[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
HEARING WITH
TREASURY SECRETARY JANET YELLEN
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
APRIL 30, 2024
__________
Serial No. 118-FC25
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
56-868 WASHINGTON : 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
JASON SMITH, Missouri, Chairman
VERN BUCHANAN, Florida RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts
ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania MIKE THOMPSON, California
DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut
DARIN LaHOOD, Illinois EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon
BRAD WENSTRUP, Ohio BILL PASCRELL, Jr., New Jersey
JODEY ARRINGTON, Texas DANNY DAVIS, Illinois
DREW FERGUSON, Georgia LINDA SANCHEZ, California
RON ESTES, Kansas TERRI SEWELL, Alabama
LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania SUZAN DelBENE, Washington
KEVIN HERN, Oklahoma JUDY CHU, California
CAROL MILLER, West Virginia GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin
GREG MURPHY, North Carolina DAN KILDEE, Michigan
DAVID KUSTOFF, Tennessee DON BEYER, Virginia
BRIAN FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania DWIGHT EVANS, Pennsylvania
GREG STEUBE, Florida BRAD SCHNEIDER, Illinois
CLAUDIA TENNEY, New York JIMMY PANETTA, California
MICHELLE FISCHBACH, Minnesota JIMMY GOMEZ, California
BLAKE MOORE, Utah
MICHELLE STEEL, California
BETH VAN DUYNE, Texas
RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa
NICOLE MALLIOTAKIS, New York
MIKE CAREY, Ohio
Mark Roman, Staff Director
Brandon Casey, Minority Chief Counsel
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
Hon. Jason Smith, Missouri, Chairman............................. 1
Hon. Richard Neal, Massachusetts, Ranking Member................. 2
Advisory of April 30, 2024 announcing the hearing................ V
WITNESSES
Janet L. Yellen, United States Secretary of the Treasury......... 4
MEMBER QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD
Members Questions for the Record to and Responses from Janet L.
Yellen, United States Secretary of the Treasury................ 141
PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Public Submissions............................................... 169
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
HEARING WITH
TREASURY SECRETARY JANET YELLEN
----------
TUESDAY, APRIL 30, 2024
House of Representatives,
Committee on Ways and Means,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in Room
1100, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Jason T. Smith
[chairman of the committee] presiding.
Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Secretary Yellen, for appearing
before this committee. I understand that it was 30 years ago
this week that you were first nominated to a public sector role
as a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. It is a
noteworthy record of service. I congratulate you, and I
appreciate your willingness to answer our members' questions
today. [Applause.]
You have joined the recent chorus of economists who
acknowledged that it was a mistake to call inflation
``transitory.'' But it is worth noting the fundamental mistake
of President Biden's reckless tax-and-spend policies that have
sent the cost of living skyrocketing almost 20 percent since he
took office.
Families pay more today for pretty much everything than the
day Joe Biden was sworn into office. Real wages are almost four
percent lower than when he became President. The Federal
Reserve has hiked borrowing rates to try to control inflation.
Mortgage payments for the median-priced new home are now nearly
$1,200 higher per month. Prices at the store are up. The cost
of a gallon of gas is roughly 50 percent higher today than when
President Biden took office. These are the facts. This is the
reality that American families are living in President Biden's
economy.
Instead of allowing families hit by these high prices to
keep more of their hard-earned money, President Biden wants the
highest tax increase on families and small businesses in
American history. Last week President Biden called for the
Trump tax cuts to expire, promising, ``If I am reelected, it is
going to stay expired.''
So President Biden's plan is for the average family of
four, making $75,000, to pay an extra $1,500 to the IRS each
year. President Biden's promise is that the Child Tax Credit
will be slashed in half. President Biden's promise is that
small businesses will face a 43.4 percent tax rate. This will
all happen when the Trump tax cuts all expire under his watch.
Basic facts.
President Biden's promise is that family farms will be
forced to sell off to big corporations to pay the death tax. In
his latest budget President Biden continues breaking his
promise to not raise taxes on families making less than
$400,000. Under the President's plan seniors will see more of
their life savings captured by the Federal Government. Small
businesses will be taxed on their sweat equity and face tax
rates approaching 50 percent. Energy producers will pay more,
weakening America's energy independence.
Madam Secretary, your own Department's data shows that
millions of Americans earning less than $400,000 will end up
paying a portion of your proposed business tax increases. That
is on top of the new audits that will be coming from the IRS,
which you conceded in this committee last year. Over 90 percent
of those audits will fall on middle-class earners and small
businesses.
To add insult to injury, under one-party rule Democrats
spent billions of taxpayer dollars on welfare for the wealthy
and well connected. They gave the wealthy tax credits for
leasing or buying luxury electric vehicles, while working
families got higher prices from the so-called Inflation
Reduction Act. Under that same law, the Biden Administration is
sending billions of taxpayer dollars to Chinese companies tied
to their communist government, all in the name of climate
change.
China is an adversarial nation, spreading its influence
around the world at the expense of American workers and
producers. America should be standing up to China's unfair
practices, not using tax dollars to make us even more dependent
on China. The record of the 2017 Trump tax cuts could not be
more different than the policies of this Administration. The
Congressional Budget Office found that after the law went into
effect the share of taxes paid by the top one percent of
households increased, while the burden falling on lower-income
earners decreased. Real median household income increased by
$5,000, a bigger gain than the prior eight years combined. The
officially reported poverty rate dropped to its lowest level in
U.S. history, and Black and Hispanic unemployment reached
historic lows. We reversed the decades-long trend of American
companies picking up and moving their jobs, factories, and
money overseas.
Beyond our borders the Biden Administration has adopted a
posture of surrender and retreat. The OECD global tax deal the
Administration is trying to negotiate would surrender America's
tax revenue and jobs to foreign countries. Congress writes the
laws, not bureaucrats negotiating behind closed doors. This
deal has no path forward in this Congress.
I hope today we can get some answers on why President Biden
insists on tax hikes for working families, while the wealthy
and well connected receive cash handouts for their Green New
Deal spending.
Thank you for appearing today, and I look forward to your
testimony.
I now recognize the Ranking Member Neal for his opening
statement.
Mr. NEAL. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Secretary, we are honored to have you in our presence
today. We also want to highlight what has been a remarkable
career: chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers; chairman
of the Federal Reserve Board; and a successor to Hamilton as
Secretary of the Treasury. We are honored by your presence.
Your team has been hard at work electrifying our nation,
ushering in a new era at the IRS, and implementing Joe Biden's
record-breaking economic agenda, all with the American people
at the center of the work. Even the Wall Street Journal
recently noted that our economy is the envy of the world. It is
a well-deserved recognition for an administration that has
created 15 million jobs, spurred a small business boom, and
rebuilt an economy from the bottom up, the middle out, and
breaking record after record.
Four years ago, this success was unimaginable, and it
certainly was never guaranteed. Millions were without a job at
no fault of their own. The grocery shelves were bare, and we
had no answers for the mysterious virus taking the country by
storm. And then President Joe Biden took office, returning our
nation to one of science, sensibility, and, for sure,
stability.
Starting with the American Rescue Plan and most recently
with the Inflation Reduction Act, which came from this
committee, Democrats' legislative successes have helped to
transform the nation. We are bringing down healthcare and
household energy costs. The clean energy economy has created
over 270,000 jobs, and everywhere you travel you can tell that
infrastructure projects are underway across the country.
Thanks to our multi-year investment, the Internal Revenue
Service has had another outstanding filing season. I am pleased
with how, in such a short order, the agency has stood up to
secure a way to file tax forms. I know many folks in the
Commonwealth were able to use this program to ease their filing
experience this year, including a state senator who mentioned
it to me yesterday. And after years of underfunding at the
hands of our Republican colleagues through their budget cuts,
returns are being processed faster, and more Americans are
getting the service they deserve. And already, $500 million in
taxes owed from very wealthy people have been recovered.
Looking ahead, the President's budget supercharges this
progress and will finish the job for our people. The
President's budget ensures that they have the supports
necessary to not only fully participate in our workforce, but
also to raise families and care for loved ones as we have
witnessed wages going up, and the responsibility that we have
to hold the well-connected accountable.
Amid all of this success, our colleagues on the other side
have had difficulties trying to use their gavels for the work
of the American people. The amount of time that has been wasted
in this Congress on chaos, conspiracies, impeachments--and we
have been fielding questions about this expiration of their tax
scam for next year. There are still over eight months left in
this Congress and many more until these provisions expire. But
it seems as though legislative opportunity is well already
being considered by the Congress. I have seen their former
leader calling for the devaluation of the dollar, stunting and
even, in some cases, repealing much of our legislative progress
in the name of politics. It is deeply unpopular, and it puts
the health of our economy and countless paychecks on the line.
While we expand what is possible and build the economy of
the future, our colleagues plot the next round of trickle-down
economics with another round of tax cuts for the wealthy. I
didn't ever believe that advisers to the former President would
be suggesting that we manipulate our currency, or we subtract
from the independence of the Federal Reserve Board that is
now--has a chairman who is a Republican. This is unheard of,
that these sorts of--our economy would be jousted with in the
coming months.
I have said it before and let me say it once more: The
majority is a threat to the health and economic security of our
American people. Time to get past the chaos. Time to get past
the conspiracies and get on with our work.
We look forward to hearing you as you set the record
straight, and pleased that you are joining us again.
Let me yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Ranking Member Neal.
Today's sole witness is United States Secretary of the
Treasury, Ms. Janet Yellen.
The committee has received your written testimony, and it
will be made part of the formal hearing record.
Secretary Yellen, you may begin when you are ready.
STATEMENT OF JANET L. YELLEN,
UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY
Secretary YELLEN. Thank you, Chairman Smith, Ranking Member
Neal, and members of the committee. Thank you for the
invitation to testify.
The Biden Administration has driven an historic economic
recovery over the past three years. GDP growth has been strong,
growing three percent over the past four quarters. Inflation
has decreased significantly since its peak, though we have more
work to do.
The labor market is also remarkably healthy, with the
unemployment rate below 4 percent, for the longest stretch in
over 50 years. Real wages and household median wealth have
increased since before the pandemic, and families are putting
their additional income and accumulated savings back into the
economy. Consumer sentiment is up 21 percent from 1 year ago.
President Biden and I are taking additional actions to bring
down the costs of key household expenses like energy,
prescription drugs, and housing.
We are also focused on expanding our economy's capacity to
create good jobs while reducing the deficit. As we implement
the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, the CHIPS and Science Act,
and the Inflation Reduction Act, we are creating economic
opportunity for Americans across the country, including those
without college degrees and in communities that had
historically been overlooked or left behind.
Companies have announced over $675 billion in clean energy
and manufacturing investments since the start of this
Administration, some of which I have gotten the opportunity to
see firsthand.
The modernization of the Internal Revenue Service, made
possible by the IRA and discretionary appropriations, has
enabled us to combat tax evasion by the wealthiest Americans
that costs our country over $150 billion a year. And it has
made it easier for taxpayers to file their taxes and get the
credits they are owed.
We met or exceeded all the goals we set out for this filing
season, including reaching an 88 percent level of service,
saving taxpayers over 1.4 million hours of hold time, and
providing an additional 11,000 hours of in-person assistance
compared to last year.
We also successfully launched the Direct File Pilot
Program, an easy, free, and secure way to file taxes on a
computer or mobile device with over 140,000 accepted returns in
the first year.
The President's budget proposes additional investments to
lower costs for workers and families, and strengthen our
economy while reducing the deficit, including making permanent
the expansion of tax credits for health insurance premiums
enacted in the American Rescue Plan and extended in the IRA,
and expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit, Child Tax Credit,
and Low-Income Housing Tax Credit. These proposals would help
make health care more affordable, reduce child poverty, and
give working families more breathing room in their household
budgets.
We can make these investments while reducing the deficit by
$3 trillion over a decade through a combination of smart
savings and tax proposals. President Biden and I have proposed
implementing a billionaire minimum tax so that the top 100th of
a percent pay their fair share, raising the tax on corporate
stock buybacks to encourage businesses to reinvest profits in
their workers and grow their companies, and closing estate and
gift tax loopholes that allow wealthy Americans to pay less
than they would otherwise owe.
As a whole, the President's budget will enable us to
address costs that families face right now and to bolster our
country's economic strength for the years ahead.
[The statement of Ms. Yellen follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Secretary YELLEN. I will now be happy to take your
questions.
Chairman SMITH. Thank you. We will now proceed to the
question-and-answer session.
Madam Secretary, in all four of President Biden's budgets
he plans to hit middle-class families with a multi-trillion-
dollar tax increase, starting in 2026. He has promised to let
the Trump tax cuts expire. Isn't it true that President Biden
is promising a $1,500 tax hike on a family of four earning less
than 75,000 by that action?
Secretary YELLEN. The President has been very clear that no
family earning less than $400,000 will face a tax hike. He has
not proposed such a thing since he took office, and he is not
proposing to allow that to happen when parts of TCJA expire.
Chairman SMITH. So----
Secretary YELLEN. He----
Chairman SMITH. When you testified at the Finance Committee
last month, you said, ``The President does not have a plan to
address the coming tax hikes.'' That was at the Senate Finance
Committee last month. Isn't it true that, without a plan, the
President would slash the Child Tax Credit in half, which means
parents lose $1,000 from their pocketbooks for each child each
year?
Secretary YELLEN. The President has principles that will
guide his negotiations with Congress over how to handle this,
and his principles--he has made clear that he opposes
increasing taxes on people earning less than 400,000. He
supports cutting taxes for working people and families with
children----
Chairman SMITH. So does that----
Secretary YELLEN [continuing]. To give them more breathing
room----
Chairman SMITH. Madam Secretary, does that mean that he
will support the Child Tax Credit to be made permanent at
$2,000 that was put in the Trump tax cuts? Would the President
support that? Because that affects working families.
Secretary YELLEN. The President has proposed in his most
recent budget expanding the Child Tax Credit, and has supported
the Wyden-Smith legislation that would increase the Child Tax
Credit now, as well.
Chairman SMITH. Would you say that it would be true that
leaving the Trump tax cuts expired means President Biden would
roll back Republicans' guaranteed deduction, resulting in a tax
increase of $3,373 for a family earning less than $75,000?
Secretary YELLEN. What I said, what the President has
clearly articulated, is that no family earning under $400,000
will see their taxes go up in any set of proposals that the
President is willing----
Chairman SMITH. So I appreciate that. We have looked at
every budget that has been presented, and you have called for
the expiration of the 2017 tax cuts, but there is no plan, as
you testified before the Senate Finance Committee, saying that
the President has a plan with regards to how to make sure there
is no tax increases less than $400,000.
I would love and welcome, and I think the American people
would welcome, a plan from the President. In fact, he loves to
interject in all kinds of policies. I would think he would want
to, there.
In testimony before the committee, former Senator Phil
Gramm called the Biden Administration's decision to cut out
Congress and unilaterally negotiate a tax deal with bureaucrats
in Europe, ``The greatest abuse of the Constitution of the
United States,'' was Senator Phil Gramm's comment when he
testified here.
Each of the Biden Administration's failures at the OECD can
be traced to its decision to act unilaterally and without
Congress. Will you commit to reject any OECD profit
reallocation plan that disproportionately impacts American
companies or allow U.S. tax revenues to be stolen away by
foreign governments?
Secretary YELLEN. Well, let me say that the Administration,
the Biden Administration, has worked very closely with Congress
to inform and get input on Congress's priorities to guide these
negotiations over the last three-and-a-half years, and will
continue to do that. And I strongly believe that the Pillar Two
agreement that has been reached is very much in support of
goals that are good for this country.
The United States has been the only country, until this
agreement was signed, to impose a tax on the overseas profits
of its multi-nationals. And with this agreement secured is that
all countries now will tax the profits of their multi-lateral--
multi-national companies, which creates a level playing field
for American companies and will stop the race to the bottom.
And the United States will benefit by adopting the minimum tax
that is consistent with----
Chairman SMITH. So Secretary Yellen----
Secretary YELLEN [continuing]. The Pillar Two agreement.
Chairman SMITH [continuing]. The communication from the
very first time we ever had a conversation, I raised the issue,
for example, of the research and development tax credit not
being accounted for during OECD, but direct government
subsidies of the Chinese Communist Party get much more credit
than our research and development tax credit.
You have said that you have worked with Congress. We have
been raising that from day one. We have been providing how
detrimental that would be to U.S. companies by empowering the
Chinese, which you have visited that country several times in
your tenure, which has empowered them, but you have done
nothing with regards to that.
Secretary YELLEN. I am sorry, but we have.
Chairman SMITH. What have you done?
Secretary YELLEN. We are negotiating with other countries
right now to try to get favorable treatment for the R&D tax
credit, and I am hopeful that these negotiations will be
successful.
And I would point out that other tax credits, including the
green tax credits and credits affecting the Low-Income Housing
Tax Credit have been codified as continuing under Pillar Two.
Chairman SMITH. So I will just reiterate again, our concern
is with almost $200 billion leaving American companies and
going to foreign nations under the plan that this
Administration negotiated with Europeans, and we are adamantly
opposed to that.
The Democrats' so-called Inflation Reduction Act that was
supposed to prevent electric vehicle tax credits from going to
foreign entities of concern in China and adversarial nations.
But Treasury has created multiple loopholes that will send
American taxpayer dollars to Chinese billionaires and Chinese
manufacturers. Isn't it true that the foreign entity of concern
rules written by your Treasury Department are more China-
favorable than the same foreign entity of concern standards
from Biden's Commerce Department for semiconductors?
Secretary YELLEN. I believe that they are similar. These
are very strong restrictions that, beginning this year and then
continuing next year, preclude companies from receiving the
$7,500 credit if this year they contain battery components that
are--have originated in a foreign entity of concern. And next
year it will affect critical minerals and processing.
We have worked very closely with the Department of Energy
and the Department of Commerce, other--it has been an
interagency work to formulate these FIAC rules in a way that
will certainly restrict China from profiting from the tax
credit.
Chairman SMITH. I think it is pretty clear that Treasury's
version of these rules would allow Chinese billionaires to
receive hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars, as confirmed
by the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation. So in
response, this committee recently passed the End Chinese
Dominance of Electric Vehicles in America Act, led by
Congresswoman Carol Miller, which would close those egregious
loopholes and protect the American taxpayer. Treasury must do a
better job of pushing back against our foreign adversaries.
I now recognize the ranking member for questions.
Mr. NEAL. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Great job on China. You were firm. You were very strong,
very assertive.
IRA has worked. How about the harmonization of
international tax rates so people don't seek the lowest tax
jurisdiction, even though that is not where profits have been
earned?
Good work on the CHIPS Act. Really good work on the
infrastructure bill. Certainly, the American Rescue package.
This is a great story for us to tell.
So I want to give you some time to talk, Madam Secretary.
Implementation of the Inflation Reduction Act is really
important. Let me give you a couple of minutes to talk about
that.
Secretary YELLEN. Well, let me just start by saying that
although there is still more work to do, we have made
tremendous progress implementing it. We have completed more
than 60 guidance projects, and these are all on critical and
complex issues. And we have been focused on getting the issues
right. This involves collaboration with the Department of
Energy, with EPA, and other experts to make sure that we are
implementing the law effectively and as intended.
It is also tremendously important, the impact that the IRA
clean energy credits are having. We can see that they are
catalyzing hundreds of billions of dollars of investment in
cutting-edge, clean energy technology and strengthening our
supply chains. and at the same time lowering emissions in line
with our climate goals and creating good jobs across the
country, and particularly in parts of the country that really
have not seen a lot of burst of economic activity.
Treasury has been doing research on the impact of the Act,
and what we find is that investment is especially strong in
communities that have not seen a lot of investment, that have
lower income and a smaller fraction of college-educated
workers. So this is making a huge difference. The response has
been enormous, and I have had the privilege of seeing many of
the projects that are being spurred, as well as training that
is taking place. I have had the privilege of visiting many
workforce training programs that have been started to give our
workers the skills to fill the good, high-wage jobs that are
being created by this IRA.
Mr. NEAL. Thanks. And could you speak to labor
participation rates?
Secretary YELLEN. Yes. Labor force participation rates
actually have moved up substantially for adult workers, male
and female. They have now exceeded the--where they were pre-
pandemic. They are moved up a great deal and overall have moved
up, as well.
And there is a downward trend that we see in labor force
participation due to demographics, but this is really
offsetting that. And this means not only more people working--
and also in response to higher real or inflation adjusted
wages. It also alleviates supply constraints, and it is one of
the factors that has enabled our economy to grow last year, for
example, at 3 percent and to create more than 200,000 jobs a
month on a consistent basis.
Mr. NEAL. Nine million jobs every day in America go
unanswered, as we know. And that is part of the skills
alignment that you have just spoken to. A better job for all of
us has required perhaps community colleges.
But just as I close out--and I thank you for your
testimony--I also want to point out something else. Everybody
on this committee during my time objected to Chinese efforts to
manipulate currency. So hearing now that the former
administration is talking about the idea that they might
manipulate currency, they might threaten the independence of
the Federal Reserve Board, I never thought the day would come
when it would be Democrats standing up for the independence of
the Federal Reserve Board before our Republican colleagues. And
consistently, both parties stood up against Chinese currency
manipulation, and you were a very remarkable part of that.
So we thank you for your testimony; delighted you are here.
Secretary YELLEN. Thank you so much.
Chairman SMITH. Thank you. I now recognize the vice
chairman of the committee, Mr. Buchanan.
Mr. BUCHANAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Madam Secretary, for being here. We
appreciate your service. A lot of us have had an opportunity to
work with you over the years. I want to touch on two things and
have a little bit of a conversation.
IMF came out a couple of days ago with a report. They are
very concerned about where we are at financially. My background
before I got here, 30 years in business, a lot of entities, you
know, basically hundreds and hundreds of balance sheets and
income statements. I am very concerned, as well, because at
some point, you know, 49 out of 50 governors have to balance
the budget. You can't continue down this road.
Now, they are concerned because our deficit this year went
from 1.4 trillion last year to 1.7. Interest on the debt, as
you know, is close to a trillion. I have been here long enough,
not quite 20 years, but been here long enough to clearly know
that in the last 20 years it is over $20 trillion in debt. And
now there is a lot of finger-pointing going on, but we need to
find a way to work together. It has got to be dealt with at
some point.
I know you have laid something out, but I have heard these
stories--not so much from you, but others--about pretty
pictures down the road. But I look around the room here, and I
have 10 grandkids, and I look around the room, and there are a
lot of kids in here under 30, and we are spending their money
and we have got to get very real about it.
If you are in the State of Florida, one thing they have to
do is pass a balanced budget amendment. That is the only thing
they have to do, but they have to do that. And by the way, 49
out of 50 governors have to do the same thing.
So I guess I ask you, what is your feeling about the IMF
and their report a couple of days ago, where they are very
concerned about where we are at financially and where we are
going?
Secretary YELLEN. Well, I would say I am not terribly
concerned about where we are, but I do have concern about where
we are going unless we undertake some significant steps to
reduce the budget deficit. And if you look at the President's
2025 budget, you will see that he has proposed $3 trillion in
measures to reduce the deficit over the next decade. I think
that is important, and----
Mr. BUCHANAN. Let me ask you, Madam Secretary----
Secretary YELLEN [continuing]. What it does is it keeps
the--a key metric of the burden of the debt, which is real net
interest that we have to pay on the debt
Mr. BUCHANAN. I am limited on my time, and I want to get to
this other question.
You have talked about nobody paying any taxes above 400. I
was chairman of the Florida Chamber, 130,000 businesses in the
Chamber, and I would say 95 percent were pass-through entities.
You are talking about letting that sunset. So what that means,
so you understand, if someone has got 200 or 300 employees, or
50 employees, you could very well be at 53 percent, 54 percent
taxes all in, because the pass-through rate would go back to
39.6, there is a 3.2.
And then, if you look at states--I hate to say it,
California and New York and some of the other states--they are
great states, but they have another 10, 15 percent tax on top
of it. So pass-through entities could very well--and then you
are looking to get rid of 199A--could very well be north of 50
percent.
What are your thoughts on that?
Secretary YELLEN. Well, the President is committed to
ensuring that no family, including those with pass-through
businesses, making under $400,000 would see their tax increase.
But he does believe, for the sake of tax fairness, that it is
appropriate----
Mr. BUCHANAN. Well, let me----
Secretary YELLEN [continuing]. For wealthy individuals----
Mr. BUCHANAN. Let me just show you----
Secretary YELLEN [continuing]. And corporations to pay
more.
Mr. BUCHANAN. I have been in the real world in terms of
building businesses and everything else. You might have 60, 80,
90 employees. You make 600, but then you have got to give up
half of it or a good portion of it. Just 400 is nothing if you
are trying to build a business, small and large. I am not
talking about large corporations, I am talking about small
businesses. And it will be a huge burden on these entities, you
know, from that standpoint.
So I am just telling you, if I look across Florida, a lot
of these small and medium-sized businesses, yes, they do make
600, but they don't take home 600. They take home 100, 150,
200. They leave the capital in there to grow and build their
business. That is the reality about where that is at.
What are your thoughts?
Secretary YELLEN. Well, as I said, I think the President
feels it is important to tax those who are earning very high
incomes at higher rates.
Mr. BUCHANAN. One big thing is 199A. Where are you at on
that, in terms of whether you are going to let that sunset,
199As, a 20 percent for a pass-through entity?
Secretary YELLEN. I am not sure, I need to get back to you
on that.
Mr. BUCHANAN. Yes. Well, let me know, because that is very
critically important. We went from corporate rates, 35 to 21,
but you can't have pass-through rates at 40 percent. It makes
no sense because everybody is going to move to a C Corp.
Mr. BUCHANAN. With that I yield back.
Chairman SMITH. Mr. Doggett is recognized.
Mr. DOGGETT. Thank you so much for your testimony today
about a budget that demonstrates that we can put our country on
sound financial footing, reduce our deficit, and make some new
investments so long as we demand that the well-connected and
large corporations pay their fair share, and that we begin to
close some of the loopholes in a tax code that is so full of
holes it looks like Swiss cheese.
In contrast, what the chairman has been urging the Biden
Administration to do is to embrace an extension of all of the
very inequitable Trump tax breaks that I have seen estimates
would cost $3.5 trillion in additional debt. At the same time
that they express all this concern about the debt, they seem to
be about building more of that debt. And I appreciate the fact
that the President and you certainly understand the
ramifications of that.
They also spend a lot of time defending corporations that
like to hide their profits on American sales in foreign tax
havens. And I appreciate the leadership that you have shown the
world at OECD and elsewhere to stop this race to the bottom.
Why is it important that the United States implement fully
the agreement that the European countries are already
implementing to stop this global race to the bottom in
corporate taxation?
Secretary YELLEN. Well, thank you. I believe that this race
to the bottom in corporate tax rates took place over decades
around the world, one jurisdiction competing with others to
attract investment, and the only beneficiaries from that were
really the companies themselves. Workers in all the countries
where this was taking place ended up bearing more of the tax
burden, and countries found it increasingly difficult to tax
corporations to raise the funding that we need to support
middle-class families and to invest in our country.
And so stopping the race to the bottom means multi-
nationals based in every country around the world will all face
the same minimum tax. Some countries will charge more than the
minimum tax. We have proposed and believe that the United
States can--given the environment for business in our country,
we can afford to do that, and we have proposed a minimum rate
of 21 percent. Also, that would be in line with our proposal
for the corporate alternative minimum tax.
Mr. DOGGETT. As you know, some of the Republicans that
really don't believe in taxing corporations at all have said,
well, if you go above 15 percent, which they don't support
either, and you go to a higher level, that this will reduce
American competitiveness.
How is it that our corporations, our multi-nationals would
remain competitive if they pay a rate on their foreign profits
that is higher than 15 percent?
Secretary YELLEN. Well, competitiveness really has to do
with differentials in incentives across countries. And prior to
Pillar Two the United States was the only country that taxed
the overseas earnings of its multi-nationals. We have the GILTI
tax. It is a lower tax rate, and it is not country by country,
but our companies did just fine with that. The rest of the
world had nothing. Now the rest of the world will go to a
country-by-country 15 percent minimum, which would leave the
United States with the lowest rate. And we can--even if we go
up to 21 percent, the differential is substantially smaller
than it was before.
Mr. DOGGETT. Thank you. I have also heard increasing
concern that we place our cleaner domestic production on a more
even playing field, the fact that we are importing steel and
aluminum and some other products that are made in a very dirty
environment abroad. What do you think should be done about
trying to see that American companies are competitive, are not
being subject to anti-competitive practices with this dirty
production?
Secretary YELLEN. Well, President Biden proposed, I believe
last week or the week before, to actually raise taxes on--
tariffs on Chinese steel. Our firms are cleaner and China, in
steel, suffers from tremendous overcapacity, which leads it to
really sell it on fairly low prices globally. And I think it is
appropriate to do that.
Mr. DOGGETT. Thank you for your leadership.
Secretary YELLEN. Thank you.
Chairman SMITH. Mr. Kelly is recognized.
Mr. KELLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And Secretary, thank you for being here again and for
spending so much of your life in working in this body to try
and make policy that actually makes sense.
That is why I still keep trying to figure out Pillar One
and Pillar Two, the possible loss for us of almost $200
billion. What is the offset for that?
So how do we replace that lost revenue? How does that work
into the whole idea of this?
Secretary YELLEN. Well, that revenue estimate--you are
referring to JCT, I believe, and that is an extreme negative
case in--they indicated in their analysis that the outcome
overall is uncertain. And in the most likely cases the outcome
in terms of tax collections would be positive, not negative.
Mr. KELLY. Now, I know that is all debatable, and I keep
wondering why in the world the United States is so hell bent on
giving up market to foreign countries and saying that this
isn't the best interest globally of what we want to do. I am
more interested in a very strong United States that remains the
strongest country on the face of the Earth, that we don't have
to depend on anybody else.
Now, I understand that the U.S. is going to be presented an
agreement on Pillar One to sign in the next two months. So does
Treasury commit to work with Congress before signing the OECD
Pillar One agreement?
Secretary YELLEN. We have been in touch with Congress
throughout this process.
One of the things we heard from Congress on Pillar One is
that there needed to be an opportunity for public comment. We
heard that certainty around what is called Amount B that has to
do with transfer pricing is very important to Members of
Congress, and it is something where we need to make sure we get
firm commitments from other countries.
We also heard from Congress that getting a very clear
definition of digital service taxes, what they are and what is
ruled out, all this is very important and we agree. And those
are our red lines, and it is what we are negotiating for in the
final months of negotiations on Pillar One.
Mr. KELLY. And I agree with you on everything you have
said, that on its best day this can be--this whole scenario,
what we are going through--can be considered unbelievably
complicated, and how at the end of the day it is in the best
interest of the United States.
I have always thought that, you know, we seem to be getting
into a push and pull on what constitutional authority lies with
which body, and the idea that somehow Congress will be the
afterthought in a process that absolutely it is supposed to
control.
So I am really interested, as you go forward on this, the
sharing of that, all that information--I just don't understand
the negotiations and the constitutional authority. And I know
you can do certain things, and there are other things that you
have to run through the Congress. My concern is that the
Congress seems to be an afterthought now, and not the main
consideration when we do these negotiations. And it is like,
well, this is what you gave us some authority to do, so we are
going to go ahead and do it. I just don't understand at all how
we sell this to the people we represent, that somehow this is
in the best interest of the United States.
I still want to dwell on the fact that we have been losing
market share because of policies that we have initiated. Not so
much that we have strong foreign competition, it is that we
have weak policy when it comes to maintaining our own market
share. And for whatever reason, we seem to have become a global
entity as opposed to the strongest country the world has ever
known and a nation that is the first responder in everything
that goes bad in the world. We are the first ones to be there,
and we keep ceding off all of these different things that we
have, all of these different abilities that we have.
And so, no, I think it is more important to act globally
right now. I would just suggest that I am looking at the globe
right now, and the globe is looking at us to see--I wonder when
the Yanks are going to show up. I just hate to see us keep
giving up authority, and the negotiations taking place from the
executive branch, and then being run through the Congress at a
later date.
So all I am asking you to do is commit. We need to know
what is going on and what is taking place. I don't like giving
anybody a pen to go ahead and sign on to something in an
international trade and a global tax initiative. It just
doesn't make sense to me. And I think it is totally
unconstitutional. And in fact, it is just not the right way to
do things.
Secretary YELLEN. We have consulted with Congress
throughout over the last three-and-a-half years.
Mr. KELLY. Yes, yes. Well, I appreciate what you are
saying.
Secretary YELLEN. And any agreement would need to be----
Mr. KELLY. Yes, yes, it depends----
Secretary YELLEN [continuing]. Legislated and----
Mr. KELLY. Ms. Yellen, excuse me, just to reclaim my--my
time is up, but it depends on how you identify ``We have
consulted with Congress.'' I like to be consulted before
something happens, not after, where it just happened and--you
guys are willing to sign on.
Listen, thank you for your service to the country. I think
it has been incredible. And thank you for being with us today.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman SMITH. Thank you.
Mr. Thompson.
Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Secretary Yellen, for being here today. But more important, for
your tremendous leadership and your steady handedness in your
position not only now, but over the years.
I would like to start by noting a couple of data points, a
few data points: 15 million jobs have been created under
President Biden; more Americans have health insurance than ever
before; Democrats expanded Child Tax Credit, cut child poverty
by over 40 percent and benefitted over 35 million families; the
IRS is holding wealthy tax cheats accountable, and has already
recovered over $500 million in taxes owed; wages are outpacing
inflation; and our economy is outperforming the rest of the
advanced countries around the world. And Madam Secretary, you
are in large part responsible for those successes, so thank you
very much.
I would like to start with a couple of things that you
mentioned in your testimony. First is the implementation of the
Inflation Reduction Act. As you mentioned, there were a host of
provisions in that bill designed to create jobs, boost
renewable energy, and lower costs for consumers. Can you talk a
little bit more about the implementation of the clean energy
tax credits in that Act?
And are those incentives working?
And what sort of investment are you seeing in renewable
energy, manufacturing jobs, et cetera?
Secretary YELLEN. Thank you. First, thank you for your kind
words.
So we are working around the clock to write the regulations
that will provide certainty to households and businesses around
the credits. We are seeing the ERA clean energy credits
catalyze investment in clean energy technologies.
We are concerned about our supply chains, particularly
being over-reliant on China for many aspects of our clean
energy, whether it is solar panels or batteries. We want to
make sure that we are strengthening our supply chain at the
same time we are creating good jobs and lowering emissions. And
we are seeing many good jobs, and the wage and apprentice
requirements to receive that large bonus really ensure that the
jobs that are being created are good jobs.
We are seeing investments in many parts of the country,
especially places that are in need, whether they are areas of
the country that were dependent on fossil fuels and have seen
coal mines or plants close, areas that just haven't benefitted
from very much investment. We are especially seeing good
results there.
And we are making sure that people know who can benefit
from this law. It has unique features that non-profits and
state and local governments can actually benefit from this law
through the direct pay feature. We are working hard to make
sure that potential beneficiaries understand how this can
positively affect them.
Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you very much. I would also like to ask
about 2025 and the upcoming expiration of the 2017 Republican
tax bill. I appreciate the President reiterating that no one
making under $400,000 a year will see a tax increase.
One of the things that has been left out by my friends on
the other side of the aisle in talking about this is that it
wasn't paid for, their bill was not paid for. And that, by
definition, is inflationary.
So in your view, what are some of the more responsible ways
that we might offset the costs of any of the TCJA extensions?
Secretary YELLEN. Well, the President has proposed a very
large number of raisers in his budget, and all of them could be
used for this purpose. He is proposed raising the stock buyback
tax; raising the corporate alternative minimum tax; enacting
Pillar Two, which would bring in substantial revenues;
raising--we would raise--proposed to raise the corporate income
tax to 28 percent--still a cut relative to pre-TCJA, but
substantial revenues; a billionaires tax that would ask those
extremely high-income individuals, wealthy individuals to pay
something more in line with what nurses and firefighters pay in
their taxes. And there are a wealth of ideas there on how we
can finance this.
Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
I yield back.
Chairman SMITH. Mr. Schweikert.
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Secretary, first in this discussion, conversation, my
basic principle is at the scale we must borrow at we want
stability. We want liquidity. You know, we don't need any
hiccups out there. And if some of this is a little off, you can
pass me off to staff.
But first I want to touch on cash balances. And part of
this is there are a couple of reports out there that basically
say statutory mechanics, when the current authority for
borrowing starts to run out we should be doing an operating
cash balance of around $23 billion. That seems dramatically too
low. You know, in previous years you would run--the Treasury
would in 2023--a $600 billion cash balance.
Secretary YELLEN. That is right.
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Today you are running over 900 billion.
This is actually more of a mechanical, technical question.
Do you need us, as the Ways and Means Committee, to update any
statutory authorities or mechanics of what type of operating
balance do you need to maximize stability?
You know, you saw the blip we had yesterday when you did
your, you know, refunding announcements, and that was only,
what, a $41 billion tick up for that quarter. What do we do to
maximize interest rate efficiency? Do you need any additional
authorities?
Secretary YELLEN. I don't think we need legislation. We
have standing policy on operating cash balances. And I believe
around 500 billion would be a normal level, given the volume.
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Well, but you have been running
dramatically higher than that traditional 500, 600 billion.
Secretary YELLEN. Well----
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. You know, I think in the previous quarter
you were running in the mid-800s; now you are running over 900.
Secretary YELLEN. I think it depends on what our flow of
expenses are. It can vary over time. And, of course, it has ups
and downs as we--you know, tax collections are bunched around
April 15th.
But what caused our cash balances to run to exceptionally
low levels in the past was the failure of Congress to raise the
debt limit.
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Well, but where I was going with that is
there is an analysis that the statutory authority actually
requires you to go down to 23 billion, and that may be one of
your legal team saying, okay, you have the authority to ignore
that interpretation of the statute.
So, look, this is not a gotcha question. I want to know
what we can do to help maximize stability.
Secretary YELLEN. I would be glad to get back to you with
details on that. But I would say during my time the major
threat I have seen to our cash balance is that when Congress
fails to raise the debt ceiling----
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. The trigger dates.
Secretary YELLEN [continuing]. In a timely way, we have
absolutely no alternative but to run down our cash balances.
Otherwise, we would be unable to pay our bills.
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Yes, understood. I have a whole chart on
your extraordinary measures and what is in your balances.
I was just sitting here playing, and I have smart, much
smarter, people on staff--like your billionaire tax. Okay.
Great politics. Do I read it properly in your testimony, it is
a .01 percent? Okay, fine. But that works out to, over the next
10 years, on an average of 0.143 percent of GDP. This year our
burn rate is close to 9, 9.6 percent of GDP.
My fear is the politics of theatrics and the actual math.
We do a crappy job telling each other the truth and telling the
public the truth of the fiscal--because you gave some brilliant
speeches when you were Federal Reserve chairwoman on this type
of debt future. And we are hitting numbers that we weren't
supposed to hit for 10 years.
When we did a quick analysis of some of the President's tax
proposals, we were coming up--when we did the economic
effects--of about a point and a half, 0.6 percent of GDP. Okay.
But if we are burning over nine percent of GDP in borrowing,
and this is in the time this year where tax receipts are up,
what, seven percent?
Secretary YELLEN. I am not sure just how much they are----
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. My fear is, as a committee, we are not
telling each other the truth of the scale of the borrowing
stress. We are basically, the United States and China, we are
consuming much of the world's available capital. I really wish
we could have a more adult conversation of the scale of----
Secretary YELLEN. I----
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. This is almost hitting dystopian levels of
numbers.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman SMITH. Mr. Larson.
Mr. LARSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And Madam Secretary, welcome to the committee. I want to
associate myself with the remarks of Mr. Neal in saluting, I
think, what every member on this committee knows: Your
remarkable and incredible tenure of service to this great
nation of ours, we are blessed to have you with us today.
We are also blessed to have with us today another great
woman who is in the audience with us today, Elsie Pascrell. And
I think every member of the committee would join with me in
recognizing that she gets a direct shot to heaven. [Laughter.]
Mr. LARSON. Elsie, welcome here to the committee.
Madam Secretary, I want to commend the Biden
Administration. I think Mr. Thompson went through the list of
accomplishments, et cetera, but I especially want to focus on
what you have repeatedly said, that the President--and he has
been rock solid on this--has said that he is not going to raise
taxes on anybody who is making under 400,000.
And he has also been out there as a champion of both not
only protecting but preserving Social Security. And again--and
let's do the reality check here by saying that people making
over $400,000 ought to be paying what people making 35, 50, 75,
100,000 are paying. And currently, because I think this comes
as a surprise to most Americans, most earning above that level
pay little or nothing. Millionaires end up finishing
contributing to Social Security in February, but zillionaires
and wealthy people pay little at all or they circumvent the tax
code all together and don't pay into the nation's number one
anti-poverty program for the elderly and the number-one anti-
poverty program for children.
I commend President Biden for not only saying that we want
to protect Social Security, but we want to expand its benefits,
and we can do so by having all Americans pay their fair share.
He couldn't have been clearer in his State of the Union message
that this is what it is about.
Of course, as you know, Madam Secretary, it is Congress
that has to make these moves, and Congress hasn't done anything
to enhance Social Security in more than 50 years.
And talk about numbers, with 10,000 Baby Boomers a day
becoming eligible for Social Security, it is long overdue that
Congress take action. I applaud the President for doing so in
such a straightforward, dramatic way, and paying for it.
So my brief question to you, Madam Secretary, could you
discuss the importance of Social Security and why the President
has adhered to making sure that we are not taxing people below
400,000?
Secretary YELLEN. I would be happy to. Every year Social
Security lifts tens of millions of seniors out of poverty. It
is the Federal Government's most important anti-poverty
program, and it is a guarantee that generations of Americans
have counted on. Namely, after working hard throughout one's
life, that you will be able to retire with security and with
dignity.
And for those reasons, President Biden feels very strongly
that we need to preserve the benefits and even extend the
benefits of Social Security and honor the commitments that we
have made to the nation's seniors. He has committed to working
with Congress to protect Social Security for this generation
and future generations.
Mr. LARSON. I thank you, Madam Secretary.
And I yield back.
Chairman SMITH. Dr. Wenstrup.
Dr. WENSTRUP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for being with us today, Secretary Yellen. I
appreciate it. Much of our conversation today has been focused
on the future of our nation's tax code, of course, as we
approach the expiration of many key policies from the Tax Cuts
and Jobs Act next year.
You know, when I think about tax policy, I think about
making America the best place in the world to do business and,
for that matter, the best place to work. And right now we are
in a fierce global, economic, political, and strategic
competition. It is not the same as after World War II. Our
adversaries, like China, want to dominate the world markets,
and they are doing that. And they want to make America and our
allies dependent on key industries and supply chains. I know
you know that. Keeping our tax code globally competitive is a
crucial part of strengthening our domestic manufacturing base
and reducing our dependance on unreliable supply chains or
those that can be used as weapons, if so desired, by our
adversaries.
Secretary, I know you have spoken at length about the need
for de-risking--I agree with you on that--when it comes to our
economic relationship with China, and your desire to see more
friendshoring of our critical supply chains.
I also know you recently visited China--thank you for doing
that--to discuss economic issues, including the massive
subsidy-driven industrial overcapacity that China has built,
which is distorting global markets. I am not sure that we can
always change what they do and their practices, but we can and
should see what we can do to counter that, and I am glad you
focused on the risk of China and what they pose to our
security.
But I am concerned that the Administration's tax policy
proposals would take us in exactly the wrong direction when it
comes to our economic security and our national security, for
that matter. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was a huge step towards
making our tax code globally competitive, bringing more
business investment back to the United States. Since it passed,
we have seen zero corporate inversions, and instead we have
seen American businesses bringing back their overseas earnings
to fuel investment and wage growth here in the states.
So now, more than ever, we need to be working together to
build on that type of progress, not reverse it by imposing
crippling tax hikes on American families and businesses. I
believe that is exactly what will happen if we do not act to
renew key provisions of the 2017 tax reform law when they
expire next year.
Meanwhile, the negotiators from your department
representing us at the OECD are preparing to give away the U.S.
tax base and allow foreign countries to impose discriminatory
taxes on U.S. companies. This does not help us. Anyone who runs
a business would understand that. I believe that tax increases
proposed by the President's budget and the failed global tax
negotiations being supported by this Administration would
severely harm our efforts to rebuild our domestic manufacturing
and bring home critical supply chains.
Secretary, the President's budget proposes increasing the
corporate tax rate--it is one of the highest in the world, even
higher than Communist China--which will make it much harder to
bring manufacturing home from China and to meet your desire to
de-risk from the PRC.
One example: The Chinese have a monopoly on generic
medications, all the way down to the Active Pharmaceutical
Ingredients. How do we break that monopoly and reduce our
health risk, our national security risk by increasing corporate
tax rates, making us unable to compete?
I mean, are you against or are you for domestic supply
chain production to enhance our national security and our
national health security for our critical needs? Because I just
don't see how increasing corporate tax rate, making us less
competitive in the world is going to bring business back to the
United States, where we need it most.
Secretary YELLEN. I certainly agree with the goal of having
resilient supply chains. The idea of friendshoring means we
will work with trusted allies.
And in addition to sourcing domestically, in the case of
critical drugs, certainly I think that is an area where it is
important that we have domestic capacity and are not totally
reliant on China and other countries that may not prove
dependable in the future.
Dr. WENSTRUP. But----
Secretary YELLEN. And there are a variety of ways to
promote this.
Dr. WENSTRUP. Excuse me, though, who are we going to depend
on, then?
If we are increasing our corporate tax rate, that doesn't
make us more competitive. And are we going to rely on our
allies to reduce theirs? Is that the idea?
I mean, this just makes no sense.
Secretary YELLEN. Well, we----
Dr. WENSTRUP. We have had no one leave.
Secretary YELLEN. I would point out that the Pillar Two
agreement does impose taxes on China, that regardless of what
their subsidies are or how they choose to tax, the United
States and other countries that adopt Pillar Two will have the
ability to place taxes up to this minimum tax on China to try
to level the playing field.
So China will not gain any advantage if it chooses--it has
said it will implement the deal.
Dr. WENSTRUP. I doubt that----
Secretary YELLEN. But if it doesn't do so, we will
implement the deal on Chinese multi-nationals that compete with
ours through a provision called the Undertaxed Payment Rule.
Dr. WENSTRUP. Well, you had conversations with them. I
would doubt that they said that they would cut their subsidies.
I yield back.
Chairman SMITH. Mr. Pascrell.
Mr. PASCRELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, Madam Secretary. So unemployment is at an historic
low. Interrupt me when I say something that is not correct or
can't be proven by data. Wages are rising. I want to come back
to that in a minute. Inflation has plummeted. We got work to
do. Factories are booming. America's economy is the envy of the
entire world. There is no two ways about it.
So I am proud of our efforts to make big business and rich
tax cheats finally pay their fair share. What the heck is wrong
with that? And we have made progress.
We have not made progress in the area of the income gap
that still exists, even when wages increased four to five
percent. We have got to do something about the code, the tax
code, the very tax code.
You can draw a straight line from these winds to the
policies enacted by President Biden and, yes, Democrats.
Secretary Yellen, I am glad the budget includes finally
closing the carried interest loophole, maybe the worst loophole
in the entire tax code. My Ending Wall Street Tax Giveaway Act
mirrors your proposal to ensure Wall Street executives and
private equity tycoons pay their fair share. We came very close
to closing that loophole, if you remember, in the Inflation
Reduction Act. And I am not giving up because if we don't do
that we continue to send the wrong message to the taxpayers.
Now, you talk about competition, that is what we need.
Madam Secretary, as the Congress continues to consider
future tax legislation, can you commit to making carried
interest fairness a top priority?
Secretary YELLEN. Yes.
Mr. PASCRELL. Question two. Early this year the GAO
released a report. I requested that report on ways to crack
down on wealthy tax cheats. It found that good enforcement
returns $12 for every dollar spent. You remember that report?
But identifying high-dollar cheating is a big challenge.
They got every trick and every lawyer in the trade as rich tax
cheats use sophisticated and brazen tactics to obscure their
earnings. That is nothing new over the last 45 years.
Madam Secretary, can you expand on plans to address gaps in
the IRS hiring, training, and tech so that the agency has the
tools to close the tax gap?
Secretary YELLEN. The IRS is doing exactly that using the
funding provided in the Inflation Reduction Act. Its budget was
so limited after decades of cutting its budget as the economy
grew that enforcement and the ability to hire competent tax
lawyers, accountants, data scientists, and the like, that audit
rates fell to exceptionally low levels on wealthy individuals,
complex partnerships, and large corporations.
And with the infusion of funds that the IRS has received in
addition to, and importantly, improving consumer service
dramatically, it is going after all of those tax cheats who are
responsible for what is estimated as a $7 trillion tax gap over
the next decade. And it has had an early success in going after
1,000 individuals making more than $1 million who owed back
taxes. It has already collected $500 million.
But there is much further to go, and that is where the
enforcement dollars are going. No increase, as I have promised
and as the commissioner has promised, on households or small
businesses earning under $400,000. It is all going to the areas
that you named.
Mr. PASCRELL. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Welcome to the
neighborhood.
And I yield back.
Chairman SMITH. Dr. Ferguson.
Dr. FERGUSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Secretary, thank you for being here. I want to see if
you can help me understand some math, if you don't mind.
With OECD proposals, Joint Tax said that Pillar Two is
going to cost us $120 billion in tax revenue over a 10-year
period. And OECD would--Pillar One would cost just $40 billion
over 10 years. This is JCT. So you know, we have to use this.
So you are looking at $160 billion, probably on the
conservative side, of lost revenue coming into the Treasury
because we are turning that revenue over to other countries.
All right. If that is the case, and we are going to lose
that revenue, that is one thing. But I can just point to two
Georgia companies that will tell you that their analysis of
Pillar One will cost them combined about $1 billion in sales.
Now, if a company is going to lose $1 billion in sales, that
means they are going to start cutting back, which means that it
is going to put my fellow Georgians out of work. That doesn't
make a whole lot of sense to me.
So again, according to JCT, between Pillars One and Two,
about $160 billion in lost revenue. Now, just laying the
groundwork there, you made mention that you were going to
propose or work with the President and our colleagues on the
other side of the aisle to raise the corporate minimum tax,
AMT, the corporate tax to 28 percent, implement a new
billionaire tax. You had a laundry list of items, correct, that
you believe we should be raising taxes on?
Okay, so let me ask you something. If a company owes the
Treasury $200 million in taxes, and you would like to collect
those taxes to help with the deficit or spending, correct, but
then they can turn around and write off all of that by buying
green energy tax credits, how much of that money, then, of that
$200 million is going to come into the Treasury?
I mean, if I can wipe out my tax liability by buying green
energy tax credits, what good does that do in coming into the
Treasury?
Secretary YELLEN. Well, if the firm is using the
transferability feature to buy these tax credits, then another
company that we want to benefit from those credits, the
stimulus, and incentive that they offer but that lacks----
Dr. FERGUSON. But that----
Secretary YELLEN [continuing]. Sufficient tax liability,
this is a way in which we provide----
Dr. FERGUSON. But we are giving a pass to--I mean, analysis
has shown that about 90 percent of these tax credits are going
to go to companies with over $1 billion in revenue.
And again, if you are looking to bring revenue into the
Treasury to pay for whatever----
Secretary YELLEN. Look, it is really the same thing as
essentially making the tax credits refundable, which would have
been----
Dr. FERGUSON. How would we----
Secretary YELLEN [continuing]. An alternative. That is a--
--
Dr. FERGUSON. Why would we do that? Why would we give----
Secretary YELLEN. Because----
Dr. FERGUSON [continuing]. Companies like Amazon and
Walmart, these major corporations----
Secretary YELLEN. Because----
Dr. FERGUSON [continuing]. Refundable credits to go spend
money in the green energy sector?
Secretary YELLEN. Because many of the companies that are
responding to the IRA and building the clean energy economy we
want to see are companies that lack sufficient tax liability to
be able to benefit from these----
Dr. FERGUSON. Wait a minute, wait a minute.
Secretary YELLEN [continuing]. Tax incentives.
Dr. FERGUSON. Madam Secretary, reclaiming my time, if you
are going to go down that road, and you are going to say
companies lack that tax liability, why are we doing it on green
energy and not looking at pharmaceuticals, not looking at other
technology?
But bottom line, why wouldn't we just say to Amazon, okay,
not to pick on them, but they are a highly profitable company--
why not just say, ``You have got to pay your taxes, and then
you go buy a fleet of battery-powered vans if you want to''?
You are cutting revenues, you are giving a tax break to the
very people that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
are saying, they want them to pay their fair share. But they
are not going to pay their fair share because they are going to
go down this green energy deal----
Secretary YELLEN. And----
Dr. FERGUSON [continuing]. That absolutely undermines our
competitiveness. It doesn't make sense. The math doesn't add
up.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman SMITH. Thank you.
Mr. Davis.
Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome back, Madam Secretary. Thank you for your work.
Let me begin by offering my sincere appreciation to your
staff, who are helping my office with a number of very complex
constituent issues. Your staff is top notch, and for that I am
grateful.
In addition, I thank Treasury for its effort to work
collaboratively with states to identify the owners and
beneficiaries of the $30 billion in unclaimed savings bonds.
And I know that you cannot comment because the rule is not
final, but I wanted to share concerns that Representative Estes
and I and others on this committee have raised about the
proposed rule. Given that most of these unclaimed bonds come
from the middle of the last century, when African Americans and
others were excluded from banks and often turned to Treasury
bonds as a key investment, I suspect that a high percentage of
unclaimed bond holders will be Blacks and people of other
minority group identities. Given these concerns and given the
success of state treasurers in helping people find unclaimed
property, I worry that the proposed rules would greatly limit
the ability of states to help Americans get back their missing
savings bonds. My hope is that the final rule will allow
Treasury to work more collaboratively with states, as we
intended when we enacted the law.
And finally, in my remaining time, I would like to thank
you for your hard work implementing the increased energy
investment credit for solar power, especially in low-income
communities, and ask if you could share any updates to this
program.
Secretary YELLEN. Thank you very much.
And on the savings bonds issue, I appreciate your comments
and we will make sure that they are adequately considered
before final regs are finalized.
And on the bonuses for low-income communities, we have
worked hard to clarify the rules and make sure that there is--
that low-income communities--that is a special focus of the
IRA--to make sure that they are able to benefit, especially
from the credits for solar, wind, and other renewable energies.
We are working to finalize a set of regulations on this, and
there are also allocated credits for low-income communities
that the Department of Energy is--has accepted applications and
awarded funds.
Mr. DAVIS. I thank you very much. And let me just ask, are
these proven to be effective in terms of job creation?
Secretary YELLEN. I think overall are--the data that we
have amassed shows that the green energy--the green credits
have been very effective at stimulating investment resulting in
job creation. And those jobs are disproportionately in lower-
income communities with lower college graduation rates, also in
rural communities and in communities that have been dependent
on fossil fuel and seeing that--seeing job loss there.
Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much.
And Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman SMITH. Mr. Estes.
Mr. ESTES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you,
Secretary Yellen, for joining us today.
[Chart.]
Mr. ESTES. As you know, last month the inflation came in
hotter than expected for the third month in a row, which is a
hit to American families by itself. But it is not just a one-
time impact. Inflation is cumulative. And hardworking Kansans
have been suffering for three years now, as this chart behind
me indicates.
You know, since Joe Biden took office inflation is up over
19 percent. The Joint Economic Committee estimates that Kansans
are paying an average of nearly $1,000 more per month for the
same goods and services, the same food, the same clothes, the
same gas, the same rent that they did in January of 2021. And
since then, in total, the average Kansan household has spent
$23,600 more due to inflation. At the same time, net income is
down almost four percent.
I know your boss and his Administration like to point to
rosier numbers, but the fact is for everyday Americans the
chart behind me is the epitome of Bidenomics, and it is a
complete failure.
You know, several years ago, Secretary, you called
inflation transitory. And since you have said that, I think
that is the wrong word, but I guess I would like to ask you
what you would call inflation now. What word would you use?
Secretary YELLEN. Well, inflation has come down
considerably, and the consensus of thinking among economists is
that it was largely due to supply shocks that are mitigating.
And our inflation has been quite similar to that in other
advanced countries around the world, which suggests it was due
to supply shocks connected with the pandemic.
Mr. ESTES. I think you will have----
Secretary YELLEN. Inflation has come down----
Mr. ESTES. I think you will have a difference of opinion in
economists. I mean, we even had Democrat and Republican
economists in 2021 talking about the extra spending that was
coming proposed by the Administration that was actually going
to result in this inflation. And actually, that is what we have
seen.
Secretary YELLEN. Well----
Mr. ESTES. You know, I think most Americans would use
phrases like ``crippling,'' or ``painful,'' or ``hindering
their pursuit of the American dream.'' In fact, my constituents
tell me about the challenges they face when they fill up their
cars, or buy their groceries, or pay the rent or mortgage. And
the numbers show the pain behind me that is still continuing to
increase to this day as a result of Bidenomics and the policies
that have been increased by the Democrats over the last three
years.
Secretary YELLEN. I think Americans care----
Mr. ESTES. I also want to switch gears a little bit before
I run out of time. You mentioned earlier in a discussion with
Chairman Smith that President Biden was not going to increase
taxes on people making less than $400,000. In fact, I have a
tweet here from Joe Biden dated one week ago today in talking
about the Trump tax cuts. And he said, ``This tax cut is going
to expire. If I am reelected, it is going to stay expired.''
I did some quick calculations. And basically, what that
means is that there is going to be a 25 percent increase in the
tax rate on people that make less than $44,000. There is going
to be an additional $14,000 tax increase on people making less
than $95,000, and additional increases on others up until
making the $400,000. So if this tweet is right that came from
President Biden, he is going to increase taxes on people making
less than $400,000.
Secretary YELLEN. President Biden has repeatedly issued a
set of principles that will guide his negotiations, and he has
repeatedly said that----
Mr. ESTES. I can send you the tweet.
Secretary YELLEN [continuing]. He will not support
increases on families making under $400,000. And I haven't
looked at the tweet myself, but----
Mr. ESTES. I am sorry, I really want to get to one other
point----
Secretary YELLEN [continuing]. That is not what he----
Mr. ESTES [continuing]. I really want to get to one other
point before we run out of time, but I can send you this tweet
if you would like to see that later, after the committee.
Secretary YELLEN. Well, I----
Mr. ESTES. But I do want to talk a little bit about OECD. I
know it has been brought up before, particularly Pillar One and
Pillar Two.
I mean, I have stated several times in the hearing room
that, in principle, Republicans and Democrats are in favor of
eliminating the discriminatory digital services taxes and
provide tax simplicity and consistency for businesses in the
growing digital economy.
However, despite the ongoing discussions, we are still
seeing more and more countries like Canada enact DSTs, and the
proliferation of Pillar One and Pillar Two has provided foreign
countries the opportunity to raid our tax base. In fact, Pillar
Two, as pointed out by the Joint Tax Committee on Taxation, is
going to cost the U.S. Treasury tax revenue--Pillar Two itself,
as pointed out by my colleague, Representative Ferguson--that
it is $120 billion.
And earlier this year JCT reported on Pillar One and noted
that the plurality of in-scope countries would be from the
U.S., and likely that the U.S. Treasury would forego between
100 million and $4.4 billion per year in tax receipts. In fact,
I recently heard from one Fortune 100 company that they would
be required to send between $100 and $500 million from the U.S.
Treasury to countries like France and Germany and Japan.
I think these policies that have been negotiated with OECD
are dangerous for our U.S. tax base. We are already struggling
to collect enough revenue, and I think we need to change
course.
I am sorry, I am out of time. I would like to talk more
about this with you.
But I will yield back, Chairman.
Chairman SMITH. Thank you.
Mr. Smucker.
Mr. SMUCKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good afternoon, Secretary. I am over on this side. There we
go. Fooled me, too.
I would like to just clarify with you for those listeners
watching this today the impact of your budget on the debt. Can
you tell me the current level of our debt? What is the current
debt amount?
[Pause.]
Mr. SMUCKER. It is about 34 trillion----
Secretary YELLEN. Yes.
Mr. SMUCKER [continuing]. Which includes debt held by the--
intergovernmental debt, as well.
Secretary YELLEN. That is right.
Mr. SMUCKER. And can you also tell me what the projected
debt will be at the end of this budget period, at the end of 10
years?
Secretary YELLEN. So normally we look at debt held by the
public, which----
Mr. SMUCKER. Okay, we can use that number if you would
like.
Secretary YELLEN [continuing]. Which is currently about 28
trillion.
Mr. SMUCKER. Right.
Secretary YELLEN. And in 2034, under our budget, I believe
it would be around 45 trillion.
Mr. SMUCKER. Yes, the----
Secretary YELLEN. But GDP also grows, and the ratio to GDP
would be a few percentage points more----
Mr. SMUCKER. Well, it would be----
Secretary YELLEN [continuing]. Than it is now.
Mr. SMUCKER. It would be at 128 percent, and now it is at
97. That is more than a few points.
Secretary YELLEN. No, it would be at 105 percent in 2034.
Mr. SMUCKER. Okay, that--debt held by the public. But it
will be significant increase in----
Secretary YELLEN. It is now about 100 percent, so----
Mr. SMUCKER. Yes. Now 97, it would be about--it would be
increasing. So it would be a significant increase in the debt.
Secretary YELLEN. A small increase in the debt.
Mr. SMUCKER. Yes, a significant increase in the debt.
I want to refer also to your report on the fiscal health
that came out just a month or two ago of the country. And you
show that, given current financial policies, including that in
your budget within 75 years we will just continue to see that
increasing, it would be at 513 percent, or above 500 percent of
GDP at the end of a 75-year period. You say in that report the
current policy is not sustainable, and the cost of delaying
policy reform is significant, will make it much harder to
implement changes that will affect that trajectory.
Do you think that is a real threat to the country going
forward?
Secretary YELLEN. Are you referring to the Social Security
report there?
Mr. SMUCKER. No, I am referring to your report on the
nation's fiscal health done by the U.S. Treasury, signed by
you.
Secretary YELLEN. Okay. So we need to enact policies to
make sure that the debt stays sustainable and we are on a
fiscally sustainable path. And the President has proposed over
$3 trillion----
Mr. SMUCKER. So let's----
Secretary YELLEN [continuing]. Of deficit reduction----
Mr. SMUCKER. Let's talk about that. We have already
established that the debt will increase significantly under
this budget. So where do you get the three trillion in savings?
Where does that come from?
Secretary YELLEN. Well----
Mr. SMUCKER. Because you are not decreasing spending.
Secretary YELLEN. Well, in some areas there are spending
decreases.
Mr. SMUCKER. Not overall.
Secretary YELLEN. But most of it comes from additional tax
revenues----
Mr. SMUCKER. Because we are allowing----
Secretary YELLEN [continuing]. Because revenues have been--
--
Mr. SMUCKER. Because we are allowing the Tax Cuts and Jobs
Act rates to expire. Correct?
Secretary YELLEN. Partly, but not----
Mr. SMUCKER. About two trillion of three trillion. About
two trillion----
Secretary YELLEN. But not for----
Mr. SMUCKER. You are projecting an additional two trillion
in revenue----
Secretary YELLEN. We are projecting----
Mr. SMUCKER [continuing]. And counting that towards debt--
--
Secretary YELLEN. We are projecting, in addition to that, a
higher corporate income tax, moving that up to 28 percent,
putting in place Pillar Two----
Mr. SMUCKER. So Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit for
the record an article from the Washington Post that shows the
$2 trillion and talks about that being included in the budget,
and then shows a significant portion of that will be taken by
families who are earning less than 400,000.
Secretary YELLEN. He is explicitly----
Chairman SMITH. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Secretary YELLEN. He has explicitly said that he will not
agree to raise taxes for people making under $400,000.
Mr. SMUCKER. So I think it is more important----
Secretary YELLEN. And that is not any proposal of his. He
has not said----
Mr. SMUCKER. So I think it is----
Secretary YELLEN. He would allow everything to expire.
Mr. SMUCKER. It is more important to look at----
Secretary YELLEN. That is just wrong.
Mr. SMUCKER. I think it is more important to look at what
he has proposed, rather than what he said. And very clearly,
the $3 trillion in revenue, or in reduction, what you are
calling a reduction in debt, includes a significant amount
coming from families who are earning under 400,000 per year.
Secretary YELLEN. Well, that will have to be paid for.
Chairman SMITH. Thank you.
Ms. Sanchez.
Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And Secretary Yellen, it is always an honor to have you
here. I want to thank you for your testimony and for taking the
time to answer our questions today.
With you at the helm, Treasury has helped the Biden
Administration rebuild and strengthen our economy for the
benefit of American workers and families. Together we have made
real progress in terms of lowering costs for American families,
from childcare to health care to housing, not to mention
creating 15 million jobs on President Biden's watch.
The President's latest budget shows that this
Administration is committed to building out a fairer, more
level playing field in our tax code. We need to recalibrate our
nation's tax system to drive benefits towards working families
who need the most, instead of the wealthy who benefitted for
the most part, under the TCJA.
I want to hone in on a small but very powerful way that
Treasury recently helped families navigate our tax system. This
tax filing season the IRS launched a key cost-saving tool with
Inflation Reduction Act funding. For the first time, certain
eligible taxpayers could choose to file their returns online
directly with the IRS for free. More than 33,000 Californians
opted into that pilot program, and it is pretty clear that
Americans are hungry for an efficient, free, and direct filing
option with the IRS.
Because for a lot of Americans and a lot of my
constituents, filing their taxes is confusing, it is
frustrating, and it is time-consuming, and often times very
expensive. Not everybody has the time or the disposable income
to work with a paid tax preparer, and I think that all of our
constituents can benefit greatly from a free and easy-to-use
tool that helps them file accurate returns but, more
importantly, make sure that they aren't leaving tax credits on
the table.
Secretary Yellen, I understand that the initial Direct File
pilot was limited in scope, and I can understand how, when you
have got a pilot project, keeping it small and nimble would
allow the IRS to carefully track uptake, as well as the
participant feedback. What has Treasury been hearing from
taxpayers who actually took the opportunity to file their taxes
online for free and directly with the IRS?
Secretary YELLEN. So what I can tell you today--we haven't
completely analyzed the information--is that the pilot was very
successful. There was increasing interest from taxpayers during
the five-week interval it was available, and taxpayers shared
that they found Direct File easy to use, completed the process
in about an hour. And on average, taxpayers have been spending
an average of 13 hours and $270 preparing their taxes each
year. So the preliminary evidence suggests that this has been a
very successful experiment.
Ms. SANCHEZ. It warms my heart to hear that. Can you talk
to how the Direct File can help families understand their
eligibility for and their ability to claim certain tax credits
like the Child Tax Credit or the Earned Income Tax Credit?
Secretary YELLEN. So I believe I have--you know, I have not
been through the entire--I have seen a demonstration. But the
program, I believe, walks people through those areas to make
sure that they are alerted to it and understand their
eligibility.
Ms. SANCHEZ. Yes, I know that often times people aren't
even aware of certain tax advantages that they can claim, and
the Direct File helps them to understand those.
I want to give you in the last minute that I have of my
time an opportunity to respond to the--somebody talked about
inflation and costs going up. And unfortunately, inflation is a
real thing. But how does our inflation rate compare with that
of most modernized countries around the world?
And can you talk to the fact that, if we allow certain
provisions of the TCJA to expire but keep in place other
provisions, how that is going to benefit working families?
Secretary YELLEN. Well, with respect to inflation,
inflation has come down considerably. And the measure that the
Federal Reserve focuses on most over the last 12 months ran at
2.7 percent.
But what is important to households, of course, they see
that the prices of many goods they bought pre-pandemic are
higher--not all, but some--is that their wages have gone up by
more than that. So their purchasing power, their inflation-
adjusted incomes are higher, not lower.
And for example, even this morning we saw new data come out
on the employment cost index that measures compensation. And it
was up in nominal terms and in inflation-adjusted terms it
showed that, over the last year, compensation on average his
increased just under a percentage point for most families. So
people in--generally are better off in spite of the price
increases.
But we know we have more work to do. And President Biden is
very focused on areas where he can lower costs, whether it is
health care premiums, household energy expenses that will come
down as a--because of the Inflation Reduction Act, drug prices,
and the like. And so this remains a concern to many households,
and it is something that is a high priority, getting costs down
further.
Ms. SANCHEZ. I thank you for your time.
I yield back.
Chairman SMITH. Mr. Hern.
Mr. HERN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Secretary, thank you for being here today.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter for the record an
article from Tax Notes titled, ``Gain and Little Pain from New
Bermuda Corporate Tax.''
Chairman SMITH. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. HERN. Thank you.
Madam Secretary, as you might be aware, Bermuda is
introducing its new corporate income tax that will take effect
in 2025. Bermuda entities will be able to mark up their
intangible assets to their estimated market value, and under
the new law they can amortize those assets over 10 years for
tax purposes.
Madam Secretary, this creation of a new deferred tax asset
also results in the deferred tax expense. As you know, under
general guidelines provided by the OECD for Pillar Two that you
negotiated, deferred tax expense or these amortized deductions
will not trigger minimum tax liability that could be imposed by
other globe-participating countries.
Bermuda has no intention of giving up its ability to
attract business through the tax code. Other countries are
adopting similar measures to maintain their status as an
attractive jurisdiction at the expense of United States multi-
nationals. We know about Singapore. We know about Ireland, the
things they are doing to maintain their ability to use their
tax code to lure companies there.
Madam Secretary, are you concerned about the fact that
Pillar Two is creating a new tax subsidy race where countries
enact Pillar Two taxes, but offset the higher tax costs with
tax subsidies in the form of qualified refundable tax credits
and other incentives like what Bermuda is doing?
Secretary YELLEN. Well, the idea of Pillar Two is to level
the playing field. And countries that refuse to raise their
tax, corporate tax, rate up to the minimum, countries that
participate and enact the minimum can, in effect, tax companies
in tax havens that haven't done it.
Mr. HERN. But Madam----
Secretary YELLEN. You have cited an example. I am not aware
that this is something that is broad-based, but if it is it
would certainly concern me, and it is something that I would be
prepared to look into.
Mr. HERN. Well, Madam Secretary, we have all seen what
Ireland has said about putting a cap on recurring revenues. We
have seen what Singapore said in refundable tax credits. We
have seen what China does in direct tax payments or direct
access--or cash payments to their companies to be able to
offset the taxable income so that they, in effect, from the
look at it, that the minimum tax level would be hit. But
companies in those countries are getting subsidies through
direct credits that offset that and take it backwards, where
ours aren't direct. Ours are not refundable. We have to
actually earn income to be able to utilize those.
Question two: Is this Administration concerned that Pillar
Two incentivizes subsidy warfare that puts our adversaries like
China at a competitive advantage?
Secretary YELLEN. It would concern me if it has incented
that, but I am not aware that that is broad based at this
point.
And in our case, many of our tax credits such as the green
tax credits, the LIHTC credit, are being treated as refundable.
As I have emphasized previously, we are working to make sure
that the R&D tax credit also will be something that firms can--
--
Mr. HERN. But----
Secretary YELLEN [continuing]. Benefit from.
Mr. HERN. But Madam Secretary, I think you just validated
that countries have the ability to make certain credits
refundable to offset the minimum tax that other countries or
OECD can lie claim to. China can do it. I think that you are
going there evidences the fact that they are not always
transparent in what they do, since all of their companies are
basically owned by the CCP.
Madam Secretary, I have got a longer question here, but it
pertains to the same thing. I think there is a lot of work to
be done. As you know, the committee, the Republicans on the
committee, went to the OECD and expressed our concern and made
it very clear that Pillar Two is not going to take place under
a Republican-led Ways and Means Committee, and we are not going
to give away our tax dollars. In fact, it is said time and time
again about how many tax dollars, U.S. taxpayer dollars would
go around the world, upwards of 200 billion. I know you said
that was JCT's outward look.
But I think it is important for everyone to know--and you
know this to be certain--corporations don't pay taxes. The
people that work for the corporations, the consumers of the
products of those corporations, and the owners of those
corporations pay the taxes to increase pricing for whatever the
commodities are. In fact, Forbes, Brookings, Tax Foundation,
Cato, and many, many others have said that consumers pay 31
percent of the new taxes, workers pay 38 percent of the taxes.
All of those people, for the most part, make less than $400,000
a year. So they are going--about 70 percent of the tax increase
will be paid by people making less than $400,000 a year, some
portion of that.
So I think it is disingenuous, as my colleague from
Pennsylvania said, to say that no one is going to pay a single
cent, as outlined in the White House's conversation about
policy, going forward. It is just disingenuous. It is not
factual, and it is not honest with the American people.
One other thing that you said is that the labor
participation rate was better today than it was pre-COVID. I
know you----
Secretary YELLEN. For adults.
Mr. HERN. I know you selectively picked an area.
Secretary YELLEN. For adults.
Mr. HERN. It was 63.3 percent on March 2020. Today it is
62.7, overall workforce.
Secretary YELLEN. I said----
Mr. HERN. When you don't have the luxury as an employer, as
I did for 35 years, saying I am only going to hire people
working--you have got to be 25 years old or 54 years old.
Secretary YELLEN. We have an aging population. And as
people retire, we know that labor force participation overall
will decline over time.
Mr. HERN. Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Chairman SMITH. Thank you.
[Pause.]
Chairman SMITH. You are good?
Ms. CHU. Yes.
Chairman SMITH. Ms. Chu.
Ms. CHU. Secretary Yellen, I heard your comments earlier
about the success of the Direct File pilot program, and I was
so glad to hear why it was a success.
And I especially want to have you address some things that
Republicans and the private tax prep industry are saying. They
are attacking the numbers of the filers, 140,000 filers, to
show that the pilot was a waste of money because there are 19
million who were eligible and that this was unnecessary. And
yet, what I see is that there were a lot of obstacles to the
program that the IRS was able to overcome. And actually, I
would have called it a resounding success.
So can you tell us why it was considered a resounding
success, considering the obstacles that there were?
And what considerations will go into the decision to extend
the pilot?
Secretary YELLEN. Well, let me say that this was an
experiment, and it was deliberately introduced in a phased way,
starting at small scale. It was only available to most filers
for five weeks in a subset of states that decided to
participate. So for that amount of time 140,000 people using it
and expressing positive reactions to the experience I would
certainly call a success.
Additionally, because it is an experiment, only relatively
simple tax situations could use it. If an individual went on
and it turned out they had the kind of income that wasn't
incorporated into the first iteration of this program, they
were directed to do something else.
But this saved a lot of taxpayers, even in this first
stage, a lot of money that they normally spend and a lot of
time. And there was customer service available for anybody that
needed it. And so overall, I believe we will see that the
experience was a very positive one.
Ms. CHU. So it was deliberately at a number that could
ensure its success, actually.
Secretary YELLEN. That is right, to start in a phased way.
Ms. CHU. Yes, and I want to also express appreciation
because you also made it available in both English and Spanish.
My district in the San Gabriel Valley includes many limited
English proficient taxpayers who speak not only Spanish, but
also Tagalog, Korean, Chinese, Japanese, and Vietnamese.
If the Treasury and IRS decide to renew the Direct File
pilot, can you talk about how it could reach more taxpayers by
expanding to possibly even more languages?
Secretary YELLEN. Well, I am sure that would be something
that would be considered over time. There are other things that
could be incorporated in addition to expanding the kinds of
income and deductions that are considered.
You know, eventually, the information that the IRS gets on
W-2s and other information reporting could be used to pre-
populate returns, making it even easier. But these are things
in the future if it is decided to continue with free file.
Ms. CHU. Secretary Yellen, also I heard you talk earlier
about the proposals that the Administration has to end tax
breaks for the wealthy, and instead restore tax credits for
workers and families like the Expanded Child Tax Credit and the
Earned Income Tax Credit of the American Rescue Plan. We know
about the powerful effects of these tax credits on reducing
poverty, but can you talk about how these programs will impact
the American economy and improve things for everybody?
Secretary YELLEN. Well, I mean, a very good example would
be the Child Tax Credit, which in 2021 lifted 5.3 million
people, including 2.9 million children, out of poverty. We saw
a 46 percent decline in child poverty in 2021. And this is not
only beneficial to the children and their parents in the short
term, but we know from many studies that when poverty is
reduced for children, it redounds to their benefit over the
remainder of their lives.
Ms. CHU. Thank you.
I yield back.
Chairman SMITH. Thank you. There are several votes on the
floor. The committee stands in recess until immediately after
the conclusion of this vote series.
[Recess.]
Chairman SMITH. The hearing will come to order. Mr. Carey
is recognized.
Mr. CAREY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Yellen, as you know, low carbon hydrogen can
reduce carbon emissions and create much-needed American jobs.
Ohio is well positioned to lead on hydrogen, given the state's
proximity to the end markets, as well as its access to low-
cost, abundant, and diverse energy feedstocks. I believe Ohio
can be a leader in hydrogen production from natural gas, with
carbon capture and sequestration, sometimes known as blue
hydrogen. Our state has abundant storage capacity, carbon
capture emissions, and unparalleled access to low-cost natural
gas.
But most importantly, we know hydrogen made with natural
gas while using carbon capture and sequestration can produce
very low emissions. Unfortunately, the Administration's
recently proposed regulations for hydrogen production, tax
credit 45V, could halt several of the proposed Ohio projects.
Last fall, DoE selected the Appalachian Regional Clean
Hydrogen Hub centered around the Ohio River Valley, an area
that I know very well, as the official hydrogen hub. Natural
gas will play a major role in the overwhelming majority of
these projects. This hub alone would create up to 18,000
construction jobs, with about 3,000 of those jobs being
permanent. Without a workable, flexible 45V guidance, many of
the projects within the hub will be uneconomical.
Clear, inclusive tax guidance can help increase much-needed
economic certainty that there will be adequate supply of
hydrogen to meet the needs of Ohio's industries that are
already making investments to use hydrogen in their businesses.
I recommend that the Treasury permit taxpayers to use actual
EPA-verified greenhouse gas emissions data to calculate an
accurate tax credit value, rather than being forced to use a
baseless national average, as laid out in the proposed
regulations.
Companies investing in lower methane intensity natural gas
to produce hydrogen should be able to demonstrate the low-
carbon intensity of the produced hydrogen with EPA-verified
data, then use the data to calculate the corresponding tax
credit value. The proposal of the tax credit and the intent of
Congress is to drive the incremental and continual reductions
in the carbon intensity of hydrogen. Without this change to the
proposed rule to permit hydrogen producers to prove the actual
carbon intensity of their hydrogen, the 45V tax credit will
drastically be--mischaracterize carbon emissions' intensity,
which will stifle the development of low carbon hydrogen
products and impede the Administration's goal at reducing the
overall emissions.
And I know this is probably not something that a lot of
people talk about, but given the fact that Ohio does have the
aquifers to hold carbon, it is something that is very important
to our state. I only have a minute and 30 seconds. If you have
a second, I wouldn't mind your response.
Secretary YELLEN. Well, the hydrogen provisions of IRA are
very important, and we have worked hard to put out a notice of
proposed rulemaking that will provide some clarity and
flexibility to let projects advance with the appropriate
environmental safeguards.
We have worked very closely with the Department of Energy
and with EPA on the proposed regs, given their technical
expertise, but this is very complex, and it requires evaluating
lifecycle emissions. We have received many, many comments--I
believe over 40,000 comments--on the proposed rule.
I appreciate your comments, and we promise that we are
sifting through them and need to reconsider what the
appropriate response is. So what I can say is that we will take
this input seriously as we work to revise the regulations.
Mr. CAREY. Well, I do appreciate that. I just want to say,
again, with the developments that we have in place, Ohio looks
to get 18,000 construction jobs, 3,000 permanent jobs. This
could be a very big, very big economic factor for the State of
Ohio.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman SMITH. Thank you.
Ms. DelBene.
Ms. DelBENE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Madam Secretary, for taking the time to be
with us here today. And thank you for your attention to the
needs of working families and struggling Americans, and for the
work that you do to keep America globally competitive.
Secretary YELLEN. Thank you.
Ms. DelBENE. Madam Secretary, I first want to give you a
chance to clarify the Administration's position on the Child
Tax Credit, something I am a big supporter of. I know that some
assertions were made, and you didn't have a chance to respond.
So I want to give you a chance to respond.
Secretary YELLEN. The President is supportive of the Child
Tax Credit, and he has proposed to extend it in his 2025
budget, and has been supportive of Wyden and Smith also, the
provisions on the Child Tax Credit that are included there.
Obviously, it has made a tremendous difference when it was
in effect in 2021, reduced child poverty by 46 percent, and is
very important, and an important provision that really helps
working families.
Ms. DelBENE. Absolutely. And I would love to see us put
that in place and make that permanent. So that is work we are
going to continue to focus on.
The Inflation Reduction Act also included a historic $80
billion investment in the IRS, 20 billion which was rescinded
by my Republican colleagues. But one of the key needs addressed
by these funds was modernizing the agency's core technology
infrastructure.
As this technology is updated, I wondered if you could
speak about how emerging technologies like artificial
intelligence are being integrated into the IRS's work to
provide services to taxpayers and to enforce tax laws.
And how is the IRS addressing data privacy and security
concerns inherent with such technologies?
Secretary YELLEN. So the IRS certainly has already begun to
use AI in its work. I am not an expert on this, but I know that
they see great potential in terms, on the enforcement side, in
being able to sift through tax returns of high-income filers
and complex partnerships and corporations, and to identify
which ones would be good candidates for audits and trying to
uncover fraud and close the tax gap.
You know, Treasury has a governance process where we are
employing AI increasingly in Treasury's work, and we have put
in place oversight and a governance process around that to make
sure that it is used responsibly in accordance with the
President's executive order.
Ms. DelBENE. Also, under your leadership, Treasury recently
closed a loophole in our Russian seafood ban that previously
allowed fish caught in Russia to still get to the U.S. if
processing occurred in a third country like China. The ban is
working, but unless our allies act in concert, American seafood
will remain at a competitive disadvantage to Russian seafood in
foreign markets.
Madam Secretary, I wondered how can Treasury push our
allies, who are also large seafood importers, including Japan,
Canada, the EU, and the UK, to cut off seafood trade with
Russia?
Secretary YELLEN. So I must admit I am not intimately
knowledgeable in what we are doing on this particular aspect of
sanctions.
Ms. DelBENE. Okay.
Secretary YELLEN. But we are constantly working with our
allies to try to coordinate our sanctions so that they are
effective.
Ms. DelBENE. And then one I know you will have--and I
probably won't give you enough time on this--but I wondered if
you could talk about how suggesting the U.S. will never
implement Pillar Two makes it more difficult to get the changes
that we would like to see.
Secretary YELLEN. In----
Ms. DelBENE. Pillar Two of the OECD.
Secretary YELLEN. To see the changes, how does it make it
more difficult to----
Ms. DelBENE. About how, when folks are suggesting that we
are never going to implement Pillar Two, how that makes it more
difficult for us to get the changes that we would like to see.
Secretary YELLEN. Well, this was a global agreement. The
United States led the push on this, and we have argued since
day one that Pillar Two is something that is good for the
entire world. We have pushed our allies now on the order of 40
countries have adopted it, most major countries, and I think
they see it as a failure on our part not to be willing to adopt
it ourselves. And so it does undermine our ability to exhibit
leadership with our allies.
Ms. DelBENE. Thank you. My time has expired. Thank you,
Madam Secretary.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman SMITH. Ms. Malliotakis.
Ms. MALLIOTAKIS. Thank you very much for being here. I am
proud to represent Staten Island and Brooklyn, where you are
from, and----
Secretary YELLEN. Thank you.
Ms. MALLIOTAKIS [continuing]. Fort Hamilton High School
says hello.
Secretary YELLEN. Thank you.
Ms. MALLIOTAKIS. And I wanted to speak with you
specifically about fentanyl and the involvement of the
Communist Chinese Party. I know you recently returned from a
trip from fentanyl (sic). You specifically talked about the
money laundering that is involved. We know that Communist China
is subsidizing the production of these fentanyl analogues that
are now illegal in the United States and in China, but yet they
are exporting it, killing, as you know, 100,000 Americans
annually. A lot of it is going through the drug cartels in
Mexico, in particular when they are subsidizing the production
of this fentanyl in China. NPP and ANPP are two fentanyl
precursors that we know specifically the Mexican drug cartels
are using.
So according to the Congressional Research Service, U.S.-
destined illicit fentanyl appears to be produced clandestinely
in Mexico using these chemical precursors from China.
Earlier this month you reported on your trip that you were
creating a joint Treasury-People's Bank of China cooperation
and exchange on money laundering. So I just wanted to know
where this group is at, what you think we will be able to
derive from this to help save these American lives that are
being lost, sadly, because of this interaction between the CCP
and the Mexican drug cartels.
Secretary YELLEN. So I think fentanyl is a critical issue,
as you have indicated, and Treasury is doing everything that we
can to stem the flow of precursors from China to Mexico and the
illegal sale of fentanyl from Mexico into the United States. I
have also visited Mexico to discuss the fentanyl issue and to
enhance our cooperation with them.
In the case of China, President Biden and President Xi,
when they met--I guess it was in November in Woodside--agreed
to jointly tackle fentanyl, which was a very good development.
Meetings have been taking place. As you noted, in my recent
trip--I guess it was two weeks ago--to China, we agreed to
establish a special work--sort of dialogue or work plan around
illicit finance. We have had one meeting so far that has been
devoted to that topic, and fentanyl certainly is one of the key
issues, although we are looking more broadly at illicit finance
beyond fentanyl. But China has agreed to cooperate with us to
try to stem the sale of these precursors into Mexico and other
places, and this is an area of cooperation.
Ms. MALLIOTAKIS. So it is your understanding that these
money laundering organizations in the PRC are acting outside of
the CCP's control?
Secretary YELLEN. I think so. It is not my understanding
that the CCP is positively directing this activity, but that it
is taking place among Chinese firms. And we need their
cooperation to clamp down on those firms. We have sanctioned
some, but there are many smaller firms in China that I believe
are involved in producing these precursors and other equipment
that is needed.
Ms. MALLIOTAKIS. The U.S. Department of Treasury and the
Office of Foreign Assets Control has so far sanctioned more
than 65 mainland China or Hong Kong-based persons for illicit
fentanyl trafficking. And we also seen the DoJ take some action
indicting three of the PRC-based companies. So I am glad to see
that we are having some action taken.
These--any of these firms--again, everything in China
obviously has the government's involvement in it. So my concern
is more that the manufacturers of this fentanyl are being
subsidized by the government. They obviously control the banks
in China. And then, on top of it, these PRC-based companies. So
I am just wondering how much we can trust them as partners. I
am hoping that you are making some progress in that.
But the reality is that, you know, we are seeing this
increase, not decrease. More Americans are dying as a result of
this fentanyl that is streaming from the PRC to the Mexican
cartel. Part of it is because of our open southern border,
thanks to the President's 60-plus policy changes when he came
in. So I just hope that you will work diligently, and I trust
that you are, to really try to hold China accountable for this
type of activity that we are seeing that are killing so many
Americans.
Secretary YELLEN. It is a real American tragedy, and we
will do everything and are doing everything we can to stem the
flow of these drugs into our country.
Ms. MALLIOTAKIS. Thank you very much.
Chairman SMITH. Thank you.
Ms. Sewell.
Ms. SEWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And Secretary, Madam Secretary, welcome again to our
committee. I want to talk to you about equity and the
President's charge to his cabinet at the very beginning of his
Administration to really, really try to level the playing field
and have equity be one of the hallmarks of that.
And I had an opportunity to sit with you. I think we had
breakfast together. During the last Congress Congressman Richie
Neal put together a racial equity initiative within Ways and
Means, and had a chance to talk to you about some of the things
that you were thinking about doing in terms of equity.
The budget is truly a reflection of what we value. We spend
money on those things that we value. I want to commend this
Administration and yourself for including in this budget
expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit, the Child Tax Credit,
the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit. I was a bond lawyer before I
was a Member of Congress, and new market tax credits are a way
to really help depressed and distressed communities.
Can you talk a little bit about how the Earned Income Tax
Credit and the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit will seek to level
the playing field and our equity initiatives within Treasury,
frankly?
Secretary YELLEN. Thank you. I think all of the initiatives
that you mentioned, the New Markets Tax Credit, which we are
proposing to make----
Ms. SEWELL. Permanent.
Secretary YELLEN [continuing]. Permanent, and also add a
track that would be particularly focused on the most distressed
communities, the Earned Income Tax Credit would be extended to
single individuals with low incomes. It was done in the ARP.
Ms. SEWELL. Yes.
Secretary YELLEN. And this would make that permanent.
Of course, the Child Tax Credit has been critically--when
it was expanded in 2021, critically important in reducing child
poverty, reduced it by 46 percent. And----
Ms. SEWELL. Amazing.
Secretary YELLEN. Yes.
Ms. SEWELL. And so that in the fiscal year 2025 budget,
that you would actually make permanent the Earned Income Tax
Credit--and some of those are very, very important.
Secretary YELLEN. Very----
Ms. SEWELL. I noticed also that the President's budget
provides a new mortgage relief credit. Can you talk a little
bit about what that one is?
Secretary YELLEN. Well, home ownership for people who don't
already own homes, first-time buyers, is almost prohibitively
expensive.
First of all, mortgage rates have been so low for so long
that it has created a kind of lock-in across much of the
country, where people don't want to sell their homes to buy new
ones because they will lose the benefit of the low mortgage
rates they have locked in.
And then, with house prices having gone up, and now with
much higher interest in mortgage rates, it is almost impossible
for first-time buyers.
So the President has proposed a pair of tax credits. One
would go--$10,000, I believe--to purchases of new homes, and
the other would go to individuals who are willing to sell their
homes to try to get rid of some of that lock-in.
But we know that affordable housing, and especially starter
homes, is an area where we really need to do a lot to increase
availability.
Ms. SEWELL. Increase availability and also access, as well
as making sure that we are leveling the playing field so that
all Americans have an opportunity to live the American dream.
Secretary YELLEN. Yes.
Ms. SEWELL. Going back to the New Market Tax Credits, I
represent my home district, Alabama's 7th district, and we have
utilized New Market Tax Credits to help underserved urban but
also rural parts of my district to actually--we are
beneficiaries of this. As you know, New Market Tax Credits
really let cities and counties and non-profits to give an
opportunity to really help a distressed area.
Can you talk a little bit about why that permanency with
New Market Tax Credits is so critical?
Secretary YELLEN. I think it--because this is intended to
generate private investment and is very successful in doing it,
knowing that the program will be there over time, I think,
generates much more interest in the part of the private sector.
Ms. SEWELL. And more certainty, yes.
Secretary YELLEN. Right.
Ms. SEWELL. Absolutely. Thank you so much.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman SMITH. Mrs. Miller.
Mrs. MILLER. Thank you, Chairman Smith and Ranking Member
Neal.
And welcome here today, Secretary Yellen. I am going to be
on a little different track than my friend from Alabama. I am
deeply concerned about many of the actions that the Treasury
Department and President Biden's Administration are taking.
Unfortunately, every American is feeling the constant pinch
of inflation, higher interest rates, and lower purchasing
power. Despite this, the Treasury and the IRS appear to be only
trying to make our constituents' lives worse instead of better.
For example, the IRS has continued to illegally delay the
implementation of the Democrats draconian 1099-K threshold. The
Treasury Department has issued weak foreign entity of concern
definitions to that which fail to protect American tax dollars
from flowing to Chinese companies.
Guidance coming from the Treasury Department on energy tax
incentives are blocking traditional energy communities from
participating in the future energy economy and leaving them
behind. You have led an unprecedented attack on American
taxpayer privacy by overseeing the expansion of IRS snooping,
and yet are failing to crack down on the leaks of sensitive
taxpayer documents.
Furthermore, the IRS has wasted millions of taxpayer
dollars on its unauthorized Direct File program. The Biden
Administration has shockingly announced its plan to raise taxes
by over $7 trillion next year. You said last month under oath
that there is no plan to protect middle-class taxpayers from
these planned increases.
On the world stage we have surrendered the U.S. tax base to
unelected global bureaucrats at the OECD and failed to protect
the American tax system from what I think of as a heinous
international interference.
On every front the American taxpayer loses, our nation
becomes weaker, and our global adversaries are rewarded and
emboldened.
Secretary Yellen, I am deeply concerned about our domestic
industry's reliance on Chinese technologies and investments. As
the recently appointed chairwoman of the supply chain's Tax
Team, I look forward to working with my colleagues to improve
upon the broken IRA's energy credits, protecting a competitive
corporate rate, and ensuring that the United States is the best
place to invest as it was under President Trump's historic tax
cuts.
I have introduced two bills, the Protecting American
Advanced Manufacturing Act and the End Chinese Dominance of
Electric Vehicles Act, to improve on the foreign entity of
concern definitions for the 45X and the 30D tax credits,
respectively. The current agreements establish a dangerous
precedent that will take the U.S. decades to reverse by
creating a future where our automotive and other industries are
heavily reliant on foreign technologies. Without immediate
passage of both of my bills, Chinese entities will receive
billions of American tax dollars every single year.
Secretary Yellen, yes or no, does the Biden Administration
support taxpayer dollars funding Chinese entities?
Secretary YELLEN. Well, when it comes to electric vehicles,
the IRA, which obviously the Administration supports, has
foreign entity of concern restrictions coming into effect this
year and next, which will severely curtail--almost prevent
entirely--participation of Chinese firms in producing
components or minerals or processing----
Mrs. MILLER. That is not yes or no.
Secretary YELLEN [continuing]. That go into batteries.
Mrs. MILLER. That is not----
Secretary YELLEN. So that is a very significant restriction
that will protect our supply chain.
With respect to 45X, that is a credit that Congress
directed to go to any company that undertakes certain advanced
manufacturing----
Mrs. MILLER. Reclaiming my time----
Secretary YELLEN [continuing]. In the United States.
Mrs. MILLER [continuing]. By allowing these Chinese
companies to maintain control of the technologies, the
intellectual property, and the supply chains, all the while
receiving American taxpayer subsidies, how will this encourage
U.S. companies to develop the technologies to become less
dependent upon China and our adversaries?
It doesn't. Does the Biden Administration share any of my
concern that China is using various IRA credits to deepen its
influence on our domestic manufacturing industries?
Secretary YELLEN. The United States is doing everything we
can in Treasury in implementing the IRA to strengthen our
supply chains and make them less vulnerable to China.
Mrs. MILLER. Well, I continue to remain skeptical on the
environmental and economic benefits behind your decision-
making, and I do urge swift passage of my bills to further
protect the United States manufacturing.
And I yield back my time.
Mr. SMUCKER [presiding]. Ms. Moore.
Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And of course, Secretary Yellen, it is always good to be in
your presence with your just wise experience. This committee is
really blessed. I want to ask you a couple of questions related
to domestic violence, sexual violence.
The 2013 amendments to the Violence Against Women
Reauthorization Act, which I had the privilege and the
opportunity to lead, really made some changes to prohibit
housing providers who have used the Low-Income Housing Tax
Credit from using domestic violence, dating violence, or sexual
assault and stalking as grounds for evicting the victim, or
denying subsidies or admissions due to an abuser's act.
The IRS, of course, is not just the administrator of the
housing tax credits, it has a duty to ensure that the Low-
Income Housing Tax Credit program's compliance is with VAWA.
I think we have had some informal communication with the
Treasury Department in this past decade where the Treasury has
disavowed any responsibility to set out some sort of guidance
on this. And in fact, in 10 years we have not seen that done.
And so, I was wondering--and I am joining Ms. Tenney. She and I
are writing you a letter to try to find out what the status of
why you don't feel that you need to comply or, if you do, if
you will.
Madam Secretary.
Secretary YELLEN. Well, first, let me thank you for your
work on this very important initiative, which I think is
critically important for domestic violence victims, and the
reauthorization explicitly extended VAWA's protections to
applicants and tenants in LIHTC properties.
Now, if there is specific issues or guidance that you think
is necessary, I would like to put you or your staff in touch
with people at the Treasury or/and IRS, and we would be glad to
work with you.
Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Well, thank you with that, because
the national housing authorities have put together some sort of
guidance that seems to be working, and we will share that with
you.
Mr. Smucker and I, as an extension of this discussion, I
want to talk about something we think is extraordinary, and
that is judgments that are made for victims of sexual assault.
If you are a victim of sexual assault and you get a settlement
or an award, you will be able to get a settlement and not pay
taxes on it if you can prove that there is some physical harm.
But as an example, I mean, if you were put in a situation
where you were forced to strip naked and parade, you know,
through a gang of perpetrators, and no one penetrated you, you
might get a judgment out of that, but you would have to pay
taxes on it. And we don't think that that is fair.
And so we are looking, Mr. Smucker and I, to changing the
law so that there is a presumption of a physical abuse that
would meet the requirements for some kind of income exclusion.
And so we are hoping that you will see this in the positive
light that we see it.
Secretary YELLEN. We would be glad to work with you on
that.
Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. I have one question with my
remaining time, just to sort of understand what your stance is
on minerals. You just had a previous discussion with Mrs.
Miller that I thought was very compelling, and she talked about
China, our subsidizing China in minerals. And I guess I didn't
really understand that discussion.
What I am concerned about is that there is a tremendous
cost to extract and process critical minerals domestically. And
by denying the monies to this domestic activity, are we in fact
subsidizing or enabling minerals from other places?
Secretary YELLEN. Well, I mean, we are making it really all
but impossible to get the $7,500 subsidy if the minerals they
are processing take place in China, and the IRA contains
incentives to produce and process these either domestically or
among friends----
Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Well, Madam Secretary, why aren't
we allowing the credit----
Mr. SMUCKER. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Okay. Why aren't we allowing the
credit when it is produced domestically? Could we do that and
still prevent outsiders?
Secretary YELLEN. The credit is available when the minerals
are processed domestically or in countries with whom we have a
free trade agreement.
Mr. SMUCKER. The gentlewoman's time has expired. Ms. Tenney
is recognized for five minutes.
Ms. TENNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And also, thank you to Secretary Yellen for your service
and for being here today and this long session today. I just
wanted to kind of go back to a couple of things that
Congresswoman Sewell said, and go back to the New Markets Tax
Credit issue, and the authority which ends in 2025. And we
teamed up and wrote a note, a letter to you, about six months
ago indicating why it has taken so long to get this underway,
why we can't do what the Treasury has done in the past, doing
this as a lump-sum program when it was authorized in 2015 and
2016.
And as you know, as we are coming down to a deadline, the
deadline is the end of 2025, and obviously, this is an urgent
issue so we can make sure that we get the monies directed to
these needy communities we have. Representative Sewell and
others on the committee are also very concerned about this, but
also to get to other parts of my district. I have a very rural,
sprawling district in upstate New York, and this New Markets
Tax Credit has been a help.
We did get a response from Acting Assistant Secretary Corey
Tellez, but it was six months later, and really just said, ``We
are working diligently.'' So it wasn't, you know, a progress
report of any substance. And we are just wondering if there is
any way you can give us an update today.
Where are we with this? Can we get it done in a way that we
did in 2015 and 2016 to get these credits expedited as time is
running out on this program, and very much needed program, in a
bipartisan way?
Secretary YELLEN. So you are talking about previous credits
that would qualify this year?
Ms. TENNEY. No, we are talking about the current credits
that haven't been--you have indicated that some of them, in the
letter that we received in February in response to our
September 2023 letter, you have indicated that you have made a
number of awards, but the program isn't completed and there are
a lot of rewards outstanding. And we have people out all across
the country waiting to be able to get approved through
Treasury.
What is the holdup? Can we get an expedited--I mean, we
really just want a simple answer. Can we get your attention on
that, and make sure this comes out?
Secretary YELLEN. I will look into it. I am assuming that
we will award these, but I don't know the timetable when we
will----
Ms. TENNEY. Right. As you know, construction projects, they
are very----
Secretary YELLEN. We will try to get back to you.
Ms. TENNEY. Thank you. They are very expensive, very--and
we want to--you know, these investments are made, and then the
credits aren't out, and we have got people willing to come into
our rural and needy communities to invest, and we just want to
make sure that they have the certainty that they need to do
that.
The second question I have for you--and I just wanted to
check on Treasury's progress--as you know, these horrific
attacks on Israel by Hamas on October 7, we have seen a
dangerous rise in anti-Semitism across the country. Notably at
universities, we are seeing this play out every day today,
including my own home state of New York, even upstate New York,
where I have nearby Cornell University, Syracuse University,
and many other campuses there. We are seeing these anti-Semitic
demonstrations, support of terrorist groups like Hamas, and
there are even reports indicating that numerous U.S. charities
are suspected of funneling this money to Hamas, or from Hamas
to various ties to organizations that we have designated as
financiers of terrorism by the Treasury Department.
I just wanted to know where we are with Treasury today, and
what are we doing to make sure that we are cracking down on
Iran and other groups with sanctions, with support for cutting
down their ability to fund these groups that we think are
coming here.
And I just wanted to just say thank you to Chairman Smith.
Earlier this year we did do--or earlier, I think, or later last
year we did a hearing on what is happening on our campuses, and
a deep dive into where this money is coming from. A lot of it
looks like it is coming from Iran, coming through, you know,
not-for-profits, whether they are 501(c)(3)s, (4)s, and using
our IRS structure, but also Treasury may be backing off on
sanctions on Iran. And I want to know where we are with that
today.
And if you could, quickly comment on are we going to
continue to press Iran in its ability to be a state sponsor of
these things?
Secretary YELLEN. Well, it is really at the absolute top of
our agenda to crack down on Hamas and Iran. We have taken a
large number of actions. I would be glad to detail them all out
for you, but----
Ms. TENNEY. Can you just give me a----
Secretary YELLEN [continuing]. Both against Iran and
Hamas----
Ms. TENNEY. Can you--yes, can I just reclaim my time? Just,
like, clarify my question, if you would, please. How are we
increasing sanctions on Iran again now, as we see what is
happening, and we know that there has got to be some kind of
linkage? Are we cracking down on sanctions on Iran right now?
Is that something Treasury is continuing to press?
Secretary YELLEN. Absolutely. We took a set of sanctions--I
believe it was just last week--to crack down on oil sales by
Iran's military to China. We have cracked down on their
provision of UAVs that are going to Ukraine and other places
and being used by terrorist groups against Israel.
We have taken numerous, numerous actions to go after Hamas
financing, using every channel we are aware of, and we are
working jointly with our allies to do this.
Ms. TENNEY. Thank you. Well, we appreciate that. My time
has expired, but we really need to crack down and get the
sanctions in place to really put a dent
Secretary YELLEN. We are----
Ms. TENNEY. Into Iran's ability to fund this. We know that
this is what is probably happening, and where the money is
probably coming from, somehow using the channels of our good-
intentioned, not-for-profit laws. So----
Mr. SMUCKER. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
Ms. TENNEY [continuing]. I appreciate that. Thank you.
Mr. SMUCKER. Mr. Kustoff is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. KUSTOFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Madam Secretary, for appearing today. I am over
here to your left. If I could, Madam Secretary, you have got a
unique position. You have chaired the Federal Reserve. You have
got the position you have got now. Is the Fed's target rate for
two percent inflation, is that still a real number? Is that the
goal, and is that attainable?
Secretary YELLEN. Well, the two percent inflation target
was codified as part of the Federal Open Market Committee's
policy a number of years ago, and it remains the goal. And
more, as Chair Powell has said, the committee is absolutely
committed to achieving that.
At this point, inflation using the metric that they use is
2.7 percent. It has come down substantially from its peak, and
they continue to put in place a policy that they consider to be
restrictive to move it down further.
Mr. KUSTOFF. Well, let me ask----
Secretary YELLEN. I believe it is definitely obtainable.
Mr. KUSTOFF. Let me ask you about that, because you have
used the word ``substantially decreased'' several times during
this hearing.
Your predecessor, Lawrence Summers, in an interview on
April 10 on Bloomberg TV, said, ``You have to take seriously
the possibility that the next rate move will be upwards rather
than downwards.'' This morning he released a statement that
said this morning's ECI, Employment Cost Index, and housing
price inflation figures confirm what I have suspected and
feared: Inflation is not securely trending to target levels.
He goes on to say, ``Note that the ECI has accelerated from
previous quarterly, semiannual, and annual levels. I suspect it
has been understating labor cost inflation of late because of
reduced work requirements associated with the WFH. The home
price inflation figures are also a cause for concern that
shelter inflation is not durably declining. With higher
interest rates and higher unit prices, rents will at some point
reaccelerate. Note that, as many have pointed out, bottlenecks
have been easing over the last year or so, reducing inflation
momentum. This will not forever--this will not be forever and,
given geopolitics, may reverse. Financial conditions are now
loose by historical standards, all reasons why the Federal
Reserve is in a treacherous environment. Should have been more
careful about easing signals, and now should be very cautious
about possible rate cutting.''
It is really hard to disagree with anything he said, isn't
it?
Secretary YELLEN. Well, he is a person who has been wrong
in the past. He said that it would absolutely take a recession
to bring inflation down, and that turned out to be a serious
misjudgment.
I don't want to talk about appropriate monetary policy.
Mr. KUSTOFF. Fair enough.
Secretary YELLEN. That is not my job; it is up to the Fed.
But on house prices I would say I consider it highly likely
that over the next year house price inflation, shelter
inflation will come down considerably. And the reason I believe
that is that, if you look at the market for new rental
apartments and rentals of new single-family houses, those
rental prices have stabilized or, in some cases, declined. And
the reason that shelter costs continue to increase as much as
they are is because tenants who have leases, when the leases
end and their rents are renegotiated, they come up to market.
So it takes a while----
Mr. KUSTOFF. Thank you. Let me reclaim my time just to ask
you----
Secretary YELLEN [continuing]. But it will come down.
Mr. KUSTOFF [continuing]. Do you not agree with anything
that former Treasury Secretary Summers said in that statement?
Secretary YELLEN. I agree with some of it, but I can't go
through it with you.
Mr. KUSTOFF. Okay. Fair enough.
Secretary YELLEN. Yes, I don't disagree with everything in
there.
Mr. KUSTOFF. Let me, if I can, in my remaining seconds--in
2018 we passed the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and
Consumer Protection Act. I think that the bill was critical
because it fixed a one-size-fits-all regulatory structure.
Obviously, you are chairman of the Financial Stability
Oversight Council. I know that you all meet soon. My concern is
with that bill, which is Senate Banking Bill 2155, it allowed
financial regulators to tailor or calibrate regulations for
certain banks based on their respective characteristics and
risk levels. The one I am particularly concerned is I am
concerned about the Basel III framework, the rules relating to
Basel III and long-term debt requirement proposals, especially
as it relates to regional banks.
My ask of you is, when you chair, you will pay particular
attention to the concerns of regional banks as it relates to
these rules.
Secretary YELLEN. Well, this is really under the purview of
the banking supervisors, the Fed, the FDIC, and the OCC. FSOC
doesn't have jurisdiction.
Mr. SMUCKER. The gentleman's time is expired.
Secretary YELLEN. But they have said they are reconsidering
the rules that they put out.
Mr. SMUCKER. Mr. Kildee is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. KILDEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Secretary Yellen, for your presence here and for the work that
you have been doing on behalf of the American people.
I have been proud to work with this Administration on
implementing some, I think, monumental pieces of legislation:
CHIPS and Science Act, Inflation Reduction Act. Both laws are
supporting American workers, creating American jobs,
particularly in manufacturing.
And I have been especially focused on manufacturing more
solar panels and solar components here in the United States,
rather than having such a reliance on China for these goods as
we do now. And I know you understand that. In fact, recently
you said, and I quote, ``China's overcapacity distorts global
prices and production patterns, and hurts American firms and
workers, and I could not agree with that statement more. That
is exactly right. China's state-backed solar industry is
flooding the global market with cheap products, undercutting
our American workers at a time when we are trying to build that
capacity.
So to meet this challenge, of course, we need policy that
drives demand for U.S.-manufactured solar products across the
solar supply chain. And we can do this with strong domestic
content rules. And so my question to you comes out of a concern
that domestic content guidance may leave out some critical
pieces of the solar supply chain.
And so I am curious what Treasury's plan is to ensure that
the final domestic content guidance for solar facilities
incentivizes onshoring of the full U.S. solar supply chain and
reduces our dependance on China for components like, for
example, polysilicon or wafer. Can you comment on that?
Secretary YELLEN. Sure. Well, we put out some initial
guidance on domestic content. It was an interagency effort, and
we relied heavily on advice from the Department of
Transportation in applying the Buy America rules that are
referenced in the text of the IRA in determining the
categorization of clean energy products. We also consulted with
the Department of Energy.
Now, we have gotten a lot of public feedback. Some of it--
much of it is from stakeholders throughout the solar supply
chain, and this is feedback we will take into account as we
revise the regulations.
Mr. KILDEE. I do very much appreciate that, and I think it
is such an important element to make sure that we are looking
at the entirety of that supply chain because there is a lot of
American jobs that could be stood up simply on some of those
elements.
And I wonder if you could also comment on another subject
that you and I have discussed before, and that is the 48D
semiconductor investment tax credit. Making sure that we expand
the U.S. supply chain for semiconductors starts with
polysilicon--and again, you and I have discussed this--a
substance that is 99.5 percent of semiconductor chips.
The U.S. has a technological advantage on polysilicon
production, but China and other countries are catching up, and
that is one of the reasons that the new tax credit in the CHIPS
and Science Act is intended to spur that investment in the
semiconductor supply chain.
And so I wonder if you might comment on your willingness of
Treasury to continue to work with us on final guidance for the
48D tax credit that supports those critical elements of the
semiconductor supply chain. And as you know, for me it is
important that that include American-made chip-grade
polysilicon.
Secretary YELLEN. So again, I would say that we put out
some proposed rules and received a lot of feedback. We
explicitly asked questions about the appropriate scope.
I would also say that the Department of Commerce that
administers a grant program, we are coordinating closely with
them to make sure we cover the entire supply chain. I can't
preview the likely final rules, but we have been very attentive
to comments that we have received on this.
Mr. KILDEE. I very much appreciate that. And as you know,
Congress takes these actions, we have an interest in the
implementation process. It is the responsibility of the
Administration, but we have an interest, as the authors of the
legislation, to ensure that congressional intent is being
realized.
So I appreciate your willingness to work with us, and I
particularly appreciate your service to our country in the
various roles that we have worked together. You do a fine job
and are doing a particularly fine job at this hearing.
Secretary YELLEN. Thank you so much, Congressman Kildee. I
appreciate that.
Chairman SMITH [presiding]. Mr. Steube.
Mr. STEUBE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Secretary, on March 6, 2024, the Committee on
Judiciary and Select Committee of the Weaponization of the
Federal Government released a staff report on the financial
surveillance in the United States. Have you had a chance to
review that?
Secretary YELLEN. I am aware of it, but I haven't reviewed
it in detail.
Mr. STEUBE. Well, I would encourage you to read it because
it is pretty appalling to the American people.
Last week Chairman Jordan sent you a letter regarding the
financial surveillance without a warrant of American citizens.
The date--actually, let me go back.
So Mr. Chairman, can I add that report to--I ask unanimous
consent to add that report to the record.
Chairman SMITH. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. STEUBE. Last week, April 24, Chairman Jordan sent you a
letter regarding the financial surveillance without a warrant
of American citizens. Are you in receipt of that letter?
Secretary YELLEN. We are in receipt.
Mr. STEUBE. Have you read it?
Secretary YELLEN. I have looked at it.
Mr. STEUBE. You have looked at it? Does that mean you have
read it, or is that----
Secretary YELLEN. Yes.
Mr. STEUBE. Okay. Do you intend to provide the committee
with the SARs, as requested in that letter?
Secretary YELLEN. We will respond to the committee.
Mr. STEUBE. Are you going to provide the SARs, as requested
in the letter?
Secretary YELLEN. Well, those reports are strictly
confidential under the law, and I am not prepared to discuss
any one in particular.
Mr. STEUBE. I am just asking if you are going to comply
with the letter that Chairman Jordan who has oversight over
your Department and the cabinet, if you are going to comply
with the letter.
Secretary YELLEN. We will respond to the letter, and I
don't really have more to say about that.
Mr. STEUBE. Under the Biden Secrecy Act, the Financial
Crimes Enforcement Network, an agency under your control at the
Department of Treasury receives vast amounts of data covering
millions of financial transactions involving everyday
Americans. Is that correct?
Secretary YELLEN. Through FinCEN receives reports.
Mr. STEUBE. And is it correct that FinCEN received 20.6
million currency transaction reports in 2022?
Secretary YELLEN. I am not sure. It could be.
Mr. STEUBE. It could be, roughly, more, less?
Secretary YELLEN. I don't know the number.
Mr. STEUBE. But you would agree that it is millions of
reports?
Secretary YELLEN. Probably, yes.
Mr. STEUBE. It is also true that FinCEN received 4.3
million suspicious activity reports in 2022, which was nearly
double the amount received by the agency in 2019.
Secretary YELLEN. I don't know.
Mr. STEUBE. You don't know at all, even though it is an
agency----
Secretary YELLEN. I don't know if they received double the
previous year, I really don't know.
Mr. STEUBE. But SARs typically gets millions of reports.
You would agree with that statement?
Secretary YELLEN. I don't know if it doubled, though.
Mr. STEUBE. Okay, well, I am sure your staff can provide
you with that information.
Secretary YELLEN. I am sure they can.
Mr. STEUBE. That is an agency under your--so you don't know
is what you are telling me.
Secretary YELLEN. I could look into it, but I don't happen
to know.
Mr. STEUBE. Okay. Doesn't the data in these reports include
important and sensitive private and financial data?
Secretary YELLEN. Well, these are private data only
available to law enforcement.
Mr. STEUBE. But it includes data of American citizens,
their private financial data. Correct?
Secretary YELLEN. Well, on transactions that are regarded
as suspicious.
Mr. STEUBE. And their data, correct.
Secretary YELLEN. And potentially illegal.
Mr. STEUBE. The sensitive personal financial data included
in this report is held in a database. Correct?
Secretary YELLEN. Yes.
Mr. STEUBE. Neither FinCEN nor any Federal law enforcement
agencies need to get a warrant to access this private financial
data. Is that correct?
Secretary YELLEN. I don't think you need to get a warrant,
but it is only shared subject to strict confidentiality.
Mr. STEUBE. But you don't need to get a warrant.
Secretary YELLEN. Not to the best of my knowledge.
Mr. STEUBE. Are you aware that in 2021 FinCEN emailed
financial institutions suggesting search terms including, and I
quote, ``America first,'' ``Trump,'' and ``MAGA'' to use in
identifying transactions that may indicate, and I quote,
``involvement in riots or potential violence''?
Secretary YELLEN. This is activity that took place under
the previous administration, not under the Biden
Administration, in close proximity----
Mr. STEUBE. No, this is 2021.
Secretary YELLEN. This is----
Mr. STEUBE. Twenty-twenty-one.
Secretary YELLEN. This is before President Biden's
inauguration.
Mr. STEUBE. No, it is after.
Secretary YELLEN. And after January 6, there was concern
about potential disruption of his inaugural. And FinCEN worked
as it is instructed to do with financial institutions to try to
uncover who was involved in January 6----
Mr. STEUBE. So were you aware of the FinCEN emailing the
financial institutions with those search terms?
Secretary YELLEN. I am now aware that there were
communications that took place. In some cases, I believe
financial institutions suggested to this group search terms
they had used that had been helpful in identifying potential
perpetrators of January 6.
Mr. STEUBE. FinCEN also worked with the FBI in early 2021
to determine certain transaction thresholds for SARs. These
include certain weapons-related transactions. Do you know how
many SARs were filed as a result of the FBI and FinCEN's
coordination at that time?
Secretary YELLEN. No. The only reason that--I believe that
weapons were involved.
It is never a search term used on its own that results in
anything. It is a way of trying to narrow the scope of search
for individuals who, based on other information available to
the financial institution, may have been guilty of illegal
behavior.
Mr. STEUBE. Without a warrant.
Mr. Chairman, I ask that the letter from Chairman Jordan to
Secretary Yellen dated April 24 is added to the record.
Chairman SMITH. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman SMITH. Mrs. Fischbach.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you,
Secretary, for being here today.
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, passed by President Trump,
provided tax relief to millions of middle-class Americans and
their families. The doubling of the standard deduction, the
doubling of the Child Tax Credit, and the adjusting of
individual tax rates saved working-class people significant
money on their tax bills.
President Biden's comments have already been mentioned
several times today, and he told the American people flat out
that he intends to let the Trump tax cuts expire and remain
expired. You have repeatedly said today that the President has
no tax plan, only principles from which he will negotiate. Let
me just say that allowing the Trump tax cuts to expire on
middle-income Americans seems like a misguided principle to me.
So let me ask you this, Madam Secretary. If the Trump tax
cuts expire, and President Biden fails to pass his tax plan,
which actually currently doesn't exist, which Americans will
pay less in taxes?
Secretary YELLEN. President Biden has made absolutely clear
that he opposes increasing taxes on people earning less than
$400,000, and he supports cutting taxes for working people and
families with children to give them more breathing room. And--
--
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Reclaiming my time----
Secretary YELLEN [continuing]. He will work with Congress
to try to achieve that.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Ma'am, reclaiming my time, thank you, isn't
it true that nearly all middle-income individuals and families
would pay more with the expiration of the Trump tax cuts?
Secretary YELLEN. Some individuals would, but President
Biden has said he would oppose allowing tax cuts to expire for
people making under $400,000.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. But my understanding, though, is that he
doesn't really have a tax plan, he just has ideas. And so how
are you going to translate that into----
Secretary YELLEN. There will be a negotiation over what to
do when these tax cuts expire. And the President, as he does in
many other situations, will negotiate with Congress.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. But I think that, if you let these expire,
you are going to see increases, you are going to see increases.
And without an alternative, I mean, we just--right now what you
are saying is there is just an idea out there.
Secretary YELLEN. There are principles.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Right now there are principles, okay,
principles. Same thing. There is no real plan. And you are
going to let these--he is going to let these tax cuts that--
people are recognizing that there are--they are seeing right
now expire with just principles that are----
Secretary YELLEN. There will be a negotiation.
Mrs. FISCHBACH [continuing]. Hanging out there.
Secretary YELLEN. And in that negotiation he will oppose
any tax increases on families earning under $400,000 at the
same time that he will oppose keeping in place benefits that
went to the wealthy.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. And maybe you addressed this earlier, but
is he going to tell us what these principles are? Is he going
to give us some concrete----
Secretary YELLEN. He has told you what the principles are.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Okay, all right.
Secretary YELLEN. I am telling you what the principles are.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Well, then, there is just not--I mean, we
are supposed to rely on these ideas, principles, whatever you
want to call them, when we have solid tax cuts right here, and
they shouldn't be allowed to expire because just, you know, a
single parent making $52,000 a year with two kids would pay an
average of $1,474 more in taxes if these expire. A married
couple with two kids making $85,000 a year would pay an average
of $1,661 more in taxes if these expire. A retired married
couple making $48,000 a year would pay an average of $340 more
in taxes if these expire.
That is real dollars to these people and--you know, that
are paying these taxes, and are recognizing and are seeing
these breaks under the Trump tax cuts. And so to just say that
they--you are going to--for the President just to say he is
going to let them expire doesn't seem very responsible because
these are real people that are paying these--that would pay
more taxes. And so I guess we just are supposed to rely on the
principles and the idea that he will come up with something
through negotiation to help these people.
So with that I yield back.
Chairman SMITH. Mr. Schneider.
Mr. SCHNEIDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And Madam Secretary, thank you for being here. As others
have said, thank you for your work on behalf of our country and
the American people. I am just briefly going to pick up on some
of the things we have been hearing.
But, you know, when we talk about--and you mentioned we
laid out principles, and I think the principles have been very
clear. What Democrats are trying to do is try to bring down
costs for working families to help them make ends meet.
In the American----
Secretary YELLEN. Exactly.
Mr. SCHNEIDER. In the American Rescue Plan, we cut child
poverty in this country by 50 percent through the child tax
cut. And I think next year, given the chance, we are going to
do that and not just try to cut it by 50 percent, but in the
wealthiest country in the world no child in this country should
be living in poverty. And we shouldn't be willing to accept
that.
We are investing in housing. The Low-Income Housing Tax
Credit that addresses a critical need for families and workers
around this country to have access to quality housing.
And R&D, we grow our economy by investing in innovation,
and these are things that the 2017 tax law didn't do. So I
could spend my whole five minutes on that. I don't want to
spend my time, I really want to hear more from you.
But one of the things that we did with the Inflation
Reduction Act, among many great accomplishments, was we made
the single largest investment in climate change. It was truly
remarkable. And part of that was a tax credit for Sustainable
Aviation Fuel that I was proud to lead on. And I am working to
make sure that we implement that and extend that for the
future.
So at the risk of asking a question you may not be able to
answer, but can you give us any sense of the criteria or
objectives that Treasury is using in thinking about how to
issue the rule for Sustainable Aviation Fuel, and any update on
forthcoming guidance that we might be expecting?
Secretary YELLEN. Absolutely. First of all, I want to thank
you so much for your leadership on the SAF credit, and I want
to tell you that today is the day that--we are releasing a
notice today that will catalyze innovation in the aviation
industry and incentivize the production of cleaner and more
sustainable aviation fuels. And I think it will make the United
States a leader in decarbonizing aviation. So we are announcing
the release today of a notice that will provide clarity around
eligibility for the SAF credit.
And at the same time we will also be releasing an updated
model of the GREET model, which is applicable--will enable
firms to determine exactly the credit that they are eligible
for under the SAF. I think it will provide the clarity that
people have been looking for, and this should occur this
afternoon sometime.
Mr. SCHNEIDER. Great. Well, thank you. I am so excited to
hear that not only is it forthcoming, but it is coming today. I
know that is critically important.
Aviation accounts for more than two percent of greenhouse
gas emissions. Through Sustainable Aviation Fuel we have the
possibility of doing more than a 50 percent reduction and maybe
getting it down further from that. So I can't emphasize how
important this is.
I also know that you have a hard out, so I am going to
yield back the balance of my time so that more of my colleagues
will have a chance to ask questions. But I thank you for your
time.
Secretary YELLEN. Thank you, Congressman.
Chairman SMITH. Mr. Moore.
Mr. MOORE of Utah. Thank you, Chairman.
Secretary Yellen, thank you for being here. I remember our
visit last time. I appreciate these days. I know they are long
days for you, with a lot of questions coming from multiple
directions, but this one of the more important hearings that we
will do all year.
So this is going to sound like a gotcha question to start
off with. It is not. I want to expound on it and have a really
thoughtful discussion on the corporate tax rate, because it is
based on our conversation last time and a continuation of that.
But would you agree, can we at least say that we agree that tax
policy does have an impact on our economy?
Secretary YELLEN. It can, yes.
Mr. MOORE of Utah. Tax policy does have an impact. So this
is the part that is frustrating me as I hear from my Democratic
colleagues today about, you know, A, we have got such a great
economy today, and we have had such a great, strong recovery,
and all this kind of--the bare bones of our economy are still
in place from the 2017 Tax Cut and Jobs Act. We saw strong
economic growth. We saw real wage growth come from the 2017 Tax
Cut and Jobs Act. And I can speak so favorably about it, I
wasn't even in Congress then so I am not even boasting about
this.
As I watched COVID hit and throw everything off in the
world, and then, when Democratic control took over in 2021,
there was massive spending but the same tax code, the same tax
rate still existed. Some things were starting to trail off. I
hope to be able to reestablish the R&D tax credits, as well as
everybody on this committee, basically. But we have seen a
strong economic recovery. Unemployment is low, and I can
absolutely point that to the fact that we have had a
consistent, simpler tax code that strengthened middle class and
lower-income Americans since 2017.
The part that concerns me is a book that I recently read.
It is called, ``Never Split the Difference.'' The tax rate was
35 percent. In 2017 we lowered it to 21. And now President
Biden just wants to do 28. It almost feels like lazy to me that
we are just going to say, well, okay--because you admitted last
time you were here when we were having our conversation, ``I do
believe it was too high, and now I believe it is too low, so we
are just going to split the difference.''
But the part that I want to hit on here is, according to
the Tax Foundation, the top combined marginal rate on corporate
income under current law is actually 25.6 percent. And the
President's proposal would increase that to 32.2, a corporate
tax rate that would be the second highest in the OECD, behind
Colombia. The Joint Committee on Tax has shown that most of the
cost of a 28 percent corporate tax rate would be borne by
Americans making less than $500,000.
What specific analysis can you point to demonstrating that
raising the corporate tax rate won't impose burdens on low- and
middle-income Americans?
Secretary YELLEN. Well, I think all of the analysis I am
familiar with shows that TCJA, including the corporate tax cut,
was a regressive tax cut that disproportionately benefitted the
wealthy and the large corporations, and the corporate tax cut
enriched corporate shareholders at the expense of the
alternative, which would have been benefits to middle-class
families.
Mr. MOORE of Utah. So if I could jump in----
Secretary YELLEN. It promised an investment boom, and that
certainly never materialized.
You said that the economy did well, but I don't believe it
did well because of that piece of legislation.
Mr. MOORE of Utah. Okay, thank you.
Secretary YELLEN. It simply busted the deficit----
Mr. MOORE of Utah. And I will reclaim my time, because I
don't believe you can argue. And if you want to come to Utah's
1st district, you can hear from companies in that district
where their real wage income grew for their frontline
employees. This wasn't just for all of the shareholders like it
is often times communicated.
We will see that, as we just try to split the difference on
this tax policy, that that cost will go directly to the
consumer. Take a----
Secretary YELLEN. Well, there is----
Mr. MOORE of Utah [continuing]. Retail company or a Home
Depot or a Lowe's. If we put that extra tax burden on them,
there is only one place to put it. They still have to pay their
employees. They are going to have to raise income--they are
going to have to raise prices on consumers. And I don't know of
any analysis that would refute that.
Secretary YELLEN. Well, there is an interesting recent
paper that shows that there were some benefits that went to
wage earners from the corporate tax cut, but it was almost
exclusively to the highest-income earners within corporations,
that virtually none of it went to the massive workers at these
firms.
Mr. MOORE of Utah. And that hasn't been my experience
talking to actual companies in my actual district. I know it is
considered a strong talking point from my colleagues on the
left, but that hasn't been the experience. Companies had extra
income that they could reinvest in their companies, they would
keep it onshore.
And this is the part that I just dig into that frustrates
me so bad. And I am already over time, and I appreciate the
conversation. And I believe next time we will continue to talk
about the corporate tax rate.
Secretary YELLEN. Thank you.
Chairman SMITH. Mrs. Steel.
Mrs. STEEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to highlight
the provision from TCJA that has been bipartisan: support
Foreign Derived Intangible Income deduction, or FDII,
incentives for companies to keep intellectual properties here
in the United States. This allows companies to invent and make
new creative works here, including my home state of California.
We are also competing with countries who provide massive
tax incentives to attract innovative companies, and FDII
ensures that United States remain the best place to develop
global solutions and technologies for the future, and we must
protect this provision created in TCJA. This is the reason why
I am introducing Growing and Preserving Innovation in America
Act. This bipartisan legislation will permanently preserve the
current FDII deduction rate.
Secretary Yellen, you have been here for such a long time,
and I really appreciate it. And I just want to do the follow-up
question that Congressman Wenstrup asked you about China and
the OECD, that under TCJA that U.S. corporate tax lowered to 21
percent. And China is 25, but there are actually certain
companies up to 15 percent. So they are--kind of like corporate
tax rate is low.
If the United States raises corporate tax rate to 28
percent, and we adopt a new global minimum tax rate, the U.S.
will forfeit tens of billions of dollars that we have been
talking about. That Pillar One, we are going to lose about $120
billion. And Pillar Two, about $40 billion. And, you know, we
did the CODEL trip to France and Germany. The French government
didn't even want to meet us because they are gaining about $4
to $5 billion from Pillar One and Pillar Two. So this will hurt
the U.S. economy, I believe.
And the plan being discussed fails to hold China
accountable. I am on Select Committee on China, so we have been
really watching it, you know, what is going on with China. So
if I heard right that you assumed earlier that China will join
the OECD agreement, what assurances do you have that they would
truly comply with the rules, and not continue to abusing the
system like they have done so many times on the international
level?
And why should we give the CCP economic advantages on the
back of American taxpayers?
Secretary YELLEN. Okay, well, you covered a lot of
different things, but let me respond on China and Pillar Two.
You know, this is an agreement that contains an enforcement
mechanism. That is one of the reasons it is so powerful. If a
country doesn't go along with it, doesn't raise their minimum
tax rate on their multi-nationals to the agreed-upon level,
other countries that have complied and put it into effect can
tax firms based in countries that are not going along with it.
That applies to China.
If China doesn't raise taxes on its multi-nationals and
they operate in the United States, the U.S. will impose taxes
by--it is called the Undertaxed Payment Rule. We will impose
taxes on those Chinese corporations and we will collect the tax
revenue. And we will make sure that those companies do pay a 15
percent minimum tax so that they don't have unfair competition
with our companies.
Now, if China imposes the tax, they can collect the tax
revenue. But if they won't do it, we are going to collect the
tax revenue and we are going to tax the Chinese firms. And this
works to our advantage, not to China's.
Mrs. STEEL. I am not really sure that--you know, China has
been always, like, you know, for them, that stealing is much
cheaper than, you know, researching, and it just takes longer
time. It is much faster. So I don't know they can really follow
the rules and then they are going to raise taxes to comply with
the, you know, global minimum tax.
So having said that, I want to go to my question that
another expiring provision in the TCJA is enhanced standard
deduction. This is a guaranteed tax deduction for hard-working
Americans who want to file simple tax returns. And you are
talking about actually simple tax returns and about 140,000
people filed it because the IRS's system that has been changed.
If this provision expires, taxes will go up on hard-working
families.
Do you support the increased standard deduction created by
TCJA, and support keeping these individual tax cuts for hard-
working Americans making less than $400,000 who do not want to
maneuver a more complex tax system that exists----
Mr. HERN [presiding]. The gentlelady's time is expired.
Secretary YELLEN. The President supports no tax increases
on families making under $400,000.
Mrs. STEEL. I'll just make just one statement, because most
of new audits from IRS are targeted more on taxpayers making
under just $200,000, so that $400,000 are kind of like assumed
numbers.
But you know what? Having said that, I have a few
questions, and I am going to submit them in writing.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. HERN. Thank you. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr.
Evans, is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. EVANS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. HERN. Will the gentleman suspend?
We have about 28 minutes left of your time, Madam
Secretary, so we are going to try to keep it on time going
forward here. And I would appreciate all of the members to
respect that time. Thank you.
Secretary YELLEN. I don't have----
Mr. HERN. Go ahead, Mr. Evans.
Mr. EVANS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary YELLEN. I have to leave at 2:15.
Mr. HERN. Two-fifteen? We had better talk fast, then.
[Laughter.]
Mr. EVANS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I thank you, Madam Secretary, for being here today. I
wanted to thank you for--I wanted to talk about Social
Security, one of the most foundational anti-poverty programs
that our country has ever created. Something I want to stress,
that it is an earned benefit.
So the question I want to ask, Madam Secretary, the House
Republican Study Committee proposed Social Security budget
would cut Social Security by $1.5 trillion over the next
decade. Can you please describe how this plan would impact the
recipients for whom Social Security makes up either the
majority or the entirety of their income for retired years?
Secretary YELLEN. Well, Social Security is a critical
program that keeps millions, tens of millions of people who are
retired or seniors out of poverty. And President Biden has made
it clear he would never support cuts in benefits to those
individuals.
Mr. EVANS. So what exactly in your mind that you think this
House Republican Study Committee is attempting or suggesting?
Do you have any idea what you think they are trying to suggest?
Secretary YELLEN. I am not sure exactly what they are
suggesting, but they may be suggesting benefit cuts, raising
the retirement age. I am not sure what is in their list of
suggestions.
Mr. EVANS. That is basically what I want to get an
understanding. If you don't have any idea, we don't have any
idea. So I want to be very clear.
We thank you for all that you have done, and we thank for
the service that you have done. We really appreciate and value
that. Thank you.
Secretary YELLEN. Thank----
Mr. EVANS. I yield back to the chairman.
Secretary YELLEN. Thank you, Congressman.
Mr. HERN. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
By the way, I chair that committee. So if you need the help
on what that policy is doing, I would love to sit down and chat
with you.
With that I recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr.
Fitzpatrick.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. Thank you.
Thank you, Secretary Yellen. Thank you for testifying here
today on the President's budget for fiscal year 2025. Secretary
Yellen, in the current budget plan outlined by this
Administration it assumes that the tax cut and jobs provisions
will expire at the end of 2025. And under that plan the Child
Tax Credit and the standard deduction both would be cut in
half.
So my first question, Secretary Yellen, could you walk me
through this decision by the Administration, and how you plan
to protect the economic security of Americans who qualify, as
it is, Americans on the lower end of the economic scale that
benefit the most from these two provisions?
Secretary YELLEN. Well, the President's budget is built on
a baseline that assumes, as is in current law, that features of
TCJA expire. And he makes a number of proposals, but he hasn't
offered a detailed plan for how he would meet his pledge to
make sure that none--no family earning under $400,000 would see
an increase of their taxes when that occurs.
He has articulated principles that he would take into a
negotiation. He has made clear he stands ready to work with
Congress, and what the principles would be, that no family
making under $400,000 should see an increase in their taxes.
Because that is costly to implement relative to his budget, he
will work with Congress to agree on a set of raisers that would
cover the cost of that.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. So turning to free trade agreements, this
Administration has been interpreting the term ``free trade
agreements'' so broadly that they have expanded it to include
critical mineral agreements. Specifically, we saw the USTR
brokered a CMA with Japan without any congressional approval
for such a deal.
So my next question, Secretary Yellen, is why did the
Administration proceed in brokering this agreement without any
input from Congress, which it is required to do?
And what plans are there in the future, as far as you are
concerned, that the Administration intends to take to ensure
that Congress is notified of any FTA between the U.S. and any
other country?
Secretary YELLEN. Well, certainly, the Administration
agrees that Congress has an important role here.
I think our objectives align in that our objective is to
reduce our dependence on China and other foreign countries of
concern, and to have more resilient supply chains by producing
more at home and importing more from our partners and friends.
And in that regard, especially when it comes to critical
minerals that we are short of or lack, we are looking to expand
sources of supply among our friends.
We have consulted closely with Congress over the last year-
and-a-half, with leaderships and staff members of this
committee on these matters. We want to be sure that we are
working with you and that our incentives are in alignment.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. And lastly, Madam Secretary, I need to
address China. I know it has been a topic of robust discussion
today.
China currently controls up to 50 percent of the electric
vehicle battery supply chain. Troubling, to say the least. Your
Treasury Department put out a rule this past December that
defined battery component in a way that effectively favors
Chinese manufacturers. Specifically, under this rule a foreign
entity of concern can produce all materials and parts of the
battery component, and the electric vehicle can still remain
eligible for a tax subsidy. I know this was raised earlier.
So Madam Secretary, just lastly, can you please speak as to
why the Treasury decided to define battery components this way?
And can you explain what your Department is doing to help
U.S. manufacturers and not Chinese manufacturers?
Secretary YELLEN. I mean, I would be glad to get back to
you and try to understand better what you are focusing on here,
but the FIAC rules are very strong, and indicate that battery
components starting this year made by a foreign entity of
concern can't be included in any car that receives the $7,500
credit. Next year that expands to critical minerals and their
processing.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. I have a follow-up with you, Madam
Secretary. We will do that, but my time has expired.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. HERN. I thank the gentleman. The gentlelady from Texas,
Ms. Van Duyne.
Ms. VAN DUYNE. Thank you very much.
Secretary Yellen, earlier today you committed to closing
the carried interest loophole. Unfortunately, this has become a
popular punch line that is just not true.
For a lot of new and emerging entrepreneurs across the
country who don't come from Wall Street or wealthy backgrounds,
carried interest is the sweat equity that they have put into
their business. It is the work that they have put into growing
their business. And I look forward to working with my tax team
colleagues to better educate Members of Congress on the
opportunity that carried interest provides, and the
longstanding tax policy principles that it is based on.
Last year you testified and said, ``Progress has been made
on inflation, but there is still work to be done.''
Unfortunately, not much has changed in the last year. Inflation
hasn't gotten any better. Energy prices haven't gotten any
better. And we continue to see housing prices at record highs.
Under this Administration prices have increased nearly 20
percent and real wages have fallen by nearly four percent. That
affects people who are making less than $400,000. And yet the
President's budget put out earlier this year continued growth
policies that exacerbate this problem.
In your testimony you claim the Administration is taking
actions to bring down the cost of key household expenses like
energy. But that is not true. The Biden Administration's desire
to harm American energy continually through tax increases on
domestic energy production is the weaponization of the tax code
against all Americans, including those making less than
$400,000.
During your Senate Finance hearing, you said traditional
energy companies have had significant tax benefits that tilted
the scales. In the Treasury Green Book, the Administration's
tax proposal says, ``These traditional oil, gas, and coal
preferences encourage more investment in the fossil fuels
section that would occur in a neutral system, and this market
distortion is detrimental to long-term energy security.''
Do you really believe that oil and natural gas production
is detrimental to the long-term energy security?
Secretary YELLEN. Well, to give preferences right now, when
we understand the----
Ms. VAN DUYNE. Aren't you doing that with green new policy
deals, giving preferences, picking winners and losers?
Secretary YELLEN. Well, we pick winners and losers, but
they have to be ones that are positive for what is an
existential threat, which is climate change.
Ms. VAN DUYNE. Okay. So you believe, then, that oil and gas
natural production is an existential threat, and that that is
somehow better to cut all of that production for our----
Secretary YELLEN. No----
Ms. VAN DUYNE [continuing]. Long-term energy security?
Secretary YELLEN. No one is saying to cut all that
production.
Ms. VAN DUYNE. So some is----
Secretary YELLEN. There is no--we will be dependent on this
for----
Ms. VAN DUYNE. I reclaim my time. This Administration's
goal----
Secretary YELLEN [continuing]. A long time, but there is no
reason----
Ms. VAN DUYNE [continuing]. To shut down--the
Administration's goal to shut down energy companies and change
the rules to basically make it impossible to operate
profitably.
Secretary YELLEN. It is not--that is not the
Administration's objective, but there is no reason why we
should be giving tax preferences----
Ms. VAN DUYNE. But is tilting the scales toward green
energy worth the security risk by buying oil from adversaries
such as Venezuela?
Secretary YELLEN. We are promoting clean energy and
renewables----
Ms. VAN DUYNE. We are buying it from countries----
Secretary YELLEN [continuing]. In order to----
Ms. VAN DUYNE. We are buying it from countries that produce
it in a much dirtier manner than any place in the U.S. And that
is----
Secretary YELLEN. We are going to switch to renewables.
Ms. VAN DUYNE [continuing]. What your policies are forcing
us to do right now.
Earlier you talked about the corporate rate in the U.S., as
my colleague, Congressman Moore, has alluded to, the U.S. has
been at a ``race to the bottom.'' Did the Tax Cut and Jobs Act
lower the corporate rate to the lowest in the OECD?
Secretary YELLEN. It is among the lower in the OECD.
Ms. VAN DUYNE. I fail to see how this is the bottom, then.
I mean, under the President's budget, according to the Tax
Foundation, the U.S. would have the second--not the lower to
the bottom, but would have the second--highest corporate rate
in the world. Is this something that the Treasury is proud of?
Secretary YELLEN. Over decades, corporate tax rates have
declined----
Ms. VAN DUYNE. It would be the second-highest----
Secretary YELLEN [continuing]. Around the world.
Ms. VAN DUYNE [continuing]. Corporate rate in the world.
Secretary YELLEN. I don't believe that 21 percent is the
second-highest----
Ms. VAN DUYNE. I have other questions, but I also want to--
--
Secretary YELLEN [continuing]. In the world. That is
certainly not----
Ms. VAN DUYNE [continuing]. Make sure that some of my other
colleagues have an ability to ask them.
With my one minute left, I yield.
Mr. HERN. Madam Secretary, I know we are close to your
time, but I would ask for your indulgence to our Democrat on
this side over here, Mr. Beyer from Virginia.
Mr. Gomez, okay, from California.
Mr. GOMEZ. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Beyer and I
will be splitting this five minutes, so I will be quick. We
took care of Jimmy Panetta so he couldn't get back in time, so
we get the last five.
One of the things is--first, let me just say I recognize
that the President's budget proposal for fiscal year 2025
invests in working and middle-class families by making child
care and housing more affordable. And these are two issues that
I don't think we give a lot of attention to.
Last year, during a retreat with the Ways and Means
Democrats, Jack Lew came by and said there is two issues that
in the near and long term will be dragging down the growth of
our GDP: child care and housing. And it makes sense when you
see almost those 2 issues combined eat up about 60 percent of a
family's income, pre-tax.
So one of the things we are trying to do through two
caucuses I started was--the Congressional Dads Caucus--is child
care, the Child Tax Credit. How do we focus on that? And then,
at the same time, when it comes to more housing affordability.
So I am going to kind of go out of order since we have limited
time on my questions.
But Secretary Yellen, can you detail actions the
Administration is taking to provide desperately needed relief
for America's renters?
Secretary YELLEN. We are really looking to expand through
any number of tax proposals and through expanding LIHTC, the
supply of affordable housing. It is a critical problem facing
America.
Mr. GOMEZ. And one of the things that we see in my
district, 78 percent of my district is renters. We know that
this is getting worse. And also, even on the other side of the
aisle, I have conversations with a representative from
Nebraska, and I asked him, what is the number one issue facing
your district? And he said housing affordability. So I think it
is an issue that we need to tackle.
Additionally, we know the Child Tax Credit had such an
impact when it came to reducing child poverty in this country
by making it fully refundable but also advanceable. I believe
that advance ability is not given a lot of attention that it
should get and should receive because, as a working-class
person, $200, $300, $500 a month means that you can use that
for formula, diapers, all those monthly expenses.
Would you agree that paying the CTC on a monthly basis,
which I know that we can do, rather than yearly, would help
maximize the CTC's power to help working families?
Secretary YELLEN. Yes, it would. I think it was very
important, and the Internal Revenue Service worked very hard to
make sure they implemented that right away. It was in the
middle of the pandemic, and it required an heroic effort, but
it made a big difference and we are very supportive of it.
Mr. GOMEZ. Thank you. And with that I will yield the rest
of my time to Mr. Beyer.
Mr. BEYER. Thank you, Mr. Gomez.
Madam Secretary, I greatly appreciated seeing your proposal
for a minimum income tax of 25 percent on the ultra-wealthy. I
was proud to work with Steve Cohen to turn this into
legislation. Many cosponsors.
It is ridiculous that the wealthiest 0.001 percent of
Americans, on average, pay effective rates in the single
digits. Many of them pay nothing. Can you talk to us about how
that minimum tax would work?
Secretary YELLEN. Yes. The President's budget would impose
a minimum tax of 25 percent on total income, and income would
include unrealized capital gains. It would only apply to
taxpayers with more than $100 million in wealth, and it would
not require, for those taxpayers who have highly illiquid
assets, they could defer payment of it. Others could pay in
installments so that it wouldn't be a huge hit in the first
year.
But right now, many wealthy people really never pay taxes
on that during their lifetime. They borrow against it, live
very well, and often can pass it on with step up of basis at
death so that no one ever pays taxes on that, on those gains.
Mr. BEYER. Thank you very much. One last question in 25
seconds. Are you thrilled with Direct Files so far?
Secretary YELLEN. It is going great. It has gone really
well. We are going to provide a thorough assessment, but all
the anecdotal evidence we hear, people have really appreciated
it, found it easy to use. It saved them, on average, $270 and
something like 12 hours of work to file their taxes. And it is
a great option.
Mr. BEYER. Thank you very much.
And I yield back.
Mr. HERN. Thank you.
Madam Secretary, this is your option. We have one member
left. He can submit his questions, and he will give you those
questions, or he can go now and----
Secretary YELLEN. Go for it. Go for it.
Mr. HERN. Thank you for your indulgence.
Secretary YELLEN. Last one.
Mr. FEENSTRA. Thank you, Secretary Yellen. I truly
appreciate you being here and at least giving me some grace and
giving me some time. Thank you very much.
So last week I sent you a letter on the decision by USTR to
reverse digital trade policy at the WTO, which I would like to
submit for the record. With the decision, the USTR determined
that it will no longer defend against foreign governments'
demands for American businesses to locate facilities,
equipment, employees, and intellectual properties in those
countries.
In the Pillar One negotiations, market countries have
sought taxing rights over companies selling into them, but
those taxing rights are allocated on paper only, as we know.
The local data storage requirements that would proliferate
around the world do the opposite, reallocating taxing rights
not on paper, but instead reallocating real economic assets
that create a taxable presence in those countries.
So in this year's Green Book, the President notes the
concern of undesired incentives to locate certain economic
activities abroad. But if local data storage requirements are
allowed to proliferate, U.S. businesses will face not only an
incentive to invest abroad, but will require to do so. This
newly allowed method of discriminatory targeting of the U.S.
companies for tax revenue is going to cost us, obviously, jobs
and investment and IP transfers.
So my question is, Secretary Yellen, did the Department of
Treasury consult with USTR on the likely tax and economic
impacts of this decision?
I mean, did you guys work together? Did you talk about it
at all?
Secretary YELLEN. Well, this was really USTR's decision,
and I honestly have to defer to USTR when it comes to
Ambassador Tai's position that she has taken on the--you are
talking about the WTO situation with digital trade.
When it comes to Pillar One, we have had interagency
coordination, and our position on this really remains
completely unchanged. We are trying as hard as we can to get
rid of digital service taxes that we regard as discriminatory
against U.S. firms.
Mr. FEENSTRA. And thank you for that. But you know it very
well. If you look at it, I mean, obviously, our multi-nationals
will have to build infrastructure, and that, obviously, will
costs these companies jobs, and costs taxes that could be paid
here.
I mean, how do we square that up?
Secretary YELLEN. You mean because of the WTO position?
Mr. FEENSTRA. Yes.
Secretary YELLEN. I am sorry. You know, I really just
can't--I haven't been involved in that at all. We have
generally opposed data localization requirements, and I don't
think that has really changed significantly. But I honestly
have to defer to USTR on that issue.
Mr. FEENSTRA. Okay, and I appreciate that. I mean, it just
seems like everybody is at odds here. The USTR is at odds with
the Treasury. I mean, I just--and the WTO, I mean, I don't
quite--I think we are going in two opposite directions.
And I think the thing that we don't want is where our
multi-nationals are paying taxes to other countries, and other
countries are using us for a piggy bank. And I just feel like
we are swaying that direction. Do you see that at all? I mean--
--
Secretary YELLEN. Well, we are really trying to oppose that
in the Pillar One negotiations. We are trying to get rid of
digital service taxes that are being imposed on our firms.
Mr. FEENSTRA. Well, I would really appreciate that. I mean,
but continue to look at that. Please do a deep dive into this,
because what is going to happen is we are going to lose a lot
of dollars when these infrastructures get moved to other
countries, and losing jobs and IP transfers. So if you could.
With that I will close down my comments. Thank you for
being here.
Mr. HERN. Madam Secretary, we would not want you to leave
here without getting high praise and accolades from the
gentleman from California, because I am sure that is what he
wants to heap upon you on your way out.
So Mr. Panetta, you are recognized.
Mr. PANETTA. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Secretary, I will be quick. I will focus on just one
issue, and it is one that is important to me and my
constituents in the 19th Congressional District, and that is
housing costs.
As you know, researchers have found that high housing costs
can strain a local economy by slowing employment growth. If
housing is unaffordable, local companies can struggle to
attract and recruit workers. I have long advocated, especially
on this committee, for building of more workforce housing, for
making sure that there is a first-time home buyer's tax credit,
for doubling the capital gains tax on home sales. We want to
make sure that there is these types of tax credits to bolster
housing.
Can you explain how investment in housing, like the areas
that I have talked about, can support the economy?
And would the Department of Treasury support these types of
investments, especially in workforce housing?
Secretary YELLEN. Well, we are very concerned about
shortage of affordable housing in places like California, but
also many parts of the country. The President is doing
everything he can to promote affordable housing. There are many
proposals in the Green Book, including expansion of LIHTC and
credit for first-time buyers and sellers of houses to get rid
of some of the lock-in that has occurred because of the
increase in mortgage rates.
Mr. PANETTA. And I agree with you on the LIHTC, and I am a
big supporter of LIHTC. However, what I found, especially in
the 19th Congressional District, you have a number of people
who work in our district, but they don't qualify for low-income
housing. That is why I believe workforce housing is very, very
important to ensure that people who work in the district can
afford to live in the district. And so I am hoping that
workforce housing is something that the Department of Treasury
would be interested in.
Secretary YELLEN. We would be glad to work with you on
that. We are trying to do everything we can in this area.
Mr. PANETTA. And I will take that as a closing answer.
Thank you, Madam Secretary.
I yield back.
Secretary YELLEN. Thank you.
Mr. HERN. I thank the gentleman.
Madam Secretary, thank you for your time here before the
committee, and thank you for extending your time.
We stand adjourned, without objection.
Members will have two weeks to submit questions in writing.
Madam Secretary, thank you.
[Whereupon, at 2:27 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
MEMBER QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD
=======================================================================
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
=======================================================================
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]