>> military training will be focused on what our troops in the field need to deter our enemy. more rapid fielding, more rapid opportunity to train as we fight, will be something we want our units to do across the spectrum. one more. >>, [inaudible question] >> looking forward to that. >> hey, we're going to make sure there's accountability for what happened in afghanistan and that we stand by our allies. thank you. >> and we take you back now to the senate finance committee nomination hearing for president trump's treasury secretary nominee scott bessent. the senate will be voting on his confirmation later this evening. you can watch live coverage of that vote here on c-span2. >> after your crocodile tears about the defense -- how china

is outcompeting us, as you know, because you're a smart person and you spent a lot of time on wall street just like your predecessor did, discretionary spending is about a third of our overall spending. 17% of what we spend is domestic. 17% roughly of what we spend is military spending, that's spending you were talking about with respect to china. there are so many things i think you owe the american people after we have seen the catastrophe of the result from the tax cuts the last time and the fact that the benefits went to the wealthiest people, but don't you at least owe the american people a refund for the $2 trillion that they've incurred because of the last round before you get to 4.6 trillion, can we think of a better idea in the halls here than cutting taxes for the wealthiest people and expecting

it will trickle down to everybody else when we have the profound needs that you have talked about when we're living in an economy-- you had the american dream, we heard you say that. where fewer and fewer of people can get ahead with this generation of americans is going to be the first generation to leave less opportunity, not more, to our kids and our grandkids, where we see massive income inequality and wealth inequality when trump was president and biden was president, and at a bare minimum, and this is tiny, don't we owe them an answer about what you're going to do to that 17% of the discretionary spending or even the third before you come in here and say that the most important thing we should do is cut taxes for the richest people in america? >> senator, thank you. and i would respectfully disagree with much of your

categorization in terms of the benefits accruing to the richest americans. actually, the share of taxes paid by the upper percent of americans increase after tcga. 39 to 46%. top 56 of americans now pay 98% of taxes and working families had real wage increases in 2018 and 2019 and going into 2020 pre-covid. the cbo scoring for the trump tax cuts got rescored by 1.5 trillion. >> make sure that -- make sure because we're in the beginning of a long debate. if you're going to rely on the cbo score for this you're going to rely on it for the things you said it's no good. >> okay, i'm not in love with cbo's scoring. >> i know it, now you're

relying on it. so, i'm just saying. >> the language --. >> it's not funny money. this is american people's money, we can do math. every american has to do math and we're going to insist you that you do the math, too, because we know george soros understands the math when you worked there and you understand full well what's going on here just like steve mnuchin did, just look donald trump did and we're not going to let it happen again to the american people. thank you. >> again remind my colleagues we need to hold our time to five minutes. senator cass. >> mr. bessent, i'm going to pronounce your name like it was in louisiana, bessent, as opposed to bessent. the folks in south carolina do. i'll try. let me compliment you on some sensitive answers. some people here rope-a-dope and statements like just my

colleague. and alluded to it, tariffs when senator wyden spoke up. and i'm concerned that countries like china, putting in coal fired plants and whatever we do won't have an impact on global greenhouse emotions, and china has put up so many. and we discussed the foreign pollution fee which would put an levy, and roughly the cost of them not controlling it. so i would think that my democratic colleagues would like that because that's clearly a way that they are manipulating the world economy to steal jobs from the united states and simultaneously increase global greenhouse gas emissions. any comments on such a foreign

pollution fee? >> senator cassidy, i enjoyed-- greatly enjoyed our discussion and the extensive presentation you gave me when i visited with you and this is a very good question because -- and i believe it is one for your democratic colleagues to understand whether they would be in favor of the equivalent of a carbon tariff. that senator graham is in favor of it and i think it's a very interesting idea that it could be part of an entire program because i think president trump hasn't taken office yet, but if confirmed, i look forward to working with them on various strategies, some that could be specifically aimed toward carbon, as you say. others that could be aimed

toward unfair trade practices, unfair financing practices. >> so if you will, there are externalities that the tariff can address and at the pocketbook or job prospects of an average american. let me move on, i think you agree with that. i applaud your goal to get our debt to gdp ratio down to 3% or a percent of our gdp down to 3%. but you studiously say that we can't talk about things like social security and i think that's because routinely if we talk about social security, we presume that there's going to be a cut in benefit or raise in taxes. i think we spoke when we met, i and others have a bipartisan plan that would create a mention investment fund, from the social security trust fund and that just like we do with our 401(k)'s, invested in the broader economy and use the proceeds from that to offset the upcoming 25% cut in social

security benefits that will occur if we don't address this problem. and just so folks get that, under current law when the social security program goes insolvent in eight years, per cbo, a 25% cut in benefits. under the plan i and others have endorsed, if a pension investment fund which we would invest in the broader economy with the safeguards to keep the government from interfering. i mention that because it seems that other advisors to the incoming president have spoken of creating an investment fund to benefit. mr. lutnick, mr. paulson on the campaign trail. what are your thoughts about that concept? i think they spoke about it as sovereign wealth. i'm speaking about it as a fund to bail out social, not, by the way, all risk born by the fund, none of the risk born by the britishry, she would get her scheduled benefits. what are your thoughts on that? >> senator cassidy, first of all, i want to emphasize that president trump has said that

social security and medicare, they will not be touched and i believe-- >> but i'm saying touched in a positive way not cut benefits, not raise taxes, increase, increase benefits and take the 25% cut off the table just to be clear. >> no, i understand. and those would not be touched. one of the tragedies of this blowout in the budget deficit is that we have to get our short-term house in order to start-- before we can start implementing the smart plans such as yours. i do believe that there is discussion to leverage the asset side of the u.s. balance sheet as we discussed in your office in favor of a fund, whether it's a sovereign wealth fund, something, as you discussed, a supplemental fund,

so that is very much in the mix. i look forward to getting back to you on it. president trump hasn't taken office yet. if confirmed, this is something that i think could be very exciting because we always look at the debt of the united states and we have fantastic assets that could be earning leveraged for use for multiple revenue generating opportunities. >> thank you, i yelled. >> thank you. senator warner? >> thank you, mr. chairman, congratulations. mr. bessent, good to see you, enjoyed our meeting. i've got some specific questions i want to ask and i don't want to litigate this now, but i do feel as someone working with senator claypool and others, when we took on i still think the most

comprehensive simpson bowles and we took arrows from each side and i'm looking at any kind of pro growth policies possible, but i respectfully want to say, there is not an industrial nation, first of all, an industrial nation in the world that gets anywhere close to meeting the revenue needs and i'm not proposing that the americans spend like the europeans, it's never happened historically, it's not going to happen in a trump administration or a future democratic administration so i just, a lot of time to talk back and forth on that, but i can't let some of it go without at least offering something that there's not an economist around that wouldn't-- we've got to bring down spend, but the revenue side alone is not going to-- excluding that, we're never going to get to a balance. i do want to weigh on a more positive note something i worked with the chairman on and actually worked with your

predecessor on and proud of that relationship and i didn't agree with secretary mnuchin on a lot of things, but some, and cdfi's under the previous trump administration, we put $12 billion in and this serves access to capital for underserved communities under the senator's leadership, we bought a caucus, 12-d, 12-r. tough to get 24 senators to agree on anything, kind of low hanging fruit. to expand and a secondary market, bipartisan legislation there trying to award patient capital a lot of these institutions have. chair one equity and they've got to get capital and senator claypool and i have worked with the current administration and would like to work with yours. could you say a word or two about how you view this making

sure that underserved communities get the access to capital so they can have their own american dream, how that fits into your lexicon? >> senator warner, i enjoyed talking to you about the cdfi's in your office. i am -- the early part of my career was a financial analyst and so i have a depth and breadth and i believe that the breadth of the u.s. financial services industry is what makes the u.s. economy differentiates a u.s. economy from the rest of the world and i think the addition after the cdfi's into underserved communities are very important. >> i appreciate that again, and it's bipartisan and there are again, you understand markets well. if we could spark a secondary market in this debt, if we could leverage i'm talking about private capital and i

know that's what my colleagues like a lot, private capital, but we could leverage it exponentially. one. things we discussed and we talked about this in my office and one of the things i was happy to hear, i feel very strongly that we cannot reward vladimir putin's aggressive outrageous behavior in ukraine. and i think the ukrainians have performed remarkably. they have manpower issues and i see that on a daily basis. one of the things i think we have not done as well and candidly, the sanctions regime i don't think was as it should have been and i frankly think the biden administration waited too late to put sanctions on oil and tankers, the ability for russia to retool. listen, i hope that president trump can settle this,

hallelujah. the world would be better off, but one of the things we discussed in my office was the potential to actually increase the sanctions regime to help further leverage that. would you care to talk for a moment about that again? >> yes, so senator warner, i believe that the sanctions regime, especially-- well, first of all, i would say in my adult life that the tragedy going on in the ukraine is one of the greatest tragedies of my adult life and ending that as soon as possible, and any role the treasury can play in that, if confirmed, i would like to do. as we discussed, i believe that the sanctions were not fulsome enough. i believe that we-- i believe that the previous administration was worried

about raising u.s. energy prices during an election season, and i am perplexed to see that national security advisor sullivan on his way out the door is raising the sanctions level on russian oil companies and indeed, the oil prices in the u.s. are up about 9% this month. so, what was good for that administration is being foisted on us, but having gone from, i think, low level sanctions to mid level, that if any officials in the russian federation are watching this confirmation hearing, they should know that if i'm confirmed and if president trump requests and as part of his strategy to end the ukraine war, that i will be 100% on

board for taking sanctions up, especially on the russian oil majors to levels that would bring russian federation to the table. >> and i'll take 30 seconds, let me get 30 seconds. thank you for that, i think the important that we don't take these tools out of the tool kit. we can litigate what the past administration did and when they did it, but increasing pressure on putin to bring about a resolution, i very much appreciate your willingness and i hope you will be advocate for advancing that further. >> thank you. >> thank you, senator warner. thank you, senator lankford. >> mr. bessent, thank you for your time and in the office talking about details as well. i was interested to hear your statistic you shared earlier after the tax cuts and jobs act of 2017 and we have a couple of years to see what happens and top 50% of earners in america

now way 98% of the taxes did i hear that correctly. i've heard over and over again only the companies and wealthy get it. i would say that an oklahoma company that's a small business to ask their c.p.a. this year when filing taxes what if the tax and jobs act expired next year and our taxes be, and i think they would be surprised on the rhetoric that this is only about wealthy people. small businesses would find out, oh, it's them as well. and the child tax credit if the act goes away. it gets cut in half and inversions under the obama administration where american companies were being bought up by foreign entities, now that's actually switched and now american companies are buying foreign companies and those jobs are coming here. so there's been a tremendous benefit in that. one challenge that we've had on

this committee is a conversation with janet yellen about pillar two and it started really four years ago now, three years ago where the conversation was, well, we don't need congress to act on that, we can act unilaterally and change all tax policies for all businesses and then in the last year, we'll come back to you to get this. in the meantime, a deal has been negotiated that literally helps european countries and hurts the united states on this. and they negotiated a deal that exempts china from being affected by at at all. my question to you is, are you going to engage in this issue of pillar two, number one, have this committee involved in writing taxes, which seems to be consistent with the constitution, and then what is your message to other countries if they try to implement pillar two on american businesses? >> thank you, senator. as we discussed in your office, senator lankford, that i

believe that any, especially european country, but any country that in the next few days before president trump takes office is intent on implementing pillar two will find it a grave mistake, that the taxation of u.s. companies is a sovereign issue and it is-- that authority lies with this congress and i will respect that, i will work with you to undo what i think has been the -- a terrible policy. >> yeah, which i would agree and many members in this committee agree. they went around congress violating the constitution, but it deliberately hurt american companies and i think it's terrible policy and it truly was america last policy. on the energy side, you've talked a lot about energy production. on the oklahoma and all of the

above and above on energy. we probably have more wind and hydro energy than any other state on this dias, but we also produce oil and gas and we're going to provide the energy that our state needs to stay stable on that. one of the issues that's a business issue for small or large businesses that i've been fighting for is a stable bonus depreciation amount. this is not about the type of energy or type of business, even. if you're actually investing in your company and trying to grow your company that you would know what that bonus depreciation. this would help with pipeline productions, but also help a pet shop and a hair salon, and a restaurant just as much as well. so, thoughts on bonus depreciation in just a stable rate for that? >> senator lankford, you're referring to the 100% immediately-- >> what has been in the past, but quite frankly, a stable rate period. right now we have a diminishing rate that's unpredictable. >> yes, so, i think that

increasing the after tax return on capital for u.s. companies, especially small business, is one of the greatest forms of job creation that we could see. and to go back to your point on energy production, we have heard much here today saying that we are at a record amount of energy production and we know that's a kenard. we are barely above where we were in 2020 and if we were to look at the energy projection for 2024 and 2025, we're well below those. the past year we have seen u.s. construction production constrained and we need more energy in the u.s. to make up tore the loss of russian sanctioned oil. >> which is american jobs and american income, and then we're

dealing with what was put on the oil and gas companies in my state and others as well and driving up costs for consumers as well. that's an issue that needs to be taken. >> thank you. >> mr. chairman, again, congratulations on your position, i look forward to working with you and all of our colleagues on the committee and thank you, mr. bessent for being here, and congratulations for your nomination and willingness to serve and welcome to your husband and children as well. we are grateful for that willingness to share you with the country. i appreciate you meeting with me in in process and sharing your priorities at treasury if you are confirmed and i want to follow up on some of those topics today and i also just want to associate myself with the comments of my colleague, senator bennett and senator warren, warner. we need to make sure the wealthiest pay their fair share. with regard to senator warner's comments on sanctions, you mentioned if vladimir putin is watching this hearing, he's not

the only one watching this hearing. china is watching this hearing and we have talked about the importance of making sure that we are not only competitive, but outperforming china for economic purposes as well as for national security reasons and as important as a resolution in ukraine is, history tells us that appeasing tyrants at the expense of freedom fighters never works and it's critically important for the ukrainian people and freedom of all of us, but it is important because china and north korea are watching what we do and this hearing and how we will go forward imposing sanctions. to turn to some of the topics that we discussed when we met in my office. the research and development tax deduction is one of them, helping us to outcompete countries like china. right now, 200% super deduction for r and d and americans can

only deduct 10% for r and d. and i worked with senator young to restore the immediate and full r and d deduction. will you work with me and my colleagues to get this across the finish line in congress? >> senator, i enjoyed the meeting in your office. i am not fully versed in this, but my inclination is that this is something that i would support and i will get back to you, if confirmed, i will get back to you very quickly on it and will make a priority, make it a priority. >> do you agree it's an important tool for american companies to improve their competitiveness? >> yes, senator. >> thank you. one of my other top priorities is working on a bipartisan basis to lower costs for families. under president-elect trump's policies, do you believe that prices for families will go up or down? >> i believe that inflation

will be the much closer to the federal reserve's target of 2% and i believe that what we've seen over the past few years is that the bottom two income quintiles have a very different baskets of goods and services, so there are two ways. we can either lower costs or get real wages up. i would hope that we would be able to do both. >> you believe that president trump's policies will further increase wages and lower inflation? >> i believe that they will increase real wages and lower inflation closer to the federal reserve's 2% target as it did during president trump's first administration. >> are there any specific policies proposed by the president-elect that you expect will increase prices for families? >> nothing i can immediately think of. >> so that's a no. if the president-elect were to

propose a policy that you believe will increase prices, would you advise against it? >> i would -- i would speak to president trump about it. it is his decision and i believe that we think that if we look back that it is a complete composite of return in terms of aggregate inflation numbers and i think it's very difficult to-- >> well, if you believe. i have limited time. so if you believe that a policy that is proposed by president trump would increase prices, would you advise him against doing it? yes or no? >> i can't answer that question because it's a hypothetical. >> let's move on to, when we met prior to the hearing you told me that president biden was responsible for increased prices the past four years, something we can litigate, but i don't want to right here.

by the same token if prices increase in the next four years, president-elect president trump would be responsible? >> i think there could be a variety of reasons. i think that it could be that we will see the policies of the federal reserve, the spending policies. congress sets the spending policies. >> so, look, i'm just going to -- i'm going to cut to the chase because i'm out of time, but at the end of the day what you are articulating is a double standard and it's disappointing to me, mr. chair. >> thank you. senator daines. >> chairman, thank you, having you here this morning. in this committee we have a divide between two different philosophies how to go forward and what's best for the american people in this economy and global competitiveness. i remember sitting right in this chamber and we were debating whether or not we should want the multi-trillion massive spending bills, $2 trillion covid bill, the

inflation reduction act, massive, multi-trillion dollar bills that even democrats former secretaries of treasury said could be inflationary and indeed, it was. you compare that outcome returning back to the policy of the prior trump administration, when you lower taxes for businesses and the american people, you create more tax revenue, create more activity and for minorities as well and returning to global competitiveness and stop the inversions and like, boom, went from multiple to zero. and boldly during the trump administration, the massive control spending bill that were inflationary and the american people suffered greatly with these higher levels of

inflation and mortgage rates, and i'm glad to have you as our next secretary of treasury with you to restore sanity back to where we were. congratulations on your nomination and your willingness to serve. with the expiration coming of these tax rates, facing 4.3 trillion dollar 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 and answering we might have this moment, and we started talking about what are some key scenes and we got into the details over several months of working groups for the next tax bill to review and protect. preserve the tax rates and prevent a $4 trillion increase. one of the key words was permanency. i've expressed my support for

current policy baseline. i've expressed my support for this uncertainty with expiring provisions. it's time to make them permanent to take one additional burden from the american people, wondering what what's going to happen with congress and my tax rates, what happens if congress can act, let's take that off the table with permanency. my question, mr. best bessent. that's the philosophical divide here. some support the supply side, unleash capital into the free market and let those markets decide rather than a bureau kratts in washington with wasteful spending. how does permanency and certainty of the tax code affect our ability to grow out of these problems? >> 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. and also discussing your history in the private sector, both with a big company and small companies and a question like that makes it clear to me that you understand the incentive, that it is incentive that drives everything in tax policy and i can tell you that since november 5 for small businesses we've seen the biggest increase in optimism since they have been keeping the metrics. so, certainly, small business owners many whom are pass-through corporations believe that we will get the tax tcj across the line. i think we could see a bigger increase in optimism in

economics, when we have something we can't define, we call it animal spirits and i think we are seeing animal spirits, a nascent move up, but permanency and forward guidance give people certainty, we get capital investment, we get hiring, we get real wages, employers want to keep trained and expand their work force. so, everyone wins with permanency, certainty. a kind of forward guidance for tax policy, i think, would be one of the things that could unleash this new golden age that president trump has talked about. >> to make one statement, i know i'm out of time, mr. chairman, when you look at the private sector jobs in america, about 140 million private sector jobs, 88 million of those jobs are from past-through entities, about

63%. which tells me that-- and that's the part that's expiring. the corporate rates are saying permanent. it's the pass-through rates, those 88 million jobs, 63% of the private sector jobs are taking a look at what's going to happen here in washington in the course of the next six to eight months and very important to make them permanent and prevent a tsunami of 4.3 trillion tax increase that will come if we don't act. >> thank you. senator cortez masto. >> thank you, mr. bessent, for meeting with me and to your family as well. i want to talk about the tax credit. 80,000 of my constituents in nevada receive that tax credit to assist them in affording their health care coverage and on average these credits lowered american's health insurance costs by $530 per month. congress provided a enhanced

ptc. and without it americans are going to lose their health coverage. for the policy in the incoming administration, would you oppose any attempt to remove or not attempt to remove these credits. >> senator, as we discussed in your office and has just been a brief time since we met, i committed to you i would research this, i have not had time to do that before this hearing, but if confirmed i would get back to you with all deliberate speed in investigating this. >> thank you, i appreciate this. let me just say you would agree that these tax credits because they're current policy, they actually extend current tax policy costs-- excuse me, that you agree that extending current tax policy actually costs money? >> again, i think i don't

understand the nuance of that question, but i will get back to you on it. >> thank you, i appreciate that. you have been supportive of many of president trump's plans, and i've heard the conversation. i'm not going to talk about that, we went into it a little bit in my office. let me jump back to the credits that some of my colleagues oppose, they've benefitted nevadans, supports thousands of jobs in the reno area and billions in investment across my state and key to reducing dependence on china for the critical minerals we need for our military and supports mining jobs in nevada. we're a mining state and we're mining critical minerals. will you commit to opposing any effort to reveal or reduce the

45x tax credit, not just a benefit in nevada, but in alaska. >> again, senator, i'm unfamiliar with the exact, but it's important for us to mine, accumulate and move to domestic production for rare earth and other vital minerals. so i will get back to that on that exact my thoughts on that exact program, but on an atmospheric meta basis, i agree with the direction of travel. >> thank you. let me ask you this, we also talked about this. president trump has stated he thinks that a president should have influence over the decisions federal reserve and does it continue to be your

view that the federal reserve should be independent of the president? >> i believe that the notion that president trump believes he should have influence, there was, i believe, a highly inaccurate wall street journal article saying that 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 called for dz did there was a jumbo rate can ut in september, 50 business sis points and two of the-- >> i'm not asking my senate colleagues about politics, i'll get this from you, you don't deviate from our discussion. >> i believe that the fomc should be independent. >> thank you, the benefit of our colleagues you were referring to earlier, in our meeting i asked you is there

any regulation, treasury regulations that currently exist that you currently disagree with. and in a response, continuing response right now you say you're going to look into it and get back to me, is that right. >> look, i believe as we saw -- i don't know if it's a regulation, but it's a policy, as we saw from the december 8th hack by the-- some chinese ent entities into the treasury, which is very serious, that was through a work from home software app so one of the policies that i support, i intend to be in the building every day that i am in washington and i support a return to the office, which is against the current treasury policy. >> right, i appreciate that. if there are any other that oppose and you can share with me, doesn't have to be right now. >> i'm happy to provide that in writing. >> thank you so much.

thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. senator young. >> mr. bessent, good to see you, congratulations again on your nomination to this important position and thank you for your willingness to serve our country. i'll 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 distinguished 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, there's a lot of chat in washington about that, but i appreciate your thoughtful answers this morning. i'm going to dive in and begin by asking you about a 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 sifius that reviews american industries and recently president biden blocked nippon steel's acquisition of u.s. steel on national security grounds. yet, he and the administration provided no clear substantiated evidence, publicly at least, to justify this decision. from my home state, this abrupt action has instilled a lot of anxiety, particularly in the gary, indiana area where there's nearly $1 billion in investments that were promised. if the anybody nippon-u.s. steel were to reoccur, review,

when it was able to overshadow an honest assessment of national security vulnerabilities? >> senator young, thank you for the question and i understand the imperative for jobs for your constituents in indiana. president trump most recently has also spoken out against the deal, but if the deal is-- >> statute indicates that you should-- you are charged with providing impartial reviews, that's all i'm asking. would you be following that law or not, sir? >> impartial reviews, so, it's currently in litigation, the review is closed, but if it reappears, sifius will conduct the same review that it always does, yes, sir. >> okay. 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 0 our economic debates, inflation, supply chain, resilience and job creation. i believe in moderation tariffs for a time strengthen america's negotiating leverage with other nations and they can strengthen certain national security relevant industries, but overuse, overuse of tariffs can inflate costs and provoke retaliation. as hoosier farmers experienced firsthand over the years, they often bear the impacts of these measures leaving already thin margins much more vulnerable. what concrete steps would you take to introduce those, if they impose steep duties and

how do you envision the department's role in supporting them? >> thank you, senator young. as i mentioned before, i may have mentioned it when i was in your office, our family is involved in the farming business in soy beans and corn so i'm sensitive to this and up-to-date. the american farmers have been very loyal. 90% of rural voters voted for president trump so they should know that his-- that their interests are his interests and 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 enforce the purchase provisions. so 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 push the chinese for a catchup provision over the past four years. >> just a quick follow-up, in terms of the tariffs, a skilled negotiator -- what criteria or benchmarks would you use to go across the board measures or more surgical tariffs? do you believe there should be any built-in caps or triggers to prevent an unintended escalation? >> so senator young, i haven't

been confirmed yet and president trump isn't 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. the chinese tariffs, steel. two, maybe for a more generalized tariff as a revenue raisor for the federal budget and three, president trump, i think, has added a third use of tariffs, as you said, as a skilled negotiator to -- he believes that we have probably gotten over our skis on sanctions and that sanctions may be driving countries out of the u.s. of the u.s. dollar so the tariffs can be used for negotiations, whether it's for mexico on the fentanyl crisis

and so, i think you and the american people should think about those three broad categories. >> thank you, sir. we need to move on. next is senator sander, i don't believe you were here when i welcomed everyone to the committee. but as a new member of the committee i personally welcome you and look forward to working with you. >> thank you very much. eighths 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. you've got three people on top, mr. musk, mr. bezos and mr. zuckerberg who are now worth almost a trillion dollars. that's more than half of the bottom of our society, some 170 million people. three people more wealth on the

bottom, 170 million. we have more concentration of ownership today than we've ever had. we have more concentration of ownership in the media where a handful of billionaires like musk, bezos, rupert murdoch increasingly own the media and the information that the american people receive. we have a corrupt campaign finance system in which a small number of billionaires in both political parties make huge contributions into the presidential and congressional campaigns. when you have a small number of multi-billionaires who have 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, end of quote. that's what president biden said last night. i agree with him. do you? >> senator sanders, i enjoyed our visit-- >> talk closer into the mic. >> i enjoyed our visit and i hope you got my follow-up materials. >> thank you. >> on the tariffs on china. and look, the three billionaires who you listed they've all made the money themselves. mr. musk came to the country as an immigrant. >> i understand that, but what 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 these people have influence over the media, when

they spend huge amounts of money in both political parties to elect candidates, what biden said last night, we're moving toward an oligarchy. i'm asking you that question. do you think-- forget how they made their money. do you think when so few people have so much wealth and so much economic and political power that that is an oligarchic form of society? >> i would note that president biden gave the presidential medal of freedom to two people who i think would qualify for his oligarchs, so-- >> this is not a condemnation of any one individual. i'm just asking you when so few people have so much wealth and power-- >> but-- >> do you think that's an oligarchic form of society? >> senator, i think it depends on the ability to move up and down the-- >> no, the answer, if you had the mobility, no matter who those 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? >> senator, i believe that the minimum wage is more of a statewide and regional issue. >> you don't think that we should change the federal wage of $7.25 an hour? >> no, sir.

mr. bessent, millions of working americans struggling to keep their heads above water, are paying high interest rates on credit cards. new credit cards, 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 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 i want to see happen, that is to cap credit card interest rates at 10%? >> senator, i think we can both agree that many credit card companies have been bad actors. they have throughout history and i will get back to you once-- >> 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 president trump and i would like to do. >> when i am confirmed i will follow what president trump wants to do. >> thank you senator. mr. smith. >> thank you very much mr. chair and ranking member. i'm grateful to be a part of this committee and i appreciate it very much. 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 this economy work better for regular people in this country and when we spoke yesterday. we talked generally about this. and you have said that you think our biggest challenge is to get after the deficit and your first priority is to extend the republican trump tax

cuts. which would add 4.6 trillion to the deficit and you've said that the tax cuts have generated economic growth and that those benefits are going to have trickle down to everyone else, but what i see is that these republican tax cuts have delivered massive consolidation of wealth at the top. half of the benefits went to the top 5%. top 1% got a tax cut that was 852 times bigger than the one that the-- that was received by the lowest earning working families in this country and now these wealthy people have more money than what you know what to do with. you see elon musk buying tweter and an office in the old executive office building and a seat on the platform, and the tech billionaires are launching rockets into space and building themselves bunkers and buying

numbers. it seems the concentration of wealth is not good for our country and it's certainly not doing anything to lower prices for working families in minnesota or helping them afford a home or child care. in fact, it seems like it's doing the opposite of that. so could you comment on this? >> yes, and senator smith, i believe that president trump and if confirmed, myself, are committed to supporting the-- addressing the affordability crisis. and it was nascent in 2021, it occurred in '22, '23. we're substantial lie above target and my hope is that we will not see it accelerating again and inflation is one of the great killers for working families. as we talked about in your

office, the cpi or pce, the statistical numbers may be up about 20, 22% under the previous administration, but the basket of goods and services for working families. so getting inflation down, interest rates down and addressing this affordability crisis. >> yeah, so, and as you know, inflation is coming down and one of the things that i think 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 amounts of money they would have had to have the prices in order to cover their costs. so in my view, this level of corporate consolidation is hurting americans and hurting the price and costing people more. in fact, the republican trump tax bill that, there's such a

move to reinstate or to extend is going to contribute to that problem not make it better. but let me ask you another question, you've also said that in order to get our fiscal house in order we need to cut spending, deregulate and we need to privatize. i just want to look at how what we're seeing with some privatizing in the private sector that is of great concern to me. let's look at health care. we've seen a move by big corporate investors into health care and especially hospitals, terrible stories we've heard about rural hospitals and clinics getting shuttered and maternity wards shut down and caused in part by the big corporation purposing and moving and concentration in health care and none of this has lowered cost for americans. in fact, the opposite. people's costs have spiked. so i wondered you see this kind of model of big corporate takeovers actually helping to lower costs for americans?

>> senator smith, health care, i've probably had-- trying to understand health care costs and the drivers of that on my to-do list for 10 years to be able to sit in a room for a week and understand this and i've never been able to do it, but i will tell you that when we see things like health care, like higher education, both of which have substantially outperformed any inflation index by cost. there is a problem there. i think that what you're identifying could be one of the problems, but i think the level, overall level of health care costs we're seeing is driven by a multi-factor. ... factor -- sen. smith: it is a complicated issue and i know i'm out of time, mr. chairman. we have done work on this.

when chair sanders was chair of the health committee, big corporations come in, quality of care goes down, patient costs go up. there was a hospital in massachusetts bought up by one of these big firms and they stopped st they stopped stocking a common treatment for hemorrhage during pregnancy and they've seen patients died. this is an example of how privatizing is not a solution to our problems in health care or other parts of our economy. thank you, mr. chair. >> senator john thune. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. bessent come welcome. thank you for willingness to serve.om i want to start by refuting one of the false narratives we hear ad nauseam from the other side that the tax cuts and jobs act was primary cause of our deficits. just not true. i'm going to use the facts from cdao, this isn't to confirm numbers, should you want to dig cbo projections projections with a grain of salt. after its passage cbo projected ten years butut again for seven years that we just expand total revenue of $27 trillion.

actual revenue was $28.7 trillion. to do the math that's $1.7 trillion more than what cbo estimates which shows the ratio score is 1.5 trillion lost revenue. we not only paid for the tax-cut, in seven years we generated $200 billion moreev revenue even with theon covid recession. so again we need to take cbo scores with real grain of salt. i hope this committee understands what senator graham was talk about in terms of your humble beginnings enjoy tremendous american success story. i'll ask you a hypothetical understand american families. if an american family let's say they normally spend $100,000 come have a serious health crisis. so in one year to have to spend $50,000 on medical bills. but fortunately that family member gets well. what with that family spend the next year?

just real quick. >> unless they have more income that -- >> speed is $500,000. >> they would spend the same hundred and probably have that caused social with that. >> they certainly wouldn't do with the federal governmenthe hs done. in 2019 before the pandemic we wede spent $4.4 trillion. in 2020 2020 we spent 6.5, $6.6 trillion. when the pandemic ended we didn't reduce spending. for the last five years with averaged $6.5 trillion, last year spent $6.9 $6.9 trill. mr. bessent, is any justification for keeping spending levels at thisif level? >> senator johnson, as i've said repeatedly, the united states doesn't have a revenue problem. we have a speeded we have a spending problem. the question is how do we preset spending levels to a reasonable

pre-pandemic level? i wrote a column in the "wall street journal." i laid out a couple scenarios. let me give you the guts of the. if you take one of the pre-pandemic years and increased all the spending by population and inflation. by the way that the families would do as well. but you accept social security, medicare and interest and then use president biden's 2025 budget. you spend, what would limit spending this year. if you take bill clinton's 1998 spending come i don't think you spend too little back in 1998, we would have baselined a 5.5 trillion. 5.5 trillion. if you took president obama's 2014 2014 spending levels, $6.2 trillion. the one i like the best though is if we use president trump's 2021 budget, his estimates for spent in 2025, and use again inflate just use those numbers but sliding social security, medicare, and interest as they

are. nobody is touchings those. we would be spending about $6 trillion. wouldn't that be a a reasonabe level, summer between 5.5 -- $6 $6 trillion as a baseline spending to project our next ten years? >> senator, i look forward to working with you on this. you clearly have done more work than i have, and this looks like a very goodd starting point to me, to figure out how we have gotten into this spending more ask. >> so sounds like pretty reasonable approach. by the way i take 9090 i use clinton spending levels for this. i want to refute this cbo score on extending the tcja. back then they scored the whole thing as $1.5 trillion. if you just inflate that same way cbo, according to cpi it would be to trillion dollars. how to justify a score of 4.3,

$4.6 trillion. makes no sense. when you to take his estimates with as huge grain of salt. my final point, her directed member talk about inflation and the cost of living. because we've incurred these massive deficits, in 19 $98 straight $1998 it's only worth 51 cents. 20 $14 today is worth only $.74. a 2019, dollar 2019, dollar is only worth 80 cents. that was caused by this massive deficit spending, the devaluation of the dollar, and a lot of devaluation has occurred over the last four years because we spent too much money. not, not because we didn't tax american dollars. because we spent too much money. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. senator cantwell. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. mr. bessent, congratulations on your nomination. i see your family sitting there in earnest on these economic issues.

it's so interesting. oures perspectives, you can see from this committee, are arguing about whater we think either by 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 of 3.1% in the third quarter of 2024. that's strong growth, right? >> as an aggregate number, it's stronger. >> okay. the economy added 16 million jobs over the last four years, average unemployment is a lowest it's been 50 years so that's led to better pay and working conditions. we want that, right? >> i am in favor of better pay and working conditions yes, senator. >> and after-tax income increased by 400%. these are good economic news, at a personally think the focusing

on innovation and building supply chains is a good thing to do. so when you start talking about terrorists, that is when you get the pacific northwest attention. t editorial by one of my newspapers was bracing for the trump tariffs in aviation in general. you can imagine, we have an actual net surplus. we export about $2 billion out of our state versus importing $1 billion, but this is a big part of it. in the aviation sector, i think i sent you an article about the fact that we think increasing our manufacturing innovation to continue to have markets and sell to those markets is a good economic strategy. mr. bessent: senator cantwell, as i discussed in your office,

in my hometown of charleston, south carolina, boeing is also the largest employer. i view aviation as very important. sen. cantwell: great. believe me, i would have the same conversation with joe biden or barack obama or whoever. i want to focus on innovation, not the tariffs. i am worried that the tariffs are going to increase supply chain products, increase prices on our farmers, increase prices on americans. so, i want to ask you, don't you think we are in an environment where exporting products and growing markets outside the united states is a big economic opportunity, and what are you going to do to build coalitions to help us be able to achieve opening up those markets, as

opposed to just the retaliatory tariff environment which may reduce costs on americans and not resolve these issues? mr. bessent: senator cantwell, thank you for that. after our discussion in your office, i went back and looked at some older data. in 2000, in terms of the labor share of aggregate income in the u.s., 69% accrued to labor. to date, that number is 60. you could see a sharp drop after what is called the china shock. i agree with you that opening markets is good, but the free trade must be also balanced against fair trade. clearly what has happened, the trade has not been fair. that has fallen on the american workers. and we cannot allow, as i think i mentioned to you, china is the

most unbalanced economy in the history of the world. they are in a severe recession/depression. they may have -4% disinflation, and they are attempting to export their way out of that, as opposed to doing a internal rebalance. i am with you on a need to open markets but we cannot allow a player like this to flood our markets or to flood the world. sen. cantwell: i am saying i believe in coalitions. we discussed technology at nato. you thought that was a good idea. i could get upset with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle all the time but that doesn't move me forward. . i hope that you will look at what we will do to build allies. these numbers that are basically

talking about just the tariffs and what it would do to the price of gasoline given canada is concerning. i want to know that the trump administration will focus as much on innovating our way to success as we are on the tariffs. i do think we are going to see retaliatory tariffs. we saw it in our state, it hurt us in our agriculture. what happened is you lose more farms. there is a lot of people buying farmland. goldman sachs, bill gates, a lot of people buying farmland, but we are losing farmers in the middle of the trade wars, and that's a concern i have. by the way, thank you for mentioning housing. so appreciate that was in your statement. i look forward to working with you. that is an area, if the president will push forward, is a way for us to lower cost. chair crapo: thank you. senator lujan. sen. lujan: thank you, mr.

bessent, for being with us today. appreciated the conversation we had in the office. i will touch on several topics, so i will ask you some yes or no questions. i thank you in advance for your brevity. it may surprise many observing today the immense responsibility that the secretary of treasury has in stemming the flow of fentanyl and other substances. yes or no, will you commit to continuing the biden administration's counter fentanyl strike force which brought together the office of terrorism and financial intelligence and irs criminal investigation to fight financial crimes? mr. bessent: thank you, senator. i enjoyed our visit. as i mentioned in your office, this is personal for me as two families close to our family lost children to the fentanyl crisis. i will commit. know that it is my belief that president trump is laser focused

on this issue. sen. lujan: mr. bessent, yes or no, will you work with me to ensure there is more transparency over suspicious activity reports sars at the financial crimes network for congress? mr. bessent: i believe, as you and i discussed, there is a sleeve of treasury, treasury finance, that deals with this. i believe that we have to have a 2025 approach to -- you and i talked about digital currencies and all branches of government. yes. sen. lujan: mr. bessent, in your role as treasury secretary, do you agree that 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, senator. sen. lujan: i was pleased in our meeting that you stated, "no cuts will be needed" to achieve your economic goals. that may surprise a lot of my republican colleagues but i appreciate that conversation we had. yes or no, would you recommend cutting medicaid? mr. bessent: i'm sorry, i didn't hear whether you said medicare or medicaid. sen. lujan: yes or no, will you recommend cutting medicaid? mr. bessent: medicaid? it is the business of congress to do the budget. i am in favor of empowering

states. i believe that for some states, that will be an increase, other states, a decrease. sen. lujan: mr. bessent, will you recommend cutting medicaid to president trump? i remind you that you acknowledged one of your responsibilities as secretary of the treasury will be providing this advice. mr. bessent: i will get back to you on this. i have seen the details of the full budget proposal once president trump is in office and was confirmed. sen. lujan: will be recommend cuts to broadband following the investments we have seen across the country, making immense progress in connecting more people across the country that were included in the bipartisan infrastructure law? mr. bessent: senator, i am unfamiliar with the exact program. it is my understanding that much of the allocated funding has not been dispersed yet. i will get back to you on that. sen. lujan: mr. bessent, a lot

of folks back in south carolina, including some of your farming neighbors are getting connectivity because of these programs. you may just need to chat with them about the importance of what this program means. as my time expires, it may surprise many here that they're only a couple of us in this body that are members of headstart. i imagine we may hear more of that from my brother in headstart, mr. warnock here. but when we talk about the importance of early education in america, the economic benefit, yes or no, would you recommend cuts to headstart? mr. bessent: again, i will have to get back to you on this. i don't understand the intricacies of that program. sen. lujan: of headstart? mr. bessent: yes, i don't understand the budget ramifications. sen. lujan: do you know what headstart is? mr. bessent: i believe in

earlier childhood education program. sen. lujan: that is fair. i didn't realize you have to qualify to get into the program. the family that i was raised in, we have to qualify to get into the program. it opens up doors, got a couple of us to the united states senate. i hope that we can find some agreement in protecting that program. if someone tries to eliminate debt, early childhood education, that we can count on you on behalf of new mexicans, south carolinians, people across america to say that we are not going to do that. appreciate your time. chair crapo: senator barrasso. sen. barrasso: thank you,, thank you for your willingness to serve, for being here. enjoyed our discussion talking about the future of the country and the role the treasury secretary and getting our economy back on track. this means lower prices, higher wages, more jobs, stronger economic growth for america. it also means protecting people in states like wyoming from

crushing regulations and devastating tax hikes. it means getting wasteful spending under control. i'm greatly encouraged by the meeting that we had. i believe you have a strong vision for america, strong vision for unleashing american energy, for getting tough on china, tough on our adversaries, and forgetting the federal government out of the way for so many of us. i want to talk a bit about energy. in another committee yesterday, secretary of energy, earlier today, sec. of interior, lots of energy questions. i am glad that we agree a key ingredient in reigniting the economy is unleashing american energy. wyoming, we are an energy superpower as a nation, america's energy breadbasket. energy is the heart of our wyoming economy and the nation's economy. it supports workers as well as schools, infrastructure, the money that comes from that, tax revenue. wyoming is the least populated state but the third largest net

energy supplier, producing 12 times more energy than we consume. it is the forefront of oil, natural gas, coal production, carbon capture technology, hydrogen production, many alternative sources of energy. what has happened is energy producers in wyoming and across the country faced the whole of government assault from the biden administration on american energy production. taxes, crippling regulations, weaponized tax code in ways that were just unthinkable to be against conventional american energy production. the things that joe biden signed into law just made things worse. but the good news is with you there and president trump in the white house, things are about to change. you have talked extensively about boosting american energy production. rockmore role do you see playing as secretary becoming energy, and becoming energy secure as well? mr. bessent: senator barrasso, i

very much enjoyed our meeting, wide-ranging discussion. my family and i had a fantastic vacation in wyoming this summer. in terms of within the potential trump administration, i am sure you have heard it from secretary burgum, we refer to it as energy dominance. energy dominance, one of the reasons that i believe we have not been able to apply as muscular sanctions against the russian federation or unwilling was because the supply of energy was constrained in the u.s. the same with the terrorist regime in iran. i would view that as we can raise u.s. production, we would squeeze down the bad actors,

especially iran. i think i am right, maybe not in the exact numbers, but the order of magnitude, i believe iran was down to you 100,000 barrels of oil exports when president trump left office. i believe they are now exporting approximately 1.7 million. so, through sanctions policy, i believe we can again, as i like to say, make iran poor again. not the iranian people. the 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, we are the best stewards of the land, i agree. what we've also seen with iran increasing sales, selling to china, china buying at discount,

so they are getting cheap energy. iran is getting tanker loads of cash back essentially and they are using that money for terrorism. one last question in my time remaining. this has to do with the tax cut and jobs act that we passed in 2017. if that were to expire, we are talking about a massive tax hike over $4 trillion. what kind of a tax hike with that mean for small businesses, job creators as well as our global competitiveness if all of a sudden we put the heavy wet blanket of a four trillion dollar tax increase on our nation? mr. bessent: senator, i think it would be devastating, especially for small businesses. as someone who came from a very small town, lived in new york, big town, 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 streets time.

wall street can continue to do well, maybe not as well. it is time to have a main street, small business-led recovery, led by small banks, regional banks, as i call it, re-privatizing the economy. as i said, since november 15, since president trump selection, we have seen the biggest jump in the history of the small business confidence index. chair crapo: senator tillis. sen. tillis:, mr. bessent, thank you for being here, time in the office. congratulation to you, your spouse, john, your children. i leaned over to senator johnson when you were being attacked by one of my colleagues on the other side of the break i own, i said it looks like the guy has a heart rate of 40. you are very composed. thank you for staying on the facts and demonstrating your knowledge you possess.

i was not here but somebody put into question your viability of a nominee because of a lack of public service which i find interesting. sometimes i think we have too much public service in people's background and not real world business experience. can you give me an idea of why this nomination may represent your first entry into public service? mr. bessent: yes, senator tillis. again, as an adjacent state, someone who is a homeowner in north carolina, i appreciate our conversation in your office. i have been in public service, not just in government. when i lived in new york, i was a strong supporter of a charter school called harlem children's zone which takes young residents in a multi block, keeps on getting bigger, area of harlem, takes them from cradle through high school.

i have found that my service, anybody can write a check, anyone with my means can write a check. what has been fulfilling for me is mentoring many of these young people. still in touch with them today. i was also a trustee for rockefeller university, one of the great research universities in the world, was on the executive committee, chaired the investment committee. sitting here today is especially meaningful today for me because this is my third try in public service. in 1979, when i was 17 years old, i wanted to fight for my country. my father had just experienced financial difficulties. i wanted to attend the u.s. naval academy. i was offered by our congressmen in the sixth district of south carolina but was unable to take the appointment because of my sexual preference.

i managed to go to yale, worked several jobs to do that. while at yale, i want to do public service and joined the foreign service. i was told also not welcome. so sitting here today is my third attempt at public service. i sit here, knowing that president trump chose me because he believes on the best candidate, not because of my sexual preference, not because treasury secretary's with green eyes do better. i think it is a tribute to president trump that he looks at people as people. sen. tillis: i agree and i appreciate the answer. i will go into a lightning round here. first off, this is the joint committee on taxation distribution analysis of what happens to the various socioeconomic strata if we don't manage to pass the jobs and tax cut extension. without objection. chair crapo: without objection.

sen. tillis: senator johnson does big foam boards. i do handouts. i am giving these to my republican colleagues to say that if we do not extend the tax cut and jobs act, we will own a fiscal crisis for middle america. 93 million people will be affected in terms of an added tax. if we fail to pass an extension of tcja. the last time i checked, there are not 93 million rich people in this country. there are people who struggled like you did when you were a kid, like you did -- like i did when i was a kid. whenever we had some well-intentioned program from government who made things better for me, it made it harder for me to dig myself out of the economic situation i was born into. so the facts are stubborn things. this tells us what happens if we fail to pass the jobs and tax cuts.

and it doesn't even get to the impact that i had. it turns out at that very table, jellyroll was here for a finance committee hearing. he lived in the same trailer park that i did, 20 years later, in south nashville, tennessee. what i found interesting come my own family, we are right on the economic edge. every time government had some 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 to do, we lived in a house. i am a living example. ben ray lujan, others have had that experience. you have to look historically that when people like me and you had real opportunities. i look forward to supporting your nomination. mr. chair, i will send some questions for the record, but just to reinforce the message that republicans have to deliver. anyone who says that we should not is advocating for a $5

trillion tax increase that will hurt the people who are on the economic edge, worse than anybody else. thank you, mr. chairman. chair crapo: senator warnock. sen. warnock: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for joining this committee. i look forward to working -- to protect social security, medicare, medicaid and promote trade policies that work for georgia businesses and boost our economy. good morning and good to see you again. i enjoyed our conversation earlier this week. in that conversation you outlined ambitious goals for the federal government and deficit reduction. i would like to follow-up on our discussion about your economic plan. according to a new report from the tax policy center, the largest tax cuts from extending

the trump tax bill would go to those with the highest income. especially those in the top 1%, making more than $1 million per year. the top 1% of owners will take home roughly 1/4 of the benefits of the law and the top 5% will get almost half of that. do you believe that the wealthiest 1% of americans deserve or need an additional tax cut? >> i greatly enjoyed visiting with you. i think probably a better way to look at it is on a percentage basis. when i think about the distributional aspects of the tax cuts and job acts that most of the benefits accrue for the working and middle people as

opposed to the upper ends. absolute dollars, that is correct but i think it is important to look at it in percentage terms. sen. warnock: you believe the tax cut provided 1/4 of the benefits of the law to the top 1% on the top 5% getting almost half benefited those at the bottom more than the top? is that your testimony? mr. bessent: i believe in 2018 and 2019, households in the bottom 50% of income earners, the wealthy increase for those households was three times higher than the wealth increase for the top 10% of americans. sen. warnock: so we should continue to move in that direction? you talked about deficits as a national defense problem.

i think need to be fiscally responsible and bring the national debt under control. in 2013, congress extended the bush tax cuts for everyone except those making more than $400,000 per year. this bipartisan decision saying the treasury $600 billion. do you agree ending tax cuts for those making more than $400,000 would help close the deficit? mr. bessent: i do not. i believe you would capture an inordinate amount of small business people who largely are in that cohort of $400,000-$1 million. sen. warnock: one about $1 million? mr. bessent: i believe these are small business pass-through owners and as i said before, wall street has done great. it is time for main street do

well. small businesses need to drive what i call the re-private -- sen. warnock: i agree it is mainstreet's time. what about those making more than $10 million? would we reduce the deficit by extending those tax cuts for folks making $10 million? mr. bessent: again, i think it is important to put in incentives for them to invest. going back to the 100% depreciation for equipment, i think -- sen. warnock: i do not need to keep interrupting but i am a pastor and we are known to be loquacious and speak. what about $1 billion? mr. bessent: i think these are

the job creators. sen. warnock: there is no income level for which you would support raising taxes? mr. bessent: there is no income level i don't think we should continue the tcjaa as it was. sen. warnock: all right. i think our country is facing structural deficits. however i think you contribute to reduce taxes for the wealthy and letting them avoid taxes based on what they already owe will not get us out of that problem but i look forward to continuing that discussion. thank you very much. >> before we go on to senator blackburn i want to state there are a lot of facts that have been thrown around today. of this $4.3 trillion tax increase that could happen, this is actual dollars, $2.6 trillion

of that goes to families and individuals who make less than $400,000. that is simply the distribution of this tax increase. sen. blackburn: thank you for bringing that clarification because if we do not extend the tax cut and jobs act it is that for trillion dollars tax hike that people will see. i appreciate your comment about a mainstreet small business recovery. that is something that is so vitally important. we have had much discussion over the last few years with a biden administration over how they determined that $400,000 number. if it is the gross, the adjusted gross, they came up with a term

of total positive income, which is everything you make. we know the biden administration approach on this would be a killer for main street businesses. we know that 199-a is vital for them and they need to see that in the trump tax cuts and in that permanent so we can have the main street small business recovery and revival. i appreciate that and that president trump has nominated you for treasury secretary because you are sensitive to that. and what your work means to main street and to individuals and getting the irs under control and looking at some of these provisions that are going to be in front of you. we appreciate that you would

come back a third time and look at public service and that -- by the way, they are behaving so beautifully. whatever they want, they get. [laughter] senate orders. we will be right there to support them. i do want to talk with you for a moment about cbdc's. some of the push the the biden administration, they did an executive order for treasury to research development for a cbdc in the united states. this causes a lot of us heartburn because we looked at what the ccp did in connection with the olympics. upon confirmation, how would you

approach this discussion of cbdc 's and are you for them or against them? could you end the biden administration project to create a u.s.-based cbdc? mr. bessent: senator blackburn, thank you for your remarks. i may have a little trouble disciplining the two behind me. [laughter] on cbdc's, i see no reason for the u.s. to have a digital currency. a central bank digital currency is for countries that have no other investment alternatives. if we think about a reserve manager, a high surplus country, wherever it is, saudi arabia, singapore, who ends up with the

currency, if you own that currency, you have to have something to invest in. there is very little to invest in if you want to hold the currency. sen. blackburn: your view of that would be negative? mr. bessent: many of these countries are doing it out of necessity were if if you hold u.s. dollars, you can hold a variety of secure u.s. assets. sen. blackburn: i appreciate that. i appreciated your comments earlier about the negotiations. this is something we would be well served to extract ourselves from this. currently in the preliminary data we have, 40% -- right at 40 percent -- of the total pillar 2 tax burden is on us. china has found a way to exempt themselves from this.

that is in need of a revisit and i look forward to you doing that and standing with our companies. i think you can just submit this to me in writing. advanced persistent threat, apt, which is china, they were able to override treasury security systems and access workstations where they reported access to unclassified documents. and of course, this is chinese communist party work again. we found this out after finding out from the treasury inspector general that 2800 irs employees still had tiktok on their government devices. if confirmed and when confirmed,

will you take steps to improve treasury security systems? mr. bessent: senator blackburn, one of the earlier questions was, what policies of the current treasury secretary do you disagree with? as you noted, the december 8 hack was via a work from home system. i as treasury secretary, if confirmed, plan to be in the office every day i am in washington, d.c. and i expect all the other employees to do that to. it is a matter of national security for everyone to be at 1500 pennsylvania avenue. sen. blackburn: thank you. sen. welch: thank you very much. i look forward to working with you and all of our colleagues. mr. bessent, thank you for your

visit and welcome to your family. as we discussed, the situation for a lot of vermonters who work incredibly hard is very tough. vermont has one of the widest gaps between what people can earn and what their expenses are. it is tough at the end of the month to pay all the bills. the grocery bills, the health care bills, all of these things. we are talking abstractly about this tax plan and the reality for most folks in this country is that for the past 40 years, working americans have actually had a pay cut, not a pay increase. my hope is that whatever tax policy we have will start with a commitment to making lives better for the main street folks that you mentioned and i am glad you did. but there will be a lot of

negotiation on how to pay for these tax cuts. one of the things that will be on the block is very important to vermonters, and that is the affordable tax care credits that we have now. in vermont, health care is incredibly important for everyone. if we have an electrician in bennington, vermont, making $67,000 per year with the tax credit set to expire, that family would have a $700 a month increase in their health care bills. that will hammer them. that is like $9,000. my question to you is when putting together this tax proposal when you will have to make recommendations about how to pay for it, will we continue to provide this help to vermonters, like this

electrician in brattleboro so he does not get hammered on health care premiums? mr. bessent: senator, as we discussed in your office and i have not had time to do my homework on this, i think i told you my family, friends, business colleagues often get sick of hearing my phrase, "no data, no opinion," so i will get up to speed. sen. welch: i appreciate that but there are some things that make a difference for working americans in south carolina and vermont. the child tax cut. it reduced poverty for children by 50%. that is elemental for hard-working families and the premium support where health care is just a brutal expense for employers, by the way, too. i am hoping the design we will start to do no harm to working

vermonters and working south carolinians. second, on the tariffs, i am in support of the china tariffs. that is defending us against unfair trade practices by china. i am concerned about the impact on canada and what that does to us in vermont. our major export partner is canada. from what we have seen, it would raise the cost to businesses, probably cost jobs and the cost to consumers. what reassurance can we get from the trump administration that there will be a do no harm policy to american consumers in vermont with the tariff policy? mr. bessent: senator, it is very difficult for me to isolate vermont, especially, but in terms of working americans, i believe that president trump

understands it is working america -- he had a very unique coalition. sen. welch: he does and my hope is the policy will reflect that. i appreciate the opportunity to work with you on that. mr. bessent: i look forward to working with you. i think he understands it is the affordability crisis. sen. welch: it is. the last thing, very little time. we were talking about credit card rates for consumers. credit card fees for small businesses are the highest in the whole world. why can't we bring them down? small businesses, it is five for second or third highest expense for them. the costs on our small businesses, including the pass-through businesses, i would like to get them down and get your help in doing that. mr. bessent: i look forward to

working with you on this issue. sen. welch: thank you. chair crapo: thank you. senator marshall. sen. marshall: it is great to join the finance committee. it seems to me like so many of us share the same goal. we want americans to be prosperous, to be able to live the american dream. we disagree how to get there but we all have the same goal -- we want americans to be prosperous. mr. bessent, welcome and congratulations on your nomination, as well. i think it could be said that rural america in many ways is president trump's base. of the 77 million people who voted for him a lot came from rural america. i could argue that 90% of rural americans voted for president trump and no one has suffered more the last four years than rural america has. what can we do to help main

street, small businesses and rural america? everyone knows you are a financial wizard and you have been successful on wall street. i want to understand your commitment to small-town, america. you are from a small town and you understand agriculture from our conversations and even some background in community banks. how important our community banks to those small towns and what is your commitment to rural america? mr. bessent: senator marshall, one of the few treasury secretary nominees in a recent period that occasionally listens to form radio on xm on weekends -- farm radio on xm on the weekends. after the silicon valley debacle, farm radio was focused on the potential loss of small and community banks.

they are important pillars for those communities. i think examining in terms of what is a regulation, what is the supervision, are they being unduly burdened? they are not able to help their communities. what is the supervisory doing? as i said earlier, too, i think china has not made good on their ag purchases for four years. if confirmed, next week, i would start pushing for them to resume the purchases and then i would conference with president trump on whether he believes there should be a provision. sen. marshall: thank you. i want to stay on rural america and talk about tax credits.

45z is the tax credit, i am not sure if you are familiar with it, but it would really help rural america. some of our feedstocks, soybean or corn and turn it into renewable diesel, it will lead to cleaner air and it important to rural america. i asked you would look into it. we cannot let china benefit from it. any tax credit should not impact foreign entities. i wanted to get a few background thoughts on this 45z tax credit from you. mr. bessent: as we discussed in your office -- and you gave me a very good overview of how the chinese backdoor into this program and that is obviously unacceptable -- i look forward to working with you on the 45z. sen. marshall: great. i want to finish up on the trump tax cuts and how important it is

to make them permanent. i do not understand what $4.6 trillion is but i know families in kansas were about to keep $1000 in their pocket after the trump tax cuts took effect. if we lost these trump tax cuts, i would assume those same families would be giving the federal government another $1000. this issue to me is vitally important to rural america to the tune of $1000 a month. beyond making the current trump tax cuts permanent, what else would be on the menu that would help the economy as far as other tax cuts? mr. bessent: i think president trump talked about -- it is not specifically a rural issue -- but it is something that affects the lower income distribution more, tax and tips, no tax on

social security, no tax on overtime. perhaps making auto loans tax deductible again. that would go a long way to addressing affordability. sen. marshall: that is a great start. i hope we can come back and talk about other tax cuts. thank you, chairman. >> i very much appreciate our colleague mentioning 45z, the clean fuels production tax credit. that is part of the clean energy tax credits. i look forward to working with you on that. chair crapo: mr. bessent, so you understand how we are going -- i know it has been a long time and thank you for your patience, we have senator warren, followed by senator scott at senator whitehouse and then senator wyden would like to ask one more question.

he gets the only extra question of the day. he and i will probably make a few brief remarks as we wrap up and we will be finished at that point. senator warren? sen. warren: thank you, chairman and welcome mr. bessent and your family. last month, president trump said he supports repealing the debt limit. so do i. there we are, donald trump and elizabeth warren are singing from the same hymnal. mr. bessent, let's make it a trio. do you agree with president trump that the debt limit should be repealed? mr. bessent: senator warren, first of all i enjoyed our visit in your office and appreciate the fact when i walked in you said let's talk about what we have in common, our love of cape cod, the red sox and addressing the affordability crisis and the

housing shortage. the debt limit is a very nuanced convention. what i would like to do is get back to you and president trump, i would like to do a survey of market participants with this amount of debt. it is a very fragile equilibrium. sen. warren: forgive me for just a moment. i am not asking you whether we need to increase the debt, i am asking a very different question and that is whether or not we should have a statute in place that says there is a debt limit? if we do not increase the debt limit that would cause us to default. that that's not economic analysis. in fact, let me e ask you. i understand earlier you were citing the congressional budget

office. have you seen the congressional budget l budget office projections of what wouldld happen if the unitd states government defaulted on its debt? that is, if we hit the debt limit and just kept on going without raising it or eliminating it. >> look, the united states is not going to default on its debt, ifau i'm confirmed. but i will tell you, for people who don't understand the debt limit, it might be like taking out your handbrake in your car, that you can still hit the brakes that it's one less feature. >> but i thought you just said you would never use. you talked about handbrake that appears to be there but, in fact, is not connected to a braking system. it is literally never use, right? >> i have never pulled the handbrake going 60 miles an hour in my car. i hope never to. >> i assume the enormous cost of

a debt default. in fact, the congressional budget office which are asking you about a minute ago said that moody's estimated debt limit cost the use economy $12 trillion dollars, and cost 69 people their jobs. i think this is a reason that president-elect trump said that eliminating the debt limit is, quote, the smartest thing congress could do. i would like for congress to do the smartest thing, and that is eliminate the debt limit so we don't have this problem. >> senator warren, i would say once president trump takes office and if i am confirmed if he wants to eliminate the debt limit, i will work with him and you on that. >> a great, great. because i agree with president-elect trump the debt limit should be repealed. i know, however, right now that's not what congressional republicans plan to do. last month they committed to raising the debt limit by

another $1.5 trillion. so wide republicans want to raise the debt ceiling? because their plan is to shovel new tax cuts to billionaires, and that would increase the debt by more than $1 trillion just in the next for your period. during his first term president trump only major legislative achievement was his 2017 tax cuts that mostly got sucked up by millionaires, billionaires and giant corporations. most of these cuts were good for only eight years, so the republicans who were designing them they claimim that the cost was only $2 trillion. eight years of cats that added to trillion dollars to the debt. now we are talking about republicans and president-elect trump who want to give those same rich people and giant corporations more years of tax cuts. i just want to be clear that we understand each other here that

i think it was reverend, or senator warnock, who asked you about is there any billionaire rich enough whom you wouldn't support a tax cut for going forward? >> i think it's unwise to single out in the -- >> rich people? >> any individual. >> okay. is any group of billionaires? you could just pick a dollar figure and they can be more than one above that. >> i think it would be a glib answer but i won't. again, that's that withh the money is. at one point when president obama was debating mitt romney, that the moderator said, but, sir, that would make collections go down and he said yeah, but it's about fairness. i have to tell you, i am about

collection. >> i understand but i like to think fairness is about billionaires actuallyay paying their fair share. thank you, mr. . thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. senator scott. >> welcome to our committee. did you gain and thank you for your willingness to serv a sacrd your family. i think it's an investment for the country. we need folks who are willing to sacrifice on behalf of the greater cause, greater cause in this instance as generations of americans you will likely never meet but will be better off because we do the right thing. one of the things i think about as the right thing, i know you grew up in a working-class family and i grew up in a single-parent household. one of the places where we need the greatest amount of stability is for banks. i think about silicon valley bank bank of the banks have failed. recently, the banking committee i care deeply about the stability and strength of our banking system. .. current safety and soundness f

the u.s. banking industry and what steps you believe are necessary to ensure long-term stability? mr. bessent: good to have two south carolinians in the room. the strength of the u.s. economy, our financial markets is the depth and breadth of our financial system. i believe that we have likely seen the top five tanks become too big a share of banking assets. we have seen, because of undue regulation, the shadow banking system get larger and larger. and to the detriment of community banks, small banks, and via small regional banks. i think we have to take a look at both regulatory and supervisory conditions in those.

i think the banking system as well-capitalized. perhaps over-capitalized. this comes from someone -- my background is as a financial institutions analyst. i have also taught the history of financial crises, so i am very attuned to the idea that financial stability is important. the pendulum savings goes into overshoot. overshoot our banking system has been strengthened if we have the generalized mainstream prosperity the next few years small regional thanks. if i have time.

>> your answer reinforces the sidelines, this is capital. the bipartisan decision and opportunities rock democrat mayors supported and celebrated 80 hercules dollars have led to real help coming into questions around the country.

it is effective about transportation. and supporting theext eration of opportunity zones. mr. bessent: senator scott, i think they have been a resounding success, and they recently read data that in terms of affordable housing the opportunity zones have created more affordable housing within the zones than any other federal government program since opportunity zones were created. i think it is a fantastic way to address the housing crisis. i think the inner city redevelopment, we can talk about opportunity zones more in rural areas. i look forward to expanding and

continuing the discussion. sen. scott: thank you. my last thoughts will be a comment, not a question. as a result of the t cja, we saw the richest americans' tax burden as a percent of revenues coming in go up. and we saw the poorest americans as a percent of revenue coming into the government go down. i think the easiest way to say that is to recognize that a single mother, like the one who raised me in 2710 made and on average 30,000 year. her tax rate went down by 71%. that is a result of good policy being good politics, and i hope we keep our eye on the ball of helping the average american have more of their money in their pockets. thank you. chair crapo: thank you, senator scott. senator whitehouse. sen. whitehouse: mr. bessent,

thank you for the meeting we had in my office. i understand that colleagues have already raised the urgency of more sanctions on russia's shadow fleet, particularly as it is sabotaging our allies' infrastructure in the baltic. and urge that it is unfair for chinese manufacturers to be able to under-price u.s. manufacturers by virtue of lower environmental standards. i just want to give two bags -- big thumbs up to both of those notions. as we talked about in my office, i think the most immediate danger of a major economic collapse is going to come through the insurance industry. we are seeing signs of it in florida already. the fires in lar making it worse in california, but it is occurring nationwide, and as we discussed, where you cannot get insurance you cannot get mortgages or you cannot get mortgages you cannot sell properties at value and that

cascades according to the chief economist of freddie mac, into a 2000 eight-style massive economic recession. so, i would like to ask first that you get somebody on your team to take a look at this report, which i would ask to put into the record. from the senate budget committee. chair crapo: without objection, so ordered. sen. warren: on the renewables and availability problem, county by county across the country. and if somebody on your team looks at it and can give you a summary, i would be grateful, and i would ask you personally to read this economist magazine article. i don't think it is complicated. mr. bessent: senator whitehouse, you gave it to me in your office and i did read it. sen. warren: i just want to make sure. mr. bessent: i will point out to my children behind me, doing your homework is important. sen. warren: i think you are the first person in a nomination

that has done the reading that has been proposed. so, i just think that all of us need to be alert to this problem. i think it is actually started, ernest hemingway said famously that bankruptcies happen gradually but then suddenly. i think we are gradually on a climate change-driven crisis that will cascade into the whole economy. i gave my environment public works colleagues a book this thick. i gave your team a similar book of all the many high-level, serious peer-reviewed studies that have shown these economic risks. i don't think we are ready for it and i think it is important we be ready for it. i don't any -- i don't want anybody to say they were not warned. so, there is my warning. last question to you, and him going to be treading into an area where i don't know a thing

because i just heard about this this morning and i have been the ranking member in the epw hearing. so, what i did here this morning is that the manner in which you have structured your partnership has enabled you to avoid the payment of nearly $1 million in medicare taxes, and that the irs has taken the position that the manner in which you structured your partnership to avoid those medicare taxes does not actually supports avoiding medicare taxes. and it is probably more complicated of an issue that you or i are going to get through in the next minute and 13 seconds, so we will follow-up with a question for the record, but i just think that when we are dealing with these massive issues of income inequality and threats to medicare and all of the concerns that i think helped

tell president trump to the presidency, it would be extremely awkward if the secretary of the treasury were taking advantage of a supposedly avoidance mechanism that the irs, which you oversee, has determined actually does not produce that result. and somehow those things need to come into alignment. i don't know why. i suppose the easiest thing would be to go back and pay the medicare taxes. but again, this is way more complicated than you and i can dispose of in the next half-minute. but i do think it is important. i think it is important to send a message as an incoming treasury secretary that everything you do with respect to personal taxes aligns with irs guidance. mr. bessent: senator whitehouse, thank you for the question. so, it is my -- my affirmed taxes and we are up-to-date on all of our taxes. this matter is not bios, but it

is in continuing litigation. if confirmed, i would agree to shutter my firm, and i have also been informed that the ranking member and the chairman, that i will provision the amount that is lower than the amount stated in the press release that went out last night, and i will hold that until the final case makes its way through the courts. sen. warren: that seems like an attentive response to the problem and i'm glad you respect it. this actually is a problem that needs to be attended to, so thank you. chair crapo: thank you, and senator wyden has active he can ask one final question. you get one final one, senator wyden. sen. wyden: i gather that after this at some point you and i will have some closers, so i appreciate that, and i'm going to be short on that as well.

mr. bessent, i want to ask about the double standard with respect to tax enforcement in america. the working person, a firefighter or nurse or somebody who works for a wage pays taxes with every single paycheck. and the government gets that information. and to a great extent the ultra-wealthy can have a very different system. they can bring in this whole battery of accountants and lawyers and the like and say, you know, make sure that i don't have a lot of income this year. and then they don't have the same reporting system. and what i have always felt is that ensuring that the government, the irs, can do tax enforcement to prevent wealthy tax cheating is absolutely

crucial to limiting this double standard with respect to enforcement, where you have all of this information from people who are working for a wage, and trying to figure out what is going on with lots of wealthy people because, to me, this scam is in what is legal. i want it understood. i'm talking about people using their accountants and lawyers. my question to you is, do you believe that it makes sense for the congress to give the irs the resources to collect taxes from people who may be cheating? and we don't even know because it is so hard to run down all this information? do you believe it is important for the congress to fund the irs for that kind of enforcement? mr. bessent: senator wyden, i believe that collections are very important. i believe that the irs and, again, i have not been confirmed, i have had no

meetings. this is all external. i believe that a large amount of it can be solved by data processing, and we are on the verge of an ai revolution, and i would hope that the ai revolution, much as it has in medical technology, you know, it is pattern recognition. my understanding now is that the agency runs on 12 different systems. on cobol, which, the programming language when i went to yale in 1980, so i am in favor of that. of updating those systems. sen. wyden: you talk to me about this in the office and i appreciated the comments. it is still resources. it is going to be computers, perhaps, not people, but i

showed up in the united states senate when only one person, pat lahey, how to use a computer. we have seen these dramatic developments, and i think you are right. ai is going to shape the debate, but it still leaves the question, we are going to need resources. and, again, what you have seen, because we don't have the resources to go after the wealthy tax cheats, people who use the earned income tax credit or something, they are the ones who get the audits and the like. want to see somebody make a commitment to making sure we will have the resources to go after the wealthy tax cheats who have this unique kind of system, and i wouldn't knowledge your point that certainly it is going to be a challenge in the years ahead with respect to ai and other technologies, but you're still going to need resources. are you going to support that? mr. bessent: if confirmed i will come back to you with a plan for upping collections. sen. wyden: on wealthy tax

cheats? mr. bessent: you seem to believe that the wealthy chief moore, but i think across the entire income spectrum -- so, you are saying that the wealthy have this special cachet and if there is some large mother load there, then to figure out how to crack that, whether it is through ai or some other means, that i will commit to coming back to you. sen. wyden: let me tell you why it is so important. former irs commissioner reading, which was president-elect trump's last irs commissioner, testified here that the irs needed additional multi-year funding because it was "outgunned" when it came to auditing wealthy individuals and large corporations. the view i have stated today is

not just one that i offer, one that a former trump appointee said specifically that the agency was outgunned with respect to resources. you have indicated you will continue the discussion. it is an important one. chair crapo: why don't you go ahead with any closing remarks he would like to make and we will wrap it up? sen. wyden: i'm going to spare everybody and especially the nominee a filibuster. it has been a long morning. mr. bessent, we started off with your confirming that you were going to protect taxpayer's ability to file their taxes for free directly with the irs. i think that is constructive, because i think when it works for a second-straight year we are going to join the rest of the western industrialized world in making sure that our people have a chance to have a system that works for them, that empowers them if they choose it. with respect to some other issues, i'm concerned about a number of other matters, and we

may need to have some additional conversations about it. what concerned me was your response to my question about wealth rather than work with respect to being favored in the tax code. i think today that is a reality. that is just plain fact. the people i represent know it, because they pay taxes with all of their paychecks and they are paying a higher rate, and people today have good lawyers and good accountants. i continue to be very troubled by that, and some of the past reforms have tried to minimize those differences between tax rates for wealthy people and tax rates for workers. but i remain concerned about that. with respect to some of the other issues, i leave you with the proposition that i have not

really heard you touch on, and it is the proposition bill bradley and i have believed in, lo these many years. we want a tax code that gives everybody in america a chance to get ahead. when i'm asked about the difference between the rates for the wealthy and for workers, there is a long way to go to get it done. so, i will look forward to continuing some conversations. thank you, mr. chairman. chair crapo: thank you, senator wyden. we are toward the end here. i want to end where i started out. i think that it is very clear that you have acted in your dealing with the vetting of this committee in a very, very straightforward, courteous, and honorable way. when it comes to your qualifications to be the next secretary of the treasury there is no room for debate, and you have shown that today here in

the hearing. your background, your training, everything is tailor-made for this role, and your character and demeanor are self-evident. have satisfied our due diligence process. i have joined with many of my republican colleagues in voting for well-qualified secretary candidates put forward by a democratic president. even though i didn't agree with all of the positions they advocated. your candidacy ought to enjoy similar support, and i'm going to encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join with me in advancing your nomination. i appreciate your taking the time -- the time you have taken to work with us over the past few weeks to get this processed at this point. -- this process to this point. i would like to remind my colleagues that the deadline for submitting any questions for the record is 5:00 p.m. today. without anything else, this hearing stands adjourned. [gavel]

all conversations. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

audible conversations. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] are at kendy juniorfies at a senate finanormaon

hearing. enenta lawyer and activist and 24 independent presiden candidate and with from race to endorse donald trump. watch live 10:00 eastern on his bed. thursday returns to questions the senate health committee live 10:00 a.m. eastern on he three and watch both hearings stand now, free mobile video or online at c-span don't work several local will. >> democracy, the process shaped by leaders elected to the highest office and entrusted in the select where debates unfold, decisions are made. democracy in real-time. this is your government at work. this stand. you your democracy unfiltered.