[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


            THE PRESIDENT'S FISCAL YEAR 2024 BUDGET REQUEST

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

                                 HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                        COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

            HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, D.C., MARCH 23, 2023

                               __________

                            Serial No. 118-1

                               __________

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


                       Available on the Internet:
                            www.govinfo.gov
                                                        
                                ________

                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
53-461 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2024                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------     
                            
                        COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET

                  JODEY C. ARRINGTON, Texas, Chairman
RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina         BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania, 
TOM McCLINTOCK, California               Ranking Member
GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin            BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania          JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas            EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon
EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia    DANIEL T. KILDEE, Michigan
BEN CLINE, Virginia                  SCOTT H. PETERS, California
BOB GOOD, Virginia                   BARBARA LEE, California
JACK BERGMAN, Michigan               LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
A. DREW FERGUSON IV, Georgia         JIMMY PANETTA, California
CHIP ROY, Texas                      JENNIFER WEXTON, Virginia
BLAKE D. MOORE, Utah                 SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
DAVID G. VALADAO, California         ILHAN OMAR, Minnesota,
RON ESTES, Kansas                      Vice Ranking Member
STEPHANIE I. BICE, Oklahoma          DAVID J. TRONE, Maryland
LISA C. McCLAIN, Michigan            BECCA BALINT, Vermont
MICHELLE FISCHBACH, Minnesota        ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, 
RUDY YAKYM III, Indiana                  Virginia
JOSH BRECHEEN, Oklahoma              ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York
CHUCK EDWARDS, North Carolina

                           Professional Staff

                      Gary Andres, Staff Director
                  Greg Waring, Minority Staff Director
                               
                               CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
Hearing held in Washington, D.C., March 23, 2023.................     1
    Hon. Jodey C. Arrington, Chairman, Committee on the Budget...     1
        Prepared Statement of....................................     4
    Hon. Brendan F. Boyle, Ranking Member, Committee on the 
      Budget.....................................................     6
        Prepared Statement of....................................     8
    Hon. Sheila Jackson Lee, Member, Committee on the Budget, 
      statement submitted for the record.........................    12
    Hon. Shalanda D. Young, Director, Office of Management and 
      Budget.....................................................    17
        Prepared Statement of....................................    19
    Hon. Lloyd Smucker, Member, Committee on the Budget, 
      submission for the record..................................    34
    Hon. A. Drew Ferguson IV, Member, Committee on the Budget, 
      submission for the record..................................    64
    Hon. A. Drew Ferguson IV, Member, Committee on the Budget, 
      submission for the record..................................    70
    Questions submitted for the record...........................    98
    Answers submitted for the record.............................   104

 
            THE PRESIDENT'S FISCAL YEAR 2024 BUDGET REQUEST

                              ----------                              


                        THURSDAY, MARCH 23, 2023

                          House of Representatives,
                                   Committee on the Budget,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 
210, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Jodey C. Arrington 
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Arrington, Norman, McClintock, 
Grothman, Smucker, Burgess, Carter, Cline, Good, Bergman, 
Ferguson, Roy, Moore, Valadao, Estes, Bice, McClain, Fischbach, 
Yakym, Brecheen, Edwards, Boyle, Higgins, Schakowsky, Peters, 
Lee, Doggett, Panetta, Wexton, Jackson Lee, Omar, Trone, 
Balint, Scott, and Espaillat.
    Chairman Arrington. The hearing will come to order.
    Welcome to the Committee on the Budget's hearing regarding 
the President's Fiscal Year 2024 budget request. Today, we are 
delighted to have the Director of the Office of Management and 
Budget, the Honorable Shalanda Young, with us. Welcome. I 
appreciate your reaching out to me and starting this business 
relationship, and your good-faith efforts to work with me and 
my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle, and today we 
get the opportunity to unpack and understand the President's 
vision for this country and, as he says, the values and 
principles that he believes are best to guide our Nation 
forward. With that, I want to yield myself such time as I may 
consume for my opening statement.
    Over the last 2 years, this administration's reckless 
spending and failed economic policies have resulted in 
continued record inflation, soaring interest rates, and an 
economy in a recessionary tailspin, with the prospect of a 
catastrophic, and I would say irreparable, debt crisis looming 
over the horizon. Two years--2 years under this President, $10 
trillion in spending, $6 trillion of which has been added to 
the national debt, all of which has ignited a cost-of-living 
crisis for working families who are struggling to survive; 
taxing our job creators back to their knees as they try to get 
back on their feet after a nationwide shutdown, paying people 
more to stay home than to go back to work, and waiving work 
requirements for able-bodied adults, trapping a whole new 
generation of Americans in poverty and government dependence; 
weaponizing--and this is personal for me being from West Texas, 
the energy capital of the world--weaponizing a whole-of-
government assault on American energy, the lifeblood of our 
great economy, a cornerstone of our national security, and the 
blessing of affordable electricity and gas for families across 
the country. This administration, I believe, has sown the wind 
of disastrous economic policies, and the American people are 
reaping the whirlwind of its cruel consequences.
    No one can look at our Nation's balance sheet or CBO's 
economic outlook, and not shudder to their core at the rapid 
deterioration of our Nation's financial health, and our 
unsustainable spending and debt trajectory. On March 9th, the 
President had the opportunity to recognize this sober and grim 
economic reality, reverse course, and show the American people 
that he understood the painful results of his failed policies. 
Instead, President Biden doubled down on his reckless spending, 
radical policies, and the woke and bloated bureaucracy that is 
bankrupting our Nation.
    The President's budget proposes the highest sustained 
levels of taxes, spending, and deficits in the history of the 
United States. In the middle of a spending-induced inflation 
crisis that is crushing working Americans, the President's 
budget proposes $82 trillion in spending over 10 years, a 
spending per GDP that is 18 percent over the 50-year average 
and is the equivalent of $100,000 per family of four; a $2.5 
trillion increase in the auto-spend of mandatory spending; 
nearly $100 billion in requests or proposals in discretionary 
spending year-over-year, a 6-percent increase over this year 
for Fiscal Year 2024 in discretionary spending.
    As job creators try to get back on their feet and our 
economy plummets into a recession, CBO projects that the GDP 
growth for next year will be a meager 0.1 percent. As this 
happens to the greatest economy in the world, and to our 
families, and to our family-owned small businesses, the 
President levees $4.7 trillion in new taxes on virtually 
everyone.
    Small businesses will lose the 20-percent deduction, tax 
hike. Families will lose marginal rates, where they were able 
to keep, after Republican tax reform, $2,000 more of their 
hard-earned money in their pockets, in their savings accounts, 
tax hike. Doubling the death tax on farmers and ranchers, who 
work hard to give us food security. They pay taxes, Federal 
income, State income, property tax, sales tax, now twice the 
pain of this, what I believe is an unfair, un-American tax, in 
the death tax. Nearly $40 billion in new taxes on American 
energy producers, which will only drive energy prices further 
up and penalize folks at the lower economic spectrum who are 
having a difficult time heating and, this summer, cooling their 
homes, and obviously with energy independence. That will be 
jeopardized with more taxes passed on to consumers, and less 
investment, and less domestic energy production, and more 
dependence on foreign sources.
    And then finally, the highest rate of corporate taxes in 
the developed world. We will go back to having a higher 
corporate tax rate than communist China. So, we can wave 
goodbye to America's competitiveness, say goodbye to the 
trillions that flowed back to our country, back to our 
manufacturing, creating more jobs, and more opportunity, and 
more prosperity, where all boats rose on the tide of the 
results of lower tax burden, lower regulatory burden when 
Republicans had control of Congress. By the way, when I say all 
boats rose on that tide, 6 million people were lifted out of 
poverty, the lowest poverty rate in the history.
    And what will Americans get for this unprecedented 
expansion and reimagination of the people's government? They 
are going to get more inflation, more shrinking paychecks, more 
skyrocketing prices at the grocery store and gas pump, soaring 
interest rates, more labor shortages, more of a culture of 
dependency, and, overall, a weaker economy and a more 
vulnerable Nation. Are we going to get more safety and security 
for our Nation? Nope. More economic freedom and prosperity? 
Nope. Greater access and lower cost of healthcare? No. Stronger 
and more resilient real infrastructure?
    In sum, are we doing our job as lawmakers of the greatest 
country in the world, as stewards of taxpayer resources, as 
fiduciaries of our children's future? Are we giving our 
children a safer, stronger, freer America? Not even close, in 
my estimation. Not even close. What I believe we are getting is 
a more wasteful, woke, and bloated bureaucracy. A 20-percent 
increase in EPA, and we are asking for more spending. We are in 
an inflation crisis, and we are asking for 2,400 new climate 
activists disguised as EPA employees. We are going to get more 
infiltration of leftist ideology through divisive, in my 
opinion, divisive politicization of race and sexuality, not 
running a better government, not running a more accountable 
government. The list is long. I will spare you.
    But I agree with the President, Madam Director. I agree 
that budgets aren't just numbers on a balance sheet. They are a 
set of values and principles, and based on the President's most 
recent budget, it's clear to me that he values, and this 
administration values, a bigger, more radical, and more 
powerful Federal Government over the freedom, safety, and 
economic security of his fellow Americans. With that, I would 
like to give my colleague from Pennsylvania and friend an 
opportunity to provide 5 minutes for his opening remarks.
    [The prepared statement of Chairman Arrington follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]	
    
    Mr. Boyle. Thank you. You hit the talk button on me. Thank 
you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Shalanda, Director Young, it 
is great to have you back in front of our Committee.
    What a difference 2 years and 2 months make. Under 
President Biden and Congressional Democrats' leadership, we 
have rolled out vaccines and testing, seen a record 12 million 
new jobs, unemployment at 50-year-plus lows, and have had the 
strongest manufacturing recovery in this century. Democrats 
have proven that Congress can deliver for the American people 
while promoting fiscal responsibility--from galvanizing a 
record-breaking and world-leading recovery from the COVID 
pandemic, to rebuilding our infrastructure, to making major 
investments in America's economic competitiveness, to passing 
legislation to reduce the deficit while at the same time 
lowering costs for American families.
    President Biden's 2024 budget is exactly the plan we need 
to build on this progress, and how proud I was to be with the 
President in my district in Philadelphia 2 weeks ago today when 
he unveiled this budget, one that lowers families' costs on 
everything from childcare to prescription drugs, housing to 
healthcare. It upholds the promise of Social Security and 
strengthens Medicare for another generation. It invests in 
America, in red and blue states, strengthening our communities 
and our economy, and it makes commonsense reforms so that the 
wealthiest few and big corporations finally start to pay their 
fair share in taxes just like the rest of us because it is damn 
unfair that a teacher or firefighter in my neighborhood in 
Northeast Philadelphia pays a higher percentage of their 
paycheck in taxes than a billionaire.
    This budget sets out our next generation for success by 
investing in their education, from universal pre-K to making 
college more affordable. It restores the full child tax credit 
that we passed as part of the American Rescue Plan--and when it 
was in place, that full child tax credit cut child poverty by 
more than half. It caps the cost of insulin at $35 for everyone 
and lowers the cost of other prescription drugs, saving 
Americans and our government money. Importantly, the Biden 
budget accomplishes all of this and more while making sure no 
one who makes less than $400,000 a year pays a penny more in 
new taxes. These investments are socially responsible, but they 
are also fiscally responsible. They will put our Nation on 
better financial footing, reducing the deficit by $3 trillion 
over 10 years and without taking a sledgehammer to the vital 
programs that keep our Nation and American households secure.
    Now, that brings me to my next point. I am deeply concerned 
by the extreme budget proposals that we are hearing from the 
other side of the aisle, and while we wait for the official 
Republican budget, we do know there have been other proposals 
that have been out there, most recently made by the House 
Freedom Caucus. One idea that seems to be gaining traction with 
many Republicans is cutting spending to Fiscal Year 2022 
levels. Let me just take a moment to explain what that would 
do. Two million Americans would lose access to healthcare 
services through community health centers, and more would see 
their healthcare costs rise. Six hundred and forty thousand 
families would lose the rental assistance that helps them stay 
in their homes. Rail safety jobs will be cut, dramatically 
reducing inspections. Thousands of police officers, border 
security agents, and other law enforcement officials will lose 
pay or--worse, their jobs, and those are just a few examples.
    An analysis by Moody's Analytics found that cutting 
spending back to Fiscal Year 2022 levels would push our economy 
into a recession, wiping out 2.6 million jobs and driving 
unemployment up to nearly 6 percent. You can't take an ax to 
the Federal budget and then turn a blind eye to people who will 
suffer the blow. There is a human cost to budget cuts, and I am 
concerned that that sometimes gets lost in this town.
    The President's budget lays out Democrats' plan--and our 
math--to achieve a $3 trillion deficit reduction while 
critically making the needed investments to improve Americans' 
quality of life, and it is all here for the public to see, and 
yes, critique. I would ask my Republican colleagues, when will 
we see your plan? What are you actually proposing that would 
help working families like my neighbors in Philadelphia? And 
how can you be so quick to dismiss the President's budget when 
we have yet to see your own?
    As we await the Republicans' proposal and markup, I am glad 
that we can have this honest and fair hearing and openly debate 
what is in the President's budget. It is a fiscally responsible 
and pro-growth document, and Director Young, I thank you for 
being here to talk about this budget today. I yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Ranking Member Boyle follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]	
    
    Chairman Arrington. I thank the gentleman and my friend, 
Mr. Boyle. In the interest of time, if any other Member has an 
opening statement, I ask that you submit it for the record. I 
will hold the record open to the end of the day to accommodate 
those Members who may not have had time to prepare written 
statements.
    [The information follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]	
    
    Chairman Arrington. Okay. Now, I would like to recognize 
Director Young. Director Young, thank you again for your time 
today. The Committee has received your written statement. We 
appreciate that. We made it part of the formal hearing record, 
and we will now give you 5 minutes to deliver your oral 
remarks, and you may begin when you are ready. Thank you.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SHALANDA D. YOUNG, DIRECTOR, OFFICE 
                    OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET

                  STATEMENT OF SHALANDA YOUNG

    Ms. Young. Well, I will use a little of that 5 minutes to 
echo how you started. Thank you for the relationship you and 
Ranking Member Boyle have. We all have differences--we have 
talked about this--very strong differences, but we have agreed 
to disagree but not be disagreeable.
    Chairman Arrington. Hear, hear.
    Ms. Young. And you have my commitment to do that----
    Chairman Arrington. Thank you.
    Ms. Young [continuing]. As we progress through this 
process. I also want to thank your staffs. Two years ago, I sat 
where you sat, in a slightly less nice room in the 
Appropriations Committee, so you shouldn't let them visit this 
hearing room. [Laughter.]
    Ms. Young. But thank you. I know it takes a lot to put on 
hearings like this, but thanks for having me here, to the 
Chairman, the Ranking Member, the Members of the Committee, for 
the chance to talk and discuss the President's 2024 budget.
    This President came into office with a very clear plan: to 
grow the economy from the bottom up and the middle out, not the 
top down, and over the past 2 years, in the face of significant 
challenges, that strategy has produced historic results for the 
American people. Under the President's leadership, we have 
added more than 12 million jobs, more jobs in 2 years than any 
President has created in a single 4-year term. The unemployment 
rate has fallen to 3.6 percent, one of the lowest rates in over 
50 years. We have taken action to lower prescription drug 
costs, health insurance premiums, and energy bills, while 
driving the uninsured rate to historic lows, and the 
President's economic plan is rebuilding America's 
infrastructure, promoting workers, and fueling a manufacturing 
boom that is strengthening parts of the country that have long 
been left behind.
    The President has done all of this while delivering on his 
commitment to fiscal responsibility. During his first 2 years 
in office, the deficit fell by more than $1.7 trillion, the 
largest decline in American history, and the Inflation 
Reduction Act will reduce the deficit by hundreds of billions 
of dollars more over the next decade. The President's 2024 
budget details a blueprint to build on this progress and finish 
the job. It is built around four key values: investing in 
America, lowering costs for families, protecting and 
strengthening Social Security and Medicare, and reducing the 
deficit, and it does all of this while ensuring that no one 
earning less than $400,000 per year will pay a penny more in 
new taxes. The budget more than fully pays for its investments, 
cutting deficits by nearly $3 trillion over the next decade, by 
asking the wealthy and large corporations to begin to pay their 
fair share and cutting wasteful spending to special interests.
    The budget builds on the progress made over the last 2 
years and proposes additional policies to lower costs for 
working families, including for health insurance, prescription 
drugs, childcare, utilities, college, housing, energy, and 
more. When working families have a little bit more breathing 
room, they help power our economy. The President believes that 
Social Security and Medicare are more than just programs. They 
are promises we have kept to generations of America's seniors. 
The budget keeps that promise, protecting and strengthening 
these programs without cutting benefits for our seniors who 
have paid into these programs their entire working lives.
    It also invests in America and working families. The budget 
will bolster manufacturing, make our communities safer, provide 
paid leave, support research in cancer, deliver for our 
veterans, cut taxes for families with children, and more. These 
investments will pay dividends for decades to come, and in what 
will be a decisive decade for America and the world, this 
budget reflects the National Security Strategy by including 
robust investments in military readiness, our diplomatic and 
development tools, and honors the sacred commitment to our 
veterans.
    Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, for 
allowing me to appear before the Committee and talk about the 
President's 2024 budget.
    [The prepared statement of Shalanda D. Young follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]	
    
    Chairman Arrington. Thank you, Director Young. We will now 
begin the question-and-answer session. I will start, yielding 
myself 5 minutes.
    I am not trying to trap you, I am not trying to stump you, 
but I am going to go straight to the numbers here. This is the 
President's budget, and I'd like to walk through some of the 
figures that are in here. I am not suggesting you have 
memorized this, but in Summary Table Number 1, what is the 10-
year average of spending as a share of the economy?
    Ms. Young. Mr. Chairman, next year, so the 2024 budget, our 
outlays are projected to be $6.9 trillion, about 25 percent of 
GDP.
    Chairman Arrington. Okay. Thank you. So, you've answered 
correctly, and I appreciate the transparency. That almost 25 
percent of GDP in spending over the 10 years is the highest 
sustained level in America's history. Now, if you look at OMB's 
Historic Table 1.3, the Summary of Receipts, Outlays, and 
Surpluses or Deficits, the Federal Government spends in every 
year as a share of GDP, more than any year dating back to the 
invasion of Normandy, pre-COVID, there's not a year where, in 
every year of the budget, we're not spending more as a 
percentage of GDP, than any and every year pre-COVID, all the 
way back to World War II. Do you know that to be true and 
believe that to be correct as----
    Ms. Young. Mr. Chairman, I haven't seen that analysis, but 
I will take your analysis for fact. I am happy to look at it 
after hearing.
    Chairman Arrington. Okay. Thank you. I think just about 
every economist on the left or right, and I certainly recall 
Larry Summers briefing a group of bipartisan Members of 
Congress where he talked about the bathtub overflowing, bathtub 
of Federal monies, stimulus monies, flooding the marketplace, 
and igniting what has now been 15 consecutive months of 40-year 
high inflation. I think the cumulative inflation increase is 
about 15 percent since the President took office. Do you agree, 
while there are monetary policy factors, and I am certain 
others, that spending is one part of the problem that has 
created this record inflation that our working families are 
struggling with today?
    Ms. Young. Mr. Chairman, I think the largest part of the 
inflation story is economies coming out of pandemics. That is 
why we have seen inflation around the globe. So it's not one 
bill passed by the United States Congress supported by the 
President. When you have seen inflation levels, like we've seen 
them in the U.K. and France, what explains that? It tells us 
the pandemic, supply chain shortages, shipping companies, lack 
of competition, certainly had a larger role.
    Chairman Arrington. Do you think spending has any role?
    Ms. Young. It absolutely can. I think it had a small role 
given what we've seen over the global economy.
    Chairman Arrington. What I would tell you is most 
economists on the left, advisors to Democrat Presidents, have 
said it plays a significant role, and there were warnings. 
Don't spend $2 trillion, for example, in ARPA monies when a 
trillion dollars remained unspent. Work with Republicans, find 
out where there are targeted needs, but don't flood the market 
with trillions of dollars in more spending. It's the old 
saying, when you are in a hole and you want to get out, the 
first thing you have to do is stop digging.
    But my concern is, year over year, just on discretionary--I 
recognize that the longer term is more directional, and 
visionary, and aspirational--but next year's discretionary 
proposal is almost $100 billion more than last year. It's hard 
to understand when people are having to tighten their belts, 
they're changing their spending habits, they are struggling to 
make ends meet, and the President is asking, not just asking 
for the $2.5 trillion in mandatory spending and all the things 
we talked about, but next year $100 billion more in spending.
    Let me get to my last point, and I will yield to my 
colleague. I am from a border State. We are struggling and 
suffering with lawlessness and chaos like we have never seen, 
and everybody is overwhelmed. Border Patrol is overwhelmed, 
hospitals are overwhelmed, schools are overwhelmed, and the 
whole country is struggling with the flood of crime, gangs, and 
especially the drugs. Over 100,000 Americans have died last 
year, and it seems to only be getting worse. The President, 
with all due respect, and his Secretary of Homeland Security 
says, ``The border is secure.'' My people in Texas, and I am 
certain because of the pervasive effects of the open border on 
all States, I suspect people across the country find that not 
just hard to believe, but insulting to say the border is 
secure. Maybe embracing open border policies and just accepting 
that as the policy and saying that's what I believe is the best 
for the country, that's different, but saying it's secure is 
insulting.
    But the budget, when you think about safety and security 
being the first and most important priority of the government, 
providing the common defense, you mentioned the investment in 
the military. The President's budget cuts Homeland Security by 
$600 million. So here we are in this unprecedented border 
crisis. I can report from my State, direct impact in my 
communities, in my district, and the President says we need 
2,400 new EPA employees, 20 percent increase in EPA, but $600 
million less for Homeland Security? I am going to just let you 
finish with my Q&A with an answer to that because I don't know 
that there is going to be an answer that is going to satisfy--
--
    Ms. Young. I hope it does. I hope it does because we agree 
with you. We have to have, from a funding perspective, and not 
everything can be fixed with money, but on the border, we 
recognize more money is needed. We asked for money in December. 
We got a little over half, so we hope to partner and do a bit 
better than getting half of our budget request. We are asking 
for close to 9 percent, Mr. Chairman, an increase in DHS, about 
$6 billion. TSA passenger fees are treated differently in `23 
than `24, and that accounts for the majority of the difference 
you cite.
    Apples to apples, budget authority to budget authority, the 
Department of Homeland Security would receive 6 percent more 
with the passenger fee change alone, if you give us credit for 
the $5 billion almost we are asking for, for the Border Surge 
Fund, which I think should count because it's money we're 
asking for. That goes up to a 9 percent increase. So I hope 
that's a place we can work together.
    Chairman Arrington. Well, I will not bogart the time. I 
have resented some of my Chairmen in the past who continued 
this dialogue without giving my colleagues the opportunity. I 
would respectfully disagree with the characterization of 
investing in border security, but I appreciate your response. 
Now, to my friend from Pennsylvania, your Q&A. You got 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Boyle. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wasn't 
planning on asking this, but there was good dialogue on the 
American Rescue Plan, and I want to present some facts that 
weren't mentioned, although we mentioned them both in our 
opening statements. Can you state again how many new jobs have 
been created in the last 2 years?
    Ms. Young. I said over 12 million. It is 12.4.
    Mr. Boyle. And is there any 4-year period in American 
history where you saw that many new jobs created?
    Ms. Young. No.
    Mr. Boyle. And was that projected by any independent 
analytics firm or CBO just a couple of years ago?
    Ms. Young. No.
    Mr. Boyle. Are you aware that CBO, as well as others, have 
directly stated that the American Rescue Plan is part of the 
reason for our strong recovery?
    Ms. Young. I am.
    Mr. Boyle. And are you aware of any other OECD country 
coming out of COVID that has had as strong growth and as strong 
job creation as the United States of America?
    Ms. Young. I do not.
    Mr. Boyle. Thank you. Now, I noticed your testimony last 
week over in the Senate, and I was struck by some of my 
Republican colleagues in that chamber have kind of foggy 
memories. Perhaps it goes with serving in the Senate, but be 
that as it may, let me help clear up the records, and some seem 
to be confused on that other side. Senator Romney, Senator 
Scott, Senator Lee, Senator Graham, Senator Thune, as well as 
others in this chamber have explicitly called for benefit cuts 
to Social Security. And if any one of them doubt that, I am 
happy to provide those quotes for the record. Let me quote one 
exactly, Senator Mike Lee. He has said, ``It will be my 
objective to phase out Social Security, to pull it up from the 
roots, and to get rid of it.''
    So on the other hand, the President's budget makes it 
pretty clear that there will be no cuts, but there seems to be 
some confusion out there as to this matter. So can you please 
talk about the prospect of Social Security cuts that some have 
clearly called for in relation to the President's budget?
    Ms. Young. Well, you have laid out some of the history 
there. I will talk about what the budget does on Social 
Security. The President's budget is about values, and he 
strongly believes that benefits should not be cut for seniors 
who have paid into this program, and his budget reflects that 
value.
    Mr. Boyle. Thank you. Would you be able to, because there 
is an inside baseball term--this is my characterization of it--
there is an inside baseball term in this town, ``non-defense 
discretionary,'' that most regular people, most normal people, 
frankly, have no idea what the heck that means. So when some on 
the other side talk about cutting non-defense discretionary, 
that might sound reasonable to some. Could you give some real-
life examples of what exactly we are talking about if we saw 
cuts to non-defense discretionary?
    Ms. Young. Sure. I will start with one we just had a 
discussion about, border security. That is a non-defense 
discretionary. Veterans' medical care is a non-defense 
discretionary. Our law enforcement, State and local grants, is 
in discretionary. FBI is in discretionary. Rail safety, air 
safety, TSA wait times, Pell Grants, childcare block grants, 
Head Start, WIC, housing vouchers, to name a few.
    Mr. Boyle. And those are just a few.
    Ms. Young. To name a few.
    Mr. Boyle. To name a few, yes. Well, like the Chairman 
pointed out, in the past, when Chairs and Ranking Members, not 
necessarily in this Committee, but have exceeded or taken up 
their time, if you are kind of on the end of the dais, it can 
be a little painful. So I will just stop there and will yield 
back, and thank you again, Director Young, for being here.
    Ms. Young. Thank you.
    Chairman Arrington. Thank you, Mr. Boyle, and now we will 
recognize our fellow Members, starting with the gentleman from 
South Carolina, Mr. Ralph Norman.
    Mr. Norman. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Ms. Young.
    Ms. Young. Thank you.
    Mr. Norman. Thank you, Ms. Young. I appreciate you taking 
the time to come. I am a real estate developer. I don't think I 
have ever seen a time like this where this country is in the 
shape that it is in. So goes housing, so goes economy. I will 
tell you because of this administration, housing is pretty much 
tanky, and I am in a State that is supposed to be booming.
    To talk about his budget, let me just go over a few things. 
As I get out and talk to the people, the businesses in this 
country, and when I tell them some of these things that is in 
this President's budget, when you see $3 billion to advance 
gender equity and equity among the broad range sectors, I hear 
nobody saying this is a national concern, I appreciate my money 
going there. When I see the mention of climate change 42 times, 
LGBTQ 7 times, diversity 16 times, for the mom and dad trying 
to run a business, I don't hear them saying, yay, this is a 
great thing, this is a good use of my tax dollars; a billion 
for Central America and Haiti, again, with no policy changes to 
rein in the illegal immigration going to Haiti; $430 million 
for hemispheric migration management. Now, think about that, 
hemispheric migration management. What is that? Where is the 
return on the investment? You know, the list goes on and on.
    When you talk to the mom and dads who are concerned about 
this, when I hear what this administration is doing, when I see 
what they are doing, to say he is not proposing a tax increase 
on those making $400,000 is really so disingenuous. I hear no 
one saying, you know, I am excited about paying $76 more for 
eggs, I am excited about paying $129 more for dairy products, 
for milk if you can find it, I am excited about $270 more for 
fruits and vegetables, I am excited about paying 50 percent 
more for gasoline than was under the Trump Administration, $465 
more for electricity. It goes on and on, and I hear no one 
saying that times are good.
    Have you asked the questions that I just asked to that mom 
and dad, to that family trying to raise kids, trying to go to 
work, to that dental hygienist who cannot afford insulin 
because of just what I named you? Have you hit this, or am I 
totally in a foreign land?
    Ms. Young. Oh, Congressman, if you know me, I have a 16-
month-old, so I am one of those parents, and I am also from a 
town of less than 2,000 people. We don't quite have a stop 
light but a caution light, and when I talk to them, they are 
interested in things proposed here, like bringing down costs of 
childcare, the paid leave proposals here. Many of them having 
to make a difficult choice with elderly parents. They can't 
take off work without losing their job.
    Mr. Norman. But specifically, what I mentioned, those are 
everyday items that all of us are having to buy. Those numbers 
are either, they are fabricated or they are true. Would you say 
they are true or are they fabricated?
    Ms. Young. I will say we have proposals that help American 
families lower costs. This President has made it clear bringing 
down inflation and cost for goods is his number one domestic 
priority. So we agree we should work together to pass some of 
these proposals that would help families with childcare, that 
would help families make sure they can take care of their----
    Mr. Norman. I am running out of time.
    Ms. Young. Okay.
    Mr. Norman. Let me just say I just named a few of the 
insane items of where our money is going. Janet Yellen's 
proposed multinational tax of 15 percent, is that going to help 
companies come back to America? Is that a good sign to send, 15 
percent tax on multinational companies?
    Ms. Young. Congressman, that is absolutely the goal here.
    Mr. Norman. Okay.
    Ms. Young. Many companies leave to go to countries that 
don't have any taxes.
    Mr. Norman. Okay. It is time to put----
    Ms. Young. This says----
    Mr. Norman. I am reclaiming my time. Reclaiming my time. It 
is time for somebody in this administration to put America 
first. It has been completely last under this administration. I 
resent it, and hopefully we are going to have a change sooner 
rather than later. Thank you so much for appearing.
    Ms. Young. Thank you.
    Chairman Arrington. I thank the gentleman from South 
Carolina and would now yield 5 minutes to my friend, Mr. 
Higgins, from New York.
    Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Director Young, thank 
you very much for being here. You know, all of America 
experienced and the world experienced a pandemic beyond human 
comprehension, unprecedented, the lives that were lost 
throughout the world and this country, the money that was lost. 
Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, under a Republican 
administration initially had to come up with something to save 
the American economy, to save the world economy, and to save a 
lot of lives, and we did what we had to do.
    Under the previous administration, the debt ceiling was 
increased 3 times. Eight trillion dollars of debt was 
accumulated during that period of time. Are we in a period of 
uncertainty right now? Yes, we are, of course coming out of a 
pandemic for 36 months with all the money that both Democrats 
and Republicans supported. We had too much money chasing too 
few goods. Consequently, we had inflation that was very high.
    Bloomberg Analytics did a series with all of their economic 
columnists to talk about the Biden Administration and the 10 
metrics by which it will be judged, and the initial narrative 
said that Biden is on track to become the greatest jobs-
producing President in the history of America, 12 million jobs 
created in 2 years, more than any administration in a period of 
4 years. The unemployment rate, down to 3.4 percent, the lowest 
in 54 years. Yes, inflation is still high, but the forecast, 
based on Bloomberg Analytics, is that this time next year, the 
inflation rate will be at 2-and-a-quarter percent, normal by 
historical standards.
    So we have a budget that has been proposed by the 
administration that is $6.9 trillion. We have a $23-and-a-half 
trillion economy. That budget is nearly 30 percent of the 
entire economy. If--if--we were to default on this budget, as 
some are threatening, you would see $20,000 lost in retirement 
savings by every American. You would see the stock market fall 
by one-third. You would see the elimination of $12 trillion of 
family savings, 2.6 million jobs lost, and the economy would 
drop by 5 percent. The responsible thing to do is to come up 
with a budget that people can live with but can also help grow 
the economy. I would submit that the Biden budget, if it does 
one thing that is clear and compelling, it is investing in the 
growth of the American economy. This is, in fact, what we need 
after 36 months of hell.
    So the Chairman spoke of issues of lawlessness and chaos, 
and there are several budget proposals that I have reviewed, 
one by the Republican Study Committee. It would balance the 
budget in 10 years. To do so, and by the way, 173 of 222 
Republican House Members are part of the Republican Study 
Committee. To do so, you would have to cut Social Security by 4 
percent, Medicare by 24 percent, Medicaid, child health 
insurance by 49 percent, other spending--food assistance, farm 
subsidies, military retirement, anti-poverty programs--60 
percent, veterans' health, transportation, education, law 
enforcement, 49 percent, and there are several plans out there, 
but if you are not hitting Social Security and Medicare, which 
you are in this plan, let's say you just take those off the 
table and military spending. What does that do to the law 
enforcement budget to address the lawlessness and chaos the 
Chairman speaks of?
    Ms. Young. I gave the Ranking Member a list of things that 
we called non-defense discretionary. I noted FBI, other law 
enforcement, like Marshals Service, billions of dollars in 
grants to State and local law enforcement agencies. CBO has 
looked at proposals. If they did not touch Social Security and 
Medicare and you want to balance in 10 years, those things go 
away in non-defense discretionary.
    Mr. Higgins. The Federal funding for law enforcement 
agencies, that is like the COPS Program?
    Ms. Young. That is correct, COPS, Burn, JAG, the host of 
things that go out to State and local law enforcement, 
prosecutors from the Department of Justice budget.
    Mr. Higgins. So it would adversely affect law enforcement 
and the prosecution of criminals.
    Ms. Young. Well, you wouldn't have more cops on the beat. 
This President has asked for 100,000 more. You couldn't do 
that, and you would also lose----
    Chairman Arrington. I thank the gentleman from New York and 
now would recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. 
McClintock for 5 minutes.
    Mr. McClintock. Madam Director, my concern with this budget 
and the ideology that has produced it is that it takes us far 
from the fundamental principles that have produced the 
prosperity and freedom that Americans once enjoyed. Except for 
World War II and the COVID pandemic, the sheer size of spending 
is unprecedented, both in its amount and as a percentage of 
GDP.
    Free markets are inherently democratic because every 
consumer everyday votes with every dollar that they spend on 
what they want the economy to produce at what prices they are 
willing to pay. When you take the dollar they would spend for 
their needs and instead spend it yourself, for whatever lofty 
purpose, you have not only reduced their standard of living, 
but you have also harmed the economy by moving it away from 
producing what consumers need to what government officials 
want. Of course, it is necessary to pool our resources to 
provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare, 
but the farther that we stray from these core responsibilities, 
the more we damage our prosperity and our freedom. You might 
think you are helping people, but you are not.
    In a free market, the only way to make a dollar is to 
figure out what somebody else needs and provide it for them 
better than they can provide it for themselves. If I take a 
dollar from Peter and give it to Paul, Peter has earned that 
dollar by helping others. Paul hasn't. I take a dollar from 
Peter and give it to Paul, Paul has got an extra dollar to 
spend, that is true, but Peter now has one less dollar to spend 
in that same economy, and here is the real damage: you have 
robbed both of a dollar's worth of incentive to help each 
other, Peter because he no longer benefits by helping others 
for that dollar and Paul because he no longer needs to.
    I also find this argument between deficits and taxes to be 
silly. They are the same thing. A deficit is simply a future 
tax in the form either of debt or inflation. It is all driven 
by spending. Taxes harm the current economy, borrowing harms 
the future economy, and inflation hollows out people's savings 
and purchasing power. That is why no country has ever taxed, 
and borrowed, and spent its way to prosperity. Just as you 
can't drink yourself sober, you can't spend yourself rich.
    Now, you used your entire presentation telling us how great 
the economy is. Well, the problem is you can't spend the 
economy. People know perfectly well what is going on in their 
own lives, and trying to tell them otherwise only makes you 
look foolish. You need to stop that. Americans are soon going 
to ask themselves are we better off today than we were 4 years 
ago, and you had better have a better answer than doubling down 
on policies that two-thirds of Americans are desperately trying 
to tell you that put their families and their country on the 
wrong track.
    Instead of looking for new ways to spend money, we should 
all be looking at ways to save it. Republicans have a lot of 
suggestions we are trying to share with you and require able-
bodied adults to work as a condition of receiving benefits. 
Stop flooding the labor market with illegal aliens. Stop 
subsidizing political cronies whose products people don't want 
to buy. Stop sending money to countries that hate us. Stop 
bailing out banks from their own bad decisions. Get out of the 
way and unleash America's energy resources. I could go on.
    Bill Clinton reached across the aisle in 1994 and declared 
that ``the era of big government is over.'' Together, a 
Democratic President and a Republican House achieved some 
remarkable things. Together they reformed the welfare system. 
They cut spending as a percentage of GDP. They produced what 
amounted to the biggest capital gains tax cut in history. They 
balanced four budgets in a row, and they produced the biggest 
economic expansions in our Nation's history. We can do that 
again if you decide to join us, but in the meantime, I guess I 
have just got a simple question for you. What makes you think 
that socialism is going to work any better here than everywhere 
else in the world it has ever been tried?
    Ms. Young. Mr. McClintock, I will just add one thing to the 
Clinton Administration. Taxes as a percent of GDP were 19.6 
percent, very similar to what we are proposing here. So part of 
the solution is a tax policy that asks the wealthy and large 
corporations to pay more. I have a simple proposition, too, and 
this is where we differ. The oil industry had $200 billion in 
profit last year.
    Mr. McClintock. Director Young----
    Ms. Young. One loophole closure would save $31 million.
    Mr. McClintock. Director Young, do you not understand that 
corporations don't pay corporate taxes? A corporate tax can 
only be paid in 1 of 3 ways. It is paid by consumers through 
higher prices, it is paid for by employees through lower wages, 
and it is paid for by investors through lower earnings. That is 
your retirement fund. So when you say you are only taxing 
corporations, what you mean is you are raising taxes on every 
consumer, every employee, and every investor.
    Chairman Arrington. I thank the gentleman from California 
and now recognize my good friend, Mr. Peters, from California.
    Mr. Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for having 
the hearing, and thank you, Director Young, for testifying 
today. I am so proud of one particular accomplishment last 
year, which was a bipartisan bill to improve the Nation's 
infrastructure, something people had been talking about for a 
long time here, even week to week, but we actually did a 
decade's worth of infrastructure investment, and among the many 
lessons that we learned and addressed in the pandemic is how 
crucial broadband access is for families and businesses to stay 
connected in today's world. That is the access to opportunity. 
That is the access to information. The Affordable Connectivity 
Program helps bridge the gap for families that otherwise could 
not afford broadband access, connecting more than 16 million 
lower-income households in rural and urban districts since its 
creation in 2021. I want to make sure that the White House does 
support ensuring the program has the resources necessary to 
continue funding once it runs out early next year.
    Ms. Young. Absolutely, and can I also say thank you for the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. This broadband program will 
bring high connectivity to 15 million households. We saw kids 
in parking lots of McDonald's. That should not happen in this 
country, so thank you for that.
    Mr. Peters. We will expect continued funding after----
    Ms. Young. Yes. When we have gotten through this initial 
investment, our commitment is to work to make sure the progress 
does not stop.
    Mr. Peters. Great. Thank you. You know, one of the things 
we are all concerned about in this Committee is the condition 
of the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund, which could be 
insolvent in 5 years, but President Biden has proposed to 
extend the solvency of Medicare by 25 years or more. Can you 
explain how this budget proposes to extend the solvency of 
Medicare?
    Ms. Young. I will, and I want to thank Mr. Doggett, who has 
worked on this program for many, many years, and the 
President's policy aligns with his and goes a step further. We 
take the net investment income tax that was always intended to 
go to solvency and move that over to help the Trust Fund. We 
also close loopholes. Some wealthy have found legal ways not to 
pay into Medicare. We close those, and we also ask those making 
more than $400,000 to pay 1.2 percent more, up to 5 percent, 
while middle-class working families continue to pay 3.8 
percent.
    Mr. Peters. Great, and how long will you be able to extend 
the----
    Ms. Young. Not just our estimates, but the actuaries at CMS 
estimate at least 25 years.
    Mr. Peters. Great. Thank you. Finally, the Republican Study 
Committee didn't come out with a budget, but last year they 
replaced Medicare as a guaranteed benefit with the subsidies to 
purchase private insurance. It also raised the Medicare 
eligibility age from 65 to the normal age for Social Security, 
which ranges up to 67, and the subsidy wouldn't cover enough of 
the costs, and out-of-pocket increases for seniors would be 
significant under that approach. The President's budget takes a 
different approach and protects Medicare by extending its life 
for 25 years or more. Can you tell us a little bit about your 
reaction to the RSC budget and the differences between the 
President's budget and the RSC?
    Ms. Young. I won't talk about individual proposals, but 
what I will say is this. This President is clear he would not 
support benefit cuts to Social Security or Medicare and has a 
proposal that would extend the solvency of Medicare, and 
anything that would raise the out-of-pocket costs for seniors 
is effectively a benefit cut.
    Mr. Peters. Okay. I am willing to work with my colleagues 
throughout this Committee on ways to solve this problem. I just 
think the draconian approach we saw from the RSC, which is the 
only suggestion we have seen so far in an official way from the 
other side, is not going to be acceptable and look forward to 
continuing discussions and thank you again for your work.
    Chairman Arrington. I thank the gentleman from California 
and now recognize my friend from Wisconsin, Mr. Glenn Grothman.
    Mr. Grothman. Thank you. Obviously, a budget is a long 
thing to go through, and I hope I caught everything, but I 
don't know. I don't see any work requirements here for what the 
public would call welfare, like EBT, food stamps, that sort of 
thing. Did you decide to put any work requirements in there?
    Ms. Young. Mr. Grothman, you know work requirements are a 
part of several of those programs already. We have not changed 
those work requirements.
    Mr. Grothman. Okay. A lot, a lot of people are getting 
stuff without requirements, but you have not changed that. Next 
question, on the child tax credit, historically, you know, that 
can be $3,600 for a child under 5, $3,000 for a child over 5. 
So if you have, like, 4 kids, that can be, you know, $14,000 a 
year. Most recently, there were work requirements to get that 
child tax credit. You would not just be able to walk down and 
get, you know, another 1,200 bucks a month. It looks to me like 
you are changing the law so that you no longer have to work for 
that. Like I said, if you have 4 kids, it can be an outright 
$14,000 a year, you know, tax-free gift. Is that what we are 
doing here? Are we increasing the amount you get for not 
working by that amount?
    Ms. Young. Mr. Grothman, what we are trying to do is in 
2021, the child tax credit was raised. There is a child tax 
credit now, and in 2021, we raised that amount from $2,000 to 
$3,000 for older children, $3,600 for younger children. What we 
saw in, I think, and many analyses were done, was that child 
poverty was cut in half in this country, so we are trying to go 
back to the policy we saw work in 2021.
    Mr. Grothman. Just so I understand, and I am sure if we 
gave everybody, you know, $30,000, there would be no poverty in 
the country, but the question is whether that is good public 
policy. You are changing the rules to remove the work 
requirement for that child tax credit, right?
    Ms. Young. We are not doing that. We are changing the 
amount so families have more in which to help their children.
    Mr. Grothman. Okay. So you are giving them more whether 
they work or not. Next question, and I think it, therefore, 
would encourage what I will call the welfare lifestyle. Don't 
work, don't get married, and you still have a substantial sum 
of money. Next question. We talk about the unemployment rate, 
but I think even more significant is what I call the labor 
participation rate. It looks to me like, you know, we were 
floating around 63-and-a-half, that sort of thing, before the 
COVID. We are still down around 62.4, so there has been a drop 
in the labor participation rate, which I think is a lot more 
relevant than the unemployment rate. Is that true? Has there 
been a significant drop?
    Ms. Young. You stated the figures. We are almost back to 
pre-pandemic. The good news is prime age workers, those 25 to 
52, I believe, is the age, we are back to pre-pandemic levels, 
and that is what you want to see were prime wage workers.
    Mr. Grothman. Okay. But we are down about a full percentage 
point, correct?
    Ms. Young. Overall.
    Mr. Grothman. Overall, correct. Another question with 
regard to the calculation of the labor force participation 
rate. There are many people out there working, making maybe 
$14, $15, $16,000 a year, and if you talk to employers, you 
hear there are a lot of employees today, because of the 
generosity of government benefits, who don't want to work more 
than, you know, maybe 20 hours a week or 15 hours a week, 
because then they begin to lose their benefits. So if I am 
somebody working 25 hours a week or 20 hours a week, I am one 
of those people who are telling my employer I don't want to 
work any more hours because I am going to begin to lose 
benefits, is that taken into account in the labor force 
participation rate?
    Ms. Young. Mr. Grothman, I think most American families, 
regular folks that I was asked if I talked to earlier, would 
tell you they have a much more complicated story about why they 
choose to work. My guess is, because I have been there, the 
figure you stated, $14,000, pays about half of my childcare 
bill. So families have a very complicated dynamic----
    Mr. Grothman. Well----
    Ms. Young [continuing]. In which to make sure their kids 
are taken care of and balance that with their salary.
    Mr. Grothman. Okay. I think you got to get out in the real 
world a little bit, but I am going to ask you again. Does that 
take into account people who are telling their employer I can't 
make more than X and X because I will lose my government 
benefits?
    Ms. Young. What I am telling you is families have very 
complex dynamics----
    Mr. Grothman. They are complex.
    Ms. Young [continuing]. That we should all take into 
account.
    Mr. Grothman. Okay. Now, there are many, many spending 
increases in here to hire more bureaucrats, to increase 
diversity of a variety of different programs, and a lot more 
money here for Planned Parenthood. These grants to Planned 
Parenthood, as I understand it, will put gals as young as 15 or 
16 on contraceptive without their parents knowing about it. Do 
you think that is good public policy?
    Ms. Young. Mr. Grothman, you know, 4-and-a-half million 
people use Title X clinics. What we are saying is we should 
support that preventive health, which also includes family 
planning. I don't know if the specific hypothetical you 
mentioned happens, but I think we should be investing in 
institutions that cover 4-and-a-half million Americans who 
receive care there.
    Mr. Grothman. It doesn't bother you if people are getting 
this without their parents knowing about it.
    Ms. Young. You can imagine I won't speak to hypotheticals. 
If that is happening, I am happy to look at, after the hearing, 
what stories you may have seen.
    Chairman Arrington. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin 
and now yield 5 minutes to Ms. Lee from California.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Ranking 
Member. Good to see you, Director Young.
    Ms. Young. Hi.
    Ms. Lee. You know what question I would like to ask you, 
but I would like to frame it in the context of what the 
Congressional Budget Office has shown in terms of reducing our 
defense budget. The President's 2024 budget includes $886 
billion for defense spending, which is a 3.3 percent increase, 
I believe, over the enacted 2023 level, which included, for the 
last 2 years actually, about $37 billion over what the 
President asked in the prior couple of years.
    Now, the Pentagon, first of all, has not been audited. No 
agency in the history of this country has ever failed an audit, 
and I believe the Pentagon has failed 5 audits. Again, going to 
the Congressional Budget Office, it has shown that a cut of 
$100 billion would not impact our national security. We know 
there is about $150 billion in waste, fraud, and abuse. The 
taxpayers deserve accountability in terms of how the Pentagon 
is spending their money, so I cannot understand why we would 
increase defense spending when the Pentagon can't even pass an 
audit 5 times.
    So with every $100 billion, according to the CBO, we could 
power every household with solar energy, hire 1 million 
elementary school teachers, provide free tuition for 2 out of 3 
public college students, we could cover medical care for 7 
million veterans, and so much more, and so I am trying to get a 
handle on how did the administration arrive at this funding 
level given the increases above what the administration asked 
for for the last couple of years, and how can we justify 
increasing an agency or department that has failed 5 audits.
    Ms. Young. Congresswoman, you probably won't be surprised--
I will get that from you--I will get a wildly different belief 
that we should be doing more on defense from some on this panel 
today. What we try to do, because people have strong feelings 
on both sides, is follow the National Security Strategy. What 
is the right amount based on the strategy we have to defend 
this country, to counter China? It is a very complex world. We 
also increase something I know you are interested in as you 
chaired the State Foreign Ops Appropriations Subcommittee: our 
diplomatic line. It is not an either/or. We have to make sure 
our defense strategy is fully funded, and we counter our 
adversaries and our competitors, and we also have to make sure 
those diplomatic lines, and we are interested in making sure 
both of those things are robustly funded.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you for that, but I also know the taxpayers 
deserve some accountability. Everyone must be accountable to 
spending public money, every agency. It has failed an audit 5 
times, and, in fact, are three legs of our national defense: 
defense, development, diplomacy. In the last few years, my 
budget as Chair of State and Foreign Ops was approximately $64 
billion. Defense was approximately $750 billion, and so we 
need, again, some rebalancing if, in fact, we are going to 
prevent conflict and wars, and many generals have indicated 
that to not only this Committee but to other committees.
    And so I would hope that rebalancing at this point in 
history with the Biden Administration would be looked at very 
carefully, and also finally accountability for taxpayer 
dollars. So how do we spend more, again, when, in fact, the 
Pentagon has failed 5 audits?
    Ms. Young. They have not received a clean audit, and I told 
this to a Member last year on this Committee, I believe, we 
need to fix that. I know the complicated answers and the 
details. DOD has a lot of property, and I know that weighs 
heavily into their ability to get a clean audit, but we cannot 
not follow our National Security Strategy.
    Ms. Lee. But again, the CBO has indicated that cutting $100 
billion would not tamper with nor even touch our ability to 
ensure our national security. Let me just ask you very quickly 
because, again, going back to the $100 billion, the CTC 
expansion of the childhood poverty rate. The CTC actually 
reduced poverty rates among children. What happens if we make 
it permanent? How would this policy make meaningful changes in 
child poverty levels?
    Ms. Young. Well, we saw and we beta tested it in 2021 and 
cut child poverty in half, so we believe we should bring it 
back and make it permanent.
    Ms. Lee. And in the President's budget, it is----
    Ms. Young. He would make the refundability part permanent, 
but in 2025, we have a lot of tax cliffs, and our proposal 
would take this to 2025 so we can deal with those holistically.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you for your answer.
    Chairman Arrington. I thank the gentlelady, and I really 
appreciate, regardless of whether we agree or disagree on how 
to resource the people's government, and regardless of whether 
we agree or disagree on specific programs, I really respect the 
seriousness, the diligence on elevating the level of 
accountability on are we getting what we paid for. Not are we, 
are taxpayers. Is the public impact, the desired goal being 
met? And so I respect that, and I hope we get more of that 
throughout this Congress. So with that, I would like to yield 5 
minutes to my friend from Pennsylvania, Mr. Lloyd Smucker.
    Mr. Smucker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Director Young, thank 
you for being with us today. This budget proposes close to $5 
trillion in new taxes. Am I in the ballpark, Director Young?
    Ms. Young. Four-point-seven, so----
    Mr. Smucker. Four-point-seven in new taxes. It would be $65 
trillion in total taxes over the next 10-year period, which 
would be record high taxes ever proposed, agree?
    Ms. Young. I mentioned some statistics on percent of GDP, 
so we would be in line with where we were in the 90s on percent 
of GDP revenue.
    Mr. Smucker. Nineteen-point-six percent of GDP----
    Ms. Young. Correct.
    Mr. Smucker [continuing]. Is record high. Mr. Chairman, the 
Tax Foundation released their analysis of the President's tax 
proposals this morning. Just very briefly, they find these tax 
hikes would be devastating for the American people. The burden 
of higher taxes hits middle-income families, once again 
breaking Biden's promise. It would cost 335,000 jobs, would 
reduce wages, and would reduce GDP by 1.3 percent, which would 
increase the deficit even beyond what is being proposed here. 
So, Mr. Chairman, again, this is by the Tax Foundation released 
just this morning, the details and analysis of President 
Biden's Fiscal Year 2024 Budget proposal. I would like to 
insert that into the Record.
    Chairman Arrington. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The information follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]	
    
    Mr. Smucker. And I would like to then get back to just a 
few comments that you made during your opening comments, the 
deficits in particular. Are you concerned with the level of 
debt that we have now and with the projection going forward?
    Ms. Young. Yes. That is why you have seen our policies that 
would bring down the deficit by nearly $3 trillion over 10 
years.
    Mr. Smucker. Yeah, and this is what I would like to get to, 
and I asked Secretary Yellen these questions as well because I 
can't for the life of me see where you are decreasing the 
deficit, and I don't think anyone outside of the beltway 
looking at these numbers can see that as well, would agree that 
you are reducing the deficit, and I think it is important that, 
you know, if we recognize that that is a goal, then we need to 
be transparent and understand what the numbers are. So I have 
in front of me your proposal from last fiscal year. You were 
proposing that the deficit at that point in 2023 would be $1.1 
trillion. Do you agree with that number?
    Ms. Young. If you have last year's table in front of you, I 
will agree with it.
    Mr. Smucker. One trillion one hundred and fifty-four 
billion. What was the actual deficit in 2023 in your new 
proposal?
    Ms. Young. So in 2023, our projected deficit will be----
    Mr. Smucker. One trillion five hundred and sixty-nine 
billion.
    Ms. Young. Yeah.
    Mr. Smucker. Four hundred----
    Ms. Young. So in 2023, deficit is projected to be $1.6 
trillion.
    Mr. Smucker. One-point-six trillion compared to $1.1 
trillion, so it is half a trillion higher than what you were 
projecting 12 months ago.
    Ms. Young. I will just remind you we are still in the 
middle of 2023, and those deficit numbers will change from this 
number and that number. They were projections last year.
    Mr. Smucker. Will probably go up, if anything.
    Ms. Young. Absolutely not. We actually had lower deficits 
last year than our budget projections in 2022.
    Mr. Smucker. It is 40-percent higher than you were 
projecting last year at this time.
    Ms. Young. In 2022, our deficit projections were lower than 
the $1.7 trillion actually----
    Mr. Smucker. Let's look at one more year. Let's look at one 
more year. Last year at this time, you were projecting a 
deficit of $1.2 trillion for 2024. That is the upcoming year. 
What are you projecting in 2024 now?
    Ms. Young. One-point-eight trillion.
    Mr. Smucker. One-point-eight trillion. Do you think that is 
reducing the deficit?
    Ms. Young. So you are comparing projection to projection.
    Mr. Smucker. I am.
    Ms. Young. Interest rates have changed since then. Our 
economic projections have changed since then, unemployment, and 
that all factors into the numbers.
    Mr. Smucker. I am comparing what your plan was a year ago--
--
    Ms. Young. Projections.
    Mr. Smucker [continuing]. To your projections now, correct. 
Last year at this time, you were projecting $14 trillion in 
total deficits over the next 10-year period. This year you are 
projecting $17 trillion. That is $3 trillion more in deficits. 
Where are you seeing reductions in the deficit?
    Ms. Young. Our deficit number is the projection from this 
year to the budget year in 2033, 10-year budget in 2024. If you 
pull out this year's table----
    Mr. Smucker. Sure, I have it right here.
    Ms. Young [continuing]. It would show a cumulative deficit 
reduction of $2.9 trillion, the nearly $3 trillion.
    Mr. Smucker. Compared to what?
    Ms. Young. Compared to where we are starting in this fiscal 
year.
    Mr. Smucker. It is not true. This fiscal year, the deficit 
is $1.5 trillion. What are you projecting in 10 years from now?
    Ms. Young. The cumulative deficit will be----
    Mr. Smucker. No, you are projecting----
    Ms. Young [continuing]. Reduced nearly $3 trillion.
    Mr. Smucker. You are projecting $2 trillion 10 years from 
now compared to $1.5 trillion. Nowhere----
    Ms. Young. Sir, deficits are year over year, so you add the 
deficit reductions each year, the cumulative addition. We have 
done a lot of adding of spending over 10 years, so we do the 
same for deficits. You add each of the savings each year there 
are savings. The total is $2.9 trillion----
    Mr. Smucker. The bottom line is----
    Ms. Young [continuing]. At the end of----
    Mr. Smucker. The bottom line is----
    Ms. Young [continuing]. At the end of 2033.
    Mr. Smucker. Reclaiming my time here, the bottom line is in 
10 years, the deficit will be $2 trillion compared to $1-and-a-
half trillion now. We agree that it is important we reduce the 
deficits. It is really important that we look at these numbers, 
and the numbers you are looking at, there is no way anywhere 
anyone outside the beltway would believe that we are reducing 
deficits. It is unfortunate, but that is the case.
    Ms. Young. Those are our estimates if the President's 
policies are adopted.
    Chairman Arrington. The gentleman's time has expired, and I 
thank my friend from Pennsylvania. We will now yield 5 minutes 
to my colleague from Texas, Mr. Doggett.
    Mr. Doggett. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and thank 
you, Director Young. You know, really, I had hoped this morning 
we might see some specific Republican alternatives to this 
budget so you could compare and contrast them with your insight 
on this, but we seem to only have harangues against the 
successes of the Biden Administration.
    I would like to focus your attention specifically on 
Medicare. I am pleased that the President included as one of 
his four pillars of his initiative the importance of protecting 
and preserving Medicare for the future. As you know, I 
introduced legislation last year that was designed to extend 
the solvency of the Medicare Trust Fund to 2040 by relying on 
the net investment income tax and closing a loophole, 
redirecting all the funds from that tax into the Medicare Trust 
Fund, as was originally intended. President Biden has taken the 
additional step of proposing a tax on the very top earners that 
would extend Medicare solvency far beyond 2040.
    He has been successful, I think, in essentially shaming 
Republicans into saying that they won't cut Social Security and 
Medicare, but they don't appear to have offered any 
alternatives as he has, as I have tried to do, to assure that 
Medicare will be solvent and available to pay those benefits. 
Why do you think the net investment income tax is an 
appropriate way to finance Medicare rather than the Republican 
traditional approach of cutting benefits?
    Ms. Young. Well, one, thank you for your leadership. As I 
said earlier, the President's proposal has a lot of 
similarities to what you put forward last year. The net 
investment income tax--the NIIT--was always intended to go into 
the Medicare Trust Fund, and so it is appropriate, and based on 
people who helped start that during the ACA conversation, that 
should have always helped solvency in the Trust Fund. So we do 
that proposal like you also had.
    We close loopholes, I believe, like your bill did as well, 
ensuring that the wealthy pay into the Medicare Trust Fund the 
same as everyone else who goes to work. We go a click further 
by saying those making over $400,000 should pay 1.2 percent 
more than middle-class families, and those making under 400,000 
by paying 5 percent.
    Mr. Doggett. Thank you very much, and certainly that 
contrasts with the only Republican budget we have out here, 
which is the Republican Study Committee, which proposes to 
privatize Medicare and really eliminate it as a guaranteed 
benefit. Let me ask you also about a second aspect of that, and 
that is to assure Medicare's fiscal health. I am concerned 
about tens of billions of dollars that are lost in provider 
fraud. These are not victimless crimes. They impact the 
security of the Medicare Program. I have introduced a Medicare 
Fraud Detection and Deterrence Act to close a shocking loophole 
that CMS does not currently have authority to take away a 
national provider identifier number that fraudsters use to bill 
Medicare, and it would give CMS that authority. Additionally, I 
have legislation concerning preventing Medicare telehealth 
fraud where, without ever seeing a patient, lab tests that are 
not necessary and very expensive or expensive services and 
equipment are provided to someone through telehealth.
    There have been billions of dollars that have been the 
subject of Justice Department action trying to do something 
about this, but the key, I think, has to be preventing this 
fraud from ever occurring in the first place, and I would just 
ask you if I could count on your office and CMS to work with us 
in securing scores on the savings that can be achieved to 
Medicare by devoting our efforts to preventing fraud from 
providers before it ever occurs.
    Ms. Young. I don't want to speak for the CMS Administrator, 
but I think I know her well enough to speak for both of us when 
we say we will be happy as an administration to work with you 
on that.
    Mr. Doggett. Thank you so much. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Arrington. I thank the gentleman from Texas and 
now would yield 5 minutes to my friend, Mr. Cline, from 
Virginia.
    Mr. Cline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am concerned by this 
budget request because deficits, as far as the eye can see, 
into perpetuity is not the way we are going to achieve fiscal 
responsibility in this country. For the future of this country, 
for future generations of this country, we owe it to them to 
rein in the excessive spending that we have seen over the past 
several years, particularly over the past 2 years.
    One of the existential threats facing this country is our 
level of debt. Our excessive deficit is now over a trillion 
dollars a year and growing, by all accounts, over the next 10 
years under the President's budget. Another threat to this 
Nation is immediate and direct, and it is on our Southern 
border and is being ignored by this President. I see that last 
year, Congress enacted $61 billion for Homeland. This year, the 
budget proposes, and I am just reading a number here, $60.4 
billion in discretionary budget authority, and I know that you 
are talking about TSA fees and other kinds of revenues, but 
that is a cut for Homeland, even in the face of 2.7 million 
Border Patrol enforcement actions, a 30-percent increase over 
Fiscal Year 2021, and since President Biden has been in office, 
there have been nearly 4.7 million migrant encounters at the 
Southwest border.
    The population of Virginia is 8.8, so you are over half of 
the population of Virginia at this point. It is not counting 
the 1.2 million known got-aways who evaded Border Patrol agents 
in the last 2 years, but despite this increase, the Biden 
Administration is looking to cut the appropriation for the 
Department as a whole, including for U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, but at 
the same time, in a reflection of the values of this 
administration and their failure to protect the rights 
enshrined in this Constitution, the President's budget requests 
$2 billion for the ATF to increase regulations of the firearms 
industry, among other directives.
    Can you tell me specifically of this $2 billion, will any 
of these funds go toward the enforcement of bans on pistol 
braces, often used by veterans, assault rifle bans, the 
creation of a gun owner registry, or the elimination of 
manufacturer immunity as part of their efforts to increase 
regulation of the firearms industry?
    Ms. Young. I am going to be very clear what the ATF funds 
are about: keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people, 
implementing the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, and making 
sure criminals don't have access to guns, which are being 
trafficked in this country that I think is a bipartisan 
concern. We can do that without infringing on the rights of 
law-abiding citizens, and on DHS----
    Mr. Cline. So your commitment----
    Ms. Young [continuing]. I am happy to submit for the record 
that DHS is actually getting a 9 percent increase, so I welcome 
bipartisan cooperation to provide these resources.
    Mr. Cline. I reject the characterization of it as a 9 
percent increase, but your answer, can you commit that none of 
these funds will go to the creation of a gun owner registry?
    Ms. Young. This is----
    Mr. Cline. Gun owner registry.
    Ms. Young. And I will repeat it.
    Mr. Cline. Specific to gun owner registry.
    Ms. Young. Law-abiding citizens----
    Mr. Cline. Tracking gun owner----
    Ms. Young [continuing]. Is not the focus. It is about going 
after dangerous criminals. Everyone in this country has seen 
mass shooting after mass shooting after mass shooting, and they 
are asking us to do more about it. This is what that is about.
    Mr. Cline. So this administration wants to create a gun 
owner registry to track the lawful purchases of guns by law-
abiding citizens. That is a violation of the Constitution, and 
I think it demonstrates the neglect of this administration to 
its responsibilities under the Constitution to protect those 
rights of the citizens. I yield back.
    Chairman Arrington. I thank the gentleman from Virginia and 
will yield to my good friend from California 5 minutes, the 
great Salad Bowl of the country, Jimmy Panetta.
    Mr. Panetta. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that. It 
is an honor to be here with you and the Ranking Member and 
appreciate this opportunity. Director Young, thanks for being 
here, and thanks for the good work you have done over the past 
couple of years, especially with your help in passing some 
historic pieces of legislation that has led to, you know, 
basically last month 517,000 jobs created, this month's 311,000 
jobs created. Inflation has gone down 3 percentage points to 6 
percent. Unemployment is at 3.4 percent. The deficit-to-GDP has 
fallen from 15 to 5 percent. The deficit has fallen by $1.7 
trillion. Wages are up, savings are up, and, boy, are corporate 
profits up as well.
    However, obviously, we understand that you know, we want to 
ensure that we do lower our debt and deficit, but the last 
thing we want to do is screw around with this thing called the 
debt ceiling because if we start to do that, if we even 
threaten that, basically you are going to see GDP decline by 4 
percent, 6 million jobs are going to be lost, unemployment is 
going to go up to 9 percent, and stocks are going to plunge, 
basically causing a $15 trillion hit to our economy. So look, 
we got a lot of work to do. We understand that, and obviously 
there are hardships right now that many working families are 
facing, but clearly, we have a good foundation going forward 
upon which we can tackle these challenges.
    Now, some of the challenges that we are facing also have 
the deal with basically the recent storms in my district that 
we faced, and I got to admit I appreciate the fact that you are 
probably one of two Directors of the OMB that are familiar with 
the word ``Pajaro,'' and you don't even have a personal 
connection to it, but I appreciate your partnership that we 
have developed in at least addressing the Pajaro River Flood 
Risk Management Project there in the 19th Congressional 
District. Obviously, I have raised the alarms about the risks 
of the potential failure of flooding in that levy, and 
unfortunately, just last week, the people of the town of Pajaro 
experienced what can happen when there is flooding, considering 
that they are completely out of their town at this point and 
not able to go back in because of a breach of that levy.
    Now, there has been an authorization to have this project 
fixed. Unfortunately, there has been this thing called the BCR, 
this benefit-to-cost ratio, that really, I would say, prevented 
any sort of progress since the authorization since 1966. 
However, we were able to get $4.8 million for the pre-
construction engineering and design, and then I am glad to say 
with the IIJA, we were able to sort of, at least get past the 
BCR in order to get $150 million to get that project started, 
but unfortunately, based on last week, it came a little too 
late. So we have still got a lot to do to get this project 
going.
    I guess my question to you, Madam Director, is, are you 
still--still--committed to working with us to ensure that we 
can complete this project before this community is devastated 
once again in a timely manner?
    Ms. Young. One, I will tell you I am sorry we were late, 
and I am sorry that community has suffered. You are talking to 
a South Louisiana girl who has helped many friends and family 
pull out drywall. It is devastating for communities, so I am 
sorry, but I am happy that the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law 
allowed us to put money towards this critical flood control 
project, and you have my commitment to continue to work with 
you. Benefit cost ratios are important. They are not the full 
story. What I have seen, Mr. Scott and others, if you have an 
Army Corps project in your neck of the woods, we have got to 
look at more than just the BCR. It does not tell the full 
story, and when you ask why can't that poor community get a 
flood wall project, well, their housing is too low to get a 
good benefit cost ratio. Something is wrong with that. You have 
my commitment to work on this in a systemic way and a 
bipartisan way because it shouldn't matter who sits in this 
seat. We have to look at fair ways in which to judge these 
projects.
    Mr. Panetta. Outstanding. Thank you, Madam Director. I 
appreciate that and look forward to working with you on that. 
Just quickly in the 30 seconds that I have, what is OMB's role 
in ensuring that the projects from the historic pieces of 
legislation that we passed--the IIJA, the IRA--are improved in 
a timely manner, and is it possible to speed up the NEPA 
process without undermining our environmental protections?
    Ms. Young. So we have to work in a bipartisan way to 
streamline permitting. The President has been clear about his 
willingness to engage here, and we need to do that.
    Mr. Panetta. Thank you, Madam Director. I yield back, Mr. 
Chairman. Thank you.
    Chairman Arrington. I thank my friend from California. I am 
sitting here watching you, observing such good behavior. We 
serve on Ways and Means Committee, and I don't mean to be flip 
about it, but then I look over and see one Leon Panetta, and 
now I understand why you are behaving so well. If that was my 
dad, I would be rubbing my backside the whole time with some 
tremendous PTSD, but thank you, Jimmy, and now we will yield 5 
minutes to my friend, Bob Good from Virginia.
    Mr. Good. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Director 
Young, for being back with us again today. Director Young, what 
do you believe are the greatest threats to our country?
    Ms. Young. There are a lot of threats. One, we talked about 
defense and making sure----
    Mr. Good. Just kind of quickly, your three or four.
    Ms. Young. Yeah, making sure that we have a strong national 
defense to protect Americans against international threats. I 
also believe we have to be fiscally responsible. We talked a 
lot about that today. We have differences on how we get there, 
but we have put forth proposals to do that. I also think we 
have to look at climate change. We talked about flooding and 
seeing the cadence of those hundred-year floods be every 2 or 3 
years. So we have a complex environment we have to solve for.
    Mr. Good. Okay. So you would identify national defense, 
national security as one, the national debt as another or the 
spending?
    Ms. Young. Yeah, we have to be diligent.
    Mr. Good. How much national debt do you think is too much?
    Ms. Young. So that is a good question and one I hope we all 
take a look at. We believe one thing to look at is real net 
interest----
    Mr. Good. No, just how much----
    Ms. Young [continuing]. How much it costs to service----
    Mr. Good [continuing]. National debt do you think----
    Ms. Young. I personally don't----
    Mr. Good. Excuse me. When does national debt become a 
problem? How much?
    Ms. Young. I personally don't believe looking at a gross 
number tells the story. I think you have to look at percent of 
GDP. I think you have to look at the cost of servicing debt.
    Mr. Good. Okay.
    Ms. Young. Most economists will tell you it is more----
    Mr. Good. If I may, how much is our national debt now?
    Ms. Young. The national debt, if you look at just public 
debt, is a little over $24 trillion.
    Mr. Good. Our total national debt is how much?
    Ms. Young. If you add in debt that other government Trust 
Funds----
    Mr. Good. Okay. Our total national debt is how much?
    Ms. Young [continuing]. Will take it to over $31 trillion.
    Mr. Good. Okay.
    Ms. Young. But that is government-to-government----
    Mr. Good. And how much does that equate to per American 
citizen?
    Ms. Young. I have not divided by the number of citizens, 
but you know we don't pay the debt that way. We don't go out 
and tax individuals like that----
    Mr. Good. You are correct that we don't pay the debt. That 
is exactly right.
    Ms. Young [continuing]. That way.
    Mr. Good. We are going to spend more and add to that debt, 
so let me help you with that. The national debt is about $32 
trillion with 330 million American citizens. It is about 
$100,000 per American citizen. What do you think the average 
American citizen might say they have gotten for their share of 
$100,000 in national debt?
    Ms. Young. Congressman, that is a great question and why we 
are here today: what investments makes sense for the American 
people, and we have a whole suite of proposals about lowering 
costs of healthcare and childcare.
    Mr. Good. With us at $100,000 in national debt per citizen, 
at $32 trillion for 330 million Americans, when would that 
become an unsustainable problem? When does that become just a 
tremendous national threat that we have got to deal with in 
terms of cutting spending? When would that happen?
    Ms. Young. Congressman, we are putting proposals forward 
today. The President's policies would bring down the deficit by 
nearly $3 trillion over 10 years. I know there is disagreement 
about those, but it is in black and white.
    Mr. Good. You mentioned our debt as a percent of national 
GDP. What is the percentage of debt to national GDP now?
    Ms. Young. So the percent of debt-to-GDP last year, it was 
97 percent. This year we are in, it will be 98.4 percent.
    Mr. Good. Okay. It is really about 125 percent because you 
are not including the whole $32 trillion when you calculate. 
When was the last time that we had national debt as a percent 
of GDP as high as it is now? When is the last time in history 
we had that happen?
    Ms. Young. I will take that back. I am not sure when the 
exact level is, but I am happy to answer for the record.
    Mr. Good. Yeah. You would have to go back 80 years to World 
War II when we had that level of national debt. Do you see it 
as a problem? We are not coming out of World War II, the 
greatest threat to the globe, to the United States or our 
national security. Here we have similar 125 percent debt-to-
GDP, and we are not coming out of World War II. Do you see that 
as a problem?
    Ms. Young. Well, Mr. Good, I would point out we are coming 
out of a historic pandemic, so the----
    Mr. Good. Okay. So what was the peak of the spending during 
the pandemic? What was the largest amount of budget during the 
pandemic?
    Ms. Young. What I am saying is we are coming out of----
    Mr. Good. No, I would ask you that question because you 
referenced it. We just came through the China virus pandemic, 
and the highest amount of spending on annual basis was about 
how much?
    Ms. Young. So I can tell you in 2022, the outlays were 
about----
    Mr. Good. It was about $6.8 trillion.
    Ms. Young [continuing]. $6.3 trillion.
    Mr. Good. Highest national deficit ever. How much has the 
President proposed now that the virus is over, the pandemic is 
over, how much has he proposed in the latest budget?
    Ms. Young. As a reminder, this President pays for all of 
his policies, so all this spending talked about today, what is 
not also noted is that this President has policies----
    Mr. Good. The answer to my question is we have proposed a 
$6.9 trillion budget----
    Ms. Young [continuing]. With taxes on the wealthy to pay 
for it.
    Mr. Good [continuing]. Which is the largest ever after we 
are coming out of the China virus pandemic, so we are proposing 
a budget of even more. How much does that $6.9 trillion equate 
to per 330 million American citizens?
    Ms. Young. I am sure you have the calculation with you.
    Mr. Good. Twenty thousand dollars per citizen. Think about 
that. The President has proposed to spend $20,000 per American 
citizen. What does the average American citizen get for his or 
her share? The household of four, $80,000. What are they 
getting in return for that share in this President's budget?
    Ms. Young. Congressman, this President has asked, as you 
know, billionaires, large corporations to pay more, to pay for 
these----
    Mr. Good. Sadly and unfortunately, there are not enough of 
those----
    Ms. Young [continuing]. For working families.
    Mr. Good [continuing]. To pay for this reckless and 
unprecedented amount of spending, and I yield back, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Mr. Ferguson [presiding]. Thank you. Next, we will go to 
the gentlelady from Minnesota, Ms. Omar.
    Ms. Omar. Thank you. Director Young, thank you so much for 
being with us. Just to piggyback off some of the questions that 
you were being asked that you didn't really have the chance to 
fully and clearly answer, does the President's budget proposal 
add to the deficit?
    Ms. Young. The President's proposal not only doesn't add to 
the deficit, his policies will reduce the deficit over 10 years 
by nearly $3 trillion.
    Ms. Omar. And in regards to Presidents adding to the 
deficit, what historical understanding do you have about that?
    Ms. Young. I have mentioned where I used to sit. I have 
been in receipt of lots of budgets, and it is not a norm for 
Presidents to send up proposals that pay for their, not only 
spending and investments, but tax cuts.
    Ms. Omar. And would you say that this President has reduced 
the deficit or increased the deficit in his proposals over the 
last 2 years?
    Ms. Young. He presided over a $1.7 trillion deficit 
reduction in his first 2 years.
    Ms. Omar. And I know that you have continuously repeated 
the fact that we find ourselves in this predicament, as many 
other countries find themselves in this predicament, because of 
COVID. What does that tell us about the fiscal health of our 
country in comparison to other countries who have also dealt 
with the pandemic?
    Ms. Young. That tells us we are much more resilient. We are 
seeing 2 months ago over 500,000 jobs added, last month over 
300,000 jobs added. Most economists would not and did not 
forecast that level of employment growth.
    Ms. Omar. And there was a question about what Americans are 
willing to invest in. I know that in the last 2 years, we 
reduced child poverty by 40 percent. We invested in addressing 
the climate change, but I also know that we have been investing 
in things like housing, creating affordable housing and making 
sure people are able to buy housing. The Minnesota Housing 
Agency estimates that it would take $2 billion per year to 
secure housing of all cost-burdened, low-income Minnesotans. I 
am happy that this budget addresses this financial need and 
recognizes this important truth that housing is a human right.
    Our State agency has been using Federal and State funds to 
develop transformative programs to expand and maintain our 
affordable housing stock. One example is Minnesota's 
Downpayment Loan Program centered on racial and economic 
equity. The Agency hopes to have 40 percent of first-time home 
buyer mortgages go to households of color by 2023, and they 
actually hit this goal much earlier last year. In my district 
alone, almost 60 percent of these loans went to people of color 
in Fiscal Year 2022. However, this downpayment assistance 
currently relies on State funds and private public partnership. 
Federal and State funds have not kept up with demand, so our 
State agency has had to make up the difference, which has 
constrained their budget.
    Could you explain how the President's budget could help 
Minnesota narrow the racial wealth gap through affordable 
housing and mortgage lending programs?
    Ms. Young. I think a lot of Americans still see 
homeownership as the path to the American Dream. Lots of 
families' wealth is tied into home ownership. That is why this 
President feels very strongly that we should do everything we 
can to encourage that, including increasing more affordable 
housing supply, which we have proposals to do. We also have a 
first-time homeowner program. Ten billion dollars in total 
would help 400,000 people, and I want to be clear who would be 
eligible for that: those whose parents do not own a home, so I 
wouldn't have gotten this, and my child won't get this. This is 
about putting people on a different path and giving them a leg 
up, a little breathing room, as the President says, income 
below 120 percent of the area median income and covers their 
downpayment and closing costs. So we think that it is 
incredibly important to make sure new generations of people, 
who have not experienced homeownership and, therefore, have not 
created that wealth through homeownership, have a chance.
    Ms. Omar. And so you would say these programs help families 
that we heard talked about earlier who are overwhelmed with 
housing costs and the ability to afford a house. It would help 
families be able to feed their children with this budget 
proposal, that it would help make sure families have jobs to 
sustain themselves.
    Ms. Young. At least 400,000 families with this proposal to 
start, and it is also critical we look at the proposals that 
would encourage the building of affordable housing. We know 
there is a housing stock problem in many parts of this country.
    Ms. Omar. Thank you, and I yield back.
    Mr. Ferguson. Okay. Next, we are going to go to the 
gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Bergman. General.
    Mr. Bergman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Six years ago, there 
were a few of us on this dais who joined the Budget Committee 
as freshmen. The first document we were given by the 
Congressional Research Service was a 24-page document called 
The Evolution of Federal Budgeting for us to study as new 
Members. I still have that document, and on day one, after 
review, I retitled it ``when 2 and 2 cease to equal 4.'' So 
when I look at basic math, and there is a joke within the 
Marine Corps, ``math for marines.'' It is pretty simple: what 
does 2 and 2 equal? So when I ask the questions in our limited 
time here in dialogue, if I ask ``yes'' or ``no,'' I would 
appreciate a ``yes'' or ``no'' answer. There are going to be 
some questions that you will be able to expand on, but I would 
appreciate it in the interest of time and the constituents who 
are listening to this hearing.
    So let's talk about small businesses. Would expanding 
Medicare payroll taxes increase the tax burden for small 
businesses? Yes or no.
    Ms. Young. Not under $400,000.
    Mr. Bergman. Would ending the small business deduction 
increase the tax burden for small businesses?
    Ms. Young. Anyone making under $400,000, no.
    Mr. Bergman. Okay. So if, as you said earlier this month, 
that President Biden would work with Congress to extend the tax 
cuts for those making below $400,000 that was first passed as 
part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, I mean, that was the 
statement. However, this budget assumes that these provisions 
will expire, as currently scheduled, in 2025. So are we telling 
the folks that after 2025, they are fair game at under 
$400,000?
    Ms. Young. Mr. Bergman, this is a 2024 budget, but we felt 
it necessary to put out a statement of principles because we 
know people would be interested. So in----
    Mr. Bergman. For that person who is out there, should they 
expect that after this, that they are going to be fair game?
    Ms. Young. No.
    Mr. Bergman. So----
    Ms. Young. The budget makes clear that the President would 
support extending tax cuts for those making under $400,000.
    Mr. Bergman. So we are going to extend them. Is there----
    Ms. Young. Those making under $400,000. He is very----
    Mr. Bergman. Does the President have a plan for that 
extension so that the people as they are starting their 
business or raising their family----
    Ms. Young. It is in the budget, clearly written, that the 
President supports those cuts for those under $400,000.
    Mr. Bergman. It is one thing to support. It is another 
thing to enact.
    Ms. Young. Well, we----
    Mr. Bergman. And I would like to move on here because, 
again, the kind of questions I get asked by the folks back 
home. The President's budget requested a total of $2 billion 
for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, and 
Explosives to ``increase regulation of the firearms industry,'' 
among other directives. This is despite the fact that the ATF 
is already reaching far beyond their congressional mandate and 
pushing new restrictions that violate the Second Amendment. 
Will this $2 billion of new funding for firearm regulations be 
used to create new red flag laws, greater burdens on lawful gun 
owners, blanket bans on assault-style rifles, or elimination of 
manufacturer immunity? Will any of those occur under this $2 
billion expansion?
    Ms. Young. Congressman, I am sure you saw the President 
sign an executive order doing as much as we can 
administratively to make sure, do whatever we can, to stop 
these mass shootings and keep hands of guns----
    Mr. Bergman. And the----
    Ms. Young. So this money would be used to support----
    Mr. Bergman. Yeah, and the mass shootings, and no one in 
this room, I know, wants to not do everything at all possible 
to prevent this. Last time I checked, the bad guys don't care 
about laws. The bad guys don't care about rules. So we can add 
laws, and rules, and restrictions all day long, but the bad 
people don't, so I would suggest this administration and any 
future administration consider what drives the behavior. So 
with that, I will yield back.
    Mr. Ferguson. Thank you. The gentleman yields. We will next 
go to the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Trone. Mr. Trone, you 
are recognized.
    Mr. Trone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Director Young, thanks 
for your leadership at OMB. I have a number of questions, but 
is there anything you want to finish on response to my 
Republican colleague?
    Ms. Young. I think we've answered, and I thank Mr. Bergman 
for that last interaction, but I think we've answered 
everything. I don't want to take your time.
    Mr. Trone. We are good to go. I applaud the President's 
bipartisan unity agenda with Addiction and Mental Health 
Priorities 1 and 2, so thank you. President Biden has done more 
for this crisis than every other President combined. Every one. 
However, we are still losing. We are going to lose a million 
folks to addiction overdoses in this decade, or lose about half 
as many, 500,000, to suicides. So tell us a little bit about 
how this budget prioritizes these important issues, one, and 
two, would freezing the budget at 2022 numbers, as the 
extremist Republicans have proposed, lead to more lives lost?
    Ms. Young. One, there is not one community, probably not 
one person--we could throw a stone and hit in this room--who 
has not been touched by mental health disease in their family 
and addiction issues, and this has been a bipartisan effort to 
make sure we do everything we can, and I want to thank the 
Members for doing that. This is non-defense discretionary. That 
is where we do mental health and opioid grants is out of non-
defense, so if you cut that, that will be cut, but this 
President's budget goes further than we have gone before. We 
would invest more than $75 billion in a set of key proposals to 
transform behavioral mental healthcare in this country, to 
address substance abuse and opioids. The budget provides a 
combined $1.1 billion, or 30 percent more, for substance abuse 
prevention, treatment, and recovery services block grants and 
State opioid response grants, and I can go on and on, and I am 
happy to provide for the record, but one other thing I want to 
point out is the $10 billion in mandatory funding for SAMHSA, 
which would be a 40 percent increase to improve our behavioral 
health services in this country that are lacking, and also, I 
want to work with you and others to make sure we have the 
professionals in that system who have left in droves because it 
was a tough job during the pandemic to make sure we have the 
people to staff the behavioral health clinics and services.
    Mr. Trone. Thank you very much. There is no question we are 
short on staffing, and we have got to provide the dollars to 
get folks who go into these tough areas in behavioral health 
and mental health and take these jobs, or America is going to 
be much worse off, you know, for it. Another area that can help 
Americans is you have a $2.5 billion for ARPA-H. The success 
rate, NIH, on grants is 18 to 19 percent. When I talk to 
Director Collins, he has been crystal clear for the last 4 or 5 
years that should be 33, 35 percent. That means we are leaving 
lives, tens of thousands of lives, hundreds of thousands of 
lives on the sidelines that aren't going to be saved. So what 
would the idea of cutting the 2022 levels do on impacting our 
medical research and saving American lives?
    Ms. Young. Look, a cut to NIH would take more research 
grants off the table, meaning we do less in Alzheimer's, 
cancer, diabetes, any of those research institutes where I 
started my career as a civil servant, off the table, and the 
fewer research grants you do, the less innovation you will see 
in the biomedical research area.
    Mr. Trone. I am a capitalist through and through, as most 
of my Democratic colleagues are capitalists, and to do that, 
you have to spend money to save money. Spend money to make 
money in business, spend money to save money, and that is what 
these votes on ARPA-H were all about, this money. The money for 
addiction, the money for mental health, it was all about 
spending dollars to save hundreds of thousands of lives, so we 
applaud you for that.
    The last thing I want to quickly touch is, in business, you 
have got to invest in your infrastructure. I was just at a 
BOPCJS hearing on the Appropriations Committee, and the 
Inspector General talked about the crumbling infrastructure at 
the Bureau of Prisons. I saw it firsthand last week at FCI 
Cumberland with Director Peters where we spent the day in 
Cumberland at the prison, and we see the same thing at NIST. 
Our infrastructure is crumbling. The Chinese are beating us. 
They have copied NIST 5 times over. We don't have the ability, 
and we have to invest in infrastructure.
    So this aging construction often gets left behind. It is 
not fun. It is not sexy. Members don't ask for it, but we need 
to invest in construction issues. So any thoughts on that area 
before I close?
    Ms. Young. We have $262 million in for construction 
facilities at NIST, and just to echo what you said, if we want 
to counter China, we also have to take into account our 
research space and make sure that we remain leaders in research 
in this country.
    Mr. Trone. Thank you so much. I yield back.
    Mr. Ferguson. I thank the gentleman for yielding back and 
now recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Roy. Mr. Roy, you 
are recognized.
    Mr. Roy. I thank the Chairman. Thank you, Director Young, 
for joining us here today. I would note we have already 
acknowledged the 19.6 percent overall percent of GDP revenue to 
the Treasury, which would put it at historic highs. I assume 
the Director would agree that that is a relatively high 
historic percentage of revenue to the Treasury.
    Ms. Young. Yeah, we would be in line with where we were in 
the mid-90s.
    Mr. Roy. But nevertheless, those are very high levels as a 
relative basis of percentage of GDP, but we are also 
acknowledging that we are increasing spending next year to $6.8 
trillion--$500 billion more than Fiscal Year 2023--$82 trillion 
over 10 years. Eighty-two trillion dollars of spending over 10 
years, but we are trying to praise a $3 trillion so-called 
reduction in the deficit, despite the fact that we are spending 
$82 trillion.
    Here is where I want to kind of go. What are the priorities 
of this administration when I look at what I see in the budget? 
Here are some of the spending items that are brought to my 
attention: $3.9 billion for the Department of Homeland Security 
Climate Resilience Program. $3.9 billion because the 
administration cares about a climate crisis more than the 
crisis at our border. $109 million going to Mexico--Mexico--for 
law enforcement and military support, this despite the fact 
that our border is overrun and Mexico has lost complete control 
along our Southern border. $3.5 billion for the FBI's new 
headquarters. $3.5 billion for the FBI to have a brand-new 
headquarters in Maryland. $1.8 billion more for the Internal 
Revenue Service on top of the $80 billion that was given to the 
IRS last year. $1.6 billion for the United Nations Green 
Climate Fund, which includes $100 million to go to China--
China--for greening its economy. $108 million for the World 
Health Organization, which conspired and colluded with the CCP 
to cover up COVID, imperative to CCP propaganda.
    I have been combing over the budget to find any reductions 
in outlays or cuts in this administration's budget. There are 
precious few. Where I could find a couple of actual reductions 
was, for example, in reductions to Border Patrol, reductions to 
ICE, actual cuts to the spending for those particular programs, 
but that is supposedly offset by $4.7 billion for a new 
Southwest Border Contingency Fund to respond to migrant surges, 
but here is the thing: those are restricted. According to the 
language that I see, eligible uses for the funds include soft-
sided facilities, transportation, detention beds, alternatives 
to detention, and shelter and services programs to 
organizations caring for non-citizen adults. In other words, 
that is additional money for more processing with cuts and 
reductions to the actual enforcement of the law. Those are the 
priorities of this administration.
    So one thing that I would like to have at the end of this 
is I would like for the OMB to produce for us a list of 
specific reductions in outlays throughout the President's 
budget because I am combing over them, and I am finding 
precious little reduction in outlays, but the only outlay I 
could find with serious reductions were to DHS' Border Patrol 
and ICE. I would also note that there was $114.7 million for 
diversity and inclusion activities at the Department of 
Defense. $114 million for diversity and inclusion activities--
the Air Force Academy curriculum that recommended cadets avoid 
gendered language, like ``mom'' and ``dad''; a United States 
Marine Corps report that was studying whether we should use 
``sir'' and ``ma'am'' for our drill instructors; a memo from 
the Department of Defense Secretary Austin recognizing 
transgender and gender non-conforming persons; the Naval 
Academy Admiral that told midshipmen to read How to be an Anti-
Racist by Ibram Kendi; $91,000 for diversity and inclusion 
seminars for the Air Force Band; $180,000 salary for a senior 
diversity official at the Air Force, which is more than a 
Member of Congress gets paid.
    And how about Kelisa Wing, who serves as the Department of 
Defense Education Activities Diversity Chief, 2020 tweet: ``I'm 
so exhausted at these white folks in these PD, professional 
development sessions. This lady actually had the CAU-dacity to 
say black people can be racist, too. I had to stop the session 
and give ``Karen'' the business. We are not the majority. We 
don't have the power.'' Are these the priorities of the current 
administration to fund the kinds of offices that hire 
individuals that use this kind of divisive, racist language? Is 
that the priorities of this President's budget?
    And you have criticized our plan, some conservatives in 
Congress' plan, to shrink Washington and grow America. The 
House Freedom Caucus plan wouldn't reduce the deficit by one 
penny. Which is it? All I have heard today from my Democratic 
colleagues is all the horrifying cuts that are going to occur. 
Which is it--because you are going to say that we are not going 
to reduce the deficit when you say that we are going to stop a 
student loan bailout of $400 billion? You are telling me that 
wouldn't reduce the Fiscal Year 2023 deficit, to eliminate a 
$400 billion bailout of student loans, that it wouldn't reduce 
the deficit if we were to reclaim $91 billion of unspent COVID 
money, or $80 billion from the IRS expansion, or $78 billion 
from the so-called Inflation Reduction Act's unspent climate 
funds, or $270 billion from the Inflation Reduction Act's so-
called energy subsidies, or getting Americans back to work 
under SNAP or Medicaid. All of this that we proposed in the 
House Freedom Caucus budget would save $4.8 trillion over 10 
years.
    Mr. Ferguson. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Roy. I yield back.
    Mr. Boyle. And, Mr. Chair, since there was obviously a lot 
there for the last 3 or 4 minutes, I would ask the indulgence 
if the OMB Director could actually respond to some of that, if 
she wishes. I think that would be appropriate.
    Mr. Ferguson. Yes, we will give just a few seconds to do 
what you can on that, Director Young.
    Ms. Young. Just a few seconds. There are spending cuts you 
have outlined that we have talked a lot about here today. 
However, if you continue the tax cuts, which has also been a 
stated policy goal, of those making over $400,000 and skew to 
the wealthy, you use all of those savings for extending those 
tax cuts. That is where the analysis came from, sir.
    Mr. Roy. And where in the Freedom Caucus proposal that was 
put out publicly was there any mention of the tax cuts? Putting 
aside the debate over tax cuts, which is a meritorious debate, 
but there was no mention of that. So how can then the 
gentlelady say, oh, this is----
    Mr. Ferguson. The time has expired on this.
    Mr. Roy. Well, the time was extended. The question was laid 
out and the allegation was made there about taxes, which is----
    Mr. Ferguson. Certainly, sir. I appreciate the vigor of the 
conversation. With that, next, we will call on Ms. Balint from 
Vermont. The gentlelady is recognized.
    Ms. Balint. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Director 
Young, for being here. As I am sure you know, this week, the 
Republican majority is bringing a bill to the floor that would 
put a very large burden on schools and families. It would 
condition Federal funding for schools on implementing policies 
that will actively harm LGBTQ students, and we are only in D.C. 
for a few days this week, and we are spending our valuable time 
on a bill that would insert the Federal Government between 
parents, and kids, and local schools. It promotes censorship 
between--you know--it promotes book banning, it violates the 
privacy of young people, and they say it is about freedom, and 
they say it is about protecting kids, and I have to ask, you 
know, what about book banning is about protecting freedom, and 
what about defunding schools is about protecting kids?
    And I could tell you, this is not how my constituents want 
me to be spending my time. I was back in Vermont last week 
traveling around the State, and we talked about a lot of 
urgent, urgent issues facing families in Vermont: housing, 
mental health, protecting social safety nets like Social 
Security and Medicare. We talked about how we have to do more 
right now to support mental health in schools, and not one 
person, not one, in all my travels around the State advocated 
for less funding for schools. I met with so many high school 
students last week, and what they told me clearly and directly 
is that they need us to support them in meaningful ways, 
especially when it comes to mental health supports, and 
American families across this country are facing these urgent 
problems.
    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention just 
released their Youth Risk Behavior Survey results, and the 
results show that teen girls and LGBTQ teens are experiencing 
extremely high rates of mental distress, violence, and 
substance abuse. Three in 5 girls feel persistently sad and 
hopeless, which is a marker for depressive symptoms, and more 
than 1 in 4 girls report that they had seriously considered 
suicide in 2021--1 in 4. This is a substantial increase from 
2011, and we have House Republican leadership ignoring this 
epidemic and instead pushing H.R. 5, a bill that stokes the 
fire of division instead of uniting us around this issue that I 
know--I know--that Republicans across the aisle also care about 
the mental struggles of families in their communities. So I 
want to know why we are not talking about that more.
    Our kids and teens are suffering. We need real investments 
in mental healthcare, and as a parent of school-age children, I 
can tell you that is what parents are talking about right now. 
That is what they are talking about. So I know that Mr. Trone 
asked about mental health supports. I wonder if you could go 
back to the President's budget and talk a little bit more about 
what families and students can look for that will give them 
hope in this budget around these issues. Thank you.
    Ms. Young. So that sobering reflection makes me want to put 
my 16-month-old in a bubble because this is a hard time for 
young people with social media, and I think many of us who grew 
up after it wonder how we would have done during this time, and 
I take this very seriously, and I hope there is bipartisan 
support to grow the Title I budget, which says it should not 
matter what zip code you live in, you should have access to a 
good education in this country. That is an economic argument as 
well in addition to just a compassionate one.
    We also have increases for IDEA, which has been bipartisan 
in nature, and we have a proposal I hope we take seriously on 
pre-K, 3 and 4, getting kids educated in the system earlier. We 
think it is critical. It is economics. You want more people in 
the labor force? Let's educate them, and it shouldn't matter 
what zip code. They should have a basic education at a certain 
level. So that is what this budget does, and I hope we can come 
together and find some common solutions to, in many ways, what 
you laid out, a crisis for our kids at that age.
    Ms. Balint. Thank you so much. I yield back.
    Mr. Ferguson. I thank the gentlewoman. I will next yield 
myself 5 minutes. Director Young, thank you for being with us 
today. A couple of things. First of all, I have a graph in 
front of me that I, without objection, would like entered into 
the record, and we will get a copy for this.
    [The information follows:]
    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]	
    
    Mr. Ferguson. But it shows the timeline of the actual 
passage of the American Rescue Plan and inflation. At its 
passage or just before it, inflation was right about 2 percent. 
The Congressional Budget Office basically estimated, pre-
American Rescue Plan, that inflation would peak somewhere just 
south of 3 percent and level out around 2 percent, and 
actually, what we know has happened is that it went above 9 
percent and is now back down just below 7 percent. It is still 
insanely high, but just to show this, that the amount of money 
that was pushed into the system has clearly driven inflation to 
a 40-year high.
    A quick question for you. When you started early on, I 
think you were talking about the energy component, and you said 
that American oil companies had $200 billion in profit. Is that 
the number that you----
    Ms. Young. In 2022, yes, sir.
    Mr. Ferguson. In 2022. Okay. Thank you. So also, without 
objection, I would like to enter an article into the record 
that basically shows that in 2022, Aramco, Saudi Arabia's 
largest state-owned oil production company, itself had $161 
billion in profit, okay?
    So if I go back and look at this and I think about it, if 
American oil companies and those producers here in the U.S. are 
doing very well, and my gas price at the pump was about half 
and my diesel fuel cost at the farm was about half of what it 
was, I am much more in favor of those U.S. companies 
participating in that than I am Saudi Arabia and so it just 
seems that the administration's policies are still generating--
I mean, the world is still going to use fossil fuels. It is 
just, are we going to reward our friends in Saudi Arabia, or 
are we going to reward American workers working in American 
energy?
    You know and I go back to the day the President took office 
and he killed the Keystone Pipeline, and I am just wondering if 
any of those communities have seen any of the green energy jobs 
that were promised, okay? I am not saying jobs aren't created 
somewhere in America, but when this place makes the decision to 
gut part of an industry and then leaves the community broken, 
and the response is you are going to be okay, we are just going 
to give you a check, I think that is pretty cruel. I think it 
is pretty inhumane. I just think these energy policies are 
misguided, and the fact that Saudi Arabia's state-owned oil 
company had a $161 billion in profit on record, I think I would 
be looking more at that and how do we drive those revenues back 
to the U.S. for American innovation, American clean energy, and 
American energy workers.
    I want to go back to also a conversation that we were 
having about the labor participation rate, and that labor 
participation rate is made up of people that are working part 
time, full time, seeking work, and it is low right now, and I 
believe that my friend from Wisconsin asked you--Mr. Grothman--
about did the labor participation rate include those workers 
that were part time or that would only come in and work 2 or 3 
days a week. I am sure that there are people that have 
complicated issues with their household finances, but the 
reality is, and at least a big part of the 3rd District of 
Georgia, we have got a lot of people that will only come in and 
work 2 days a week, 3 days a week, whatever it is because they 
simply do not want to lose those Federal benefits, and it is a 
reality. I mean, I have got my small business owners that are 
telling me this, and so I just don't understand how this 
administration can lessen work requirements for people to 
receive Federal benefits.
    And let me just say this too, when you have got so much in 
the way of SNAP payments, and food stamp payments, EBT, those 
numbers are so great. This story is told time and time and time 
again in my district where someone, they buy all the groceries 
for the month, and then they turn around and sell the excess 
for pennies on the dollar just to get cash. I mean, those kind 
of programs don't make sense, and I don't care how much you say 
it, it is a disincentive to work. So will the administration 
work with us to implement incentives for work that actually get 
people back into the business community to raise that labor 
participation rate?
    Ms. Young. Congressman, we share the goal of increasing 
labor participation. We have differences on how we get there. I 
will point to one proposal we have that I think it tells the 
story: childcare in this country. Women fell out of the labor 
market during the pandemic at higher levels than men did, and 
one reason they have told us that happened is because they 
don't have adequate childcare for their families. We think that 
our proposal is a good economic engine to make sure our labor 
participation rate goes up.
    Mr. Ferguson. Reclaiming my time. That sounds well and 
good, except you are driving the labor needed for childcare out 
of the market by some of the disincentives. Again, I appreciate 
your response. We have to agree to disagree on that, and with 
that, my time has expired, and now I will call on the Ranking 
Member of Ed and Workforce, Mr. Scott. Mr. Scott, you are now 
recognized.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Director Young, 
thank you for being with us today. I was told, my staff was 
told, that we couldn't use charts, so I can't present the 
chart, but if I could, I would present a chart that would show 
that every Democratic administration since Kennedy has left 
office with a better deficit situation than they inherited, and 
that every Republican administration since Nixon left office 
with a worse deficit situation than they inherited, and so it 
is not both sides, and in fact, what portion of today's debt 
was created by the Trump Administration?
    Ms. Young. I will say more than 80 percent of debt was 
accumulated prior to this administration.
    Mr. Scott. Okay, and the Trump Administration, about 25 
percent of the total debt?
    Ms. Young. Correct, and I just have to point out, Mr. 
Chairman, $2 trillion in tax cuts does add to the deficit.
    Mr. Scott. Okay, and in fact, in the first 2 years, the 
Biden Administration reduced the deficit $1.7 trillion, and 
this budget reduces the deficit over 10 years by $3 trillion. 
Is that in addition to the $1.7?
    Ms. Young. It is. The budget says if none of his policies 
are enacted, the deficit would be $2.9 trillion higher than if 
the President's policies were adopted.
    Mr. Scott. Now, you were badgered about how a slightly 
higher deficit could be a reduction. Your reduction is if you 
had done nothing.
    Ms. Young. If you had done nothing.
    Mr. Scott. Compared to doing nothing, your budget deficit 
will be about $3 trillion less than what it would have been. 
You were also badgered about a 15-percent tax and whether that 
is good for America or not good for America. Can you say why 
corporations would be more likely to move back to the United 
States with that tax than move offshore?
    Ms. Young. We have seen corporations leave this country and 
go to countries where they have effectively no tax rate. We 
believe, and Secretary Yellen has worked with our partners 
across the globe, that establishing this minimum global tax 
will bring companies back to the United States because those 
tax shelters will no longer be available to them.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you. You also have been badgered about 
evidence that welfare reduces jobs. Are you aware of the 
studies that show that if you give a little bit of support to 
those who are unemployed today, they are actually more likely 
to get a job than if you don't supply that little support?
    Ms. Young. That, and as they see jobs continue to be added, 
as they see unemployment remain low, those who have stayed out 
of the labor market for a long time, we start to see them 
return into the labor market.
    Mr. Scott. And that has nothing to do with whether or not 
they get the little minimum benefits that may be available.
    Ms. Young. It is not. I will point out unemployment 
insurance may make up half of a person's salary.
    Mr. Scott. And, in fact, when some States eliminated the 
unemployment benefit under the American Rescue Plan, the 
additional $600, when some States eliminated that, were those 
citizens more likely to go back to work in those States that 
continued the $600?
    Ms. Young. So we now have data. Those States who chose to 
turn off those benefits saw no more of a boost to their labor 
participation or unemployment rates than those that kept the 
enhanced benefits.
    Mr. Scott. And, in fact, they saw less economic activity 
because those people with unemployment benefits were more 
likely to spend every dime they got. It goes right back in the 
economy and stimulates the economy. Does your budget protect 
Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid?
    Ms. Young. Congressman, Social Security and Medicaid, this 
budget ensures that no benefits would be cut, and Medicaid, we 
would actually add benefits, for example, for women to make 
sure they would have 12 months of postpartum coverage. We have 
seen terrible, terrible statistics out of COVID that pregnant 
women are seeing a 40 percent increase in deaths, so we are 
doing more in that space, and in Medicare we talked about a 
lot, we would extend the solvency by at least 25 years.
    Mr. Scott. And Social Security?
    Ms. Young. Social Security, this budget maintains the 
President's ironclad commitment that he will not reduce 
benefits.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Ferguson. The gentleman yields back. Next, our 
colleague from Utah, Mr. Moore. Mr. Moore, you are recognized.
    Mr. Moore. Thank you, Representative Ferguson. I want to 
echo the Chairman's comments earlier in sharing appreciation 
for you to reach out to us. Earlier, we had a conversation and 
want to continue to keep that dialogue going. We have major, 
major fiscal issues in our Nation, and I, and I hope everybody 
on this Committee, you know, truly recognizes that, and I want 
to just lay out the three big things that we need to be doing, 
and I really tried to dig into these three things, and if we 
can do this, we can actually get ourselves to some sense of 
fiscal sanity, and again, Republicans and Democrats are going 
to probably disagree on a little bit of the how, but if we can 
at least agree on the three major things.
    The first thing is to find wasteful spending, right? That 
is, to my opinion, the lowest-hanging fruit in all of budgetary 
considerations is to find wasteful spending. I will dig into a 
little bit more of this, but it has been the large focus of my 
colleagues and I, and I know Chairman Arrington's drive is to 
scour the budget, scour what we have done over the last 2 to 3 
years, and find areas of just waste that we can easily claw 
back, and find ways for improvement, and everything has to be 
on the table, right?
    So in 2019, and I am going to use OMB numbers, so please 
correct me if I have any of this incorrect, but our total 
revenues in 2019 were $3.5 trillion. So our total budget was 
$4.4 trillion, and what is projected right now for 2024, total 
revenues at $4.8 trillion. That is $1.3 trillion more than just 
2019, but our expenses, our total budget is $6.4 trillion for, 
we are talking, 2024. That is an increase of $2 trillion. From 
2019 to 2024, there is a delta of $2 trillion in our total 
budget.
    Things haven't fundamentally changed that much in our 
Nation over the last 5 years. When you had the pandemic, costs 
went up. There was a bipartisan approach to that, then there 
was the American Rescue Plan, right? I firmly disagreed with 
the American Rescue Plan. Democrats will even say that it ties 
to inflation. Okay. Let's figure out a way to address that. It 
happened. I wish it didn't happen, but it happened, and we need 
to come back out of it. We have an opportunity to find waste in 
our budgeting.
    Number two is the participation rate. The area that I am 
really passionate about, and it is something that Utah always 
has a really good approach to, is finding ways to lift people 
out of poverty. If you are born in the lower 20 percent of 
socioeconomic numbers, status, you have the best opportunity in 
Utah to get into the top 20 percent. It is probably the thing I 
am most proud about from being from my State, and it is because 
we incentivize work. We show the dignity of work is what builds 
lives, and we are not seeing that right now with what President 
Biden is doing. If we are going to brag about going from the 
highest unemployment, from 10-plus to 14 percent unemployment 
just a few years ago right at the height of the pandemic, and 
then brag about being at 3.5 but having more still enrolled in 
welfare programs, we've got a problem here because if 
unemployment is going down, then the same should be true with 
what we are needing from our assistance, and there has to be a 
fix there, and so it is participation rate.
    And again, doing a hearing on it later. I won't dig into 
it, but healthcare costs, right? So we have got to truly find a 
way to make healthcare affordable and not just, you know, cap 
it here and make someone else pay for it--we are just financing 
who pays for it right now--and truly go after these issues: 
finding waste, increasing participation rate, and get after 
healthcare in a really true, sincere way.
    I am going to give you an opportunity. What areas are you 
truly finding to be able to cut waste? Like, families have to 
do this all the time. What is the Federal Government doing 
right now to truly target and cut waste? Anything in this 
budget that is clear because the numbers are going up, so we 
are obviously not decreasing the numbers.
    Ms. Young. So thank you, and you are right. We agree. I 
don't disagree with anything you said. Where we have 
disagreement on, what we consider wasteful, how you get people 
back into the labor market, so we do have disagreements there. 
I will point out something I pointed out earlier on, that we 
have a choice about. We close loopholes, for example, oil and 
gas companies. That loophole closure saves $31 billion. The 
choice is would you rather do that or would you rather cut some 
of these programs we have spent a lot of time talking about 
that are non-defense discretionary. We save $160 billion for 
the taxpayers by negotiating drug prices, more of them and 
quicker than we did in the IRA in the budget.
    Mr. Moore. Thank you.
    Ms. Young. We believe that is also a place we should target 
for savings and pay pharma less money. So we do have a 
difference.
    Mr. Moore. Thank you. So I will have to reclaim because I 
am actually over time now, but this is the highlight--we are 
saying we agree on the overall principle and where we are 
going, and it is the how about where we get there. I would just 
encourage us to look at the success we have had. Our revenues 
are up. They are at historic highs. You can't not look at the 
Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and not say that contributed. We keep 
companies here, we keep them competitive globally, we grow our 
revenue. We have to find areas of waste and getting people back 
to work. Thank you, Director.
    Mr. Ferguson. Thank you. The gentleman's time has expired. 
Again, for the record, the article that I mentioned was from 
CNBC, Saudi oil giant Aramco posts record $161 billion profit 
for 2022. This would be submitted to the record, without 
objection.
    [The information follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]	
    
    Mr. Ferguson. Next, I will call on my colleague and friend 
from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee. Ms. Jackson Lee, you are 
recognized.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much. I am sorry, Director. 
Can we look at each other? I don't have a direct line here of 
being able to see. We appreciate the work that is going on in 
this room. Let me thank the Chairman and the Ranking Member for 
the time allotted, and thank the Director, the leadership of 
the Biden Administration for timely submission of a budget. 
Just a question. Have you gotten a budget from Speaker 
McCarthy, from the majority in the House?
    Ms. Young. You might remember I said I worked here for a 
long time, and I will say budgets are congressional documents, 
so we would not be in receipt of that, but there are various 
proposals floating around. I don't want to speak for the 
Chairman.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. But you have not seen a final floating 
around budget at this time.
    Ms. Young. I have not.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you. Let me get you focused back on 
this deficit, and I am very delighted--and I have to go quickly 
I see--that the budget lowers the deficit by $3 trillion. Just 
a quick response. The deficit could be increasing, but what is 
the value of the fact that this budget puts it down $3 
trillion, because from my perspective, there is movement and 
recognition that we continually, as the deficit grows, we are 
still building to take it down. So please explain that.
    Ms. Young. So look, the $2.9 trillion, nearly $3 trillion 
is a reflection of nothing changed, no policies were enacted, 
the deficit would be almost $3 trillion higher than the 
President's policies he has put forward.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. And could you explain the value of making 
the child tax credit permanent for families in America, working 
and middle-class families in America?
    Ms. Young. Look, it is one of the few programs we get to 
say we beta tested in 2021, and we saw the results for American 
families, for children who are lifted out of poverty, and this 
President believes that that was a good statistic, and we have 
seen those poverty levels go back up, which means that the 
child tax credit worked, and we would like to see it continued.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. And maybe as large as housing, childcare, 
where your budget provides a vital infusion of dollars for 
childcare for working families, how does it see that being an 
economic engine booster?
    Ms. Young. I talked about it a little earlier. We saw women 
drop out of the labor market during the pandemic at high 
levels. Thankfully, we are seeing the return, but if we want to 
increase labor market participation for people with young 
children, childcare is often an economic burden for those 
families, and we would like to do something about that.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me follow up with the issue of 
housing, 30 percent of a family's income or more. Do you plus 
up housing opportunities or housing products to encourage, even 
with the lack of supply, how does the budget respond to that 
need?
    Ms. Young. So we continue to support vouchers because in 
some parts of the country where there is housing supply, 
vouchers are still needed for families, but we recognize that 
many parts of the country and your districts' housing supply is 
tight. In some places, they are at crisis level. So we have a 
suite of proposals, mainly through tax credits, that would 
promote the building of affordable housing.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me do a round robin. I am looking at a 
proposed Freedom Caucus budget that wants to go back to 2019 
levels, and I am seeing the slashing of veterans' healthcare, 
education, healthcare programs gutted $29 billion, defunding of 
law enforcement and disaster response. What do 2019 levels 
really mean? The country is growing. We have to respond to 
that. We are the United States, not an individual State. How do 
you respond to that?
    Ms. Young. Look, cutting means you do less, and the 
discussion will be what is tolerable and what doesn't impact 
the economy negatively. This President certainly does not agree 
that he would like to see fewer FBI personnel, and that would 
mean that. It would mean fewer law enforcement grants, meaning 
fewer cops in our communities and fewer Pell Grants. The list 
goes on. Opioid crisis we talked about earlier. We can send 
less State grants to governors to battle that, and many 
nutrition programs.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I will move to a next question very 
quickly. It is important to have civil rights for all 
Americans. For some reason, people think civil rights is a 
race-based determination. My school district, the Houston 
Independent School District, is being taken over unfairly by 
the State of Texas. Civil rights is important for those 
children. How are you funding civil rights? And I believe it is 
not woke agenda. It is being awake. How are you funding civil 
rights entities in the various agencies that respond to 
Americans who feel that their civil rights have been violated?
    Ms. Young. You know, the Department of Justice Civil Rights 
Division, I think most people are aware of, this budget would 
seek an increase for that and ensure that we make sure people, 
States are following the law when it comes to civil rights in 
this country.
    Chairman Arrington [presiding]. The gentlelady's time has 
expired. I thank my friend from Texas.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I was just going on. Thank you very much.
    Chairman Arrington. You bet. No problem.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. And I thank the Director very much for her 
leadership.
    Chairman Arrington. You bet. You bet. Now I would like to 
yield 5 minutes to my friend from California, David Valadao.
    Mr. Valadao. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Director 
Young, for your time today. I really appreciate you testifying 
in front of the Budget Committee today. I want to talk about 
two issues that really hit close to home for my constituents--
first, energy prices, and second, water--and how the President 
plans to address these issues in the Fiscal Year 2024 budget.
    The President has called on the domestic oil and gas 
industry to produce more energy, but the President's Fiscal 
Year 2024 budget removes tax deductions on small, independent 
oil and natural gas producers. These producers account for over 
90 percent of the wells in the U.S. and produce over 80 percent 
of America's oil and 90 percent of America's natural gas. These 
local producers are ramping up production to meet our pressing 
energy needs, while creating high-paying jobs and generating 
critical revenue that support our local public services in 
California's Central Valley.
    The President's budget proposes to end some of the tax 
deductions that many of these independent producers use to 
maintain depleted wells and invest in exploration for oil and 
gas. These are no different from standard deductions a business 
takes for the depreciating value of equipment or investments in 
research and development. Do you think it is contradictory for 
President Biden to call on oil and gas companies to increase 
production while at the same time his budget eliminates the tax 
deductions and burdens domestic energy producers with 
significant tax increases?
    Ms. Young. Congressman, I will point out that domestic 
production is about a million barrels per day, greater than it 
was in January 2021, so we continue to see robust energy 
production in this country, and as you know, the debate about 
what loopholes to close, what taxes, is countered with what 
spending to cut. So we have a choice if we want to get our 
long-term fiscal house in order.
    Mr. Valadao. So what policies in the President's budget 
will encourage oil and gas exploration and spur investment, and 
increase supply?
    Ms. Young. I will just point out, again, we see over a 
million barrels a day more than when the President took office. 
We see refinery up more than 28 percent over, than 2 years ago, 
so his policies are not getting in the way of production. We 
are seeing increased production and refinery.
    Mr. Valadao. We are actually seeing a decrease in 
production in Central Valley. We are not seeing as much 
investment. We have seen it to the point where local 
communities have actually had to increase sales tax to make up 
for the difference in losses of revenues because of the number 
of jobs that were created, the number of investments that were 
made, the amount of equipment that was purchased, the amount of 
even local revenue to the local businesses, to the point where 
they have actually had to raise revenue through sales tax to 
make up for the losses because of the lack of permitting 
approved, and some of that is State, and some of that Federal. 
Sadly, we are fighting it from both sides in California.
    And I know that the tax credits are something that the 
administration doesn't support, but in the previous comments 
from my colleague from Texas, tax credits were mentioned as one 
of the ways that you would increase housing by giving tax 
credits to people to build more, and I would say the same thing 
would work for oil. If you take away those tax credits, you are 
going to have the opposite effect of what you are going to do 
for housing.
    Now onto water. My district in the Central Valley is one of 
the many across the Western U.S. that has struggled with severe 
drought in recent years. While the last few months have brought 
much-needed rainfall to our State, we do not have enough water 
storage to capture and store this critical resource. Drought 
will be back before we know it, and the people in my community 
will once again be asking why we couldn't hold on to more of 
the rain we have seen in recent months, and the reason I bring 
this up, Sites Reservoir is a reservoir in Northern California 
that we have been talking about in California for 60 years, so 
longer than my life obviously and a lot of people in this room, 
and we can't get those permits approved. Lake Success 
Reservoir, not far from me, that is overflowing as we speak 
because of all this rainfall, it took 30 years--I was probably 
still in high school when they started talking about this--just 
for them to be able to expand an existing reservoir 10 feet to 
be able to hold some of this water.
    And so when we look at the situation where I have now got 
neighbors sending me pictures as they are evacuating their 
houses, they are evacuating their farms. One neighbor only a 
mile from my house, a couple miles from my house, is actually 
moving his cows off of his farm as we speak, and so we are 
losing all this water out into the ocean. We are losing it into 
people's farms, people's homes. We are not able to capture this 
water because of the permitting.
    This administration is something, and I know this isn't 
directly under OMB, but it is something that needs to be 
addressed, and I would hope that the President would understand 
the value of that water that we are wasting today because that 
would help us create jobs for years to come because we would be 
able to farm ground instead of the situation where we had over 
the last year or two where we weren't able to farm a lot of our 
ground because of the lack of water.
    So what policies in the President's budget support water 
storage, and what is the administration doing to ensure 
regulatory red tape is removed so these critical storage 
projects can be constructed as soon as possible?
    Ms. Young. So I spoke about this earlier, and I know we are 
short on time, but one, I think there is room here in a 
bipartisan way to work around permitting. Both sides have 
plans. Both sides have said they want to do something about it. 
We have to sit down and do something about it. OMB has a small 
piece of guidance we put out to try to help streamline, but it 
is going to take congressional action to do something further, 
and you have heard the President talk about this, so I hope the 
room opens to be able to have fulsome conversations that result 
in changes there.
    We do with bill resources, the Bipartisan Infrastructure 
Law, put some funding in the West towards drought, and we are 
not taking it for granted that the rain will not continue 
forever, and we have got to find long-term solutions. Water 
Smart is one of the things we are doing, but we know it is too 
little, and we have got to figure out something. Forty million 
people, I know more than half, are in California who are 
dealing with the Colorado River situation alone. So you have my 
commitment to work on long-term drought solutions in the West.
    Mr. Valadao. Just one thing to note. In the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Bill, one of the reasons why I was very much in 
opposition to it was because it specifically was drafted in a 
way that would prevent one of our most affordable projects from 
being expanded, which is Shasta Reservoir, and why they would 
do that in a piece of legislation. I mean, if you are looking 
to save money and invest, that would be one way, and in 
California, it is always interesting. If they want to build 
high-speed rail or they want to build a football stadium in LA 
or San Francisco, environmental regulations almost don't even 
exist to them, but we talk about a reservoir for 60 years and 
can't break ground on it?
    Chairman Arrington. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Valadao. Oh. Thank you, and I yield back.
    Chairman Arrington. Very important issue for the West and 
the Southwest, and I appreciate the dialogue and the openness 
to bipartisan solutions. With that, I would like to yield to 
Ms. Wexton from Virginia for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Wexton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and Director 
Young, it is wonderful to see you again. Thank you so much for 
coming back to join us today. Before I start with my questions, 
I do want to comment a little about the comments of the 
gentleman from Utah about waste, fraud, and abuse, the three 
sisters. I agree that we need to get rid of waste, fraud, and 
abuse, and especially waste, but the issue that we are seeing 
with waste is that one person's waste is another person's 
valuable program.
    And for me, you know, it really was driven home to me when 
we saw the littoral ships, what happened with them in the 2022 
debate over the NDAA. Now, the Navy had wanted to discontinue 
this program. They asked that the Littoral Ship Program be 
discontinued, but it was a pet project of one of the very 
powerful Members of the Appropriations Committee, so then, 
oddly enough, it ended up back in there, right? You know, the 
Navy didn't want it, so they thought it was wasteful, but this 
one Member and her allies thought it was also very useful for 
her district, so it remained in there.
    So that is, you know, a good example of waste not being 
waste in the eyes of all. I believe that some of the issues 
that are priorities in this budget, things like cutting 
childhood poverty in half by helping women reenter the 
workforce and increasing the slots available for high-quality 
daycare and high-quality childcare slots, and also high-quality 
preschool, the increasing availability of affordable workforce 
housing, and encouraging the production of clean and renewable 
energy, these are important things that I don't view as 
wasteful at all. So I just want to thank the President and you 
for getting this great budget to us.
    I would ask the question. I just want to thank you for a 
couple things included in this year's budget. At the risk of 
sounding like a broken record from our conversation last year, 
as you are aware, I have a lot of Federal workers in my 
district here just out in Northern Virginia, and I do want to 
thank you. Every year, I turn right to the employee 
compensation part of the budget. I was pleased to see that 
President Biden included a large pay increase for both civilian 
and Federal workers, Federal workers and military service 
members for 2024, and I hope that we can get to that 8.7 
percent number. Can you talk about how the pay increase will 
help Federal employees and their families in today's economy as 
well as how it will boost retention and recruitment efforts at 
Federal agencies?
    Ms. Young. Congresswoman, one, I know your constituents 
thank you for your continued hard work on these issues. I have 
heard from you many times and the amplification of the work 
that they have done, many of them, you know, who toil without a 
lot of thanks. They do it for the mission, certainly not for 
the money. I would like to point out the 5.2 percent from 
military and civilians is based on a statutory formula, and the 
President went with that formula because of the recognition of 
the disparity between private sector and public sector has just 
grown.
    I am not sure if 5.2 percent closes that much, but it is a 
first step to accept the recommendations of that formula and 
also in recognition of the hard work Federal workers do. Many 
of them throughout the pandemic worked in our veterans' 
hospitals, on the border, and all of them, including the men 
and women at my agency, just worked hours beyond regular hours 
to make sure that all of their agencies' talent was brought to 
bear during this pandemic.
    Ms. Wexton. Thank you, Director Young. I was also really 
happy to see that the budget request includes $1.4 billion in 
compensation for TSA employees. For too long, they have been 
undercompensated, given the work that they do. I want to thank 
you for building on the raise that we included in the Fiscal 
Year 2023 omnibus. Thank you for that. Also, Virginia's 10th 
Congressional District is home to just about every kind of air 
traffic control that there is, including we have three 
airports, two regional and one international airport with 
Dulles Airport. We have a lot of air traffic controllers there. 
We have the Leesburg Air Traffic Control Center in Leesburg, 
which does basically all the air traffic for the East Coast. We 
have got Potomac TRACON in Fauquier County and Warrenton, and 
so we have a whole lot of air traffic controllers who work in 
this district. What would the impact of a 22-percent budget cut 
to the FAA be on air traffic control and the safety of our 
Nation's airspace----
    Ms. Young. I mean, one----
    Ms. Wexton [continuing]. Not to mention what has happened 
with bringing back all the air travel. What would happen then?
    Ms. Young. So, one, I think we all can agree and have seen 
that our air system must be modernized in this country. We have 
taken far too long to do that. This budget will put resources 
to do that. If we went backwards, we do less, and one analysis 
shows that air traffic control would be one of those things. 
They are in non-defense discretionary, and our analysis shows 
that 125 air traffic control towers would be shut.
    Ms. Wexton. How many air traffic control towers?
    Ms. Young. A hundred and twenty-five.
    Ms. Wexton. That is a whole lot of the air traffic control 
that wouldn't be happening. Very good, and as far as 
transportation and safety upgrades, we have seen a number of 
high-profile accidents and near-misses in international rail 
and aviation systems so far this year, and we have also seen an 
uptick in pedestrian and cyclist injuries and deaths caused by 
drivers in the past few years. I look forward to discussing 
these topics with Secretary Buttigieg and Ambassador Nolan in 
our Appropriations hearing next month. Thank you very much. I 
see my time has expired. I will yield back.
    Chairman Arrington. I thank the gentlelady from Virginia, 
Ms. Wexton, and now yield and recognize my friend from, well, 
also my friend from Michigan, Mrs. McClain.
    Ms. McClain. You need to look up and down the aisles.
    Chairman Arrington. I don't know why I was looking for 
Fischbach, but Mrs. McClain from Michigan, I yield 5 minutes.
    Ms. McClain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, 
Director Young, for being here. I want to talk a little bit to 
get our arms around the statement that you talked about at the 
very beginning, right, and it is asking the wealthy and the 
corporations to begin paying their fair share. I realize that 
we have a progressive tax system in the United States, but I 
just want to start with some facts from the IRS. Not right-wing 
sources, but the IRS.
    So in 2020, the IRS reported that the top 1 percent--the 
top 1 percent--paid 42 percent of all the Federal income taxes. 
The top 10 percent paid almost 74 percent. So 10 percent paying 
74 percent of all the total income taxes, right? Again, this is 
information from the IRS. I am trying to wrap my arms around 
what is the number that the wealthy and the corporations would 
have to pay for you and this administration to feel like they 
paid their fair share, and I am asking for a numeric number. Is 
it 78, 92, 104?
    Ms. Young. Just like I answered your former colleague, the 
gross number is not, in my view, the appropriate way to look at 
these metrics. We look at these metrics as a percentage of GDP, 
for example, and as I pointed out, when we had surpluses in the 
mid-90s, we were at about 19.6 percent of revenue.
    Ms. McClain. With all due respect, you are a very 
intelligent woman. You have done really good work. It is a 
great answer to a question that I didn't ask. It is not a tough 
question. It is not a difficult question. It is a direct 
question. Right now, we have the top 10 percent of the wealthy 
and corporations, and let's not forget, it is the economic 
system that give us our social programs, right? We don't want 
the producers to stop producing because then who is going to 
pay? I don't have a money tree in my backyard that I can just 
go out and take money. I realize I come from the business 
sector, and business could never operate the way government 
does because we would be out of business. So with that said, I 
am just looking for a really simple number. Do you want the 
wealthy and the corporations to pay 82 percent? It is not a 
``got ya.'' What is the right number?
    Ms. Young. Well, you asked me my opinion, and I told you 
that is not how we analyze what policies go here. Let me point 
out one thing. The idea, one, that those making less than 
$400,000 pay less into the system----
    Ms. McClain. Let's stick with the topic, though.
    Ms. Young. Sure.
    Ms. McClain. And please, and I am not trying to be 
disrespectful. I am trying to get to a number because it seems 
like you are evading the number. Ten percent of the people pay 
74 percent of the taxes. Is it 78? Would that make you feel 
comfortable?
    Ms. Young. The question is what are those 10 percent worth 
compared to the 90 percent of other Americans? What is----
    Ms. McClain. Well, 90 percent of the other Americans----
    Ms. Young. What is their wealth compared with the 90 
percent?
    Ms. McClain [continuing]. Pay 24 percent of the taxes. So 
should only the top 10 percent pay the taxes and we raise that 
number so only the top 10 pay the taxes? I mean, we have a 
progressive tax system. It is a numerical number. Why are you 
avoiding it?
    Ms. Young. To me, the question is, and this is how we 
analyze what policies to put out, what are the top 10 percent 
worth in this country, and what percentage of their income are 
they paying into taxes? What we have found----
    Ms. McClain. And the last I checked, we do have a 
progressive tax rate, correct?
    Ms. Young. What we have found is----
    Ms. McClain. Is that correct?
    Ms. Young [continuing]. Is that billionaires, some of the 
wealthiest families, 400 of the wealthiest families pay about 
an 8 percent effective tax rate.
    Ms. McClain. And you know what?
    Ms. Young. That is less than most middle-class families----
    Ms. McClain. We are talking 400 families. I am with you on 
that. You should----
    Ms. Young [continuing]. Of the top bracket.
    Ms. McClain. Right. One-point-five million tax returns are 
put into the IRS system for the top 1 percent. We are talking 
about 400. I am talking about the other 99 percent, which you 
don't want to talk about. So it is a real simple question. I 
don't understand why we are dodging it.
    Ms. Young. But----
    Ms. McClain. I agree with you with the four.
    Ms. Young. Yeah.
    Ms. McClain. Is it 82 percent? I mean, why is it so 
difficult to give an answer?
    Ms. Young. Yeah, that is fine. I just think that is not 
how----
    Ms. McClain. It is because you haven't been able to give us 
an answer.
    Ms. Young. It is the President's budget, and I am trying to 
tell you how we approach these things. I am worried about----
    Ms. McClain. So it is the bottom line that counts provided 
you do not know how to count----
    Ms. Young. I am worried about the 99 percent----
    Ms. McClain [continuing]. If we can do a shell game.
    Ms. Young [continuing]. Versus the 10 percent who have more 
income than the rest of the 90 percent, and they pay an 
effective less tax rate than most teachers and nurses in this 
country.
    Ms. McClain. And I would say, you are talking about 400 
people out of 100----
    Ms. Young. What are they worth?
    Ms. McClain [continuing]. 1.5 million.
    Ms. Young. Well, what are they worth compared to the rest 
of the country?
    Ms. McClain. And what are they paying? Those top 10 percent 
are paying 74 percent of what we bring----
    Ms. Young. Eight percent of what----
    Ms. McClain [continuing]. Of what we bring in.
    Ms. Young. Eight percent of their income.
    Ms. McClain. We should be celebrating those people.
    Ms. Young. Eight percent of their income, which we think is 
unfair.
    Ms. McClain. And again, this is the problem with the 
American people. We refuse to answer the question. We only want 
to frame the issue on how we want to frame it. So again, my 
disappointment is that, again, we have a very intelligent 
person, and we can't get an answer.
    Ms. Young. Well----
    Ms. McClain. We can't get a numeric answer.
    Chairman Arrington. The gentlelady's time has expired.
    Ms. Young. Thank you.
    Ms. McClain. Thank you, and I yield back.
    Chairman Arrington. I thank gentlelady from Michigan and 
now recognize Mr. Yakym from Indiana for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Yakym. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and congratulations, 
Ranking Member Boyle, on your appointment, and thank you to 
Director Young for being here today.
    Inflation is the single biggest issue I hear from my 
constituents as I travel the 11 counties within my district. 
Seniors can't keep up with the price of food. Farmers, many of 
whom from my district are here with me today, can't keep up 
with skyrocketing input costs, and the same is true for small 
businesses. Families feel the pain at the grocery store and at 
the pump. Local governments can't get vital infrastructure 
projects done because of the skyrocketing costs. These are the 
stories I hear from real people as I travel the district. It is 
generally accepted in the economics community that there are 
two main ways to lower inflation, and that is to reduce Federal 
spending or raise interest rates, and we saw that just 
yesterday, the Federal Reserve is taking their foot off the gas 
as it relates to interest rate hikes, and so what about the 
spending equation from our Federal Government?
    Well, as I see the President's budget, it doubles down on 
policies that supercharged this generational inflation. It is a 
fiscally irresponsible economic disaster, and that stands in 
stark contrast with your written testimony, which speaks of the 
President's ``commitment to fiscal responsibility,'' because 
this budget spends $1.8 trillion in terms of a deficit that we 
don't have next year, which is larger than Fiscal Year 2023. It 
also calls for $82 trillion of spending over the next 10 years, 
which adds $17 trillion to our debt on top of the $31 trillion 
that we already have.
    And from my vantage point as a father--our oldest child is 
13--10 years from now, she will be graduating college and 
looking for her first job, and I don't believe it is 
responsible to hand her $51 trillion of national debt, and that 
doesn't even include some of the budget-busting gimmicks, like 
temporarily expanding the child tax credit for 3 years at a 
cost of $470 billion, which hides the true cost over 10 years, 
which is likely to be closer to a trillion and-a-half. We need 
to seriously evaluate out-of-control government spending and 
the negative implications that has on everyday Americans.
    We have heard from Democrats many times over the course of 
the last 3 months about the debt ceiling, and the debt limit, 
and the fiscal irresponsibility that it would be to not 
increase the debt limit this summer, but I also think about, 
and would be curious as to your thoughts, about the debt, and 
the spending crisis, and the consequences over the course of 
the next 10 years by adding, as the President's budget calls 
for, an additional $17 trillion to our national debt.
    Ms. Young. Congressman, thank you for that. I will point 
out that CBO has given you a baseline, and it states what will 
happen to our debt and deficits if nothing else happens. What 
the President's budget does is lay out a set of proposals. I 
have heard lots of disagreement on those proposals. That is 
fair, but he does lay out a set of proposals, many of them 
targeting those that make over $400,000, and billionaires, and 
hundreds of millionaires, so his investments are paid for. I 
get the disagreement, but it would be fiscally irresponsible 
had he not put a proposal to pay for his investments and put 
some of those savings to deficit reduction.
    Mr. Yakym. And you are correct, the CBO does lay out a 
baseline, but I think for us as government leaders, both in the 
Congress and with the President, it is our responsibility to 
figure out how we restore fiscal responsibility to our Nation's 
fiscal state. Do you believe that with the President's budget 
of $17 trillion of additional deficit spending, which, again, 
takes us to $50 trillion of total debt in 10 years, do you 
believe that that is the definition of a commitment to fiscal 
responsibility, $50 trillion of national debt?
    Ms. Young. I feel very strongly, and it is a fact, that 
this President's policies, whether you agree with him or not, 
will bring down the deficit over a 10-year period by more than 
$3 trillion compared to if we did nothing. So this President is 
doing something, and I get the disagreements, but he is putting 
forth proposals that would bring down the deficit by $3 
trillion through tax reform.
    Mr. Yakym. Comparing doing nothing is like comparing 
ourselves to the worst team in football. I don't think we need 
to compare ourselves to doing nothing. I think what we need to 
compare ourselves to is what does success look like ultimately, 
and I don't believe that it is $17 trillion in debt. Do you 
believe that the American Rescue Plan reduced or increased 
inflation?
    Ms. Young. Congressman, for your last comment, I will just 
point out that the President's budget is the only thing out 
there, so we are comparing ourselves to if we did nothing. So I 
look forward to seeing other proposals, but this is the 
President's plan. This is the thing before us. Do I believe 
inflation was due to the ARP, I think was the last----
    Mr. Yakym. Do you believe the ARP increased or decreased 
inflation?
    Ms. Young. I believe, and I know you won't like the answer, 
that we see inflation across the globe. The ARP was not passed 
in France, or the U.K., or the Netherlands, and they see 
persistent inflation, often not as bad as the United States.
    Mr. Yakym. But do you believe that the ARP increased or 
reduced inflation in the United States?
    Ms. Young. Look, this President has been clear. Prices are 
too high. That is why we have proposals that deal with costs 
for American people in this budget: childcare, energy----
    Mr. Yakym. So the ARP increased or reduced inflation. I 
just want an answer. Did it increase or reduce inflation from 
your----
    Ms. Young. I am sure it had some impact on inflation, and 
as the acting Chair at the time pointed out, it was passed at a 
time of lower inflation. However, we believe, given the global 
climate and global inflation coming out of the pandemic, supply 
chain issues, lack of competition and shipping, for example, 
certainly had a greater role because all major economies are 
saying inflation----
    Mr. Yakym. I thank you for your time today. I thank you for 
the call that we had earlier this week as well.
    Ms. Young. Thank you so much.
    Mr. Yakym. And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Chairman Arrington. Thank you, Mr. Yakym. Now I would like 
to recognize for 5 minutes my friend from Oklahoma, Josh 
Brecheen.
    Mr. Brecheen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Young, thank 
you. I am at the tail end, so I know you have been through a 
grueling process. I am looking at the 2022 budget from the 
President, so just to kind of put this in context, we are 
talking a couple years ago, and noticing that you all have said 
that you are going to save $3 trillion over the next 10-year 
window, and the way that you are doing that is you are saying, 
the CBO, if we change nothing, gets us to a $20 trillion total 
debt load by deficit spending within 10 years, which would put 
our national debt at $50 trillion in 10 years, to go from $30 
trillion to $50 trillion, and you are saying that we will still 
grow trillions of dollars in our debt. We just won't get to $20 
trillion. We will get to $17, thus a $3 trillion reduction over 
the baseline. Is that accurate?
    Ms. Young. That is one way to say it.
    Mr. Brecheen. Okay. So in looking at that, we are looking 
at the 2022 budget from a few years ago. In the first year 
change, you all laid out a 10-year window, and you had $100 
billion increase from one year to the next, and then you 
averaged about a $15 billion increase year after year. So what 
you did was you front-loaded a large increase, and then the 
next several years you averaged $15 billion. The reason why I 
am pointing that out is in this budget, there is a very similar 
tactic that you move from one year to the next of $150 billion, 
the next year $75 billion, and then you project a 1.7 percent 
increase, which is $35 billion over the next, you know, 7, 8 
years. So what you have done is you say we are going to 
increase a massive amount the first 2 years, but then we are 
going to slow it to 1.7 percent growth of government versus the 
first couple of years. If we average it from 2 years ago, it 
has been 7 percent.
    So my question is this. The greatest predictor of future 
behavior is past behavior. How is this not a gimmick, and how 
is this leading to a $3 trillion in savings ever going to be 
realized when your past is going to predict your future? If you 
have averaged 7 percent growth in government, and you say, hey, 
we will get our savings in year 2, 3, and 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 by 
only growing 1.7 percent, is that not a gimmick?
    Ms. Young. So I will point out our $3 trillion in savings 
are heavily tied to our revenue proposals. Those are not plugs. 
They are analyzed, scored by career staff at Department of 
Treasury mostly. The growth in Medicare, Social Security, and 
other entitlements, we get those estimates from our agencies 
like the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid. So I say that to 
say, you know, our level of being able to manipulate these 
things are not high. The vast majority are scored that way. 
Now, it depends on how we develop our policies. Are some of our 
policies earlier years implementation? Yes, but that is how we 
are proposing developing those policies. It is not meant to be 
a gimmick. It is just our view of how best to implement them. 
Some are actually the opposite way where we slowly ramp up.
    Mr. Brecheen. Reclaiming my time----
    Ms. Young. Sure. I am sorry.
    Mr. Brecheen. Just I am watching the clock, and as a new 
Member, I am trying to figure out how to manage my time here, 
Mr. Chairman. So I am not saying that other administrations 
haven't done this. I would just contend if you look at the 
history and look at the future, then at 7 percent, instead of 
saving $3 trillion, it actually adds $2 trillion more above the 
baseline. So I just contend I think it is a great way to get 
the numbers we want for our purposes of looking like we are 
saving money, but I contend it is not ever going to be 
realized, and it is going to be greater than this.
    Let me ask you this. Congressman Norman mentioned $3 
billion is going to be added in your budget proposal for gender 
equity, climate change mentioned 42 times, LGBTQ mentioned 7 
times. You all are taxing on the death tax. You are doubling 
the death tax for farmers and ranchers. I am, a little small 
ranch. My family lost a sizable piece of property years ago on 
my mother's side because of the death tax. You all claim that 
you are not going to see a tax increase for those who make 
above $400,000. The average rancher/farmer, according to USDA, 
makes $92,000 or less. So can you guarantee the American people 
that a doubling of the death tax is not going to be borne by 
the farmers and ranchers who make, on average, less than 
$92,000 per year?
    Ms. Young. Congressman, this President has an ironclad 
commitment. Those making under $400,000 will not see more 
taxes. I think you are talking about our stepped-up basis plan, 
and certainly those smaller farms are exempt from that, and you 
have my commitment to work to make sure we do commonsense 
policies, but we have got to do something to make sure that 
larger corporations, no matter what business they are in, pay 
more into the system to make sure we can save those small 
family farms.
    Mr. Brecheen. Mr. Chair, I will just say I contend that the 
small farmer and rancher will pay it. It will be borne by those 
who make a small amount of money, who keep assets in their land 
value, and I just think it is misguided to think the farmer and 
rancher, the average person making a small amount, is not going 
to pay this tax. I yield.
    Chairman Arrington. I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma. 
His time has expired, and I now want to recognize Ms. 
Schakowsky from Illinois for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you so much. Director Young, it is 
great to see you. Happy to be back on the Budget Committee. As 
I know you know, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law that we 
passed also included the Build America, Buy America Act, which 
I am so happy is part of that legislation, that requires that 
all Federal-financed infrastructure projects use American iron, 
and steel, manufactured products, and make sure that we really 
are buying and building America. In your role at OMB and really 
implementing this, I wanted to just say that I think that it is 
so critical that the Federal infrastructure programs maximize 
the creation of good union jobs at the same time as we are 
addressing the supply chain and making it clean and more 
secure.
    So while I understand that there are some exceptions in the 
law of Build America, Buy America, I want to make sure that we 
are implementing that in a targeted way, in a transparent way, 
and a time-limited way, and so I just wanted to ask you if 
there is any update on the implementation of the Build America, 
Buy America and taking into consideration what I was saying 
about some exceptions.
    Ms. Young. If you want to hear the President get excited, 
talk about Made in America, and I am happy to say the Made in 
America Office, which was established by the President and made 
statutory by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, so I thank you 
all for that, is housed in OMB, and for far too long, agencies 
would just issue waivers, would buy America without real 
analysis to see what products they could secure from American 
manufacturers. The President, and I have heard him say it to 
his Cabinet over and over, not on his watch, and if there are 
waivers, they better be term limited, and they have to have 
justification that it would imperil these projects. So we are 
very much aligned to make sure that we not only take the spirit 
of Buy America, which has been on the books, I think, what, 70 
years, but actually do it, and you have our commitment to 
continue to work together, be aggressive here.
    Let me just give you one example. We worked extensively 
with the Department of Transportation to develop their plan for 
domestic content participation for EV chargers. That will 
support investments in the supply chain, consistent with an 
aggressive expansion of domestic manufacturing, because we all 
said we wouldn't go down this route of having supply chain 
shortages if we ever found ourselves in a pandemic or in other 
complicated situations like we see with the invasion of 
Ukraine. We need to make more here. We also see the updated 
rule increase the percentage of value for manufactured products 
from 55 to 60 percent this past fall. It will go up to 65 
percent in 2024 and 75 percent in 2029.
    Ms. Schakowsky. Good.
    Ms. Young. So we welcome the collaboration. I am happy to 
take input on where we could do better. We don't want to stall 
projects, but people need to look for American products. They 
are out there, and agencies have to take the time to find them 
when they make sense.
    Ms. Schakowsky. So with just a half a minute remaining, 
what is an example of something that, at least right now, might 
have to be an exception?
    Ms. Young. So if we can't find enough minerals, for 
example, as we ramp up our battery production in this country, 
we might have to bring in some content. But the idea is that 
won't be forever and that we need to do more here because we 
have seen now that every American now knows what ``supply 
chain'' means, and that was not the case before the pandemic, 
and we should never find ourselves in that position again.
    Ms. Schakowsky. And it would be limited in time, right?
    Ms. Young. That is the goal for all of this. As we see our 
manufacturing boost, almost 800,000 jobs in manufacturing added 
under this President, so as we see these jobs come back to the 
U.S., more Made in America, the idea is that will create 
systemic, long-term change.
    Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
    Chairman Arrington. The gentlelady's time has expired. 
Great conversation, discussion, but let's now move to my Texas 
colleague, senior physician in the House, Dr. Burgess, for 5 
minutes.
    Dr. Burgess. Well, I thank the Chairman, and I thank you 
for your endurance today. I know it has been a long day. You 
had a conversation with Senator Romney in the Senate hearing, 
and you implied that we are going to need bipartisan effort to 
work together to find common ground to save Social Security and 
protect Medicare. Is that still an operational statement?
    Ms. Young. You see an old congressional staffer here. All 
of these things in the President's budget will require Congress 
to act, so absolutely.
    Dr. Burgess. So sometimes it is a little disconcerting that 
some of the rhetoric that comes out directed at people like 
myself, who have genuinely worked on this problem for a long 
time, being accused of things that are just simply not true, 
but I have to ask you, over the last 2 years, have there been 
cuts in Medicare over the last 2 years?
    Ms. Young. Congressman, there have not been cuts from the 
President, presented in the President's budget, or 
administratively.
    Dr. Burgess. Any doctor in this country that you asked that 
question will tell you that they have suffered significant 
reimbursement reductions in the last 2 years, on top of a base 
inflation rate that is unlike anything that has been seen in 20 
years, and that is just simply a fact. So I think we ought to 
agree that we can work together. No one's hands are completely 
clean here, but we need to be focused on what can be done for 
the future. Now, in previous budgets for President Obama and 
President Trump, they talked about site-neutral policy in 
payments in Medicare, site-neutral payment policy being that it 
didn't matter whether the service was delivered in a doctor's 
office or a hospital, the reimbursement rate would be the same, 
and yet current law is that, under the patient payment rates, 
it costs 3 times to do something in a hospital what it costs to 
in the doctor's office, but wouldn't you agree that site-
neutral policy is something that we should be pursuing?
    Ms. Young. Congressman, I am happy to look at those 
proposals. Clearly, that is not reflected in the President's 
budget, and yet he has a plan on solvency. So I offer to sit 
down and talk to you about those, but those are not reflected 
in the President's budget.
    Dr. Burgess. Correct, and it was curious to me why the two 
previous administrations talked about a site-neutral policy, 
and this administration did not. Look, the fact remains over 
the last 2 years, House and Senate Democrats and the 
administration worked together on mammoth reconciliation bills 
that didn't include any Republican input, raided money, $300 
billion, from Medicare to pay for Green New Deal programs. Why 
was it not a priority to fix these problems that you are now 
talking about? Why was it not a priority to fix these problems 
while the Democrats were doing their reconciliation bills the 
last 2 years?
    Ms. Young. Congressman, it is extremely beneficial to the 
taxpayer and to seniors, the prescription drug benefit seen in 
the Inflation Reduction Act, so we absolutely did address 
Medicare in a substantial way. Seniors will not only see 
reduced out-of-pocket costs, but also the taxpayer will because 
we will pay less.
    Dr. Burgess. Yeah. Just suffice it to say there is a 
difference of opinion on that, and there is a difference of 
opinion on what it does to the downstream effects of 
innovation. However, those cuts that occurred in the Part B 
Program basically affect physicians' offices, and those dollars 
saved were basically used to go to pay insurance companies in 
the Affordable Care Act, and it increased subsidies of the 
Silver Plan in the Affordable Care Act, and it is that 
fundamental unfairness that makes people suspicious of what the 
administration has in store, what it has in the plan when it 
talks about the future for Medicare and Social Security.
    Ms. Young. Well, I hope they look at the budget because we 
are very clear. It moves the net investment tax to the Trust 
Fund. It raises the tax from 3.8 percent to 5 for those making 
over $400,000, and that is laid out very clearly for those who 
are concerned about what our policy is, and those policies will 
extend the solvency by 25 years at least.
    Dr. Burgess. But to look at other policies, like a site-
neutral policy, perhaps as the way the purchase of prescription 
drugs occurs in CMS. There are other programs, there are other 
approaches that would yield real savings right now, and it 
seems like the administration is not interested in pursuing 
those. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will yield back.
    Chairman Arrington. I thank the gentleman from Texas and 
now recognize Mr. Buddy Carter from the great State of Georgia.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Young, thank you 
for being here. I appreciate it very much. This is actually the 
third time that I have had the opportunity to ask you questions 
since I have been on the Budget Committee, and I am sure you 
don't remember, but the first 2 times, I made it clear that I 
don't agree with the President on his priorities and spending. 
I understand it, but certainly we have our differences on that, 
but I think that we do agree that we should be protecting 
Americans and protecting our citizens, and our number one 
responsibility to the Federal Government is to protect our 
homeland and protect our citizens.
    And that is why I am so concerned about what is going on 
down at the border, the Southern border, the Southwest border. 
You see, I am a pharmacist, a healthcare professional, and, you 
know, we are losing upwards to 300 people every day as a result 
of drug overdose, much of it fentanyl poisoning. Poisoning. Not 
overdose. Poisoning, not addiction, and it concerns me. Listen, 
I can rattle off the figures with you, you know: 1.9 billion 
people. That is enough to kill, fentanyl in our country, enough 
to kill 1.9 billion people. You know, it has gotten so bad, if 
you will look here, Ms. Young, I actually carry naloxone in my 
backpack. You know, this will reverse the effects, if used 
quickly enough, of fentanyl, and I actually carry it my 
backpack everywhere I go.
    And I believe there are two things that we have to do in 
order to address this problem with the fentanyl poison in our 
country. One is that you got to stop the supply, and most of it 
is coming from the Southern border, and secondly, I want to 
make sure that we have access to this. There is enough over 
here now that we have got to make this available without a 
prescription. We got to remove the barriers. This ought to be 
like syrup of ipecac anymore. It ought to be in every medicine 
cabinet, every emergency box. Where you see a defibrillator, 
you ought to see that. That is how bad that problem is now. 
That is why it baffles me that, that this budget seeks to spend 
3 times as much money on zero-emission vehicles than combating 
the fentanyl crisis. Can you tell me how this budget addresses 
the fentanyl crisis in any serious way?
    Ms. Young. Sure. Congressman, you have heard me rebut the 
cut narrative on DHS, and I will continue to point out that DHS 
grows by over 9 percent, but specifically on the border with 
fentanyl, I think we have some common agreement here. I have 
been to the border. I have seen them pop off the sides of cars 
and drugs packed to the hilt. The cartels know that our land 
ports of entry, because that is where most of the drugs come 
through, don't have the technology in place to track, so they 
are willing to drive things through, lose some of their goods 
because they know they can get enough through. What are you 
doing to get that equipment?
    Mr. Carter. That is what I am asking.
    Ms. Young. And we have----
    Mr. Carter. And I appreciate the fact that you know, and I 
hope you are communicating that to the administration.
    Ms. Young. And that is why we have money to continue, and 
thanks to the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, we have land ports 
of entry money. This would add more of that NII equipment to 
make sure we are scanning more cars that come through the 
border, Congressman.
    Mr. Carter. If you will, Ms. Young, I have been to the 
border 7 times since I have been a Member of Congress, and the 
last time I was there, we were told that only 5 to 10 percent 
of the fentanyl that is coming in over that border is coming 
through ports of entry. Now, granted we may be capturing 97 
percent of that at the port of entry, but that is 97 percent of 
only 10 percent of the total fentanyl. So what are we doing to 
secure the border to stop fentanyl coming across that border to 
stop killing our citizens? What does this budget do to address 
that?
    Ms. Young. One, I am happy to talk offline about your 
analysis. Mine is that most fentanyl is coming through the land 
ports of entry, so technology will help. What we also need to 
do is make sure we are supporting the men and women down at the 
border. This budget funds CBP to hire 350 more Border Patrol 
agents. We have a border surge plan that I have not heard much 
interest in taking up, but we think it is novel. As migration 
flow changes, we are asking that, depending on how many 
migrants are coming across, more money is released to help us 
deal with what will most likely be an increase flow----
    Mr. Carter. Okay. That is fine, but I am failing to see how 
we are addressing this because we are allowing American 
citizens to be killed as a result of fentanyl poison. You know, 
if we were to lose 300 people in a plane crash, we would stop 
every plane from flying right now until we got it fixed, yet we 
lose 300 people every day to fentanyl poisoning, and we don't 
do anything about it at the border.
    Ms. Young. We agree with you, Mr. Carter. That is why we 
have money here to help stop the crossing of fentanyl and to go 
after these cartels. We agree with you.
    Mr. Carter. I don't see it in the budget, though.
    Ms. Young. After this, we can go through it, and I will 
show you----
    Mr. Carter. I will be glad to because I need to know that 
this administration is serious about this.
    Ms. Young. I have worked on these issues a long time, and I 
am happy to work with you.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you, and I yield back.
    Chairman Arrington. Thank you to the gentleman from Georgia 
and would like to recognize now my friend from Kansas, Mr. 
Estes, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Estes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Director 
Young, for being here. I know it has been a long day for you 
and some of us coming in and out and going through the process. 
So I just want to skim the surface on two or three things and 
then a deep dive on a couple.
    I mean, one of the things when we passed the Tax Cuts and 
Jobs Act was intentionally addressing companies being motivated 
to leave the United States because of taxes, and we were seeing 
a lot of inversions, and even the Obama Administration, 
President Obama before President Trump came in, was talking 
about how bad inversions were, and since the Tax Cut and Jobs 
Act was passed in 2017, there have been no inversions, 
companies leaving United States through that process, and that 
was the intention of making sure that we do that.
    So I am really concerned, some of the things in the budget, 
going through and adding taxes back and defeating some of the 
value that was in that program of helping make companies stay 
here, and particularly, as we talked about, I mean, one of the 
things talked about, raising a trillion dollars from the global 
minimum tax under the theory that it would prevent a race to 
the bottom in taxes around the world when, in reality, the 
underreporting process is going to allow other countries who 
have passed that law, which nothing has been brought before 
Congress yet to be able to change U.S. tax law, to have that 
process. So I am really concerned that the numbers in here for 
revenue are going to be worse than what moves forward.
    And part of the reason why that bothers me is, you know, 
this past year, this current year, we are borrowing $1 out of 
every $5 that we spend. I mean, $1 out of $5 we spend, and the 
budget that is proposed for next year, $1 out of every $4 that 
is spent is borrowed, and to me, it looks like, as I go through 
the math, you are saying that the deficit is reduced by $3 
trillion, but I just don't see that. When I look at the 
numbers, I look at S.1, the table in the budget, and it talks 
about a $1.5 trillion deficit this year. Next year that goes 
up. The next year it goes up. A couple of years are stable, 
right about the same as this year, but then it goes up and goes 
up and goes up, and, you know, over the 10-year period, on that 
Table S.1, it says that the deficit is increasing by $17 
trillion. So I am wondering where the claim is that it is $3 
trillion less when it is going up to $17 trillion over the 10 
years.
    Ms. Young. Congressman, if you look on S.2--we have S-
tables--I would point out if you look on S.2 at the bottom, 
total proposals in the 2024 budget shows the year-over-year 
deficit reductions, and it adds to $2.9 trillion of the nearly 
$3 trillion we have talked about over many hours in this room.
    Mr. Estes. Right, but if you look at the debt, it actually 
continues to go up. Just because we didn't raise the deficit 
$20 trillion, we can't claim that as a $2.9 trillion savings 
because we are raising the deficit by $17 trillion.
    Ms. Young. You can. I mean, yearly deficits, yearly, feed 
into the debt, and you can't make deficits worse. It will make 
the debt problem worse. So it absolutely does help get our 
fiscal house in order to save $3 trillion with the President's 
policies.
    Mr. Estes. But it doesn't save $3 trillion. It just means 
we spend $3 trillion less than we could have spent on other 
avenues----
    Ms. Young. The savings.
    Mr. Estes [continuing]. Because the debt actually continues 
to go up in this next 10 years, the breakdown for that. So I 
know a lot of discussion around that. I don't understand that 
math, that process going through there.
    I do want to hit one other quick point. I know this is real 
quick to go through in 5 minutes, and you have been hit with a 
lot of different issues, but one of the things we talked about 
earlier was Social Security, and I don't see anywhere where the 
President proposes to save anything on Social Security. I mean, 
you know, all the projections are out there that within 10 
years, the Trust Fund will be depleted, that at that point in 
time, the projections are there will be a 23-percent cut in 
monthly payments. So if you are making $1,000 a month in your 
Social Security payment, you will drop down to $770. So what 
has the President done to fix that?
    Ms. Young. So, Congressman, as we sit here in 2023, we 
absolutely--the budget speaks to this--want to work with people 
in Congress who have solutions for the Trust Fund running out 
of solvency in 2033. Today, unfortunately, we believe the 
largest crisis is those who have, as the Ranking Member pointed 
out, had policies that would cut Social Security benefits. This 
budget says the President will not do that.
    Mr. Estes. Okay. So if I look at this, there is really 
nothing in there that helps Social Security over the next 10 
years.
    Ms. Young. It helps seniors not lose benefits.
    Mr. Estes. We will have to do that work.
    Ms. Young. Yeah.
    Mr. Estes. Thank you, and I yield back Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Arrington. I thank the gentleman from Kansas and 
now yield 5 minutes recognition to Ms. Stephanie Bice from the 
State of Oklahoma.
    Ms. Bice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Boyle, 
for hosting this hearing today, and thank you, Director Young, 
for being here. It looks like we are close to the end.
    Ms. Young. So are we. [Laughter.]
    Ms. Bice. In Ranking Member Boyle's opening remarks this 
afternoon, he questioned or suggested that the U.S. Senate 
would be considering cutting Social Security, and he read a 
list of Members, but I didn't hear a single House Member 
mentioned, and in fact, Speaker McCarthy and Republican 
leadership have expressly stated that they are not interested 
in cutting Social Security benefits. So I find it a bit 
insulting that the other side of the aisle would be so 
disingenuous to sort of suggest that that is on the table. No 
Member that I am aware of here has filed legislation----
    Mr. Boyle. Sorry. Would the gentlelady yield just for a 
second since she invoked my name----
    Ms. Bice. I would not. I want to finish my line of 
questioning.
    Mr. Boyle [continuing]. Because I do have the quotes right 
here if she wanted them from House Members.
    Ms. Bice. And I wasn't allowed to finish, Representative 
Boyle. There has been no legislation filed to suggest that 
Social Security benefits are going to be cut. I find it 
disingenuous to speak to such thing.
    America is facing serious questions about the future with 
the budget, the debt ceiling, and markets being on the 
forefront of my constituents' minds. The President's answer to 
the budget is to make history by raising spending to the 
highest sustained level in American history, by increasing 
taxes to the highest sustained level in American history, and 
by bringing our Nation's deficits to the highest sustained 
level in American history. This is not the direction the 
American people want to see our Nation go, and this budget 
shows the President is out of touch and doesn't care.
    I want to pivot to energy. It is important to the State of 
Oklahoma. The Small Business Administration recently filed 
comments critical of EPA's oil and natural gas methane rule. 
The comment letter states that EPA's proposal will have a 
significant and disproportionate impact on small businesses. 
Oklahoma has many small businesses that are part of our oil and 
gas sector. The EPA's proposed rule will have a devastating 
impact on the future viability of those businesses. OMB will 
have an opportunity to weigh in on the EPA's rule before it is 
published. What will you do to protect small businesses from 
unreasonable and harmful aspects of the EPA's methane rule?
    Ms. Young. So, Congresswoman, I am unaware of the letter. I 
am happy to look at whatever you received. Was it from the 
Small Business Administrator?
    Ms. Bice. I believe that is correct.
    Ms. Young. I would be surprised by that, but I am happy to 
look at that, and when it comes into OMB, as you know, it will 
be an OIRA, the regulatory office, review. We would not comment 
on how we review that regulation. That would be improper. We do 
take--as part of the 12866 process, from Members of Congress, 
from outside organizations that have an interest in the rule, 
we do offer meetings to make sure that all of their positions 
are known and put into the record. So I promise you we will 
follow that process and make sure we have a robust 12866 
process.
    Ms. Bice. Thank you. In response to Representative 
McClintock's questioning earlier, you suggested that oil and 
gas companies have made record profits this last year and 
should pay their fair share. Is that accurate?
    Ms. Young. A little more nuanced, but I said profits were 
$200 billion last year, and----
    Ms. Bice. Can you share with Members of this Committee what 
the total losses for oil and gas companies were in 2020?
    Ms. Young. I do not have that, but I----
    Ms. Bice. Okay. Would you be surprised to know that with 
just the five integrated super majors--ExxonMobil, BP, Shell, 
Chevron--in total, the posted combined total losses for those 
five entities was $76 billion in 2020, in one year, and the 
reason I bring that up is that it is surprising to me that this 
administration would think that taxing the oil and gas industry 
would be a viable option in raising revenue. As you know, yes, 
oil and gas companies have been able to make a profit this last 
year, but this is a cyclical market.
    I come from the great State of Oklahoma where 25 percent of 
our State revenues come from oil and gas. Some years it is 
great. Some years it is really bad, and 2020 was one of those 
years. There were a record number of bankruptcies in the oil 
and gas industry, a record number of job losses, and so to 
suggest that taxing the oil and gas industry is a way for you 
to be able to have a bigger budget and to a larger spend, I 
think is a detriment to the American people because at the end, 
that is going to require us increasing goods' and services' 
cost, and that is a hit to Americans' pocketbooks.
    So, Mr. Chairman, with that, thank you, and I yield back.
    Chairman Arrington. I thank the gentlelady, and I would 
like to yield 5 minutes to my friend Chuck Edwards from North 
Carolina.
    Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Director Young, thanks 
for being with us this afternoon. I am not going to ask a lot 
of questions about the budget. I know my colleagues have dug 
into that quite thoroughly and certainly exposed it for what it 
is. I have got two questions. One is going to be fairly simple, 
the other might not. We heard the Ranking Member earlier this 
morning mention that perhaps billionaires were not paying their 
fair share. Do you recall that statement or something similar 
to that?
    Ms. Young. I do.
    Mr. Edwards. And yet this budget places new taxes. Not only 
does it raise taxes on the middle class by about $2,000 per 
year, but it places new taxes on anyone making more than 
$400,000 a year. Is that right?
    Ms. Young. Yes, including to extend Medicare, but not on 
middle-class families. Middle-class families don't make 
$400,000.
    Mr. Edwards. Okay. So let's talk about that for just a 
minute. If our concern is with billionaires, why was $400,000 
the number that was chosen to draw a line and add a new tax 
bracket?
    Ms. Young. Congressman, I think, and I don't want to speak 
for the Ranking Member, but I will speak for the budget. One 
tax proposal to raise revenue is a billionaire tax. It also 
deals with hundreds of millionaires. That is one. Another goes 
after large corporations, not taking their tax rate back to 35 
percent before the 2017 tax cuts, but to 28 percent. So I think 
we were talking about one particular focus, which was what we 
call the billionaire tax, but the President has made an 
ironclad commitment, while you continue to hear $400,000, is he 
wants to make sure he communicates clearly to the American 
people that none of these tax policies that are up for debate 
will he negotiate to raise taxes, including when we go to the 
extension of the 2017 on those making under $400,000. It is a 
value statement.
    Mr. Edwards. But it does raise taxes on farmers and small 
businesses that might make $400,000, and I think that you hit 
the nail on the head when you said that the ``intent of this,'' 
and I think this is most conservatives' problem is to raise 
revenue that I know my colleagues have pointed out that this 
government, this body should not be spending. Are you a small 
business or a farmer?
    Ms. Young. I am not either. Just a child and grandchild of 
one.
    Mr. Edwards. Okay. Are you aware that folks in those 
positions that grow our country's food, that provide jobs for 
Americans, do not have a regular income? They don't make 
$400,000. Even if they make $400,000, they don't make it from 
year to year to year. Are you aware of that? I said I would 
only ask one question.
    Ms. Young. Yeah.
    Mr. Edwards. Okay.
    Ms. Young. No, I am well aware that many assets are not 
income and are land and other equipment.
    Mr. Edwards. So I have asked one of my two questions. I am 
going to try to keep it to just two, but I do have some 
comments and I am going to ask you a question about in just a 
minute because you and I here are both messengers. You are 
messaging the President's budget. I am messaging on behalf of 
small businesses, farmers, and folks in my district, and my 
gosh, 5 minutes goes so fast. The reality is many years, folks 
are struggling, and they have to go take out loans to keep 
their business afloat, and to draw a line at $400,000, because 
everybody is looking for that breakout year, to draw a line at 
$400,000 is punitive to those folks for accomplishing what they 
want to, which is to have that breakout year.
    And after businesses and small farms have gone through what 
they have gone through, and let's run through that real quick. 
After enjoying the strongest economy ever under the Trump 
Administration, they were hit with a pandemic. Many of them 
were forced to close. They were hit with inflation. The 
correction for the inflation was that interest rates needed to 
be raised. Now they are paying more on their debt in addition 
to the items that they were hit on inflation, and now they are 
being told that they are not doing their part, that they are 
not paying their fair share. I suggest that is a slap in the 
face to small businesses and farmers, and it cripples growth, 
it stalls our economy, and it limits the possibilities for our 
American workforce, and my question is as a messenger, would 
you take that back to the President?
    Ms. Young. I will, but if I can, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Arrington. Please.
    Ms. Young. I know we are over time.
    Chairman Arrington. Please.
    Ms. Young. With regard to American farmers, and I feel 
strongly about this, and I have talked to Secretary Vilsack. As 
you know, he has done this a long time, so I am privileged to 
be able to serve with him in the Cabinet. You know, we have got 
to do something where only 10 percent of farmers make money in 
this country. What can we do to make sure these family farmers 
stay around? So you have my commitment. If we want to find 
solutions, they are going to take bipartisan effort. I know the 
farm bill is coming up this year. What can we do to make sure 
these family farmers stay around? So I commit to working with 
you and others, and Secretary Vilsack and others, to look at 
how to reauthorize the farm bill coming up this year.
    Mr. Edwards. I would say we are talking about more than 
farm. I am out of time, Mr. Chairman. I yield.
    Chairman Arrington. I thank my friend from North Carolina, 
and the time now has come, as much fun as I know you are having 
and would love to go for another 2 hours. I don't mean to put 
words in your mouth, Madam Director, but you have done, I have 
to say, an outstanding job just persevering through the 
questions. The President, I think, is well served by your 
candor and your constructive tone, and, you know, for our first 
hearing, Ranking Member. I want strong debate. I don't want us 
to back down, shy away, pull punches. I just want it to be 
about the policy differences, and I want the American people to 
understand where we disagree and why we disagree, and the 
principles behind it, and the policies behind it, and then let 
the democracy, you know, have its effect, and I know you are 
committed to that, too. In the spirit of civility----
    Mr. Boyle. Yeah.
    Chairman Arrington [continuing]. Why don't you give some 
closing remarks? I will give just a few, and we will let the 
good lady go about her way.
    Mr. Boyle. I am happy to. First, if we learned just one 
thing over the last 3-and-a-half hours is that Shalanda Young 
knows her stuff, so thank you for being so knowledgeable about 
the budget, a consummate professional. It is an honor to work 
with you. I also congratulate you, Chairman, chairing your 
first Committee hearing. Between this session and the session 
that we moderated in the CVC for all House Members of both 
parties with the CBO Director, I think both were, by and large, 
conducted on a bipartisan basis and were informative. So I hope 
and believe that we have set a tone for hopefully the rest of 
these 2 years.
    One final comment I will make is I understand Director 
Young has to do this all over again this afternoon in the 
Senate.
    Ms. Young. I do.
    Mr. Boyle. I believe the----
    Ms. Young. The House Approps is doing this to me.
    Mr. Boyle. Oh, House Approps? I believe the Constitution 
has an amendment banning cruel and unusual punishment, so, 
Director Young, you might have a lawsuit that I would support 
if you pursue it, but with that, I yield back to you.
    Chairman Arrington. Well, I thank my friend from 
Pennsylvania. Just a couple of comments because it was 
mentioned multiple times about the Republicans' vision, budget 
framework, and the values that that will reflect in comparison 
or contrast with the ones that were articulated by you and 
discussed by our Members today. Our commitment is there to get 
that budget framework out, to have this same robust debate, 
and, again, to make that comparison about our vision for a 
stronger, safer, freer country, and to address probably most of 
the problems we agree on in terms of the needs, but probably 
disagree, and I know for me, in many ways, starkly disagree 
with how to address those, how best to address them to satisfy 
all stakeholders, and the public interest, and our taxpayers as 
fiduciaries.
    So that is forthcoming, and I commit to that to my Ranking 
Member and to my colleagues, and the principles will be reining 
in spending because we believe that is a big problem, and we 
believe we can't get to the debt and we can't guarantee our 
children that blessing of security, and a stable economy, and 
future without doing it. We also commit to growing the economy, 
among other things that I hope will be clear about our budget, 
but thank you for your time, and your long suffering, and your 
great attitude.
    And with that, I will read my little remarks here. We have 
got to get a bigger gavel----
    Ms. Young. Oh yes. [Laughter.]
    Chairman Arrington. This is so disrespectful to a Texan. I 
think you know that as a good Louisiana country girl. This is--
--
    Ms. Young. It is not right.
    Chairman Arrington. This is not right, so we will let it 
slide this time. I want to thank the Director again for 
appearing today.
    Please be advised that Members may submit written questions 
to be answered later in writing. Those questions and their 
answers will be made part of the formal hearing record. Any 
Member who wishes to submit a question or any extraneous 
material for the record may do so within 7 days, and with that, 
the Committee stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, the Committee was adjourned.]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]	
    
                     [all]