[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE PRESIDENT'S FISCAL YEAR 2022 BUDGET
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, D.C., JUNE 9, 2021
__________
Serial No. 117-3
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Budget
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available on the Internet:
www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
45-455 WASHINGTON : 2021
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET
JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky, Chairman
HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES, New York JASON SMITH, Missouri,
BRIAN HIGGINS, New York Ranking Member
BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania, TRENT KELLY, Mississippi
Vice Chairman TOM McCLINTOCK, California
LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin
DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania
JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois CHRIS JACOBS, New York
DANIEL T. KILDEE, Michigan MICHAEL BURGESS, Texas
JOSEPH D. MORELLE, New York BUDDY CARTER, Georgia
STEVEN HORSFORD, Nevada BEN CLINE, Virginia
BARBARA LEE, California LAUREN BOEBERT, Colorado
JUDY CHU, California BYRON DONALDS, Florida
STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa
JENNIFER WEXTON, Virginia BOB GOOD, Virginia
ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, Virginia ASHLEY HINSON, Iowa
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas JAY OBERNOLTE, California
JIM COOPER, Tennessee
ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
SCOTT H. PETERS, California
SETH MOULTON, Massachusetts
PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
Professional Staff
Diana Meredith, Staff Director
Mark Roman, Minority Staff Director
CONTENTS
Page
Hearing held in Washington, D.C., June 9, 2021................... 1
Hon. John A. Yarmuth, Chairman, Committee on the Budget...... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 4
Hon. Jason Smith, Ranking Member, Committee on the Budget.... 6
Prepared statement of.................................... 8
Letter submitted for the record.......................... 25
Shalanda Young, Acting Director and Deputy Director, Office
of Management and Budget................................... 12
Prepared statement of.................................... 14
Hon. Michael Burgess submitted a letter for the record....... 47
Hon. Sheila Jackson Lee, Member, Committee on the Budget,
statement submitted for the record......................... 82
Questions submitted for the record........................... 87
Answers submitted for the record............................. 93
THE PRESIDENT'S FISCAL YEAR 2022 BUDGET
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 9, 2021
House of Representatives
Committee on the Budget
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:06 a.m., in
room 210 Cannon House Office Building and via Zoom, Hon. John
A. Yarmuth [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Yarmuth, Jeffries, Higgins, Boyle,
Doggett, Price, Schakowsky, Kildee, Morelle, Horsford, Lee,
Chu, Plaskett, Wexton, Scott, Jackson Lee, Cooper, Moulton,
Jayapal; Smith, Kelly, Grothman, Smucker, Jacobs, Burgess,
Carter, Cline, Boebert, Donalds, Feenstra, Good, Hinson, and
Obernolte.
Chairman Yarmuth. This hearing will come to order. Good
morning and welcome to the Budget Committee's hearing on the
President's Fiscal Year 2022 Budget. We are holding this hybrid
hearing in compliance with the regulations for committee
proceedings pursuant to House Resolution 965 carried over to
the 117th Congress via House Resolution 8. Members and
witnesses may participate remotely or in person.
I would like to remind Members that we have established an
email inbox for submitting documents before and during
committee proceedings and we have distributed that email
address to your staff.
For individuals who are participating remotely, consistent
with regulations, the Chair or staff designated by the Chair
may mute a participant's microphone when the participant is not
under recognition for the purpose of eliminating inadvertent
background noise. Members participating remotely are
responsible for unmuting themselves when they seek recognition.
We are not permitted to unmute Members unless they explicitly
request assistance. If I notice that you have not unmuted
yourself, I will ask if you would like staff to unmute you. If
you indicate approval by nodding, staff will unmute your
microphone. They will not unmute your microphone under any
other conditions. Members participating remotely must have
their cameras on and be visible on screen in order to be
recognized. Members may not participate in more than one
committee proceeding simultaneously.
Finally, to maintain safety in light of the Attending
Physician's new guidance and the Speaker's announcement on
January 4, Members, staff, and all others physically present in
the hearing room must wear a mask and are required to keep
their masks on when seeking recognition. After an individual
has been recognized, the individual may remove their mask while
speaking. Each individual must reapply their mask at the
conclusion of their remarks. For those Members not wanting to
wear a mask, the House rules provide a way to participate
remotely from your office without being physically present in
the hearing room.
Now, I will introduce our witness. This morning, we will be
hearing from the Honorable Shalanda Young, Acting Director of
the Office of Management and Budget. We welcome her to the
House Budget Committee. I now yield myself five minutes for an
opening statement.
I would like to take another moment to welcome the
Honorable Shalanda Young to our witness table. OMB is well-
served to have you at the helm this budget season, particularly
given your more than 14 years of experience with the House
Appropriations Committee. Thank you for being with us today and
in person.
With the help of some new safety protocols and guidance
from the Office of the Attending Physician, it is good to be
back in the hearing room today. We are finally and thankfully
rounding the corner of this public health crisis.
Vaccination rates are up, coronavirus cases are down. Job
growth is up, and the unemployment rate is down to its lowest
point since before the pandemic. Rescue checks have
significantly reduced hardships facing American families, with
sharp declines in food insecurity and financial instability.
The American Rescue Plan has helped save communities,
delivering the resources necessary to get shots into arms,
workers back in jobs, and to provide lifelines to state and
local governments, small businesses, and families.
It was the plan our nation needed, and it was a plan this
Committee was proud to help deliver. But this is not the time
to stop and pat ourselves on the back. Our country is not where
we need it to be. There is much more work to do.
That is why President Biden has proposed a transformative
budget that will ensure we emerge from these past 15 months of
crisis stronger and better prepared for the future than ever.
With critical investments in job creation, clean energy,
infrastructure, education, childcare, public health, and more,
the President's budget for 2022 lays out a visionary plan to
build a better and more secure future for our nation.
For too long, self-inflicted austerity has been mistaken
for fiscal responsibility to the detriment of American families
and our nation's economy. The Biden budget ends this era of
chronic underfunding and disinvestment in America's potential,
and addresses the longstanding deficits in our communities that
have been exposed and exacerbated by the pandemic.
And I might add, the thing that most impresses me about
this budget is it represents a change in thinking that is long
overdue. For decades and decades, the first question has always
been, at the federal level, what can we afford to do? President
Biden's budget asks the questions in a different order. It asks
first, what do we need to do to serve the American people? And
then, how do we resource those needs? I think that is an
important change in mentality.
The budget includes President Biden's American Jobs Plan,
proposing $2.2 trillion in historic investments over 10 years
to fix and modernize our failing infrastructure, create good-
paying jobs, and revitalize U.S. manufacturing so we can lead
the global marketplace. The budget ends decades of
underinvestment in transportation infrastructure and also makes
transformative investments to address climate change, renew the
electric grid, and spur energy-related economic development.
Together, the plan's investments will increase energy
resilience and security, lower energy costs for Americans,
improve air quality, create good-paying jobs, and strengthen
U.S. competitiveness, all while putting our country on the
pathway to 100 percent carbon-free electricity by 2035.
The budget also includes the American Families Plan and
proposes long-overdue investments in affordable housing,
infrastructure, public health, and childcare infrastructure,
expanding opportunities, and creating a fairer, more modern
economy in the wake of the pandemic.
It extends key tax cuts in the American Rescue Plan that
benefit lower-and middle-income workers and families, like the
Child Tax Credit that helped cut child poverty in half. It
builds on the antipoverty and food initiatives in the American
Rescue Plan, investing $45 billion over 10 years to deliver
nutrition security to vulnerable families. To ensure parents,
particularly mothers, can safely return to the work force,
provide for their families, and help power our recovery, the
budget invests $225 billion over 10 years to make childcare
more affordable and accessible. Then it provides free universal
preschool, which is an enormous benefit to working families.
And because a more educated work force builds a stronger
economy, it provides two years of free college education.
Investing in the American people has always been a good
bet, but with interest rates this low and the need so high,
right now it is a sure thing. For too long, our economy has not
worked for those working the hardest to get by. Underlying
inequities and widening income inequality, exacerbated by the
pandemic-driven recession, continue to jeopardize the financial
security of working Americans. In the United States, the
wealthiest nation on earth, this is neither acceptable nor
inevitable.
But by pairing the American Family and American Jobs Plans
with reforms to ensure that big corporations and the wealthiest
Americans pay their fair share, we can make these powerful,
pro-growth investments and set our nation on a fiscally
responsible path.
President Biden has put forward a visionary budget that
will transform our country and create a far better future for
all American families. Acting Director Young, I look forward to
working with you and the rest of the Administration to advance
this budget and to answer the President's call to build a
stronger country by putting the needs, goals, ingenuity, and
strength of the American people front and center.
Thank you. And I now yield to the Ranking Member for his
opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Yarmuth follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Director
Young, for participating in today's hearing. As President Biden
has said repeatedly, don't tell me what you value, show me your
budget, and I will tell you what you value. When President
Biden released his budget, he sent a clear message that his
Administration values Washington control over America's working
class. Under President Biden's budget, government spending
reaches historic highs and raises our national debt to
unsustainable levels. It creates the highest sustained tax
burden in American history, and nearly doubles tax collections
over the next 10 years, while breaking the President's pledge
not to raise taxes on American families earning under $400,000.
His budget gives Washington the greatest and most coercive
command and control over Americans' lives and livelihoods ever
witnessed in modern history, while abandoning government's core
constitutional function of providing for a national defense. In
a budget that gives an average 16 percent raise to every non-
defense agency next year, the President struggles to find one
new dollar for Homeland Security, when we have a crisis at our
southern border.
Within 10 years under the budget proposal, America will pay
more to settle the interest on our national debt than it costs
today to take care of our seniors on Medicare. It will cost
more than our entire national defense and nearly 10 times more
than what we will spend on veterans' healthcare next year. The
misplaced priorities of this budget are not the only
frightening part. It is how President Biden says he wants to
pay for some of it. One of the ways he hopes to finance some of
his massive government spending is to permanently grow the IRS
$80 billion. A bureaucracy which has a history of targeting
conservative political groups.
Given that history, the American people are right to be
worried. Because instead of finding new ways to grow America's
economy and create opportunity, President Biden is bent on
finding new ways to tax America while countries like China
outcompete us on the global stage. If we want to strengthen
America, we need to start by focusing on the right economic
conditions that give workers a chance to succeed instead of
settling for an agenda that the President's own budget admits
will underperform.
Based on the projections outlined in this budget, the
President's spending and tax plan would lead to the worst
economic growth of any decade since the Great Depression. What
is worse, it completely ignores the real cost of government
spending. The high prices Americans are facing at the pump and
in the checkout lines due to rising inflation. Here are some
facts that have gone underreported recently.
Since President Biden took the oath of office, monthly
inflation has quadrupled. Core inflation in April increased at
the highest level in nearly four decades. And yet, still the
President's budget assumes $69 trillion in new spending and
will not significantly fuel this rise in new spending, which
will significantly fuel this rise in the cost of living that
disproportionately harms the working class.
President Biden needs to level with the American people. If
we continue down this path, by 2031, a quarter of our GDP will
be government spending and Americans will be on the hook for a
whopping $39 trillion in debt. We need a budget that bets on
the working class and supports their families. A budget that
prioritizes constitutional responsibilities like national
security, fosters better job growth, rising wages, and economic
security, and gives our children a chance to inherit the
American Dream, not a list of broken promises.
I am not sure if there is such a thing as a perfect budget
in Washington, but it is clear that the budget President Biden
is proposing falls far short of the mark. And, frankly, America
can do better than the President's disappointing vision for the
future. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Jason Smith follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Yarmuth. I thank the Ranking Member for his
opening statement. In the interest of time, I ask that any
other Members who wish to make a statement, submit their
written statements for the record to the email box we
established for receiving documents before and during Committee
proceedings. We have distributed that email address to your
staff. I will hold the record open until the end of the day to
accommodate those Members who may not yet have prepared written
statements.
Now, once again, I would like to thank Ms. Young for being
here this morning. The Committee has received her written
statement and it will be made part of the formal hearing
record. You have five minutes to give your oral remarks and you
may begin when you are ready.
STATEMENT OF SHALANDA YOUNG, ACTING DIRECTOR AND DEPUTY
DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
Ms. Young. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Smith,
the other Members of the Budget Committee. This is a welcome
home for me. I have spent a long time in these halls. I also
want to thank the staff on both sides of the aisle. I know the
work it takes. You all were my colleagues. So, I am uniquely
aware of the work it takes to put this on. So, thank you to the
Members and to the staff.
We released this budget at a moment when our country is
emerging from one of the most challenging times in our history.
At least 63 percent of American adults have now received one
vaccine shot. The economy has added two million jobs since the
President took office. The unemployment rate has dropped to 5.8
percent, the lowest it has been since the start of this
pandemic. A very encouraging sign is the decline we see in the
long-term unemployed of 431,000 last month, as well as a
decline in those seeking initial claims of unemployment by
about half of what they were in January. And yet, we also know
that it is not enough to simply go back to where we were before
the pandemic. Instead, we must seize this moment to reimagine
and rebuild a new American economy that invests in the middle
class and those trying to break into the middle class.
The President's Fiscal Year 2022 Budget details his agenda
for this year to help grow the economy, create good paying jobs
empowering equitable economic recovery. It includes the two
historic plans the President has put forth, the American Jobs
Plan and the American Families Plan, and reinvests in
education, research, and public health, and other foundations
of our country's strength through the discretionary request.
And it does all of this while proposing tax reforms that will
put our country's long-run fiscal health on a legitimate path
and lay the foundation for shared prosperity in this country.
The budget starts with the American Jobs Plan. A once-in-a-
generation investment in America that would put millions of
people to work rebuilding our country: fixing highways,
rebuilding bridges, upgrading our transit systems, replacing
all lead pipes and service lines in our drinking water systems,
investing in the infrastructure of our care economy, and
creating new and better jobs for caregiving workers, and more.
The budget also includes the American Families Plan. A
historic investment to help families cover the basic expenses
that so many struggle with now, lower health insurance
premiums, and continue the historic reductions in child poverty
that we began in the American Rescue Plan.
Alongside these investments, the budget also reiterates the
President's strong call to Congress during his joint session to
make progress on healthcare by reducing the cost of
prescription drugs and expanding and improving health coverage.
Moreover, the budget details a robust set of discretionary
proposals to help reinvest the foundations of our strength and
to begin reversing a decade of chronic underinvestment in
priorities like public health, public education, basic science,
and clean energy. In total, the budget's discretionary
investments would restore non-defense appropriations to its
historical average share of the economy.
Importantly, the budget makes all of these investments in a
way that is responsive to both near-and medium-term economic
landscape and longer-term fiscal outlook.
In the near-term, the decades-long, global trend of
declining interest rates give us the fiscal space to make these
necessary upfront investments. Under this budget's policies,
the real cost of federal debt payments will remain below the
historical average through the coming decade, even as the
budget assumes the interest rates will rise from their current
lows, consistent with private sector forecasts.
Over the long run, when we face larger fiscal challenges
and more uncertainty about interest rates, the budget will
reduce the deficit and improve our nation's finances. That is
because its front-loaded investments are more than paid for
through permanent tax reforms and will ensure corporations and
the wealthiest Americans pay their fair share. The budget
policies reduce annual deficits beginning in 2030 and reduce
deficits by over $2 trillion in the subsequent decade, while
the American Jobs Plan and the American Families Plan are fully
offset within the next 15 years.
As a whole, the President's budget will improve our
nation's long-term finances, while making the growth enhancing
investments we need right now. Thank you for the opportunity to
appear here today, and I look forward to taking your questions.
[The prepared statement of Shalanda Young follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Yarmuth. Thank you very much for your statement.
We will now begin our question-and-answer session. Acting
Director Young will be available to answer questions in person
until 2 p.m. today. She has another appointment at the
Appropriations Committee. With that in mind, we ask Members to
keep your questions to their allotted time. As a reminder,
Members can submit written questions to be answered later in
writing. Those questions and responses will be made part of the
formal hearing record. Any Members who wish to submit questions
for the record, may do so by sending them to the clerk
electronically within seven days. I now recognize the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Jeffries, for five minutes.
Mr. Jeffries. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, for your
continued leadership and for convening this very important
hearing. And Acting Director Young, I am thankful for your
presence and for your leadership, for your work on behalf of
the nation. Welcome back to the House of Representatives. It is
great to see you.
As you testified, the American Jobs Plan and President
Biden's budget would put millions of Americans back to work, in
part, by investing in our crumbling bridges, roads, tunnels,
airports, mass transit system, water and sewage system, and
also, by investing in the caring economy. To begin with, is it
the case that in America we last meaningfully invested at a
national level in our infrastructure in the 1950's connected
with President Eisenhower's Interstate Highway System?
Ms. Young. You are absolutely right, Congressman, and we
believe now is the time. Rather than constant infrastructure
weeks, we would like to see a real investment to help grow the
economy.
Mr. Jeffries. Interesting, because it seems like instead of
an infrastructure week or an infrastructure month or an
infrastructure year, or decade, this is sort of an
infrastructure century since it has been a long time since we
have meaningfully invested. Is it possible to have a first-
class economy for us to win the century while having a third-
rate infrastructure or a crumbling infrastructure?
Ms. Young. Congressman, we talk a lot about competing with
China. This is just as important to ensure that we remain the
world leader, that we have a strong infrastructure, a strong
economy, just as much as it does where we land on the defense
budget.
Mr. Jeffries. And China is investing an extraordinary
amount in their infrastructure, both in Mainland China as well
as across the world. Is that correct?
Ms. Young. Absolutely. They are around the world investing
in other countries' infrastructure as well as their own.
Mr. Jeffries. Now, in January, President Biden inherited a
crumbling economy connected, of course, to the COVID-19
pandemic, as well as mismanagement from the prior
Administration. And that had more than 10 million Americans out
of work. I think as you mentioned, the economy--well, the
unemployment rate has already dropped to 5.8 percent under
President Biden's leadership. And is that a sort of--does that
match a pre-pandemic low or how does that measure up during the
duration of this pandemic?
Ms. Young. So, we are at the levels we were at the start of
the pandemic. We still have a way to go. But let me--we touched
on this a little but let me be clear. We think we are on the
right path to economic recovery from COVID. The American Rescue
Plan did what it set out to do. Vaccination rates we could not
have envisioned better. But what the Jobs Plan and Families
Plan insists is that we do better than we did before the
pandemic and create a more equitable economic system in this
country.
Mr. Jeffries. And that is entirely consistent with what
then-candidate Biden said he was going to do, which is build
back better. He made a campaign promise and now he is working
to fulfill that promise to ensure that we emerge even stronger
than we were prior to the pandemic. How many more jobs would
the American Jobs Plan as outlined in the budget create?
Ms. Young. Sir, it not only would create more jobs. It
would ensure that those who are working that may not have a
college degree can have access to good paying union jobs. So,
it is about the quality of jobs. We want to return to pre-
pandemic low unemployment rates, but we want to make sure we
see appropriate wage growth. And for those who are at any point
in an education system, that they have access to be able to
feed their families.
Mr. Jeffries. And last, I think the budget states that
approximately 40 percent of energy and climate infrastructure
investments would go toward traditionally disadvantaged
communities. I assume that means both inner city communities
that has been left behind, as well as rural coal mining towns,
small town America, parts of Appalachia. Can you tell us what
the rationale was for making sure that these type of
communities are identified for investment?
Ms. Young. Congressman, you won't be surprised. This is
beyond the budget. The President has put forth an executive
order that calls on the government to look through all its
lenses as we implement programs to make sure we don't leave any
communities behind. We have huge investments in the
discretionary requests to make sure, as you put, coal
communities, as those jobs tend to decline. We want to make
sure we don't leave anyone behind. And this budget absolutely
speaks to that. And the actions of the EO speak to that.
Mr. Jeffries. Thank you so much for your testimony.
Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman's time has expired. I now
recognize the gentleman from Missouri, the Ranking Member Mr.
Smith, for 10 minutes.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Given China's
negligence regarding COVID-19, America's real GDP dropped by $2
trillion in the first half of 2020. The unemployment rate
skyrocketed from 3 and a 1/2 percent to 14.7 percent in two
months. Twenty-one million jobs were lost from February to
April 2020. And more than 600,000 Americans have tragically
died. Given the detrimental economic effects of COVID-19, what
was noticeably absent from your budget were any plans to hold
China accountable for its role in spreading COVID-19. What is
the Administration's plan to seek retribution and recoup
American taxpayer dollars?
Ms. Young. Thank you, Congressman. As you probably know,
the President has asked the intelligence community to undertake
a 90-day review.
Mr. Smith. Perfect. We will be watching those 90 days to
make sure that we are going to be compensated for the damage
that China has put onto the United States.
Over the past few weeks, it has become increasingly evident
COVID-19 originated from a lab in Wuhan, China. What concerns
me, as a Republican leader on the Budget Committee, is that Dr.
Anthony Fauci's recently publicized emails show a clear link
between American taxpayer dollars and labs that outsource
research outside of the United States. Acting Director Young,
what are you doing to get to the bottom of the clear link
between federal funding and the Wuhan lab?
Ms. Young. Congressman, I will point you back to the
President's tasking of the intelligence community. That is the
appropriate place to task to look at the source of COVID and
any relation to the Wuhan lab.
Mr. Smith. So, let me ask you this. Can you commit that
American dollars will never be used to fund such research going
forward from this budget?
Ms. Young. Congressman, I started my career at NIH. I would
never, you know, make that commitment as someone who believes
we need to be led by science. And we certainly need to wait
until this review before we jump to conclusions.
Mr. Smith. All right. This budget proposes an additional
$80 billion for the IRS, which will be used to more than double
its number of agents. It concerns me that this Administration
found $80 billion more for the IRS to target Americans, but not
one dollar more for border security. In the past, the IRS has
repeatedly targeted conservative groups and been used by
administrations for political retribution. What will you do to
protect Americans so that IRS will not target individuals based
on their political views, their social media post, or how they
vote?
Ms. Young. Well, Congressman, the President has the highest
standards for all federal workers. You have heard him speak
about that. But I point out the investment in the IRS is
intended to collect about $1 trillion that we believe those are
not--the tax gap between what is owed and what people are
actually paying with these current tax systems. So, we think
that is appropriate investment to ensure the federal government
is collecting the tax revenue that the laws require.
Mr. Smith. Do you know if there are any parameters within
this proposal to make sure that it's not bias according to
political affiliations?
Ms. Young. That would be a underlying assumption that we
don't hold that there is a bias. But, absolutely, if those
things come forth, you would have our cooperation in looking
into those matters. We expect the highest caliber from all of
our federal agencies.
Mr. Smith. It is a huge concern to me just with the report
in the last 24 hours that this Administration in this budget is
proposing the highest tax increase in the history of the United
States, but so happens some of the most wealthy Americans' tax
records were just so how leaked that showed that they paid very
little in the news. So, that shows that there is some kind of a
leak within the IRS. So, I hate the retribution of trying to
push policies that at least it looks like maybe that is
happening in the IRS.
Let's go to another issue. The budget requests $26 million
to reduce maternal mortality and eliminate race-based
disparities and outcomes among ``birthing people.'' This is a
shift from recent budgets, which referred to maternal health
issues as women's issues. I have never heard the term before.
Can you explain what it means?
Ms. Young. Absolutely. There are certain people who do not
have gender identities that apply to female or male. So, we
think our language needs to be more inclusive in how we deal
with complex issues. I think the underlying issues most
important that your colleagues, Lauren Underwood, and others,
are working on is to try to ensure that those of color who are
giving birth leave the hospital alive. And that is the issue,
rather than the verbiage. The verbiage matters, but the
underlying issue is extremely important. And a lot of your
colleagues are working hard on this because all of those giving
birth should have access to the same quality healthcare.
Mr. Smith. So, is the Administration's official policy to
replace the term, woman, with birthing people?
Ms. Young. I think our official policy is to make sure when
people get service from their government, that they feel
included. And we are trying to use inclusive language.
Mr. Smith. OK. Interesting. We are currently facing
historic levels of migration caused by this Administration's
irresponsible border and immigration policies. The number of
migrants illegally crossing the U.S.-Mexico border this Fiscal
Year is already the most since 2006, with four months left to
go. Since January, more people have illegally crossed the
southern border than the entire population of Kansas City,
Missouri in my home state. The only folks benefiting from the
Biden border crisis are drug cartels, human traffickers, and
large corporations that benefit from cheap labor, all at the
expense of hard-working Americans. Despite all this, the
Administration proposes flatlining the Department of Homeland
Security's budget, the agency charged with keeping Americans
safe. Specifically, it proposes to freeze the ICE budget and
reduce the Customs and Border Patrol budget. Even worse, the
CBP Procurement Construction and Improvements Account is cut by
almost 50 percent. What is the justification for flatlining the
DHS budget when every other agency receives a 16 and a 1/2
percent increase in funding on average? Not to mention the
billions of dollars in so-called COVID relief already sitting
in their accounts. Why was this critical department singled
out?
Ms. Young. Congressman, what I would call the DHS budget is
a realignment. You may not agree, but we have a proposal to
cancel the border wall funding. And that funding is redirected
to what we consider a better use in where we get real border
security. A focus on technology, land ports of entry. Those
have been bipartisan interests. Migrant services, $203 million.
Office of Immigration review, which is in DOJ. The Office of
Refugee Resettlement, which deals with children at the border
and resettlement. So, those are beyond the Department of
Homeland Security. So, you see those increases in DOJ and HHS.
Mr. Smith. With that realignment, do you see the
Administration coming back and asking for a supplemental with
the influx of money being spent along the southern border?
Ms. Young. So, I will point out that we continue to monitor
the border. Typical migration patterns would tell you, you see
increases over the spring and summer. It depends on the
weather. This budget, remember starts October 1. So, we are
asking for increases in OR for next year. We think that is an
appropriate level. But what you are speaking to we certainly
are managing. But this budget would not speak to any patterns
that we might see over the summer. But we believe we are
managing it with the resources we have.
Mr. Smith. On April 27, Ranking Member John Katko of the
Homeland Security Committee and I wrote a letter to you
regarding the border crisis, which is costing unknown amounts
of taxpayer dollars. We have not received a response. Mr.
Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to submit the letter for the
record?
Chairman Yarmuth. Without objection, so ordered.
[Letter submitted for the record follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Smith. Many of these costs were not budgeted for. And
reports indicate that DHS and HHS needed to reprogram billions
from operating budgets to address the crisis. Does the
Administration--so, it is up to what the border--what they
decide at the border of whether they will do a supplemental? Is
that correct?
Ms. Young. Sir, you know reprogramming and transfer
authorities have been debated a long time. You know, Democrats
in the last four years probably would have liked to see those
rein in. Those are tools we are using just like the last
Administration used to manage situations that may have been
unknown at the beginning of the fiscal year. So, we are using
them just like prior Administrations have. And we are working
on your request. It is a complicated, detailed request.
Mr. Smith. I appreciate it.
Ms. Young. I will point out we also responded to your
apportionment request. And we are trying to be more transparent
with apportionments.
Mr. Smith. We got that yesterday. I appreciate that.
Ms. Young. Have you? OK.
Mr. Smith. I want to ask one quick question before time
runs out. In your proposal, I saw that you set aside $40
million to states that change their gun law regulations to
incentivize more restrictions. Can you discuss that a little
bit more?
Ms. Young. Yes, we have a $5 billion in total gun violence
prevention initiative. We think that is an appropriate thing to
do. Also, $50 million in gun violence prevention research. So,
you do see a focus from this Administration to make sure that
we get at issues, you know, I am proud to say that even with
the last Administration, we were able to get gun violence
research going again. So, you absolutely do see a forward focus
to make sure we get our hands around. I think what we can
clearly see is a problem with mass shootings and other things
that can't go on in this country.
Mr. Smith. Thank you. I will say Director Young, not Acting
Director.
Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman's time has expired. I now
recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr. Higgins, for five
minutes.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Director Young. I
think it is wise to appoint a House budget insider to the
director of Office of Management and Budget. And we are pleased
to have you here today.
In the 1950's, corporate income taxes represented about 35
percent of the total federal budget. In the 1960's, it was 21
percent. In the 1980's, it was 10 percent. Today, it is about
6.6 percent. Fifty-five American corporations paid no federal
income taxes in 2020, despite reporting $40.5 billion in pre-
tax income. Duke Energy, FedEx, Nike. The issue is not, you
know, whether or not we should have it paid for. Corporations
just need to pay their fair share. You know, people will try to
equate the amount of taxes that corporations pay relative to
economic growth. The last time this economy grew by more than 6
percent was in the 1950's, when 33 percent of the federal
budget was corporate taxes.
I just want to get to infrastructure. The American Society
of Civil Engineers says that we need $4.6 trillion by 2020,
just to bring America's infrastructure to a state of good
repair. The President proposed $2.3 trillion. And the President
was just engaged with a Republican representative from the
Senate to talk about lowering that further, which I think was a
complete waste of time. The reality is that the tax cuts that
our colleagues on the other side embraced didn't do anything to
grow the economy. Didn't do anything to give us the resources
necessary to compete effectively with China.
According to the Business Roundtable, for every dollar that
you spend in infrastructure, you grow the economy by $3.70.
Standard and Poor's, for every dollar that you spend in
infrastructure, you grow the economy by $2 and 70 percent.
University of Maryland, for every dollar that you spend in
infrastructure, you grow the economy by more than $3.
The fact of the matter is, yes, corporations should be
paying their fair share. But we already have a pay-for for
infrastructure, and that is future economic growth by the
millions of jobs that will be created, and by every academic
and economic study that shows that infrastructure pays for
itself. That if you can get money cheaply and you can grow the
economy with new jobs and a more efficient operation of your
infrastructure, that is a wise investment. Your thoughts on the
infrastructure proposal?
Ms. Young. Congressman, I could not have said it better.
The tax proposal certainly does offset the spending we have in
the budget. You know, through budgetary rules, we do have to
assume offsets in that way. But you are absolutely right. We
expect, you know, Ranking Member Smith pointed out our economic
growth figures. Those were done in February. We expect a much
larger growth pattern than we see even in this budget, which
does show that we have fully offset policies. So, I couldn't
agree with you more. But also, I think the tax policies even if
you paid for these investments through infrastructure, the tax
policies we have here should be passed on of their volition
because as you put it, the corporate tax rate is what they are
paying into the system versus what everyday Americans are.
There is an inherent unfairness. So, these tax reforms should
be seen as the right policy as well as helping to pay for--or
fully paying for these policies.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you very much. Just let me make another
point about the amount of public dollars that were invested
into the development of a vaccine. It was about $11 billion by
the federal government. The messenger RNA is the stuff that
converts DNA to proteins, and proteins are the vaccine's active
ingredient. Moderna's stock pre-pandemic, who developed one of
the vaccines with government paid for--taxpayer paid for
research, their stock was at $21 a share pre-pandemic. Now, it
is at $209 a share. They were a $5 billion company, and now
they are a $35 billion company. I know my time is up. But we
have to find a way to make taxpayers whole. To give them some
stake in the commercial success that government-financed
research produces in terms of drugs and technology. Thank you
very much.
Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman's time has expired. I now
recognize the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Kelly, for five
minutes.
Mr. Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you,
Director, for being here today. It was also nice talking to you
yesterday in preparation for this hearing. The security of the
world depends on a credible and capable American military. In
order to do that, the bipartisan National Defense Strategy
Commission recommended an annual 3 to 5 percent real growth
increase above the rate of inflation for the combined defense
budget. Why has the President done less than that in this
budget, when we had a bipartisan commission say that we need 3
to 5 percent real growth in defense spending every year, while
every other--other than Homeland, every other non-defense
spending area increased by up to 16 percent?
Ms. Young. Congressman, I think you have to look at the
historical spending on a lot of these non-defense programs
compared to defense. Also, I appreciate the growth. There is an
assumption that we don't have to look at outdated technology as
defense to reprioritize, as many agencies on the other side of
the ledger what we call non-defensive, had to do for many
years. So, we think there are efficiencies to be had in defense
where we can also, to the tune of over $700 billion, still be
the world power with regard to our military might.
Mr. Kelly. And on that note, how much of that $700--how
much of the defense budget for the $753 billion, how much of
that is actually spent on climate change, green fuels, things
that don't build tanks, train people to drive tanks, don't
build airplanes, don't refuel airplanes? They are not operating
costs. They are for things that should be above and beyond.
They are not defense. So, how much of that goes into green or
fuel efficiency green stuff in the defense budget?
Ms. Young. As you know, defense uses--is our top purchaser.
We have immense need for environmental cleanup in the defense
world as bipartisan members want to see that line item increase
given the Defense Department's historic use of PFAS, PFOA. So,
we think they are appropriate uses. You look at military
housing, for example. I know you served in the military.
Mr. Kelly. Director, my question is, I know there is over
600 million that is earmarked to be for green stuff in defense.
It doesn't go to tanks, airplanes, ships. There is also another
$80 million that is earmarked for renewable fuels. My point is,
is it is really not even an increase in the defense budget when
we are doing green stuff that--I have no issue with green
stuff, but it shouldn't be part of defense budget or a large
part of the defense budget.
Going to my next point, is there any provision in this
budget or is OMB looking, or the President, the Administration,
looking at anything? Right now, our Guard and Reserve are
talking about not having Guard drills. That means people don't
have jobs starting in August or September because of all the
money expended on Capitol, on protection of the Capitol and all
the COVID response from the Guard that has not been
supplemented. Is there any talk of supplementing the Guard and
Reserve for all the things they have done to help this great
nation over the last year?
Ms. Young. I believe you all just passed a bill to do
exactly that in the January 6 supplemental. And we----
Mr. Kelly. OK.
Ms. Young [continuing]. we supported that from the
Administration. We sent a statement of support.
Mr. Kelly. Very good. And going back to the gun buyback
program, I think there is $10 million, which first of all I
think history shows and data shows that gun buyback programs
are not very effective in areas that they have done those. Many
times, the crime and gun violence rate goes up. Is this just a
slippery slope to have a mandatory gun buyback program at some
point in the future? Or, I mean, what is the purpose of
spending this $10 million for a gun buyback program?
Ms. Young. I think the purpose of our intense focus on gun
prevention, gun violence prevention, writ large throughout this
budget is to acknowledge we have an issue with gun violence in
this country, including the proliferation of mass shootings,
that we have to use every tool to get under control.
Mr. Kelly. So, what are we doing about the violence part of
gun violence? You know, people always focus on the gun side of
that. But whether you are running a car through a crowd,
whether you are setting off a bomb, there are many, many ways.
What does this budget do to address the mental side, the
violent side, of this part? Because that is the important
issue. It is not the guns. It is the violence, or the violent
tendencies of people.
Ms. Young. I don't disagree with you that in addition to
the initiative being led by DOJ, the other co-lead would be the
Department of Health and Human Services, which has a lot of
those wraparound services that people need. So, there is a
comprehensive approach planned.
Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman's time has----
Mr. Kelly. All right, thank you, and I yield back.
Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman's time has expired. I now
recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Boyle, for five
minutes.
Mr. Boyle. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for
joining us today, although I don't envy the day you have ahead
of you. I think we should consider the true public service that
you having to spend all the hours today dealing with questions
from us. But I have to say, I am enormously excited by this
budget proposal.
When we look at our nation's federal budget, it is more
than just the bottom line. It is, as President Biden often
says, a statement of our values. And in the wake of a once-in-
a-century pandemic that crippled our economy and changed life
as we know it, now is the time to go big and be bold to get
America back on track. And that is exactly what this budget
does. From childcare to infrastructure, work force development,
to veteran services, this budget restores our investments in
true American values and invests in the American people.
Now, as we are looking at next steps, the President's
American Jobs Plan is our next opportunity to continue our
recovery and progress our nation forward. Moody's Analytics did
a thorough analysis of the jobs plan and concluded that it
would stimulate long-term economic growth, create high wage
jobs, and lower unemployment. In fact, their estimate suggests
the proposal would create around 2.7 million new jobs with
significant wage growth for people with lower incomes. I was
wondering, Acting Director Young, if your figures show
something similar to what Moody's shows and if there is
anything that you wanted to elaborate on that point?
Ms. Young. I think it ties greatly with what Congressman
Higgins pointed out. We will see economic growth if these
policies are enacted. It is not just about the policies you see
with taxes and spending here. But we certainly expect to see
our economy grow just by these investments. I don't think we
have even ourselves fully calculated what a poor infrastructure
has done to our ability to fully realize our economics in this
country and exactly what you are saying and what Congressman
Higgins is saying. We will see enormous growth from this.
Mr. Boyle. So, something that actually both Congressman
Higgins and Jeffries referred to but didn't mention by name is
that we have essentially been hindered by sequestration for the
last decade under the Budget Control Act. And while we did
experience actually the longest economic growth in American
history in the previous decade, it was not as perhaps robust as
it could have been because of, frankly, shooting ourselves in
the foot through the Budget Control Act. How does this budget
reinvest in areas that have been significantly underfunded in
the past? Not just through sequestration, but also, frankly,
referring to the 70 years or so since the last major
infrastructure bill?
Ms. Young. We talk a lot about defense inflationary
increases. You know, we serve 95,000 fewer kids in Head Start
than we did 10 years ago. The Budget Control Act--a lot of the
COVID spending last year on CDC was to catch up because we had
underfunded our public health infrastructure for many years.
So, these basic appropriations bills where I know 10 years ago
we were looking for savings, what we got was a chronic
underinvestment that we had to make up for when we saw
ourselves in the middle of a pandemic. So, there are real life
consequences to the Budget Control Act into efforts to not keep
up with inflation. We're going back to--it took 16 percent for
non-defense just to spend what the historical share of GDP is--
--
Mr. Boyle. Right.
Ms. Young [continuing]. on those programs.
Mr. Boyle. And, of course, we are referring to this in
nominal dollars in real terms, frankly, we have had cuts in
many areas over the last decade. I was curious if you could--
and this is going to get very geeky, but, you know, you are an
in-the-weeds person. The concept of dynamic scoring I know can
be controversial. And CBO now applies it to tax cuts, but they
don't apply it to the sort of investments that we are talking
about here. Do you think that it is appropriate that we use
dynamic scoring in general? And then if we are going to use it,
properly account for the sort of growth we will have because of
these investments?
Ms. Young. I mean, I think the reason--and you are right--
it is in the weeds that it has been controversial is because
the fear is it is easy game.
Mr. Boyle. Right.
Ms. Young. And we want the Congressional Budget Office to
remain that institution. That probably doesn't make any of us
happy with the numbers they come out doing. But there is
something inherently wrong with looking at one side of the
ledger one way and not looking at the investment, which is not
spending, it is investment to get people housing and education
for our children. So, you know, it is a complicated answer to
say absolutely we think there is growth. If we look at it in a
dynamic way, it certainly would show more of the reason to tell
the story for the need for these investments. But there is real
concern about the slippery slope and making sure that CBO
remained impartial to push and pulls both ways.
Mr. Boyle. Well, thank you.
Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman's time has expired. I now
recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Grothman, for five
minutes.
Mr. Grothman. Hi, thank you. I want to go back--first of
all, thank you for spending time talking with me the other day.
Glad to see you are dealing with Congress so much. I want to go
back to homeland security a little bit, what is going on at our
southern border. The information that I have indicates at this
time last year, we were letting virtually nobody in the country
who was asking for asylum. And the border patrol statistics
indicate that every month we were letting about 6,000 people in
the country as what they call got-aways. In other words, people
who weren't processed by border patrol, but just somehow snuck
in that we monitor.
At least the information that I have, and some of this
information is hard to get a hold of, that in May this year,
the border patrol estimates instead of 6,000 got-aways, we have
about 30,000 got-aways. In addition, about 30,000 people are
let in the country on potential asylum claims. So, about 60,000
people are coming in the country as opposed to 6,000 a year
ago. Could you comment on that and what do you think is an
ideal number of people to have coming in the country either on
asylum claims or got-aways? We have gone up from 6,000 to
60,000 in a year, I think.
Ms. Young. Congressman, one, I would like to point out we
are still under Title 42 authorities at the border. So, that
posture has not changed from the last Administration, given we
are still in the midst of COVID pandemic. So, the way we handle
single adults, for example, is exactly the same as the----
Mr. Grothman. Great.
Ms. Young [continuing]. Trump Administration. But the
President has been clear when it comes to unaccompanied minors,
children, he is not sending them back after they have made this
treacherous journey. It is a matter of conscience and moral
obligation with regard to children.
Mr. Grothman. Well, great. What I am looking for is I am
looking for a number. Because we don't have enough border
patrol agents and because they are processing the children, the
number of people coming across as got-aways, which includes
single people or anybody, we believe has increased from 6,000 a
month last year this time to 30,000 now. And we believe the
combination of families and children has gone up from about
6,000 to 30,000. So, we have right now have gone from 6,000
people a month coming here to 60,000. And I am afraid it is
going to continue to go up as the rest of the world finds out
we are not doing a lot to enforce the borders. What do you
think we should aim for in that number?
Ms. Young. Congressman, can I----
Mr. Grothman. From 6,000 to----
Ms. Young. Can I ask for a clarification? Are got-aways
people that you are saying slipped through apprehension at the
border?
Mr. Grothman. Right, exactly. They are a given number of
people because we are underfunded. Maybe we get them on drones
or, you know, we monitor that they are there. But as I
understand, at this time last year, there were about 6,000 got-
aways a month. This year there are about 30,000. And at least
the border patrol feels one of the major reasons for that is
they are spending so much of their time processing the children
or the families.
Ms. Young. Yes, if it is those evading apprehension and
evading our border laws, that would absolutely be an estimate.
I can certainly talk to the Department of Homeland Security and
see if they have a estimate for those. But given that they have
evaded apprehension, that would be definitely a modeling of
sorts. So, I would feel uncomfortable giving you a definite
number of something we would not have the actual people to
count.
Mr. Grothman. I like you. And I would like to ask you to
step up to the plate and talk to border patrol. I know the Vice
President hasn't expressed a great deal of interest to what is
going on on the southern border. I know there have to be--maybe
you could be the border patrol czar. You seem like a sharp
person. But I would like you to look into that and get back to
us as what the Biden Administration thinks is an appropriate
number.
The next thing I am going to ask about is you have a lot of
money in here for preschool, a lot of money for daycare. There
are still people out there, families who are moms or dads
taking care of their children of that young age. It seems as
though this country is working toward having, just having the
government take care of kids before age 5. Could you comment on
that? Or what do you think about families who are taking care
of their own children? Are you trying to make them obsolete? Or
what is the deal here?
Ms. Young. No, trying to meet people where they are
economically. Look I, you know, love my job, but, you know,
there are days where I certainly would like to spend more time
with my family. That is not possible for me, for many women who
have to get up and work to ensure that their children have
adequate clothing and a roof over their head. So, I think we
are meeting families where they are, where women, mothers have
to be in the work force along with dads.
Mr. Grothman. Can I give you one more question?
Chairman Yarmuth. No, your time has expired. I am sorry. We
are going to have a hard time getting everybody in before 2.
So,----
Mr. Grothman. OK.
Chairman Yarmuth [continuing]. I can't let you. Thanks.
Mr. Grothman. Thank you.
Chairman Yarmuth. I now recognize the gentleman from Texas,
Mr. Doggett, for five minutes.
Mr. Doggett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you,
Director, for your service to our country and your testimony
this morning. While hundreds of millions of Americans have
benefited from the Affordable Care Act, I represent many who
have not. Those who are economically disadvantaged Texans whose
state Governors have failed them in expanding Medicaid to
provide them access to healthcare. There are, as you know, 13
states in which obstructionism has won out over providing care
for our most vulnerable neighbors.
You have a number of possibilities for how to address this
problem. I have raised with you a backup proposal that has been
joined by almost every Democrat from one of the 13 non-
expansion states. Which is to allow our local governments to
take up much as they provided leadership during the pandemic
when we had state governors fail, but to allow local
governments to contrive directly with Medicaid, with CMS to
provide Medicaid to their neighbors. And I would just like to
ask you to consider that as a proposal to fill the gap and to
cover now our folks. We would like to cover everyone, but we
would like to be sure that at least some of those who are
uninsured get covered. Could you respond on this issue of the
people that have been left out of healthcare in our country who
need it so much?
Ms. Young. One, I am sympathetic. And you are absolutely
right, some states have chosen, for whatever reason, not to
expand Medicaid and it has left some of the, you know, the
neediest of the poor without health insurance. And they can
least afford to be without health insurance. In the budget, you
may have seen we have a narrative about the budget with regard
to the plans to cover those populations. The reason we did that
is because we do think in the place of healthcare, we need a
dialog here. We don't want to be prescriptive with Congress. We
know many members, including yourself, have ideas on how to
cover those whose states have chosen not to expand Medicaid.
So, we will absolutely engage with you on your idea. And we
think it is, in the space of healthcare, it is necessary to
allow those conversations to continue, rather than dictating a
specific policy the Administration may want.
Mr. Doggett. Thank you very much. And as we address the
issue of prescription price gouging, is it also important that
any plan that we adopt assure that its benefits accrue to help
the uninsured as well as the insured?
Ms. Young. Absolutely, sir. We feel strongly that Medicare
should be in control of negotiating drug prices. We think that
is beneficial for controlling healthcare costs in this country.
Also ensuring that we get needed medications to those with and
without insurance. But, of course, the ultimate goal is to make
sure everyone in this country has health coverage.
Mr. Doggett. You know, Director, it would be amusing were
it not so serious to listen to our Republican colleagues talk
about their concern of debt these days when they express no
concerns about debt when the leader of their cult, Donald
Trump, proclaimed himself the king of debt. I think there is
reason to be concerned, be fiscally responsible going forward,
but to not let this be an excuse for addressing some of the
pressing needs that are outlined in the budget that you're
presenting today. Why is it that the President today has
focused on paying for the needed infrastructure improvements
instead of just borrowing more as Republicans did to address
other security needs? And isn't it important to move forward
with those revenue measures which the Republicans rejected at
the same time they said they would only agree to programs that
were paid for?
Ms. Young. So, the tax policy you see are two part. It is
to present a fiscal path that is responsible to make sure that
the proposals put forth by the President are fully offset. But
it is also the right policy to ensure a fair tax system in this
country, that nurses who worked during COVID who pay a certain
percentage of their salary that that should be matched by the
very wealthy in corporations. So, there is a two-part benefit
here that it pays for our policies, puts us on sound fiscal
ground, but also ensures that we have a fair tax system.
Mr. Doggett. That we have equity for individuals and that
our multi-nationals are treated the way our small businesses
are and not given a special preference over them. Thank you so
much.
Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman's time has expired. I now
recognize the gentlewoman from Colorado, Ms. Boebert, for five
minutes.
Ms. Boebert. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank
you, Director Young, for coming before the Committee today. You
made reference in your testimony to be confronting historic
challenges. But what we didn't hear a word about was how this
President will confront the historic crisis at the southern
border. The silence of the President's budget and your silence
on this crisis in your testimony actually speaks very loudly.
I have been to the border two times. That is twice as much
as our current border czar and seen firsthand the chaos this
President has created. It really is a crisis of the President's
own making. Even our border patrol agents have no problem
admitting that this is a manmade crisis by this Administration.
Even saying that they had prepared for the change of
administrations. They prepared for the influx and the surge of
migrants crossing the border. But just like Mike Tyson says,
everyone has a plan until you get punched in the face. And our
border patrol has been punched in the face by this
Administration.
The President appointed Vice President Kamala as border
czar and refuses to provide the real resources and policies
necessary to secure the border. Your budget has a zero percent
increase in homeland security. No money to finish building a
border wall. When in the previous budget approved and allocated
funds were diverted from border wall construction. And
contractors are still being paid despite construction halting.
I am a business owner. You don't pay people for not doing
the work. Yet, the American people are paying contractors to
not build the wall. But $4 billion in rewards to Central
American countries who are flooding our border with illegal
immigrants are in your budget. Your budget mentions border
security zero times in all 72 pages of the budget proposal.
This is at a time when border crossings are at a 21-year
high. And there are 22,000 unaccompanied minors in HHS custody
you talk about that our conscience and moral and the
unaccompanied minors who are at the border, but parents are
self-separating from their children because of this
Administration's policies. In April CBC encountered a record
high of over 170,000 illegal aliens. May is the third straight
month of over 170,000 apprehensions, which hasn't occurred
since 2000. Authorities are on the case to apprehend a 1.35
million illegal aliens this year. This most since 2000.
Meanwhile, the Biden Administration released more than
26,000, 26,233 to be exact, illegal aliens into communities
across the United States. I have seen them bussed from McAllen,
Texas station and even flown on our airplanes, paid for by
United States tax dollars. And they are getting on those planes
without an ID as well. CBP arrested 5,900 violent criminals in
just the first four months of this Biden term. Arrests for
murders are up 1,133 percent. Arrests for sex crimes doubled.
Arrests for weapons smuggling almost quadrupled. And arrests
for drug traffickers tripled.
Without the funds, infrastructure, technology, and support
for our brave CBP and law enforcement, the cartels win and
human beings suffer. I think the one question I have for you,
Director, and most Americans have for this President and this
Administration, is just how long will you be ceding the
southern border to the cartels?
Ms. Young. I would like to remind everyone and who cares
about where the border funding came from the last
Administration. We are returning the billions of dollars that
were taken from our men and women and troops in uniform for the
southern border work. So, this Administration is returning
Department of Defense money that bipartisan members decried as
taken away from----
Ms. Boebert. Reclaiming my time.
Ms. Young [continuing]. critical projects.
Ms. Boebert. Excuse me, reclaiming my time. We are not
talking about the funding that was taken away. Right now, we
are currently paying contractors to not build. I asked you how
long will you be ceding the southern border to the cartels?
That is my question to you, Director.
Ms. Young. Well, given the bipartisan concern from the
stealing from DoD, I thought it was important to highlight
that. And also highlight that we are moving away from an
unsustainable border wall that has not worked to technology, as
you pointed out to increase----
Ms. Boebert. Reclaiming my time.
Ms. Young [continuing]. the immigration----
Ms. Boebert. Reclaiming my time. I need you to answer the
question that I am asking you. This is my time. How long will
you be ceding our southern border to the cartels?
Ms. Young. That is not a question with an assumption in
which I am going to assume. So, we can certainly talk about the
reassessment at the border.
Ms. Boebert. My time is up. Thank you very much, Director.
Ms. Young. Thank you.
Ms. Boebert. My time has expired. Thank you, Director.
Chairman Yarmuth. The gentlewoman's time has expired. I now
recognize the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Price, for
five minutes.
Mr. Price. Thank you, Madam Director. And it is a pleasure
to call you that. We welcome you back to your home turf,
Capitol Hill, and you are doing a great job and we are very,
very happy to see you where you are. And by the way, it is
absolutely imperative that the duly appropriated funds with
bipartisan approval that were directed toward defense
priorities and unconstitutionally diverted from that to pursue
this border wall folly, it is absolutely imperative that those
moneys be returned. And I commend the Administration for doing
that.
Also, very, very glad to hear you talking about
infrastructure and we are doing more than just talking about
infrastructure. We have done that for a long time.
Infrastructure week almost became a punchline during the last
Administration. But now we have a serious infrastructure
proposal. And I want to ask you something about that.
The investments come close to home for me because I am
chairing the Transportation and Housing Appropriations
Subcommittee. Both halves of that committee, so to speak, are a
part of this infrastructure emphasis. And I want to ask you to
elaborate on that. Namely, to talk about how you define
infrastructure, and how the Administration has thought about
this. What do you make of the critique that the definition is
overly broad? I tell you, I am very, very happy to see housing
and community development included in the definition of
infrastructure. And water and sewer systems and the electrical
grid and broadband, as well as all modes of transportation. But
how did you and your colleagues come to decide what should be
included in the President's budget as an infrastructure
initiative?
Ms. Young. Well, I will save most of my remarks for Mr.
Price, but everyone should know he is my first chairman I ever
worked for on the Appropriations Committee and ably now serves
on the Transportation and Housing Subcommittee, but a long
experience since the Department of Homeland Security was
founded. So, thank you for the comments on DHS.
But also, with regard to where you sit now with
transportation and housing, the Jobs Plan invests in all
things. We consider infrastructure, the systems, the
structures, the foundation. That makes good jobs possible. We
have to look beyond this traditional limited view of
infrastructure. Of course, it includes roads, bridges, ports,
and rail. Goods and services need that transportation
infrastructure to get from producers to consumers, but it also
needs housing and building infrastructure. Business and workers
need modern, safe, resilient homes and workplaces in the 21st
Century, and that includes a care infrastructure. Millions of
workers simply cannot be productive without access to quality,
affordable care for their children or for a family with a
disability or for an aging parent. So, we need a comprehensive
view of what we consider infrastructure as lasting, is
foundational, it supports that makes our whole system work
better. So, doing one part of that we don't believe puts us on
the path that is sustainable for the next 20 or 30 years.
Mr. Price. Well, that is a focal point of debate. And I
think you--what you say is very persuasive. I hope that that
viewpoint will prevail as we put this together.
Another point of controversy, of course, has been raised by
my colleague, Lloyd Doggett, namely how do you pay for this?
You are electing to pay for it. The Biden Administration said
you want to pay for the Jobs Plan and the Families Plan. Of
course, you are being criticized for that. But you would also
be criticized if you didn't pay for it as you well know.
Anyway, can you talk about the basis for your tax decisions
that go along with it? It is not the merits of the tax
decisions particularly the one, but what--why do we need to pay
for this in terms of fiscal policy? Why do we need to pay for
this or some portion of it? And do you have anything to say
about the debate over user fees versus coming from directly
from the U.S. Treasury?
Ms. Young. Congressman, we talked about this a little, but
it cannot be reiterated too much. There is a reason to do this
to be fiscally sound to make sure every dollar we spend in the
President's proposals are offset. We can do that without taxing
people who make less than $400,000. That is what you see before
you. We think that is responsible to ensure that the middle
class and those trying to enter it are not impacted. But we do
believe there is merit to paying for policies, but also it is
the right thing to do to ensure that the wealthiest Americans
are contributing their fair share and pay what average
Americans pay as a percentage of what they bring in.
Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Price. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chairman Yarmuth. Yep, the gentleman's time has expired. I
now recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Smucker, for
five minutes.
Mr. Smucker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Director Young, thank
you for being here. I want to talk a little about the overall
spend number in this budget and what it does to our national
debt. You know, many of the colleagues, my colleagues on my
side of the aisle are seriously concerned about this seemingly
insurmountable debt. And, in fact, that concern is shared by
Members from both sides of the aisle. And I think, you know, it
has been recently made much worse by this Administration's
spending. And I think it will be catastrophic potentially for
our nation if this proposed budget should become law. So, I
would just like to hear from you whether you share those
concerns. Are you concerned about the long-term impact of our
burgeoning national debt on the future of the country?
Ms. Young. Congressman, I hope you see that the concern
from the Administration by our willingness to put offsets on
the table that pay for all of the President's proposals.
Mr. Smucker. But we would still have growing deficits going
out year after year, over $1 trillion per year. You know, when
I last served on this Committee, in the 115th Congress, the
then Director of the CBO, Keith Hall, used the term sovereign
debt crisis, which was a new term to me. But he described the
situation that we will eventually be in that will be a real
shock to our nation's system. And your predecessor, then OMB
Director Mick Mulvaney, he added some color to his remarks at a
subsequent hearing and said that, you know, eventually we are
going to balance the budget. It is either going to be through
proper congressionally driven avenue, or it is going to be
printing a bunch of money, or through having a future lender
force fiscal responsibility on us as a condition of future
borrowing.
And unfortunately, the budget right now is in much worse
shape than it was when those comments were made. And, you know,
despite that, the way I see it, the President with this budget
and with the spending that we have seen, seems to have taken a
new approach. And I think this Administration has chosen to
just simply ignore the debt crisis entirely and instead go on
this massive spending spree. And it is going to be paid for by
massive tax increases. It is going to impact every single
American.
Now, you know, you have said, the President has said, and I
think falsely, that this budget proposal will only increase
taxes on the wealthiest Americans. But in fact, it is out of
control government spending and the printing and borrowing that
is necessary to pay for it is already causing a steep rise in
inflation. And if you don't believe that, look at last month
report. It shows that inflation in April reached its highest
level in 40 years. And I fear that this is just the beginning
of what we are going to see for years to come due to this
monetary policy.
Inflation is a real tax on working class Americans. They
are already feeling it. You feel it at the gas pump today. You
can feel it at the grocery store. If you are remodeling your
home, buying a new home, building a new home. Inflation is
very, very real. So, Ms. Young, if inflation continues to rise
at this current alarming rate, if we continue to see those kind
of reports, are you prepared to rollback some of these spending
proposals?
Ms. Young. Congressman, I think this Administration, this
country are lucky to have the economists this Administration
knows from Janet Yellen to CeCe Rouse. We don't see those long-
term economic indicators that lead us to believe we are going
back to inflation levels of the 70's. We see short-term issues
certainly coming out of a pandemic. That is not surprising. But
we see those as short-term. But we do absolutely continue to
monitor. And I would like to also----
Mr. Smucker. Let me----
Ms. Young [continuing]. point out----
Mr. Smucker. Let me just----
Ms. Young [continuing]. that this budget does assume
increased interest rates throughout the out years. We tried to
present a responsible vision of where we see that.
Mr. Smucker. I want to just get--I'm sorry. I want to stop
you on that. Just want to get another quick question in. So, do
you believe that we can just tax our way out of debt? Or do you
think that economic growth is a factor that we should be
considering in reducing debt? Because the economic growth
figures, the projected numbers in your budget, are pretty
dismal going forward for the next 10 years. So, just, you know,
how do we get out of debt? Can we tax our way out or is
economic growth a factor?
Ms. Young. Congressman, the one place we will agree is our
economic figures. Thankfully, this country, due to the vaccine
effort, has grown faster than we imagined in this budget. And
you will certainly see updates of those economic measures as we
do the mid-session review.
Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman's time has expired. I now
recognize the gentlewoman from Illinois, Ms. Schakowsky, for
five minutes.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you very much. And I thank you and
congratulate you, Ms. Young, as being the OMB head and welcome
you so much to this hearing. Thank you so much. I wanted to
focus on long-term care. You know, the United States of America
does not really have a long-term care policy. Every family
trying to figure out for themselves. And we know that Americans
are aging at a very rapid rate. Ten thousand people turn 65
every single day in this country. And we also know that there
is a severe shortage of paid caregivers. And people who have
let--are having fewer children and that means in the future it
will be even a bigger problem. And with the current demographic
trends, these problems are bound to get worse.
So, nevertheless, the country doesn't have the aging
policies that--and the strategies that we really need. And we
expect that to grow 40 percent of the people who are over 65,
or 65 to 84, by 2040. So, here are a couple of questions that I
have for you. In the face of these challenges, what do you
think is the most financially viable option for the country to
ensure quality, equitable care for our older Americans?
Ms. Young. Congresswoman, you see an investment in this
budget of $400 billion over 10 years to support expanding home
and community-based services, and strengthening home-based work
force and extending the Money Follows the Person Program. I
have a family who not only worked in home healthcare, it is
tough work. Depending on where you live in this country, it is
not work that is easy to make a living on and support your
family. I also had a grandmother who helped take care of me and
helped care for her mother as she was dying from Alzheimer's.
This is tough work. We can do better as a country. And this is
a first step to making that transformational change in this
country.
Ms. Schakowsky. Well, as the co-chair of the Task Force on
Aging and Families, I look forward to working with you on the
exact language of that. According to AARP and the National
Alliance for Caregivers, in 2020, over 21 percent of Americans
were providing care for an adult or a child with special needs
during the past year. This is a particular challenge for the
sandwich generation that is taking care of both children and
aging parents. And before the pandemic, many caregivers,
predominantly woman, have had to cut back on work hours and
leave the work force entirely with an average loss of 33
percent of their income each year. And so, this is a really,
really serious problem. So, could you explain how paying family
caregivers would actually affect our country long-term?
Ms. Young. Congresswoman, not just for the workers,
ensuring that they can take care of their families, also many
other families need those workers to come in ensuring that they
can go to work and make ends meet for their families. So, it
helps both the caregivers and the families in which they
assist, and, you know, as we have talked about in this hearing,
women have to work in this day and age to help take care of
their family. It is not optional for many of us. So, this is
absolutely necessary. We see, you know, the sandwich generation
having to take care of both children. That is why you see the
childcare investments. But also, older adults and those with
disabilities in the family. So, we see this as a necessary long
overdue change in this economy.
Ms. Schakowsky. Well, I really look forward to this
investment now in long-term care and working with you to figure
out some of the details, which we certainly want to present to
you. So, thank you so much. I yield back.
Chairman Yarmuth. The gentlewoman's time has expired. I now
recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr. Jacobs, for five
minutes.
Mr. Jacobs. Thank you, Director. I want to thank you, as
well, for our discussion yesterday on the phone. I appreciate
you taking the time. One of the questions I asked yesterday I
wanted to just followup on. I had mentioned my concern about
the stepped-up basis, in particular to farms. Agriculture is
the biggest sector in my district in western New York. I was
glad to hear about the exemptions for the transference of--I
guess I am asking both about stepped-up basis and estate taxes.
You mentioned about the exemption for family farms, for
transfers to family members. I was just wondering if you know
specifically what will be considered a family member? How broad
that will be? Will it just be a son or a daughter or would it
be broader than that?
Ms. Young. Congressman, this is something I think we have
left a space to work with Congress to make sure we get that
definition right. The overall goal is to make sure these family
farms absolutely continue. We want to have a tax system that
encourages them to remain family farms, stay in the family. So,
we are happy to and I think the purpose is to make sure we get
that definition right.
Mr. Jacobs. Thank you. Yes, I will just say in our area, we
are trying hard or I am trying hard as I can to help with
transitions, the farms to continue them to operate as locally
owned family based farms. And sometimes the immediate son or
daughter is not there, but a nephew who really wants to do it.
And if there could be a combination for those sort of things or
even beyond that. Because we are, you know, we just need to do
everything we can. So, I would love to work with you on that.
Just another question regarding the increase in capital
gains from 20 percent, which is now at a 39.6. A lot of the
budget modeling estimates a decrease in revenue from that. The
Penn Wharton Budget Model had a $33 billion, the Tax
Foundation, $124 billion. CBO estimates that revenue maximizing
rate to be 28. What is your revenue estimates on capital gains?
Ms. Young. Congressman, let me see if anyone from the team
has the exact number. But we will get that to you before the
end of the hearing or after the hearing.
Mr. Jacobs. OK. Thank you. I would assume you would not
want to be losing money on a tax increase, otherwise it would
be just viewed as a punitive measure.
I just wanted to comment on the capital gains in New York
State and the impact and some of the concerns I have. New York
State what we are seeing here with the 39.6 plus the Medicare
add-on, which is about 43.4, but New York State has a capital
gains as well. So, we are well over 50 percent, 54 percent to
be exact, in New York State, which would be our capital gains
rate. Then if you look at New York City, which we are so
dependent on as far as revenue, we are close to 58 percent
because New York City has a capital gains impact.
My real concern here is during COVID, we had a significant
exodus of people out of New York City. Three hundred thousand
changed their address. Granted, some will come back. But I know
that we have a record of 32,000 people changed address, changed
driver license to Florida alone. We are very dependent on the
revenue generated from New York. And I am very concerned about
if this significant increase in capital gains consequence of
well over 50 percent of money earned could have a very
detrimental effect to continue to cause the loss of population
in our state.
And as a state senator, I was concerned about this that 40
percent of our revenue several years ago and has increased
comes from the top 1 percent, mostly from down state in New
York City. If New York City gets a cold, the rest of the state
gets the flu. This could have significant long-term impact to
the viability and long-term success of our state. So, just
something to keep in mind. I am out of time. Thank you for your
time.
Ms. Young. I know the time, but Mr. Chairman, the capital
gain----
Chairman Yarmuth. You can respond.
Ms. Young [continuing]. savings in the budget are $322
billion.
Chairman Yarmuth. Thank you for that. The gentleman's time
has expired. I now recognize the gentleman from Michigan, Mr.
Kildee, for five minutes.
Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you very
much, Director Young, for being here today to talk to us about
the President's Fiscal Year 2022 Budget. I really appreciate
the focus that this budget puts on infrastructure and building
out our middle class and strengthening, particularly
strengthening public schools. Very important priorities.
One area of reinvestment that I would like to discuss with
you is the need to provide strong federal support for our
cities. And particularly those cities that have suffered
chronic economic hardship, a high level of poverty, and
disinvestment that is due to trade related events that
obviously have disparate impact on communities across the
country, and also contribute to significant job losses. As you
highlighted in this budget, the Trade Adjustment Assistant
Program expires at the end of June. And I have been working as
a member of the Ways and Means Committee with Mr. Blumenauer
who chairs the trade subcommittee and our full committee chair,
Mr. Neal, to reform trade adjustment assistance to help more
people who are negatively affected by this disparate impact
that trade may have on various communities and regions.
Specifically, I have been working to develop a trade
adjustment assistance program for communities. As we know,
communities affected by trade can have an impact on firms, can
have an impact on workers, but also, when a large business like
a manufacturing facility closes due to trade, it is not just
workers and companies. The entire community is impacted. They
relied often on those employers and the jobs that they provide
as the heart and soul of economy. So, they are negatively
impacted even if they are not directly related. So, our trade
adjustment assistance for communities is an approach that I
think might work.
One related area that I know the budget proposes is a
community revitalization fund at HUD for redevelopment projects
in chronically distressed areas. And I wonder if you might
touch on two things. One, if you could discuss a bit more about
how the Administration envisions this proposal, and whether we
might find some common ground or some synergy with my TAA for
communities proposal.
And then also, before you are done, if you could comment on
the issue of the Delphi salary retirees. I have raised this
with you before when we have chatted. For too long, these
pensioners have been fighting to have their hard-earned
benefits restored. And I would like to work with you and the
OMB to find a way forward for these individuals. So, thank you.
If you could comment on those two subjects, I would really
appreciate it.
Ms. Young. One, I will just start with Delphi and you and I
have had conversations about this. And I had certainly
recognized the challenges that the Delphi pensioners, many of
whom had hard-earned retirement benefits reduced as a result of
Delphi's bankruptcy. We will continue to work with the Pension
Benefit Guaranty Corporation to ensure that these pensioners
are receiving the full extent of benefits they are eligible for
under the law. So, we know it is a heartbreaking situation any
time this happens. So, we certainly want to work with you and
other members who have identified this as a problem.
As far as the Community Revitalization Program, we do think
there is an opportunity to work with you on incorporating the
trade adjustment fixes you have been working through Ways and
Means on. And we are happy to engage with you to make sure
there is synergy and we are picking up the efforts through this
program, and happy to work with you.
Mr. Kildee. Thank you. One other area, if you wouldn't mind
commenting on, because you and I have also worked even in your
previous role, on issues related to drinking water. I talked to
the President a couple of weeks ago about this and he made it
quite clear that he intends to eliminate lead service lines
throughout the entire country from the drinking water systems.
Knowing that in places like Flint, the cost of failure is so
much greater than the price of preventing that sort of failure.
Twenty or $30,000 million in Flint, for example, could have
prevented what is now going to be somewhere between half a
billion and $1 billion spent to deal with the fallout of that.
Could you comment on how this budget addresses issues of access
to clean drinking water? And particularly, how an
infrastructure plan would prevent significant costs downstream
if we get it right by making these investments now.
Ms. Young. I think Flint was an awakening. It was not
unfortunately a one-off in this country with regard to lead in
water, and the damage that does to children as they grow. We
see the costs of that throughout their life. And it is a cost
to the country in what they would have been able to achieve had
we provided them safe drinking water. So, what we have found
since Flint is this is unfortunately, you know, epidemic around
the country. I just got in the mail from my own locality, you
know, a way to check my own lead service pipe entry. So, this
Administration through the Jobs Plan seeks to replace every
lead pipe leading into a home to ensure that we provide clean
water to all our American citizens.
Mr. Kildee. Thank you. I yield back. Thanks for all your
great work.
Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman's time has expired. I now
recognize the gentleman from Texas, Dr. Burgess, for five
minutes.
Dr. Burgess. I thank the chair. And it is good to see you,
Administrator. That you for visiting with me the other day. I
have a question that was actually given to me by a constituent
Saturday night, and it is about the President's proposed tax
plan. I am going to submit that to you in writing because it is
fairly technical and fairly complicated. And I know we can't
probably answer it within the constraints of the five minutes
that are available. But I just wanted to underscore how serious
a question it is and why just to, again, it is something that I
need to be able to get back to this individual with at least
some explanation of what the reasoning is about some of
President Biden's proposals to the tax law. I mean, he says he
is not going to affect anyone who earns under $400,000 a year,
but it looks like he is going to affect it in a big way. So, I
would appreciate your response on that.
Now, this morning when I picked up my local paper, the
Dallas Morning News, and turned to the editorial page, as I
will frequently do to make sure they are not disparaging me in
some way, shape, or form. And the headline on the editorial
page and I don't know if you can read it from this distance,
but the headline is, the budget reads like a fairy tale. And
this is unusual because the Dallas Morning News generally tends
to be more left of center than right of center. But they raised
some interesting points. And I would just like for you to
comment on that if you could. They do make the point that
taxpayers--they acknowledge the need for investment in
infrastructure. They say taxpayers have every reason to choke
on a budget that is basically a wish list that is as
impractical as the birthday demands of a child who has no
appreciation of the value of money.
There is no way around the difficulties in paying for it
whether it is taxes or adding to the deficit. Either trajectory
is unsustainable. But it comes down also on the issue of
inflation. And I do wish you would address that. This article
maintains that nothing in the Biden budget works if inflation
comes back as a factor. And we have seen the month of April,
there is 4 percent inflation for the month. So, could you
address that, how inflation is going to impact the aspirational
document that we have in front of us?
[Article submitted for the record follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Young. Dr. Burgess, thank you for the question. Also,
you know, I understand people will disagree with the offsets
here, the tax reforms. But it is important to know that trying
not to live in a fairy tale, this President bothered to offset
his policy so we did not add to and have a fiscal policy that
was not fully offset. So, that is one. And two, on inflation,
as all of you know, and I will just remind everyone, in the
country, the Fed has the tools to look at inflation and
interest rates and try to make sure we have no problem. And I
know they are looking at the same indicators we are.
Dr. Burgess. I do have to interrupt----
Ms. Young. We think the long-term view is we still
welcome----
Dr. Burgess. I do have to interrupt you here for just--and
I apologize for doing it, but time is short. I mean, Mr. Powell
was on the CBS news show not too long ago saying he was
absolutely not worried about inflation. Inflation is not an
issue. But clearly, your budget is--any hope it has of balance
at some point in the future is predicated on historically low
interest rates being maintained and again, the proof is what we
have seen. Four percent inflation for the month of April. You
can't do it with that kind of number.
Ms. Young. Yes, if we thought there was a long-term
inflation problem, which as you pointed out, the Federal
Reserve does not see those indicators being a long-term
problem. We remain well anchored. But, of course, we will have
pressures when we come out of a pandemic year. And that is what
we believe we are seeing, not a long-term problem.
Dr. Burgess. Yes, well, it is going to be sooner rather
than later. And I don't think, with all respect to Mr. Jerome
Powell, I don't think he has bought a 2X4 or a bag of Quikrete
in a while because those prices have dramatically increased.
Let me just touch on, and we talked about this a little bit
when we visited the other day, and I do so appreciate the phone
call. But some of the changes that were made in the American
Rescue Plan to the advanced premium tax credit, also known as a
subsidy for the Affordable Care Act, that it has gone from
helping those at the lowest income scales to now people at the
highest income scales. And at the same time, is going to expire
in two years' time. I don't know if people are aware of that,
but that is another looming crisis we have created for
ourselves. But was there any discussion, any internal
discussion, of what the effect of these increased advanced
premium tax credits, or subsidies, would have on say the ERISA,
the commercial insurance market, the large group market that
protects 200 million people in this country?
Ms. Young. And I know I have to be quick. The chairman's
looking at me. But I remind everyone the Families Plan does
make those premium tax credit subsidies permanent so as not to
deal with the cliff you are talking about. But our overall goal
was certainly to make sure more Americans had affordable
healthcare to bring the premium costs down. And we are seeing
more people enroll in the Affordable Care Act, which was the
ultimate goal.
Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman's time has expired. I now
recognize the gentleman from Nevada, Mr. Horsford, for five
minutes.
Mr. Horsford. Thank you and good afternoon, Chairman
Yarmuth, and thank you for holding today's hearing. I want to
first congratulate Acting OMB Director Shalanda Young on your
historic appointment. I can't think of anyone more qualified
and experienced to run the office of OMB at this critical time.
And I want to thank you for being here. I also want to
encourage the Administration as I have done repeatedly, to drop
the acting in front of your name and your title and make you
the permanent OMB Director.
I want to focus my time on two issues. One, dealing with
community violence intervention programs and the other on work
force development. First, in 2020, gun violence has been a
major issue in this country where we saw historic spike in
homicides in communities across the country. And while final
numbers are not yet available, criminologists estimate that in
2020, there were just over 20,000 criminal homicides. A number
that has not been crossed since the mid-1990's. A sizable
portion of the spike occurred in urban jurisdictions of all
sizes and occurred at the highest rates in racially segregated
high poverty neighborhoods.
Now, one of the strategies that we know works are community
violence intervention strategies that are proven to reduce gun
violence with direct effective measures deployed by trusted
individuals who have an intimate understanding of the
community. And it will also help save lives and reduce gun
violence. Gun violence which has a really significant cost. As
much as $280 billion a year from out-of-pocket medical costs,
police response, and incarceration costs, and loss in
productivity and revenue, not to mention the lives that are
lost.
President Biden's budget reverses this trend by requesting
$200 million in discretionary resources to support a new
community violence intervention initiative to implement these
proven interventions across the country. The President also
requests an additional $5 billion in total mandatory resources
to provide long-term support for this initiative. So, Director
Young, how does this Administration intend to break down this
$5 billion over the next eight years based on the President's
recommendation?
Ms. Young. One, I want to thank you for your leadership on
this, along with your colleague from Delaware. We worked
extensively with you and others interested in this. We will
continue discussions. I think we have a upcoming one with you.
We need to work, I think, collaboratively here to make sure we
are getting it right.
One of your colleagues brought up the need to make sure we
are dealing with wraparound services, not just the justice
side. And the resources you point out are split between the
Department of Justice and the Centers of Disease Control
because we do acknowledge there are other components we must
address when you deal with community violence issues. There is
often other things going on that we need to make sure we are
dealing with from a community standpoint.
So, we look forward to those conversations continuing.
Those are the things if you have a narrow scope of what you
consider infrastructure that go away, and you have stated the
cost of doing nothing to allow those--that trend of violence to
continue, and we think we have to do something about that. And
it is inherent that certain communities who are overly dealing
with these issues are not seeing their full growth and so, this
initiative is one of the things we certainly will push for when
we look at how we view infrastructure and the need to make sure
all Americans can take advantage of this prosperous country.
Mr. Horsford. Thank you. Related to my question on work
force development, I know our focus is on infrastructure and
the Jobs Plan. But in order to create the jobs that we want to
see, we need to also have an investment in human infrastructure
so that people get the training particularly women and people
of color who were disproportionately affected during this
pandemic recession. So, related to the President's proposal, I
believe there is $1.27 billion requested toward work force
development, providing training that incorporates employers'
and workers' needs. How will you make sure that these work
force dollars are equitably distributed to reach the hardest
hit communities and those who have been impacted?
Ms. Young. I also would like to just highlight the $100
million on the discretionary side for registered
apprenticeships. We understand coming out of the pandemic
people will have to seek different jobs that maybe they were
not tooled for. So, the hope here is to retool workers from--
and I do think the President's order on equitable distribution
of programs, the executive order comes into play here to make
sure we are getting to communities from coal country to those
urban centers to make sure we are hitting and bringing an
equitable look in how we implement programs.
Mr. Horsford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman's time has expired. Now, I
recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Cline, for five
minutes.
Mr. Cline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the
witness for being here today. I appreciate the call that we
received this week and we got to talk about some of the issues
that were important. I want to focus on immigration and
particularly border enforcement. Are you aware of a letter sent
from Republican Members of this Committee requesting an opinion
from GAO with regard to whether President Biden's suspension of
the border wall violates the Impoundment Control Act?
Ms. Young. I am, Congressman.
Mr. Cline. We received a followup from GAO last week
stating that their decision is pending responses from both OMB
and the Department of Homeland Security. Has OMB responded to
the GAO with requested information?
Ms. Young. We have, and I believe GAO has communicated to
the Committee that OMB and DHS provided timely responses. And
that is something I am proud that will continue as a trend.
Mr. Cline. I appreciate that. Can you share what OMB
provided to GAO?
Ms. Young. Yes. We understand the--I believe this Committee
asked for the report and GAO requested it. But we can, pending
any concerns from GAO, we are happy to provide that information
to the committee.
Mr. Cline. OK. Thank you. Can you talk about the percentage
increase in the President's budget for homeland security
funding for Fiscal Year 2022?
Ms. Young. Yes. The overall budget is relatively flat. But
we seek to move border wall funding. We seek a cancellation and
would rather fund technology and migrant services and other
items in DOJ and in HHS that we believe would improve the
asylum system. Have people go through faster, have a more
efficient process.
Mr. Cline. In fact, despite all of these different items
you are mentioning, border security is not mentioned in the
budget plan. Is that correct?
Ms. Young. I heard Congresswoman Boebert speak of that. The
budget is certainly larger than 72 pages. Maybe we looked at
the budget summary, but, of course, we have to mention border
security. We talk about every government program in our budget
documents.
Mr. Cline. Now, you are speaking of support for border
security for other countries in numerous sections of the
budget, $861 million total for security and economic support
for Central American nations, correct?
Ms. Young. That is one of the areas we are funding to deal
with the root causes of migration, which does impact our
border.
Mr. Cline. OK. Would you speak to the number of detention
beds that the budget is anticipated to fund?
Ms. Young. Sure. The same amount that Congress passed on a
bipartisan basis last December. So, we are staying at that
level.
Mr. Cline. Is that the $32,500 level?
Ms. Young. I believe so. I will confirm with the staff. But
if that was the level in December, that is what we are funding.
Mr. Cline. And I am showing $34,000 last year. So, a slight
decrease, but relatively stable. Given the skyrocketing numbers
that we are seeing at the border, do you think that there
should be a reflection in the President's budget for additional
bed requests?
Ms. Young. I will remind everything we are still using
Title 42 authority as long as we are in the pandemic. And so,
therefore, the policies on how we deal with certain groups like
single adults has not changed since the last Administration
when we approved that bed number.
Mr. Cline. Do you anticipate any funding to pay for hotel
rooms for illegal immigrants?
Ms. Young. Congressman, we certainly seek licensed beds
when it comes to children. And we have turned to influx
facilities, but we certainly will not take anything off the
table to ensure that we don't have people who are sleeping in
squaller.
Mr. Cline. And I will take that as a yes. We talked a
little bit about the infrastructure plan that the President has
put forward. In particular, what constitutes infrastructure. I
think you would find a broad bipartisan consensus for a
streamlined infrastructure plan introducing concepts such as
care infrastructure, which has never been considered by
Congress. Never been approved as a concept by Congress. I think
makes it more challenging to approve an infrastructure plan. I
am a member of the Problem Solvers Caucus. We are putting
forward plans that hopefully will garner bipartisanship in the
House. I would ask you, can you give an example of something
that the Administration considers----
Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman is already over his----
Mr. Cline [continuing]. not to be infrastructure?
Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman is already beyond his time.
So, I will not allow him to ask another question. The
gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Cline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Yarmuth. I now recognize the gentlewoman from
California, Ms. Lee, for five minutes.
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank you
so much for your leadership and for putting this hearing
together today. And I just wanted to also salute and thank our
Acting Director, Ms. Young, Director Young, and associate
myself with the comments of Congressman Horsford, my colleague
from Nevada, who indicated that you certainly should be our
next director and the most qualified and experienced we know
personally that this should happen. So, thank you so much.
Let me say a couple things. First of all, there are many
items in the President's budget that I was very pleased to see
such as critical investments in jobs and families. And, yes,
our budget is a reflection of our priorities as a nation and
this budget invests in the American people which certainly are
critical to our infrastructure in this country.
Of course, it is no secret that I was quite disappointed to
see the President with his request in terms of an increase of
our already bloated defense budget. The United States War on
Terror has lasted two decades and cost the United States
approximately $6.4 trillion. And the Pentagon itself is still
unable to pass an audit like every other cabinet department.
So, let me just ask you what effort is OMB making to identify
excessive spending at the Pentagon? Where are you looking for
waste, fraud, and abuse? What criteria are you using to
evaluate whether specific weapons systems are affordable and
appropriate for our national security needs?
Ms. Young. Congresswoman, one, you know, I know your
thoughts here well. You probably heard from the Folsom
Discussion here that I don't think--some people don't think it
is enough. Some people think it is too much. What we tried to
do is assume some efficiencies in weapons systems. Also, pay
for pay raises for our men and women in troops. That is part of
the increase you see here.
So, certainly assume that there will need to be retooling
at the Department of Defense. I know Secretary Austin is
working on those initiatives. We will continue to have reviews
at the department that will refine the Department of Defense's
budget. But we certainly have to work with Congress to find the
right level here as you have heard. But thank you for your
views here and pointing out that defense has to meet the same
standards as every other agency to make sure the dollars spent
here are efficient and go to troop readiness and making sure we
can counter China.
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much. And I am still going to
request, and you don't have to answer it now, but a status of
the audit and how waste, fraud, and abuse is being addressed
within the Pentagon. Because there are billions of dollars we
know that have been wastefully spent and have not been subject
to audit requirements. So, please just get us----
Ms. Young. We will work with----
Ms. Lee [continuing]. that information.
Ms. Young. We will work with the Department of Defense on a
status update of the audit.
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much. Let me ask you a couple of
things about our international programs. And I am very pleased
that the Administration has proposed increases to our
international programs as it relates to development and
diplomacy. COVID pandemic raging abroad, we have health
challenges in terms of the economic impact of the COVID
pandemic.
Also, with regard to HIV and AIDS, we sent a letter,
bipartisan letter, with Congresswoman Gonzalez Colon as it
relates to establishing the Office of national AIDS Policy and
making sure that that is staffed. And so, I would just like to
find out where we are as it relates to our overall national and
international budgets as it relates to HIV and AIDS and also
for our development programs and our international programs.
Ms. Young. So, absolutely. As we talk about defense, we
also have to talk about our diplomacy because if we want to
deal with a very complex world, we believe it is appropriate,
which we are doing, to look at defense in a broad view and make
sure we have the necessary increases in foreign assistance and
aid. And that is what this budget does and that is why we think
we have the right tools. So, certainly, our State Department
and other international is up 11 percent. I am sure you will
agree that it has been underfunded for many years but has to be
taken in context of defense. I think General Mattis said it
best, you cut diplomacy, you may as well buy me more bullets.
So, this budget should be seen and I hope is seen is a effort
to make sure we are exhausting every diplomatic tool before we
turn to conflict in this country.
Chairman Yarmuth. The gentlewoman's time has expired. Let
me make one statement in relation to Mr. Cline and to all
Members. I am not going to allow questions to be posed after
the five minutes are expired. But as I said at the beginning,
you have the right to submit questions in writing for the
witness and both the question and her response will be part of
the permanent record.
With that, I now recognize Mr. Carter from Georgia. I owe
Mr. Carter a couple of extra minutes from a prior hearing when
he was cutoff. So, I am going to recognize you for seven
minutes. If you don't want to take them all, we can roll them
over to another time. Mr. Carter is recognized.
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you
remembering that. Not that I was going to let you forget it,
but nevertheless, I do appreciate you remembering it. Thank
you, Ms. Young, for being here today and for answering these
questions. I have got quite a few questions. In fact, it is
hard for me to decide which ones to ask.
But I will start by asking you, in your testimony you said
the budget makes growth enhancing investments that we need
right now. And it predicts high growth while we are pumping,
the federal government is pumping trillions and trillions of
dollars into the economy, but it assumes that the economy will
only grow at just under 2 percent per year for most of the
decade. And despite all that funding or all that spending, I
should say, your projections show the GDP growing to nearly the
same as in the CBO's baseline projections. And my question is
why won't these massive growth enhancing investments, as you
put them, continue long-term economic growth? I mean, why are
you predicting this only going to be short lived like this?
Ms. Young. Congressman Carter, you probably heard me speak
to the Ranking Member about this. The economic assumptions were
built in February. We certainly expect updates and that is why
we have the mid-session review to do exactly that. And we have
outperformed even our--the current year growth, the first year,
we have a 5 percent number. OECD and others, I believe the
economic growth thanks to our robust vaccine rollout, will be
closer to 6 and a 1/2 percent. So, that is something developed
in February that we, thankfully, this country is coming out of
the pandemic even better than we assumed in February.
Mr. Carter. Is this telling us, is this budget telling us
that all the unprecedented spending that we have seen with the
pandemic and everything else that it is not going to payoff in
the future? Or do you feel like it is going to pay off?
Ms. Young. Certainly with the American Rescue Plan it is
more than paid off. Not only in our economic assumptions, but
the number of people we have seen hospitalized and alive after
this virus. So, we have turned the corner thanks to the Rescue
Plan and the spending in that plan. What the Jobs and Families
Plan does is hopes to set us on a path for a better future so
we are in a better place than even before the pandemic.
Mr. Carter. I am not sure--well, I am not going to dispute
what you are saying. But I am not sure I agree with that when
you consider the fact that less than 9 percent of the Rescue
Plan went to healthcare. So, nevertheless, and just, again, it
sounds like we are mortgaging our children's future. I have got
my grandbabies here this week with me and, you know, I just
look at them and I think, oh my gosh, what are we doing to you?
What are we doing to you all? And, you know, this is inner-
generational theft that we are talking about here.
But nevertheless, another thing I wanted to ask you about
and I will get to debt in just a minute. But it is very
important to me because I have been to the border and I have
seen what has happened down there and it is very, very
concerning. But as a percentage of GDP, our non-defense--our
defense spending, I should say, would be reduced to 2.5
percent. The lowest since World War II. And it would increase
non-defense spending by 42 percent, this budget would. So, and,
you know, the focus is shifted from defense spending to things
like the Green New Deal. And the President's Fiscal Year 2022
discretionary funding request for national defense is $753
billion, which that doesn't even keep up with inflation as we
all know.
And meanwhile, we have got, you know, a world on fire right
now. We have got the U.S. world faced growing threats from
China, from Iran, Russia, and the cyber criminals. And now,
even the bipartisan National Defense Strategy Commission has
recommended an annual 3 to 5 percent increase above inflation
for national defense. Why is the Administration ignoring this?
Why are they ignoring the growing threats to our country and
the world, as well as the recommendations of our national
defense professionals?
Ms. Young. Thank you, Congressman. One, I think we have to
assume not just inflation growth but a retooling. The
Department of Defense has to take the responsibility to make
sure we are not purchasing outdated equipment that does not
focus us in the right place to our future adversaries. That is
one. And two, remind everyone that on this non-defense side
that is growing, we also have serious security spending. Like
Homeland Security, like Department of Justice, like our USAID,
and State Department. So, you know, I appreciate the split
between defense and non-defense, but we certainly do have
significant security funding in this non-defense side that is
growing.
Mr. Carter. Does the Administration not think that these
are credible threats that we are seeing? That the U.S. should
be conceding its world leadership role?
Ms. Young. We think at $753 billion we have the tools
available to make sure that we can counter China and any other
adversary. But we also think we have to have a diplomatic
budget that keeps up with a complex and changing world and that
is what you see here.
Mr. Carter. Ms. Young, let me ask you, unlike our President
and our Vice President, I have been to the border. And I have
been to the border recently. And I have seen the humanitarian
crisis and national security crisis that we have down there. In
fact, I would venture to say it is more than a crisis. It is a
disaster. But nevertheless, the President's budget called for a
freeze on funding for the Department of Homeland Security for
Fiscal Year 2022. Why is that when we know what is going on at
the southern border?
Ms. Young. The President called for an additional $760
million in facilities to improve our border and migrant
processing, 203 million more for migrant processing, 200
million more, almost, for technology. Almost 900 million more
for immigration judges. So, you know, you are certainly----
Mr. Carter. I am talking about----
Ms. Young [continuing]. speaking to the top line with what
you have----
Mr. Carter. I am sorry.
Ms. Young [continuing]. resources that we have devoted to
this issue.
Mr. Carter. I don't mean to interrupt you, but I just want
to know. So, does that send us a message that the
Administration has no intentions to do anything about securing
the border? But instead, just wants to spend more money in
processing the illegals as they come across?
Ms. Young. With processing comes ability if asylum is not
proven, that people are returned. So, you absolutely need an
asylum system. It is the law of the land that we have to
process people with credible fear seeking asylum. We cannot
violate the law in that way. So, you must have these pieces to
ensure that there is a orderly processing, which does turn some
people back to their country of origin.
Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman's time has----
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman----
Chairman Yarmuth. Sure.
Mr. Carter [continuing]. for the extra time.
Chairman Yarmuth. Absolutely. The gentleman's time has
expired. I now recognize the gentlewoman from California, Ms.
Chu, for five minutes.
Ms. Chu. Director Young, I would first like to say
congratulations on your appointment. And I would like to start
by thanking the Administration for including 12 weeks of paid
family leave in the budget as the U.S. remains the only
industrialized country that does not guarantee its citizens
time off to care for themselves or their loved ones when
needed.
And I would like to ask about another topic with respect to
the Unaccompanied Children's Program. The budget provides 4.3
billion to the Office of Refugee Resettlement and the
commitment that services will align with child welfare best
practices while unaccompanied minors are in ORR's custody. I
recently visited the emergency shelter at the Pomona Fairplex
in Los Angeles County and I was encouraged by the
prioritization of culturally appropriate trauma informed care
and expedited protocols reunifying children with their
families.
And while I am grateful for the swiftness by which the
Biden Administration has worked to remove children from CBP
holding cells, we know that massive congregate care facilities
are not appropriate for prolonged stays for children. So, can
you discuss the Administration's plans for this $4.3 billion in
funding? And does it include a long-term plan to collaborate
with state child welfare authorities and NGO's to allow
children to stay in small, licensed facilities until they can
be released to family or sponsors in a timely manner?
Ms. Young. Congresswoman, our goal will always be to use
licensed beds. We think it is the more appropriate place and
better care can be given. It is not as crowded. And also from a
fiscal standpoint, it is a much more reasonable cost, you know,
cost consideration. I will say COVID has certainly made it more
difficult to find licensed beds. We have to spread children out
further. But I want you to know it is certainly our goal and it
should be every administration's goal to make sure we are using
licensed beds for children.
And certainly, the increase seen is for ORR, but also
remember that office deals with the other side of refugee
resettlement. So, there is a funding there also to make sure we
have improvements to that system. So, it is a much broader set
of proposals than just unaccompanied children program.
Ms. Chu. Thank you for that. Director Young, a consistent
problem throughout the pandemic has been the lack of this
aggregated data when it comes to Asian-Americans and Pacific
Islanders or AAPIs. At the beginning of the pandemic, AAPIs
were even lumped into the other category on the CDC website.
But from the data we have, we know that Native Hawaiians and
Pacific Islanders have experienced some of the highest COVID-19
infection and mortality rates out of any racial group in over a
dozen states, including my home state of California, where the
case rate for Pacific Islanders is 31 percent higher than the
statewide rate.
Despite guidelines from OMB and provisions of the
Affordable Care Act that require Asian-Americans and Native
Hawaiians and other Pacific Islanders to be listed in separate
categories in federal demographic datasets, the CDC data
currently lumps Asian-Americans and NHPIs into one category in
its hospitalization data. But this lack of adequate data goes
far beyond COVID. It also impacts our ability to understand and
address broader health, economic, education, and housing
disparities that AAPIs are facing. Unfortunately, our current
federal data collecting standards from the Office of Management
and Budget haven't been updated in over two decades, how is OMB
working to promote data disaggregation for the AAPI population?
And are there efforts to ensure that AAPI data disaggregation
is prioritized across the different departments of the federal
government?
Ms. Young. Congresswoman, thank you for your long-standing
work on this issue. We couldn't agree with you more as an
administration. If you don't collect the data and know what the
problem is, you have no chance of fixing it. So, I am glad the
President took action at the end of May. He signed the
executive order on advancing equity, justice, and opportunity
for Asian-Americans and Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders.
The President also established a first of its kind
Equitable Data Working Group that is led out of the White
House. It includes data scientists, economists, and experts
across key agencies. OMB is one of those agencies that will be
working on this data issue with Census and Treasury and the
Office of Science and Technology Policy. So, we are trying to
get there. We are at the beginning stages of righting what you
pointed out as a significant wrong.
Ms. Chu. Thank you for that. And also, thank you for the
President's budget, which calls for the establishment of a
Civilian Climate Corps, which is a bill that I am introducing.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Chairman Yarmuth. The gentlewoman's time has expired. I now
recognize the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Feenstra, for five
minutes.
Mr. Feenstra. Thank you, Mr. Chairman Yarmuth and Ranking
Member Smith. And thank you Acting Director Young for
testifying today. I sincerely appreciated the opportunity to
speak with you last week. As I talked to you about, inflation
is something that I have really been concerned about since the
reconciliation bill and what we are seeing today, you know, the
continued growth of inflation up by about 4.2 percent right
now. So, I am really nervous about how this is going to affect
as we move forward. And just talking with key economists and
working through it myself, this is not a short-term thing. It
looks like it is going to be a long-term thing.
Our economists on both sides of the aisle have said that
the economy is running way too hot due to the massive federal
intervention. The Federal Reserve has been saying they plan to
stay out of this at this point. However, they can change their
minds at any time. I have made this point before, but in
1980's, right, the Fed decided to change the monetary system
and increased rates, which created rates of 20 percent
inflation. If that happened today, we would be paying $4.7
trillion more in our deficit. Even a small interest rate would
have devasting effects on our debt and the money we are taking
in. Can you imagine even a slight increase to our budget?
The President's budget adds another 17 trillion to the
national debt, putting the United States at 39 trillion by
2031. A significant interest rate hike at that time would have
us spending more on interest than we currently spend on a
single Fiscal Year budget. That is being generous as this
budget doesn't assume any inflation.
But I move on to my question. I just wanted to make this
point that the numbers that we are talking about are today are
just completely unreal with it comes to our debt. And I can't
even say that we are spending monopoly money. You know, if we
say that, we have outspent that metaphor long ago. So, my
question is, one thing that I would like to ask is about the
stepped-up and basis proposal as written in the Department of
Treasury's Green Book. The tax is effectively a death tax with
a new coat of paint. The Administration proposes to tax any
capital gains that is in farm, for example, might accrue above
a certain exemption. Even with the proposed policy maneuvering,
the chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, someone who
generally agrees with the President, and farmers in my district
agree that this will punish modern farming.
I also sit on the Science Committee and we are trying to
incentivize those sorts of modern technology. So, Director
Young, this is my question, how does the Administration see
this proposal working without placing a huge burden on our
farmers when it comes to stepped-up and basis?
Ms. Young. By providing, Congressman, a exemption for
family farms. We certainly recognize that in agriculture, there
are different dynamics. We want to encourage family farms to
remain in place. So, absolutely those families who want to
leave the family farm, the house associated with that farm to
family members, would have an exemption to continue to not pay
taxes on those as long as it stays a family farm.
Mr. Feenstra. OK. And I see you are trying to pigeonhole
the farming community. I completely understand that. But even
those with small business, I think we have to relook at this
because you are not always going to say, I mean, if you are
person that does not have a child, it could be devastating
effects if you want to give it to somebody else. So, I just
think that we have to be very cognizant of that.
Another question. In January, the OMB put out a notice to
consider changing the definition of metropolitan statistical
areas. The proposal received almost 900 comments. And I have
heard from stakeholders all around our state, including Ames,
Iowa, that such a change would have devastating effects on our
local resources. My interactions with the Census Bureau have
given me the understanding that the law that tie resources to
MSAs are a separate matter than the definition. However, the
fact remains that any change is going to impact local
resources. The laws are on the books regardless. Where is the
OMB on this proposed rule? And what is the rationale behind the
change?
Ms. Young. Congressman, the change was proposed the day
before the last Administration left. But I will say, you know,
even the timing, even though the last Administration did it on
the way out the door, it was done by a group of civil servants.
So, the timing was interesting for a lot of Members on the
other side of the aisle from you, but we are looking at this.
We had a public comment period. I have heard more from Members
on both sides of the aisle on this. We hope that public comment
review period ends soon and we can make a determination about
whether to take the civil servants' recommendations on the
changes. But I hear you and your colleagues have also made it
clear what a problem this would be.
Mr. Feenstra. Thank you, and I yield back.
Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman's time has expired. I now
recognize the gentlewoman from Virginia, Ms. Wexton, for five
minutes.
Ms. Wexton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you,
Director Young, for joining us here today. It is wonderful to
see you. I cannot think of anybody who would be better suited
to this role. And I really, I want to associate myself with the
remarks of my colleagues that I hope that you become the
permanent director of OMB. And there is so much in this budget
to celebrate. I want to say thank you very much for the 2.7
percent pay increase for federal workers, and the parity with
our service members in the civilian service. You know, our
federal workers get a bad rap from a lot of folks on the other
side of the aisle. They think that it plays well back home. But
they performed amazing service during this pandemic standing up
programs remotely for things like the Paycheck Protection
Program and new nutrition programs during the pandemic and
keeping everything going smoothly. So, I am very pleased that
you did that and I just want to say thank you.
Now, I want to take a moment to talk about VOCA, the
Victims of Crime Act, because that is funded by deposits into
the Crime Victims Fund. And those deposits are at historic
lows. They, in fact, haven't been at the reduced levels that
they are at now since 2003. And I have heard from a number of
victim services agencies in my district that they are going to
have to cut services to victims of crime. Things like victims
of domestic violence, sexual assault, child abuse, and human
trafficking. So, I just wanted to give you a heads up that that
is going to happen if we don't do something about this. But I
understand that your budget includes some wonderful supports
for those communities. So, can you talk a little bit about how
your budget seeks to support these populations?
Ms. Young. As you probably know, President Biden worked on
these issues as a senator many years ago. So, the commitment in
this budget is not surprisingly strong. VAWA is increased by 95
percent. We understand the receipts have gone down and we will
have to make up for that in budget authority. But it is the
right thing to do. You have seen increases through this
pandemic on what people have to face with regard to domestic
violence. So, a already bad issue has become worse during the
pandemic. And, you know, we are proud of the resources we put
forward, and want to work with you and others in Congress to
make sure, you know, these investments stay there. Awfully
important, again, especially during this time of the pandemic.
Ms. Wexton. Yes, that is another thing I have heard from my
victims services agencies is that they have seen increased
demand for their services, unfortunately, during the pandemic.
So, I appreciate the Administration is helping out with that in
that regard.
I want to talk a little bit about some of the backlog at
USCIS. I represent a very diverse district with a big immigrant
population and the backlogs were already very, very high for
things like employment authorization and visas and citizenship
applications, but they have skyrocketed during the COVID-19
pandemic. How does your budget seek to end the visa backlogs at
USCIS?
Ms. Young. As you probably know, USCIS before the pandemic
was fee-funded. We have during my time in my previous job, we
tried to put budget authority so additional dollars to support
the USCIS processing. You know, it will certainly take time to
work through the issues the pandemic brought to USCIS. But you
certainly have our commitment to make sure that backlog is
dealt with. And you are absolutely right, the pandemic not only
slowed down processing, but really brought their funding source
to a halt that we had to find ways to work around.
Ms. Wexton. Great, thank you. Now, gun violence prevention
is another issue that is really important to my constituents.
And I see that your budget makes a historic investment of $2.1
billion to address the gun violence epidemic. Can you speak
about some of the programs that will be funding by this money?
Ms. Young. This is a place you heard me talk to Congressman
Horsford about. We look forward to working with you as we build
out where we think we get the, you know, the most success from
investments. But we do think it is appropriate that both the
justice piece of this and also the health and human services
pieces of this are funded because it is not just the violence
side, but what factors create these environments. So, we
definitely think both sides are needed.
Ms. Wexton. I am delighted to hear that you want to be
proactive as well as reactive because for too long we have just
been reactive. So, that is all of my questions for you right
now. Thank you so much, and I will yield back.
Chairman Yarmuth. The gentlewoman's time has expired. I now
recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Good, for five
minutes.
Mr. Good. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Director
Young, for being with us today. Director Young, in addition to
the tremendous concerns regarding the recklessly irresponsible
budget put forth by this Administration from a fiscal
standpoint, and the demonstrated budgetary incompetence, I have
great concern for the moral implications contained therein in
the explicit values or lack thereof regarding life and other
issues. Mr. Biden has been praised by pro-abortion groups and I
am concerned that those like Planned Parenthood are now being
treated as an extension of our federal government. Ms. Young,
was Planned Parenthood's staff consulted at any point during
this budget writing process?
Ms. Young. This budget was written by the Administration
policy advisors and the staff of the Office of Management and
Budget and the agencies who help build it.
Mr. Good. You didn't answer my question. Was Planned
Parenthood's staff consulted at any point during the budget
writing process?
Ms. Young. I certainly did not. Also, thousands of people
work on the budget, but I certainly did not seek advice from
Planned Parenthood----
Mr. Good. What I asked was----
Ms. Young [continuing]. or any other organization.
Mr. Good. Was Planned Parenthood consulted at any point
during the process?
Ms. Young. I can speak for myself, Congressman. Certainly
not by me.
Mr. Good. You have never met with Planned Parenthood during
your time at OMB?
Ms. Young. Of course, I meet with Planned Parenthood and
other organizations, as I think part of my job entails.
Mr. Good. OK. So, when have you met with Planned Parenthood
since you got to OMB?
Ms. Young. I have never----
Mr. Good. How many times----
Ms. Young. Yes, I have never met one-on-one with Planned
Parenthood, but I certainly would not rule out that they
participated in group meetings with other organizations.
Mr. Good. Thank you. Planned Parenthood has donated
millions of dollars to Democrat candidates, including the
President. Now, that he is elected, it appears that these
donors, such as Planned Parenthood, are being given seats at
the table in the policymaking process. Are there other Democrat
donors to which the Biden Administration plans to direct
federal funds that the American people should be aware of?
Ms. Young. Congressman, to the extent organizations receive
federal funding and also our campaign donors, I cannot speak to
that.
Mr. Good. On the subject of values indicated in this budget
or, again, the lack thereof, do you personally believe that
abortion is wrong for any reasons under any circumstances or at
any stages of the unborn child's development?
Ms. Young. In this job--I appreciate the answer. In this
job, my personal beliefs have little to do with the budget you
see put forward before you.
Mr. Good. So, you won't indicate any time, any reason, any
circumstance in which abortion, you believe, would be wrong?
Ms. Young. My personal values have nothing to do with the
budget. We are here to serve the American people.
Mr. Good. The science is now clear that life begins at
conception. When, if ever, do you think we have a
responsibility as a government to protect that life?
Ms. Young. Congressman, to the extent this has anything to
do with the budget, I just don't have a personal opinion.
Mr. Good. Well, this is the most anti-life budget in
American history. It is actually good to hear you say the word
abortion because our President's been in office now for 140
days. Neither he nor his press secretary have used the term
abortion yet, which demonstrates the callousness they have to
the 70 million lives who have been lost through this travesty
of abortion. And which, in fact, has disproportionately
impacted or devastated the minority community. I think the
President is probably uncomfortable with his political
compromise on the issue. There was a time when he would
actually stand up for unborn life. But now he has caved to the
anti-life commitment of his party.
The President's budget tragically calls for the removal of
the Hyde Amendment, a policy that has been in place for nearly
50 years. And his Administration is now on record opposing
Hyde, which protects American taxpayer dollars from funding the
murder of unborn lives. That is why abortion views are relevant
to this budget discussion. Ms. Young, will you continue to
enforce the Hyde Amendment if, in fact, it is included in this
year's appropriation bills?
Ms. Young. It is currently the law of the land. I commit to
following the law of the land. If it is continued and this
proposal is----
Mr. Good. Thank you for that.
Ms. Young. Yes.
Mr. Good. Thank you, thank you. This budget also calls for
the removal of the Dornan Amendment, which prohibits taxpayer
funding as you know for abortions in D.C. Do you support the
American taxpayer dollars being used to fund abortions here the
Nation's Capital?
Ms. Young. Congressman, my personal beliefs have nothing to
do with the budget.
Mr. Good. You know, as Vice President, Mr. Biden said, hey,
show me your budget, I will show you your values. I am saddened
by what this budget says about the values or lack thereof that
our government now promotes. And I am right on time, so I yield
back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman's time has expired. I now
recognize the gentlewoman from Washington, Ms. Jayapal, for
five minutes.
Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Director Young,
Acting Director Young. Thank you so much for being with us
today. I wish my Republican colleagues cared as much about life
when it comes to supporting things like childcare, things like
ending poverty, things like ending hunger. Those are also part
of ensuring that we support life. So, thank you, Director
Young, for all of your testimony today and all of the work that
you have been doing across the board for the American people.
I wanted to say that this budget is largely a bold and
progressive budget that recognizes that we need those once-in-
a-generation investments in education, childcare, healthcare,
infrastructure, and so much more, along with making fair a
ridiculously unfair tax system where the wealthiest
millionaires and billionaires never pay their fair share. But I
do want to focus today on two issues. One, where I greatly
agree with the President and one where I do not.
The COVID-19 pandemic made clear that we must deliver a
healthcare system that works for the American people and isn't
tethered to employment. I am grateful that this budget reflects
commitments laid out in the Biden-Sanders Unity Task Force that
I co-chaired and reflected in a letter that I led with over 75
percent of the Democratic Caucus across the ideological
spectrum who understand how critical it is to empower Medicare
to negotiate drug prices, improve Medicare benefits to include
dental, vision, and hearing, and expand Medicare eligibility to
60. Director Young, please speak to President Biden's
commitment that Congress should act swiftly to include in the
American Jobs and Families Plan these critical issues.
Ms. Young. Congresswoman, one, thank you for everything you
have done around the issue of healthcare. The budget is very
clear. The President wants to see action, bold action on
prescription drug prices. There is a fundamental problem with
Americans, not only through their tax dollars with the Medicare
program paying too much for drugs in this country. So, we asked
Congress to work this year to bring those costs down. We think
that will save at least $.5 trillion. We also want to see
action to make sure that all Americans have access to
affordable healthcare that includes through Medicare, Medicaid,
ensuring we have additional dental, vision, and hearing
services. But also strengthening the Affordable Care Act, which
has already brought millions and millions healthcare at an
affordable rate.
Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Director. Shifting gears, in 2010,
then Vice President Biden said this, ``The spread of nuclear
weapons is the greatest threat facing the country and humanity,
and that is why we are working both to stop their proliferation
and eventually eliminate them.'' Yet, the President's budget
expands almost every nuclear program proposed by the previous
Administration. It funds the new nuclear arms sea-launched
cruise missile, a weapon that President Obama retired with the
full support of the navy that then Trump sought to restart and
now this budget gives it its first funding. Is that correct?
Ms. Young. Yes. But I also want to assure----
Ms. Jayapal. And----
Ms. Young [continuing]. assure you we are at the beginning
of a process where we are undertaking our nuclear posture
review.
Ms. Jayapal. That review is very, very important. As you
know, just last August, President Biden pledged to bring us
closer to a world without nuclear weapons--this is a quote of
his--so that the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are never
repeated. And yet, this budget again extends the life of the
massively destructive B83 nuclear gravity bomb, which has a
yield that is 100 times larger than the bomb dropped on
Hiroshima. Moreover, the budget increases funding for the long-
range standoff nuclear armed air launched cruise missile to a
level far beyond what the previous Administration's budget
suggested would be required. Can you speak to how quickly the
nuclear posture review will be done? And be clear about whether
this budget will incorporate whatever that review comes up
with.
Ms. Young. Congresswoman, one, I want to let you know the
President remains committed to taking steps to reduce the role
of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy. So, we
await the results of those reviews. But even with the reviews,
you know, the President will make a informed decision on how we
proceed and they will absolutely be reflected in future budget
requests. So, you see a continuation of a program, but
certainly subject to what those reviews will yield out and the
President will use those reviews to make future decisions.
Ms. Jayapal. Thank you so much, Director Young. You know
how important this is to me as well as cutting overall fraud,
waste, and abuse out of defense spending. And I hope we can get
there. I thank you so much for your service and for all that I
know you will do for our nation.
Chairman Yarmuth. The gentlewoman's time has expired. I now
recognize the gentlewoman from Iowa, Mrs. Hinson, for five
minutes.
Mrs. Hinson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing today. And thank you, Director Young as well, for
appearing before us today and for our candid conversation as
well last week about the whole budget process and some of our
shared concerns about inflation, economic stability, and more.
I am particularly concerned about the cost of living for the
average Iowan. We have heard a lot of talk today about
inflation. Just this week a standard 2X4 of lumber at our
Waterloo Home Depot was up to $8.25. That is a nearly 60
percent increase. And that is just one area where we have seen
a dramatic increase in inflation. So, I hope to continue our
conversations about how we can truly address this issue.
But I would like to spend my limited time today on a few
other issues important to my constituents. President Biden has
previously expressed strong support for the Hyde Amendment
prohibiting taxpayer dollars from directly funding abortions of
unborn children. He, in fact, wrote to a constituent saying
those of us who oppose abortion should not be compelled to pay
for them. But, frankly, when we are talking about so much
spending, so much debt, and given that so many Americans are
morally opposed to abortion, why does the President's budget
proposal fail to safeguard taxpayers against paying for
abortions both here at home and abroad?
Ms. Young. Congresswoman, for the President this is
consistent with his campaign commitment around Hyde. This
should not be a surprise to anyone who watched the Presidential
elections that the President made a campaign commitment
regarding Hyde because is it a issue for him around healthcare.
And he wants to ensure that women have the access to affordable
healthcare and it purely comes down to that.
Mrs. Hinson. Access to healthcare is one thing, abortion is
not healthcare. Who made the decision to revoke longstanding
pro-life protections in this budget? Why were the policies
removed? Was that a direct order from President Biden?
Ms. Young. Congresswoman, his name is on the budget. This
is the President's budget.
Mrs. Hinson. OK. Thank you. I want to now reference
something that my colleague from Iowa, Congressman Feenstra,
brought up in his line of questions. The city of Dubuque in
Iowa's first congressional district is a thriving community
that has led the way in innovation when it comes to sustainable
transportation, city planning, and work force development. And
the proposal by OMB to change that definition of MSA threatens
Dubuque's access to certain critical resources, including
federal dollars for healthcare providers and more. That
definition change proposal would dramatically increase the
population that is required to qualify as an MSA. It would
severely change access to federal dollars affecting the
abilities of our cities to innovate and attract investments in
mobile economies.
One example, I specifically heard from Unity Point
Healthcare on this, it mentions potentially massive impact on
their ability to provide care to Dubuquers. And I know you
mentioned you have had conversations with folks on this. My
office has reached out, of course, regarding this
classification. And it does remain a very important issue to my
constituents. Right now, I understand that the definition
change is currently in kind of a black box period of review.
Can you share with us why this process is not transparent and
it is lacking in input for community input and commentary? We
are missing out on that opportunity. Can you kind of expound on
that a little bit?
Ms. Young. Well, we just concluded a public comment period.
So, you know, all the comment periods are announced in the
Federal Register. I am sorry if your community missed the
chance to comment. But we certainly did. The reason we have not
made a final determination on this is because we did not want
to skimp on a public comment period. So, that is certainly what
we were waiting on. And I await for the staff to bring an
analysis of what those public comments brought to bear before
we make a final determination.
Mrs. Hinson. And will you commit to working with our office
to ensure that everyone does have their voices heard before the
final decision is made and just keep us up to date on that
process as it continues to move forward? People are very
concerned about this, not just in Dubuque, but also in Ames, as
Congressman Feenstra mentioned.
Ms. Young. Yes, Congresswoman, to the extent, you know, we
try to have a open public comment period, but we do want to, we
have to, to make sure people know that we are not bringing
inside information. So, we did have a public comment period.
And as soon as we can analyze that data and make an informed
decision based on the public comments, we will certainly let
offices who are interested in this know where we land. And
again, this issue shows bipartisanship is alive. I have heard
from Members on both sides of the aisle. So, we did----
Mrs. Hinson. And thank you, Director Young. I appreciate
your willingness to work with us on these issues and, Mr.
Chair, thank you so much. I yield back.
Chairman Yarmuth. The gentlewoman yields back. I now
recognize the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee, for five
minutes.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Am I on?
Chairman Yarmuth. You are on.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Hello? Hello?
Chairman Yarmuth. You are recognized. You are on.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you so very much. It looks like I
have a few seconds here into the sound. Thank you so very much,
Mr. Chairman, and the Ranking Member, and to Ms. Young for the
time that you have spent with us today. Let me emphasize my
commitment to the mindset of the President. I believe we should
go big. And, frankly, I believe that the President--I just got
through with an Appropriations Committee presentation listening
to members explaining the various needs that members have in
their respective districts. We are long overdue for a rebuild
in our country. We cannot go small. We have to go big. And I
happen to support the $2.2 trillion program that I frankly
believe we should go back to. And the reason is because it is
partly a rebuild of this nation that has not had this
opportunity for a long period of time.
So, let me first of all raise a question to you with
respect to the contentious formula for how one should pay for
this. My question is, could you tell us what the corporate tax
was in the pre-Trump tax era?
Ms. Young. Ma'am, this policy would take us not all the way
back to the pre-TCJA tax cut period. We would be moving from 21
to 28 percent under this proposal. I believe the pre-TCJA rate
was 35 percent, which I am getting a lot of nods, yes. So, we
are going from 21 to 28. The rate before the tax cuts was 35.
Ms. Jackson Lee. So, let me put a stamp of reasonableness
on that decision. A stamp of reasonableness on that decision in
the light of what the $2.2 trillion would do. Build world class
transportation, make transformative investments in the renewed
electric grid, ensures high speed broadband, improve public
health, deals with research and development, revitalize
American manufacturing, retrofits, and then, of course, there
was the community care. Ms. Young, was this budget put together
randomly? Or was your agency, OMB, able to assess the desperate
need of Americans and evidenced by the collapse of the electric
grid in Texas where 100 people died? The crumbling bridges,
which I have seen as the Secretary of Transportation made his
tour around America. Did you all do a deep dive on the
desperate needs of Americans as it relates to the putting
together of this budget?
Ms. Young. Congresswoman, these ideas aren't new. We talked
and joked a little about infrastructure weeks. But these aren't
new ideas. We had lots to pull from because of the long-term
underinvestment here. You know, I get the opposition to the
overall issues, but there is a lot of bipartisan ideas
reflected here because these ideas have percolated in Congress
and various administrations for a long time.
Ms. Jackson Lee. So, you had evidence thereof. Let me move
quickly to the question of recognizing the increasing hate
crimes, the increasing violence with guns. So, is the budget in
such a way that we can enhance the protection of American civil
rights that we can ensure a stronger Department of Justice to
protect against gun trafficking and issues such as that.
Meaning, have the agencies had the opportunity, plussed up,
ultimately appropriations deals with that, but plussed up on
some of these very vital issues, societal issues that we are
suffering in America right now.
Ms. Young. We have talked a lot. So, I won't go into detail
about the Community Violence Initiatives that are very
important with regard to that. Also, on the discretionary side,
the budget makes $209 million investments at DOJ that protect
marginalized communities, a $33 million or 19 percent increase
above last year with regard to a civil rights enforcement.
Ms. Jackson Lee. And so, I see the Administration is
engaged in a lot of negotiations. As I indicated earlier, I am
glad they dropped the previous one that seemed to be very
narrow. The idea of bipartisanship, I understand, still is part
of the mindset of our President. However, I just want to make
sure that our budget continues to emphasize eliminating poverty
and boosting communities that have long since suffered from
lack of attention. Is that one of the policy elements of your
budget at this time along with racial equity?
Ms. Young. Yes, including actions outside the budget
including the President signing of executive order on racial
equity and equity issues writ large.
Chairman Yarmuth. The gentlewoman's time has expired. Thank
you.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I thought I had a few seconds. Thank you.
Chairman Yarmuth. No, I gave you a few extra seconds.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you.
Chairman Yarmuth. I now recognize the gentleman from
California, Mr. Obernolte, for five minutes.
Mr. Obernolte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Ms. Young,
thank you for your testimony today. Also, thank you for the
discussion last week. I know I speak for my colleagues when I
say that your willingness to engage with us really indicates
that both for you and for the Administration, that you view the
budget as a collaborative process with Congress. And that is
something that we certainly agree with you on.
I would like to start by continuing a line of questioning
from Congressman Smucker. He was asking you about the budget's
commitment to reducing the federal deficit. And you said that
the commitment is reflected in the fact that all of the
spending increases were paid for by tax increases corresponding
to them. However, the budget projections in the out years still
have the deficit increasing instead of decreasing. So, what is
the budget's plan for getting the deficit under control?
Ms. Young. So, Congressman, I want to make sure we are--you
are not speaking apples to apples. So, yes, we started to see
annual deficit reductions in 2030 of $40 billion. And in the
second decade, a total of $2 trillion in deficit reduction. I
think you might also be referring to overall GDP numbers, which
do rise, but flatten out in out years.
Mr. Obernolte. OK. I am just looking at your--this is your
budget summary under deficit. In 2029, it is $1.3 trillion,
2030, at $1.48 trillion, and 2031, $1.57 trillion. So, that
just tells me that we are moving in the wrong direction rather
than the right direction in getting the deficit under control.
Do you not agree?
Ms. Young. Annual deficits start to show negative effects
in 2030 in our budget. We can certainly work with you to figure
out the discrepancy. But by 2030, we see $40 billion in annual
deficit savings.
Mr. Obernolte. OK. Let's work, because, I mean, that is not
what I am seeing in your budget summary. And the reason it is
important to me is that according to the Congressional Budget
Office, when GDP--when the federal debt reaches 200 percent of
GDP, that is going to represent an annual income loss to the
average American of over $9,000. So, that is something that is
obviously not desirable. And I hope everyone would have a
commitment to getting that under control.
I would also like to talk about something that Congressman
Smucker asked you about regarding interest rates. And I know
Congressman Feenstra had a concern about this as well. You had
said in your presentation that declining interest rates give us
the fiscal space to make these investments. But then when you
were responding to Congressman Smucker, you said this budget
assumes that interest rate increases in out years. So, I found
that confusing. And particularly in light of the fact that the
last time we saw this uptick in inflation was about 40 years
ago. And the result of that was that the interest rate on
government debt surpassed 10 percent. So, you know, how do you
reconcile that? What interest rate assumptions have you made in
this budget? And what would the effect be of interest rates
going to above 10 percent for government debt?
Ms. Young. Sir, we don't see indicators that interest rates
will rise to the levels you speak of. My intention in telling
you what we built our economic assumptions around were that we
were trying to be responsive and set reasonable. I think OMBs
in the past, have been criticized for making too optimistic of
assumptions. We tried a reasonable approach here where we did
show some interest rate growth, but it still remained very low
based on historical averages. And we still believe even with
that reasonable projection, gives us the fiscal space given the
historical lowness of where we are with interest rates. And we
don't see long-term indicators that we are going to reach rates
nearly as close to what you are mentioning.
Mr. Obernolte. OK. Well, I think we all join you in hoping
that that is the truth. That that remains to be seen whether
interest rates are actually going to increase again. It would
be terrible for our country and for our government and for this
budget should that occur.
And my last question. Something that you said in your
opening really interested me. You said that this budget ensures
that wealthy Americans pay their fair share. So, I just want to
clarify. Does that mean that if Congress would enact this
budget exactly as written, that wealthy Americans would be
paying their fair share?
Ms. Young. Sir, we think this is a start to ensure that the
wealthiest Americans pay as a percentage of what they make
closer to what regular Americans, our nurses and postal workers
and others that kept this place going during the pandemic, for
example, the rates that they pay compared to what their
salaries, their income brings in.
Mr. Obernolte. OK. So, just to be clear. Even if all of
these tax increases were enacted, you are saying wealthy
Americans wouldn't be paying their fair share.
Ms. Young. What I am saying is this does bring a more
equitable system and also helps us pay for the fiscal policies
we presented here.
Mr. Obernolte. I will take that as a yes. Mr. Chairman, I
yield back.
Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman's time has expired. I now
recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Moulton, for
five minutes.
Mr. Moulton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Acting Director
Young, thank you so much for being here today, and for staying
to end. We very much appreciate your testimony. And I want to
thank you and President Biden for the investment in rail in the
Fiscal Year 2022 budget. I would like to focus on that and on
transportation because it is such a central part of the
President's economic plan, his Jobs Plan. And, of course, we
know that transportation is the leading contributor to climate
change in the United States. The greatest contributor of carbon
emissions. And so, I would like to just ask a few questions
about that.
Obviously, rebuilding infrastructure is central to growing
the economy, but because this is the Budget Committee and let's
just focus on those economics and not just on the climate
change benefits. I assume it is the position of the
Administration to choose projects that have high, not low, ROI,
return on investment. Is that correct?
Ms. Young. That makes the most sense and it ensures that
our federal dollars go further. So, absolutely.
Mr. Moulton. Exactly. And it is something, it is a point
that I think my Republican colleagues fully agree with. They
want to see a good return on investment of American taxpayer
dollars as do Democrats on the Committee.
Now, high speed rail has one of the highest ROIs in the
transportation world. And that is why countries like Morocco,
Morocco has .5 percent of our GDP, and yet, they are investing
in high-speed rail. And I emphasize, they are not investing in
the slow excuse for high-speed rail that we are used to riding
on in the Northeast Corridor. They are investing in true modern
high-speed rail, 200 mile per hour trains because the ROI of
these projects is so high. China is doing the same thing. They
have invested so much in high-speed rail that they in just 12
years have built the largest high-speed rail network in the
entire world.
In the Pacific Northwest, Microsoft in the states of
Washington and Oregon recently commissioned a study that showed
that making a investment of about $40 billion in high-speed
rail to connect Portland and Eugene, Oregon with Seattle and
Vancouver would create about $355 billion in economic benefits,
in economic returns for the project. So, it is quite
significant. I also assume that given the title of the
President's economic plan, the Administration cares a lot about
jobs. Is that correct?
Ms. Young. Good paying jobs.
Mr. Moulton. Good paying jobs. And high-speed rail creates
nearly twice as many good paying jobs per billion dollars
invested as highway and transit projects. About 24,000 versus
13,000, according to a recent study. I would hasten to add that
subsidizing electric vehicles, which is also a big part of the
plan, actually reduces jobs. Most EV factories are highly
automated, taking jobs away from auto plants around the country
and giving them to robots. Now, I am not opposed to EVs. I am
not even opposed to subsidizing them because of the climate
change benefits. But they are not going to have a positive
impact on jobs.
Now, I also believe the Administration cares about reducing
congestion. We pay about $166 billion in congestion prices,
congestion costs every single year. Is that correct?
Ms. Young. Correct, especially when you look at lost
productivity.
Mr. Moulton. Right. And so, the FAST Act of 2015, which is
the most recent major surface transportation law, authorized
about $45 billion annually for the Federal Highway Program. But
with induced demand, congestion is only getting worse. In fact,
highway capital projects in urban areas cost $500 billion to
states between 1993 and 2017. And congestion grew by more than
144 percent. That is much faster than population growth. Look,
I am all for electric vehicles, but if all they are going to do
is produce silent traffic jams, that is not going to improve
congestion, is it?
Ms. Young. We certainly think you have to look at EVs from
the climate standpoint. And, you know, for the foreseeable
future, people are going to be driving. So, that is a
substantial view as to why we need to invest in EVs.
Mr. Moulton. A lot of people will be driving because they
don't have the alternative. They don't have an option. We don't
have high-speed rail at all in America. It is an option in
almost every other developed country in the world. So, I would
encourage you to make sure that truly transformative
investments in transportation are part of this plan. We want to
recognize those economic benefits. That $355 billion that comes
from a mere $40 billion investment in the Pacific Northwest,
compared that to adding one lane to I-5 in either direction, it
costs twice as much. And there are no economic benefits from
that because travel times don't improve. So, rather than just
silent traffic jams, let's invest in the future of
transportation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman's time has expired. I now
recognized the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Donalds, for five
minutes.
Mr. Donalds. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Director Young, I
actually want to pick up where Mr. Obernolte of California left
off. He talked about essentially this is the starting point of
your tax proposal to make sure the tax system is equitable. If
this is your starting point, what is the finish line?
Ms. Young. Frankly, sir, the tax proposal in itself we
think is a necessary step for reform for fairness. But it is
also a tool to ensure that we have some fiscal discipline and
fully offset the proposals we put forward. So, we have to----
Mr. Donalds. Yes, but Director Young, I----
Ms. Young [continuing]. look at revenues we need.
Mr. Donalds. Director Young, hold on. I am going to reclaim
my time a little bit. I have heard that explanation throughout
this hearing. I am asking you specifically, if this is the
start in the mind of yourself or the Administration, what is
the finish line? Where are we going when it comes to tax
policy?
Ms. Young. Congressman, this is the policy on the table.
And we would ask you to take close consideration.
Mr. Donalds. All right. Real quick, let me ask you a
question. If the desire of the Administration in part is to
make sure that all Americans are paying the same percentage of
their income, incomes taxes, would the Administration support a
flat tax?
Ms. Young. Congressman, the policy is in front of us. It
ensures that the wealthiest amongst us begin to pay a fair
share compared to regular Americans----
Mr. Donalds. Hold on I want to----
Ms. Young [continuing]. people who are----
Mr. Donalds. Hold on I want to reclaim my time. Because if
you say fair, that means the same percentage. So, would the
Administration support a flat tax?
Ms. Young. You have our proposal in front of us, which is
not a flat tax.
Mr. Donalds. OK. I am going to move on to somewhere else
because I do want to get to issues associated with the border.
You said earlier in your testimony, in part, we are talking
about border security and what the budget speaks to about
border security, that walls don't work, essentially. When you
guys were crafting this budget, did you actually have
consultation with members of border security--border patrol--
excuse me?
Ms. Young. Of course we talked to the Department of
Homeland Security.
Mr. Donalds. But did you talk with members that actually
worked border facilities on the southern border? Did you talk
to them? Did you consult with them?
Ms. Young. We talked to the Department of Homeland
Security, which can speak to all issues, and that includes CBP.
Mr. Donalds. OK. Quick question for you. Currently, there
is a contract to finish completion of sections of our southern
border that the Biden Administration has halted. Are the
contractors who had contracts signed with the federal
government are they currently being paid simply not to build
the border wall they were contracted to build?
Ms. Young. Congressman, when the President turned off the
inappropriate national emergency, what that did was allow us to
return funding back to the Department of Defense. So, those
contractors' paid with Department of Defense money, they----
Mr. Donalds. Director Young----
Ms. Young [continuing]. did not continue.
Mr. Donalds [continuing]. are the--Director Young, I am
going to reclaim my time. Are the contractors being paid?
Ms. Young. We have turned that off. Most of them, I think
you are referring to were paid with Department of Defense
money, which we found inappropriate and we stopped those
contracts.
Mr. Donalds. So, they are not being paid at all. Is that
your answer?
Ms. Young. They are not being paid.
Mr. Donalds. OK.
Ms. Young. Not--Department----
Mr. Donalds. Quick question for you.
Ms. Young [continuing]. of Defense contractors are not
being paid.
Mr. Donalds. Quick question for you. I have a question for
you here. You know, I assume, like everybody else, your house
has walls. I mean, that is just a gross assumption, but it is
one that, you know, for the purpose of this exercise. If the
contractor that built your home didn't build one of the walls,
would the walls in your home actually serve the purpose? If one
of the walls weren't constructed, would the walls in your home
serve a purpose? Would it contain heat, air conditioning? Would
it keep people in and out? Would it serve its purpose?
Ms. Young. I think we are trying to compare home walls to
walls along a complex border. I certainly see where we are
going. I don't see how those things are comparable.
Mr. Donalds. Director Young, have you, yourself, actually
been to the border to see the border wall with your own eyes?
Ms. Young. I have.
Mr. Donalds. You have seen it. I have seen it. You do
realize that are holes in the wall on the southern border that
have not been completed by previous iterations of Congress?
Ms. Young. I realize that there was a bipartisan opposition
against taking Department of Defense funding to complete
sections of a wall that had dubious merits to begin with.
Mr. Donalds. I guess, Director, here is what I am trying to
understand. How can the border wall actually work if Congress
refuses or the Administration pulls back contracts to actually
complete the wall? That would be similar to the contractor, you
know, building, frankly, the entire wall for a home, but not
putting in the windows. Wouldn't you agree?
Ms. Young. It was also important to put in windows in
wellness facilities and other things. The last Administration
stole to fund the border wall. We put it back.
Mr. Donalds. Last question for your, Director. Are you
aware that border patrol has informed people on the southern
border that the aerostat balloons and bridge cameras are being
removed because they say it cost too much money?
Ms. Young. I have not heard that.
Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman's time----
Mr. Donalds. I am done with my time. I yield back.
Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman's time has expired. I now
recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr. Morelle, for five
minutes. You need to unmute, Mr. Morelle.
Mr. Morelle. Yes, sorry. This is my first Zoom session. I
apologize. First of all, Mr. Chairman, thanks for holding this
important hearing to discuss the President's budget and I
certainly want to echo the comments of many of my colleagues in
offering a thank you to Acting Director Young for your service
to the country in the past and for your continued service in
this role.
The budget calls for major investments in childcare, which
would significantly solve the affordability problem that most
families with young children experience. As you know, Director
Young, there is an unprecedented number of women, particularly
mothers, had to drop out of the labor force because of the
pandemic. So, could you just detail a little bit how the
childcare proposal in this budget will help us to reverse that
trend?
Ms. Young. Absolutely, sir. As we have talked about a
little today, this budget assumes that working mothers, working
fathers, need safe and affordable places to send their children
to make sure that those same children have food on the table
and roofs over their head. So, this is a necessary investment,
long overdue. And this is exactly what we are talking about
about not just getting back to pre-pandemic, but building back
better in investments that have been sorely lacking. And if we
do this right, we will see economic growth because people can
be assured that their families are taken care of.
Mr. Morelle. And this is particularly true at the lower
ends of the economic scale. So, this is really allowing
everyone to participate in what we certainly hope, I think, all
of us, an expanded economy.
The budget proposes 7.4 billion for the Childcare and
Development Block Grant, which I believe is about a $1.5
billion increase over the previous fiscal year. Can you just
give me a sense of how you expect to invest in these areas with
the new dollars surrounding childcare, what the plan is for
doing that?
Ms. Young. You know, I think if you talk to people who have
worked on this a long time, they would say the $1.5 billion is
long overdue. So, you know, it will certainly go to places that
we have underinvested in and not provided enough federal
assistance for years. But also, that is one part of the
childcare budget, that is the discretionary side, also making
large investments in the American Families Plan. But the annual
budget is important to make sure we get that baseline up and
ensure annual continuation as the Families Plan phases out in
the long run.
Mr. Morelle. Very good. I know the President has also made
clear his commitment to advance racial equity through a whole
of government approach. And in particular, forums that would
address the disparate experiences and outcomes of families of
color in the child welfare system. Can you just talk a little
bit about how this budget helps us meet the goal of improving
those outcomes?
Ms. Young. One, the big thing is it is not just he budget
document. But the President's executive order calls for the
government to look writ large at all of its programs and
including how we implement programs. So, not just new spending,
but retool the way we approach and make sure we are bringing
services to all American people and really looking at
communities that, you know, or have historically been left
behind in this economy.
Mr. Morelle. Well, I appreciate that. I am also
enthusiastic about what, frankly, what the Congress and what
the Administration have done to significantly reduce child
poverty. My area of Rochester, New York, we have the second
highest child poverty rates in America. Experts estimate the
tax credits and other relief for families enacted in the
American Rescue Plan would cut child poverty by more than half.
Can you tell us what kind of impact the expanded child tax
credits would have on American families in our economy and
about efforts to make this permanent?
Ms. Young. Absolutely. We have a 5-year expansion of the
child tax credit as part of the American Families Plan. We do
believe that the reduction in child poverty, you have mentioned
half of child poverty just with the expansion of the Rescue
Plan, we consider the Families Plan an improvement on that. And
we know a lot of members want to see a permanent change there
and certainly we want to work with you as you work on options
to do that.
Mr. Morelle. Very good. Just two closing comments if I can
in my remaining few seconds. First of all, thanks. You have
been very available to Members of this Committee and Members of
Congress. I think that is something we are all very, very
grateful for. It helps us really dive deeply into this.
And the last thing I would say is the reason I focus on
child poverty and daycare is, if we want to expand the economy
for everyone, we have to make these investments. And I am
pleased that you and the Administration will do that. And with
that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman's time has expired. I now
yield myself a few minutes. I am going to get you out of here
relatively quickly. And I thank you so much for your patience
and your willingness to stay. I always reserve my time until
the end so it gives Members a few more minutes to get to
something else and also, I get to have the last word, which is
always a nice thing.
First thing I will say is if anyone had any question about
whether you were the right person for the permanent director's
job, I would think after this appearance they couldn't possibly
have. So, I wish you the best of luck with that. You have my
strong endorsement.
Second, about two years ago, I spoke to the rotary club in
Louisville, and the theme of my speech was there were three
things that I thought we had to start doing immediately and
totally emphasize if we were going to have a viable future. One
was deal with climate change. This budget does that. One was to
concentrate on early childhood education. This budget does
that. And the third was try to figure out how we are going to
handle artificial intelligence. And with the research
commitment that is made in this budget, I suspect that that
will be achieved as well. In terms of making the decisions for
the future, I think this budget deserves a great deal of
commendation.
Finally, I am going to give a quick speech that I give all
the time when people worry about debt. And I will ask you agree
or not agree. We have been accumulating debt in this country
for 230 some odd years. Has anybody ever been asked to pay off
their share of the debt?
Ms. Young. No, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Yarmuth. Is there any likelihood that that would
happen?
Ms. Young. No, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Yarmuth. And there is a book out now called The
Deficit Myth by an economist, Dr. Stephanie Kelton. And when
she talks about the debt, she says you shouldn't think of it
the debt, the national debt. You should think about that as the
total investment that the federal government has made in the
United States people, the population, over the history of the
country, minus taxes. Does that seem like a fair
characterization of debt to you?
Ms. Young. It seems fair and I will add if we are concerned
about the debt when it comes to investments, we have to be
concerned about it when it comes to consideration of tax cuts.
Chairman Yarmuth. Absolutely. And then just to deal for an
instant with the question of inflation. We saw, as many of my
colleagues from the other side mentioned, a relatively high
monthly rate of inflation. Part of it as I recall is that I
think one estimate was 1/3 of that was the increase in the
price of rental cars because last year there was no business
for the rental car companies. They had to sell all of their
vehicles and now they have to rebuy them. So, certainly, not
something that would be expected to recur, is it?
Ms. Young. That is true. That is one of the things we saw.
And just one of those interesting things after coming out of a
once-in-a-generation pandemic, you were surprised to see, but
it is not surprising that we see come quirks coming out of the
pandemic. And we think a lot of this is base effects from that.
Chairman Yarmuth. Lumber would be another example of that.
The lumber mills expected a steep drop in demand so they
stopped producing and then turned out that everybody decided
they wanted to spend more on their house and the price went way
up. And but over the last 10 days or so, the price of lumber
has dropped 30 percent. So, these things do level out.
And finally on inflation, the percentage increase has a lot
to do with what you are comparing it to. This was the second
month, basically, of shut down of a year ago. So, you would
naturally expect as we come out of a pandemic that the
percentage increase based on a depressed level of activity and
pricing a year ago would be higher than normal. Is that not
correct?
Ms. Young. Yes, and that is what I mean when we have to
look at base effects. What are we comparing it to? And last
year absolutely had, you know, pandemic depressed prices.
Chairman Yarmuth. Well, once again, I want to thank you for
your responses and your knowledge and the work you have done on
this budget. And I look forward to working with you to get this
implemented for the benefits of the American people. Thank you
very much for being with us today. And if there is no further
business, without objection, this hearing is adjourned.
Ms. Young. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Whereupon, at 2:13 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]