minutes. this hearing will come to order but welcome to the committee on the budget hearing regarding the

president's fiscal year 2025 budget request. i welcome director shalonda young director of office management and budget. thank you for being here. i have enjoyed working with you. you are one of the most likable people on capitol hill and in my experience in politics and kudos to you. as i've said before i like you a lot i do not like the president's budget i'm going to outline that with respect. but probably some sharp criticism. but i appreciate your service to our country as a former staff person here on capitol hill and now in this very important job as the director of omb. welcome back to capitol hill and thank you for your time this morning. i'm going to yield such time as i may consume for an opening statement that you thought that was my opening statement.

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

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

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

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

expand entitlements when we have not even paid for the two most important in my opinion, social security and medicare. they are going to be insolvent before creating more. we have more people trapped in my opinion on dependency of the government than we have ever had because we do not have real consideration for work capable people going back to work who receive assistance. so we expand medicaid i say we, the president without consideration are the kind of work requirements he supported when he was senator. there is an expansion of obamacare subsidies to people making 400, 500 even $600,000 because you all repealed the eligibility for the studies show during the ira or during the temporary expansion of obamacare more than half of the people on that were above the four 100% poverty level. you suggest the president suggests in the budget he is

going to use somehow the ira drug price control savings which was 100 billion at last i will be expanded 200 billion in savings you are going to use that somehow to shore up medicare. listen, we ought to work together to shore up medicare, no question. kudos to the president for at least outlining a way to do that. he grabs for a tax hike of about 750 billions in the savings from the drug price control. i disagree with that strategy in that policy. nevertheless that is what is articulated. but here's the question why should we believe the president is going to do -- make use those savings when the last time to the ira there were savings it medicare reads to subsidize green energy tax giveaways. it did not go back to medicare and shorted out. you are saying things in this budget and practice have not been. let me be clear that things republicans and said that we have not followed up on.

we got a piece of paper very different in terms of our beliefs. i guess you could go back to the biblical admonition show meet the fruit of your works. faith is dead and belief is dead without works. let me tell you there is as much deficiency on following through with our balanced-budget summit criticism i'm loving on you and the president. you understand? i'm trying to be an equal opportunity criticize her. now, our budget is different. we do not leave 16 trillion, 17 trillion or 18 trillion in debt we take that off the next 10 years to balance. you all raise taxes to $5 trillion in the economy is teetering on recession on the taxes be passed in higher expenses to people exacerbating inflation but we do not use taxes. we try to reinvest and reignite growth through tax reform and regulatory reform. there are two different worlds, two different belief systems.

but i think of some rice to say in closing is my democrat colleagues in this president believe and more government and more spending and more taxing. as the answers to the problems our country faces. and i think very strong with our belief system into articulated in our budget suggests we believe in less government. less spending, left taxes more empowerment of the american people and more freedom for better quality of life for prosperity the berets all folks create the greatest antipoverty program known to man which is more jobs, or opportunities, higher paychecks, better quality of life and standard of living. that is my perspective. i think those two world views those two belief systems are as clear to the american people as you can get. i respect the president not just

staying with the horses writing on he isn't galloping at a pace we have not seen yet. which i think will end and even greater disaster than what we have been experiencing with that i know i've got over my time i will let you have as much time as you can consume for the ranking member's opening, or. >> thank you, mr. chairman it's great to have you back here director young. it is common this time of year end the cycle to hear the question, are you better off than you were four years ago? well, four years ago today then president trump was busy tweeting out crazy conspiracy theories about covid-19. by the end of the month a million and half americans would lose their jobs. by the end of the following month a record 20 and a half million americans would lose their jobs.

many american families were stuck inside. probably like my family. i was on zoom and a little office in my house. my wife is teaching her second grade class from our dining room on zoom and our daughter, a kindergartner at the time in her kindergarten class sitting at our kitchen table. most american families were worried about keeping ends meet and frankly keeping their mental health. let's look at where instead we are today. all of the jobs lost during covid have been earned back and more. unemployment has been below 4% for a record to record 75 consecutive months the longest and more than half a century. in 2023 contrary to what we heard about supposedly teetering on recession and despite the

predictions of all the naysayers and doomsayers, 2.5% economic growth. more than any other. economy in the world. inflation has cooled considerably. we are now almost at the fed target and what's confirmed yesterday's project of the fed will cut rates by 75 basis points over the course of this year. it has gotten so good, mr. chairman, the center right economists with this latest headline america's pumped up economy. so when we consider the fact this economy has come all the weight back from the depths of where we were four years ago today, why in the world we ever go back to where we were just four short years ago? well that is exactly what will republicans want to lead us.

just yesterday afternoon and i appreciate the timing for this hearing today, republican study committee released is 2025 budget. here's what they propose. cutting social security by one and a half trillion dollars. raising the retirement age. cuts are promised retirement age. medicare, $1 trillion with of cuts. it would end the medicare guarantee turn medicare into a premium support system. seniors we have to fend for themselves on the open market with nothing but a coupon to offset as much of the cost of insurance as they could find. medicaid chip in the affordable care act cut by an additional four and a half trillion dollars.

this is the republican budget and what they plan to do if they were to gain full control here in washington d.c. so mr. chairman, you are right there is a stark and clear difference between the two visions. one is a vision that would take us back to the depths of where we were just four years ago. the other is a vision that has literally led the world in economic growth. i look forward to hearing more about the details of both of those visions today. i look forward to your testimony here director young. thank you. in the interest of time if any other members of opening statements, i ask that you submitted for the record. we'll hold the record open until the end of the day to accompany those members who may not have prepared written statements. now, i like to recognize director young. again thank you for being with us. the floor is yours and i yelled

five minutes per. >> thank you i'm going to say something and mean it some witnesses may not mean but it is a pleasure to be here with you it's a little like coming home proud to think the staff of the chairman noted i was a staffer in the house for the appropriations committee working for the budget committee i take back anything bad about the budget committee before as it is earlier for chairman errington and a ranking member boyle were heads of the sistine committee. a lot of my remarks will be about contrast. where this president stands and i am proud to present his fourth budget. the fiscal year 2025 budget from day one of this administration present by nist tackle challenges head on while delivering long-lasting results. over the past three years he has overseen a strong economic recovery, a mass were the most successful legislative records and generations grow the economy for that middle out and the

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

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

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

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

let's be clear here. the president was in hiding for about 100 days for chuck schumer swore he would never negotiate a debt ceiling. collect some this committee saying it is reckless. you should never do it they were the sky is falling. because republicans said we cannot just have a clean and debt ceiling where we don't consider the 34 trillion record debt for this country for the 20 trillion that will be added this -- this is the truth i can look you in the eye and tight republicans led to bring democrats to the negotiating table and we together it reduced spending year-over-year. over the 10 year window not actually in a laugh or something close to that. i appreciate the president and the administration worked with us but had republicans not pushed back. had we not led ranking member we would not have that record.

the people need to understand that is the kind of pushback and political courage republicans and democrats have to exercise if are going to bring the debt down. i do not believe that the president is fiscally responsible. not because he says he is or doesn't say he is in speeches it is because the last three years we have seen six plus trillion dollars in new debt added to the national debt. because his budget we are talking about today puts us on a path of the highest sustained spending taxes and debt in the history of the country be that as a fact too. there's something fiscally responsible about that. leaving an average debt of 1.6 trillion a year is not fiscally responsible. that is a deferred tax on our children but we are going to

bankrupt the country again there's no perfect plan republicans have not -- make the knot of profiling and courage on reducing spending like i think is the driver of our debts. this is making things worse this is gasoline on the fire that is consuming not only the money in the pocketbooks of our fellow americans it is going to burn up any hope for a bright and prosperous future for our children. now you thought i had a question here, didn't you? my question is if i asked you i do not want to trap you are gotcha we had fra agreement the fiscal responsibility a group it was a spending cap. i thought it was a pretty good deal and i still think it is a good deal but is not not nearly as good as i thought most members feel the same way. because, you are an expert eighth degree black belt in appropriations jiu-jitsu, we had

a bunch of side deals office spending american people have no clue no clue about what is budget authority and what his outlays. what we do is to be stuff the turkey of emergency spending we stuff the turkey of other gimmicks like chimps and rescissions the american people they receive it we go out and do press conferences and press releases and say you got a top-flight one point $59 trillion. we reduce spending does that bother you? i think if the american people deploy the same budget gimmicks the accounting fraud there go to prison literally. think it's a criminal republicans do it. every bit as much as democrats. do you agree with that? we work with me too clean that up at a minimum? whether the spending is more or less or the same can we all agree we cannot hide the ball from the american people this is

accounting fraud. i yield. >> mr. chairman, you won't be surprised to hear my response. i think you see two different press releases that came out of that budget deal. democrats were very happy to point out we were going to be able to maintain spending for childcare and nih and all the other things and produce what we called nondiscretionary in a flat scenario. we are very honest about that. that was necessary to see 76% of democrats in the house vote for that package frequents a wide and we put in the budget authority? why do we have to stick nonemergency items in emergency? why do we put chimps and suggest we are reducing spending but we are actually adding more to spending? it's fair enough for you to say we committed to spending more. we think that is a good thing but it's not the 159 this is money in addition to it. shouldn't we at least tilt the numbers the american people can understand so that they know what their government leaders

are doing what they're paying for their government question that's all i'm saying but i'm not saying you were arguing for more spending we were arguing for less there is no question about that. more bureaucracy, more government, less a bureaucracy less government it grew 40% the people's governments in scope and we thought we had the right size of a bureaucracy. fair enough to debate that. i am just talking about transparency can we work together making that a more transparent? >> mr. chairman, what matters to me, what matters to the present is what we are able to invest in. these programs that help working families across the country. whether it's what you called chimps which are changes to mandatory programs or emergency spending, what matters is how much goes to childcare block grants how much goes to headstart? mr. chairman if there is interest in doing that straight budget authority we are with you. we were negotiating in good faith within speaker mccarthy

who had his own outline of how he would like to see the numbers come in. and a week, as you point out came to the table and worked out a deal. the bill you all see today and you are going to vote on fiscal year 24 complies with that deal but i appreciate the complaints about it. it is a show of bipartisanship that both parties were able to come together for six months late we certainly hope you'll hear from the president that bill has passed as soon as possible to prevent a shut down but you have my commitment to work if the other side once this all in budget authority or chimps it does not matter to us what matters the investments we are able to make for the american people. >> i will reserve my comments might ranking member and other colleagues can ask their questions. correct thank you, mr. chairman.

i cited this week's cover of the economists. not just the a covenant all of the news outlets as well but i thought i would read off a couple in terms of the performance of the economy under the biden administration. "washington post" u.s. economy rising growth following falling, quells recession fears. bloomberg, u.s. is still world's biggest economy as it extends its lead over china. pvc u.s. economy is powering ahead of europe's. cnn and other shockingly good jobs report shows america's economy is booming. the guardian, biden right to set u.s. economy is world's strongest, trump alley says. i could go on and on about the record of this administration. as it relates to economic strength. let me turn there to social security and medicare. it talks about the republican budget just released yesterday.

the republican study committee concludes 80% of house republicans. proposing trillions of cuts in social security and medicare that does seem aligned with what laura president trump said. just last week on cnbc former president trump said quote there's a lot you could do in terms of entitlements, in terms of cutting." i am wondering if the president agrees -- of president biden agrees with former president trump's of you about a lot to do in terms of cutting entitlements for the house republican budget, which cuts social security and medicare. do you agree with that approach and what approach does president biden's administration taken his new fiscal year budget? >> ranking member you hurt for the present of himself at the state of the union. it will not assign any legislation. we will do anything to prevent benefit cuts and they sprayed her we speak about this.

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

president's approach. >> will talk about the principles he believes in it social security. one that does not get as much attention including no benefit cuts that's in the wealthiest americans to pay more into social security. we need to make sure americans can access her social security benefits. look at the social security menstruation budget as beneficiaries grow the number of staff and resources are in a complete opposite curve on the way down. we have asked for increases non- discretion it we don't fun things like social security ministration. we import you please pass it social security increase the president is asking for medicare solvency, you have seen this proposal before from the president that asks the wealthiest individuals to pay one point to percent more into medicare of the chairman is right also prescription drug savings if we expand

prescription drug provisions allowing medicare to negotiate that saves seniors and saves the government. we also close tax loopholes. those who find ways to pay not pay into medicare those things would extend medicare insolvency in perpetuity. that is a big deal. i hope we can take that proposal seriously and get it debated because i would remind folks the ability, for the first time ever for medicare to negotiate down the cost of prescription drugs was thanks to the inflation reduction act every single republican member of the house and senate voted against but that i think the director and the yield back. >> i think the gentleman for only use the five minutes. >> democratic efficiency again mr. chair. [laughter]

>> it that up ralph norman for the palmetto state five minutes. >> thank you. thank you for your call you are always good about that. as the chairman mention the press has been in hiding he did come out of hiding i don't call state of the union i called state of the screen he pretty much screamed the whole time he did read a teleprompter pretty well. let me ask you this how do you define and pay your fair share? to find that for me. >> thank you mr. norman. our suite of proposals on revenues i can talk about a few of them. one, corporations before 2017 tax law paid 35% we would ask corporations go to 28% not even as far back as they were paying before the 2017 tax law. taking capitol gains.

paying ordinary income. we are trying to get revenues back to what we talk about surplus in 2,002,001 back to those historical averages that allowed for the room to create surpluses for club if you ask everyday americans would they agree with a 4.7 billion southwest border security fund that absorbs illegal it doesn't stop up at absorbs them into a country with the average american agree with three-point to billion for advanced gender equity and equality worldwide? whatever that means. would they agree to .5 billion for the centers of disease control to address the causes of violence in the communities. define that for me. he is let everybody from 160 countries including gang members come into america. 60 million for gun violence

research across the cdc and the national institutes of health. when you are letting everyone come in at seeing the crime skyrocketing what americans agree with that? when americans inquiry with 11 million to preserve stories of culture and history across america? somebody defined that for me i would love to follow those checks and see where they are going too. my issue is the priorities. if you ask everyday americans they would revolt against this that's what his approval rings are in the tank and going even lower. i question that i have that it's buried somewhere you through the budget or the appropriations in 2018 there is a bill but put up to basically set up gps backup system. which is the security of america every 2018. up to this date cbo scored as a

revenue producer. it has not been enacted since 2018. this may not be a fair question because you may not know about could i get an answer on why this is not a top priority? who is stopping this at the dot or whoever? the omb has undermined this but it is a national security concern could you give it back to me in writing? looks happy to come a, congressn pretty happy to look into it. i assume it's enacted you're trying to figure out implementation for. >> implementation of the gps system everyone listening to this and in this room uses it's a national security issue. the facts, as he chairman mentioned 35 joint and debt and rising. we can ignore the other agencies if we want too. they are running in the red too for medicare, medicaid, social

security, how a trust fund. it is unconscionable with this administration is doing to not solve the problem. now particularly as it got national threats being highlighted by our own people in this administration's cabin at the fbi director saying the red light the blinken lights are going off. i don't know how to mark sentinel deaths we have to have as a direct result of this administration ignoring the immigration issue. i don't know how many lake and riley need to get the name out during the screen but he did not get it right. how many deaths we have to have before we say enough is enough the priorities of got to be redirected. i've got 20 seconds if you like to respond. >> i would. immigration but in this town for 20 years, is a difficult issue as any that faces congress or any present or administration progressive president trump

address it with the wall? >> we had a chance to do something on a bipartisan basis in the senate that would help stem the flow and allowed us to have an orderly border >> 5000 a day you call that? >> with the resources needed. quickset is not right thank you per share comment. >> think a gentleman from south carolina i now yield five minutes to my friend scott peters from california. >> thank you, mr. chairman root we have reached the point we do not like the content of the speech you insult the person who gave it. doesn't have the energy to be present now here he has too much energy whatever were here to talk about budget i am sorry to hear that. that's a common thing we get now. president biden's proposal for fiscal year 2025 with over the cause of child care for family scout make healthcare more accessible to all helper relays are clean energy future will cutting the deficit by nearly $3 trillion. i don't agree with everything in it. i think this 400,000-dollar tax

lure is probably unrealistic. i am concerned the lack of appreciation for private investment in life sciences we have the life sciences leadership in our country were about to spend $50 billion to bring back an industry that we let go. i am concerned about undervaluing the public/private partnership that life sciences is in this country. the president's budget outlines a vision for america that i share. now we have to talk about appropriations to implement that. just this week republicans started to shut down ice, cbp of the homeland security for their own political gain. the system has been broken for far too long for democrats agree we need more resources of the southern border. that is why president biden proposed billions of new funding led bipartisan negotiations with the senate on a comprehensive border package it would propose more than $20 billion for border

security. increase the number border patrol agents and asylum officers we could have deployed more scanners to prevent the flow of fentanyl through ports of entry. we could have streamlined the asylum process in a way that would've made adjudication faster cap people out who did not qualify it which is about 90% of folks. and the 5000 limit was the point at which you would be required to shut the board a mandatory shutdown. people complain about hundreds of thousands of people coming across, 5000 was a point you had your mandatory shutdown we had a bipartisan agreement on that apparently 22 -- 25 republican senators were willing to vote for until donald trump came out and said he was against it because he wanted the problem for his campaign he did not want us to solve the problem independently elected people in the senate people a six year terms, two thirds of them are not up for reelection.

the deal is supported by the national border patrol council. they would rather complain about the problem than actually do anything about it. i think it is quite appalling. americans are tired of the political theater. they want leaders who will make the choices needed to solve big problems and i have proposed a very practical thing which is bipartisan. to help a number of hard decisions on taxes and spending through a bipartisan fiscal commission the arp was here it whenwe did the hearing on it. i've heard from all of the groups they don't to drinking ag with social security even though we watched 10 years from now we are looking across-the-board cuts but they say don't touch social security that's the wrong answer. newt gingrich have come out hard against it. they are afraid it will raise taxes. we must be in the right place.

the point is the politics here are as real as the numbers. when he votes in both side of the aisle to get this thing under control. i much prefer the value set out values set outin the bite adminn budget. this process is not working. personal insults will not solve it either pretty want to thank you, director, for the work you did in this last agreement will vote on tomorrow. and it is a threat to not just our communities but navy seals who train in the water i wonderful colleagues we don't we have all the money we need to get started. i think that's great.

want to thank you for your work. i'm proud to be part of a group that's more concerned about getting things done and solving problems. then killing at the other side i will continue to work with you i'm sorry i don't have a question for you. >> that supports the critical project. the water is so dangerous to swim in. i am hoping we can find a way to get this done before it's even fiscal year 25 project. >> bouncing from one friend from california into another tom mcclintock five minutes. >> thank you. madam director as i listen to my democratic colleagues i just wonder if you are ever going to learn that you cannot spin the economy. everybody knows their own lives how they're doing you try to spin then you end up looking foolish and out of touch. the fact is gasoline cost $2.39

a gallon. inflation 1.4%. i cost 1.9%. the jobs you both to bring back are largely part-time jobs taken largely by foreign immigrants and not americans. 18% inflation since you took office. that means retirement fund on inauguration day of $100,000 now only buys $82000 in goods. that's the price of the free money handed out for you deliberately allowed more than 60 million illegal aliens in the country over the past three years that is a population larger than the entire state of missouri. which is zappe billions of dollars in public schools, public hospitals, public

housing, law enforcement, homeless shelters, food banks produce driving up housing prices and depressing working families wages for the one thing i do agree with this most important questions americans are going to be asking themselves is simply this, are you better off today than you were four years ago? please do not sit here and try to gaslight as per your not feeling anybody except yourself. now you produce a budget with nearly $5 trillion in new tax increases over the next 10 years. you divide that by the nerve households in america that's roughly $40000 the average earnings of every family in this country. i know you will say -- don't worry those are men the corporate taxes that we paid for by wealthy corporations. families do not need to be concerned. corporations don't pay corporate taxes. there's only three possible ways corporate tax can be paid. it is paid by employees to lower

wages. it is paid by consumers through higher prices. it is paid by investors through lower earnings productive 401(k). i don't know how corporate tax could be paid, do you? mr. mcclintock corporations can stop doing is many stock buybacks and not pay their people less. not pass on cost of the american people. >> us out to that comes directly out of the earnings they used to pay their employees. the earnings they used to keep prices down in a competitive market. and the earnings they paid to investors which are people's retirement fund. you already required taxpayers to pay after $132 billion in loans taken out by college students. how much more are you proposing in this budget? >> i am having a hard time hearing it. what was a question? what you have now required taxpayers to pay half a wonder

to $32 billion in loans from college students but how much more you proposing? >> mr. mcclintock the president's been unapologetic and saying we need to do whatever we can to reduce the burden student loans have had for students. >> that's fair i think he should be very apologetic in this respect for you take to young people. buntings have a loan to get a degree say ethnic and gender studies. that gives them a dea position at the university of michigan. average pay is $96000 for such a staff position. the other young person takes out 100,000-dollar loan to buy a truck. brings an average of $48000 for a truck in a year paid to bring all the things we need in life. how is it fair for the truck driver to be forced to pay for college graduate loans in addition to paying off his own loans? >> mr. mcclintock there also truck drivers have taken on student loan debt hoping for brighter future.

>> in no big. >> are you proposing $96000 to help out the truckers truck loan? >> using one example there are many trackers of student loans who benefit from this policy. >> in a free society every consumer votes every day with every dollar he spends on what the economy will produce. when government takes that dollar from them it reduces by just so much. not only the choices he could make for his own family. it reduces by just so much the incentive he has two produce goods and service for others for socialism has poverty and society yields the highest peace time government spending ever buy that text with the choice of individual consumers to meet their own needs. with their own earnings. and it destroys the incentives of individual producers to meet consumer needs. that in turn describes the pot prospering to be mustered for granted. nothing good will come of this.

if you cannot understand that it's time you be replaced by those who do. i yield back at brick oxen think the judgment from california and a yield five minutes to visit barbara lee from california for. >> thank you very much, good to see you. thank you so much for your leadership and a budget, does reflect the values of our country. but also let me just say i believe the budget is a moral documents. director young i think it is fundamentally wrong to allow the size of the defense budget to increase. even though the pentagon recently failed i believe six audit in a row. the president's budget request now 184.5 billion more than non-defense programs. on so i guess, speaking about the morality of this. how did we allow this to happen?

why should we have confidence the pentagon will spend taxpayer dollars responsibly when they cannot pass an audit or rather six audit. and secondly where could we spend and how could we spend to support key people out of poverty. i know their programs consistently underfunded because of defense spending increases. i do not understand how the department can make this kind of a commitment that they can't pass one clean audit yet six audit sprint how do we allow that to happen director young? we penalized taxpayers were scamming the system. for cheating on their taxes. something is fundamentally wrong. thank you congresswoman. the budget we put forth with the responsibility act, many of the

members here supported. this president from day one to pull donation sacred obligation. to protect, equip and prepare our service members but i appreciate the concerns on audits. i sure those and defense that all those agencies we expect to be good stewards. complies with the fra deal but also meets the needs of our troops. we are in a complicated world as you see. we are also believe in diplomacy. the subcu mate your ranking member on. we believe it put a balanced approach between our military and diplomatic presence in the budget we put forth.

that we are ready, our readiness is where it should be but for the life of me can't understand why taxpayers spend hard-earned dollars now added -- ask for increase when the defense budget continues to get scammed. failing six audits is unacceptable. >> but as you pointed out and i pointed out the mission of the department means that we have to put forward an agenda aligned with national security strategy which means we have to provide funds to update our equipment and provide for service members, a lot of the budget is pay

increase for military personnel and we have to remain prepared given the complexities around the world. >> i understand that. how is for pentagon penalized? what, what triggers if you fail schism audits how do you recoup that invest those investments, taxpayer dollars and what penalties. ordinary folks get penalized for wrongdoing for not living by the rules. part of the pentagon's issue on audit and one, they need to knowledge of what they own and how to cost that out. we are committed to working with

them just as we work with other agencies who have management and budget challenges and we've got to great this right. you're absolutely, correct. >> the president is asking for 187 billion-dollar increase. you would think until they got it right we would at least ensure that all of our national security because if they are not penalized and they don't get it under control and taxpayers to know why in the world are they being penalized rather than getting increase.

>> there are a lot of things in the budget that i wonder about. you think we have such high improper payment rate this is the time to bring more people. >> millions of working families across this country are absolutely concerned and we report proper payments as a part of report they get that from us. i would be remiss if i didn't see similarities between last two questions, and try to fix a program to those who need it

most. >> i've never been a fan. employers who hire people to take advantage of itc. and as far as employers, they see as the earned income tax credit people don't want to work for them, right? it discourages work. you're discouraging working by taking itc at the same time housing and everything else. are you aware of the fact discouraged work and employers particularly when you're

employing people. >> we had similar exchange last year with eitc and child tax credit we have not seen data that supports that. some men are able to reenter the workforce. we've not seen that data. discouraged work. >> right.

>> we heard complaints amongst constituents that they don't get pell grants who don't work as much, set up poverty. do you ever hear complaints of people saying i'm middle class, my child has to take out the student loans. my sister is not working, her child gets free college. are you aware of that incentive in there? >> you brought up constituents. i've not heard that complaint about pell grants before. we have been committed to doubling the pell grant.

>> it doesn't bother you that the pell grants are not eligible, getting more generous grants? >> i think we have a larger issue of college affordability we have to do something about. you're absolutely right. cost of debt, even people with pell grants have to take on debt. we have to find solutions. >> it's wonderful to see so many people helping out people. when i tour food banks in my district, all of the food is called healthy food. when going to a food bank privately operated, what have you, you never see mountain dew or pop tarts on the shelf.

it's always better stuff. would you consider restricting it more, no longer unhealthy food. we have an obesity epidemic and we have a problem with diabetes. snap program to make it more like the wic? >> congressman -- >> the gentleman's time expired. >> i'm happy to talk to the secretary of agriculture. >> the gentleman from wisconsin and now the general lady of

illinois for five minutes. >> thank you so much for what you have done and i really think that this budget reflects what the president and democrats in congress have wanted to see and to ask the wealthiest people to pay more which i think is absolutely fair. i wanted to just ask you what would actually be the effect of asking a small amount of people to pay an additional 25% in -- in taxes which i know and you can correct me if wrong would raise about $500 million for our economy over the -- the next

decade how many people would be subject today the larger tax and what is their average net worth? >> talking about the tax proposal. we call the billionaire tax. it affects the wealthiest 0.1% of taxpayers. it's the top 1% billionaires and hundreds of millionaires and raises $500 billion even on the small population. that speaks to the wealth and population that speaks to the ability for them to use minimum wage not available to working families most of whom work, get a paycheck, and have no idea of

the -- cannot avail themselves with the same loopholes that the 5% can. we think it's common sense, omb and cba at the white house have a report that says some of these hundreds of millionaires and billionaires, 40 millionaires pay tax rate. that compares to the average america? >> that's right. most americans think that but most americans also think that what is in this budget is really going to help them and isn't that what we are supposed to be about. tax credits which we saw in the

one-year work that reduced poverty by almost half that are going to have universal preschool. pell grants which would help so many people that would two to -- go to college. we are going to see lowering of cost of health care for most americans. this budget answers the needs of most americans. i'm just wondering if there's anything else that you want to

add. >> as a parent of 2 and a half-year-old we thankfully live in a place, universal prek through 4. the path it's researched sets path on, you would americans should have access to that. >> family leave. >> common sense, one shouldn't have to choose. think of hourly workers. >> it is about how we ourselves as americans and what should be available to people and what is treated as rights for people. also what we believe creates economic growth. this isn't just about spending and taxes, we want to also

invest in programs that will allow the economy to stretch. bring more people into the workforce. we believe child care, prek, paid leave will help do that. >> so no -- we help the economy and the american people. >> thank you, i yield back. >> thank the general lady from illinois. >> mr. chairman, i don't want to take mr. smocker's five minutes, you aren't making me cry. i'm having allergy problems. feel free to have that, i promise. >> wait for these five minutes. >> please be gentle with the director here. i think they are tears of joy. >> i am.

you've read the 2023 report? >> i've seen highlights? >> what would you say -- what are the outcomes over the next 75 years? >> it depends if it is a baseline. based on the president's budget it is enacted, is it going to show something similar to our baseline budget. >> i'm sorry? >> the debt will increase if we don't do things like the -- >> okay, we will get to that. >> will go to 97% to 500% in the next 75 years. in the report the treasury, your administration says, you can put that away now but changes in fiscal policy are not so -- not

sustainable. i think that's the underlying conclusion drawn from that. couldn't agree more with what they are saying here. what are the drivers of that increase in debt? what programs? >> that the is not true.

i would like to submit for the record record from the foundation that if we indeed did what biden administration raising the taxes for those over 400,000, 3 trillion over. the shortfall -- >> without objection. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> the shortfall over 30-year period in these programs as outlined in this report, shows that that short fall is $78 trillion raising revenue close to fixing long term, do you agree with that? >> the cost over longer period. 78 trillion is far more than 3 times. it will not. the facts are what they are,

raising revenue. it's why i agree with scott peterson, peterson that we need to have a real conversation with the american people about how we fix this going forward. it will not work. it's not sustainable. it's impossible. the numbers are what they are. the school commission is to critical so that we can come together. fiscal commission was not included in the latest package and disappointed that the biden administration does not support and i'd like to hear from you why that may be and would there will be a time in the biden administration that would support this kind of discussion.

>> mr. smocker probably for different reasons the biden administration has different issues and shown issues with the fiscal commission probably for different reasons than we do. benefits cuts and not tax proposals and not asking high-income earners. it would be born on the backs that paid into the system and rely on this program to retire in peace. >> but your administration produced a report that said this is not sustainable over a long period of time. >> we do you believe that taxing high-income earners would add to the solvency. that does not make it solvent. that's not true. i hope we can get to the point

where the american people have a better understanding of the situation that we are in. i hope we can get to a point where we can have a real conversation about this and i think a fiscal commission would be a really great way to do that. thank you. >> thank you, gentleman for his line on the bipartisan path, mechanism and for addressing the solvency and the long-term liability. i'm only speaking because you mentioned the leadership, the republican leadership. our speaker supports this. it was a priority coming into the speakership as a new speaker and we marked it up and got bipartisan outcome that said everything is on the table and so there's plenty of criticism on both sides as scott peters said. you have folks saying it's a back door way to cut social security and some people say it's a back door to raise taxes. i generally think when you have

criticism from both sides you're probably in the sweet spot and doing something meaningful. mr. smocker has encouraged through the process that the white house be at the table even when people say it's a liability. i would encourage you to take that back and think long and hard to work together to solve the biggest problems, one of the biggest problems for the country. i yield 5 minutes to the gentle lady from virginia.

[inaudible] or i'm going to come back to the general lady from virginia and i'm going yield to the gentleman from -- who should i pick on? oh, we will let the hoosier state champion with fife minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. director young the southern border secured? >> we absolutely need more resources and authorities. >> southern border crossings to the 37 months to the last six presidential terms. can you tell me which one of the lines represents the biden

administration? >> you picked me on a bad eye date but even if it wasn't i tend not to guess in these situations so i'm sure you'll tell me. >> it would clearly be the top line showing the highest number of border crossings, last six presidential terms. you talk about needing more resources. the house republicans, the very second bill that we passed is hr2 and the senate has done absolutely nothing about that. this border, the southern border crisis is a crisis of president biden's own making. he created this crisis with a stroke of a pen, he can fix it with a stroke of a pen and mr. chairman, i'd ask unanimous consent to submit a record into the record a list of 64 executive actions all of which they refuse to take to overturn their own executive actions

which would fix the southern border. instead of acknowledging the crisis at the border, the playbook has been to cast blame on others and downplay it. it's the same playbook that we have seen with inflation when we were told it would only be temporary or transitory but americans still feel the pain inflicted by binomics wherever they turn. this one is the cumulative inflation for all items to the first 38 months of the last 6 presidential terms. can you tell me which one of those lines would you believe would be the biden administration's inflation? >> i'm sure you'll tell me. >> you have a guess? >> i don't guess. >> you don't guess? >> not usually. >> anyone listening at home that the top line showing the highest inflation for the last six first presidential terms is, indeed, the biden administration. i think it's fair to contrast

that with house republican budget framework which proposes no new taxes and actually balances the budget over the course of next ten years. director young, what will adding additional $18.2 trillion to the national debt of 50% increase over where we are today in terms of national debt, what do you believe that will do to inflation which, again, is your budget proposal? >> i would ask you to please look at our budget proposals, that's why we are asking the top 1% to not only pay for things like child care and pay leave but also reduce deficit by $2 trillion and stabilize debt. >> how do you get to the $3.3 trillion reduction? >> we are here to talk about the president's policies and how they put us on a better fiscal path. >> we are going to add addition $20.3 trillion to the debt by 2033. they revised that after the

republican fra, your budget calls for 18 trillion of debt that's with $5 trillion of tax increases so i'm a little bit confused on how the biden administration says they saved $3 trillion where on the current baseline as you say 18.9 trillion but you are posing 18.3 trillion additional debt on top of $5 trillion of increases. >> this president supported where we ended up. we never believed the debt ceiling should be used as political tool which would jeopardize 8 million jobs. we did this deal and signed this deal and the president worked in a bipartisan way and democrats voted for it in a bipartisan way to save a trillion dollars over the next decade. >> director young, the president said wages are up more than

prices, inflation is down dramatically, is that true? >> that is true. inflation is moderated two-thirds. >> i have another chart to show you and this is the first 37 months of the president's terms. one of those is inflation and the other one is real wage growth. which one do you think would be inflation? >> have you ever thought about labeling these lines? i'm sure you'll tell us. >> the top line on there is inflation. inflation continues to grow at a pace that is faster than, faster than real wage growth. these numbers are pulled from your own federal agencies, the bureau of labor and statistics. who is right and who is wrong here. the president of the united states or his agency the bureau of labor institutes? >> if you're worried about lowering costs for the american people which we are we give you a lot of proposals to help families with child care costs, to help families with healthcare costs, with energy costs. >> the t's own words are in

conflict with his own agencies. all i want to know who is wrong here, the president of the united states or the federal agency that is reports? >> inflation has come down two-thirds, there's more work to do and that's why we have the proposal in the budget? >> i thank the gentle lady of indiana. my colleague from virginia she's battling health condition we all know that and there's some limitations but she's fighting through that and i'm inspired by her. there are people that make committee meetings that don't make committee meetings. we are all busy people. she shows up, she shows up every time we have committee hearings and she represents her people and, god bless her and the people she's representing are getting a hell of a tale with her and so -- [applause] >> thank you. >> the floor is yours.

i yield 5 minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, as some of you may know last year i was diagnosed with progressive super nuclear palsy, a type of parkinson's on steroid which limits my ability to speak. i want to thank committee members for allowing me to do so today. director young is good to see you again. thank you for being with us today. >> ensure families have the support they need to drive. it is estimated that the u.s. economy, due to child care challenges, reliable child care helps parents reenter or stay in

the workforce. we must break down the cost of child care which in my district costs many families more than public college tuition and ensure our kids are set up for lifelong success. i have been proud to advocate for policies to bring down the price of child care and address child educator status in the united states including sewering funding for a program in my district to expand the number of early childhood educators. including creating a historic program to guaranty child care for lower and middle income families. i have a three-part question for you about president biden's proposed plan, first, how will this program work? second, what would the monthly cost of child care be for most families under the president's

plan? >> thank you and to echo the chairman, thank you for being an inspiration to me. i touched on preschool a little with congresswoman but we believe and the biden budget reinforces that preschools should be free and would be free for all families as someone who relies on child care i wouldn't have this job if it wasn't for child care and ability to take my child somewhere. so we believe the research, i have personal experience that suggest women would be able to reenter the workforce in larger numbers if we gave them affordable quality child care and too many families have to leave their children in places where frankly they don't feel comfortable doing so but they have little other choice.

second, you already fund a program that is helpful but we believe we need to full child care program and this budget keeps the discretionary program, block grants, this budget would add a billion dollars in 23 level to that program and head start program both critical for families who need healthcare or child care slots to make sure they can work and their children are properly taken care of. >> thank you. to make president biden's plan work we need to ensure that

there are enough child care workers with knowledge of early childhood education and early development, how does the president's plan work to include the pipeline of healthcare professionals? >> one, we talked about many times today doubling pell grants would give people the ability to go to ledge, pursue a career in teaching also we have a proposal that would make community college free and those students who are given the opportunity to go to school and to it in a affordable way and not taking on and choose education as career path like my grandmother and it is a profession disproportionately chosen by woman and we believe one of the ways to make sure people continue to choose that noble profession is to make sure

college is affordable and we have proposals to do that. >> i think the gentle lady, again for her steadfast commitment to her committee, to constituents and great country. we are just all better off and well served. ben klein from virginia, yield 25 minutes to you, sir. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i want to also echo your comments about our friend the gentle lady of virginia. you are blessed, you have four virginians on this committee and two on each side and so we bring with us a wealth of knowledge and the gentle lady and work together on appropriations and we can agree and seek the better man for the people of the country. so director young, thank you very much for being here and as a former appropriations director, thank you for your

service on that committee as well. as you know, our country is currently on the hook for 34 and a half trillion dollars in debt with interest payment rising and the federal balance sheet to the second highest government expense. the budget proposal presented by the biden administration with one last opportunity to change course before the american people are presented with the opportunity to make the decision for him instead the president has decided to double down on tax and policies that broughttous this point that further subject american families and transitory inflationary pressures while increasing national debt to 52 trillion-dollar, we can look to the president's record over the past 3 years and see the bleak trajectory that biden's proposals would take our nation. this will only serve to slow our economy and put increase price

pressures on families. perhaps one of the most incredulous tax proposal of the lot minimum tack on assets and unrealized gains that would turn the irs into floor fied property assessor. director young, i don't know of a single country that has this sort of a tax, do you? >> if it's good enough to use as that kind of collateral, shouldn't be it be taxed like income? >> okay, if such a tax were created, what would stop the government from expanding it and the future to apply to

middle-class families? >> this president, the one asking for as you know has iron clad commitment. he's not going to sign a bill that taxes those making under $400,000 and certainly unrealized gains is only applied to billionaires and hundreds of millionaires, certainly not middle-class families, not even close to middle class families. >> you're saying there isn't anything in your proposal? >> the law. our proposal stops at millionaires. >> you think those who are millionaires according to assets should be able to select snap benefits currently? >> mr. klein, on snap benefits those who are eligible as you know we as part of the debt deal painstakingly found ways to ensure that those who were eligible and provided waivers in common sense ways, so we have

saw reforms with republicans in ways that protected that program, therefore, those who need it most, i'm not aware of millionaires who are -- who are getting snap benefits. >> well, there is something called the broad base categorical loophole that has resulted in over 5 million people who shouldn't -- who don't pass asset test but are collecting snap benefits today, this is a big problem and that's why i introduced budget legislation to close the loophole and i would hope to get the administration's support on that because millionaires should not be eligible or collecting snap benefits and i think, i heard agreement on that. >> well, like i said i'm not aware of anyone doing that but i'm happy to look at that piece of legislation. >> thank you. continuing on that theme in august 2021 president biden, the department of agriculture defied

congressional intent and evaluation of the thrifty food plan leading to increase of snap benefits 30 billion over ten years, as former approach staffer, do you think the president is justified in ignoring congress and expanding these programs to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars a year without in violation of the 96 congressional review act which requires agencies to submit policy updates to congress. >> mr. klein we believe we are in strong legal setting that we have every authority to take the food plan. >> that was a major policy change and you ignored the cra, correct? >> we have every legal ability to undertake that plan to provide a hundred people with more resources. >> i will disagree and yield back, thank you, mr. chairman? >> i thank the gentleman from virginia. >> thank you, thank you, mr. chairman. as appropriator i'm keenly aware

of your great work on this side of congress and admire your efforts and your commit met to our nation. you seen an effort to weponized immigration once again as it happens every four years when we peddle some narrative to try to get votes to get reelected yet this is the budget committee but i will share with you some statements that we may have gotten but that i think we will all remember. i believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put roots here in 1984, ronald reagan, we must bring undocumented workers already in the country out to have shadows. george w. bush, and rather george bush and george w. bush proposed to sign into law a

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

levels of rent every month. so moms that want to get back to the workforce can't do it because it's so expensive but yet the president has to address that in his budget and the other side fails to engage in this discussion, they want to talk about immigration because they are weponizing it once again as they do every four years so i want to ask you, director young, how important is this an issue? >> i'm in the middle of it now. it is unaffordable. i don't have the words to quite due unaffordable but if i had i would use that and we have a proposal that says families, some families wouldn't pay more than $10 a day for affordable

quality child care. there's a bipartisan program, the grant block program. head start which i know retains bipartisan support, billion dollar increase but to really affect the affordability crisis we have to do something like the president's mandatory proposal so that families are not burdened frankly with child care and left with decisions where they have to leave their children in places that are not of quality and that they have -- they cannot enter the workforce because of those decisions. >> another issue that they don't want to talk about and -- they want to weponized immigration, director young, is included in this budget and that's head start, so important for head start. the longest surviving program

since the 60's and it literally gives kids a head start. so talk to me about pay parity, how important is that? >> we can't recruit the teachers we need for head start because of pay constraints. they are often not paid what a teacher could get going to public kindergarten. so we need to ensure that we have the funding necessary to recruit quality certified teachers to teach our kids and give them a head start. we have to make sure that we fund the teacher proposal. and i'm very worried that we --

we don't keep up and will continue to lose slots in the very critical program in communities like the one i'm from? >> thank you, i yield back, mr. chairman. >> i thank the gentleman from new york and yield to my friend from virginia mr. bob good for five minutes? >> this new budget proposed $4 trillion more in spending, $5 trillion more in taxes on the american people. last time you were with us you had a little trouble with this question, i assumed that you won't have trouble today, the national debt is how much now? >> as you know, national debt is about $34 trillion. >> how quickly are we acquiring another trillion right now? >> i don't believe we take on

debt average a day. >> it's inrassing by a trillion dollars every so -- how often? >> interest rates as you know -- >> the debt is going up by a trillion dollars approximately how many days or weeks or months would you say? are you aware of that? >> let me point out, one of the cost drivers -- >> reclaiming my time, thank you, thank you, mr. chairman. thank you. do you know how quickly the debt is going up by trillion dollars? >> i think we -- >> i just think that would be important thing to know. a hundred days or so another trillion is add today the debt. what will the debt per taxpayer be by the end to have president's projected ten-year budget, how much would an average citizen owe and how much per citizen would be owed in debt by the president's projection? the president projected budget

is going to go from 35 trillion roughly to how much the debt is going by his projection this is without extra supplemental. to how much in ten years? >> first, mr. good, debt is cumulative. >> i'm asking for a number. >> parliamentary inquiry, is the witness allowed to answer the question without constantly being interrupted. >> the clock is still running. >> we will give you the -- we will give you more time. he's asking a question, director young, answer his question to the best of your ability, if you don't know say i don't know and we will keep going, so what's the question. >> let me re-ask my question. at the end of the -- it's in writing proposed budget our national debt in ten years would be how much? i just want a dollar, i don't want an explanation, i just want

a dollar. >> if you look at -- >> the only thing i want to hear is a dollar amount. >> well, you will hear my answer. >> then i will stop you and reclaim my time. it's $52 trillion. fifty-two dollars is what his proposed budget -- 52 trillion in ten years. what does that amount equate to her citizen, the census bureau says we will have 350 million americans in ten years, 350 million, so if you take the 52 trillion divide by 350 million americans about how much per citizen is that? >> mr. good, that's a false narrative. >> the reclaiming my time. reclaiming my time. if we take $52 trillion, we

divide to 350 million people. it's $150,000 per citizen is what the president is projecting without any emergency supplemental extra spending to take national debt which equates $400,000 per household by his projection. now, we have never had this level of debt in history. we've never had this level of debt to gdp since world war ii and i'm sure you're aware of that. how would the president propose we would respond to a major crisis say world war iii or some other, the next virus situation with this level of debt. >> isn't it interesting -- isn't it interesting -- >> reclaiming my time, thank you. reclaiming my time -- >> the gentleman reclaims his time. >> it's interesting that the first thing that you proclaim

that the crisis going on in ukraine. >> proposes to make it worse over the next ten years. he has created a border crisis which has further exacerbated by this budget by the way which does nothing to address the border crisis that he has created but when you speak of crisis you bring up ukraine because the president wants to borrow, borrow or print, what, some $60 billion and send it overseas to ukraine. i think it's great that you are illustrating for the american people what the president's priorities are illustrated by the budget today and debt he's willfully creating and you go back to ukraine. >> border supplemental. >> the gentleman is going to get 30 more seconds and i'm going to give the gentle lady to respond.

you get 30 more seconds. >> does the president have an understanding what the impact is of his spending, growing debt on biden inflation which american people are suffering, does he understand the impact of spending, borrowing, printing, his debt causing the biden inflation which american people are suffering. does he understand that? >> you will have as much time as you want to answer. >> mr. chairman, i get why people don't want to give the president credit for 15 million jobs low, under 4% for two years, i get that. i get the grand standing. if you want to do something about the heard which i heard about there was a bill right in front of congress to provide resources and authorities more than anybody could ever dreamed of. >> the amnesty bill. >> bipartisan scenario but we choose to come in rooms like this to talk about the budget and blast the president who tried to do something about it. >> you are the budget director

and ought to answer budget questions. >> the border has a cost. it's fair to bring it up. it's significant cost but the time has expired. >> thank you, director young for being here. we do truly appreciate your professionalism and your expertise. you're not new to the hill and we appreciate the time that you've given us today. i have a question. we just heard this back and forth about the debt. it was quite a bit of talking over your answers. my understanding is that president trump added $8.4 trillion to the debt and i'm wondering if i have that correct. >> you do and the point i was trying to make is debt is

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

enables people to get better healthcare outcomes and i know that we can end homelessness through more humane cost-effective solutions that ensure that everyone has access not just to permanent housing but also with supportive services and i'm wondering if you could this morning tell us how does the president's budget advance goals of ending homelessness to stay housed? >> when we talk about lowering costs which i think i heard agreements that we need solutions, the president has put forward many proposals on housing and i'd like to talk about if you are first-time buyer, credit and affordability for middle class first-time home buyers and also unlook starter home inventory for first-time home buyers and helps

middle-class families that are locked in because of rates. rates are going to come down over two years. it's a two-year bridge so the middle-class families can move to larger homes with their families and unlock starter homes budget also provides 10 billion budget for first generation down payment assistance program. we believe that it's critical, we know most americans hold wealth through home ownership. my family being one of them and also to address critical shortage of affordable housing communities the budget provides 10 to the billion in funding for innovation fund for housing experience which would be competitive grant program for communities that want to expand housing supply. this is critical as part of, you know, lowering costs what families will tell you they are hurting over is housing costs.

we need more affordable housing. >> i think people really discount the impact that a program like down payment assistance can really have on helping people build up equity. i know that was true and i remember being in a committee meeting with some members of my committee, does this really make a difference to offer a down payment assistance program. it was so successful in vermont we reauthorized it numerous times because the takeup rate was incredible. it gives people an opportunity get into homes and build up that e question. i'm wondering too if you could just touch a little bit on the housing supply issue. it is -- there's a critical need right now, how us the the president's budget address the shortage and supply overall because it is locking up basically at every level of the housing market. >> yeah, the 20 billion that i spoke about, and wanted to apply

to grants, this would allow communities to take their own local approach. each has their own issues as to why they can't build enough housing and that is why we would have a competitive program so people could send in proposals that work for them and work with our housing agencies to develop things that are -- that fit for your communities. >> i really appreciate it. i know i'm over time. i just want to say how important it is for me to know that the president and the administration understands how -- how housing and this is a way for us to have solid footing for individuals for families, for communities and i just really appreciate the attention to this issue. >> thank you, director young, i appreciate it. >> i lost control of the clock a long time ago so we are just that's okay. we need to make our points.

they are important and my friend the general ranking officer here in the house and classmate from michigan take it over. >> thank you, mr. chairman. as a marine i'm used to sometimes high intensity situations. this is not one of them but as i've listened here reminds me of a time 40 years ago when i was probably 5 years into the private sector medical market and i had the opportunity to work for a wonderful leader and lose who believed that all life would be down analogies of two types, sports and family living. so let's talk about, you know, family living. .. .. ..

myself in the mind of my daughters at the time who were 16. but they would think of the conversation here. how would it apply to them? there's probably not a person in this room that does not say that what we are trying to do here is for the betterment of our kids, or our grandkids. so, i would suggest to you until in this case we figure out a way to repair the relationship between the parents, which in this case is the executive branch and the legislative branch and all that are within

each. we are still going to go further down the abyss where we cannot climb out. i would just suggest to all of my colleagues that we stop with the rhetoric that does not add value to what we are leaving for our kids, our grandkids and her great grandkids in whatever future generations. i think we can all do better. first term, the chairman mentioned some of us who are freshman eight years ago from budget committee, there was a data point in front of us. you can tax the wealthy one 100%. it still does not come anywhere near to what we need to begin grabbing fiscal control of our country for the betterment of our people.

i would suggest we could stop without. so let's get now i have sucked up three minutes of oxygen here with my time. this cycle, we as the budget committee created taskforces of the honor of leading the task force on improper payments. i like to focus on that for the remainder of my time. so let me read something here despite improper payments totaling more than 236 billion in fy 2023, which is up from 150 billion in 2017 alone, the president's budget does not propose a governmentwide effort to begin to solve the issue. i am not saying were going to completely solve it but begin to take a deep look. so what specific actions is omb taking to improve the accuracy

and the efficiency of payment systems to reduce the rate of improper payments? >> one, thank you for your remarks congressman. i believe you tell me what our children would be left with and we have an opinion on that as well. respectful dialogue is very to fix these complex problems in the country for it you know the ui program is one of the largest drivers of improper payments. the things that make that difficult its state run. you see one program. >> is look at the federal level. let's talk about the federal level. admittedly some things about tht the state level. let's talk about what we could look at right here in her own on backyard. >> in our budget we have significant new proposals. we are seeing some traction and committees of jurisdiction to move on legislation. we have a proposal that would

save about $2 billion for modernizing and protecting and strengthening the ui program. i am saying there is a federal responsibility. the difficulty is each state runs a different one. we have a proposal to improve that system which will save about $2 billion. >> i know my time is past i don't want to abuse the time. but unless we look at, and one example is the fraud that relate to the covid-19 pandemic, which is federal, we are missing an opportunity and get further behind without a yield 'i think the gentleman from michigan. doctor young we passed the first bipartisan process reform the budget process reform legislation in a decade. then this week on the committee my colleague served as the ranking member. i have got to say watch your

back she was that she was good. i appreciate her leadership and support for. requests i fully supporther pro. >> that is only because ms. omar you have five minutes the gentle lady from illinois. >> think you chairman. i do not want to get in trouble. give for joining us. i want to talk a little bit about addressing the opioid crisis we are seeing throughout the country. especially in my district. according to the cdc the national overdose rates topped over 100,000 text again. from 2023.

federal spending on the crisis has surged with roughly 40% more dollars flowing to our state's free states like minnesota have recently been allocated hundreds of millions of dollars for overdose prevention as well. with all this funding there so much more to be done. it's very encouraging to see the president's budget requests continue to prioritize vital investments. these programs promote mental health. prevent substance misuse and provide treatment and recovery support. director youngkin you outline the new funding priorities in this proposal that could better support our state and community organizations and the frontline of this epidemic? >> i don't think there's anyone here who disagree we have to use

every tool at our proposal to do something about the opioid epidemic in this country. this president has put forth robust budgets. even in a flat budget and fiscal responsibility act this president showing it is his priority to do something about this epidemic, congresswoman. forty-four and a half billion dollars for the national drug control program agencies almost $900 million increase over continuing resolution level funding. the budget prioritizes expanding evidence-based harm reduction expanding access to treatment for substance abuse disorder. combating narcotics trafficking networks counseling illicit fentanyl at the border disrupting the synthetic drug trade. i know we've got into a little back-and-forth about the border bill. one place that is always had bipartisan support was the president border supplemental request to put more of the

equipment at the ports of entry to catch financial coming into our southern border. i hope we can find a way to work in a bipartisan way to do something about this. >> thank you so much i hope so too. i want to talk a little bit about the housing shortage as well that many of our communities are experiencing. flood the budget proposal keeps pushing for policies it especially to time the dream of homeownership seems increasingly unreachable. to address her housing shortage we must have more affordable housing different types of housing. this idea is core it is the core of homes for all. investing billions of dollars in development of permanent affordable public and private housing units with a focus on

mitigating residential displacement and segregation. congress can and must lead here since it has done before by delivering funds or public housing authority. to build so much housing. we renovated prepared homes provided subsidies to increase homeownership on a massive scale. it is time to appeal the amendment and get back to directly assisting all localitis with developing and guaranteeing stable housing for all. director young is prioritizing to improve affordable housing. >> again inflation is moderating two thirds. families are still struggling. one place is in housing for it lack of affordable housing. that is why this president was it lower in cost is the theme of the budget, housing's center to

that. helping first-time phone owners. helping families with tax credits. who might be locked in with low interest rates pretty a bigger house for a surprise third child for the need to move to a bigger house and for same haute owners boat ownershave access to more g stock. this budget would do something about that to allow a two-year tax credit. also, $20 billion in funding to have localities and municipalities apply. if they have a zone problem is the funding to do something about that build affordable housing but we know every solution is different depending upon where you live. we look forward to working with those who want to take on those pieces of legislation. >> know a little bit about that surprise third child. [laughter] i felt like those directed at me. >> it wasn't actually. [laughter] but i appreciate the concern and care that is given to increasing

more affordable housing both in ownership interest in stock. thank you so much. i think the gentle lady from minnesota and go to our representative from georgia. i appreciate you breaching reaching out and doing that. first of all, i want to say i've been pretty vocal about this, i think a lot of what we're doingg here is talking about ideology and different views on how you accomplish various things. i hate to see us rely consistently argued back-and-forth on congressional budget numbers off congressional budget office numbers that are consistently wrong. we've had the director in here. we conveniently use those numbers when they help us. we dismiss them when they don't and that's true of both sides. so, while i respect you have

your opinions on how to sell some of the challenges facing america, many of us on the other side see things differently. one thing that i want to address right off the bat because i think it's really important is a discussion on social security. we'll have the new administrator in today i am the chairman of that to discuss his budget. look forward to that discussion. but, let's be real about the rhetoric and commentary on social security right now. we hear costly for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle we have seen nothing but harsh language from president biden over social security constantly. first of all, i can tell you is chairman of the social security subcommittee there will be no

cuts to those who are in social security benefits to those retirees are those near retirement. i've said that consistently. we've got to be intellectually honest about what we are doing and how we are talking about it. it's going to be bipartisan solution. it will require adjustments to the program. that includes adjustments to revenue. i think we are realistic in that discussion. i would just make this simple request that we have an honest discussion. let me give you an example. the president has really hammered us and hammered republicans with the false narrative we want to cut social security. in this very budget, and this very budget you are going to cut social security payroll tax receipts by $17 billion over the tenure. how do you square that?

we have a solvency problem we have a huge spending problem is social security administration. and yet, when you look at this this budget cuts 17 billion out of receipts. >> congressman is an effort to take you up on your create an honesty and budgeting, $17 billion is pure interaction in the prayer it's not a cut set a policy decision it's an interaction with the president's revenue proposal projects at the end of the day doesn't that move money away from recipients on the road? >> it does not compare to the sheer amount of money that comes to social security payroll taxes are around $15 trillion we are trapped on a small amount based on revenue proposals interaction. it also does not take into account the presidents ask we ask high income americans to pay pate mortgages social security program. so in a roundabout way you kind

of said yes sometimes you say what you would to say i hear what i want to hear but i think we all heard it does take revenue away even if it is in your words a smaller amount. as you know your colleague from treasury, secretary yell is over the senate right now having her discussions with the senate now. in that she had an exchange with senator kennedy. in that she said went senator candace going down the road of saying what is the number generated by people making over $40000? in essence she said that president does not have a plan, he has principles of most work with congress to protect social security and extended solvency. we have not had the administration come to us and talk to us about a plan.

so when we -- when the president makes a campaign issue at a social security get his own treasury secretary says he doesn't have a plan, this ghostly problem i'm talking about social security. just tough words come out of his mouth but he does not even have a plan according to his own treasury secretary. so again mr. chairman i know we are out of time. i just hope on an important issue like this, we put down the political swords. we drop the rhetoric. we work in a bipartisan way to get the system as clean and efficient as possible. hen then, as we do that let's find a way to protect this great program together that i yield back. to quickly associate myselfwithn eliminating these issues as political fodder.

the big big, something great something important which is a good step for our seniors for our country. which is a good segue to the gentleman has been a leader on a bipartisan effort to address the solvency of the safety net issues or programs rather than the long-term viability of long-term finances. with that jimmy from california for. >> thank you and appreciate your introduction freethinking ranking member as well pate director younger to have you back and i was good to see you. i appreciate the hurt and make it for her george had been to lot not just him it says a lot about you. you are willing to reach out to members understand how important member engagement is. i push it that we always have based on your interaction with

you. today obviously we want to talk about the administration budget priorities. also finalizing administration regulations. august is probably sentiment of both sides of that we wish we could be focused on fiscal year 2025 a symptom with fiscal year 2020 for six months late. i want to first say a word that probably only you and maybe one other person in this room and myself will understand and thank you for what you have done to help secure significant amounts of funding including a recent 38.5 million for emergency repairs to the flood risk management program out to plot the administration for making strong investments in something that's very, very important to my district that comes we talk about affordable housing a thespecial outcomes of tax incentives and yes, mental

health. i want to note this budget increases medicare trust fund indefinitely. we misted the same thing by putting forward concrete solutions. part of that is what i've seen this committee and fiscal responsibility thanks to a leadership of the chairman and ranking member this responsibility is a priority. as you heard and i firmly believe in most members support the creation of a fiscal commission to draft a plan to get our fiscal house in order. hopefully it is one that congress will take a vote on. i know there has been skepticism about the commission trust may have heard in my district. if there are other ways to clear the political hurdles needed for deficit reduction i am well open to hearing about them. today i commend you on this budget which i believe such a

good example for fiscal responsibility. it is i have said in my district housing is the top issue. which can help families afford the higher cost in districts like might have interest legislation centers white house and heinrich tigre to $15000 tax credit for eligible first-time homebuyers and making it available at the point of sale which is an important aspect of that bill. director, why is it important to have these types of credits in this budget to encourage homeownership? >> most people come as you know while they may be able to afford a mortgage need help anyone who bought a house knows the expense needed upfronts. during their tax season to get that money back up this was adopted with the simple matter we want more people to own

homes. we need to provide this kind of credit especially for first-time home owner weed out people who second or third homes get to use but they made on those homes to help them move into a larger home. first-time homeowners do not have that ability. >> exactly, thank you for it and introduce legislation obviously prioritizes low income housing tax credits. i also want you to be aware of a piece of legislation i introduced in a bipartisan bicameral fashion called the workforce housing credit many people in my district who actually work and cannot make too much afford low income housing. more homes on the market bill which doubles the exemption for the capitol gains on home sale so we can but more homes on the market and incentivize people to sell their homes that want to protect their nest egg.

i want to bring up something real quick. yesterday speaking to a group of finances low income housing they noted hud had proposed regulations to streamline permitting but they need approval from the omb. how can omb play a part in streamlining hud permitting requirements? >> i'm happy to look at that specific rule. we often are place where agencies rule and guidance come in to make sure they are -- when they have other agencies have had a chance to look at them we have interagency process. i am happy to look at that particular piece and make sure that it is on track. >> outstanding, thank you director. >> think the gentleman from california i now yield five minutes to my friend from the great state of texas, chip roy. >> thank you chairman. thank you ms. young for appearing before the committee and for your service.

a couple of questions. the first question is in respect to revenue assumptions or the president's budget. i believe and have it assumes revenue will average a percentage of gdp year over year of the course of the windows that correct? >> is correct i believe it goes up a little from that level at the end there. >> it's 19.4 of the when it when you're in 2031 it assumes 20% of gdp. my question putting it aside to tobeat their attacks by what it does or doesn't get revenue we can have a debate on that have a whole hearing on that. true or false 20% of gdp revenue to the federal treasury i've never actually been achieved? >> rights. the 2001 -- 2000 is closer. >> it was like 19-point but we've never actually got 20%

this budget assumes 20% in 203119.7% with a gentle lady agree we've only achieved something in that zip code three times in our history post-world war ii.com time directly describe round 2000 or 2001 and then in 2022. we achieved 19.6 -ish% as a percentage of gdp as revenue coming to the treasury would you agree roughly question. >> at those time frames you laid out yes. my point is not withstanding that reality the budget the president put forward and you are offending assumes revenue over course at 19.7% we've only achieved three times in history. at spikes. spikes on the chart you hold a chart up i've got one on my screen but not to show you but you've seen it. spiked up three times at that level.

we've got it going up as high as 20% which we have never achieved. it begs the question of tax policy could achieve such a thing? they have a tax rate is high as 90%. corporate tax rate is highest 40% we've had tax rates lower. it's been over the entirety of the history it's all over the place. so we could debate that but my question is not withstanding those assumptions, if that's the revenue needed to be brought in in order to achieve the objective of what you've got in the budget still produces a rather large amount of deficit spending for the truth is with respect to interest, we will pass the amount of interest spending passes defense spending this year, is that correct? >> yes by a small amount but yes progress interest spending cracks a trillion dollars in 2026 under the president's budget a trillion dollars will

crack 2026. every year of this proposed budget interest spending is estimated to be greater then defense spending over the entirety of the tenure budget is that correct? >> you know this it depends where interest rates are they are a great parable but our estimates are it will go up very. >> yes every year end they can budget the whole budget is an estimate. >> the further you get out yes. >> you are putting that in there. if you look at the total amount of deficit the total amount of debt we are racking up, all of that is under that rosie is revenue model we can possibly come up with. a very rosy revenue model as a percentage of gdp coming into the treasury. so that to me is concerning because history would tell you the average amount of revenue coming into the treasury at 17.5%.

i say that in the one last point. today we've got 24 hours to review this omnibus spending bill that's roughly 1.2 trillion dollars over 1000 pages. we've got to say the next 24 hours of we're going to support it. you can probably guess whether i will support it out. as we look ahead and look at the bill my question for you is just this. you came to the negotiating table along with the president of the united states of the administration with a certain set of priorities. republican leaders in the house of representatives came to the negotiating table at the white house and chuck schumer but that certain set of priorities. yesterday's report of the democratic caucus meeting the highlights for my democratic colleague. this no poison pills on antiabortion lgbtq or di policy writers significant increase in child care medic, dod climate resilience, humanitarian assistance, afghan, increased title i funding, rejected hrt provision. would you say you achieve the

priorities that you wanted to achieve and that the president wanted to achieve in your negotiations on the omnibus spending bill? >> i know we are over. my most thoughtful way and i really mean this, is this the bill we would have written? if it was not a divided government? absolutely not. this bill, and i mean this, is a reflection of divided government i certainly hope it passes because the alternative is avoidable shut down. i appreciate neither side got what they wanted. u.s. this side they are unhappy with a lot of things to precook sealed backlogs to think that jon from texas yield to the gentle lady from the great state of texas mrs. sheila jackson lever five minutes. >> first of all let me think the director for years of service to this nation. we do not often get to speak

positively to a person that is young but has a long history of service. we thank you for having that kind of record. and being expert enough to have been on this side -- like the legislative cited knowing the difficulty we have of trying to put a budget together or assessing the executive budget because the whole question is about revenue. to be able to ensure that we have enough revenue coming in. so first i want to make the point, i like gospel music the aftermath of the george floyd horrific killing a young black boy either saying or wrote a song that said i just want to live. the passionate emotional song i commend any of you to put up on youtuber however.

it is a theme that i want to use that we are not trying to create an atmosphere where american families, no matter where they started in life are just surviving. they are just barely making it. vision and budget that makes us comfortable. >> the budget would pay for the investments to help families thrive as you say, to have child care, paid leave, universal care in this country and also achieve 3.2 trillion in deficit reductions because he does ask

the wealthiest in the country to pay more. in some proposals, congresswoman, not even back to levels before the 2017 tax law so we provided a path to show we would invest in american people and also achieve deficit reduction. >> so american families would be thriving as opposed to surviving, that would be the goal? >> i would hope that is all our goals and we've put forward proposals we think to allow middle-class and working middle class and working families to thrive. >> i have corporations paying their fair share and every time we use that terminology it's like we are attacking corporate america and this is one country corporations flocked to be able to come and build. i have a number that says if they pay their fair share we get an extra $2.2 trillion and again

that may be a number that can move. the budget includes an important income tax that wouldn't be painful but would require the top 1% of households or those with over 100 million to pay minimum tax of 25%. let me pose the question how extensive will our commitment to be to protecting medicare and medicaid, two different lines of payment with two different lines of treatment if you will. what we strengthen both of these in the president's budget? >> medicare the proposal would sustain medicare and improve insolvency indefinitely. again the wealthiest top 1% would go to 5% and that would

take the medicare trust fund into solvency indefinitely. the cms the professionals the curb your team that looked at that, so we believe that expanded health care, medicaid and the affordable care act in the country and we have a budget that would expand upon that. >> it's really been the achilles' heel for our people for so long but with the few seconds i have let me get you to give a collective answer. we want better housing, childcare. that's been one of my issues and housing. affordable housing made a commitment. give me that as you close your remarks and i have no more time left. the housing, ability and childcare. >> housing, childcare, healthcare, all those things

middle class and working families need help with in this country this budget would do it and pay for it. >> i think that is a budget that has the words thriving versus surviving and i'm standing with the president's budget and we will find a way to move forward on moving america and america's families forward. last i would say moving people out of poverty i want people to know we are concerned about the status of poverty. thank you very much, and i yield back. >> the time has expired. the gentleman from utah. >> thank you, chairman. director, i've only been here to terms on the lower tenure. other than witnesses we've invited typically have a natural briefing to chat with them you're the only person that's we've reached out. sorry for this week i wasn't able to make that a schedule but

i do appreciate it. we have a massive catastrophic hold of this week which my wife refers to as a man cold. she also says everyone has to know about it which i actually guess i'm fulfilling that prophecy at this very moment. but i do appreciate that and i look forward to as much dialogue as possible at any moment. that means a lot. back to my cold, i get to the point where you have weeks like this and it's a no-nonsense type of moment. i've been disappointed we passed this act into there's so much fear mongering going on about trying to get something done

that we all recognize we have a massive problem if we don't get ahead of our debt and deficit that have persisted. it's been frustrating to watch. i don't really need you to expound on it. i don't know to what extent but my ask to you would be can you commit to cut through the nonsense going on? the fear mongering about social security and the cuts to the programs and also from the right it's a way -- would you be willing to commit or dialogue in a nonpolitical tone among folks you interact with? >> you have my commitment to do

that. there's different ways to dialogue and i appreciate the hearings it's five minutes of back and forth it doesn't really lend itself to a real dialogue but i hope to have a conversation with you longer. i have lots of ideas on things and you have my commitment to always be available for those conversations. >> i will never forget when she responded and it was in an easy way to grasp tax policy. many businesses were among the range it's easier to split the difference. do you have specific an analysis that can prove raising the corporate tax rate in the current environment won't impose burdens on low and middle income americans and won't be putting our companies at a disadvantage

globally by raising the tax rate of 7%? >> thank you, congressman. we used to have about 2% of our gdp from corporate tax rates and we are down about 1%. other economies have about 3% of their gdp from corporate tax rates so we are underachieving and also have to remember something the secretary worked on some countries have taken us up on that proposal. our budget asked congress to do that and it prevents companies from looking offshore and countries have signed on and have done that to make sure you can't just go to a third country and hide from your tax obligations. so the proposal means we ensure

our corporations don't offshore which they are doing today and we bring the corporate tax rates and gdp back to the norm not even let other countries are doing. >> this becomes an arbitrary number and i know there's industries out there that skirt but i and others will be hit hard with the tax increase. these are hard-working american companies that will be affected. 99% of businesses are categorized as small businesses but they do their taxes on an individual basis. raising the tax rate to 39.6%, will that affect the small businesses? >> we don't believe so.

over the last three years we believe his policies are the reason we've seen over 16 million new applications in the first three years and we are committed i won't go into the proposals but we are truly committed. we are talking about going after those high-value high earning corporations and not a small businesses thank you chairman, i yield back. >> the gentleman from kansas for five minutes of questions. thank you for being with us today to answer questions and provide insight into the request

i want to correct the record on something. you stated that the president wouldn't sign the bill but the president has already signed a bill raising taxes on those making under $400,000 in fact according to the congressional budget office the so-called inflation reduction act raised taxes on those under $400,000. i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record to the ranking member. >> without objection so ordered. it's not really a concern some of my colleagues have concerns about the proposal we are talking about today from the tax

increases to expanding the bureaucracies there's a lot for us not to like in the budget but i want to focus on something at least outside the hearing there's bipartisan support that is growing and that's addressing the fiscal crisis and where we are. i'm sure you are aware of the country is borrowing roughly $95,000 a second and that's more than the median income of an individual in kansas for the household income. so literally and just one second the federal debt increased $95,000. democrats and republicans all agree this is a dangerously unsustainable and i'm part of a bipartisan group that is working to address this. in the president's budget request, there's not really a meaningful way to address the crisis. even worse, the president

proposed tax increases which are not offsetting the new spending proposed and it seems like the plan is to have a continued deficit and continue growing that debt. i know that sometimes in the doublespeak it's easy to say the president likes to talk about his deficit. in reality though just because you proposed a large deficit that's less than a larger deficit proposed before, that's not a cut. it's still increases the debt. and in fact it's going to increase to $52.7 trillion in ten years based on this budget from the already staggering $34.5 trillion. can you help us understand where the president's priorities are on the fiscal health of the nation and particularly why he didn't propose balancing the budget if we truly do have a strong economic recovery?

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

where we were, you lead a successful vaccine campaign and insured we had one of the strongest economic recoveries of any economy in this world. >> he was the beneficiary of operation warp speed that donald trump put in place and that started rolling out before president biden came into office and was helping make that economy get started and i think we can all agree alexander hamilton brought up the necessity for borrowing during a particular emergency cannot be doubted but i'm just looking forward over the next 10 years the president looks and proposes increasing our debt instead of lowering our debt in supposedly strong economic -- >> he has shown a path, we have disagreement on how we get there. $3 trillion in deficit reduction in the risk if you ask about abundance -- a

balanced budget the risk is programs like social security, medicare, medicaid, the affordable care act, those are where the government has most of its outlays if you want to balance in a short amount of time there's no other place to go but for those to come down. >> my time has run out but the debt does increase, that's the fact of the matter, president biden's budget proposal will increase the debt. my time has run out. >> thanks. recognize the gentle lady from minnesota for five minutes. >> thank you for being here. president biden seems to cater to fringes of the party without considering what's best for the american people. the epa announced a new rule effectively forcing consumers to buy electric vehicles over gas.

i'm from a rural area and the electrical grid may not be able to handle these changes. it will increase reliance on china as they control the mineral supply chain. the auto industry made clear this plan will hurt them. this switched me being nearly impossible for rural america where people regularly you drive long distances and there are fewer charging stations and there is concern about performance of the battery in cold longworth house office building. we saw that not long ago. i am curious how much funding and the president's budget between increases for the epa and about divinity will be used to produce agency rules that remove every day consumer goods like gas powered cars, gas stoves because it seems like there have been a lot of rules

that are affecting people. >> congresswoman, the bill released last night that hopefully you will be voting on friday speaks to the fact that no one is going to be abandoning gas stoves. >> take that part of it out. what are the rules going to be on the cars, take the gas stoves out. >> i think you're referring to the tailpipe rule, i will let the epa administrator speak to the details but from an investment standpoint ensuring that communities have charging stations they need to make this transition because we believe climate changes and ask essential crisis to the budget, look how much we spend on disasters, we are putting infrastructure in place in order to support more electric vehicles to ensure that we do something about climate change. >> does it address all the issues that i mentioned, riding

long distances, performance of a battery? i saw on the news two months ago where these batteries, people being stuck and couldn't get them charged and there are huge issues with those. the question was how much are they going to commit to these rules, maybe you just talked in general because there's been just a proliferation of these rules that are banning things and getting things because they can't get the master -- >> i just think what i said, the questions on tailpipe rules, i will let epa explain its own rule but i will say as far as infrastructure we do have budget space through the inflation reduction act to have the infrastructure to deal with the issues you pointed out, people who need more charging

stations which i'm from a town of less than 2,000. we want to see that infrastructure, rural communities should not be left behind. last time i went to my home state i saw charging stations in places i never thought i would see charging station so that work is happening all across the country, there's more to do and we are committed to making those investments. >> will there be in the budget the president has proposed does it allow -- i mean -- how much of it is going to be used to write those rules that infringe on people's ability to make consumer choices? >> we don't believe our regulatory actions infringe. we think they improve different points of life for americans. we think it's going to lead usually to the need to address emissions in this country. i appreciate there are

differences of opinion but also health outcomes of children who suffer from asthma. there's a reason the lung association and other healthcare organizations supported that rule but agency budgets are in here that support rules about making, epa's operations account certainly supports employees who do that rule making. >> i have to reclaim my time because i have a follow-up question and i wasn't paying attention. obviously these switches, whether it be gas stoves, battery-powered evs, how does the president's budget account for the cost to the consumer to those middle-class families because evs are very expensive. the cost of changing those items is expensive. >> no one has any intention of banning gas stoves.

but that's why the inflation reduction act provided tax credits for americans who want to buy -- >> they can't begin to afford it. tax credits are one thing but they can't even start to afford these things and i don't understand how we are going to continue the rules i am out of time. >> the gentle lady's time has expired. time to recognize the gentleman from oklahoma for questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman, thank you very much. doctor younger, appreciate you being here. i want to provide some quotes from former president bill clinton. clinton stated he raised the corporate tax to reduce the deficit specifically stating, quote, i raised the corporate

tax to international average to make a contribution to drive down the debt, end of quote. similarly in 1993, president clinton advocating for the bp you tax, his own words he was advocating for the best way to provide us with revenu lower the deficit. one was i'm doing this about the debt, doing this about the deficit, democrats ones held the goal to reduce deficit loading with their tax increases. in this budget proposed by president biden that you are managing over, the leader of the democratic party, president biden wants to increase taxes by $5 trillion in this budget but i don't see it being used to reduce the deficit. according to the cbo the debt held by the public will increase by $18 trillion if nothing changes from current spending habits. this plan, the biden plan, $5 trillion will be raised in

taxes. tax increases yet 18 trillion over 10 year window will also occur. that means with biden's budget $5 trillion worth of tax increases borne by americans for the next ten years will go to increased spending but does nothing to address deficits and debt and so i appreciate anyone who wants to talk about hypocrisy among the republican party, i welcome that. this is a rhetorical question. where's the ideology of bill clinton for presidents, the ideology of democrat presidents, where once upon a time they would say we want tax increases but we will use it because we think the debt and deficits are an issue? tax increases, spending increases and no deficit reduction in president biden's plan. president biden said show me your budget and i will show you your values, the biden administration values in this

are clear. i don't see deficit and debt reduction as a part of true emphasis. radical tax and spend, no deficit reduction. when democrat leaning constituents back home ask me why we don't raise taxes on the top 1%, i go through some stats to back up what has been twisted about what they are told. according to the tax foundation the top 1% already pay 46% of all income tax, top revenue stream coming in, 46% of all income tax is already borne by the top one%. further, take the top 50% of all income earners, they pay 97% of all income taxes, that means the bottom 50% of income earners take 2.3% of all taxes so this tax the wealthy mentality, got to make sure people understand the stats in the truth of the stats, the

democrats in oklahoma think this administration would raise taxes to address debt loading but this budget shows the debt and deficit reduction is not a priority for you all. that's a radical ideology that is leading this administration and that saddens me. i ask you, where has the ideology of bill clinton gone, this democrat president 30 years ago democrats were focused on debt and deficit spending, both parties are to blame. republicans, i will be the first to chastise us when we talk about fiscal discipline but i'm doing this to say i am concerned whether democratic party has drifted. let me close with this. this budget has radical climate priorities increasing 5 trillion spending, housing cost increases, budget cost for new program seeks to provide families with $10,000 total

mortgage credit, that proposal is going to cost $47 billion, totally unpaid for deficit spending, adding $34 trillion and lead to an increase in home processes because deficit spending drives inflation, devaluation of our currency, that's where interest rates are coming from. the cost of homes on average right now are $100,000 more than they were before president biden took office, the average median house $100,000 more yet the average income has only risen by $10,000. the average 30 year mortgage is almost one thousand dollars more under before this administration to now. i will wrap it up by saying this. i believe your budget is compounding the problems you say are trying to fix. where is the administration's focus on debt and deficit reduction. >> page one 39 of the budget, deficit reduced by $3 trillion

from baseline to policy, the debt number on policy on baseline is $48.3 trillion in 2034, policy $45.1 trillion. >> all due respect, the window cbo says 18. 9. >> they don't look at policy, they took at baseline. >> your budget is 18.2. it 18 trillion, your budget versus cbo, to try to wordsmith these different numbers, i just don't see -- >> appreciate the exchange, i wish we could continue it but in the interest of time, let's go to our colleagues from the great state of texas, doctor burgess for 5 minutes. >> congratulations for leading the first bipartisan budget process reform ever on the floor of the house of representatives, truly remarkable achievement. i have two unanimous consent requests, that the report of texas public policy on

foundation medicaid recipients have worse health -- health outcomes prepared to the uninsured and the second one, unanimous consent of a memo from the joint committee on taxation, 54% of the inflation reduction act's expansion subsidies go to people making over 400%. >> without objection so ordered. >> thank you. first off, thank you for the call for this meeting. and editorial comment because i heard the back-and-forth on the evs and charging stations. i've been a student of the hybrid technology since 2004. a consumer of hybrid technology since the first toyota car came out with that in the early 2000s and it strikes me that we've missed the mark here by trying to force the entire

country to go completely from internal combustion engine to electric vehicles suddenly is perhaps not the best strategy. with resources directed toward hybrid technology, plug-in hybrid technology. the resources required to make one big electric vehicle batteries that can go 300 miles between charges could actually be used to make 4, 5, 6, 7 batteries in hybrid technology and seems it would be a more rational use of resources at the department of energy. i also know as director of management and budget we get to review all the rules before their final promulgation. i will add that we shouldn't

exclude hybrid technology though it does involve internal combustion engine. it is i will tell you unbelievable to get 55 miles to the gallon in a regular hybrid car. last car i bought was a plug-in but regular hybrid dump truck by ford motor company and i am astounded how the hybrid technology has improved since last hybrid car i bought in 2018. even though it's not a plug-in hybrid it does run significant amount of time on electricity only, vastly increasing miles per gallon indicated. let me get this off my chest. 1993 in september, we talked about healthcare, the president had delivered a famous address to congress on healthcare, the security act was going to be

unveiled and given to congress, was going to be passed by the congress, he thought, former senator songus told us in dallas that if we were not careful, this new bill from the president proposed 5 new entitlement programs and we couldn't afford the ones we already had. i was astounded to hear him admit that and he further went on to talk about if we don't do something about our automatic spending, entitlement spending, however you want to phrase it, if we don't reapproach that, he projected in 20 years time, we are past that point but we are also reaching adecco we are realizing we pay more for interest on the national debt than we are for defense and at some point there will be an intergenerational conflict because of people coming up who are paying the taxes are not going to be willing to support people who are being supported. i would like your opinion on

that. >> i think i've spoken around what you're looking for my opinion on. it's not are chattering here. how we got here, i appreciate hearing your perspective. i wasn't following politics in the mid-90s but where we are now is people depend on many of these programs, social security and medicare. there is no plan b if we don't -- >> reclaim my time briefly. the problem is the people who are coming up who are going to replace us will be voting on these same things and their constituents will tell them we can't carry that load any longer and i hope that we can do something before we reach that crisis point. thank you. >> appreciate that exchange, thank you.

director, the gentleman from texas, we yield 5 minutes to our friend mr. bobby scott from virginia. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you for being here, director young, fiscal year 25 budget exemplifies the point i made, democrats routinely prioritize reducing deficits without sacrificing safety net programs that are so important, that every democratic president since president kennedy left office a better deficit situation than they inherited. without exception. every republican administration since nixon has left with the democrats a worse situation than they inherited. donald trump was well on his way to fulfilling that trend even before the pandemic. director young, does the president's budget projected

deficit larger or smaller than the deficit he inherited from donald trump? >> it is factually accurate the deficit is $1 trillion lower than when the president entered office and worked with speaker mccarthy and signed a bill, fiscal responsibly act to save $1 trillion over ten years and accurate the deficits would reduce by $3.2 trillion while paying for the new proposals in his budget. >> the republican budget has cuts in education. tell me what the president's budget has with title i which supports low income students. >> thank you for your leadership on title i, education and labor issues, this budget provides 18. $6 billion for title i as you know, that's the main federal way to provide resources to

public schools in this country, $200 million over 2,023 levels, probably a new level since the 24 bill was released overnight. this president is committed to ensuring title i has been underfunded more than years, probably decades and we need to ensure the federal government is a partner, a small partner of local taxes and school districts providing the most but this is a way for the federal government to ensure some of those communities have more than adequate goods and education. >> the american rescue plan provided significant funds for those provided by the title i formula, i saw a piece on npr yesterday morning showing how valuable those resources were, so appreciate that answer. under the american rescue plan, the child tax credit was made fully refundable and the result

was cutting child poverty nearly in half, the house passed a budget that had a child tax credit nowhere nearly as robust as what we passed in the american rescue plan. tell me what the president's budget has for child tax credit? >> we would support, and the president has included yet again, the full child tax care proposal that mirrors what was in the arp bill which we saw lead to reduction of half of child poverty in this country. >> thank you. my district includes a lot of shipbuilding, new shipbuilding, naval shipyards and many other small and medium repair yards. what does the president's budget do for shipbuilding, particularly the australia us agreement?

>> the budget, the fiscal responsibly act, department of defense complies with of that but we make key investments necessary to keep our agreements with our australian, also this budget provides $1.7 billion more in navy accounts in the submarine production rates and operational availability, increases the columbia glass submarine procurement by $2.3 billion, 34% more than previously planned and we include $1.6 billion for an amphibious warship. we also have knowing this bill had to comply with the fra have future years budget that shows our commitment to shipbuilding in this country and we need the supplemental also to be a companion to the budget which

has robust funding to invest in our submarine industrial base to increase production capability. >> the projections forward are very important with an industrial base, businesses might go out of business if they are not convinced they will have contracts in the future. >> increasing production capabilities. >> i think the gentleman from virginia and yield 5 minutes to my friend from georgia, buddy carter. >> thank you. thank you for being here. i know it has been a long day and i will try to beat with and concise. what i'm concerned about, first thing i'm concerned about is this budget is 5 weeks late. granted this is not the only president who has been late with his budget but i hope that the administration understands that put us behind. we want to be on time. granted, we may not be on time. but when we start behind and are already behind, that is why

i have legislation, send us budget materials in time and what it does is it says if the president, republican, democrat, however, doesn't send congress a budget in time, they are not going to be invited to give the state of the union address. it doesn't apply, democratic presidents only, it applies to any president. i want you to take the message back of that we need this information on time and i hope you understand where i'm coming from. i'm concerned about the debt as everyone is. right now, we are spending in this country $202,000 every second. the speed of light is 186,000 mi. /s that we are spending money at the speed of light. you have concerns about the deficit too. tell me what your concerns are about the deficit. >> reporter: hopefully the chairman will let us go back and forth a little.

give me a budget by october 1st, i will give you a budget that's on time. with all due respect, it puts us behind on production for budgets when they are six months late. later. i'm sitting here trying to get a read out of the bill that was released this morning that finishes the budget from last year while also presenting the budget for next year. speaking of process, mr. chairman, we all need to work together to find a way to get this back on track. it part of your bill. >> you can't start your budget into we -- >> we made a decision not to wait any further. >> that was your decision but you can submit the budget for next fiscal year. >> if you talk to the appropriate are. i've been on that side. to get a budget that's frankly out of date. it is compared to wrong numbers. it does put us behind. also, on debt and deficits, while you may disagree with our

tax policies going after high income earners, it does allow us to pay for our new investments in this budget and have a 3 done - read thousand dollars deficit reduction. >> you know we disagree with that, we would refute that point. nevertheless, let's talk about rules about making. when you make, i believe right now there are 170 regulations pending before your office. when you make these rules and approve these rules do you ever take into consideration the cost of these rules? >> that is the whole reason omb gets any rules. for omb to get will from an agency it is the agency's rule so nepa has or will it is there rule. the reason omb is involved is because we've estimated it has a certain economic impact so we think it is important. admission ministrations since bill clinton have set the rules because we think economically

significant rules should come and have a larger -- >> let me ask about two in particular. i have the honor and privilege of representing the coast of georgia. up and down the atlantic seaboard we have right whales. they will right now is being proposed by noah to require boats between 35 and 65 feet to adhere to a 10 mile per speed limit which is going to just crush recreational fishing and have a negative impact on our ports. we have two major seaports in my district. that's one of the examples. it's going to impact in my district alone 27,000 direct jobs, nationwide the numbers up to 340,000. it will have an economic impact to $84 billion yet this administration, noah specifically, laughingly says

it is only going to have a $46 million impact, that is one example of the kind of rules i'm talking about that has negative impact on the economy. another one, i chair the subcommittee on environment and energy and commerce. the rule being proposed for particulate matter is going to have a devastating devastating impact on manufacturers in america. what does the administration do with these rules, do you look at these rules and the impact they will have economically? >> absolutely. that is why omb is involved. anything that is economically significant which that rule was has to come to make sure nothing is rushed through, that we take public comment and we made it easier in the biden administration to walk in off the street and provide comment, rules change -- >> there are times when -- you

telling me -- i hope this right whale rule, i hope the ambient air quality rule will be two of those times. >> i can't comment on specific rules but rules after -- >> i will give you the final word. >> that the point of public comment. we don't know everything until these rules go out and people have a chance to look at them and we take in information from the public. other agencies might have things they don't know so omb rules to make sure we hear from all stakeholders. >> i've given you two examples, i hope you will look at those and i yelled back. >> thank you, gentlemen from georgia. now yield to our final member for comment and question from maryland for five minutes. >> thank you, chairman erickson and happy to close it out. on their way. anything else you want to get out and answer to previous questions?

>> i'm good. >> i'm always here if you need to talk. i was pleased to see the president's budget set at 25% minimum tax on the wealthiest 0.1% and the corporate tax rate, 15, 21 at minimum. fantastic. quadruple stock buybacks fantastic. closing tax loopholes, lowering tax rates, for many years america's richest corporations used tax loopholes to pay for lower tax rates than the average american, 2020, 55 of the largest corporations paid no federal income tax at all. the institute of taxation economic policy. put that in perspective. if amazon, just amazon was asked to pay the current us tax rate of 21%, that would be snap

benefits of 1.7 million americans facing hunger. that's a pretty good trade off. amazon can afford that. if it's clear america doesn't have a spending problem, we have a revenue problem and that is what you are working and appreciate that. can you talk about raising corporate income tax rates my closing tax loopholes, when down paying the deficit, ensuring teachers and firefighters never again pay a higher tax rate than most wealthy people. >> given your business history and your perspective, and know that these tax policies asking large corporations and the top 1% to 2% will not impact

investments they were able to make in this country. if anything, it will ensure we provide investments, programs to expand our economy. and back to childcare, this is not spending. this is investment to bring more people who now can't join the workforce into the workforce through these tax proposals. we had an omb report that said 400 billionaires, 2010-2018. and something has to be done. >> something has to be done was outrageous and government businesses don't make decisions on investment that creates the jobs based on the tax rate.

hundreds of billions of dollars of decisions on budgets and not one time ever in the history of my life do i say what is the tax rate next year? can you do it better than the other competitor and creator p and l statement that works? the tax rate is after p and l, never once been a consideration. the republican jig abu that if the tax rate is stopping investment, completely faulty by people who never ran a business or never been there, not a clue what they are talking about. childcare you set unaffordable, unobtainable for many moms, caregivers, yet the high-quality early childhood care is how we get equity across our nation. i'm excited about the child

income tax credit, childcare information. the work you are doing on how we get pre-k everywhere and think about the 3-year-olds and how we get them in our public school system. that will pay us dividends later. spend money to bring more revenue down the road. >> we have access to quality pre-k 3 and 4. we have a better chance of going to college and the college degree that we believe is a pathway to middle-class and those are facts, it goes back to a budget the tries to grow the economy making investments where it makes sense. we can pay for all of those investments. my child was born a month late to go to pre-k, exorbitant childcare fees. parents should have access to affordable childcare. we have a public that says some parents shouldn't pay more than

$10 for child care. the full seed of solutions. >> thank you for your hard work. god bless a day off. >> another hearing, sir. >> i yield back. >> i think the gentleman from maryland and we are now at the end where i want to make a few closing comments. appreciate you taking the questions for my colleagues and you are a good person. i like you and i like working with you. i do not like the president's budget and i hate what the budget would do to this country which is more of what has happened the last few years. i don't think republicans have all the answers. i don't think there are things democrats propose that should be dismissed out of hand. i think most of the big

problems will only be solved when democrats and republicans get in a room, hash it out by consensus which is why i'm interested in our bipartisan fiscal commission. i don't have much hope in this institution. it is a longshot. it may not work. the current dynamic isn't working either. but we do at least have this sort of belief system, set of policies that reflect the values of my democrat colleagues who have the best of intentions and my republican colleagues but here's one thing we can't disagree on so the american people can look at the president's budget, see the belief system and vote accordingly. same way with the republicans balanced budget blueprint. it is there for everybody to see. we marked hours up, the president submitted his. this is how it out to work. the people will make those decisions in november.

is what is not for debate, the uncivil it -- unsustainability of the pathway on. this is what i want to say from my heart with the deepest concern for the country's future. both parties have contributed, no doubt. i do not give my republican colleagues in my party a pass for where we are today, where we are going which could be catastrophic, i don't have to recite the numbers to you, you know them well but cbo came out with a 30 year projection. they gave us the $20 trillion that would be added to the debt with current policies over 10, already paying more interest, more than we pay in defense for national defense. in 30 years it is going to be $150 trillion.

the share of that per family would go from $250,000 to a million. our annual deficit which is almost $2 trillion now will be over $7 trillion in 30 years. think about that as a business guy. we are going to spend 75% of our $7 trillion in what we borrow to fund this government on interest alone, not on a safety net, not on sailors and soldiers, not on climate policy and programs. pick your thing. let's debate those programs, those strategies to solve problems that the american people believe we should be responsible in doing but pay for this because i am quoting

-- it is a statement a lot of people believe, we don't tax on the debt. that is a deferred tax on our kids and it is not only not courageous, it is immoral for both sides to leave us on this unsustainable path. find it in your heart when still serving the country and this president to encourage your colleagues on the democrat side as i encourage my republican colleagues to get in the room and hash it out and save this country because, a sovereign debt crisis, i believe it will undermine everything good about the country. the greatest economy in the world, the greatest military in

the world, our leadership in the world and most importantly, our children's future. it is why we are here. i appreciate my democrat and republican colleagues and i appreciate you and your service. thanks for committing so much time to the budget committee, god bless america. god bless america. with that, we have questions. members can submit the written questions and your answers will be part of the formal hearing record. members who wish to submit questions, any extraneous material for the record can do so in 7 days. i want the record to reflect mr. trone is still here when the buzzer goes off and the gavel goes down, the committee stands adjourned.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> today, homeland security secretary alejandro mayorkas testifies on the president's 2025 budget request for his department and take questions on immigration policy in the us southern border. he's appearing before both chambers of congress starting with the house appropriations subcommittee at 10:00 eastern. in the afternoon, a senate appropriations somebody will you hear testimony at 2 p.m. eastern. live coverage on both hearings on c-span 3 on mobile apps c-span now or online, c-span.org. friday nights, c-span s200024 campaign trail, weekly roundup of c-span's campaign coverage providing 1-stop shop to discover what