, though, 20% of gdp revenue to the federal treasure has never actually been a cleaved? >> right. in the 2001, . >> it was close. >> yes.

19%. yes. this budget i.assumes 20% in 2031. and 19.7% would you agree that we only achieved something in that zip code three times on our history. post world war ii, you roughly describe around 2000, 2001 and then in 2022. i think 2021, somewhere around there. we achieved 19.6% as a percentage of gdp as revenue coming to the treasure would you agree with that roughly? >> yes, with the time frames you laid out, yeah. >> my point is, not withstanding that reality that the budget the president put forward and that you are here defending a revenue at 19.7%. we only achieved three times in history. at spikes, right? spikes on the chart if you hold a chart up. i got one on my screen but not to show you. but you have seen it. spiked up three times at that level. we got it going up as high as

20%, that we never achieved t. begs wthe question of tax poli that can achieve such a thing. tax rates as high as 90%, we so had them lower, we have had, it has been all over the entirety of that history. all over the place. so, we can debate that. but my question to you is not withstanding those assumptions, that would be the revenue that needs to be brought in to achieve the budget, that produces a large amount of deficit spending, the truth is with respect to interest, right? we will pass defense spending, is that correct? >> yes, by a little bit. >> and a trillion in 2026 according to the president's

budget. >> yes. >> every iyear of this propose budget it is expected to be greater than defense spending over the course of that entirety of that 10 year budget, is that correct something. >> you know it depends where interest rates are. they are a great variable. but our estimates are it will go up. >> right. every year in the budget. in the whole budget, the whole budget is an estimate. >> yes. so my point is if you look at the deficit and total amount of debt, all of that is under the rosiest revenue model we can possibly come up with, not possibly but a rosie revenue plodel as a percentage of gdp coming into the treasure. so, that to me is concerning because history would tell you, right, that the average amount of revenue coming in is 17.5%. i say that and one last point.

today we got 24-hours to review this spending deal, over 1,000 pages and we have to decide in the next 24-hours to support it. you can guess if i will support it or not. as we look ahead and look at the bill my question for you is just this, you came to the negotiating tables along with the president of the united states and administration with a certain set of priorities. and, republican leadership and the house of representatives came to the negotiating and chuck schumer with a certain set of priorities, yesterday i saw the highlights from my democratic colleagues, no poison pills on lbgtq or increase child money, dod climate, humanitarian assistance, increase title 1 funding, rejected hr2 provisions, would you say that you achieved the priorities that you wanted to achieve and

the president wanted to achieve in your negotiations with the spending bill? >> i know we are over but in my most thoughtful way and i really mean this. is this the bill we would have written if it was not a divided government? absolutely not. i think this bill and i mean this is a reflection of divided government and a certainly hope it passes because the alternative is avoidable shutdown and i appreciate neither side got what they want if you ask this side, they are unhappy with a lot of things, too. >> yield. >> i thank the gentleman from texas. yield to the great state of texas, sheila jackson-lee for five minutes. >> first of all let me thank the director for years of service to this nation. we don't often get to speak positively to a person that is

young but has a long history of service. we thank you for having that kind of record. and expert enough of knowing this side, trying to put together a budget and assessing the executive budget. it is all about revenue and to be able to ensure that we have enough revenue coming in. so, first i want to make a point i like gospel music and in the aftermath of the george floyd horrific killing, a young black boy, either sang or wrote a song that said "i just want to live." passionate emotional song. i commend you to put up on youtube or however. it is a theme that i want to use.

that we are not trying to create an atmosphere where american families, no matter where they started in life are just surviving. just barely making it. what we are looking for is the capacity to say you are thriving. so, my first question is, give me a sense, not very long because my time is short, of our revenue source to be able to match the president's vision and budget that makes us feel comfortable to go forward. >> one, this budget would pay for all of the president's new investments to help families thrive as you say, to have childcare, paid leave, in this e, paid leave, country and also achieve $3.2 trillion in deficit reduction because he does ask the wealthiest in this country to pay more.

in some of the proposals congresswoman, not even back to levels before the 2017 tax law. so, we are providing a path to show people we can invest in the american people and also achieve deficit reduction. >> what you would be doing is that american families would be thriving as opposed of just surviving. >> i would hope that is all of our goals as we sit in these seats. putting forth proposals that meet the bill to allow middle class and working families to thrive >> one of rathe numbers that i have is corporations paying their fair share. every time we use that terminology is like we are attacking corporate america. and, this is one country that corporations flock to be able to come and build their growth. and i have a number that says big corporations pay their fair share and numbers mayor vary

$2.2 trillion. that may be a number that can move the budget including a proposal for so-called billionaires income tax that would not be painful but require the top 1% of o households or those over worth $100 million to pay a minimum tax of 25%. let t me pose the question of h extensive will our commitment be to protecting medicare and medicaid, two different lines of payment, not payment, but two different lines of treatment if you will. medicare versus medicaid. how would we, would we strengthen both of these in the president's budget? >> medicare the proposal would sustain medicare and improve indefinitely. again. the wealthiest top 1% would go from paying 3.8% to 5%, a 1.2%

difference. that would take the medicare trust fund into solvency indefinitely. that is not the president's numbers those are the cms, the professionals, the career team that look at that. and so, we believe that expanded health care and medicaid and affordable care act is good for the country and good for the people of the country and we have a budget that would expand upon that. >> part of us thriving is good health care that has been our achiles heel for a long time. let me collectively get you to give me a collective answer. we want better housing, we want childcare, that is one of my issues. and, housing, affordable housing, made a commitment, give me that as you close your remarks and i have no more time on the housingability and childcare. >> childcare, energy costs, all of those things that middle class and working families need

help with in this country this budget would do it and pay for it. >> all right. i think that is clearly a budget that has the words "thriving" versus "surviving" i am standing with the president's budget. we will find a way to move forward on moving america and america's families forward. lastly i will just say, moving people out of poverty. i want people who are poor to know we are concerned about their status of poverty. thank you very much. i yield back. >> time has expired. chair recognizes gentleman from utah with questions. >> thank you, chairman. >> director young i have been here two terms. other than witness that have a natural reason to chat with them. you are the only person to reach out. sorry this week not to be able to make that call scheduled pui appreciate it. you may be able to tell my, we

had massive catastrophic cold this week to which my wife refers erto as a man cold where she says everybody has to know about it, too, which i am doing and fulfilling that prophesy at this very moment. i do appreciate that. and i look forward to as much dialogue as possible at and moments that we get to do that. it means a lot. back to my cold. i get to that point where when you have weeks like this it is a no nonsense moment and to me it has been mentioned several times -- i have been really disappointed in a few weeks leading up to it but the weeks after we passed the fiscal commission act to see so much of the fear mongering going on. trying to get something done. we all recognize we have a

massive problem if we don't get ahead of our deficit woes that persisted for 25 plus years. and it has been really, really frustrating to watch. i don't really need you to expand on it. not something that you would vote on and may not be heavily involved to what extent but my ask to you, would you be willing to commit to cut through all of the nonsense that is going on, the fear mongering that it is a cut, and to the right it is a way to sneak away and increase it. none of us want to sneak any taxes, my questions are all about tax. would you be willing to commit to at least dialoguing in a nonpolitical tone among the folks that you interact with. >> you have my commitment to do that. look, there are different ways to dialogue. i appreciate some of the

hearings have, you know, it is five minutes, it is five minutes of back and forth. it does not really lend itself to real dialogue. but, i am open to having a conversation with you longer. i have lots of ideas on things i have been around. and, you have my commitment to always be available for those conversations. so i question yellen one time, she responded it is such an easy way to grasp tax policy. prior to the tcga taxes, among main businesses were 35% range, lowered them to 28, 21. it is easy to split the difference, do you have any analysis to point or prove that raising the corporate tax rate in this current climate, in this current environment will not impose burdens on low and middle class americans and not put our companies at a disadvantage globally by

raising that tax rate up 7%. >> so, thank you, congressman. one, we used to have about 2% of your gdp from corporate tax rates, we are down 1%. other global economies that are in our peer group have 3% of their gd, from corporate tax rates. we believe we are under achieving. we also have to remember something secretary yellen has worked on. some countries have taken us up on that proposal. our budget asked congress to do that. we believe it prevents companies from looking to off shore. to hurt our american workers. and countries have done that and signed on to make sure you can not go to a third country and hide from your tax obligations, we think those proposals mean we ensure our corporations don't off shore, which they are doing today, and

they pay what they are supposed to and we bring our tax rates es up to its historic norm. not even what the other countries are doing >> my biggest fear it becomes an arbitrary number and split the difference. i know there is industry out there that skirt by and others are going to be hit really hard with a 28% tax increase. >> these are good hardworking americans, brick and mortar companies that will be effected. i want to ask one more thing. 99% of businesses are categorized as small businesses, 500 or fewer employees. they do their taxes on an individual basis. raising the tax rate to exactly 39.6% will that effect these small businesses in that is how they do their taxes and so many companies do? >> we don't believe so. speaking of this president's policy over the last three years he committed to small

businesses. we believe his policies are the reason. we have seen over 16 million new business opcasions filed during the first three years and we are committed. our budget speaks to this. i know you are short on time. i will not go into our proposals but we are truly committed. you are truly committed what we are talking about is the high value, higher earning corporate, not small businesses. >> we are on a strong economic recovery. we still have tcga in place. i want to make sure that point is made. that can not be overlooked. thank you, chairman, apologize for going over. >> thank you, gentleman from kansas recognize five minutes for questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. director young i want to thank you for being with us here today to answer our questions and try to provide insight into the president's budget request. before i talk about some of the

budget things i wanted to correct the record on something. i guess you stated to representative cline the president would not raise taxes on those making under $400,000. but he signed a bill raising taxes on those. in fact according to the budget office and the committee. the inflation reduction raised taxes by over $4 billion. i ask to enter the letter this dated august 25th, 2022. to ranking member brady and ranking member jason smith. >> no objections, so ordered. you know, it is not really a concern that some of my republican colleagues have major concerns about the proposal we are talking about today from the antigrowth tax increases to expanding the dc

bureaucracies. there is a lot for heus not to like in the budget. but i want to focus my questions on something that at least outside of the hearing is something that i think there is bipartisan support that is growing and that is namely addressing our fiscal crisis and where we are. director young i am sure you are aware we are borrowing -- a second. for the household income. so, you know, in just, literally one second the federal debt increased $95,000. democrats and republicans all agree it is a dangerously unsustainable. i am part of a group that is working to address this. and even some of my colleagues talked about this devastating problem. yet there is not any greeningful way to address this crisis. even worse, the president proposed taxip creases which

are not even off setting the new spending that he is pro possing. it seems like the man is to have a continued deficit and continuing growing debt. i know that sometimes in the dc double speak it is easy to say that the president likes to talk about his deficit. it is reduced n. reality, though, just because you propose a large deficit that is less than a larger deficit that had been proposed before. that is not a cut. it still increases the debt. and, in fact, our national debt is going to increase to 52.2 trillion in 10 years based on this budget from a already staggering $34.5 trillion. so, can you help us understand where the president's priorities are on our fiscal health of the nation and particularly why he did not propose balancing the budget >> congressman, one, i want to

make sure we are not -- the president when he began. the debt is $1 trillion lower than when he began. >> let's not confuse the covid spending that were agreed to for that disaster. when i look at, if we take out covid and we take out the extra spending there. we just look for the next 10 years from what the president, president biden has proposed. it actually is increasing the debt. he is spending more money every year than he is bringing in. >> congressman from the amount that was being spent out lays in the government when this president took office to now there has been over $1 trillion reduction. i appreciate you don't want to count that base because we are in the middle of covid, just as you don't want to do that i don't want people to forget where he were.

ensured we had one of the strongest economic recoveries than any other major economy in this world. >> well, he was the beneficiary of operation warp speed that president trump put in place and that started rolling out before president biden came into office and was actually helping make that economy get rt started. and i think we can all agree. alexander hamilton brought up, necessity for borrowing during an emergency can not be doubted. i am just looking forward. over the next 10 years, the president looks and proposes increasing our debt instead of lowering the debt. >> yeah. in five seconds i will say he has shown a path. there is disagreement how we get there by asking the wealthiest to pay more. over $3 trillion deficit reduction and the risk is you asked me about a balanced budget. the risk is, that programs like

social security, medicare, medicaid, affordable care act, those are where the government has most of the outlays if you want to balance in a short amount of time there is no other place to go but for those to come down. >> i know my time has run out. the debt does increase that is the fact of the matter is. the fact of the matter is. debt over the next 10 years. my time has run out i will yield back. >> the chair recommends the. >> i i want to point out a coup things. president biden's budget seems to cater ndto the fridges of th party without taking into consideration what is best for the american people. just this week the epa announced a new rule forcing consumers to buy electric vehicles over gas and it is flawed for so many reasons. i am from a rural area.

first of all the electric grid may not be able to handle all of these changes. increase our reliance on china as they control the ev battery and mineral supply chain. auto industry made it clear this plan will hurt them. and this kind of switched me actually be nearly impossible for rural america. where people regularly drive long distances and fewer charging stations and there is a real concern about the performance of the batteries in cold weather. we saw that not that long ago. so, i am kind of curious as to how much of the funding in the president's budget between the increases for the epa and the department of energy will be used to produce agency rules that remove every day consumer goods such as the gas powered cars, gas stoves, gas furnings from the marketplace. it seems like there have been a lot of rules that are effecting people like with those kinds of

things? >> congresswoman. the bill released last night that hopefully you will be voting on friday, i think it speaks to the fact that no one will be banning gas stoves. >> then take that part of it out. okay, what are the rules going to be on the cars we will take the gas stoves out of it >> epa finalized i think you are referring to the tail pipe rule. from an ntinvestment standpoint ensuring that communities have the charging stations they need to make this transition because we believe climate change is a crisis to the budget. look how much we spent on disasters, that we are putting the infrastructure in place to make sure we do something about climate change. >> but does it address at all those issues that i mentioned? driving long distances, performance of a battery.

i saw it on the news two months ago gei think it was. where these batteries were not performing and people were stuck and could not get them charged. there are huge issues with those. but these departments and the question was, about how much are they going to commit to those writing this rules and maybe you just talk about in general because there has been just so many rules that are banning things and really getting at things because obviously they can not get them passed through congress. >> i just -- i just think what i said the questions are specific on tail pipe rule i will let epa explain its own rule. i will say as far as infra structure we do have budget space through the inflation reduction tooct make sure we have the intrastructure to deal with the issues you pointed out. people who need more charging stations. i am from a town of less than

2,000. we want to see that infrastructure. rural communities should not be left behind. last time i went to my home state i saw charging stations in places frankly i never thought i would see charging stations. that work is happening. all across this country. there is more to do and we are committed to making those investments. >> will there be -- in the budget that the president has proposed, does it allow -- i mean -- how much of it will be used to write the rules that infringe on people's ability to make consumer choices >> we don't believe our actions infringe. we think they improve different points of life for americans, specifically tail pipe. it will lead to hugely to the need to address emissions in this country and i appreciate there are a difference of opinions but also health outcomes of children who suffer

from asthma, there is a reason that lung association and other supported that rule. but agency budgets are in here that support rule making, epa's operations account. certainly supports employees. >> i will have to reclaim my time. yep. >> and i almost out of time i was not paying attention. how much, there is, there is obviously these switches if it be gas stove, battery, evs. how does the president's budget account for the cost to the consumer to those middle class families because evs are still very expensive. the cost of changing a stove over or any of those items is expensive. >> no one has any intention of banning gas stoves. but, yes, but that is why the

inflation reduction act provided tax credits for americans who want to buy it -- >> if they can not afford it. if they can not begin to afford it? tax credits are one thing but they can not start to afford these things. and i don't understand how we are going to continue to impose these ridiculous rules and things on to people. i am out of time. >> time has expired. time to recognize the gentleman from oklahoma for five minutes for questions. >> thank you mr. chairman. i think i jumped in front of the chairman on that. thank you very much. director young. appreciate you being here. i want to provide some quotes from former president bill clinton. a decade ago he stated he raised the corporate taxes. i raised the corporate tax to international average to make a contribution to drive down the

debt, end of quote. similarly, in 1993, president clinton advocating for the btu tax in his own words he said, as the best way to provide us with revenue to lower the deficit. so, you notice in both of the quotes one was i am doing this about the debt, deficit. democrats once held the goal of reducing deficit load in tax decreases. this budget that you are managing over, the leader of the democratic party wants to increase taxes but i don't see it being used at all to reduce the deficit. let me back it up. according to the cbo the debt held by the public will increase by $18 trillion if nothing changes from current spending habits. with this plan, biden plan, $5 trillion raised in taxes. tax increases, yet the $18

trillion over the 10 year window will also occur. that means with y'all's budget, biden's budget. tax budget born by americans will go to increase spending but does nothing to address deficits and debt. so, i appreciate anyone who wants to talk about hypocrisy among g the republican party, i welcome that. i will say it tactfully, i just, this is a -- where did the ideology for bill clinton, a democrat president go where once upon a time we want tax increases, debt reduction is needed. biden said show me your budget and i will show you the values. the biden administration values in this are clear, i don't see deficit and debt reduction as a

part of true emphasis. radical tax and spend, no deficit reduction. when democrat leaning constituents ask me why we don't raise taxes i go through some stats to back up what has been twisted about what they are told. according to the tax foundation, the top 1% already pay 46%. top revenue coming into the fed. 26% born by the top 1%. further, you take the top 50% of all income earners. that means the bottom 50% of income earners pay 2.3% of all taxes. so, this tax the wealthy mentality, we tgot to make sur that people understand the stats and the truth of the stats. democrats in oklahoma think that this administration would raise taxes to address debt

loading. this budget shows that debt and deficit reduction is not really a priority for y'all. radical ideology that is leading this administration and it saddens me. again i ask you, where has the ideology of bill clinton gone for there democrat president in what 30 years ago they were focused on it. both parties are to blame. republicans i will be the first to say when we talk about fiscal discipline. i am doing it just to say man i am concerned about where the democratic party has drifted. let me kind of close with this. this budget has radical climate priorities in the increase spending. housing costs. it calls for a new program that seeks to provide families with $10,000 mortgage credit over the next two years. that proposal will cost $47

billion. unpaid for, deficit spending, $34 trillion. it will lead to an increase in home prices. deficit spending drives inflation. that is mwhere interest rates are coming from. the cost of median homes on average right henow are $100,00 more. looking at different statistics. the average median house is $100,000 more. average income for the same families risen by $10,000. average 30 year mortgage is almost $1,000 more. before this administration until now. so, i will wrap it up by saying this. i believe your budget is compounding the problems that you claim you are trying to fix. where is this administration's focus on debt and deficit reduction. >> page 139 of the budget. deficit reduced by $3 trillion from baseline to policy. the debt number on policy on

baseline is $48.3 trillion in 2034. policy 45., $3 trillion less. they do not look at policy they look at baseline >> it is $18 trillion. your budget versus cbo. to try to wordsmith these different numbers i just don't see it. >> i appreciate the exchange. i wish we can continue it. in the interest of time let's go to our colleague from the great state of texas. >> congratulations for leading the first bipartisan budget process reform, ever, i think on on the floor of the house of representatives. remarkable achievement. i do have two consent threquest finding medicaid recipients

have worse health outcomes. and the next one, a memo from looking at the -- with that objection so ordered. >> thank you. first off. thank you for the call, prior to this meeting. editorial comment i heard the back and forths on the ev and the charging stations. i have been a student of the hybrid technology since 2004. consumer of hybrid since the first toyota car came out with that in the early 2000s. it strikes me that we missed the mark here by trying to force the entire country to go

completely from internal combustion engine to electric vehicles suddenly is perhaps not the best strategy. with the resources directed towards hybrid technology, plug in technology, the resources required to make one big electric vehicle battery that can go 300 miles between larges could actually be used to make what, four or five or six or seven batteries in the plug in hybrid technology. it just seems like it would be a much more rational resource. i know you do not direct policy at the department of thenergy. i also know that you get to review all of the rules before their final through. i just add that for what it is worth. we should exclude hybrid technology even though it involves an engine it is a, i

will just tell you it is unbelievable to get 55 miles to the gallon in a regular hybrid car. last car i i bought was a plug in, not a plug in but a regular hybrid pick up truck made by ford motor company. i am astounded how much the technology improved since the last hecar i bought in 2018. it is not a plug in hybrid it runs a significant time just on electricity only. vastly increasing the miles per gallon indicated. let me also, on need to get this off of my chest. 1993 in september, the president had just delivered a famous joint address to congress on health care. house security act was going to be unveiled and given to congress and that was going to be passed by the congress, he

thought. former senator songes told us e in dallas that if we were not careful this new bill from the president proposed five new entitlement programs and we could not afford the ones we already had. i was astounded to hear him admit that. he further went on to talk about if we don't do something about our automatic spending and entitlement spending. if we don't reapproach that he projected in 20 years time that obviously we are passed that point, we were reaching a point where we realized the debt is pay for more on interest than we are for defense. at some point, there will be an inner generalerational conflict. the people coming up paying the taxes will not be willing to support the people who are being supported. i just like to have your

opinion on that? i think oi spoke around what we spoke on. i was not following politics in the middle '90s but, where we are now, it is people depend on many of these programs. social security and medicare. there is no plan b. if we don't figure out a way. >> i would like to reclaim my time. >> the problem is the people who are coming up, who are going to replace us will be voting on the same things and their constituents will tell them we can't carry that load any longer. and i hope that we can do something before we reach that crisis point. thank you, i will yield back. >> i appreciate that exchange.

thank you. thank you. e . frequently the democrats routinely prioritize reducing deficits sacrificing the safety net programs that are so important that every democratic president since kennedy left it better for the republican successors to better situations they inherited without extension and every republican administration since nixon has left for the democrats a worse situation. is it larger or smaller than the deficit inherited? it's accurate that it's a trillion dollars lower than when the president took office and he

worked with then speaker mccarthy and assigned a bill to save another trillion dollars over ten years and it's accurate that deficits would reduce in his budget by $3.2 trillion while paying for the proposals he has in his budget. >> the republican budget has cuts particularly in education. can you tell me what the president's budget has for title i that supports serving low-income students? >> thank you for your leadership. that is the main way to provide resources to public schools in this country as $200 million over 2023 levels that is probably a new level out since the bill was released overnight. this president is committed to

ensure it's been underfunded and we need to ensure that it's a partner local taxes and districts but this is a way for the government to ensure they have more than adequate good education. >> the american rescue plan that was distributed by the title i a formula showing how valuable the resources were, so i appreciate that answer. the child tax credit was made refundable. at the house passed a budget that had a child tax credit nowhere nearly as robust as what we passed in the american rescue plan.

can you tell me what the president's budget has for the tax credit? >> we would support and the president has included yet again the child tax care proposal that mirrors what was in the arp bill passed in the beginning of the administration which we saw lead to the reduction in this country. >> my district includes a lot of shipbuilding and many other small to medium repair yards. what is the budget doing for shipbuilding particularly in the agreement? >> the budget with of the fiscal responsibility act the department of defense complies with that but we were able to make the key investments necessary to keep the agreement

into the budget provides 1.7 million more in the submarine industrial base for the rates and operational availability and increases the procurement funding by 2.3 billion more than was previously planned and finally 1.6 billion to procure the worship. we also have living the bill had to comply, we have a future year's budget that shows the commitment to shipbuilding in the country and frankly we need to the supplemental also to be a companion to the budget, which has robust funding to invest in the kind of submarine industrial base in the country to increase production capability. >> thank you. at the projections are important in the industrial base a lot of businesses might go out of business if they are not

convinced of contracts for the future. >> it's increasing the production capability. >> i think the gentleman from virginia and yield five minutes to my friend from georgia. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you for being here. i know it's been a long day. i will try to be concise about what time concerned about. this budget is five weeks later. now granted this is not the only president who's been late with his budget, but i hope that the administration understands that that puts us behind. we won't be on time. granted we may not be on time, but when we start we are already behind, that's why i've submitted our legislation send us budget materials, and what it does is it says republican, democrat, however, if they don't send a budget in time, that they are not going to be invited to

give a state of the union address and again it doesn't apply to the democratic president, our, only if it applies to every president so i want you to take the message back that we really need this information on time and i hope you understand where i'm coming from. i'm very concerned about the data as everyone is. right now we are spending in this country $202,000 every second. the speed of light is only 186 miles per second and we are spending money faster than the speed of light. i know you have concerns about the deficit. to tell me what your concerns are about the deficit? >> hopefully the chairman will let us go back and forth a little. you give me a budget by october 1st and i will give you a budget that is on time. with all due respect it puts us behind on production budgets when they are six months late i'm sitting here trying to get a

read out of a bill that finishes the budget from last year and presenting the budget for next year so i think speaking of the process we all need to work together to find a way to get this back on track. >> so you can start your budget until we finish hours? >> we made a decision not to wait any further. >> that was your decision but you can to submit the budget for next fiscal year. >> to get a budget that is frankly out of date so a lot of kitchen tables compared to wrong numbers but it does put us behind. also one debt and deficits while you may disagree with our tax policies, it does allow us to pay for our new investments in this budget and have have a

reduction pass. >> we disagree with that. we would refute that point. nevertheless let's talk about rulemaking. right now there's 170 regulations pending before your office. whenever you make these rules and improve them you do you ever take into consideration the cost of the rules? >> that's the whole reason to get a rule from an agency it is the agency's role. the reason it is involved in our offices because we've estimated the economic impact so we think it's important, administration's since bill clinton have set the rules because we think economically the significant rule should come and have a larger run. >> let me ask about two in particular. i had the privilege of representing the entire coast of georgia. i've been up and down the

seabirds. and right now is being proposed by noah to adhere to a 10-mile per our speed limit which is going to just crush recreational fishing. it's going to have a negative impact. we have two major seaports at my district. that's one of the examples. 27,000 direct jobs. nationwide it's up to 340,000. it will have an economic impact of $84 billion. this administration laughingly says it will only have $46 million impact. i chaired the subcommittee on

environment and energy and commerce. the next rule being proposed for particulate matter will have a devastating impact on manufacturers here in america. what does the administration do with the rules? >> anything that is insignificant has to come to make sure. we made it easy to walk in and provide comments because we want to hear the rules based on the comment. >> on specific rules absolutely

they have changed and that is the point of public comment we don't know everything until the rules go out and people have the chance to look at them and we take in information. the role is to make sure we hear from all stakeholders and make sure we strike. >> now to the final member for comment and question. i am happy to close it out. i was pleased to see the 25% minimum tax of the wealthiest.

quadruple spent buybacks and close the tax loopholes lower the tax rates and lower the listing company. in 2020, 55 of the largest corporations paid no federal income tax. to put this in perspective if amazon, just amazon was asked to pay the u.s. tax rate of 21% that would be enough snap benefits. that's a pretty good trade-off. they could easily afford it. america doesn't have a spending

problem. we've got a revenue problem and that is what you are working to correct. can you elaborate the impact of the corporate income tax rates and closing these loopholes. >> given your business history and success makes one set up and no that these tax policies asking large corporations and the top one and 2% will not impact the investments. if anything it will and sure we are able to provide investments in programs to expand our economy and i keep coming back

to childcare. this is not. all through the tax fairness proposals we had and omb report that said 400 billionaires pay just 8% in their tax rate from 2010 to 2018. something has to be done and the president is putting forth a proposal to do that. >> businesses don't make decisions on investments which creates the job based on the tax rate. in my past life hundreds of decisions each year are based on budgets and to build new buildings and what you are

looking at is can you do it better than the other competitor and the tax rate it does after so it's completely faulty like people have never run a business. they don't have a clue what they are talking about. no child care yet the early childhood care that's how we get equity across the nation. talk a bit more about that because i was excited about the tax credit and also what you're doing on how we get pre-k everywhere because we know that is going to pay dividends later.

we know kids that have access to the quality pre-k three and four. graduation rates go up, they have a better chance of going to college and getting a college degree which is a pathway to middle class and those are facts and it goes back to a budget that tries to grow the middle class and we can pay for all of those investments. my child decided to be born a month late. the parent shall have access and some shouldn't pay more than 10,000 affordable childcare. we need pre-k and the solutions this budget provides us. >> thank you for the hard work and god bless.

>> another hearing. >> i think the gentleman from maryland. we are now at the end of where i want to make a few closing comments. i appreciate you taking the questions from our colleagues. i hate what i think the budget would do to this country which is more than has happened in the last few years. i don't think republicans have all the answers and i don't think there are things that the democrats propose that should be dismissed out of hand and i think most of the big problems will only be solved when democrats, republicans get in the room and hash it out which is why i'm so interested in the bipartisan fiscal commission. i don't have much hope.

this set of policies that reflect the values of the democratic colleagues. here's one thing we can't disagree on. people will make those decisions in november but here's what is not up for debate the unsustainability of the path that we are on and this is what i want to say from my heart in the deepest concern for the

country's future both parties have contributed. i do not give my republican colleagues pass for where we are today, where we are going which could be catastrophic. with current policies we are already paying more almost a trillion in interest more than we pay for our national defense and in 30 years it's going to be about 150 trillion. the sheriff that per family will go to 250,000 to a million and the annual deficit will be over

7,000,000,000,030 years. we are going to spend 75% and what we borrowed to fund this government on interest alone, not a safety net or sailors and soldiers, not on climate policy and programs. let's debate those programs, the strategies to solve problems the american people believe we ought to be responsible in doing that we've got to pay for this because i'm just quoting you i think it's a statement a lot of people believe here we don't tax the citizens on the debt. we tax our children on the deck. it's a deferred tax on our kids,

and it's not only not courageous, it is immoral for both sides can lead us on this unsustainable path. so just find it in your heart and push hard while you are still serving our country and this president to encourage your colleagues on the democratic side as i encourage my democratic colleagues to get in the room so to speak, hash it out and let's leave this country because if this dips into a sovereign, i believe that it will undermine everything good about the country. everything. the greatest economy in the world, the greatest military in the world, our leadership in the world, and most importantly our children's future here. it's why we are here.

so i appreciate my democratic and republican colleagues and i appreciate you and your service. thanks for committing so much time to the budget committee. god bless america. and with that, we have questions members can submit their questions to be answered leader in writing and your answers will be a part of the hearing record. any members that wish to submit questions or extraneous material for the record may do so. i want the record to reflect that he's still here when the buzzer goes off into the gavel goes down the committee stands adjourned.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]