[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]






 
                THE PRESIDENT'S FISCAL YEAR 2023 BUDGET

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               before the

                        COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

            HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, D.C., MARCH 29, 2022

                               __________

                            Serial No. 117-8

                               __________

           Printed for the use of the Committee on the Budget
           
           
           
           
 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]          
           


                       Available on the Internet:
                            www.govinfo.gov
                            
                            
                           ______

             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
 47-496                WASHINGTON : 2022 
                           
                            
                            
                            
                        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                MIKE CAREY, Ohio
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., March 29, 2022.................     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
    Hon. Shalanda Young, Director, Office of Management and 
      Budget (OMB)...............................................    11
        Prepared statement of....................................    13
    Hon. Sheila Jackson Lee, Member, Committee on the Budget, 
      report submitted for the record............................    58
    Questions submitted for the record...........................    70
    Answers submitted for the record.............................    75


                THE PRESIDENT'S FISCAL YEAR 2023 BUDGET

                              ----------                              


                        TUESDAY, MARCH 29, 2022

                           House of Representatives
                                    Committee on the Budget
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m., at 
210 Cannon Building, Hon. John A. Yarmuth [Chairman of the 
Committee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Yarmuth, Jeffries, Higgins, Boyle, 
Price, Schakowsky, Kildee, Morelle, Horsford, Wexton, Scott, 
Jackson Lee, Cooper, Sires, Moulton, Jayapal; Smith, Kelly, 
McClintock, Grothman, Smucker, Burgess, Carter, Cline, Boebert, 
Donalds, Feenstra, Good, Hinson, Obernolte, and Carey.
    Chairman Yarmuth. This hearing will come to order.
    Good morning and welcome to the Budget Committee's hearing 
on ``The President's Fiscal Year 2023 Budget''. At the outset, 
I ask unanimous consent that the Chair be authorized to declare 
a recess at any time.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    I will start by going over a few housekeeping matters. 
Today the Committee is holding a hybrid hearing. Members may 
participate remotely or in person. For individuals 
participating remotely, 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. If you are participating remotely 
and are experiencing connectivity issues, please contact staff 
immediately so those issues can be resolved.
    Members participating in the hearing room or on the remote 
platform are responsible for unmuting themselves when they seek 
recognition. We are not permitted to unmute Members unless they 
explicitly request assistance. If you are participating 
remotely and 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.
    I would like to remind Members participating remotely in 
this proceeding to keep your camera on at all times, even if 
you are not under recognition by the Chair. Members may not 
participate in more than one committee proceeding 
simultaneously. If you are on the remote platform and choose to 
participate in a different proceeding, please turn your camera 
off.
    Finally, we have established an email inbox for submitting 
documents before and during Committee proceedings and we have 
distributed that email address to your staff.
    Now, I will introduce our witness.
    This morning we will be hearing from the Honorable Shalanda 
Young, Director of the Office of Management and Budget. And per 
our agreement with Director Young, the Committee will recess 
briefly around noon and reconvene around 12:30 p.m.
    I now yield myself five minutes for an opening statement.
    Good morning, Director Young. I want to thank you for 
appearing before our Committee today to testify on the 
President's Fiscal Year 2023 Budget. I also want to 
congratulate you on your historic confirmation. We are honored 
to have you with us here today, and OMB is very lucky to have 
you at the helm.
    This month marked two years since the World Health 
Organization declared COVID-19 a pandemic. Since then, our 
nation experienced the worst economic downturn since the Great 
Depression. Families have lost their homes, their savings, 
their livelihoods, and their loved ones.
    When President Biden took office, the pace of vaccine 
distribution was dismal. There was no comprehensive plan to get 
shots into arms, there was an enormous gulf between what 
families and our economy needed and how the federal government 
was responding.
    That changed with the American Rescue Plan, which this 
Committee was proud to lead. It kick-started a mass vaccination 
campaign, reinvigorated our economy, and lifted millions of 
Americans out of poverty. Since the passage of the American 
Rescue Plan, the speed and strength of our recovery has blown 
past economists' expectations. 2021 was the greatest year of 
job growth in American history. During President Biden's first 
year in office, GDP grew at the fastest rate in nearly four 
decades. Unemployment has fallen to 3.8 percent, the fastest 
decline in recorded history. And the resurgence in worker power 
has led to wage increases across the board, with wages for low-
income workers up the most.
    The President's budget request for 2023 takes the next 
steps toward achieving our shared goals. It provides a 
discretionary top line of nearly $1.6 trillion for annually 
funded programs, building on the enacted 2022 appropriations 
and continuing to reverse years of chronic underfunding. Its 
fiscally responsible and pro-growth investments in education, 
affordable housing, research and development, healthcare, and 
other vital priorities will not only better the lives of 
Americans today but strengthen our long-term economic outlook 
as well.
    This budget will expand the productive capacity of our 
economy and put money back in the pockets of the working 
Americans who power it.
    It will lower costs by fixing supply chains and increasing 
the amount of goods made here in America. It will cut energy 
costs for families while investing in climate science and 
innovation so we can tackle the climate crisis and lead in the 
clean energy economy. It will increase Pell Grants and provide 
more training and apprenticeships, so all Americans have the 
opportunity to succeed in a 21st century economy.
    The President's Budget is also a call to action on key 
areas of bipartisan consensus: tackling the mental health 
crisis, upholding our sacred obligation to our veterans, 
fighting the opioid epidemic, and investing in cutting edge 
research to end cancer as we know it.
    We can afford to invest in the American people. Rather than 
handing out tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires, the 
Biden Administration has outlined a new economic vision for 
America: invest in America, educate the next generation of 
Americans, grow our work force, and build the economy from the 
bottom up and middle out.
    This is how we meet the needs of families and communities. 
This is how we strengthen our recovery and grow our economy so 
that we build a better, stronger, more secure, and more 
inclusive nation for generations to come.
    And we pay for this new economic vision with long-overdue 
reforms to make our tax code more equitable. This starts with 
making sure corporations and the richest Americans pay their 
fair share in taxes. The Biden budget raises the corporate tax 
rate to 28 percent, which, by the way, is still much lower than 
the 35 percent tax rate we had up until 2017. It is completely 
unacceptable that hard-working families often pay a higher tax 
rate than the wealthiest Americans. The President's budget 
fixes this by proposing a 20 percent minimum income tax on the 
very wealthiest households worth more than $100 million. 
Together, these proposals will help re-balance our tax code to 
ensure it rewards work, not wealth.
    I am optimistic that we can get this done. As we continue 
to work with our colleagues in the Senate to deliver a 
reconciliation bill to the President's desk, I am eager to get 
to work on a 2023 budget and appropriations process that will 
deliver for the American people.
    Director Young, I look forward to your testimony today and 
hearing more from other Administration officials in the coming 
weeks.
    Now I yield five minutes to the Ranking Member, Mr. Smith, 
for his opening statement.
    [The prepared statement of Chairman Yarmuth follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
    
   
    Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Director Young, welcome back in person to the House Budget 
Committee, and congratulations on your confirmation. It was way 
overdue. And congratulations on your new child. A lot has 
happened in a year. So, we are grateful you are here.
    When you testified last year on President Biden's Fiscal 
Year 1922 budget, alarm bells were already going off about the 
impact that the President's agenda would have on the economy, 
what it would have on the inflation, and the security of our 
southern border.
    At that time, the crises created by President Biden and the 
House and Senate Democrats' agenda were already piling up. That 
list has only grown since--including an energy crisis, with 
folks paying over $4.00 a gallon at the pump. In fact, since 
President Biden has been in office gas prices has went up 79 
percent. That is tough for the folks back home. Then there is a 
crime crisis in communities across this country, and an 
education crisis that has perpetuated the mistreatment of kids 
in our schools under the guise of COVID-19.
    So now we have President Biden's Fiscal Year 1923 budget, a 
proposal that deliberately makes every crisis American families 
are facing because of President Biden and the one party 
Democrat rule in Congress that much worse. American families 
are facing a spike in prices not seen in this country in over 
40 years. A $3,500 inflation tax on every family in America 
just last year alone. The President's budget keeps--keeps the 
reckless spending going on, doubling down on the delusion that 
the answer out of inflation is to spend more money. This 
proposal spends $73 trillion dollars over the next 10 years. 
And also it provides the Build Back Broke agenda which this 
budget tries to cover up using a deficit neutral reserve fund. 
The Congressional Budget Office though has confirmed there is 
nothing--nothing deficit neutral about the agenda. CBO 
confirmed it adds $3 trillion to our nation's debt.
    As gas prices have skyrocketed, the President's budget 
surrenders American energy independence and attacks American 
energy companies so that we are more reliant on foreign nations 
for our energy needs--more dependent on countries like Russia, 
China, and Venezuela, Iran, at a time when the world seems to 
be even more of a hostile place.
    This budget also includes potentially up to $4 trillion in 
tax increases, more than $1.5 trillion of that falling on 
American families. $2,000 for every average American tax 
increase is in this proposal. That--that is absolutely 
terrible.
    Then, under the Build Back Better agenda you have covered 
up in a deficit neutral reserve fund. Over the next 10 years 
Biden's budget calls for $58 trillion in total taxes--the 
highest sustained tax burden in American history. And while 
folks see their taxes go up and the value of their paychecks go 
down, Biden's budget gives a 12 percent raise to the IRS to 
target hard-working Americans.
    We already know where this type of tax and spending agenda 
is going. Look at the past year after the Democrats $2 trillion 
Biden Bailout Bill was signed into law. Jobs in 2021 grew less 
than CBO said they would before that $2 trillion spending bill 
came on the scene.
    After over 2.9 million border encounters occurred since 
Biden took office, the President's budget continues the same 
catch and release policies that have resulted in the worst 
border crisis in over 20 years. There is no commitment to 
border security in this budget, no using the $1.9 billion in 
border wall funding that was just renewed as part of the most 
recent omnibus spending bill. The budget allows $350 million in 
border wall still to continue rusting away while contractors 
are paid billions to babysit unused material. It cuts funding 
for Immigration and Customs Enforcement by $150 million. All of 
it is a slap in the face to the men and women dealing with a 
security and humanitarian crisis at the southern border. The 
President says show me your budget and I will tell you what you 
value. For the second straight year we see the President values 
a government that tells its citizens how to live their lives, 
he values an economy where everything from the clothes you put 
on your back to the food you put on your table to the gas in 
your car is more expensive. He values open borders and energy 
dependence. He values debt--a lot of it--$16 trillion to be 
exact.
    The American people are not going to buy this budget--
because frankly we can't afford it.
    I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    [The prepared statement of Jason Smith follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) 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 inbox 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.
    Once again, I want to thank Director Young for being here 
this morning. The Committee has received your written statement 
and it will be made part of the formal hearing record.
    You will have five minutes to give your oral remarks and 
you may begin when you are ready.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SHALANDA YOUNG, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF 
                  MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET (OMB)

    Ms. Young. Thank you so much, Chairman Yarmuth, Ranking 
Member Smith, Members of the Committee. It is so nice to be 
back to my old place of employment. Thank you for the 
opportunity to present the President's Fiscal Year 2023 budget.
    Under the President's leadership our country has made 
historic progress in the face of unprecedented challenges. We 
created more than 6.5 million jobs in 2021, the most our 
country has recorded in a single year ever. Our economy grew at 
5.7 percent, the strongest growth in nearly 40 years. The 
unemployment rate has fallen to 3.8 percent, the fastest 
decline in recorded history. And the deficit is on track to 
drop by more than $1.3 trillion, the largest ever 1-year 
decline.
    This progress was not on accident. It is a direct result of 
this President's strategy to combat the pandemic and grow our 
economy from the bottom up and the middle out. The President's 
2023 budget details his vision to expand on that progress and 
deliver the agenda he laid out in his State of the Union, to 
build a better America, reduce the deficit, reduce costs for 
families, and grow the economy from the bottom up and the 
middle out.
    Since taking office the President has put forth proposals 
to Congress that would lower healthcare, child care, energy 
costs, and other costs for families, reduce the deficit, and 
expand our economy's productive capacity. The budget reflects 
his commitment to working with Congress to pass legislation 
that achieves those goals. This budget advances a bipartisan 
unity agenda, including proposals to combat the opioid 
epidemic, tackle the mental health crisis, support our 
veterans, and accelerate progress against cancer. It builds on 
the bipartisan funding bill Congress passed earlier this month, 
it makes key investments in the American people. From expanding 
economic capacity and improving our public health 
infrastructure to combatting the climate crisis and advancing 
equity, dignity, and security for all Americans.
    And during what will be a decisive decade for the world, 
the budget strengthens our military and leverages America's 
renewed strength at home so our nation is prepared to meet 
pressing global challenges and manage crises as they arise.
    With robust investments in our diplomatic and development 
agencies, the national security budget as a whole will deepen 
partnerships and alliances and position the United States to 
compete with China and any other nation from a position of 
strength. As we have seen over the past month, our renewed 
partnerships and alliances have been vital to countering 
Russian aggression in Europe. And I would like to thank 
Congress for the supplemental funding to support Ukraine and 
our regional partners.
    The budget makes these investments in a fiscally 
responsible way, reducing deficits by more than $1 trillion and 
improving our country's long-term outlook. That is because the 
budget's investments are more than fully paid for through tax 
reforms that corporations and the wealthiest Americans pay 
their fair share. That includes a new proposal requiring the 
richest Americans, billionaires and those worth more than $100 
million, to pay a tax rate of at least 20 percent on all their 
income, including investment income that currently goes 
untaxed. The budget also fulfills the President's promise that 
no one earning less than $400,000 will see a penny of new taxes 
and it will reduce the deficits to less than half of last 
year's levels as a share of economy while keeping the economic 
burden of debt low.
    Overall, the budget puts forward an economically and 
fiscally responsible path forward, addressing our country's 
long-term fiscal challenges while making smart investments that 
will produce stronger growth and broadly share prosperity for 
generations to come.
    Thank you for the opportunity to appear today and I look 
forward to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Shalanda Young follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
       
    Chairman Yarmuth. Thank you very much, Director Young, for 
your opening remarks.
    We will now begin our question and answer session.
    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 
electronically to the email inbox we have established within 
seven days of the hearing.
    I defer my questioning to the end, so I now recognize the 
gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Price, for five minutes.
    Mr. Price. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to our 
Director, Shalanda Young. We are very proud of the work you are 
doing, very impressed by your presentation here. Those of us 
who worked with you on the Appropriations Committee have a 
special pride and satisfaction in the job you are doing. So 
congratulations. We are glad to see you and we are also glad to 
see the President's budget.
    As the Chairman of the Transportation-HUD Subcommittee, we 
will look forward to early hearings with Secretaries Fudge and 
Buttigieg and we will, of course, as usual, look at every line 
of this budget proposal with care. We like what see so far 
though, I must say. The Department of Housing and Urban 
Development has a 9.5 percent increase, much needed. We can use 
it very wisely I think to address homelessness and housing 
costs, to expand and improve the housing stock. And we intend, 
as you do, to focus throughout on safety, on equity, on climate 
resiliency, and energy efficiency.
    The transportation side of the budget, also looks good. 
That is a 2 percent increase. It is building in good ways on 
the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act with a particular 
emphasis on transit and passenger rail.
    And so we look forward to scrutinizing this budget and 
moving forward to put it before the House at an early point.
    This morning I want to concentrate on another hat I wear 
and a program that I have been concerned about for my entire 
career and that I think is very important for us to focus on at 
this juncture, and that is national service, AmeriCorps--senior 
AmeriCorps and regular AmeriCorps. The budget has a $1.34 
billion item for AmeriCorps. That is an increase over $1.15 
billion in the current year. It also follows a historic $1 
billion investment in the American Rescue Plan, which as you 
know helped AmeriCorps respond to the pandemic, diversify its 
work force. There was a lot that we were able to achieve there 
with that additional funding. We increased AmeriCorps' 
diversity and its equity efforts, we increased the living 
allowances of Members, and we enabled some redeployment to go 
on with respect to pandemic needs.
    Now, what is the Administration's plan going forward? That 
is my question. We of course want to sustain these roles that 
have been taken on during the pandemic. Is this money 
sufficient to do that to sustain the increases that we have had 
during the pandemic period? And what is your vision for 
national service moving forward? The other element in this of 
course is the proposed Civilian Climate Corps, which has yet to 
be enacted by us. It was enacted by the House, has yet to be 
enacted by the full Congress. But I am interested in what you 
envision here. What role the Civilian Climate Corps plays in 
the budget, and what kind of potential this has to not just 
augment AmeriCorps, but give it a stronger focus on 
conservation and on community resilience?
    So what is the future of AmeriCorps in the Administration's 
view and how is it reflected in this budget?
    Ms. Young. Mr. Price--I would like to call you Chairman 
Price. He was my first Chairman. I worked for him on the 
Appropriations Committee.
    One, I want to thank you for your work on AmeriCorps, also 
National HDP, the House Democracy Partnership. Mr. Price likes 
to focus his attention on programs that bring out the best 
value of Americans. And I want to thank you for your focus. I 
did a service project with the new head of AmeriCorps on Martin 
Luther King Day. I want you to know our commitment to 
AmeriCorps is strong. And I think one of the things budgets of 
past administrations would do, look at past legislation that 
was passed, like the billion in ARP and reduce the budgeted 
amount, ensure retraction. We are not doing that. We are 
building on top of the Rescue Plan funding that was provided. 
As you mentioned, we are providing $1.3 billion here, $189 
million increase compared to the enacted level--so an 
expansion. It would allow AmeriCorps increase the member living 
allowance and volunteer stipends. It would also support 
increases in higher education awards for AmeriCorps volunteers. 
That aligns with the President's Pell Grant increase. The 
budget also includes $20 million for staffing at AmeriCorps to 
implement the Civilian Climate Corps that you mentioned. And 
that would be in partnership with the Department of Labor and 
Department of Interior in USDA.
    Mr. Price. Thank you. I do think the Civilian Climate Corps 
is a powerful idea and I am glad you are assuming that it is 
fully enacted and that you will have these costs accounted for 
in this budget.
    And I also think as we deliberate on this budget, and this 
bridges two or three subcommittees, we do need to pay attention 
not just to the full strength of AmeriCorps, but also how it is 
organized, and particularly how this Climate Corps is fully 
integrated into AmeriCorps operations.
    So thank you for that and we will look forward to working 
with you on that.
    Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman's time has expired.
    I now yield 10 minutes to the Ranking Member.
    Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Director, inflation is at a 40-year high--7.9 percent in 
the year-to-year report from February. Fed Chairman Powell has 
now said that when it comes to calling the inflation crisis 
transitory, which the Administration has done repeatedly, he 
says ``I think it's probably a good time to retire that word''. 
I could not agree more.
    Have you spoken with the President about what can be done 
to solve the inflation crisis?
    Ms. Young. Ranking Member Smith, we absolutely talk about 
inflation along with economic growth, wage growth. We have to 
make sure that as we grow the economy. As you heard talked 
about we grew the economy the largest rate in 40 years. We also 
have to take in account with that came higher levels of 
inflation.
    Mr. Smith. So, it is very concerning. I am glad that you 
have spoken to the President about inflation. What is 
concerning is this budget proposal projects starting today that 
inflation will be at 2 percent for the next 10 years. Because 
the first year you say 4.7 percent, but already for the year it 
is over 8 percent. So, it would have to be 2 percent every 
month for the rest of the year to meet those averages, plus 2 
percent for the next nine years. Completely unrealistic when we 
are probably going to hit double digits inflation.
    So, to hit the inflation projections in this budget, it is 
just--it is madness. What policies in this budget brings it 
down were inflation will be at 2 percent?
    Ms. Young. Mr. Smith, I am happy to walk you through how we 
do calculation for the budget. These numbers were locked in 
early November. At the time we were in line with blue chip 
private forecasters. But inflation is clearly at a level----
    Mr. Smith. So, five months--Director, five months ago you 
locked in these inflation numbers. So, you did 4.7 percent five 
months ago and two weeks ago it came out at 7.9 percent. You 
guys were off by almost double in that 5-month span. I just 
want to know what policies do you all have in this proposal, 
because spending $73 trillion just seems like it is only going 
to fuel the inflation fire.
    So, I would like to know how you are going to help the 
people of Southern Missouri to be able to afford food on their 
table, clothes on their backs, and gasoline in their cars.
    Ms. Young. Yes, I am sure you have paid close attention to 
the President's plan on dealing with competition in the private 
sector and also improving supply chain challenges, which are 
global in nature. I would also point out that inflation is a 
global trend. Almost every developed country is seeing 
inflationary growth. What that tells us is that we have a 
global issue. It is not one bill, one country, specific 
policies. This is something all major countries are facing 
coming out of the pandemic.
    Mr. Smith. So, I would be curious, does the President 
believe spending $73 trillion over the next 10 years will 
reduce inflation or increase inflation?
    Ms. Young. The President believes the fiscally responsible 
thing to do is to pay for our proposals. That is why you see 
this budget bring down deficits over the 10-year period by over 
a trillion dollars.
    Mr. Smith. Well, Director, this proposal over the next 10 
years actually increases the national debt by $16 trillion, 
which is going to have more than a trillion dollar deficit 
every year for the next 10 years, which is the highest 
sustained amount of deficit in the history of our nation. And 
you are saying that this proposal is bringing down the 
deficits?
    Ms. Young. Ranking Member, I know we all know that deficits 
and debt are two different things. We are bringing the deficit 
by a trillion dollars. The debt rises, as many of you know, 
because of entitlements. What this President is not going to do 
is put forth proposals to cut benefits for our seniors in this 
country.
    Mr. Smith. You know, I think that we all care about our 
seniors. Social and Medicare. That is why this proposal, 
Director, is very alarming to me, that by the year 2032--by the 
year 2032, thanks to this $73 trillion worth of spending and 
the more than trillion dollar deficits every year by the 
proposal of this budget, that we are going to be at $45 
trillion of our national debt. But just paying interest on that 
national debt is going to cost us $1.1 trillion just on 
interest, which means that will now be the third largest 
program that we have to pay for in our entire government behind 
Medicare and Social Security.
    So, this reckless spending is actually devastating our 
seniors, because now it is competing with them as being one of 
the most costly programs.
    Let us go onto the tax increases. Analysis of the tax 
increases in the President's budget shows they will lead to 
fewer jobs in the country and a reduction in wages. What is the 
President's rational for imposing tax increases that will harm 
jobs, particularly when the country is trying to emerge from a 
pandemic?
    Ms. Young. I would be interested in seeing your analysis. 
The President has been very clear, he will not subscribe to 
trickledown economics. He believes that we should invest in the 
middle class, those working to get to the middle class. And he 
has a policy, and this budget follows it, not to raise taxes 
for anyone making less than $400,000.
    Mr. Smith. In this proposal you allow expiration of the Tax 
Cut and Jobs Act, correct?
    Ms. Young. Yes.
    Mr. Smith. And so, by expiration of the Tax Cut and Jobs 
Act, that is going to raise taxes on every average day American 
by $2,000 a year. And those are people making less than 
$100,000. So, in fact this budget does that.
    It also increases taxes on gasoline and fossil fuels by $45 
billion over the next 10 years. And like I said, the people of 
Southern Missouri, they are struggling to put gas in their car 
when gasoline has gone up 79 percent since Joe Biden took the 
oath of office here. And what his solution in this budget, to 
only increase taxes more on their gasoline, driving up $4.50 a 
gallon per gas to $5-6 bucks. How do you respond to that?
    Ms. Young. Easily. I think it was a bipartisan interest 
here to ensure that we counter Russian aggression as strongly 
as possible. And the President reminded the American people 
with that would come possibly higher gas prices and that has 
happened. He has been very clear with the American people that 
a strong response could possibly cause this to happen. Since 
Russian aggression gas has gone up about $1. It is unfortunate 
that Russia has chosen to bring the global economy down this 
path, but it was appropriate for all developing countries to 
stand together and push back on this tyrant and his actions.
    Mr. Smith. Director, I appreciate your comments and you are 
doing a great job for the President but let us get the facts 
out to the American people. On his first week in office 
President Biden did Executive Orders to eliminate the Keystone 
XL Pipeline that allowed us to purchase energy from our 
neighbors in Canada, also freezing new oil and drilling on 
federal lands. And let's put it this way, on April 24, 2020 at 
a Casey's in Southeast, Missouri you could buy gasoline at $.97 
a gallon. That was under a Trump Presidency. You can't find gas 
at $.97 a gallon. In 2020 we were energy independent. We were 
exporting energy in this country. But under the direct policies 
of President Biden and the Democrat controlled Congress, they 
reversed those policies to make us energy dependent on Russia, 
on Venezuela, on people who love to burn our flag. And it so 
unfortunate this budget proposal only wants to tax the energy 
industry more to make it harder on everyday Americans. And the 
Americans are going to see it.
    I am interested, there was $1.9 billion that was in this 
most recent omnibus bill that has been carried over to finish 
the border wall. Is this Administration going to finish the 
border wall?
    Ms. Young. Just so we are clear, the $1.9 billion wasn't 
rescinded. New money was not provided. The Administration had a 
policy asking Congress to rescind that funding. In 2021 
Congress did not. But Congress did not provide additional 
money. And we are spending, as GAO has told this Committee and 
others, that OMB, the President, the Administration is acting 
within the bounds of the Impoundment Control Act and we are 
spending obligating prudently.
    Mr. Smith. So, this Administration just continues to 
withhold the $1.9 billion that was appropriated several 
Congresses ago that has stayed in the account?
    Ms. Young. Thankfully GAO has agreed that we are obligating 
prudently under the law.
    Mr. Smith. And what are you obligating it to? Because you 
are not doing any construction, so are you just paying people 
to hold the rusting materials?
    Ms. Young. No, we are actually doing environmental 
restoration, something that was woefully lacking. We are also 
doing community consultation. I think that is important to many 
of you who represent constituents.
    Mr. Smith. I have 25 seconds, Director. I would like to 
know how did this Administration transfer almost $2 billion of 
COVID money to house illegals at the Southern Border when it 
was supposed to go toward replacing the national stockpile and 
for COVID tests?
    Ms. Young. It was supposed to go for COVID and it went to 
COVID issues at the Southern Border. COVID for COVID----
    Mr. Smith. So, housing illegals was issues for COVID?
    Ms. Young. We had to test people immigrating into this 
country and we also had to socially distance children who could 
not be close to each other due to COVID.
    Mr. Smith. Would love that documentation, Director, along 
with answers----
    Ms. Young. There is a binder we have provided to Congress 
full of COVID information.
    Mr. Smith. And answer to our 40 letters that are hanging 
out there to the Administration.
    Ms. Young. Including--yes, before budget day asking what 
was in the budget. But, thank you so much.
    Mr. Smith. Thank you.
    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 it is 
wonderful, Director Young--now I can say Director Young. And I 
would always forget to add the acting anyway, so I am glad it 
is now official. And thank you for the wonderful job you do 
serving the American people.
    I wanted to use this as an opportunity just to focus on the 
major facts. Both you and Chairman Yarmuth talked about this 
before, but I think that a lot of times in these hearings the 
most important facts can sometimes be obscured by all the 
rhetoric that we hear. So can you remind us again, this past 
year it was the fastest economic growth in America in how many 
years?
    Ms. Young. 40.
    Mr. Boyle. And how many new jobs were created?
    Ms. Young. Over 6 million, the most in recorded history.
    Mr. Boyle. The most in American history. And by what amount 
is the deficit projected to fall?
    Mr. Young. $1.3 trillion, the largest decline year over 
year.
    Mr. Boyle. Greatest economic growth in American history, 
jobs added, largest deficit reduction. I don't remember many 
economists credibly predicting that this time a year ago. It is 
certainly a record to be very proud of, those in the 
Administration and, frankly, those of us who fought for fought 
for and voted for the American Rescue Plan.
    Now, I want to shift to the topic of raising taxes. Because 
we have two very interesting proposals that are out there. 
There is the one new proposal from this Administration that 
just came out, the billionaire minimum tax. I happen to be the 
lead co-author of the House version--or one version of what 
essentially is attempting to achieve the same thing, ensure 
that billionaires who are avoiding paying either their fair 
share or any taxes at all, make sure that they begin paying. 
But then there is this other interesting proposal from the 
Republicans. The Senate Republican leader of their Senate 
campaign committee has a proposal that as he was confirming 
yesterday on Fox News would raise taxes on more than 50 million 
Americans. In fact, more than half of those who are under the 
poverty line would pay higher taxes. Even further, his proposal 
and their proposal would sunset Social Security and Medicare 
after five years. And, again, this is not just an accusation. 
To his credit, he has openly admitted it and Fox News has 
confirmed it.
    So could you describe why the Administration believes it is 
more fair to go after billionaires who are currently paying 
lower taxes than middle class people in my district in 
Philadelphia as opposed to going after the poor and the working 
class?
    Ms. Young. Look, the budgets are value statements. The 
President has been clear about that. What he believes is fair 
is to ask billionaires and those worth over $100 million to pay 
about the same tax rates as teachers, nurses, and firefighters. 
That is all he is asking. They are supposed to pay taxes on 
this unrealized income. They often use loopholes, deferments, 
not to do that. So this President has been very clear, what we 
are not going to do is send forward a budget that cuts benefits 
to our seniors, but he will ask those worth--the 400 wealthiest 
people in this country are worth more than 150 million other 
Americans. He does not believe that is right and he is calling 
on them to pay their fair share.
    Mr. Boyle. And I am correct that the average effective rate 
among those 400 that you mentioned is currently 8 percent?
    Ms. Young. Research tells us it is about 8 percent.
    Mr. Boyle. Yes. I certainly know that the firefighters and 
teachers who live in my neighborhood in Northeast Philadelphia, 
they would love to pay an 18 percent--or, excuse me, an 8 
percent tax rate. They pay far higher than 8 or 18 percent.
    And just to be clear, this Administration is not supportive 
of the Senate Republican campaign committee chief's plan to 
raise taxes on more than 50 percent of the American people and 
sunset Social Security and Medicare, correct?
    Ms. Young. Not to comment on an individual proposal, but 
this President will not, has not--will not be submitting a 
budget that cuts benefits for our seniors.
    Mr. Boyle. Well, thank you. And I join with the 
Administration certainly in that and I thank you for your time.
    I yield back.
    Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman yields back.
    I now recognize the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Kelly, 
for five minutes.
    Mr. Kelly. Thank you, Director, for being here.
    I just want to say I think the budget does show the values, 
and there is a 525 percent in the EPA while there is a decrease 
in defense spending. There is taxes that go higher for 700 
billionaires, but for $700 billion tax cut for millionaires. I 
don't know, I mean from where I am from millionaires are rich 
people too. So we are doing a tax cut to millionaires while 
increasing on billionaires.
    I hear all this about how great the economy is going and 
how many jobs, the unemployment rate is the lowest, and how 
many jobs are created. But here is what my people see in 
Mississippi, they go to a restaurant at lunch which is closed 
because there is not enough workers to open that restaurant, 
there is not enough workers to do the job. So if there is truly 
job increases and more people working, then why don't we have 
employees in restaurants and places where people go to eat?
    The other thing I see is inflation. You talk about no tax 
on people under $400,000. Well, I agree with Ranking Member 
Smith that, first of all, the $2,000 in taxes that goes away 
with the Tax Cut, that is a tax increase. It is $2,000 every 
American, regardless of income, will pay next year. The other 
is $3,500 annually in inflation last year--$3,500 more. What my 
people see, they don't see a better world today than they did 
last year, they see worse. When they go to the gas pump, when 
it cost $40--I will talk--because I have to actually fill up my 
car--instead of filling up and it costing $30 or $40, not it 
costs $70 or $80 to fill up. And trying to blame Putin for the 
gas rising prices is just not--is disingenuous. Prices were 
high before he invaded Ukraine.
    Here is what I will tell you, in last year's budget three 
considerations were given the most thing, and No. 3 of those--
this is from the President and from the budget last year--not 
funding work that directly subsidizes fossil fuels, including 
work that lowers the cost of production, lowers the cost of 
consumption--that means prices at the pump--cost of consumption 
is what you pay for gas, or raises the revenues retained by 
producers of fossil fuels. When you intentionally raise gas 
prices you intentionally raise gas prices. And after you do 
that, you don't get to blame it on something that happened 
after the fact.
    I want to talk just a little bit about the defense. This 
budget proposes that we raise our defense a little bit, but we 
went through this same thing, but a lot of that goes to 
climate, to other things. What we need to do is make sure we 
keep above--the House and the Senate Armed Services Committees 
both sent to you that we needed a 5 percent increase over 
inflation. Can you truthfully tell me at the current inflation 
rate that the number given to defense is a 5 percent increase 
over the rate of inflation this year?
    Ms. Young. I will tell you our number is 9.8 percent over 
the 2021 levels. We believe we sent up a budget that is 
strategy based and we are not going to pick a budget out of 
thin air for political purposes. The Secretary stands behind 
this number and we believe when you see the National Defense 
Strategy, hopefully this week, that this budget is aligned with 
strategy.
    Mr. Kelly. I agree that it does not--it does not meet the 5 
percent increase over inflation, which means China and Russia 
continue--and this is a dangerous time and we need to do--we 
need to continue to raise that.
    I got back to the budget show the President's value. He is 
creating 87,000 new IRS employees to target folks making less 
than $400,000 to see where they spend every one of their 
dollars through monitoring their bank records so we can make 
sure we get every single dime out of those making less than 
$400,000 than we do. He is decreasing taxes on millionaires 
while raising it on billionaires, but I would argue he is also 
raising it on those people. And if you talk to the normal 
person, they truly do not believe that the economy is better 
off right now because their groceries go up, their milk costs 
more per gallon, their meat costs more, they are having to 
substitute things that they would rather not eat, they can't 
afford to fill up their cars now. They put in $10, which barely 
gets them any gas and the gas prices will continue to go up as 
long as we continue to try to cause them to go up.
    And going back to the President's words last year, he 
intended to make the cost of consumption of fossil fuels go up 
in his last year's budget. And I would say he succeeded in 
that. I hope he doesn't succeed in raising taxes on lower--on 
the IRS invading our homes and in continuing to not support the 
American people.
    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.
    First, I just want to address the issue of energy 
independence. You know, the United States in the previous four 
years of the past Administration was importing about 22 million 
barrels of Russian crude oil every single month, and other 
petroleum products. And if we are really serious about energy 
independence, the Build Back Better program should be advanced 
so that we can make a transition, a real transition to electric 
vehicles.
    Today in the world there are 211 battery manufacturing 
plants, 156 of them are in China, 12 of them are in the United 
States. And we are engaged in a military activity in Eastern 
Europe right now primarily because of oil and natural gas. 65 
percent of all the natural gas that goes into Germany comes 
from Russia, 40 percent of all the natural gas that goes to 
each of the European Union countries comes from Russia. If that 
is not an urgent reminder of the need to become energy 
independent, the last 20 years in three Middle East wars and 
spending $6 trillion is.
    With respect to this budget, the American economy today is 
about $25 trillion. The billionaire's minimum tax I presume is 
a response to this whole concept of buy, borrow, die. In other 
words, very wealthy people buy an asset, they build an asset, 
they borrow against the asset, and they never sell the asset, 
and therefore they don't pay taxes on it. Jeff Bezos from 
Amazon, for example, is worth $200 billion. He pays himself a 
salary of about $81,000 a year and pays very little taxes. So I 
presume that the billionaire's minimum tax is intended to 
address that, recognizing the fact that it is perfectly legal, 
but I presume that is the purpose?
    Ms. Young. Yes. I remind people when regular people need a 
loan, you use your income to show the bank what you can borrow 
and pay back. The income, the investment income that we are 
taxing here often, as you pointed out, is never paid, taxes are 
never paid on it, they are deferred. But they also get a lot of 
benefits from carrying that investment income, including 
getting to use that as leverage for loans. It is treated like 
income for many actions that regular people only have work 
income to do with, including making extraordinary loans against 
their investment income. So we believe we believe we have to 
find a way to deal with this disparity of people who go to work 
every day, they are paying a higher tax rate on their work 
income. We have to find an equivalent way to deal with those 
who pay no income on taxes they are supposed to at some point, 
but often defer.
    Mr. Higgins. Well, interestingly enough, you know, Jeff 
Bezos in 2011 was only work $18 billion and he qualified for 
the child tax credit.
    The previous Administration had average economic growth 
each year of 2.5 percent. This is pre-pandemic. And then the 
economy went deeply into recession for a short period of time. 
Last year, the first year of the Biden Administration, economic 
growth was 5.7 percent and is project to be 3.6 percent for 
2022. Is that accurate?
    Ms. Young. That is accurate.
    Mr. Higgins. And you also, you know, have a situation where 
in the Build Back Better program, although that is not part of 
this budget, it is really an investment in American families, 
because every single day 10,000 kids are born in America, every 
single day 10,000 people in America turn 65. And we really 
don't have an American family policy. And the intent is really 
just to make our own people that much more economically 
independent, self-sufficient, and productive to and through 
adulthood. And, you know, all these concerns that I have heard 
in published reports about, you know, inflation, yes, that is a 
concern. We have hit 24 months of a highly distorted economy. 
It is going to take time to recover and we are in fact 
recovering. But, you know, the American economy will produce 
$300 trillion in stuff in the next 10 years. That is goods and 
services. Spending, investing, less than 1 percent of that in 
American families and the productivity of the American economy 
is not inflationary. In fact, it is an investment in future 
growth that can be, you know--inflation can be handled.
    But thank you very much.
    Ms. Young. Thank you.
    Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman's time has expired.
    I now recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. 
McClintock, for five minutes.
    Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I think we need to get some fundamental facts straight 
here. And let us begin with three numbers--27, 58, and 89. 27 
percent is the growth in population and inflation combined over 
this past decade--27 percent. 58 percent is the growth in 
federal tax revenues in the same period--58 percent. That is 
more than double inflation and population growth. And by the 
way, that is after the Trump tax cuts produced one of the most 
prosperous periods for working Americans in our history. 89 
percent is the increase in federal spending. It is the spending 
stupid. We have before us a budget that dramatically raises 
taxes and claims that we are going to reduce the deficit. But 
taxes and deficits are the same thing. They are the only two 
ways to pay for spending. You either take it out of a family's 
current earnings or you take it out of their future earnings by 
borrowing it.
    A deficit, a future tax, is paid for in two ways. We either 
borrow it from capital markets that then reduces the amount 
that is available to make consumer loans and have to be paid 
back through future taxes, or we simply print that money, which 
produces inflation. That is largely how this Administration has 
financed its multi million dollar spending scheme. Results, 
nearly 8 percent annual inflation, costing an average family 
$3,500 in lost purchasing power, but it also means if a family 
puts $100,000 toward their retirement, they have just seen 
$7,900 taken from them. It turns out all that free money that 
you folks sent out is very expensive and Americans are paying 
it back at the gas station and the grocery store every day.
    Now, this budget repeals the Trump tax cuts. Now, remember, 
we took in more revenues after the tax cuts, so great was the 
economic expansion that they produced. And they weren't tax 
cuts for the rich. The wealthiest 1 percent saw their share of 
income taxes actually grow. The average household saved between 
$1,000 and $2,000. The Democrats would repeal these tax cuts.
    The corporate tax goes to 28 percent, higher than communist 
China. But corporations don't pay corporate taxes, people do. 
They can only be paid in one of three ways, by consumer through 
higher prices, by employees through lower wages, or by 
investors through lower earnings. That is your 401K. Now, they 
say they will make the wealthy pay their fair share. According 
to the Tax Foundation the wealthiest 1 percent earn 20 percent 
of all income and yet pay 39 percent of all income taxes. That 
is double their fair share.
    But put that aside for a second, you are proposing to tax 
unrealized capital gains. What is an unrealized capital gain? 
It is the paper increase in assets that you haven't cashed in 
on. It is a tax on money that you haven't received. But don't 
worry they say, that is just on those worth $100 billion or 
more. But once they have introduced this concept into law, how 
long will it take them to come after your pension funds earning 
before you have received them? You know, this whole mess isn't 
the fault of taxpayers for not paying enough taxes, it is the 
spending that is robbing families of their disposable income, 
their savings, and their future economic growth. And I think it 
is disingenuous to compare this budget to last and saying, 
well, the deficit is down and growth is up. Deficits are down 
only compared to the most irresponsible spending spree in 
American history that has produced the worst inflation rate in 
40 years. Growth is up only compared to the lockdown left's 
draconian COVID policies that took a wrecking ball to our 
economy and utterly failed to slow the spread of the pandemic.
    Americans are now getting a taste of what socialism 
consistently produces. There are 2.1 million fewer Americans 
working today than before the lockdowns. American family 
purchasing power has declined since this Administration took 
office. Inflation is at its highest rate in 40 years. Gas 
prices were up 40 percent before Putin invaded Ukraine.
    Now, the American people need to connect the dots between 
budgets like this and the conditions that they are now 
suffering before it is too late.
    I have got just one question. This Administration has 
admitted more than 1 million impoverished, illegal immigrants 
into the interior so far, in addition to a half a million 
gotaways. That is roughly the combined population of Montana 
and Wyoming, just since you took office. I am wondering, how 
much is this costing local, state, and federal taxpayers?
    Ms. Young. One, thank you for the diatribe. I--you know, I 
certainly----
    Mr. McClintock. I beg your pardon?
    Ms. Young. The--you know, which piece of what you put 
forward can I respond to? You put a lot out there that we have 
disagreements with the way it is framed. We have 700 people----
    Mr. McClintock. It is your policies that have caused these 
conditions. That is reality.
    Ms. Young. We have 700 people who are billionaires, 100 
millionaires that we are talking about, not regular Americans.
    Mr. McClintock. How much of the 1.5 billion are illegal 
immigrants that you have admitted into the country costing 
taxpayers?
    Ms. Young. This President will not raise taxes on anyone 
making less than $400,000.
    Mr. McClintock. That is the question.
    Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman's time has expired. The 
gentleman's time has expired. If he will let the witness 
respond, then we can move on. But you can't continue to debate 
her and when your time is expired.
    Mr. McClintock. I asked her a simple question, I would like 
a simple answer. How much is this costing?
    Ms. Young. I look forward to the support you have for the 5 
percent increase at DHS that will allow to manage the Southern 
Border.
    Mr. McClintock. So it is in your don't know, don't care 
file? I get it.
    Thank you.
    Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman's time has expired.
    I now recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr. Jeffries, 
for five minutes.
    Mr. Jeffries. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for you leadership, 
for convening us here today. Director Young, it is always 
wonderful to see you. Thank you for the extraordinary job that 
you and the Biden Administration are doing relative to the 
economy. Look forward to discussing some of those more accurate 
numbers momentarily.
    I see my good friend, Albio Sires. I want to just 
acknowledge his presence, congratulate him on the great run 
that the St. Peter's Peacocks had. Of course Albio is a former 
varsity basketball player for St. Peter's. He set this all in 
motion. Albio, it is good to see you and what a great run. I 
know you are proud as a peacock.
    Shalanda, Director Young, there were several numbers that 
were thrown out, but I want to talk about just a few more 
accurate ones. 3.8 percent. That is the unemployment rate. But 
when President Biden first took office, just a little over a 
year ago, that unemployment rate was about 6.4 percent. Is that 
correct?
    Ms. Young. That is correct.
    Mr. Jeffries. And did it come down in record time?
    Ms. Young. Let me point out that all of this was not by 
accident. None of the numbers we have talked about--the fastest 
decline in history, the employment rate, would have been 
possible without this President's management of the pandemic.
    Mr. Jeffries. That is correct. Beginning with the American 
Rescue Plan, which not a single one of my Republican colleagues 
voted for in either the House or the Senate, that was the 
foundation for turning the economy around. And the economic 
growth comparison doesn't relate to what happened when the 
country shut down under the previous President. Am I correct 
that what we have seen under the Biden Administration, the 
Biden economy, is the fastest rate of economic growth in 40 
years?
    Ms. Young. It is. Absolutely, year over year.
    Mr. Jeffries. Now, with respect to fiscal responsibility, 
my colleagues talk a lot about that and they talk about 
socialism. You know what socialism is, that is the GOP tax 
scam--83 percent of the benefits going to the wealthiest 1 
percent. That is socialism for the wealthy, the well off, and 
the well connected for no reason other than to subsidize the 
lifestyle of the rich and shameless.
    I am proud of the economy and the budget that you have put 
forward, which is designed to invest in every day Americans. In 
fact, wages are up right now. But we do have to continue to 
work to lower costs. Could you speak a little bit about that 
effort in the context of this budget?
    Ms. Young. Absolutely. One, I spoke about global supply 
chain challenges. We need to get stuff off of ships and onto 
shelves. And this budget provides investments in our port 
infrastructure. I also want to thank the Congress for the 
infrastructure bill. A second round of Army Corps funding was 
just announced that dredged important ports around the country 
to ensure that we can move these goods to shelves so the 
American people can continue to buy things. And we believe that 
is a key part of fighting inflation. We also believe we have to 
ensure that corporations, companies have competition in the 
system in the way we operate.
    So we absolutely know we have to work on this, but one 
thing we need to do is a balanced approach. We have seen wage 
growth. We need to make sure as we tackle inflation we can keep 
these gains in wage growth and also economic growth. So there 
is a balancing act here.
    Mr. Jeffries. Now, with respect to some of the revenue 
proposals, I think most every day Americans would have no issue 
with increasing the taxes that 25 richest billionaires in 
America pay because currently they pay little to no taxes. That 
is less tax often than firefighters, police officers, nurses, 
social workers, transportation workers, healthcare aids, and 
our healthcare heroes who have helped us get through this 
pandemic. Can you talk a little bit about the resources that 
are being raised just in the context of what it will allow us 
to invest in as the Biden Administration invests in every day 
Americans?
    Ms. Young. So tax reform has two benefits. One, it is a 
fairness issue. Should the richest Americans, 700 people, pay 
less than half of regular folks who you represent. The other 
benefit of tax reform is we get to invest in the regular 
Americans who have price pressures that we have talked a lot 
about here today. Should we have legislation that reduces the 
cost of childcare, for example? Families shouldn't pay more 
than we think--shouldn't pay more than 7 percent of their 
income on childcare costs. We believe that we should have 
efforts to negotiate prescription drug prices through Medicare, 
so families can afford lifesaving treatment.
    So we have a difference of agreement. We all want to help 
these families, but we think the way to do that is through 
proposals that invest in the American people to help with those 
pocketbook issues that both sides of the aisle have brought up 
many times today.
    Mr. Jeffries. Thank you very much.
    Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman's time has expired.
    I now recognize the gentleman from Texas, Dr. Burgess, for 
five minutes.
    Dr. Burgess. And I thank the chair and thanks to our 
witness for being here today.
    You know, we have not had a hearing with the Congressional 
Budget Office, the base line CBO report has not come out, and 
when you ask the reason why, at least what they told me was 
because OMB was--hadn't produced their numbers yet. Now, 
perhaps, Mr. Chairman, that OMB has produced the President's 
budget we will get to hear from the Congressional Budget 
Office. But in that interim, in that meantime, the Director of 
the CBO could visit with some of us individually. And I am 
grateful that he did that.
    So let me just ask a couple of things that were assertions 
that were made to me by the Director of the CBO. And I will ask 
you to attest to their veracity or not. One of the things the 
CBO Director said was that we vastly underestimated how strong 
the economy was going into the pandemic. And thank God that it 
was, to be able to withstand the ravages of the pandemic. But 
would you agree with that statement, that the economy so 
significantly stronger than anticipated going into the 
recession?
    Ms. Young. I would say we did enter a recessionary period 
during the pandemic. We believe we were able to recover from 
that not from the economy that was there before the pandemic, 
but because of the work, in many cases bipartisan work. This 
Congress on a bipartisan basis passed COVID legislation to help 
the former Administration respond to the pandemic and ARP----
    Dr. Burgess. Yes, let me----
    Ms. Young [continuing]. we believe to finalize the job.
    Dr. Burgess. Let me reclaim my time. The fact is we were on 
our way out of the recession when we threw gas on the 
inflationary fire with some of the other reconciliation bills 
that passed last calendar year.
    Mr. Swagel also asserted that the collections, the federal 
income tax collections that--and I guess we are working current 
laws, the 2017 tax law, correct? And that collections have been 
at all time highs. In fact, they didn't diminish during the 
pandemic. They have been sustained. Was that an accurate 
statement that----
    Ms. Young. Yes.
    Dr. Burgess [continuing]. he made to me?
    Ms. Young. Yes.
    Dr. Burgess. So even under what people are describing as a 
dreadful and unfair taxing system, it is producing historic 
levels of revenue more so than the pre-2017 tax law that had 
been in place for 31 years, greater than that produced? Is that 
correct?
    Ms. Young. We think the wealthiest did quite well during 
the pandemic.
    Dr. Burgess. That, you know, wasn't the question.
    Let me ask you this, Mr. McClintock asked it and then it 
didn't get answered, but taxing unrealized gains, OK, that is 
going to be a little tough, but I am sure someone will be able 
to figure it out, but what happens to those equities that are 
held in retirement as retirement securities? Are those 
unrealized gains in that fund going to be taxed as well?
    Ms. Young. No, we are not talking about that. We are 
talking about unrealized gains from stocks for the 700 people 
who are worth more than $100 million.
    Dr. Burgess. Will they be able to deduct--I have also been 
a holder of some investments when the economy went the other 
way and the statement during the 1980's was well, you haven't 
lost it until you sold it. Will they be able to deduct losses 
from their taxes if the market goes down?
    Ms. Young. For those 700 people we are phasing over five 
years for exactly the reason you talk about. We don't want to 
get into a situation where on year your stock may be worth $100 
and you pay and then you come and ask for a refund when it is 
worth $80 the next year. So this is a phased in approach for 
things you own before this will go into----
    Dr. Burgess. Yes. Good luck. It sounds absolutely----
    Ms. Young. So in five years.
    Dr. Burgess [continuing]. unworkable. Let me just ask you 
this. I see where the commitment is made to provide--the total 
was $4 billion, it is now nearly $1 billion this year that is 
going to the governments of Central America. And this I assume 
is on top of the foreign aid that was already going to El 
Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. Is that correct?
    Ms. Young. We do have a----
    Dr. Burgess. This is in addition?
    Ms. Young. Yes. We do have a request in to deal with the 
northern triangle.
    Dr. Burgess. And methods of accountability. I mean if those 
governments really cared about the people that they were 
supposed to care about, I don't think we would have as many at 
our Southern Border. Are there built in accountability methods, 
as the previous Administration had done?
    Ms. Young. The previous Administration, as you point out, 
did not send funding down. We also have the option. The way 
appropriations usually writes the law to withhold if we aren't 
getting the results. We need see, but we do believe we have to 
deal with the root causes of migration and this funding would 
allow us to do that.
    Dr. Burgess. Well, again, I submit you are pouring gasoline 
on fires that exist.
    Mr. Chairman, let me just ask you this, are we ever going 
to vote on a budget this year?
    Chairman Yarmuth. That is a good question.
    Dr. Burgess. Maybe if we vote on a budget will the 
President's budget be introduced and give everyone a chance to 
vote on the President's budget?
    Chairman Yarmuth. That decision hasn't been made.
    The gentleman's time has expired.
    I now recognize the gentlewomen from Illinois, Ms. 
Schakowsky, for five minutes.
    Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Director Young, welcome and congratulations.
    Ms. Young. Thank you.
    Ms. Schakowsky. It is wonderful to see you here.
    You know, I am so happy that you mentioned I think a couple 
of times that the President believes in building an economy 
from the middle out and the bottom up. It is so refreshing to 
me. And despite the robust support for the wealthiest Americans 
and the biggest corporations that I hear from the other side of 
the aisle, in fact most Americans understand that the rich have 
been getting richer and the poor have been getting poorer, not 
by accident but by policy, tax policy, et cetera, that we have 
had. And that the President is committed now not to punish the 
wealthy, but to say they need to pay their fair share. And 
there is a big cheer out in bipartisan way in this country for 
that kind of idea.
    For the last 10 years we have really had an austerity 
budget, particularly because of sequestration. And so I--and it 
has really I think hurt so much of our economy. And one agency 
I wanted to talk to you about that has been the victim of 
sequestration has been the National Labor Relations Board, 
which has remained pretty much flat funded since 2014.
    And so in order for it to really--for the NLRB to really do 
its job, it needs to have increased funding. We have seen a 50 
percent increase in union election petitions, but the total of 
funding has fallen by 30 percent since the year 2010.
    Now, I know that the budget that you have--that the 
President has presented has actually increased the NLRB funding 
by 16 percent, but I wanted to ask you if you really feel that 
the kind of funding that we are going to be able to see is 
going to help protect and empower American workers. And let me 
just add the second part, would the Administration raise any 
concerns if the Congress were to provide additional funding 
increase to the NLRB?
    Ms. Young. None at all. And, as you point out, the agency 
has really been starved of resources and has lost significant 
staff capacity over the years. This budget I would say begins 
the rebuild with a $45 million requested increase. But 
certainly if Congress wants to start that rebuild faster, we 
would be supportive.
    Ms. Schakowsky. Let me ask you another question. One of the 
constituent service issues that I get all the time is that 
people, ordinary people who are trying to get information about 
their 2020 taxes has been a real problem. And I am just 
wondering if we are going to be able to bolster the number of 
employees at the IRS that are going to be able to address this 
problem?
    Ms. Young. So as you have heard, we have an increase in the 
budget for IRS. We believe it is--Americans should not have to 
wait for hours on hold to get information about their tax 
situation. If there is one mistake on your form, you often have 
to--some of the worst stories--wait months to get refunds due 
to you. So we believe that this increase is the right thing to 
do for the American citizens who are required to pay taxes and 
should have this service that goes along with that requirement.
    Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
    And it seems to me too that if we are looking at making the 
most of efficient work of the IRS, that we also begin to look 
again at the wealthiest Americans who we are--you know, it is 
kind of like where do you go, you go where the money is. And I 
am just wondering if we can refocus on making sure that the 
very wealthiest are paying something, because we have seen 
paying nothing too often from the wealthiest Americans. Can we 
make sure that we are not just focusing on every day working 
people, but also on the people who are making the most money?
    Ms. Young. So we are--I am certainly not going to suggest 
that we tell the IRS who to look at, but I will point out not 
just the wealthiest corporations, 50 corporations on the 
Fortune 500 list paid no taxes in 2020. We think that is not 
right. So certainly this budget recognizes inequity that you 
have pointed out and we do need resources in the IRS mostly to 
ensure that our citizens can get the services they deserve.
    Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
    I yield back.
    Chairman Yarmuth. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
    I now recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Carter, for 
five minutes.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Director Young, thank you for being here. I appreciate your 
attendance very much.
    And I want to ask you, Director Young, the President said, 
and I quote, ``Budgets are statements of values and the budget 
I am releasing today sends a clear message that we value fiscal 
responsibility, safety, and security at home and around the 
world.'' Let me begin saying that I applaud these new found 
priorities that include advertised increases for defense at 4 
percent. However, as we all know, inflation is at 8 percent. So 
if we are increasing the defense by 4 percent, we are actually 
looking at a cut here.
    So even though inflation ends up it being a cut and we also 
see a cut for funding the police, let me ask you, Director 
Young, was the Administration aware that Russia was occupying 
Crimea and other parts of Eastern Ukraine?
    Ms. Young. I am happy to talk about the budget elements----
    Mr. Carter. And that is what I am getting.
    Ms. Young. OK. I would leave that to the policy experts in 
the Administration, but that is not my----
    Mr. Carter. But you would agree that they were aware of 
this even though they proposed a cut in defense?
    Ms. Young. That is a policy best directed----
    Mr. Carter. Understand.
    Ms. Young [continuing]. to the Department of Defense or the 
National Security Council.
    Mr. Carter. Understand.
    Ms. Young. I would be happy to answer anything about the 
budget.
    Mr. Carter. Yes, I got you. And that is why I am asking 
this, because this is about the budget. Did the Administration 
consider Russia an adversary or a threat to national security 
of the United States at the time when it only increased defense 
by 1.6 percent? And that is a budget question. Because when you 
formulate a budget, as the President said, it represents your 
values. So what I am trying to get at here and what I am trying 
to understand is what the Administration considered when they 
proposed a cut in defense.
    Ms. Young. Do we consider the 4 percent increase this year 
a cut?
    Mr. Carter. We do because inflation is at 8 percent.
    Ms. Young. We don't see the defense budget as a cut. The 
Secretary of Defense will--I am sure many of you will hear from 
him when the comes to Congress. He will tell you he stands 
behind this number and we believe it is strategy based.
    Mr. Carter. What about crime in our cities as well? 
Because, again, if it represents the values, then the values 
have to go along with knowing what is going on in our country, 
knowing what is going on in our world. If we are talking about 
a budget that reflects the values of the Administration and the 
values of this country, what about the cuts that went to state 
and local governments from the Justice Department of $2 
billion.
    Ms. Young. There are no cuts in the budget to cops for--we 
are asking for a $300 million increase in community oriented 
policing, $3.2 billion for all state and local grants at DoJ.
    Mr. Carter. But there are--to the Justice Department, there 
are cuts of $2 billion.
    Ms. Young. The grants to state and locals to deal with 
violence is increased in this budget. In addition, there is a 
mandatory proposal we hope that many of you will support of $30 
billion to deal with crime in all our communities.
    Mr. Carter. Let me ask you something. And obviously I am 
trying to get a point across here, that we are making cuts to a 
budget, to defense, to crime, where we should be making 
increases and where we should be reflecting our values, as the 
President says this budget is supposed to reflect the values of 
this Administration, of this country, and of this executive 
branch. So that is what I am trying to about, to get the point 
out here.
    And from last year--I asked this question last year, does 
the Administration not think that these are credible threats 
when talking about defense spending that we should be conceding 
our world leadership role? And yet, here we are a year later 
and we are still making essentially cuts to defense and not 
addressing crime like we should be.
    This budget is too little, too late. It truly embodies the 
Administration's leading from behind strategy. In fact, I would 
call it simply reacting. People have already died. People have 
died because of crime, people have died because of our lack of 
funding defense. The number of murders in 2021 was 5 percent 
higher than counts recorded in 2020. And, as we know, Russia 
has invaded Ukraine.
    Again, if we already knew these were problems, and they 
were widely reported, why are we just now asking for funding to 
fix them?
    Ms. Young. Funding that are increased over last year. I 
hope we can, you know, agree to, you know, simple facts. 
Department of Defense will receive a 4 percent increase under 
this budget. We ask again, Congress did not provide, but this 
President is asking again for community oriented policing, 
increase of $300 million and we are asking for support of our 
mandatory proposal for $30 million to deal with violence.
    Mr. Carter. Understood, Ms. Young. But, again, I am trying 
to get at what the President is referring to as the values that 
this Administration embodies and that this Administration 
embraces. Trying to understand that.
    Just out of curiosity----
    Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will yield back.
    Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman's time has expired.
    I now yield five minutes to the gentleman from Nevada, Mr. 
Horsford.
    Mr. Horsford. Thank you so much, Chairman Yarmuth, and to 
the Ranking Member.
    Director Young, thank you for being here today to speak 
with us and for your work to deliver a budget that proves that 
we can invest in America while also bringing down the deficit 
and fighting inflation. You should be proud, Director Young. 
You have risen from staff director, from the House 
Appropriations Committee, to now testifying in front of 
Congress as the Senate confirmed director for OMB. We could not 
be prouder for you.
    I want to commend the Administration's efforts to finally 
make the wealthiest in this country pay their fair share in 
taxes. For too long the hardworking men and women of this 
country have been left holding the bag while billionaires have 
used their army of tax lawyers to pay virtually nothing in 
federal taxes. If we want to invest in the American spirit and 
do so in a financially responsible way, then we need proposals 
like the 20 percent minimum tax to at least make sure 
billionaire CEOs pay a comparable rate to regular hard-working 
Americans. I don't understand how my colleagues on the other 
side would want an average person in their district to pay more 
than a billionaire.
    By proposing the deficit reducing budget, President Biden 
made sure that we can responsibly invest in our working 
families, but we must ensure that those investments actually 
make it to the individuals who need them most. Even though more 
Americans are taking home a paycheck and families have more 
money in their pockets, family budgets are still tight. Anyone 
can see that prices are rising on essential goods across my 
district and in this country. The pain for working families I 
real and it is imperative that this Congress work with the 
Administration to lower costs for everyday American. Reducing 
our deficit, increasing our domestic productivity, and lowering 
families' biggest costs, can fight inflation while also 
investing in America.
    In Nevada, and specifically my district, we have seen 
unconscionable increases in the cost of rental housing, with up 
to 30 percent increase in rental costs over the past year. I am 
pleased to see that there is $50 billion in this budget for 
affordable housing construction to grow our supply of housing 
stock and to stabilize these high price increases.
    Director Young, as you know, many of the inflationary 
pressures we feel today are from repeated supply side shocks. 
So in your opinion, what are some other meaningful steps the 
Administration could take to provide a budget similar to this 
one to relieve supply constraints and deliver lower costs to 
Americans?
    Ms. Young. So, I have talked a little bit about the need to 
get things off of ships. We have seen extraordinary backlogs at 
many of our ports, from the West Coast to the south. Not just 
funding, but we have tried to bring the full weight of the 
Administration to deal with our port challenges, including 
going so far as to recruit truckers to get more truckers on the 
road to move goods. Also ensuring that our railways--we can get 
things moving by rail. We saw during the pandemic--you know, it 
was a good problem to have at the time--people bought a lot of 
goods. Our economy turned from service based where people spent 
a lot of money on services, to purchasing a lot of goods. And 
it fundamentally how our economy operated. So we have to keep 
our foot on the gas to make sure that we can unclog our supply 
chain issues because some of those things are going to be with 
us for a while. We still haven't seen the return to services 
out of the pandemic that you would expect our economy service 
to good ration to be.
    Mr. Horsford. Absolutely.
    With my remaining time I want to turn to demographic data 
collection. I am pleased to see throughout the budget an 
investment in data collection on STEM participation, climate 
impacts, and maternal health disparities, but more needs to be 
done.
    So, Director Young, while there are significant investments 
in the President's budget toward racial equity in particular, I 
want to focus on the Justice-40 commitment of $3 billion. What 
is the Administration's plan to make sure these investments are 
targeted accurately to reduce disparities and direct funding to 
the hardest hit communities throughout our country?
    Ms. Young. I am sure you know about our Executive Order 
13985. It requires that we incorporate equity in all we do, 
racial equity, rural equity, those left behind, our disabled 
brothers and sisters. Our government should work for all people 
all the time. So when we do procurement we want to make sure 
that our dollars are spent with socially disadvantaged 
companies. So we are implementing this Executive Order not just 
in the budget, but in how we do business.
    But you are right, without data we don't know if we are--
what kind of job we are doing. So we are absolutely committed 
to improving our data collection.
    Mr. Horsford. And I look forward to working with you in 
your role as director of OMB so that we can have better data 
collection and make more informed decisions.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman yields back.
    I now recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Cline, for 
five minutes.
    Mr. Cline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the 
Director for appearing today.
    Last year when you testified before this Committee, the 
Consumer Price Index was up 4.2 percent over the last 12 
months--and at that time was the largest 12 month increase 
since 2008. Almost a year later, thanks to the Biden 
Administration's policies, the annual inflation rate for the 
U.S. is 7.9 percent for the 12 months that ended February 2022. 
And we can blame Russia for gas prices, we can blame the supply 
chain for inflation rates, we can blame the--all of the 
different policies of this Administration, but this is the 
highest inflation rate since January 1982, according to U.S. 
Labor Department Data published March 10. That translates into 
a $3,500 annual inflation tax that is being paid by, as you 
said, normal people. In 2021, $296 extra per month going toward 
the higher cost of inflation due to this Administration's 
policies, 54 percent higher inflation growth than wage growth, 
a $12,000 inflation tax to be paid by American families under 
the Biden budget. The price of meat is up 13 percent, the price 
of milk is up 11.2 percent, the price of electricity is up 9 
percent, the price of baby food is up 8.4 percent. Gas prices 
have risen since Joe Biden took office 82 percent. That is 
$2,000 in additional costs per family due to the rising cost of 
gas.
    So the path we are on is unsustainable. This budget does 
nothing to address inflation. In fact, the term ``inflation 
crisis'' doesn't show up in this budget once. And it pushes 
into perpetuity permanent fiscal imbalance. It does nothing to 
address the permanent imbalance in revenues and expenditures 
that this federal government is experiencing. So it kicks the 
can down the road and the national debt is nearly the size of 
our economy and will reach a record 107 percent of GDP by the 
end of the decade.
    I want to focus on two things that are going to be 
happening in this decade, the insolvency of the Medicare 
Hospital Insurance Trust fund and the insolvency of the Highway 
Trust Fund and then the insolvency of the Social Security, Old 
Age, and Survivor Insurance Trust Fund by 2033. Why is it that 
the Biden Administration is not sounding the alarm about this 
looming crisis? And why doesn't this budget, which should be a 
reflection of the values of this Administration, propose to 
avoid this insolvency in Social Security, Medicare, and Highway 
Trust Fund that my constituents depend on so much back at home?
    Ms. Young. Thank you, Mr. Cline.
    One, I want to assure you, the budget assumes, and it is 
built into the numbers, that those programs, even given 
insolvency, that those programs continue at the current rates. 
So that is built into our figures. We are required to do that 
by law. So the assumption--all the numbers you have here assume 
that those programs continue.
    Mr. Cline. But it--so it assumes that they are heading for 
insolvency in the years that I cited?
    Ms. Young. It shows that we are spending the same level, 
the benefits don't stop.
    Mr. Cline. Which will result in insolvency in the years 
that I cited.
    Ms. Young. Yes, we absolutely need bipartisan solutions. My 
guess is it is going to take both sides of the aisle here and 
the Administration to come together to find solutions to make 
sure we deal with the insolvency issues. You are absolutely 
correctly point out----
    Mr. Cline. Your part is in control of the presidency----
    Ms. Young. But----
    Mr. Cline [continuing]. your party is in control of 
Congress, so I would encourage you all to put forward those 
solutions so that we can work with you.
    Ms. Young. I appreciate that, but I would like to ensure 
that you know the budget fully assumes that those programs 
continue.
    Mr. Cline. Assumes that they go off the cliff.
    I have no further questions.
    I yield back.
    Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman yields back.
    Before I recognize Ms. Wexton, I want to remind everyone 
that at 12 o'clock we are going to take a recess for a half 
hour, which means we will hear from Ms. Wexton, Mr. Feenstra, 
Mr. Scott, Mr. Good, and Mr. Sires and then everybody else will 
be--have to come back after 12:30.
    So with that I yield five minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Virginia, Ms. Wexton.
    Ms. Wexton. Thank you so much, Chairman Yarmuth. And, 
Director Young, it is wonderful, wonderful to see you again.
    So a lot has changed over the past year, including your 
confirmation by the Senate. I couldn't be happier that you are 
now Director Young.
    Now, reflecting on where we were one year ago, I think it 
is important that we remember, you know, how far we have come. 
And you have already talked about that some. I mean we have 
added more than 6 million jobs, the most ever in a single year. 
The unemployment rate is now down to pre-pandemic levels. We 
have vaccinated more than 200 million Americans.
    Now, when President Biden took office, the daily COVID 
reporting was about 250,000 infections every day and we are now 
at a tiny, tiny fraction of that. We lowered the child poverty 
rate to the lowest level ever and the number of families 
reporting food insecurity also dropped 32 percent. Now, that 
didn't all happen on its own, it happened because we passed the 
most significant economic legislation ever, the American Rescue 
Plan, which literally saved the economy. On top of all that, we 
passed infrastructure legislation that is finally going to help 
us fix our aging roads, bridges, and power grids, amongother 
things, also make universal broadband a reality. And we finally 
ended the joke of ``Infrastructure Week'' once and for all. We 
were even able to do that with some Republican assistance, so 
thank you to those folks who crossed the aisle who actually 
voted for that legislation.
    Not to mention the COMPETES Act, which is going to be--
going to conference shortly and will be singed into law I think 
not before too long, which will definitely put the U.S. in a 
much better place globally for now and into the future.
    So it has been quite a year. And I just want to thank you 
for everything that you have done to help us get there.
    Now, I represent tens of thousands of federal workers in 
the D.C. Metro region. I know that you are aware of this. And I 
wanted to thank you for what you did in the budget. First thing 
I do when I get it is flip to the federal employees' section to 
see where the pay increase, and I was pleasantly surprised to 
see that it was 4.6 percent. So thank you so much for that. I 
along with a number of people from the Metro Region had been 
advocating for 5.1 percent, but I think that 4.6 is the 
highest--is the biggest increase in many decades. Is that 
correct?
    Ms. Young. I have been a federal worker in some form or 
another for 21 years. I can't remember an increase this large 
in recent memory.
    Ms. Wexton. Thank you so much. And it is a lot better than 
the freezes and cuts to benefits that were proposed by the 
previous Administration.
    I also want to talk for a minute about substance abuse 
treatment. Now, the nation's overdose crisis--you know, our 
overdoses were up 17 percent from 2019 to 2020 and it has 
gotten even worse over the course of the----
    Chairman Yarmuth. We have lost the audio. Your signal is 
frozen. You should be back now.
    Ms. Wexton. OK. Sorry about that, Mr. Chairman. I tried 
plugging in and everything.
    But, anyway, so about substance abuse treatment and 
substance abuse coverage. Can you just explain how the budget 
addresses mental health and substance use disorder coverage?
    Ms. Young. Thank you for that.
    The budget includes $500 million increase over 2022 for 
state opioid response grants and $1.2 billion over the 1922 CR 
level for the substance abuse prevention and treatment block 
grant. You heard the President speak to both mental health and 
opioid as something he hoped to bring the country together. 
These are bipartisan interests. So we are very proud of putting 
forth robust requests for both opioid--the opioid epidemic to 
deal with it and also the mental health crisis. And in some 
ways these two things are connected and this budget seeks a 
holistic way of dealing with both.
    Ms. Wexton. Thank you so much. And that is something that 
affects every congressional district across the country, 
regardless of whether it is represented by a Republican or a 
Democrat. So thank you for doing that.
    I was also really happy to see a 19 percent increase in the 
funding for the National Science Foundation, especially because 
they will be doing a lot of research into the opioid addiction 
treatment and the future of medical treatment for those 
disorders. So thank you so much for that as well. Very good to 
see that this critical research will be fully funded.
    And with that, I yield back.
    Chairman Yarmuth. The gentlewoman yields back.
    I now recognize the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Feenstra, for 
five minutes.
    Mr. Feenstra. Thank you, Chairman Yarmuth and Ranking 
Member Smith. And I want to thank you, Director Young, for 
testifying today. It is great to see you and I just want to 
congratulate you on your confirmation as role of director.
    Talking with economists, and I taught many economics 
classes over the years, most economic people would say that it 
takes approximately 18 months to have something--to go into 
effect--full swing effect when you start talking about taxes, 
especially when you want to increase taxes or something like 
that. Would that be a fair statement concerning the Department 
of Revenue and things like that?
    Ms. Young. I just want to make sure I understand you. So 
we--if Congress passes these policies tomorrow, we--it would 
take 18 months to see the effects?
    Mr. Feenstra. Yes, there a part--12 to 18 months. Because 
you have to collect the revenue and things like that.
    Ms. Young. Correct. But we would see the receipts during 
the next budget cycle, the next fiscal year. So we would 
actually I believe----
    Mr. Feenstra. Eventually. I mean you would have--so that 
would take six to eight months, probably be a year to 18 months 
before you see the true effect?
    Ms. Young. We think we would see the receipts next tax 
season and begin to see a reduction in our deficit within that 
first year of implementation.
    Mr. Feenstra. So the reason I am saying that is that we 
passed the Trump tax cuts and now they are coming into full 
effect. And we have seen a 5.7 percent growth increase, and 
frankly that is because of the Trump tax cuts that happened. I 
think that is a fair statement. And yet we want to repeal the 
tax cuts in this budget. I think that is really bizarre when 
you have an economy that is going very fast. Obviously we have 
inflation and all this other stuff, and yet we now want to chop 
the legs off from underneath what has happened through all 
these tax cuts.
    That being said, I just want to note that a budget is a 
statement of values and I tend to agree with that. And we all 
understand that we have an energy crisis in our country. I mean 
we are all paying a tremendous amount of gas at the pump right 
now and it affects every family and business. So my question 
is, being from Iowa, why don't we have American made biofuels 
in this budget? There is not a line item or anything in here 
that addresses biofuel, American made. Can you address that?
    Ms. Young. I am happy to discuss. I believe EPA will have 
more details when they talk about their biofuels work, but what 
this President is also doing, he has released 60 million 
barrels of oil from the strategic national stockpile. We 
believe that is a quick way to deal with the inflationary 
pressure.
    Mr. Feenstra. Well, I thank you for that, but there is no 
biofuels. I mean here is American made Iowa, Midwest biofuels, 
and crickets, nothing, zero in the budget.
    Anyway, I think I have a question for you. In the budget 
proposal you clearly lay out $2.5 trillion in new taxes on 
families and businesses and then you create a side deficit 
neutral reserve fund to pay for your Build Back Better 
priorities, but you don't really show how you do that. At the 
same time it says here in this green book that your baseline 
includes all revenue provisions from Build Back Better, which 
would mean that the Biden Administration is increasing taxes by 
$4 trillion.
    I am trying to make sense of this. Is it $2.5 trillion you 
are increasing or is it $4 trillion based on this book that I 
see and what it says?
    Ms. Young. So we are holding some revenue back for 
legislation that we talked about here today to cut costs for 
the American people. I will point out one thing we are not 
repeating in this budget that if Congress would like to use its 
savings for Build Back Better, and it is the savings--we get 
about $600 billion to reduce the cost of prescription drugs, 
the AGS surtaxes and other things.
    Mr. Feenstra. But I get that, I get that. But in essence it 
is $4 trillion then because you are putting in this line item. 
You are showing us here that you are assuming that H.R. 5376 is 
going to be a pass, so in essence that would be a $4 trillion 
increase?
    Ms. Young. Yes, we are holding revenue for legislation and 
its cost for families----
    Mr. Feenstra. A $4 trillion increase.
    Ms. Young [continuing]. and raising additional tax revenue 
in this budget.
    Mr. Feenstra. Gotcha. All right. One more question. I am 
worried about our seniors. I really am. About what is going to 
happen in society here. And you said that you didn't do 
anything to change how things were happening right now. So in 
essence we are telling our seniors that our Social Security 
Trust Fund will be gone by 2031. You are talking Highway Trust 
Fund that will be done by 2027, Part A will be done by 2026. 
This is going to scare a lot of seniors, don't you think?
    Ms. Young. I think the scarier thing is if we put forth 
options to reduce their benefits, which this President is not 
going to do.
    Mr. Feenstra. I don't think anybody is asking to reduce 
their benefits, unless the Democrats are asking to reduce the 
benefits----
    Ms. Young. Well there have been some proposals----
    Mr. Feenstra [continuing]. or the Administration is asking 
to reduce the benefits.
    Ms. Young [continuing]. around to do that. We are not going 
to do that. We think focusing on the wealthy and those making 
more than $400,000 is the more appropriate thing to do.
    Mr. Feenstra. OK. So seniors sitting at home, the budget 
doesn't touch this. I mean this is scary time. I mean if I am 
them, I am going, oh, my word. I am 68, 78, I have no more 
money, I have no more Social Security Part A.
    Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman's time has expired.
    I now recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott, for 
five minutes.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and 
congratulations, Director Young, for your confirmation.
    I want to thank you for your patience as you have been 
lectured about fiscal responsibility. I just want to point out, 
as you know, that every Democratic president since Kennedy is--
every Democratic administration since Kennedy has left office 
with a better deficit situation than they inherited, without 
exception. And every Republican president since then has left 
office with a worse deficit situation than they inherited, 
without exception. President Trump was well on his way to 
fulfilling that trend before the pandemic.
    And so my question is will President Biden maintain that 
trend of Democratic presidents improving the deficit, 
notwithstanding all of the lectures you have been hearing?
    Ms. Young. So, sir, I will repeat again, and I am happy to 
report that we have seen the largest year over year decline in 
the deficit this year. $1.3 trillion in this budget would also 
further reduce the deficit by over $1 trillion in the next 10 
years.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you.
    And you have heard a lot about the $3,500 inflation that 
families are having to address. I think they have ignored the 
fact that your Administration has actually done something to 
help them address that $3,500 burden. For a family of four, 
stimulus checks of $5,600 would help them pay the $3.500, child 
tax credit, $6,000 would help them the $3,500, improve their 
premiums in the Affordable Care Act, increased benefits under 
the earned income tax credit, increase SNAP benefits. All have 
helped them deal with inflation. And it works. There is a 
measure of stress. Credit card delinquencies last year 
according to the Federal Reserve were the lowest rate they have 
been since they have been keeping records.
    You have also mentioned that you are not only helping them 
make the payments, you are doing something about it. You talked 
about the supply chain, trains, roads, and bridges. I want to 
thank you for your investments in the ports. Hampton Roads 
didn't suffer the problem, but in the California ports that had 
ships all out in the ocean. Those good could have been in the 
market helping to reduce prices, increase the supply. You made 
those investments.
    You have also invested in productivity, in childcare. 
Millions of people could go to work if we had better childcare. 
Job training. They can work better. And that is work too. You 
mentioned job creation, best job creation in history.
    And so you actually are doing something about it.
    So my question I guess is, is it better to do something 
about it or just sit back and complain?
    Ms. Young. Well, we are not going to do that. And so we 
believe--and there are legitimate differences here, but this 
President believes that it makes sense to bring down the cost 
of healthcare for Americans. We are talking about inflationary 
pressures. Look at the exorbitant amount that Americans pay on 
healthcare. We believe that we should have legislation that 
brings down energy costs for Americans. And childcare you 
mentioned. So we--again, I am--legitimate differences here, but 
this President has put forth ideas in which to deal with them.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you. Better to do something about it than 
just complain.
    As you know, I chair the Committee on Education and Labor. 
And one of the problems in education is student loans. And that 
is exacerbated by the erosion of the value of the Pell Grant. 
Are you doing anything on Pell Grants?
    Ms. Young. One, Mr. Scott, thank you for the omnibus bill 
recently passed that would up Pell Grants by $400. We also 
invest in Pell Grants in this budget. Through your Committee we 
are asking to increase the maximum Pell Grants. This President 
wants to double Pell Grants to get Pell Grants closer to 
$13,000. So both on the discretionary and mandatory side we are 
asking for increases to meet the President's goals.
    Mr. Scott. There is a chronic achievement gap of low-income 
students. Have you done anything with Title 1?
    Ms. Young. Title I, again, I want to thank all of you for 
the omnibus, which provided record increase of $1 billion for 
Title I that helps our children across school districts across 
the country. We continue to ask for $19 billion more so our 
children have access--all of our children have access to first 
class education.
    Mr. Scott. And in the labor space. Let me ask three 
questions all at once. Are you doing anything for those 
returning from prison, are you protecting people from 
discrimination with the EEOC, and with increased interest in 
joining unions while the work force at the NLRB has been 
declining, are you doing anything at the NLRB?
    Ms. Young. You have heard that we have a $45 million 
increase in NLRB to begin to rebuild that important agency. As 
far as formerly incarcerated persons, we think it is 
appropriate to invest to ensure--it is part of our crime 
initiative. We are asking for $30 billion in the mandatory 
space to bring down crime, institute criminal justice reform, 
and help those formerly incarcerated become productive citizens 
in this country.
    Mr. Scott. And the EEOC?
    Ms. Young. And EEOC asking for increase, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman yields back.
    And now I would like to recognize the gentleman from 
Virginia, Mr. Good, for five minutes.
    Mr. Good. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Director Young, would you say that this Administration is 
economically, financially, and fiscally incompetent and doesn't 
understand the consequences of this indefensible budget? Or, 
worse, this Administration does understand the tremendous harm 
they are doing to the country, and therefore wants to destroy 
the country financially and bankrupt our future?
    Ms. Young. Mr. Good, thank you for that. I don't accept 
either of those premises----
    Mr. Good. I am going to reclaim my time and not make you 
try to defend the indefensible.
    A small business owner within the hour just told me on the 
phone, he is a builder, a developer, a job creator with my home 
district in Virginia, five, and he just said ``Nothing they're 
doing makes sense unless they hate the country.'' So, again, I 
am going to take most of my time to speak rather than ask you 
defend the indefensible, because this proposed budget exposes 
either the incompetence or the deviousness of this 
Administration.
    You literally couldn't do more harm fiscally to the country 
unless you were doing it on purpose. To spend $73 trillion--God 
forbid Democrats ever find out what comes after a trillion--so 
that you spend $73 trillion over the next 10 years, a 66 
percent increase--66 percent over the previous 10 year period, 
for what? What is the average American going to get for this 
budget? What are they going to get besides higher taxes on all 
Americans, more debt, which will require additional higher 
taxes rapidly increasing inflation, which decrease purchasing 
power--in effect another higher tax on Americans--less control 
over their own lives and how they spend their money, decisions 
they make, from what kind of cares they drive to how they heat 
their homes, and a bleaker financial future for their children 
and their grandchildren.
    This budget proposes $58 trillion in taxes, 80 percent 
increase over the previous 10 years. The only thing the 
Democrats do more or raise more quickly than spending is 
taxes--again, on all Americans. But not to worry to any 
American who has the misfortune of watching this hearing, not 
to worry, because this budget hires 87,000 more IRS agents, 
America, to make sure they collect those taxes they intend to 
increase on all of you and to make sure that you pay what they 
consider to be your fair share. I am sure my fellow colleagues 
and Members in this Committee hear from their constituents the 
same thing I do. The one thing we need is more IRS agents. How 
about if we instead make the IRS employees actually come to 
work and process those outstanding tax refunds from last year? 
Incredibly, when we owe $30 trillion in national debt. And I am 
embarrassed to say that on this Committee when I say that I 
have Members on the other side say don't talk about how much we 
owe, because when I say it is $90,000 per citizen right now--
$90,000 per citizen for 330 million Americans for $30 trillion 
in national debt, I get told by leadership on this Committee, 
don't say that because we are not asking anybody to pay it 
back, as if it is not real. As if it is Monopoly money and it 
doesn't matter, it doesn't count. It is already, what, the 
third largest budget is paying the interest on the debt. Every 
1 percent increase in the interest rate costs us roughly $300 
billion a year just to pay the debt.
    So I am sure my--so this Administration--so here we have 
got $30,000 in debt and we actually propose or admit--we 
admit--we have the audacity to admit that we are going to to 
intend to increase the national debt by another $16 trillion 
over 10 years--$16 trillion over 10 years. That is $50,000 per 
American.
    I submit that no American would vote for that willingly and 
say, yes, raise my share of the national debt by $50,000 
because I am going to get what from this budget. What American 
would vote for that?
    This budget, comparing apples to apples, it is a 30 percent 
increase, $1.4 trillion, over the fiscal--for fiscal 1923 over 
the last year, fiscal 1920, before the government crushed the 
economy in the name of the China virus. So, in other words, it 
was $4.4 trillion budget in fiscal 1919, now in fiscal 1923--or 
fiscal 1920 is $4.4 trillion, now in fiscal 1923 it is $5.8 
trillion, a 30 percent increase. Incredibly, the incompetent 
and irresponsible response of this Administration beyond that 
is trillion dollar increases in the deficit as far as the eye 
can see.
    Meanwhile, this Administration, the President said it 
during the State of the Union speech, and you have said it 
already here this morning, we are trying to give ourselves a 
medal and pat ourselves on the back because we are going to be 
the first Administration in the history of the country to cut 
the deficit by a $1 trillion in a year. So just because we are 
not spending the ridiculous amount that was unwarranted in the 
name of the China virus, and we don't have quite that much 
spending in this bloated, exorbitant, massive budget proposal.
    Director Young how can you keep the title of the Director 
of Management and Budget? Don't you think it should be called 
the Director of Mismanagement and Excessive Spending? I mean is 
that management? Is that budgeting, what we are doing?
    Ms. Young. Mr. Good, if you would like a policy that cuts 
Medicare and Social Security, which you are promoting, either 
you raise revenues on the wealthy, or you cut Medicare and 
Social Security
    Mr. Good. What I propose is we don't bankrupt the future of 
America and we don't do it on the backs of our children and our 
grandchildren.
    Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman's time has expired.
    I now recognize the gentleman from St. Peter's for five 
minutes, Mr. Sires.
    Mr. Sires. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Director Young, first of all, thank you for coming before 
this Committee to answer questions about the President's budget 
proposal for 2023. And let me first start by saying that I love 
this country. I think this is the greatest country in the 
world. I think that there is no other country like this country 
and I am eternally grateful for the opportunity to have come to 
this country for me and my family. So I do not hate this 
country, I do not hate this budget. As a matter of fact, I am 
pleased with the request for the robust funding levels in 
programs that are important to me.
    First of all, let us talk about affordable housing. I come 
from a district that affordable housing is very important. 
Director, do we have an increase in there?
    Ms. Young. Not only do we deal with the demand issue 
through increase in vouchers, we have a $50 billion mandatory 
proposal that ensures that we deal with the lack of supply many 
communities have.
    Mr. Sires. Thank you.
    Do we have an increase for security of communities with 
police?
    Ms. Young. $3.2 billion, including a $300 million increase 
for cops, as well as a $30 billion multi-year proposal to deal 
with community violence.
    Mr. Sires. So that goes along with what the President said, 
there is no cut in policing, right?
    Ms. Young. There is an increase for policing.
    Mr. Sires. There is an increase. Thank you very much.
    Do we have an increase of Pell Grants, something that is 
very important to my district, especially people who I 
represent?
    Ms. Young. Absolutely, sir. We believe that is a path to 
making college affordable for those amongst us that can't 
afford college and leave college in debt. And we are on the 
path to doubling the maximum Pell Grant.
    Mr. Sires. Thank you, Director.
    And under this President do we have an increase in 
infrastructure spending? Because my whole state in New Jersey 
is one big transportation hub and there is a very aged 
infrastructure. And I am very happy to see that the 
infrastructure bill was passed and the increase that we are 
seeing. So do we have an investment in infrastructure in this 
country?
    Ms. Young. Yes, we continue our investments through 
increases in the Department of Transportation, 6 percent over 
the 1921 levels, the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, and some of those investments in the housing 
supplies we have talked about.
    Mr. Sires. Thank you, Director.
    And I know that every time we increase--the Democrats 
increase defense funding, defense funding is never enough. But 
do we have an increase in defense funding--spending in this 
bill?
    Ms. Young. The Department of Defense would see a 4 percent 
increase over the omnibus level.
    Mr. Sires. But obviously when it is the Democrats that 
increase it, it is never enough.
    And I have to ask you one more question which is important 
to me. People always criticize the undocumented, the people 
that are working in this country that do not have documents. Do 
they contribute to Social Security?
    Ms. Young. Many of them do and many of them pay local taxes 
and contribute to their communities.
    Mr. Sires. Now, and many of them do not collect their 
Social Security when they retire, right?
    Ms. Young. It would be difficult. I don't know how they 
would do that without proper paperwork?
    Mr. Sires. So that is money that goes into our budget. 
Would you know how many billions of dollars that is? Or----
    Ms. Young. No, sir. But I would be happy to see what we 
have and to provide it for the record.
    Mr. Sires. Yes, I would appreciate it if you would do that, 
because, you know, I know it is as much as $9 and $10 billion 
that they never collect because they either go back to their 
country or they are just not allowed to collect it.
    Ms. Young. That is correct, Congressman, that is my 
understanding of how that would work. If they paid into the 
system, there would be no way to get funding out of the system.
    Well, I just want to say thank you for this budget, thank 
you for you being here so we can ask you all these questions. I 
am sure that in your 26 years of work in this field you have 
developed enough experience to be called Director of the Budget 
Office.
    Thank you.
    Ms. Young. Thank you.
    Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman yields back.
    Per our agreement with Director Young, the Committee will 
recess briefly.
    Without objection, the Committee will stand in recess 
subject to the call of the chair. I request that Members return 
at 12:30 p.m. so the hearing may proceed.
    [Recess]
    Chairman Yarmuth. The Committee will come to order. We will 
now continue with the hearing, the question and answer period. 
And I now yield five minutes to the gentlewoman from Iowa, Mrs. 
Hinson.
    Mrs. Hinson. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding 
this hearing. And thank you, Director Young, for coming before 
us today. I look forward to hearing your answers to our 
questions.
    I would like to start off by thanking our Ranking Member 
Smith for pointing out that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act will 
expire as a part of this budget, raising taxes on working 
families in Iowa. It raises taxes on our small business, on 
firefighters, on teachers, on shift workers building tractors, 
and on the healthcare heroes who have dedicated their lives to 
make others healthy, especially during a pandemic. We are going 
to reward them with a tax increase.
    I just finished my fifth 20 county tour across the 
district, held a telephone town hall last night. There is a 
clear consistent theme from my constituents. What I am hearing 
on the ground, what I heard on that last night, and that is the 
concern about rising prices. So whether it is farm repairs, 
farm inputs, the price at the pump for gas, the increases for 
everyday goods like groceries, bacon, milk, working families 
are struggling right now to continue to put food on the table. 
And that is largely because of the Administration's policies. 
And we know increased federal spending is driving up these 
costs.
    And yet the President's budget request proposes $73 
trillion in spending over the next 10 years with a projected 
$14 trillion impact on the deficit. That is a tab that is up to 
the next generation to have to pay. We are leaving that for 
them. Inflation today is at 7.9 percent, the highest it has 
been in four decades, and yet the President's budget plan 
assumes inflation will only be 2.3 percent through the next 
foreseeable future here, all the way to 2032. This is just out 
of touch. And we have heard why that it so, but I asked you a 
little bit about this same issue last year. Here we are a year 
later with even worse inflation than what we had a year ago.
    So my question is why is the Administration continuing to 
make these claims that are out of touch about inflation, low 
inflation here, high inflation with what we are paying at the 
grocery store and what consumers are actually facing. Because 
that is affecting Iowans every single day.
    Ms. Young. We hear you, Mrs. Hinson, and we share your 
concerns. We might disagree on a proposal to get inflation 
under control, but the President is concerned about these cost 
pressures on Americans. You mentioned farmers. We have worked 
at the Administration, for example, to ensure that those who 
work farms can, for example, fix their own equipment. We have 
found that there is that competition always and people have----
    Mrs. Hinson. Right to repairs, completely different issue 
from what I am asking about here. I am asking why specifically 
or not being accurate in your accounting of inflation here. 
Because I mean if you are making a budget projected based on 
numbers that are wrong, that is irresponsible and disrespectful 
to taxpayers.
    Ms. Young. Well, actually the numbers were baked in 
November. That is how budgets work. We have to close the books 
at some point and send you a budget. But I hope you know that 
inflation both--has an offsetting effect. Both revenues usually 
go up with higher inflation as well as spending. Therefore the 
long-term projections are not affected by a different inflation 
rate. But you are absolutely right, it is higher than our 
estimates were in November when we locked what we 
affectionately call a data base.
    Mrs. Hinson. Well, I hope going forward that we can be 
cognizant of the fact that those numbers are inaccurate, so as 
we as a Committee are continuing to work with you and your 
office, being cognizant these numbers are not right is going to 
be crucial as we are making the right decisions.
    I am glad you mentioned farmers in this Administration 
because Americans are struggling with the cost of fuel. This 
includes billions of dollars in funding for EVs and charging 
infrastructure. These taxpayer dollars do nothing to actually 
drive down the cost of fuel for Iowans, but the subsidies will 
make inflation even worse.
    And on the campaign trail the President came to Iowa and 
looked Iowans in the eye and said you could count on him for a 
new era of biofuels, quoting the President here, ``Lip service 
won't make up for nearly four years of retroactive damage that 
has decimated our trade economy and forced ethanol plants to 
shutter.'' So we have heard that it is already not in this 
budget, but I am wondering why. Why is it not in this budget? 
Why does the Administration break their promise here to Iowans 
and to Americans to not support the usage of renewable 
biofuels, domestic fuels, domestic energy production, like 
ethanol?
    Ms. Young. Thank you for bringing this up. And I am sorry I 
didn't get a chance to fully address this with Mr. Feenstra.
    This budget, as you all know, starts October 1. Many of the 
inflationary increases we are seeing in gas have to do with the 
Russia-Ukraine situation. We have to deal with that fluid 
situation before this budget even takes effect. So we are happy 
with the $13 billion this Congress provided to help with 
assistance to Ukraine, but the gas situation in addition to 
selling 60 million barrels from the strategic petroleum 
reserve. We will also be looking to other things in which to 
bring down costs for Americans. But that is going to be before 
this budget takes effect.
    Mrs. Hinson. Well, we are looking at obviously projections 
here for many years out, so I think Iowans want to know why it 
is not included. If you are having conversations about all 
these other things in the future, why is biofuels noticeably 
missing.
    My final question, we have obviously 2 million encounters 
at the southern border, we saw some increased funding for CBP 
in the omnibus and a supplemental there, but we are back at 
square one here with these cuts--to propose cuts to the CBP. 
So, again, why is that happening?
    Ms. Young. You see actually a 5 percent increase to DHS, 
including for agents. Many in our party will disagree, but we 
believe there is a necessity for additional personnel to ensure 
that we have an orderly immigration system. In addition to 
that, we have an increase for immigration judges to make sure 
we move people through the legal system. So we absolutely have 
put forth what we believe is a balanced approach to deal with 
the border.
    Mrs. Hinson. Well----
    Chairman Yarmuth. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
    Mrs. Hinson. Thank you. I yield back.
    Chairman Yarmuth. I now recognize the gentleman from 
Massachusetts, Mr. Moulton, for five minutes.
    Mr. Moulton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Director Young, 
thank you so much for being here with us.
    A lot of my questions are about modernization. How we face 
the future and meet the challenges and opportunities that it 
presents. Can you talk to me for a second about how we are 
modernizing our military? Our national security? Here we are 
watching Russian tanks get destroyed by drones on TV. One of 
the biggest threats that Americans face from this ongoing war 
in Ukraine is the threat of cyber attacks here at home. And our 
biggest adversary in the world is China. China has not only 
invested in future capabilities, like advanced missile systems, 
space systems, and artificial intelligence, but they have made 
important cuts to make those investments possible.
    We used to quite frankly be thrilled that China had a 
million man army because it wasn't that good. Well, they have 
cut that army to invest in future capabilities. How is the 
Administration meeting that challenge?
    Ms. Young. Thank you for that.
    And we are increasing the Department of Defense budget by 4 
percent. It is in line with the National Defense Strategy. Last 
year the Administration was new, still working on how we saw 
the military of the future. But we are investing more in AI, we 
are invested in hypersonics.
    In addition to the legacy equipment, F35s, submarines that 
many, many of you are interested in, so we have to do both. We 
have to invest in our traditional capabilities as well as look 
to the future, including our cyber threats.
    Mr. Moulton. It has often been said that Congress gets in 
the way of the cuts we need to make to invest in the future. 
Would you agree with that?
    Ms. Young. Out of deference to my former place of 
employment, I am just going to say this is the beginning of a 
process and I look forward to working with you throughout it.
    Mr. Moulton. Well, if you won't agree to my statement, I 
will. I think we have a lot of work to do here to make sure 
that we are not just protecting parochial interests at the 
expense of our national security.
    China is also trying to out compete us in foreign aid by 
attacking really one of our strengths. And that is the allies, 
the partnerships that we have around the globe. Look at much 
they are investing in places like Africa. This budget puts $682 
million toward Ukraine's support. Is that correct?
    Ms. Young. That is correct. But remember, that is the 
longer-term objective. What we are really using for enhanced 
humanitarian aid now is the $13 billion Congress thankfully 
provided to us earlier this month.
    Mr. Moulton. It is amazing to compare $682 million that we 
are investing or proposed to invest in Ukraine with the amount 
that Trump proposed investing in Ukraine when he tried to 
blackmail Zelensky, which was exactly zero.
    Director Young, it is also important that we take this 
opportunity, having passed this historic infrastructure bill, 
to invest in the future of transportation. Is it the 
Administration's position that we should invest in modes and 
investments in--that have a high ROI, a high return on 
investment for the American taxpayer?
    Ms. Young. That is what we believe. We also believe 
projects should have high benefit-cost ratios. And we certainly 
have put out guidance, at the consternation of some, that does 
try to focus our transportation in innovative modernizing ways.
    Mr. Moulton. I mean I would point out that high speed rail 
has some of the highest ROIs in transportation, which frankly 
is why the rest of the world is investing in it. China has 
built in just the last 12 years the largest high speed rail 
system in the world.
    Are you familiar with the size of the United Kingdom's 
budget compared to our own?
    Ms. Young. I am not actually.
    Mr. Moulton. Well, the United Kingdom, a country that is 1/
40th our size, is investing $120 billion on a single high speed 
rail line to the north of the country. How does that compare 
with our investments in high speed rail?
    Ms. Young. I mean clearly, Mr. Moulton, we have to work 
with Congress, as you pointed out, that represents many 
different parts of the country.
    Mr. Moulton. Well, I would just say that if America is 40 
times bigger than the United States, we shouldn't be moving 
around much more slowly than the rest of the world. The Brits 
can go three times as fast as we can on our interstate system 
on their new high speed rail line. Investing in more highways 
creates more traffic jams. Investing in a lot of electric 
vehicles makes those traffic jams silent, but we still have a 
lot of traffic jams.
    So we have passed this historic infrastructure bill. I 
think the Administration has an opportunity to truly make these 
investments for the future. We can build more 1950's era trains 
and railways, or we can build for the future. And I hope you 
take that opportunity.
    Ms. Young. Thank you.
    Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman yields back.
    I now recognize the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Donalds, 
for five minutes.
    Mr. Donalds. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Director, thanks for 
being here. I really do appreciate it.
    Obviously, you know, a budget in five minutes, we are not 
going to be able to deconstruct this entire thing. So let us 
try to focus in.
    No. 1, the corporate tax increase. The corporate tax rate 
under your budget--under the President's budget, excuse me--
goes up to 28 percent. Is it the Administration's belief that 
an increase in the corporate tax rate will have no impact on an 
already inflationary environment with higher prices for 
consumers?
    Ms. Young. We don't believe it will change the operations 
of how corporations make decision. No, we don't.
    Mr. Donalds. Well, no, no, the question, Director Young, 
does the Administration believe that higher corporate income 
taxes will have an--will force an increase in prices in an 
already inflationary environment that a lot of people actually 
really believe now was unleashed by the American Rescue Plan 
from last February.
    Ms. Young. Mr. Donalds, I do--we do not believe that is the 
case.
    Mr. Donalds. OK. So the Administration doesn't think that 
higher taxes are going to lead to higher prices on top of an 
already inflationary environment?
    Ms. Young. For corporations, are you assuming they pass on 
their tax rates onto----
    Mr. Donalds. Right. Corporations always pass on the costs 
increases. They are doing it with inflationary costs with the 
ability to get their products right now. The portions that they 
need to create their products to sell to consumers, when the 
cost of freight is up, the cost of wheat is up, the cost of oil 
is up. That is all being passed through. Yes or no?
    Ms. Young. Mr. Donalds, I don't believe that--we don't 
believe, this Administration, that asking corporations to pay 
28 percent--they used to pay 35 percent before the last tax 
cuts--will increase inflationary pressures.
    Mr. Donalds. Director Young, does the Administration 
acknowledge the fact that when the corporate tax rate was cut 
from 35 to 21 that the United States raised more revenue in 
corporate income taxes than in any other point in American 
history?
    Ms. Young. What we saw was a continued use of legal 
loopholes that prevented--I mentioned this earlier--50 
corporations of the Fortune 500 from paying any taxes.
    Mr. Donalds. I am not talking about the uses of what is 
already in the tax code. I actually would argue that if we are 
going to have a fair code, we should adopt a flat tax or a fair 
tax. I mean I don't think that is the Administration's 
position. That is my position if we are going to have a fair 
code. But to talk about what they use in the current legal 
structure of the tax code, you can't make that argument and say 
that, oh, well they are using these things. I am talking about 
did they raise--did the government raise more revenue from 
corporate income taxes? Yes or no?
    Ms. Young. And corporations continue to make more. That is 
the point, Mr. Donalds.
    Mr. Donalds. All right. Let us move on, because I know we 
are not going to get anywhere there.
    In your proposal, I am reading like the expanded 
explanation here.
    Ms. Young. You are reading the green book?
    Mr. Donalds. Yes, I am reading the green book right now. 
Right now we have a serious situation in the United States 
associated with gas prices and rising oil prices, which is 
going to impact every American, whether they are rich or poor, 
whether they are black or white. The one thing that will be 
consistent is that it will affect everybody. There will be no 
inequality associated with rising energy prices. In your budget 
proposal the Administration is actually saying that they are 
going to unwind every tax benefit associated with fossil fuels 
in the United States. Does the Administration believe that 
completely eviscerating all oil and natural gas tax treatments 
that we have had in our country frankly for 30-40 years, do 
they believe that that will actually lead to lower prices on 
oil and natural gas?
    Ms. Young. We don't believe the tax structure offered will 
lead to increased gas prices, but you are right, Mr. Donalds, 
we have to do something to bring down the cost. But I hope you 
would agree that costs have gone up since the Russian 
aggression in Ukraine.
    Mr. Donalds. Director Young, we have to acknowledge that 
oil prices have been up far before Vladimir Putin invaded 
Ukraine on February 24.
    Ms. Young. But $1 since.
    Mr. Donalds. The price of a barrel of oil was up 
significantly, the price of gas was roughly $3.65 cents on 
average in the United States. That was already significantly 
higher than what it has been over the last four years in the 
United States. Do you acknowledge that?
    Ms. Young. I acknowledge that there were increased energy 
prices that have further increased since Russian aggression.
    Mr. Donalds. Director Young, OK, so we understand that 
prices are higher now since February 24. we are going to 
acknowledge for the record that prices have been higher under 
the President's Administration currently. The President has 
talked about how he wants to get away from fossil fuels. Is the 
Administration's position that essentially eliminating all tax 
treatment, which makes oil and gas production in the United 
State far easier, that that is actually going to be to the 
betterment of the United States from an energy perspective 
going forward I the country?
    Ms. Young. Mr. Donalds, we think we need a comprehensive 
approach. I will remind everyone here, our country is one of 
the three before Russia took this route that produced over 10 
million barrels a month. This country----
    Mr. Donalds. Let me ask you a question.
    Ms. Young [continuing]. does not have an oil production 
problem.
    Mr. Donalds. A quick followup on that. That is under 
current tax treatment. I would argue that if the tax treatment 
and oil and gas companies goes up, we are going to have a 
production problem. But to that point, one of the main talking 
points from the Administration is that you want an economy that 
works for everyone, you want a tax system that is fair. Is it 
fair for the green energy portion of energy in the United 
States to have significantly more favorable tax treatment than 
oil and natural gas?
    Ms. Young. As we know, these are developing systems. We 
need to ensure that those systems, as many systems in this 
country have received----
    Mr. Donalds. So it is OK for oil and natural gas to be 
treated unfairly.
    Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Donalds. But we were getting to the answer, Chairman. 
Come on, now, give me a couple of minutes. Come on, Chairman, 
we were good.
    Chairman Yarmuth. Well, I will let her answer, but you 
can't continue to debate.
    Mr. Donalds. All right, all right, all right. Thank you, 
Mr. Chairman.
    Director Young, please.
    Ms. Young. And, Mr. Yarmuth, thank you.
    And, by the way, many of the subsidies for people who want 
to buy electric vehicles, this is to help consumer. Many 
consumers want solar panels, many consumers want electric 
vehicles. The government--we believe the best way to help them 
achieve that and also a cleaner world is to provide subsidies 
through our tax system.
    Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman's time----
    Mr. Donalds. The Chairman cut me off. I am good. Thanks, 
Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Director Young.
    Chairman Yarmuth [continuing]. has expired. The gentleman's 
time
    Ms. Young. Thank you, Mr. Donalds.
    Chairman Yarmuth. As always, you have the opportunity to 
submit questions in writing to the Director and she can then 
subsequently answer for the record.
    I now yield five minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Washington, Ms. Jayapal.
    Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Director Young, it is 
great to see you and to call you Director. Congratulations 
again on your appointment.
    And I wanted to say, first of all, that there are many 
things in this budget that we appreciate, including the taxes 
on the wealthiest. As you know, I am a lead sponsor of the 
Ultra-Millionaire Tax Act. We also appreciate the restrictions 
on stock buy backs, as well as some of the immigration 
provisions that you mentioned earlier. The investment in 
judges, the legal counsel, and community-based alternatives to 
detention. We appreciate all of those things. So thank you for 
those.
    Switching gears, America has a monopoly crisis that is 
strangling small businesses and hurting people's pocketbooks 
while corporations have made immense profits through pandemic 
profiteering and price gouging. And I was very pleased to see 
the historic increases to the anti-trust division and to FTC to 
robustly enforce our anti-trust laws. But that is just one 
piece. As you know, we have very bipartisan efforts here in 
Congress to give federal agencies more tools to ensure 
competition.
    Director Young, do you agree that those efforts should be 
prioritized?
    Ms. Young. We do. And that is why we talked earlier--
increasing competition is one way. We have to deal with 
inflation in this country. And why you see a $273 million 
request for the anti-trust division and Department of Justice, 
$88 million increase, 48 percent over 2021, and a $498 million 
request or a 40 percent increase over 2021 for the FTC.
    Ms. Jayapal. Thank you. And I also appreciate the 
Department of Justice's recent letter stating the Department's 
views that the ``Rise of dominant platforms presents a threat 
to open markets and competition. And we are looking forward to 
moving our package along.''
    Now, you won't be surprised to know that I need to express 
my deep concern with the 4 percent increase in defense 
spending. This is on top of the unprecedented increase over the 
President's fiscal 1922 request that just became law.
    Director Young, can you tell me how much the Pentagon has 
given to just five contractors?
    Ms. Young. Are we just picking contractors?
    Ms. Jayapal. Five large----
    Ms. Young. I am sure I can----
    Ms. Jayapal [continuing]. contractors.
    Ms. Young [continuing]. yes--get back to you, 
Congresswoman, on the top contractors I assume you are 
interested in.
    Ms. Jayapal. Let me tell you that up to one-third of 
Pentagon contracts after 9/11 went to just five contractors. 
And from Fiscal Year 2001 to 2020 these companies received $2.1 
trillion in 2021 dollars. And in fiscal 2020 alone the Pentagon 
have $75 billion in contracts to Lockheed Martin, which totals 
more than one and a half times the entire budgets of the state 
Department and USAID.
    Director Young, is the Pentagon the only federal agency 
that has never passed an audit?
    Ms. Young. I believe that is correct.
    Ms. Jayapal. So--and it has actually failed its last four 
audits. And yet we are continuing to pile money on top. And I 
would just say that to Representative Moulton's questions, I 
would argue that there are more efficient ways to spend the 
money we have. It doesn't mean that we can't have solid and 
secure national security if we actually cut out waste, fraud, 
and abuse and focus on the technologies that are going to 
provide us with the biggest bang for the buck. And yet it seems 
that our only strategy on military spending is bigger is 
better.
    Do you think that bigger is better for ever and ever, 
Director Young?
    Ms. Young. I think a defense budget has to be strategy 
based. I have--Congresswoman, you have been a long time 
advocate here on getting rid of waste, fraud, and abuse in the 
Department of Defense. That is accurate. But we have also heard 
from the other side of the aisle who believe our number isn't 
large enough. That is why we believe the right thing to do here 
is use the long-term defense strategy to build our budget.
    Ms. Jayapal. Director Young, what--you know, I assume that 
the other side also would agree that we don't want waste, 
fraud, and abuse in our Pentagon budget. And I remember last 
year, or last term, under a Republican president, we actually 
had a Republican budget director come and testify that the 
Pentagon should pass an audit. What work is going on to make 
sure that the Pentagon passes a budget before we continue to 
increase military spending indiscriminately just to thump the 
patriotic banner and say that somehow because we are increasing 
military spending, even though we can't pay for our veterans 
here at home, even though we can't invest in education in the 
ways that we want, even though we are having debates around 
whether or not we have enough money for childcare, something 
the President has advocated for, by the way, more childcare. 
But as we have those debates, how are we going to make sure 
that the taxpayer dollars that we are spending are actually 
going to an audited agency that has cut out waste, fraud, and 
abuse?
    Ms. Young. There is no reasonable person who would disagree 
that the Pentagon should be able to pass a basic audit. But I 
do want to reiterate, we think the need here is to put forward 
a budget that is tied to a national strategy. Whether or not 
you agree with the strategy is another thing, but as you heard, 
there are a lot of opinions on what the defense number should 
be.
    Ms. Jayapal. Director Young, you know how I have been 
advocating on this for a long time and I just don't understand. 
There is nothing that is contradictory to a national defense 
strategy when we talk about making sure the Pentagon passes an 
audit and cuts out waste, fraud, and abuse before we heap more 
dollars on it.
    So thank you again for your tremendous service to our 
country in the role that you currently occupy and in everything 
you have done before this. And I hope we can work together to 
actually make taxpayer dollars mean something instead of just 
profits to five defense contractors.
    The gentlewoman's time has expired.
    Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Yarmuth. Thank you.
    I now recognize the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Carey, for 
five minutes.
    Mr. Carey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Smith.
    Director, appreciated the conversation we had yesterday by 
phone. Thank you very much.
    In going through all of the information that I have 
received, I just want to make a few points, then I will ask my 
question.
    No. 1, it is what is said and what is not said. In going 
through the document, I realized that there is zero mention--I 
think Congressman Cline brought this up--zero mention of a debt 
crisis or an inflation crisis. Yet it mentions climate crisis 
over 33 times. The other--some of the other mentions that I 
have found interesting, it mentions tax fee or penalty 127 
times. It does not mention the Keystone Pipeline, nor does it 
mention--zero--any plans for new domestic oil and natural gas 
production, while it mentions 27 times green, greenhouse, and 
187 mentions of climate.
    Now, you have had a lot of questions today with regards to 
the price of gas, but again, I am going to back to just some of 
the other things.
    In this document there are zero mentions of border security 
in the budget--zero mentions. There are four mentions of 
police. Zero mentions of parents in the budget as well. So, 
again, just some things that I have observed as the newest 
person on this Committee that--the things that have been 
mentioned and the things that haven't.
    But question is going to be this, really simple, how does 
this budget spend for other countries to combat climate change?
    Ms. Young. We are making a historic investment, about $11 
billion, in our international climate pledge to ensure that 
low-income countries who do emit can join all of us in the 
developing world in bringing down their pollution so our kids, 
future generations, have an earth to call home.
    Mr. Carey. A followup to that, Mr. Chairman.
    What is the total level of funding provided, including tax 
incentives, for climate related policies in this budget?
    Ms. Young. Congressman, we devote about $45 billion in 
climate activities. I will get our exhibit to you. I don't want 
to misquote where we are in the budget, but I am happy to 
provide that on the record so you have specific numbers.
    Mr. Carey. One last thing. I am going to--wrote the 
question down to make sure I have so I say it correctly. The 
results of the provision--here it is--would any of the $30 
billion in mandatory spending to prevent--combat and prevent 
crime be used to enforce gun control on any of the U.S. 
citizens?
    Ms. Young. The idea--not on--the $30 billion pot is really 
supposed to be a comprehensive look and provide state and 
locals with the tools, and including psychiatrists, mental 
health. But we do have increases in ATF to make sure that ghost 
guns and other guns that find themselves into the hands of 
criminals, that we do something about that.
    Mr. Carey. Another question. How will spending $1.4 million 
on a new Office of Environmental Justice at DoJ help our law 
enforcement agencies do their job and tackle the crime crisis 
in America?
    Ms. Young. I think we have to tackle the crime crisis in 
America while we tackle an environmental justice system. I read 
in the New York Times, there is one county, I won't say what 
state, where people's sewage actually goes into their backyard. 
They have never had a sewage system at their homes. People of 
color, low-income. We think something is wrong with that.
    Mr. Carey. And that should be part of the law enforcement 
agencies?
    Ms. Young. Where there are illegal activities, DoJ 
absolutely needs the tools to make sure all Americans are 
treated equally under the law, even when there are 
environmental issues.
    Mr. Carey. OK. All right.
    Thank you, Director.
    Ms. Young. Thank you.
    Mr. Carey. You have answered my questions and I appreciate 
your time.
    Ms. Young. Appreciate it.
    Mr. Carey. I yield back.
    Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman yields back.
    I now yield five minutes to the gentleman from Michigan, 
Mr. Kildee.
    Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, 
Director Young, for being here today to discuss this budget 
proposal. And of course congratulations on your confirmation.
    You and I have talked about a couple of these issues I want 
to raise. I represent mid-Michigan. I do appreciate the focus 
of this proposal on infrastructure, on strengthening the middle 
class, on supporting law enforcement in particular, which is 
important in the communities that I represent, and for doing 
what we can to lower costs for families.
    I was, as I have expressed to you, disappointed that the 
budget request calls for funding the Flint Registry at a lower 
level than was passed in the most recent government funding 
legislation. And for those who are not familiar, the Flint 
Registry is run through the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention. It was created by Congress to respond to the water 
crisis in my hometown and to connect families to healthcare, to 
nutrition, to lead removal services, to do the things that they 
need to do to minimize the impact of lead exposure on their 
health. It is a powerful tool. It is improving the lives of 
people who suffer through this terrible moment. And it also 
helps other communities. Benton Harbor, Michigan, most 
recently, Newark, New Jersey.
    The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2022, a bipartisan 
government funding bill, included $5 million in funding for the 
Registry. So the Michigan delegation, Democrats and 
Republicans, support this. And I just ask if the Administration 
will support fully funding the Flint Lead Registry so that we 
don't have to reduce that commitment that we are making to the 
families of Flint.
    Ms. Young. Absolutely, Mr. Kildee. And you have heard many 
times, we talk about the earliness in which we have to do 
things to get a budget to you.
    Mr. Kildee. Right.
    Ms. Young. I will say the Flint Registry was a result of 
that. We did not have time to incorporate many of the omnibus 
final decisions. We absolutely support. We talk about 
environmental justice, how can we support many environmental 
justice things without fully supporting Flint? And so you have 
my and the Administration's full support.
    Mr. Kildee. It is a--thank you for that. And it is a good 
example of when we invest in environmental justice, as you have 
in the proposed budget, perhaps we avoid the very high cost, 
both in human and financial costs, that the people of Flint 
have experienced.
    So thank you for that effort.
    One other issue that I do want to raise. And it has to do--
and, again, you and I have spoken about this--the Delphi-
salaried retirees. When GM filed for bankruptcy during the 
Great Recession, the PBGC unfairly, in the minds of myself and 
many others, cut as much as 70 percent for 20,000 Delphi-
salaried retirees, more than 5,000 in Michigan. The PBGC 
assumed responsibility for the terminated benefits, but 
couldn't pay more than the statutory benefit would allow. These 
salaried workers suffered significant losses to their benefits. 
They were, I believe, unfairly targeted in the discharge of 
that bankruptcy.
    I have introduced legislation, the Susan Muffley Act, along 
with Senator Brown of Ohio. It is bipartisan legislation. It 
would restore the benefits to these retirees. A bankruptcy, by 
the way, which was largely engineered by the U.S. Government. 
So we do bear responsibility. These pensioners have been 
fighting for the restoration of their benefits for a long time. 
Can we work with you to ensure that Congress and the 
Administration together deliver the restoration of these hard 
earned benefits to the Delphi-salaried retirees?
    Ms. Young. Mr. Kildee, thank you for your long work on 
this. I have told you privately, I will tell you publicly, we 
are happy to take a look at the legislation. We want to work 
the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, but we know those 
pensioners worked their entire careers and deserve their 
pensions. So we absolutely will work with you and provide 
whatever assistance we can.
    Mr. Kildee. I thank you for that.
    And, as we have discussed, I mean the Delphi-salaried 
retirees have exhausted other remedies and so that is why we 
are at this place where I think action by Congress is 
important. And we just want to be able to see the 
Administration as a partner in helping us get this resolution 
through to the President's desk.
    So I thank you for that and I thank you for your testimony 
and all the great work you are doing. Again, congratulations.
    Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman's time has expired.
    I now yield five minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin, 
Mr. Grothman.
    Mr. Grothman. Wow. Great. Thank you for coming over here. 
Not all of our witnesses nowadays come over and see us in 
person. So I would like to thank you for that.
    Ms. Young. Second year in a row, sir.
    Mr. Grothman. Very good.
    A comment before, I think there was a comment that the 17 
percent in AmeriCorps might not be quite enough. I will point 
out, given the current situation, nobody should ever get a 17 
percent, nobody should even get a 5 percent increase. So 
whatever. There is my comment.
    I recently was looking at some graphs and in them it showed 
that the--there are different measures of monetary supply, but 
M2 might not be the best measurement--but recently it has been 
up 40 percent year over year. And I am old enough to remember 
the inflation of the 1970's and at the time M2 was going up 
about 7 percent a year, and that was considered out of line. So 
I am just alarmed out of my mind that we have so much money 
apparently being printed by the Federal Reserve at this time. 
And, of course, one can try to blame it on something else, but 
I think clearly the inflation, which I think is well over 7 
percent--because when I talk to my farmers or talk to my 
manufacturers, their costs of production are frequently up 80-
90 percent. So I can't help but think when their final product 
gets to market, it is going to be a lot more than 7 percent.
    But could you comment on the massive increase in the money 
supply? You think that might have something to do with 
inflation? And don't you believe with the relatively high 
spending in this budget that the money supply is going to go up 
even more, which mean inflation is going to go up more?
    Ms. Young. So, sir, you probably know this and it will be 
frustrating, but we leave monetary policy for the Fed for 
exactly the reason we don't want monetary policy to be subsumed 
in our great political process and it is outside of that 
process. So I will leave monetary policy for the Reserve and I 
am sure they--and they have the tools in which to manage most 
of our inflation crisis.
    But I have gone over what the President believes we can do 
from an Administration to deal with this. I would also point 
out many have talked about the ARP legislation. I sat with 
Moody's economists yesterday who truly believe that we would 
have seen a double-dip recession had it not been for ARP. But 
we may have different solutions, but we agree, we have to do 
something to bring down pressures on pocketbook issues for 
Americans.
    Mr. Grothman. I guess I would think, well, ultimately it is 
up to the Fed to make those decisions. When we pass budgets 
with sizable deficits, I think the Fed may feel they are in a 
corner and can't do anything else but print more money.
    But in any event, now, am I correct in looking at this 
budget that the non-defense discretionary spending--and I 
assume we are going to pass bills separate from the budget as 
well, or separate from the regular appropriations bills--is up 
about 12 percent?
    Ms. Young. From the omnibus it is up about 9.5 percent with 
defense up about 4 percent.
    Mr. Grothman. OK. You are saying--do you think given the 
huge amount of debt and the huge increase in the money supply 
that it is prudent to spend 10 percent--9.6 percent, on non-
defense discretionary spending? Doesn't that alarm you? Or when 
you began to put this document together, what was your target 
number?
    Ms. Young. So remember, Mr. Grothman, the President is 
offering to pay for his proposals. So we are putting forth 
spending with tax reform. I get that many may disagree with our 
tax proposals, but he does believe we should pay for our 
proposals. And this budget we show over a trillion dollar 
decrease in the deficit. It is over 10 years.
    Mr. Grothman. OK. And what is it based on? A project 
inflation? A projected--because inflation determines kind of 
the--what type of inflation are you--or interest rates are you 
guessing when you put together the budget 10 years out?
    Ms. Young. So the inflation rates, or the interest----
    Mr. Grothman. I will say interest rates, yes.
    Ms. Young. The interest rates we are using now are lower 
than in the budget, because we did it in November--are about 
2.1 percent for this year. Right now I think we are really 
around 2.3. So we are slightly lower than interest rates. What 
we do believe over the 10-year period, we are still paying a 
lower interest rate than historic norms.
    Mr. Grothman. OK. I am going to ask you a little more of a 
bipartisan question. You are raising the corporate rate here to 
28 percent. And it is something I kind of disagree with the 
Republicans on. Historically, because we are in a worldwide 
competitive situation, we treated manufacturing a little bit 
different, because manufacturers have to compete with other 
businesses abroad and I think in a variety of ways we are 
seeing the problems that come when we are not competitive 
manufacturing with other countries.
    When--probably more likely have to be done with some bill 
through reconciliation, but would you be open to the idea that 
we go back to the old system in which manufacturing--and I 
think Barack Obama was in favor of this--I think Hillary was 
too--I might be wrong on that--that the tax rate for 
manufacturing would--since they have got to compete abroad--
would be lower than the tax rate for other sort of businesses? 
Or there is some sort of credit for manufacturing?
    Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman's time has expired.
    The witness may respond.
    Ms. Young. Thank you.
    Mr. Grothman, I really ask you to pay close attention to 
the global minimum tax proposal. You might have seen Secretary 
Yellen met with other countries to ensure exactly that, that 
people don't move a lot of these manufacturing bases to other 
countries who pay their workers less, have low or no tax rate. 
We believe that global minimum will help bring jobs back to the 
U.S.
    Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman's time has expired.
    I now yield five minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. 
Jackson Lee.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, thank you so very much for 
the opportunity. Very, very important.
    Ms. Young, let me acknowledge that the nation is better off 
for the leadership of President Joe Biden and in fact your 
leadership and support in his efforts.
    Let me immediately start by headlines that I have heard 
from some of the papers that we read here on the Hill, and you 
are a Hill pro, that says that this is a--building the deficit 
and spending budget. And I take issue with that. First of all, 
would you comment on the alternative minimum tax, or the 
minimum tax as to what it actually does? As you well know, I 
have two or three questions and your brevity would help with 
that. But I just want to get to frame this particular aspect of 
the budget.
    Thank you.
    Ms. Young. I believe you are speaking of the billionaire 
minimum tax. Billionaires pay about 8 percent tax rate and 
other regular Americans, nurses, firefighters, teachers, pay at 
least double that. So we would like them to pay a minimum rate 
closer to what most Americans pay.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. So you are speaking about fairness and 
equity, if I can hear you correctly?
    Ms. Young. That is correct.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. What will it do for the budget? The 
revenue that may come in?
    Ms. Young. Thank you for that. That is why this budget is 
deficit reducing. So we are looking to reduce the deficit, are 
on track to reduce the deficit $1.3 trillion this year, and 
reduce even further by over a trillion dollars with these 
policies.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you so very much.
    Mr. Chairman, I want to introduce in the record a childcare 
need under the 2019 Texas Childcare Facts that is produced by 
Child Aware. I ask unanimous consent to place it in the record.
    Chairman Yarmuth. Without objection.
    [Report submitted for the record follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
  
    Ms. Jackson Lee. In my state there are about a 1,812,000 
families in poverty, but here is the big number--children under 
six, 1,372,687 who are needing childcare. Let me briefly 
comment on the investment you made, $7.6 billion in 
discretionary funding for childcare and development block 
grant. Tell me it will get to the children in Texas, one 
million of them under six needing childcare.
    Ms. Young. Not only do we support that amount, the $7.6 
billion, as you talked about. It will go to the states to help 
a lot of childcare businesses. As you know, during the pandemic 
many couldn't keep their doors open. So families, especially 
women, are finding they can't reenter the work force. And we 
have to do something about that.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. So a clarion call to my constituents in 
Houston who are part of the 1.6 million children needing 
childcare, this may enhance their opportunity and their 
opportunity for women to get back into the work force?
    Ms. Young. That. And, Congresswoman, I would also point 
that the President has been supportive of childcare as part of 
further legislation still under consideration. This would be 
one part of it.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Absolutely, we support that to ensure a 7 
percent cap on any family's childcare cost.
    Let me just thank the Administration quickly for its COVID 
action. Unlike the awkward and unprepared of the last 
Administration. You have a $11.6 billion as it deals with the 
pandemic and public health preparedness. How important is that? 
As my time runs out and I have got a few more questions.
    Ms. Young. So that looks at future pandemics so we aren't 
left in the same predicament we were if another pandemic were 
to occur. We need to invest in future pandemics.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you. That is going to go a long way 
to rural hospitals, local urban hospitals, and others dealing 
with pandemic increases that may come in the near future.
    I chair the Crime Subcommittee on Judiciary. Very 
interested in the question of reduction of crime. That would 
include enhancing training or responses to law enforcement, but 
more importantly as well, the complementary support of mental 
health support, support to stem the tide of domestic violence. 
What is the Administration doing on that? Very quickly.
    Ms. Young. The budget will propose $56 million to issue 
grants to support behavioral health services to individuals 
within or during reentry from jails and prisons. Also asking 
for $500 million to be split between DoJ and HHS, with the 
recognition that there has to be a comprehensive answer to 
crime, not just from the law enforcement standpoint.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Well, the one thing we know is that the 
Administration and Democrats are not soft on crime and that we 
recognize we must be in the crime reducing business.
    I want to thank you for your support of public housing. And 
so my final questions are public housing emphasis and then the 
commitment of the Administration for taking refugees from 
Ukraine under the present capping that we have not utilized.
    I would appreciate your answers to those two questions.
    Ms. Young. As you know, we have a robust housing supply 
initiative, $50 billion on the mandatory side to ensure we have 
affordable housing. Also, as you point out, the budget provides 
funding to resettle 125,000 refugees in 2023, including the 
commitment for Ukrainians that the President recently 
announced.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I look forward to working with you on 
these matter.
    And, Mr. Chairman, thank you so very much. This is a 
robust, important budget for the American people and it is a 
deficit busting budget and we need to move forward on the 
President's goals.
    Thank you so very much for your leadership.
    I yield back.
    Chairman Yarmuth. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
    Now I yield five minutes to the gentleman from California, 
Mr. Obernolte.
    Mr. Obernolte. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And, Director Young, 
congratulations on your confirmation. Thank you for the 
introductory phone call. It was very nice getting to know you. 
I am certainly looking forward to working with you.
    So I would like to continue a line of questioning that a 
number of the other Members of the panel have raised about the 
assumptions that were made on the rate of inflation when the 
budget was created. So my understanding is that the rate of 
inflation that was assumed for this year is 4.7 percent. 
Obviously we are trending toward nearly twice that. And for the 
rest of the budgetary forecast, it was 2.3 percent, which I 
think the Federal Reserve and most every economist would agree 
is going to be substantially more than that. And you have 
explained that that was because the budget was crafted in 
November before the recent spike in inflation.
    Do I have all that right?
    Ms. Young. That is correct.
    Mr. Obernolte. So I am curious as to--because I am hopeful, 
Mr. Chairman, as Members of this panel on both sides of the 
aisle, I am hopeful that we can actually do what Congress is 
meant to do, take this budget and craft an actual budget 
proposal out of it and pass that budget. So we have to rely on 
the figures that you are giving us and try and craft our own 
budget out of that.
    What changes do you think the fact that the assumptions 
that you made about inflation when you crafted the budget were 
incorrect, what effect do you think that has on the numbers in 
the budget?
    Ms. Young. As I mentioned earlier, inflation has an 
offsetting mechanism. So typically with higher inflation 
revenues are also higher. So we believe our debt and deficit 
targets remain about the same.
    I would also point out it is a 10 year budget. Our long-
term inflation numbers are still in line with private 
forecasters. And I point out the word forecasters. Just like 
the government forecast estimates, so do the private markets. 
And the long-term estimates are still in line with those 
private forecasters.
    Mr. Obernolte. OK. So the Department of Labor just recently 
came out with statistics showing that real wage growth is 
actually negative by 2.5 percent right now. And the 
Congressional Budget Office says that that actually is going to 
have--as inflation goes up, that has a negative effect on 
budgets because although revenues go up, they don't go up 
enough to compensate for higher expenses. And as the interest 
rates rise, a greater percent of the budget has to be spent on 
debt service.
    So would you say that given the fact that actual inflation 
is running about twice what the assumption was, would you say 
that the long-term deficit reduction is going to be the same?
    Ms. Young. It will be about the same. But you are right, 
the more interest rates, not inflation, goes up--I was speaking 
to inflation. On interest rates, you are right, that does have 
an impact on what you pay in debt service. We also look at what 
the historical rates are and what we pay on the debt. Based on 
historical averages, we are still in line to--we are paying 
less tha historical norms on debt service and even with higher 
interest rates--by the way, Mr. Obernolte, our budget does 
account for--we account for interest rates growing in this 
budget.
    Mr. Obernolte. Well, I think we all join you in hoping that 
the rate that we have to pay on our national debt does not go 
up substantially. But, you know, pessimistically, I am not sure 
that that is going to be the case.
    So long-term, I was very happy to see the President 
concentrating on deficit reduction. It certainly was not the 
case with his proposed budget last year. That is a concern that 
many of us on this panel have. One of the things that you 
touted in your opening statement about the budget is that it is 
going to reduce the deficit by over a trillion dollars over the 
forecasting period. But I wanted to be clear, you are talking 
about cumulatively? Because our deficit is about $1.3 trillion 
right now. So we are not going to reduce it to--from $1.3 to 
.3, we are going to reduce it by a trillion over that 10 year 
forecast period.
    Ms. Young. So there are two deficit numbers I talked about, 
and they are important to get right. We are on track, absent 
this budget, to reduce the deficit by $1.3 trillion year over 
year. The largest ever decline in one year. The budget policies 
represent, if Congress takes them up, we believe another $1 
trillion in deficit reduction.
    Mr. Obernolte. Total over the 10 year period?
    Ms. Young. Correct.
    Mr. Obernolte. So I mean $100 billion a year, not a 
trillion in a single year?
    Ms. Young. Right. The cumulative effect.
    Mr. Obernolte. We are still going to have a substantial 
deficit by the end of the forecast period.
    Ms. Young. But remember, we are also looking at bringing 
down the deficit $1.3 trillion in one year.
    Mr. Obernolte. We on the same team here.
    Well, let me ask you about that actually, as kind of a 
final question here. As I said, I was very encouraged to see 
the President focusing on deficit reduction. What, as Director 
of the OMB, what is your long-term philosophy on that? Do you 
think that we need to get to a balanced budget? And if so, how 
do we do that?
    Ms. Young. Mr. Obernolte, I think, and a lot of economists 
think, that a better measure to look at than to try to get to 
zero debt, because you know this, the most spending in this 
budget is our beneficiaries, to Social Security, to Medicare, 
and to ensure that we preserve those benefits for our elderly 
or those close to, to make sure that they get those benefits, 
we believe the more appropriate thing to do is look at whether 
the debt level is crowding out the country's ability to make 
investments. We don't think we are at that point. There is not 
a specific number that makes sense. You can't just say $60 
trillion gets to be too much, or $40 or $50, it really is 
depending on the size of the economy. And we believe we can 
handle the debt service payments given that interest rates 
remain historically low even if rising.
    Mr. Obernolte. Well, on that we might disagree, but I see 
my time is expired.
    I yield back. Thank you very much.
    Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Ms. Young. And he has been here a long time, so thank you, 
Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Yarmuth. Yes, he has been.
    I now yield five minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado, 
Ms. Boebert.
    Ms. Boebert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Director Young, 
thank you so much for being here today.
    I just want to start off with a few quick questions.
    First of all, what is the current national debt?
    Ms. Young. The current debt is about $24 trillion.
    Ms. Boebert. OK. I have about $30 trillion. How much would 
each American citizen have to pay to cover that debt?
    Ms. Young. That is not how debts work, so we have not 
calculated that.
    Ms. Boebert. I reclaim my time. Director, the answer is 
$91,207 per American citizen. How much does each taxpayer--
thank you--how much does each taxpayer owe to cover our current 
$30 trillion debt, not $24 trillion?
    Ms. Young. And I am sorry, I have $22.3, so I will correct 
myself downward, since we are using different numbers. Again, 
we don't calculate the debt by person, including my 5-month 
old. Thank you.
    Ms. Boebert. Reclaim my time. Excuse me, Director, the 
answer is $242,500 per taxpayer in America.
    Now you may have been on track with some of these answers 
if your numbers were correct with the $30 trillion debt that we 
actually are at right now. But I would have hoped that you 
would have the correct answers in your position to all of these 
questions as the President and this regime really should keep 
this debt at the forefront of our thinking and proposing a 
budget. But this budget that was created has proposed to spend 
another $5.8 trillion this Fiscal Year and $73 trillion over 
the next 10 years. And, sadly, it is pretty apparent that you 
were more concerned with continuing to spend trillions of 
dollars of taxpayer money on liberal wish lists rather than 
doing anything substantive to reign in wasteful federal 
government spending.
    Now, I have said multiple times the federal government does 
not have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem.
    Now, Director Young, Biden likes to say show me your budget 
and I will tell you your values. So let us see what Democrats 
really value. The word military appears 26 times in this 
budget, but gender, it is used 43 times in your budget. Equity, 
well that is use 75 times and climate is used 187 times in this 
budget. And Americans sure do understand what Democrat 
priorities are and their values. They know that the real cost 
of these woke policies and so called values are impacting them 
and the bill has come due for these bad Democrat policies.
    Proposing to spend trillions of dollars on more woke wants 
not needs is absolutely shameful. And really you should be 
embarrassed to be testifying today and trying to defend this 
$5.8 trillion budget.
    Now, during the State of the Union Joe Biden said that his 
plan to fight inflation was for businesses to simply lower 
their costs, not their wages. Director Young, I am a small 
business owner, and I can tell you that that is not how it 
works in the real world. I understand that we use Washington, 
DC. math here, but that is not how it works for real small 
business owners. Meat is up 13 percent, milk is up almost 12 
percent, electricity is up 9 percent.
    Now, as a restaurant owner, how am I supposed to lower my 
costs if everything that I use is going up? And I certainly 
wouldn't be able to pay employees higher wages.
    So, with this skyrocketing inflation that is taking place, 
Madam Director, can you please simply describe to me, define to 
me, what inflation is?
    Ms. Young. Sure. The cost of goods are more expensive. It 
costs more for the same goods than it did last year. The 
President is very aware of that. That is why he called on 
Congress to send him legislation----
    Ms. Boebert. Reclaiming my time. Thank you.
    Ms. Young [continuing]. that reduced cost of healthcare.
    Ms. Boebert. Thank you, Director. That is not exactly what 
I was getting at. Let me answer this for you. So Milton 
Friedman, who won the Nobel Prize in economics, said that 
inflation comes from too much money being printed in D.C. 
Specifically, and I quote, he said ``Inflation is a result of 
too much money and more rapid increase in the quantity of money 
than in output. Moreover, in the modern era, the important next 
step to recognize that today governments control the quantity 
of money so that as a result inflation in the United States is 
made in Washington and nowhere else.''
    So, Director Young, in short, inflation comes from 
Washington, DC. where the products we use aren't created, but 
the products we use are made more expensive.
    Director Young, shamefully this Biden budget proposes the 
largest tax increase in American history and I really think 
that that bears repeating. It is the largest in American 
history. The Biden regime either has no concept of how 
inflation is impacting Americans or simply has no concept for 
Americans who find the cost of gasoline too expensive because, 
after all, they can't just go buy a Tesla.
    How about that for Democrat priorities?
    Thank you, Madam Director.
    Chairman Yarmuth. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
    I think I am the last questioner and I now yield myself 10 
minutes.
    First of all, let me say thank you for being here, Director 
Young. I think you have more than justified the judgment of the 
President to name you to this position and the Senate's wisdom 
in confirming you.
    I love going last because it is like cleanup on aisle six. 
I get to deal with a lot of the things that have been said and 
messed up.
    Now, I want to start with Mr. Donalds' comment about 
raising the corporate tax rate. He said if you raise the 
corporate tax rate that it is going to cause inflation because 
you are going to--they are going to pass it along to consumers. 
That would imply that if you lowered the tax rate that they 
would pass the savings onto consumers. When Republicans cut the 
tax rate from 35 to 21 percent in 2017, did that result in any 
cost cutting for consumers that you are aware of?
    Ms. Young. It did not.
    Chairman Yarmuth. Right. As a matter of fact, if that were 
true, we wouldn't have the inflation we have now because they 
are still paying at a 21 percent rate. So that just doesn't 
make sense. And you were here in 2017, you were in the 
Congress, and the justification Republicans gave at that time 
for cutting the corporate tax rate was that this would 
encourage them to invest new equipment, new capacity, new 
productivity. Did any of that happen?
    Ms. Young. It did not.
    Chairman Yarmuth. No, as a matter of fact most of the money 
that was saved by lowering the tax rate was spent on buying 
back stock and increasing dividends, not in actually being 
reinvested in their businesses.
    Let us talk about gas prices for a minute. How are gas 
prices set? What are they dependent upon?
    Ms. Young. They are dependent upon the market.
    Chairman Yarmuth. Right. And it is a global market, gas is 
produced all over the world. And when there is higher demand 
for less gas, prices go up and conversely when there is less 
demand and too much gas, prices go down. I think it was the 
Ranking Member--it may not have been. I apologize if I didn't 
get you right--that said back several years ago you found--
somebody found gas at $.90 a gallon. And was that during a 
period when the government was shut down--I mean the country 
was shut down, not the government. The country was essentially 
was shut down and nobody was driving.
    Ms. Young. Right.
    Chairman Yarmuth. Yes, so prices are naturally going to be 
lower. And now as the economy is recovering, part of the 
reason--forget--in the last month or so, which I think we can 
consider an aberration, we saw a much greater demand for 
gasoline. Prices went up to a level that basically we have seen 
before. We saw that level in 2011, 1912, 1913, 1914, and into 
the Bush Administration when gasoline prices were much higher 
than they were in 2020 and 2021.
    When--well, you mentioned I think, but I--the annual 
production now of gasoline in the United States, the number I 
saw, which I mentioned last week or two weeks ago, was 12.1 
million gallons a day. Russia produces about 10 \1/2\ million 
barrels a day and Saudi Arabia 8 \1/2\ million barrels a day. 
There is no country on earth that produces as much oil as we 
are producing right now. So is it fair to say that anything 
that the Biden Administration has proposed or implemented has 
had anything to do--has had the impact of reducing oil 
production in the country?
    Ms. Young. Absolutely not.
    Chairman Yarmuth. Right. And the Keystone Pipeline keeps 
coming up. The Keystone Pipeline, if it were resumed--if they 
resumed construction of the Keystone Pipeline today, how long 
would it be before the Keystone Pipeline was finished?
    Ms. Young. Not in any time to deal with any of the 
increases we are seeing now.
    Chairman Yarmuth. I think the estimate is 11 years from 
now. And somebody mentioned that that was oil that was going to 
be used in the United States. Is that correct?
    Ms. Young. I don't believe that is correct. And you pointed 
to oil production here. Most is shipped other places and not 
kept here.
    Chairman Yarmuth. Exactly.
    Let us talk about the Defense Department budget for a 
minute. A statement has been made, you know--and I know a lot 
of Republicans are calling for 5 percent in addition to 
inflation. Does inflation--the figure that we see now, 7.9 
percent on an annual rate, does inflation affect every entity 
the same way?
    Ms. Young. It does not.
    Chairman Yarmuth. So if you were in the Pentagon and you 
are using a lot of gasoline, you probably are not going to the 
pump every day and filling up the tanks and the jeeps and those 
things. You make contracts for that gasoline, don't you?
    Ms. Young. That is correct. And you typically lock in a 
price.
    Chairman Yarmuth. Exactly. And so to say that we 
automatically have to assume that the Defense Department is 
going to be--their costs are going to go up 7.9 percent isn't 
based on the way things actually work.
    Ms. Young. We don't believe--we believe this is a real 
increase.
    Chairman Yarmuth. Right. And one of the things that you are 
proposing is a 4.6 percent increase in the salary of military 
personnel.
    Ms. Young. Military and civilians.
    Chairman Yarmuth. Civilians. Which actually does kind of 
accommodate the inflation that those military families are 
experiencing.
    Ms. Young. It is a part of the formula actually that 
developed the 4.6.
    Chairman Yarmuth. Right. So when the Defense Department 
analysts were drawing up their budget request, they didn't say 
that inflation didn't exist, did they?
    Ms. Young. That is right. And I would like to point out, 
unlike I think some relationships--some may have heard between 
OMB and the Department--OMB and the Department of Defense 
worked closely hand in hand. And I think the Secretary of 
Defense would tell you this is the budget he needs to have a 
ready military.
    Chairman Yarmuth. Again going back to gas prices for a 
second, one of the things that came up earlier is a mention of 
the equity of favoring support for gasoline prices versus 
support for environmentally beneficial energy sources. And the 
question was asked, do you think that is fair. Well, personally 
I think it is very fair. I mean I think as a country there is 
broad consensus that we need to be moving away from fossil 
fuels toward renewables and other clean energy sources.
    But I remember in--and you may--I remember when George 
Bush--George W. Bush was president and he said that once 
gasoline prices get higher than $55 a barrel, that there is no 
need for incentives for producers to produce. Do you remember 
that comment?
    Ms. Young. I do not.
    Chairman Yarmuth. Well, he did. That is getting back a 
little ways. But--and gasoline right now--oil is double that 
amount.
    Ms. Young. Yes.
    Chairman Yarmuth. Basically $110-$115 a barrel. So 
according to the man from the biggest oil producing state in 
the country, I would say they are not necessary at this point.
    Talking about the American Rescue Plan. And I know--I think 
the Ranking Member said that until the American Rescue Plan was 
enacted, job growth was performing at a lower rate than had 
been projected. Is that a fair characterization? You didn't say 
that? OK. Well, you said the first few months of the Biden 
Administration job growth was not performing as the projections 
were. And that was the reason--one of the reasons we passed the 
American Rescue Plan, to stimulate the economy to help people 
get back on their feet. And the fact that we created 6 million 
jobs after that in 2021 is pretty good evidence that the 
American Rescue Plan was successful.
    Ms. Young. I mean as I mentioned earlier, I sat with Mark 
Zandi from Moody's yesterday who believes we would have ended 
up in a double-dip recession had it not been for ARP. So not 
only did that not happen and we are not seeing the scarring we 
saw after the Great Recession, which took four years to recover 
from, we are seeing record growth out of the pandemic.
    Chairman Yarmuth. And since you mentioned Moody's, a lot of 
people on the Republican side, none of whom voted for the 
American Rescue Plan, are trying to lay the 7.9 inflation rate 
on the money that flowed from the American Rescue Plan. Moody's 
made an analysis that said that the American Rescue Plan was 
responsible for less than 1 percent of that inflation rate. Did 
they reiterate that to you?
    Ms. Young. They did.
    Chairman Yarmuth. Do you have any analysis that would 
contradict them?
    Ms. Young. I do not.
    Chairman Yarmuth. And the Federal Reserve in San Francisco 
did a similar analysis and came up with the same result.
    I think I am almost done.
    One question I do have in my 30 seconds left. In 
considering tax reform, one of the things that a lot of people, 
including myself, think would be very important and useful and 
justifiable, is to increase the carried interest rate. You 
don't do that. None of my colleagues--well, at least the 
leadership of the Ways and Means Committee has not proposed to 
do that. Is that something the Administration has considered 
and why has it decided not to approach that, if it--they have 
considered it?
    Ms. Young. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to talk to you about 
that proposal. I think Treasury is our lead on tax proposals, 
but I think it is a worthy conversation and I am happy to take 
that offline and have a real conversation about it and tell you 
if there are concerns what they are.
    Chairman Yarmuth. OK. I would love to hear that.
    Well, so I am over my time by 20 seconds, but I have been 
pretty generous most of the day, so I don't feel guilty about 
that. But once again thank you for your spending so much time 
with us. Thank you for your responses, thank you for your work, 
and once again we look forward to continuing to work with OMB 
as we move forward in this process.
    Unless there----
    Ms. Young. Thank you so much.
    Chairman Yarmuth. Thanks.
    Unless there is any further business, this hearing is 
adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 1:45 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]