mr. bessent: i can't answer that question because it is a hypothetical. sen. hassan: let's move on -- when we met prior to the hearing, you told me that president biden was responsible for increased prices over the past four years, something we can litigate, but i don't want to write here. by the same token i assume you would agree that if prices increase the next four years, president-elect trump would be responsible. mr. bessent: i think there could be a variety of reasons. i think that it could be -- we will see the policies of the federal reserve, the spending policies. congress sets spending policies. sen. hassan: look, i'm going to cut to the chase because i'm out of time, but at the end of the day, what you are articulate is a double standard, and it is disappointing to me. thank you, mr. chair. chair crapo: thank you. senator daines. sen. daines: i think what we are

seeing in this committee is we have a divide between 2 very different philosophies about how to go forward and what is best for the american people and this economy and what is best for global competitiveness. i remember sitting right in this chamber as we were debating whether to launch a multiple trillion dollar massive spending bill, a $2 trillion covid bill, the inflation reduction act, massive, multitrillion dollar bills that even democrat former secretaries of treasury said could be inflationary. and indeed, it was. you compare that outcome to we are going to return back to the policies of the prior trump administration, that when you lower taxes for businesses, the american people, you create more tax revenue, you create more economic activity, you create more wage growth, particularly for minorities as well, and you get back into winning in terms of global competitiveness. we stopped the inversions.

it was absolutely, like, boom, multiple inversions to zero. i couldn't be prouder of what we did boldly during the trump administration, we try to fight against during this administration, these massive out-of-control spending bills that were inflationary. the american people suffered greatly with these high levels of inflation, higher mortgage rates, and so forth. i'm glad to have you as our next secretary of the treasury and work with you to restore sanity back to where we were under president trump. graduations on your nomination and willingness to serve -- congratulations on your nomination and willingness to serve. with the expiration coming on tax rates, facing a $4.3 trillion tax increase if we don't act this year. as we begin drafting this bill, and i applaud chairman crapo, he brought us together as ranking member last year prior to getting the majority back,

anticipating we might have this moment. we started talking about what are some key themes come and we got into details over several months of working groups for the next tax bill, to renew and protect, preserve the tax rates and prevent a $4 trillion increase. one of the keywords was "permanency." are expressed my support -- i've expressed my support for the current policy baseline, i've expressed my support for permanency because we've added uncertainty in congress with expiring tax code provisions. it is time to make them permanent, to take one additional burden away from the american people, wondering what is going to happen with congress, whether my tax rates will depend on what happens in the next election. let's take that off the table with permanency. you have said we need to grow our way out of our current economic situation that is the philosophical divide we face.

someone embracing a supply-side idea, reduce rates, unleash capital into the free markets, let those markets decide vs. a bunch of bureaucrats in washington with wasteful spending. how does permanency uncertainty of the tech--permanency and certainty of the tax code affect our ability to grow out of these problems? mr. bessent: senator daines, i've enjoyed getting to know you over the past year with your work on the national republican senate committee, and talking to you in your office. also discussing your history in the private sector, both with a big company and small companies. that question like that makes it clear to me that you understand the incentives, that it is incentives that drive everything in tax policy. i can tell you that since november 5 for small businesses, we have seen the biggest increase in optimism since they

have been keeping the metrics. certainty, small business owners, many of whom pass through corporations, believe that we will get the tax -- tcj across the line. we could see a bigger increase in optimism come in economics. when we have something we can't define, we call it animal spirits. we are seeing animal spirits, a nascent move up, but permanency and forward guidance gives people certainty, capital investment, we get hiring, we get real wages. employers want to keep, train, and expand their workforce. everyone wins with permanency, certainty, kind of forward guidance for tax policy would be

one of the things that could unleash this new golden age that president trump has talked about . sen. daines: i know i'm out of time, mr. chairman, but when you look at the private sector jobs, 88 million of those jobs are from pass-through entities, about 63%, and that is the part that is expiring. the corporate rates are staying permanent. it's the pastor rates, -- pass -through rates, 88% of private sector jobs, takiook at what is going happen in washington over the next six to eight months. very important to make these rates permanent and prevent a tsunami, $43 trillion tax increase that will come of we don't act. chair crapo: senator cortez masto. sen. cortez masto: thank you for meeting with me, welcome to your family as well.

i will talk about the tax credits. over 80,000 of my constituents in nevada received the premium tax credit in affording their health care coverage. and on average the credits lower americans' health insurance costs by $530 per month. congress provided an enhanced ptc in 2021, but that policy expires this year, and without the enhanced ptc in place, millions of americans are going to lose their health coverage. as the person most responsible for tax policy in the incoming administration, would you commit to opposing any attempt to remove or not renew these credits? mr. bessent: senator, as we discussed in your office, it's been a brief time since we met, i committed to you i would research this. i have not had time to do it before this hearing, but if confirmed i would get back to you with all deliberate speed in

investigating this. sen. cortez masto: thank you, i appreciate that. let me say you would agree that these tax credits because they are current policy, they extend current tax policy costs -- excuse me, that you agree that extending current tax policy cost money? mr. bessent: again, i think i don't understand the nuance of that question, but i will get back to you wanted to sen. cortez masto: ok, i appreciate that. you have been supportive of many of president trump's tariff plans. i further conversation there. i'm not going to go into that -- we talked a bit about it in my office. let me jump back to these credits that were imposed that some of my colleagues are against. they have benefited nevada, and i want to talk to you about it. 45x manufacturing tax credit supports thousands of jobs in the reno area, and billions in

investment across my state. it is key to reducing dependence on china for the critical minerals we need for our military and supports minig jobs in nevada. we are a mining state, we are mining critical minerals. will you commit to opposing any effort to repeal or reduce the 45x tax credit, which is not just a benefit in nevada, it is a benefit in other states including alaska? mr. bessent: again, senator, i'm unfamiliar with that exact provision, what i do believe it is important for us to mine, accumulate, and move to domestic production for rare earths and other vital minerals. i will get back to you on my thoughts on that exact program. but on an atmospheric meta basis i agree with the direction. sen. cortez masto: thank you. let me ask you this, president

trump as stated that the president should have influence over the decisions of the federal reserve. we discussed this in my office, and i appreciate that opportunity. does it continue to be your view that the federal reserve should be independent of the president? mr. bessent: of course, and i actually believe that the notion that president trump believes he should have influence -- there was, i believe, a highly inaccurate "wall street journal" article saying he believed something to the effect that he should be in the room. president trump is going to make his views known, as many senators did. three senators, including two on this committee -- there was a jumbo rate cut in september, 50 basis points. tw of the senatorso -- sen. cortez masto: i'm not

asking about my senator colleagues. i'm asking you -- you don't deviate from our conversation that you think there should be independence? mr. bessent: on monetary policy decisions the fomc should be independent. sen. cortez masto:, thank you i appreciate that. for the benefit of my colleagues, what you refer to earlier, in our meeting i ask you if there were any regulations, treasury regulations that currently exist that you disagreed with. and in response and in the continuing response you say you will look into it and get back to me, is that right? mr. bessent: look, i believe, as we saw -- i don't know if it is a regulated, but it is a policy -- as we saw from the december 8 hacked by some chinese entities into the treasury, which was very serious, that was through a work-from-home software app. one of the policies i support, i

intend to be in the building every day i am in washington, and i support return to the office, which is against the current treasury policy. sen. cortez masto: right, and i appreciate that. if there are any others who oppose nu can share with me, it doesn't have to be right now -- mr. bessent: happy to provide that in writing. sen. cortez masto: thank you so much. thank you, mr. chairman. chair crapo: thank. senator young. sen. young: mr. bessent, good to see you, congratulations on your nomination for this important position, and thank you for your willingness to serve our country. i will tell you what i'm looking for in a treasury secretary, i'm looking for someone who has a clear record of professional accomplishment, a distinct academic record would be a bonus. you have those things. i'm looking for someone who is thoughtful. what i care less about is the performative dimension of the job, i have to tell you.

there is a lot of chatter in washington about that. but i do appreciate your thoughtful answers this morning. i'm going to dive in and begin by asking you about the dimension of your role as treasury secretary. you will inherit the role of chair on the committee on foreign investment in the united states, also known as cfiis, and very recently president biden blocked new pond steel acquisition of u.s. steel on national security grants. yet he and the administration provided no clear, substantiated evidence, publicly at least, to justify this decision. for my home state, this abrupt action has instilled a lot of anxiety, particularly in the gary, indiana, area, where there

is nearly $1 billion in investments that were promised. if the nippon-u.s. steel deal were to reappear before cfius, do you commit to an impartial review, particularly when political pressure was initially permitted to overshadow an honest assessment of national security vulnerabilities? mr. bessent: senator young, thank you for the question, and i understand the imperative for jobs for their constituents in indiana. president trump most recently has also spoken out against the deal, but if the deal is -- sen. young: the statute indicates you should -- that you are charged with providing impartial review. that is all i'm asking. would you be following that law

or not, sir? mr. bessent: impartial reviews -- so it is currently in litigation. the review is closed, but if it reappears, cfius will conduct the same review that it always does, yes, sir. sen. young: ok. well, thank you. we may have an opportunity to work together on that effort. mr. bessent, your nomination comes at a time when tariffs are central to our economic debates, particularly on issues like inflation, supply chain resilience, and job creation. i believe that in moderation, tariffs for a time strengthen america's negotiating leverage with other nations. they can strengthen certain national security-relevant industries. but overuse, overuse of tariffs can inflate costs and provoke trade retaliation. as hoosier farmers have

experienced firsthand over the years, they often bear the impact of these retaliatory measures, leaving already thin margins much more vulnerable. what concrete steps would you take to shield these indiana producers if major trading partners impose steep duties, and how do you envision the treasury department's role in supporting them? mr. bessent: thank you, senator young. as i mentioned before, i may have mentioned it in your office, our family is involved in the farming business, soybeans and corn, so i'm very sensitive to this and very up-to-date. the american farmers have been very loyal. 90% of rural voters voted for president trump, so they should know that their interests are his interests. when you ask what i would do specifically, i have said

recently the biden administration kept on all of the trump tariffs, but what they did not do in the agreement with china was in force the purchase provisions. if confirmed, next week, if confirmed, i would begin pushing for the purchase guarantees that were in the china agreement to be enforced and perhaps bush the chinese for a catch-up provision the past four years. sen. young: just a quick follow-up. in terms of application of tariffs, a skilled negotiator might use broad tariffs to gain leverage, and then in other cases and more sector-specific approach could be effective. what criteria or perhaps benchmarks would you use to inform your decision to go with

across-the-board measures, or more surgical tariffs? d you believeo there should be any built-in caps or triggers to prevent an unintended escalation? mr. bessent: so, senator young, i haven't been confirmed yet. president trump isn't an office. -- in office. but i would imagine that you, the american people should think about tariffs in three ways under the trump administration. one will be for remedying unfair trade practices, either by industry or country. allah the chinese tariffs, steel. two may be for more generalized tariff as a revenue raiser for the federal budget. and three, president trump has added a third use of tariffs as

a skilled negotiator to -- he believes that we probably -- sanctions may be driving countries out of the use of the u.s. dollar so the tariffs can be used for negotiations, whether it is for mexico on the fentanyl crisis. i thank you and the american people should think about those three broad categories. chair crapo: we need to move on. next is senator sanders. senator sanders, i don't believe you were here when i welcomed everyone to the committee this morning, but as a new member of the committee, i personally welcome you and look forward to working with you. sen. sanders: thank you very much, and it is a pleasure to be here. mr. bessent, thank you very much for being in the office the other day. mr. bessent, the united states today has more income and wealth inequality than has ever

existed in the history of our country. we have got three people on top, mr. musk, mr. bezos, and mr. zuckerberg, who are worth almost a trillion dollars, more than half of the bottom of our society, some 170 million people. three people, more wealth than the bottom 170 million. we have more wealth concentration than we've ever had. we have more concentration of ownership in the media, where a of billionaires like musk, bezos, mr. murdoch, on the information people receive. we have a corrupt campaign-finance system, in which a small number of billionaires make huge -- small number of billionaires in both parties make huge contributions to presidential and

congressional campaigns. when you have a small number of multimillionaires who have an enormous economic, media, and political power, would you agree with president biden, who last night stated, and i quote, "an oligarchy is taking shape in america of extreme wealth, power, and influence that threatens our entire democracy, our basic rights and freedoms"? that is what president biden said last night. i agree with him. do you? mr. bessent: senator sanders, i enjoyed our visit -- sen. sanders: talk a little closer into the mic. mr. bessent i hope you gotmr. bessent-- mr. bessent: i hope you got my follow-up materials on tariffs and china. the three billionaires who you listed all made the money themselves. mr. musk came to the country as

an immigrant -- sen. sanders: i understand that, but when i'm asking you is when you have a handful of people like musk, who will soon be part of the trump administration, and others, when you have three people owning more wealth than the bottom half of american society, when they have an enormous influence over the media, when they spend huge amounts of money in both political parties to elect candidates, what biden said last night's we are moving toward an oligarchy. i'm asking you that question, do you think -- forget how they made their money. when you -- when so few people have so much money and political power, is that an oligarchic form of society? mr. bessent: i would note that president biden gave the presidential medal of freedom to two people who would qualify as his oligarchs. sen. sanders: this is not a condemnation of any one individual. ijust'm --i'm just asking you,

when so few people have so much wealth and power, do you think that is an oligarchic form of society? mr. bessent: senator, i think it depends on the ability to move up and down -- sen. sanders: no, that's not really the answer. even if you had mobility, no matter who the individuals might be. all right, let me ask you another question. right now in america we have over 22 million workers who are making less than $15 an hour, and nearly 40 million people in our country earning less than $17 an hour. shamefully, the federal minimum wage, despite the efforts of myself and other people here, have not been raised since 2009, and remains an unbelievable $7.25 an hour. will you work with those of us who want to raise the federal minimum wage to a living wage to

take millions of americans out of poverty? mr. bessent: senator, i believe the minimum wage is more of a statewide and regional issue. sen. sanders: so you don't think we should change the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour? mr. bessent: no, sir. sen. sanders: ok. mr. bessent, millions of working-class americans were struggling to keep their heads above water are paying outrageously higher interest rates on their credit cards. over half the american people who take out new credit cards are being charged interest rates of over 24%. during his campaign, president-elect trump promised that he was going to cap credit-card interest rates at 10%. i happen to think that is a very good idea, and i will soon be introducing legislation to do just that. will you, if you are confirmed, be supportive of what president-elect trump said and what i want to see happen, and

that is to cap credit-card interest rates at 10%? mr. bessent: senator, i think we can both agree that many credit-card companies have been bad actors throughout history, and i will get back to you -- sen. sanders: very simple question, trump said he wants to cap credit-card interest rates at 10%, i agree with him. will you be supportive of what trump and i would like to do? mr. bessent: when president trump takes office and if i'm confirmed, i will follow what president trump wants to do. sen. sanders: thank you very much, mr. chairman. chair crapo: next is senator smith. sen. smith: thank you very much, mr. chair and ranking member, great to be part of this committee, i appreciate it very much, and welcome, mr. bessent, it's nice to see you again. i want to follow up a bit on the conversation that we had yesterday, and just get into a little more detail and some of

the issues that senator sanders is raising. i'm focused on how we can lower costs for americans and how we can make the economy work better for regular people in this country. when we spoke yesterday, we talked generally about this. you have said you think our biggest challenge is to get after the deficit, and you have also said your first priority is to extend the republican trump tax cuts, which would add $4.6 trillion to the federal deficit. you have set the trump republican tax cuts have generated economic growth and those benefits are going to have trickle -- going to trickle down to everyone else. but what i see is these republican tax cuts have delivered massive consolidation of wealth at the top. almost half of those benefits went to the top 5%. the top 1% got a tax cut that is 852 times bigger than the one that was received by the lowest-earning working families in this country.

now these wealthy people have more money than they know what to do with. you see elon musk buying twitter and he has an office in the old executive office building and a seat on the platform when the president is inaugurated. these tech billionaires are launching rockets into space and building themselves these lavish doomsday bunkers, buying up newspapers, all of which gives them more power. it seems to me that this concentration of wealth is not good for our country, and it is certainly not doing anything to lower prices for working families in minnesota or help them afford a home or childcare. it seems like it is doing the opposite of that. could you comment on this? mr. bessent: yes, and senator smith, i believe that president trump, and if confirmed myself, are committed to addressing this affordability crisis. part of the affordability crisis stems from this great inflation we have had since -- it was

nascent in 2021, it occurred in 2022, 2023. we are still substantially above target. my hope is that we will not see it accelerating again. inflation is one of the great killers for working families. as we talked about in your office, the cpi, pce, the statistical numbers may be up 22% under the previous administration, but the basket of goods and services for working them is -- so getting inflation down, getting interest rates down, addressing this affordability crisis -- sen. smith: yeah. and as you know, inflation is coming down, and one of the things we saw during the course of the last couple of years was these big consolidated corporations with so much market power jacking up their prices way beyond the amount of money

they would've had to have raise their prices in order to cover their costs. in my view, this level of corporate consolidation is actually hurting americans, it is hurting the prices, it is costing people more. and that in fact, the republican trump tax bill, there is such a move to reinstate or extend, is going to contribute to that problem, not make it better. but let me ask you another question. you have said that in order to get our fiscal house in order, we need to cut spending, deregulate, and privatize. what we are seeing with privatizing in the private sector that is of great concern to me, let's look at health care. you have seen a move by big corporate investors into health care and especially hospitals. terrible stories about rural hospitals and clinics getting started, maternity wards getting shut down --getting shuttered, maternity wards getting shut

down, caused by this private equity big corporation purchasing and moving in and controlling, again, concentration and health care, and none of this has lowered costs for americans. in fact, the opposite, people's's costs have spiked. do you see this model a big corporate takeovers of health care lowering cost for americans? mr. bessent: senator smith, health care -- i probably -- trying to understand health care costs and the drivers of that on my to do list for 1 years0, to be able to sit in a room for we can understand this, and i've never been able to do it. i will tell you that when we see things like health care we see h care, higher education both of which have outperformed inflation indexed by cost, there's a problem.

what you are identifying could be one of the problems. the overall level of health care cost is driven by -- sen. smith: it's a complicated issue. when chair sanders was chair of the health committee, there's a hospital in massachusetts bought up by one of these big firms and they stopped stocking a common treatment for hemorrhage during pregnancy and they have seen patients die. chair: senator johnson. >> i want to start by refuting a false narrative, but

the tax cut and jobs act was a primary cause of our deficit. from cbo, this shows you why we ought to take cbo projections with a grain of salt. for seven years, total revenue $27 trillion. actual revenue was $28.7 trillion. the original score was 1.5 trillion dollars lost revenue. we paid for the tax cut and in seven years generated $200 billion more revenue, with the covid recession. we need to take cbo scores with a grain of salt. hope this committee understands your tremendous american success

story. hypothetical. you understand american families. they normally spend $100,000. they have a serious health crisis. one year they have to spend $50,000 on medical bills. that family member gets well. what would that family spend next year? real quick. mr. bessent: unless they have more income -- they would spend the same $100,000 and have debt associated. sen. johnson: they would not do what the federal government has done. when the pandemic ended, we did not reduce spending.

is there any justification for keeping spending levels at this level. mr. bessent: as i have said repeatedly, the u.s. does not have a revenue problem. sen. johnson: how do we reset spending levels to a reasonable pre-pandemic level? i wrote a column in the wall street journal. if you take a pre-pandemic year and increase the spending by population inflation, that is what families would do, but you exempt social security, medicare and use president biden's '25 budget --take bill clinton's '98 spending, we would have a baseline of $5.5 trillion. president obama's spending

levels, $6 trillion. if we use president trump's 2021 budget in '25, use those numbers but slide in social security, medicare and interest, we would spend about $6 trillion. wouldn't that be a reasonable level? baseline spending to project our next 10 years? mr. bessent: i look forward to working with you on this. you clearly have done more work than i have. this looks like a good starting point to me, to figure out how we got into this spending morass. sen. johnson: i want to refute

the current cbo score on extending the tcga. they scored the whole thing as one $.5 trillion. how do they justify a score of $4.3 trillion? it makes no sense. i heard the ranking member talk about inflation and the cost of living. because we incurred massive deficits, a $1998 today is worth that -- a $2019 only worth $.80. that was caused by this massive deficit spending, devaluation of the dollar and a lot of devaluation because we spent too much money.

not because we didn't tax america enough. it is because we didn't spend enough. >> thank you so much. congratulations on your nomination. i see your family sitting there in earnest on these economic issues. so interesting. our perspectives from this committee are arguing about what we think are the right economic policies for the country and as the treasury nominee, with your background and experience, we are still talking about the president's policies and whether we think they are effective or not. real gdp has increased at an annual rate. that is strong growth. mr. bessent: as an aggregate number. sen. cantwell: the economy added 60 million jobs over the last

four years. average unemployment rate the lowest it has been in 50 years. we want that right? mr. bessent: i am in favor of better pay and working conditions. sen. cantwell: after-tax income increased by 400%. good economic news. i think focusing on innovation and building supply chains is a good thing to do. tariffs. that's when you get the pacific northwest's attention. a recent editorial by one of my newspapers was bracing for the trump tariffs. aviation in general. we have a net surplus, we export to billion dollars worth of goods out of our state versus importing $1 billion.

this is a big part of it. in the aviation sector, i sent you an article about the fact we think increasing our manufacturing innovation to continue to have markets and sell to those markets is a good economic strategy. mr. bessent: as i discussed, in my hometown of charleston, boeing is also the largest employer. i view aviation is very important. sen. cantwell: great. i would have the same conversation with joe biden, barack obama or whoever. i want to focus on innovation, not the tariffs. i'm worried the tariffs will increase supply chain products, prices on our farmers, increase prices on americans.

don't you think we are in an environment where exporting products and growing markets outside the u.s. is a big economic opportunity? what are you going to do to build coalitions to help us be able to achieve opening up markets as opposed to just the retaliatory tariff environment which may raise cost on americans and not resolve these issues? mr. bessent: i looked at older data. 2000, in terms of the labor share of aggregate income in the u.s., 69% accrued to labor. today, 60%. you can see a drop after the china shock. i agree with you opening markets

is good but free-trade must be balanced against fair trade. clearly what has happened is trade has not been fair. that has fallen on american workers. we cannot allow -- china is the most unbalanced economy in the history of the world. they are in severe recession/depression. they may have -4% disinflation. they are attempting to export their way out of that as opposed to doing the much-needed internal rebalance. i am with you on the need to open markets. we cannot allow a player like this to flood our markets for the world. sen. cantwell: i believe in

coalitions. we discussed technology. you thought that was a good idea. i can get upset with my colleagues on the other i'll all the time and object but that does not move me forward. i hope you will look at what we will do to build allies. these numbers talking about the tariff and what it would do to the price of gas in canada is concerning. i want to know the administration will focus as much on innovating our way to success as we are on tariffs. i think we will see retaliatory tariffs. we saw it in our state. it hurt our agriculture. you lose more farms. people are buying farmland. goldman sachs, bill gates. but we are losing farmers in the middle of the trade wars.

that's a concern. thank you for mentioning housing. i appreciate that in your statement. look forward to working with you. if the president will push forward, that's a way to lower cost. >> senator lujan. >> thank you. i appreciate the conversation we had in the office. i will touch on several topics. i thank you in advance for your brevity. it may surprise many the responsibility of the secretary of treasury has in stemming the flow of fentanyl and other substances. will you commit to continuing the biden administration counter fentanyl strikeforce which brought together office of terrorism, financial intelligence, irs criminal investigation to fight financial

crime? mr. bessent: thank you. i enjoyed our visit. this is personal for me. two families close to our family lost children to the fentanyl crisis. i will commit. know it is my belief president trump is focused on this. sen. lujan: will you work with me to ensure there is more transparency over suspicious activity reports at the financial crimes network for congress? mr. bessent: i believe there is tfi that deals with this. i believe we have to have a '25

approach to digital currencies and all branches of government so yes. sen. lujan: in your role as treasury secretary, do you agree you will play an important role in advising president trump and congressional republicans on policy related to the economy including investment in government programs? mr. bessent: yes. sen. lujan: i was pleased in our meeting you stated "no cuts will be needed." to achieve your economical. that might surprise my republican colleagues. i appreciate that conversation. will you recommend cutting medicaid? mr. bessent: i'm sorry. sen. lujan: will you recommend

cutting medicaid? mr. bessent: medicaid? it is the business of congress to budget. i am in favor of empowering states. some states, that will be an increase. for some, that will be a decrease. sen. lujan: we recommend cutting medicaid to president trump -- will you recommend? one of your responsibilities will be providing this advice. mr. bessent: i will get back to you on this when i have seen details of the full budget proposal once president trump is in office and if confirmed. sen. lujan: we recommend cuts to broadband following investments across the country making

progress in connecting people, included in the bipartisan infrastructure law? mr. bessent: i am unfamiliar with the exact program. my understanding, much of allocated funding has not dispersed yet. i will get back to you. sen. lujan: folks in south carolina, including your farming neighbors, are getting connectivity because of these programs. you might need to chat with them about the importance of what this means. it might surprise many there are a couple of us in this body that are members of headstart. i imagine you might hear that from mr. warnock here. the importance of early education in america, the economic benefit. we recommend cuts to headstart?

-- will you recommend cuts to headstart? mr. bessent: i will have to get back to you. i don't understand the intricacies of that program. sen. lujan: of headstart? mr. bessent: i don't understand the budget ramifications. sen. lujan: do you know what headstart is? mr. bessent: i believe it is an earlier childhood education program. sen. lujan: i realize you have to qualify to get into that program. the family i was raised in, we qualified. it opens doors. a couple of us to the senate. we want to find agreement for that program and if someone tries to eliminate that, that we can count on you, on behalf of new mexicans, south carolina and sand america to say we are not going to do that. chair: senator barrasso. >> thank you for your

willingness to serve. enjoyed our discussion in talking about the future of the country and the role of the secretary treasury in getting our economy back on track. it means protecting people in wyoming from crushing regulations and getting wasteful spending under control. i'm encouraged by our meeting. a strong vision for america, unleashing american energy, getting tough on china, on our adversaries, and getting the federal government out of the way. energy. another committee yesterday, secretary of energy. earlier today, secretary of the interior. lots of energy. we agree a key ingredient in reigniting the economy is unleashing american energy.

wyoming, our nation an energy superpower, we are the breadbasket in wyoming. energy production is the heart of wyoming's economy and the nation's. it supports workers, schools, infrastructure. the tax revenue. wyoming is the least populated state but the third-largest net energy supplier producing 12 times more energy than we consume. it's at the forefront of oil, natural gas, coal production, carbon capture, hydrogen production, many alternative sources of energy. energy producers in wyoming in the country faced a government assault from the biden administration on american energy production. taxes, crippling regulations, weaponize the tax code in ways that are unthinkable against conventional american energy production, things joe biden signed into law may things worse

but the good news is with you there, things are about to change. you have talked about boosting american energy production. what role do you see yourself playing as treasury secretary in making sure we become american energy dominant and in terms of energy security? mr. bessent: i enjoyed our meeting, wide-ranging discussion. my family and i have a fantastic vacation in wyoming the summer. within the potential trump administration, i am sure you have heard it from mr. wright and mr. burnham, we refer to it as energy dominance. one of the reasons i believe we have not been able to apply

muscular sanctions against the russian federation or unwilling was the supply of energy was constrained in the u.s. same with the terrorist regime in iran. as we raise u.s. production, we would squeeze down the bad actors, especially iran. i think i am right in order of magnitude, iran was down to 100,000 barrels of oil exports when president trump left office. i believe they are now exporting approximately 1.7 million. through sanctions policy, i believe we can make a ran poor -- iran poor again. not the iranian people. the iranian government.

at the same time, have our domestic producers push that up with the highest energy standards in the world. sen. barrasso: we do it with the best stewards of the land, i agree. iran is selling to china and china is buying at a discount. they are getting cheap energy. iran is getting cash. they are using that money for terrorism. national security. tax cuts and jobs act, 2017. if that were to expire, we are talking a tax hike of $4 trillion. what would that mean for small businesses, job creators and global competitiveness. mr. bessent: it would be devastating, especially for small businesses.

as someone who came from a small town, lived in new york, a very big town, and came back to a small town, i believe wall street has done great the past few years and main street has suffered. it is main street's time. wall street can continue to do well, maybe not as well. it's time to have a main street, small business led recovery, small banks, regional banks, three privatizing the economy -- re-privatizing the economy. since president trump's election, we have seen the biggest jump in the history of the small business confidence index. chair: senator tillis. senator: thank you for being here. joe: senator thom tillis,

republican from north carolina, speaking with scott bessent. senator: when you were being attacked by one of my colleagues saying the guy looks like he has a heart rate of 40. you are very composed. thank you for staying on the facts. someone put in your question of viability, a lack of public service. sometimes i think we have too much public service in people's background here, and not enough business experience. why might this represent your first entry into public service? mr. bessent: as an adjacent state and homeowner in north carolina, i appreciated our conversation in your office. i have been in public service, just not in the government.

in new york, i was a strong supporter of a charter school called harlem children's zone, which takes young residents, a gigantic plot keeps getting bigger area of harlem, takes them from cradle through high school. i have found my service, anyone can write a check. what has been fulfilling for me has been mentoring these young people. i am still in touch with them today. i was a trustee for rockefeller university, one of the great research universities in the world. i was on the executive committee. i chaired the investment committee. sitting here today is meaningful for me. this is my third try at public service. 1979, i was 17.

i wanted to fight for my country. my father had experienced extreme financial difficulties. i wanted to attend u.s. naval academy. i was offered by our congressman in the six the strict of south carolina an appointment but was unable to take it. i managed to go to yale. worked several jobs to do that. at yale, i wanted to do public service in the form service. i was told also not welcome. sitting here today is my third attempt at public service. i sit here knowing president trump chose me because he believes i am the best candidate. not because of my sexual preference, for treasury secretary's with green eyes do better, i think it is attributed to president trump that he looks at people as people.

sen. tillis: i agree. i appreciate that answer. this is the joint committee on taxation, distributional analysis of what happens to the various socioeconomic strata if we don't pass the extension. chair: without objection. sen. tillis: senator johnson does big boards. i do handouts. i'm handing this to my republican colleagues. if we fail to extend the tax act, we will own a crisis for people in medical america. 93 million will be affected in terms of added tax burden if we fail to pass extension of tcja. last time i checked, there are not 93 million rich people in this country. they are people who struggle like you did when you were a kid and like i did when i was a kid who had to work themselves

through college and every time we had a well-intentioned program from government to make things better for me, it made it harder for me to dig myself out of the economic situation i was born into. facts are stubborn. this tells us what happens if we fail to pass jobs and tax cuts. it doesn't even get to the impact i had. turns out, at that very table, jellyroll was here for a finance committee hearing. he lived in the same trailer park i did 20 years later in south nashville, tennessee. what i found interesting in my family was we were on the economic edge. every time government has a well-intentioned program to tax the rich i went from a house to a trailer park. every time government let us do what we wanted, we lived in a house. i am a living example. i am sure others have had those

expenses. look historically at one people like us have opportunities. i look forward to supporting your nomination. i will send questions for the record but this is to reinforce the message republicans have to deliver. anyone who says we should not is advocating for a $5 trillion tax increase that will hurt the people on the economic edge worse than anybody else. chair: senator warnock. senator: thank you. grateful and honored to join this committee. joe: raphael warnock, democrat from georgia, questioning scott bessent, live on bloomberg. senator: to promote trade policies that work for georgian businesses and boosts our economy. good morning and good to see you.

enjoyed o