Senate hearing (117th Congress), THE PRESIDENT'S FISCAL YEAR 2023 BUDGET PROPOSAL
Summary
Senate Hearing 117-235 records the March 30, 2022 hearing of the Committee on the Budget on the President's fiscal year 2023 budget proposal, with Chairman Bernard Sanders presiding, Ranking Member Lindsey O. Graham and OMB Director Shalanda D. Young as the witness. Sanders says the federal minimum wage has been stuck at $7.25 an hour for 13 years and that over 700 billionaires became nearly $2 trillion richer during the pandemic. Sanders says the President's budget proposes a 20 percent minimum tax on those worth at least $100 million. Senator Padilla closes by noting the party of each President from 1969 to 1989 after the earlier discussion of inflation and interest rates.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Cite this document
“Senate hearing (117th Congress), THE PRESIDENT'S FISCAL YEAR 2023 BUDGET PROPOSAL.”
Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/senate-hearing-117th-congress-the-president-s-fiscal-year-2023-budget-8553752ef7/
, SHA-256 f580fbb0c9e20c9dac99a1614d249c9b35aa0cbbca484faf903ec0c2976fbca5.Full text
[Senate Hearing 117-235]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 117-235
THE PRESIDENT'S FISCAL YEAR 2023
BUDGET PROPOSAL
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
March 30, 2022
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Budget
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
47-314 WASHINGTON : 2022
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont, Chairman
PATTY MURRAY, Washington LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
RON WYDEN, Oregon CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island PATRICK TOOMEY, Pennsylvania
MARK R. WARNER, Virginia RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon MIKE BRAUN, Indiana
TIM KAINE, Virginia RICK SCOTT, Florida
CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland BEN SASSE, Nebraska
BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico MITT ROMNEY, Utah
ALEX PADILLA, California JOHN KENNEDY, Louisiana
KEVIN J. CRAMER, North Dakota
Warren Gunnels, Majority Staff Director
Nick Myers, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30, 2022
Page
OPENING STATEMENTS BY COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Chairman Bernard Sanders......................................... 1
Ranking Member Lindsey O. Graham................................. 4
WITNESS
Statement of the Honorable Shalanda D. Young, Director, Office of
Management and Budget (OMB).................................... 6
Prepared Statement of............................................ 33
Questions and Answers (Post-Hearing) from:
Chairman Bernard Sanders................................. 79
Ranking Member Lindsay Graham............................ 41
Senator Mike Crapo....................................... 38
Senator Charles E. Grassley.............................. 61
Senator John Kennedy..................................... 66
Senator Ben Ray Lujan.................................... 74
Senator Alex Padilla..................................... 77
Senator Patrick Toomey................................... 87
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse............................... 89
THE PRESIDENT'S FISCAL YEAR 2023 BUDGET PROPOSAL
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30, 2022
U.S. Senate,
Committee on the Budget,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:00 a.m., via
Webex and in Room SD-608, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon.
Bernard Sanders, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Sanders, Murray, Stabenow, Whitehouse,
Warner, Merkley, Kaine, Van Hollen, Lujan, Padilla, Graham,
Grassley, Crapo, Toomey, Johnson, Braun, Scott, Romney, and
Kennedy.
Staff Present: Warren Gunnels, Majority Staff Director; and
Nick Myers, Republican Staff Director.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN SANDERS
Chairman Sanders. Okay. Let us get to business.
Let me thank everyone for being here this morning, and let
me thank Senator Graham for his efforts, and mostly let me
thank Shalanda Young, our new OMB director for being here and
congratulate her on her official appointment. You have been
doing the job for a year and now you got the title, right?
As we begin this hearing, let us be very, very clear. A
Federal budget is more than just a huge spreadsheet of numbers.
Federal budget speaks to who we are as a nation and where we
want to be in the future. It speaks to whether or not we can go
beyond the needs of the lobbyists, whether we can go beyond the
needs and the power of wealthy campaign contributors who have
so much influence over what goes on here in Capitol Hill, or
whether we can finally address the needs of the tens of
millions of working families, middle-income people, low-income
people, who are struggling every single day to take care of
their families. That is really what this whole debate is about.
Which side are we on?
So let me just take a moment to describe what I believe to
be some of the major crises in our country today and how the
President's budget responds to these crises.
Today, in our country, the very, very wealthiest people are
becoming phenomenally wealthier, while at the same time over
half of the people in this country are living paycheck to
paycheck. I know that is not a reality we talk about terribly
much, but in fact that is the simple truth. Millions of
American workers are trying to get by on $8 an hour, $9 an
hour, $12 an hour, all of which, to my mind, are starvation
wages. Nobody, no matter what state you are living in, can get
by on those wages.
In his State of the Union speech, President Biden called on
Congress to increase the Federal minimum wage to $15 an hour.
That is a step forward. We should go further. The Federal
minimum wage has been stuck at $7.25 an hour for 13 years--13
years--and if the minimum wage had increased at the rate of
productivity, since 1968, it would not be $7.25 an hour. It
would be $23 an hour. The time is now for Congress to raise the
minimum wage to a living wage.
Today, in America, we have more income and wealth
inequality than we have had in 100 years. I understand we do
not talk about it. I understand the corporate media does not
talk about it, but that is the reality. Today, in our country,
the two wealthiest people now own more wealth than the bottom
42 percent of our population, 130 million Americans--2 people,
130 million Americans. Does anybody think that is what America
is supposed to be about? I do not think so.
During this terrible pandemic, which within a few weeks
will have claimed 1 million American lives, when thousands of
essential workers died doing their jobs, over 700 billionaires
in America became nearly $2 trillion richer. And let me say
this. While we hear a whole lot of talk lately in terms of the
horrific war in Ukraine, about the need to take on the
oligarchs in Russia, something which I very strongly support,
anyone who thinks we do not have an oligarchy right here in
American is sorely mistaken.
Today, in America, multibillionaires like Elon Musk, Jeff
Bezos, Richard Branson, are off taking joyrides on their rocket
ships to outer space. They are buying $500 million superyachts.
We talk about the yachts that Putin's friends have. Well, guess
what? They have them too here, in this country, living in
mansions with 25 bathrooms.
In his budget, the President has proposed a 20 percent
minimum tax on those who are worth at least $100 million. This
is an important step forward, and I congratulate the President
for doing that. We should go further though.
In 2020, I introduced a 60 percent tax on the obscene
wealth gains billions made during the pandemic, legislation I
will soon be reintroducing and which is precisely what the
American people want. They understand. You do not have to be an
economist to understand this. They understand there is
something fundamentally wrong with so few have so much and so
many Americans have so little.
Now I understand that some of my colleagues get very
nervous when we talk about wealth distribution. Oh, my
goodness. Cannot talk about that. But here is the reality, and
that is that over the last 45 years in this country there has
been a massive--massive--redistribution of wealth. The problem
is it has gone in precisely the wrong direction.
According to the RAND Institute, not a particularly
progressive organization, since 1975, $50 trillion--that is a
T--$50 trillion in wealth has been redistributed from the
bottom 90 percent to the top 1 percent, primarily because
corporate profits and CEO compensation has grown much faster
than the wages of ordinary workers.
But it is not just income and wealth inequality that we
must address. It is economic and political power. As we
discussed in a hearing in this Committee last month, three--
one, two, three--Wall Street firms control over $21 trillion in
assets, which is basically the GDP of the United States of
America, the largest economy on Earth. Three companies control
hundreds and hundreds of companies, three Wall Street firms. If
that is not a problem, I do not know what a problem is.
In terms of health care, over 70 million Americans today
are either uninsured or underinsured. Sixty thousand people die
each and every year because they cannot get to a doctor on time
because they do not have insurance, do not have the money for
copayments or deductibles. We remain, my friends, the only
major country on Earth not to guarantee health care to all
people as a human right, and yet we pay the highest prices in
the world for health care.
In his budget, the President has proposed a substantial
increase in investments in mental health--enormously
important--pandemic preparedness--my God, I hope we can pass
that. We have to pass that--the Indian Health Service, and
research into finding a cure for cancer and other life
threatening diseases. All of those ideas are enormously
important. We have got to pass them. We have got to go further
than that.
An overwhelming number of Americans, the vast majority of
the population, want us to expand Medicare to cover dental,
hearing, and eyeglasses. In the richest country on Earth senior
citizens should not have teeth rotting in their mouths.
Further, as a nation we should understand what every other
major country does. Health care is a human right, not a
privilege. The function of a rational health care system is to
provide health care to all in a cost-effective way, not to
allow private insurance companies and private drug companies to
make obscene levels of profit. And I am happy to inform members
of this Committee that in early May we will be having a
hearing, right here, in this Committee, on the need to pass a
Medicare-for-all single payer program. According to the
Congressional Budget Office, Medicare-for-all--this is the
CBO--Medicare-for-all would save the American people and our
entire health care system $650 billion each and every year. So
I say to all my conservative friends, who are worried about the
expenditure of taxpayer money, work with us. Pass a Medicare-
for-all single payer program.
But health care reform must not only address the private
health insurance companies but the greed of the pharmaceutical
industry. Year after year, decade after decade, we are talking
about the outrageous costs of prescription drugs in this
country, the huge profits of the drug companies. The President
has proposed, and I agree, that Medicare must negotiate
prescription drug prices with the pharmaceutical industry,
which is exactly what the Veterans Administration has done for
30 years. If Medicare does that, we lower the cost of
prescription drugs by 50 percent. Not bad.
Do we have the courage to take on the hundreds of millions
of dollars in lobbyists, who are all over Capitol Hill telling
us that we have got to protect the profits of the industry, or
do we stand with the patients and the ordinary Americans who
are sick and tired of paying these outrageous prices?
And then there is the existential threat of climate change.
I do not know what to say about that. Scientists tell us we
have a handful of years to transform our energy system or we
are not going to have much of a planet to leave our children
and grandchildren. And I hope that we very much have the
capability of taking on the greed of the fossil fuel industry
and saving this planet for future generations.
Now I understand that my Republican colleagues want to
blame inflation on President Biden and the enormously
successful American Rescue Plan, but let us be clear. The
problem is not that a low-income worker got a 50-cent raise
last week and a $1,400 check from the Federal Government over a
year ago. That is not the problem. To a significant degree,
pathetically, large corporations are using the war in Ukraine
and the pandemic as an excuse to raise prices significantly, to
make record-breaking profits. This is taking place at the gas
pump, at the grocery store, and virtually every other sector of
the economy. That is why, in my view, we need a windfall
profits tax and why this Committee will be holding a hearing on
Tuesday of next week to deal with the unprecedented level of
corporate greed that is taking place in America today.
I think we can all agree that we are living through an
extremely difficult moment in American history. The question
before us is whether we will stand with the working families of
this country and protect their interests or whether we stand
with the big money interests, the large multinational
corporations and the wealthy campaign contributors who, decade
after decade, have enormous influence over both political
parties.
Now the President has done his job and submitted his budget
to us. It is up to Congress to review it, pass the proposals
that make sense, and improve upon them. As Chairman of the
Senate Budget Committee I will be doing everything I can to
pass a strong and robust budget reconciliation bill that works
for working families, not the 1 percent.
With that let me now recognize the Ranking Member of this
Committee, Lindsey Graham.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR GRAHAM
Senator Graham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and here is the
other view. The world is on fire, and if you do not believe me,
turn on your television, inflation is rampant, and we are more
dependent on bad actors for our energy needs than ever. This
budget takes all three problems and, I believe, makes it worse.
President Biden ran as a steady hand on national security.
How is that working out? He ran as a centrist, consensus-
building candidate. Unfortunately, I do not believe that has
materialized either, that not only his budget proposals but his
economic proposals on the domestic front would be the largest
power grab in modern American history.
The budget--more spending, more taxes, more debt, at a time
we need to go in the other direction. The budget regarding the
defense needs of this country is woefully inadequate and
dangerous. When you look at over the next decade of how much we
spend on defense, you have to ask yourself, I mean, the threats
we face, are they getting smaller or larger? Look at what is
going on in the world today. We have Putin dismembering a
democracy called Ukraine in front of us, committing war crimes
on industrial scale, and all of us, in a pretty bipartisan
fashion, have condemned him, and I appreciate that.
There is an effort ongoing to do a new Iranian nuclear
deal, giving the Ayatollah, who I think is a religious Nazi,
more cash and very little in return. You have China being a bad
actor all over Asia, threatening to invade Taiwan and rewriting
the world map. You have got Rocket Man in North Korea shooting
missiles into the sea by the day, and trying to get some
attention out there. And you have Chinese buildup of their
military.
You have the re-emergence of terrorism in Afghanistan, from
that debacle. ISIS and al-Qaeda now have a safe haven. And you
have got an invasion of illegal immigrants coming across our
border, and if you repeal Title 42 deportation authority
regarding COVID, then you will have just an absolutely
overwhelming wave of legal immigration this summer.
So those are the threats we face today, and I do not think
they are getting better any time soon.
In terms of spending, in the President's budget, non-
defense spending goes up 11.3 percent from 2022 to 2023.
Defense goes up 4 percent. Now given the threats we face, does
that make any sense? The answer is no.
Over a 5-year window here, non-defense spending goes up 4.5
percent and defense spending goes up 2.2 percent. I do not know
what my friends on the other side are looking at, but I do not
see the world getting safer any time soon, and we had one heck
of a fight to increase defense spending in the last omnibus
negotiations, and everything I see on the world stage is
deteriorating, and we need more defense spending, not less.
Percentage of GDP spent on defense. The Chairman said
something I agree with. Budgets reflect who you are and what
kind of country you want to have and what kind of world we are
in. So by 2032, we will be spending 2.4 percent of GDP on
defense. That will be a historic low. And again, as you look in
the out years in the next decade, with China developing
hypersonic weapons capability, aircraft carriers, Putin trying
to rewrite the map of the Earth, the Iranians trying to develop
ballistic missiles, North Korea being a bad actor, do you
really believe that we should have the lowest spending GDP-wise
on defense in the history of the country in the next decade? I
do not.
We are going to triple the amount of money we pay on
interest over the next decade, so $1.1 trillion by fiscal year
2032 will just cover the interest payments.
This budget also is about values. In this budget, we do
away with the Hyde protections. Most Americans oppose taxpayer-
funded money in the area of abortion. That has been the policy
of the country for decades. This budget eliminates that
restriction, so taxpayer dollars can be spent on abortion. I
think that is against the will of the American people.
So what have we laid out here? We have laid out a budget
that does not recognize the threats we face, today and in the
coming years, on defense, we have laid out a budget that is
going to explode the amount of interest we pay on the debt, and
we all should be working to go the other way. In this budget we
do away with tax advantages that oil and gas companies have to
explore for new oil and gas that we own. I find it odd that we
are asking the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries
(OPEC) nations to produce more, talking to Venezuela, and maybe
encouraging Iran to produce more oil and gas as we shut down
our ability in this country to produce oil and gas. Count me in
on the climate change front, but count me out when it comes to
making our nation more dependent on foreign oil and gas. That
is just a reality we face.
So, Mr. Chairman, I think what we have here is a different
view of the world in which we live, the priorities we should
have in terms of how to defend the nation, and this effort to
make us more energy-dependent is going to, I think, make the
world a more dangerous place. As we are trying to get off oil
and gas supplied by Russia and Iran and other bad actors, we
are shutting down American production. Inflation is rampant. If
this budget ever became law what you are paying at the gas pump
would go up dramatically because our ability to produce oil and
gas here at home would be virtually non-existent if this budget
became law. If we spend all this money, particularly on the
domestic side, the inflationary problems we have today only get
worse.
So with all due respect, I think everybody on this side of
the aisle will oppose this budget, and I would like to have an
actual vote on the budget. I would like to see how many of my
Democratic colleagues would vote for this budget.
So I welcome a debate on the floor, and a vote on this
budget as presented, and I hope we can agree on that, that this
is something that should be debated and voted on.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Sanders. Thank you, Senator Graham.
Our witness today is Shalanda Young. She was, as I think we
all know, confirmed several weeks ago in a strong bipartisan
vote to her position, and we welcome her for being with us
today. Thank you very much for being here.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SHALANDA D. YOUNG, DIRECTOR, OFFICE
OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
Ms. Young. Thank you. Chairman Sanders, Ranking Member
Graham, members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity
to testify today on President Biden's fiscal year 2023 budget.
Under the President's leadership, our country has made
historic progress in the face of unprecedented challenges. We
created more than 6.5 million jobs in 2021, the most our
country has ever recorded in a single year. Our economy grew at
5.7 percent, the strongest growth in nearly 40 years. The
unemployment rate has fallen to 3.8 percent, the fastest
decline in recorded history. And the deficit is on track to
drop $1.3 trillion, the largest ever one-year decline.
This progress was not by accident. It is a direct result of
this President's strategy to combat the pandemic and grow our
economy from the middle out and the bottom up. The President's
2023 budget details his vision to expand on that progress and
deliver the agenda he laid out in his State of the Union, to
build a better America, reduce the deficit, reduce costs for
families, and grow the economy from the bottom up and the
middle out.
Since taking office, the President has put forth proposals
to Congress that would lower health care, childcare, energy,
and other costs for families, reduce the deficit, and expand
our economy's productive capacity. The budget reflects his
commitment to working with Congress to pass legislation that
achieves those goals.
This budget advances a bipartisan unity agenda, including
proposals to combat the opioid epidemic, tackle the mental
health crisis, support our veterans, and accelerate progress
against cancer. I would like to point out that all of those
proposals are on the non-defense side of the ledger. It builds
on the bipartisan funding bill Congress passed earlier this
month and makes key investments in the American people, from
expanding economic capacity and improving our public health
infrastructure to combating the climate crisis and advancing
equity, dignity, and security for all Americans.
And during what will be a decisive decade for the world,
the budget strengthens our military and leverages America's
renewed strength at home so our nation is prepared to meet
pressing global challenges and manage crises as they arise.
With robust investments in our diplomatic and development
agencies, the national security budget as a whole will deepen
partnerships and alliances and position the United States to
compete with China and any other nation from a position of
strength. As we have seen over the past month, our renewed
partnerships and alliances have been vital to countering
Russian aggression, and I would like to thank Congress for the
supplemental funding to support Ukraine and our regional
partners.
The budget makes these investments in a fiscally
responsible way, reducing deficits by more than $1 trillion and
improving our country's long-term fiscal outlook. That is
because the budget's investments are more than fully paid for
through tax reforms that ensure corporations and the wealthiest
Americans pay their fair share. That includes a new proposal
requiring the richest Americans to pay a tax rate of at least
20 percent on all of their income, including investment income
that currently goes untaxed. The budget also fulfills the
President's promise that no one earning less than $400,000 a
year will pay a single penny in new taxes, and it would reduce
deficits to less than half of last year's levels as a share of
the economy, while keeping the economic burden of debt low.
Overall, the budget puts forward an economically and
fiscally responsible path, addressing our nation's long-term
fiscal challenges while making smart investments that will
produce stronger growth and broadly shared prosperity for
generations to come.
Thank you for allowing me to testify and for the
opportunity to be here, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Young appears on page 33]
Chairman Sanders. Thank you very much, Madam Director.
I want to pick up on a point that you made regarding tax
policy. As I understand it, in 2020, 55 large, multinational
corporations paid nothing--zero, not a penny--in Federal income
taxes after making $40 billion in profits. The effective tax
rate of billionaires in America is now 8 percent, which is
lower than what a nurse, teacher, firefighter, or truck driver
pays.
What is the President trying to do in his budget to address
this outrageous inequity?
Ms. Young. So many of the people you just referred to--
nurses, teachers, firefighters--pay at least double of what the
effective tax rate is for billionaires and those that make more
than $100 million. So the President believes, very strongly,
that billionaires and those worth more than $100 million,
should pay what firefighters, teachers, and nurses pay as their
effective tax rate.
Chairman Sanders. During your presentation you mentioned
the issue of mental health. I think we have long had, in this
country, a mental health crisis, without enough practitioners.
Clearly, the pandemic has made a very bad situation worse.
Last year we lost some 100,000 Americans to drug overdoses.
What, in this budget, are you presenting to us that will deal
with the mental health crises facing America?
Ms. Young. Mr. Chairman, we certainly hope, as the
President mentioned in the State of the Union, this brings all
sides together. And the President believes that mental health,
for example, should be covered just like physical health. So
our proposal is that insurance companies have to cover mental
health services as they do any other ailment that Americans
suffer.
Chairman Sanders. Madam Director, the scientific community
is fairly clear. You know, we get distracted by the terrible
war, Putin's war in Ukraine. We get distracted by a lot of
things, but climate change is real, and what scientists tell
us, if we do not act extremely boldly in transforming our
energy system in the next few years the planet we leave future
generations becomes increasingly unhealthy and uninhabitable.
What does the President have in his budget to deal with
climate?
Ms. Young. Mr. Chairman, the President would invest over
$40 billion to deal with the climate crisis, as he has called
it. That includes our commitment to ensure that the poorest
countries in the world can also step up and meet these
challenges. This is a global problem, and if we do not deal
with this domestically and in an international fashion we will
not meet the goals necessary before we reach a point of no
return.
Chairman Sanders. The American people are disgusted by the
reality that we pay the highest prices in the world, by far,
for prescription drugs. What is the President proposing that we
do to lower the cost of prescription drugs in this country?
Ms. Young. So the President has been clear. He continues to
believe that Congress should send him a package, a legislative
package, that reduces the cost of prescription drugs, reduces
the cost of childcare for families, reduces health care costs,
and this budget leaves a revenue space in which to do that,
including the savings--we do not have to spend anything; we
actually save money--if we lower the cost of prescription
drugs.
Chairman Sanders. During the American Rescue Plan we did
something, I think, extraordinarily important, and that is
extended and expanded the child tax credit for working class
parents. That expired in January. The child poverty rate
skyrocketed by 41 percent, bringing us back to one of the
highest childhood poverty rates of any major country on Earth.
What is the President proposing we do to address child poverty
in America?
Ms. Young. You heard from the President in the State of the
Union. He continues to believe that the child tax credit should
be extended. You are absolutely right. It brought down the
poverty level substantially for children in this country. The
President, from his own lips, has recommitted to supporting
that effort.
Chairman Sanders. Director Young, thank you very much.
Senator Graham.
Senator Graham. Good morning, Ms. Young.
Ms. Young. Good morning.
Senator Graham. Would you support a vote on the Senate
floor regarding the President's budget?
Ms. Young. Thank you, Senator Graham. As a former long-time
staffer on the Hill I would not deign to tell the Senate how to
conduct its business.
Senator Graham. Okay. Well, I just would ask the Chairman,
let's have a debate on the budget and vote on it, and I think
that would be good for the country.
Are you in the chain of command or decision-making process
regarding changing Title 42 deportation policies?
Ms. Young. I certainly keep up with the policy discussion.
I also know, and know you know, that Title 42 has also been
brought up in the courts, so this might be decided by the
Judicial branch on how to deal with Title 42 at the border. But
I am a part of discussions because there are budgetary
consequences.
Senator Graham. Right. So let us set the courts aside for a
moment because we cannot deal with that.
Is there a movement in the Biden administration to change
Title 42 policies?
Ms. Young. Senator Graham, you know any decisions or
conversations with have with the President, I----
Senator Graham. Well, I mean, I read about it in the paper.
Ms. Young. Yeah. I will not discuss anything decisional we
talk to the President about. But what I will point to is in
this budget there is a 5 percent increase for the Department of
Homeland Security, including additional agents. Look, we have a
pattern of migration, and we are preparing to ramp up for a
traditional pattern of additional people coming across the
border.
Senator Graham. My question is, do you support eliminating
Title 42 deportation authority?
Ms. Young. I do not have a personal opinion. I believe,
from a resource position, of putting forth enough money to deal
with a historic pattern.
Senator Graham. Do you believe our border is more secure
today than it was two years ago?
Ms. Young. Senator, I strongly believe that we are putting
forward a proposal that does more than a physical
infrastructure. I believe there is bipartisan support for the
technology options we are putting forward, and we ask you to
take a close look at that.
Senator Graham. Do you believe things are going well here
at home and abroad?
Ms. Young. I believe I read out some statistics I will
revisit. The strongest economic----
Senator Graham. No, that is just, I mean----
Ms. Young [continuing]. Growth in 40 years last year.
Senator Graham. Yeah. I would just say, with all due
respect, things are not going well here at home and abroad, and
policies do matter. And I think the explosion you see at the
border is about to get worse if we repeal Title 42 authority.
On the defense side, do you think this is a dangerous
world, getting increasingly more dangerous?
Ms. Young. You and I talked about this, and it absolutely
is, and it has gotten worse with the Russian aggression since
we last talked.
Senator Graham. Yeah. So in this budget we will be spending
2.4 percent GDP on defense, at the end of the next decade.
Given the threats we face, does that make sense?
Ms. Young. If you allow me to be a little wonky here----
Senator Graham. Okay.
Ms. Young [continuing]. We do budgets 10 years. You require
that of us. Defense usually plans on a 5-year basis, the future
years' defense budget. So we absolutely do ramp up in
accordance with that. And the rest of the 5 years is mechanical
and I am sure we will revisit that in future years.
Senator Graham. Yeah. You know, I have a lot of respect for
you, and I voted for you enthusiastically. But not being wonky,
this budget puts us on a path to spend less on defense, GDP-
wise, in the modern history of America, and we are going to
spend more on domestic spending at time when the world is
literally coming apart. China is developing hypersonic missile
capability. Their military is growing by leaps and bounds. You
have seen what has happened in Ukraine, and I think Putin is
not going to stop there, unless somebody stops him. The Iranian
nuclear threat is going to re-emerge again.
So I would just say, on the defense side, this budget has
got it all wrong. That is just my opinion.
On inflation, how much of information increases are driven
by energy costs?
Ms. Young. It is a fair amount and it has increased since
Russian aggression.
Senator Graham. Yeah. In this budget you eliminate tax
advantages for oil and gas companies when it comes to exploring
for America on oil and gas. Is that correct?
Ms. Young. That is correct.
Senator Graham. Yeah. Are you aware of the calls by
President Biden to get OPEC to produce more oil?
Ms. Young. Senator, not in my lane.
Senator Graham. Well, apparently he has called for, we are
talking to Venezuela, we are talking to Saudi Arabia. We are
even entertaining having Iran produce more oil and gas, and we
are going out of the oil and gas business here. While I believe
climate change is real, I think this budget would make the
problems at the pump enormously worse, and I would like to urge
the Chairman to bring the budget to the floor, dedicate some
time, and let us talk about it and vote on it.
Thank you very much.
Chairman Sanders. And thank you for staying within the five
minutes, and I will ask everybody to do the same. You are right
on time. Senator Murray.
Senator Murray. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Director
Young, good to see you. Thank you for joining us and for all
the work that you and your staff went into delivering this
really strong budget.
I was really pleased to see the President's budget lay out
a plan that would lower costs for Washington State families and
prioritize important investments that will help our communities
succeed in the present and in the future, all by asking for
giant corporations and the wealthiest to pay their fair share.
Now we have made solid progress, as you outlined, in
rebuilding our economy from the pandemic, including the
historic job growth, but it is clear, when I listen to people
back in Washington State, that we have a lot more work to do,
and the status quo is not working for working families, which
is why Democrats have put forward really bold solutions as part
of our reconciliation package, including our plans on childcare
and pre-K.
I wanted to ask you, both as a new mom and as the nation's
budget official, can you speak to how the Democrats' childcare
plan, which is fully paid for, would lower costs for families?
Ms. Young. One is the proposal the President put forward
last year, Senator, and does this year, we believe to be
fiscally responsible. We should pay for our proposals. We do
that, and you have laid out how. We also believe that one way
to deal with inflationary pressures is to deal with pocketbook
issues, including childcare. Many families pay an exorbitant
amount of their percentage of income just to take care of their
child, and it is, we believe, one of the barriers to bringing
women back into the workforce. So our proposal says families
should not pay more than 7 percent of their income on childcare
costs.
Senator Murray. I appreciate that and totally agree, and I
think that proposal is absolutely critical to helping people
get back into the economy, working again, and raising the
economy for everyone.
This budget includes a lot of other important investments,
from sustained public health and preparedness funding, putting
us on a path to doubling the maximum Pell grant to support
students, to a strong infusion of funds to support critical
family planning work and boosting the supply of affordable
housing.
I want to make clear how important I believe it is for
Congress to prioritize making those types of investments and to
also start working on completing the fiscal year 2023 bills
right away. I am sure you agree.
Finally, I just want to raise a couple of critical issues
from my state. I have raised these with you before. First, on
the Hanford site. I am extremely disappointed again this budget
would roll back the really important progress we have made to
advance cleanup at Hanford. The proposed funding cuts in this
budget would be totally unproductive, delaying the cleanup
mission even further. I will be working to build upon the
investments we made in the 2022 omnibus. I hope the
Administration will partner with me on that effort.
Ms. Young. And, Senator Murray, the reduction is a point of
timing. The omnibus was finished recently. We absolutely want
to work with you to at least maintain the levels secured in the
omnibus.
Senator Murray. This is really critical funding so I hope
we can continue this discussion.
And before I close, salmon recovery. I was really pleased
to see, in the budget, strong funding for the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and continued funding for
direct recovery and habitat restoration, including the Pacific
Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund. Saving our salmon is absolutely
essential to Washington State's economy and to our cultural
heritage. It is really an urgent undertaking. So I look forward
to working closely with you on that as we make sure that the
Federal Government is doing its part.
Ms. Young. I happened to work for a Washington Stater for
two years----
Senator Murray. I do remember that, yes.
Ms. Young [continuing]. And have visited up and down the
Puget Sound, and I understand the importance to the citizens of
Washington State, especially our tribal partners, and you have
an ally in me in ensuring salmon recovery in the Northwest.
Senator Murray. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Sanders. Thank you, Senator Murray. Senator
Grassley.
Senator Grassley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Congratulations
on your appointment.
The President has touted his budget as fiscally
responsible. It is not responsible. He attempts to take credit
for cutting this year's deficit by $1.3 trillion. That is
mainly the product of pandemic-era spending coming to an end.
In fact, most of this so-called deficit reduction results from
the President and majority in Congress going on a $2 trillion
liberal wish list spending spree, stoking the flames of
inflation.
So in the end, then, taking credit for deficit reduction
resulting from discontinuation of irresponsible spending is
comparable to an arsonist taking credit for containing a fire
by refraining from dousing it with more gasoline. Even worse,
the only reason the President and majority have not thrown more
gasoline on the flames of inflation is because people like
Manchin and Sinema had had enough and refused to go along. If
the President and most of his party had their way, this year's
deficit and future year deficits would be hundreds of billions
of dollars higher.
Notably, the President's reckless tax and spending spree,
which Democrats spent all of last year working to pass, is just
a footnote in this budget. Yet even assuming the reckless tax
and spending spree is not going anywhere, the President's
budget still includes unprecedented levels of spending, of tax
hikes, and deficit and debt.
Under the President's budget, spending would average 23.4
percent of our economy over the next 10 years. Historically,
this is a level of spending previously only seen for brief
periods in response to a recession or a national emergency or
war. Moreover, his budget includes $2.5 trillion of tax
increases that I think is going to be a job-killer.
Despite record levels of tax hikes, the budget fails to
balance or even put our debt or deficit on a sustainable path.
Our annual deficit, the amount that we would spend each year
beyond what we take in as revenue, would exceed $1 trillion in
each of the next 10 years, and reaches $1.8 trillion in 2032.
Moreover, our public national debt climbs to 106.7 percent of
our economy, which would be the highest recorded level of debt
in our nation's history.
So while the President provides lip service to fiscal
responsibility, his budget is the same old tired liberal tax-
and-spend agenda with red ink as far as the eyes can see.
Director Young, the President has touted his budget as
reducing the deficit by $1 trillion. However, his budget does
not account for any of the spending or tax hikes in his so-
called Build Back Better plan. Instead, it establishes a
reserve fund for its enactment on a deficit-neutral basis. From
this, is it safe for me to assume the Administration would
oppose, then, any revised version of the Build Back Better plan
that CBO does not score as deficit-neutral?
Ms. Young. Senator Grassley, thank you for that. We are
putting forth goals for legislation the President still calls
on. It needs to reduce costs for the American people, it needs
to expand the productive capacity of our economy, and it needs
to reduce the deficit. We are holding enough revenue, we
believe, to do a version of the proposal, as Congress works on
the legislation. But what you see here, in the budget, is an
effort not to get in front of those negotiations. But we are.
We believe it is fiscally responsible to hold enough revenues
to allow those conversations to go forward.
Senator Grassley. So yes, if such a plan, a revised plan,
comes out it is yes, that it would have to be budget neutral?
Ms. Young. At least budget-neutral, and the President's
personal goal is that it be deficit-reducing.
Senator Grassley. Okay. My last question will have to be
this. I have got 18 seconds.
Even without inclusion of any spending or tax increases
from Build Back Better, government spending and revenue are
projected to be at a near-record high under the President's
budget. Is the President still going to push for a revised
version of Build Back Better to be enacted? If so, how much
more spending and tax can the American people expect? Is it $1
trillion or more, $2 trillion more, et cetera?
Ms. Young. Senator Grassley, the President remains
committed to a bill that reduces childcare, health care, energy
costs. But he does believe it should be paid for through tax
reform.
Senator Grassley. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Sanders. Thank you. Senator Stabenow.
Senator Stabenow. Well thank you very much, Mr. Chairman,
and Ms. Young, it is wonderful to see you again. I so
appreciate all of your hard work, and I very much support the
budget that the President has put forward. And I will be happy
to vote on it, so I appreciate it.
Let me first start, though, by saying that just like
President Obama inherited the biggest financial crisis since
the Great Depression and had to dig our country out of it,
President Biden inherited a mess. He inherited a mess. Over
424,000 people died of COVID before he was even sworn in. And
if there had been competent, responsible actions by the Trump
administration at the very beginning, this would be a very
different story for Americans.
President Biden also inherited a $7 trillion--trillion--
increase in our nation's debt from just four years in the Trump
administration, and he inherited a global economic shutdown
that we have not seen in our lifetime that has led to supply
chain breakdowns and prices rising. As horrible as it is to see
the inflation we have, I am not surprised, Mr. Chairman, to
see, when we are trying to get the economy going again, that
this has happened. And I appreciate all the efforts on supply
chains to get things up and going again, and our focus, as a
caucus, to bring down costs.
The President's budget builds on the strongest economy in
decades, as you said, by making investments that will help
create jobs, will lower costs for people, and reduce our
deficit. So I believe this budget is worth celebrating.
But unfortunately, I know Republican colleagues today, Mr.
Chairman, will demonize the budget. So I think it is important
to look at what the alternative budget proposal is, that they
will support, from the Republican side. So our Republican
colleague, Rick Scott, who is on the Senate Budget Committee, a
member of the Republican leadership, has offered us key pieces
of a Republican budget, what would they do if they were in the
majority.
So under their plan, all Federal laws sunset in five years,
and, of course, if you think about it, the implications of that
are shocking. I mean, that would mean an end to Medicare and
Social Security, an end to Medicaid, which provides health care
coverage for 86 million Americans, including our seniors and
nursing homes. It would mean the end of the Veterans
Administration, taking away all the health care and other
support for people who have served our country. Under this
Republican plan, middle-class families would see their taxes go
up $100 billion this year alone. In Michigan, 38 percent of my
constituents would see a tax increase. And there is so much
more in here. I could go on and on.
You know, President Biden has a great expression that I
think is fitting for today. He says, ``Show me your budget and
I will tell you what you value.'' And through his budget
request we know President Biden's values and Democratic values
and who we are fighting for. And thanks to Senator Rick Scott,
the head of the Senate Republican Campaign Committee, we also
know what Republican colleagues value.
So let me now turn to the specifics in the budget. This
President has proposed the largest increase in support for
mental health and addiction services ever--ever--since
President Kennedy signed the Community Mental Health Act in
1963, which was his last official bill-signing. And so I want
to say thank you to him through you. Thank you for working with
me. Thank you for working with Senator Blunt and I on our
bipartisan efforts to expand community behavioral health
clinics across the country, evidence based, bipartisan efforts,
now being fully implemented in 10 states. And I want to thank
you for expanding this across the country. It is so needed, and
certainly COVID has shown us the incredible needs that families
have.
So, Ms. Young, could you talk more about why the budget
proposes a nationwide expansion of this bipartisan program?
Chairman Sanders. You have 30 seconds to do it.
Ms. Young. With 30 seconds I want to thank Senator Stabenow
and Senator Blunt for their tireless efforts to address what
really is a crisis, the mental health crisis. The budget
proposes reforms to health coverage that I spoke about earlier,
and makes major investments to the mental health workforce.
This comprehensive set of proposals will improve access to
mental health treatment and strengthen the mental health
provider workforce to respond to what is absolutely a crisis.
Senator Stabenow. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Sanders. Thank you very much. Senator Toomey.
Senator Romney. He is not here, so Senator Romney, I think.
Chairman Sanders. Is Senator Toomey here virtually? [No
response.]
Chairman Sanders. I have, on the Republican side, Senator
Scott next.
Senator Romney. Senator Romney is next.
Chairman Sanders. All right. In that case, Senator Romney.
Senator Romney. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I
appreciate you being here, but I am going to come over to this
point. This is a slide--I do not know whether you have seen
this, Mr. Chairman. I am sure you have and other members have.
This shows the debt held by the public. It is not total debt.
This is debt held by the public in our country, historically,
going back to 1900, and where we are today. And the debt held
by the public is approximately 100 percent of the GDP of the
country.
The last two countries that got into real trouble and had
an almost collapse of their currency and their debt were Greece
and Italy. Greece reached almost the same number, about 105,
and Italy about 108 or 109 percent of GDP.
If you look at the budget that you have provided to us, you
take us to 200 percent debt as a percentage of the GDP. Now I
do not know what you all believe that does. I am just going to
make sure the Chairman also gets a chance to see that, which
is, here is the level of debt that Italy had. Greece got into
financial distress. We are at 100 percent of GDP right now.
According to this budget, we get to 200 percent of the GDP of
our debt held by the public.
Now I am a financial guy, and I know that if something like
that happens there will be economic calamity. People will stop
loaning money to the United States. Interest rates will go
through the roof. We are not talking about going up to 2, 3, 4,
5 percent. We are going up to like what happened in Greece and
Italy.
So at some point there is a dramatic departure from what we
have all experienced. I do not know what that point is. I asked
financial people who really have more financial than myself,
where does it happen? When is it that we hit the cliff? Do you
have a sense of what level of debt you just cannot go beyond as
a percentage of GDP, debt held by the public? Do you have any
sense of what that is?
Ms. Young. And, Senator, if I can, what I have is the
percentage of GDP is about 106 percent in 2032. So I just
wanted to start with a difference in a fact here.
Senator Romney. This goes out to 2050.
Ms. Young. Our budget goes to 2032.
Senator Romney. The CBO takes it all the way out.
Ms. Young. We believe the way to look at debt is what it
costs to service the debt. We believe that remains at a
historic low rate and does not crowd out other investments. So
we do not end up in the same situation as you saw in other
countries.
Senator Romney. I see. So you just look at how much it
costs----
Ms. Young. To service the debt.
Senator Romney [continuing]. To service the debt. So what
would you have said that every other country that has gotten to
this level that has an economic collapse, that they were just
wrong?
See, what happens is when people are afraid you cannot pay
back the debt because of how high it is as a percentage of your
economy, they start asking for a higher interest rate. And when
they do so, the amount you are having to spend to service the
debt gets to be back-breaking. Every major civilization that
has gone down this path has ended up having their currency no
longer become the reserve currency of the world and have
economic collapse. We simply cannot continue on a road of
adding $1 trillion of debt every year.
Let me look at the other slide. Oh, it is probably behind
me. Oh, there it is. My colleague is behind me.
In every single year in your 10-year forecast you are
showing deficits of over $1 trillion a year. I do not know how,
when the economy is doing well, we can keep adding $1 trillion
a year to the debt without at some point reaching calamity.
And so does the Administration have a plan to deal with
this? Is there some way we can stop these trillion-dollar
annual deficits and putting us on a road to financial distress?
Ms. Young. Senator, we are doing it--$1.3 trillion in
deficit reduction this year.
Senator Romney. Well, I am sorry. The Democrats passed a
massive COVID bill. COVID was an extraordinary event, and we
passed a lot of money to help people through that. Is there any
reduction in spending that the Administration has proposed
other than COVID spending in this new budget?
Ms. Young. COVID spending costs are just as any other
spending, and this President, had he not done the American
Rescue Plan (ARP), many economists, including Moody's, who----
Senator Romney. I----
Ms. Young [continuing]. Days ago believed we would be in a
double-dip recession.
Senator Romney. I am all in favor of COVID spending. I
think ARP and the amount of money that was sent to states, when
states did not need it--I mean, I think these numbers just--
round about, California had a $60 billion surplus last year,
and ARP sent them $40 billion more. And the waste in ARP, as
well as other programs, is unbelievable.
But I know my time is up. I make the point that if you look
at what you are doing over this budget, you are seeing that all
of the increases in mandatory programs, the massive increases
in mandatory programs, and if we are ever going to get a handle
on our debt we are going to have to find a way to either
increase revenue, which I do not favor, or find a way to adjust
our long-term benefits, not for current retirees but for young
people coming along. We have got to be able to find a way to
balance these programs or we are going to find ourselves in a
heap of trouble.
Ms. Young. And, Mr. Chairman, if I could say----
Chairman Sanders. Senator Whitehouse.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Chairman. On the continuing
subject of economic calamity, and with respect to climate
change, have most of the world's major central banks warned
about a carbon bubble that could burst and damage the world
economy?
Ms. Young. You and I have talked about this. I believe
around 18 percent retraction is an estimate out there that
would be catastrophic to economies.
Senator Whitehouse. And separately, have Freddie Mac, the
big American mortgage company, and others, warned of a coastal
property values crash related to climate and sea level rise
that would cascade through the entire national economy?
Ms. Young. Senator, I know you know this more than anyone,
given the state you are from. But it is an absolute crisis
waiting to happen.
Senator Whitehouse. And are those not both the sort of
economic crises that come on suddenly, with a sudden collapse?
It is the nature of bubbles and crashes when things go wrong,
that it happens catastrophically and dramatically, is it not?
Ms. Young. That is correct. But we do know it is coming,
which is why we have to do something about it.
Senator Whitehouse. Precisely. Thank you for making that a
point in this hearing.
With respect to mental health, does the Administration
agree that children's mental health and addiction-related
mental health issues, recovery, and police encounters with
individuals involved in mental health crises are three
important places to focus new investment in mental health?
Ms. Young. Thank you for asking that. The mental health
proposal does many things. It not only is the right thing to do
for those suffering from mental health issues but it helps in
our community violence issues, and it also helps with our
addiction issues. So there are many reasons to make major
investments.
Senator Whitehouse. With respect to the billionaire minimum
income tax, I would just like to propose to you that you keep
your mind open to the prospect of the so-called Buffett rule,
supplementing the billionaires' minimum tax.
It has very broad support and it relates to people who
make--it starts when you are making over $1 million a year and
it kicks in fully when you are making $3 million a year, and it
is, again, a basic minimum tax, to make sure that people who
have those kinds of resources are not paying a lot of lawyers
and lobbyists and tax advisors to end up paying lower tax rates
than firefighters and nurses and teachers.
Ms. Young. We will absolutely keep that in mind.
Senator Whitehouse. And my last point, again coming from
Rhode Island and speaking on behalf, I think, of many coastal
states, we have discussed this already but the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers has a very significant account that is called its
Inland and Coastal Spending Account. And it has run an average
of $1.36 billion for inland projects, compared to $113 million
for coastal projects. So for every dollar that this fund sends
to inland flooding projects it has only a penny--only a penny--
or less available for coastal flooding projects. And this is
obviously a matter of great concern not just to Rhode Island
but to coastal states everywhere. I think our friends from
Louisiana are seeing the highest rate of coastal loss and
erosion of any state in the country.
And the fixation of the Army Corps only on inland flooding,
with sea level rise and storm surge making the risk to coastal
communities so much worse is something that I would urge this
Administration to address. It is not addressed in this budget.
I think as a policy matter we need to figure out how to get
more revenues to coastal communities to deal with the threats
that they are looking at, that a decade ago, 20 years ago,
people would have thought were unfathomable, but are now so
real that entities like Moody's are baking that into their
rating for communities' debt.
Ms. Young. And, Senator, I have told you privately and I
will tell you publicly, we will talk to Army Corps about this.
But also you have my commitment to talking to and working with
the Appropriations Committee. The budget is the beginning of
the process, so we have a long way to go before this is enacted
into law.
Senator Whitehouse. Dollars for inland compared to pennies
for coastal does not seem fair.
Thank you, Chairman.
Chairman Sanders. Thank you very much. Senator Toomey.
Senator Toomey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The President's
budget message to Congress states, and I quote, ``Critically,
my budget would also keep our nation on a sound fiscal
course,'' end quote. But that is just flat-out false. Our
nation is not on a sound fiscal course, and it has not been for
quite some time. After reviewing this budget request it is
clear to me that the President's budget would worsen our
nation's fiscal health.
The Biden budget proposes $72.7 trillion of total spending
and $58.3 trillion of total revenue over the next 10 years.
That results in $14.4 trillion of total deficits. Publicly held
debt balloons in this budget, from over $23 trillion currently
to $40 trillion by 2032, and that assumes no recession, no
unforeseen emergency spending like the trillions in COVID
relief of 2020.
If you want to really gauge whether this budget actually
restores fiscal sanity we ought to compare it to current law,
at least for a starting point. Specifically, CBO's July 2021
budget baseline is a good place to start. Let us look at total
deficits from a comparable time period, 2022 to 2023 in the
Biden budget versus what is projected under current law.
So under current law, CBO says that the cumulative deficit
over this period of time will be $12.1 trillion. The Biden
budget calls for $14.1 trillion. So how does making the 10-year
budget deficit window worse, by $2 trillion, despite huge tax
increases, how does that put us on a stable or sustainable
path?
President Biden's boastful claim about reducing the 2021
and 2022 deficits compared to 2020 is completely disingenuous
and totally context-free. In 2020, Congress passed five bills
to respond to the public health and economic crisis posed by
COVID. The unprecedented emergency spending of those bills
resulted in $3.1 trillion of budget deficit for 2020 alone.
Of course, it is important to remember that money was
intended to be spent in 2020. Then the Democrats come along and
pass the bill in March 2021, full of partisan policy priorities
almost completely unrelated to COVID, and they add $2 trillion
to our deficits, at a time when there was no economic
justification, no need for that massive spending.
Now our Democratic colleagues brag about the 2021 deficit
being lower than 2020, but completely omit that their partisan
bill actually made the 2021 deficit $1.2 trillion worse than it
otherwise would have been, and that that bill has subsequently
proven to be a significant contributor to the 40-year high
inflation that our country is experiencing. The decline from
2020's record-high deficit should be attributed to the
expiration of the extraordinary, unprecedented spending that
was in response to COVID.
I have plenty of other reasons to reject the claim that
this budget is somehow fiscally responsible. It calls for a 14
percent year-over-year increase in non-defense. This big,
massive increase in the Federal bureaucracy and the welfare
state, well beyond even current inflation. Meanwhile, the
budget calls for an inflation-adjusted cut to our defense
budget. The budget calls for only a 4 percent nominal increase
in spending, which is an unrealistic and dangerous level,
considering inflation running much higher than that and a very
dangerous situation around the world that we are reminded of
continuously.
It also, of course, proposes nothing at all to address the
looming insolvency and the generally unsustainable growth of
Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, which now account for
50 percent of total spending.
It also hides the true cost, yet again, of the various tax-
and-spend proposals featured in the so-called Build Back Better
plan, some version of which is still contemplated by the
Administration.
So Director Young, let me ask you a couple of questions
about tax hike, because there are a lot of tax hikes proposed
in this bill. Do you know what percentage of the country's
total income the top 1 percent of wage-earners earn,
approximately?
Ms. Young. Senator, we know that, for example----
Senator Toomey. Look, I have got almost no time. Do you
know the answer to that question? It is a very specific
question.
Ms. Young. I think the specific thing we would like to
highlight is that 400 of the richest people in this country are
worth more than $150 million----
Senator Toomey. I know you have got lots of talking points,
but I did ask a specific question. Since you refuse to answer
it, I will answer it. The top 1 percent of wage earners earn
about 20 percent of all the earned income in America.
Do you know what percentage of the total Federal income tax
burden those same people pay?
Ms. Young. We know what percentage of their income they
pay, and it is----
Senator Toomey. The answer is 40 percent. So the top 1
percent make about 20 percent of all the income, pay about 40
percent of all the taxes, and you and the President's budget
say that that is not their fair share, that their fair share
must be much higher.
So, Mr. Chairman, my point in this is, I am quite sure that
we will not hear what the fair share would be, if paying twice
the proportion of the income earned is not a fair share, and it
makes middle-class Americans wonder just what kind of tax
increase you are going to hit them with to make them pay their
so-called fair share.
Chairman Sanders. I would just remind Senator Toomey that
most of the billionaires in this country do not earn wages.
They make their money elsewhere.
Senator Warner.
Senator Warner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And as someone who
probably----
Chairman Sanders. Make it a little bit louder if you could,
Mark.
Senator Warner. As someone who had been blessed and lucky
enough to fall into that 1 percent, I think I am paying a fair
share, but I agree with the Chairman. The truth is our system
allows massive amounts of wealth accumulation. We have seen it
dramatically during COVID, and we have got to find a way that
some of the wealthiest Americans in our country do pay their
fair share. And, you know, I believe the focus of some of the
President's proposal is not even actually on the 1 percent but
the 1/10th of 1 percent, and I think the numbers there, in
terms of share of wealth and amount of taxes paid,
unfortunately, are pretty dramatically different.
Director Young, first of all it is great to call you
``director,'' not ``acting director,'' and I appreciate the
very important work you have done. I want to get to two
questions during my time.
You know, we all know that one of the things that is
driving inflation is a shortage of housing supply. Home prices,
we know, have more than doubled. Rents are up about 14 percent.
But we know there are still enormous, particularly on low- and
moderate- and particularly low income housing, enormous amounts
of shortages in this area. It is one of the reasons why, on the
Banking Committee, where I work with Senator Toomey and Senator
Brown and others, we have looked at this issue.
I was glad to see, in the President's budget, that you took
on the issue of affordable housing supply, and obviously will
be discussing this with the Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD). But can tell me a little bit more, Director
Young, about the Administration's proposal here on housing
supply, particularly for low-income Americans?
Ms. Young. Thank you, Senator Warner, and I know you have
worked hard on this issue. What we found is we often put
proposals that dealt with the demand side--vouchers--and we
would often look at the statistics, the vouchers were not used.
What we really have in this country is a supply issue in
affordable housing. This bill would invest $50 billion through
direct spending, incentives to state and locals to improve many
of the barriers there are to building affordable housing, and
also tax credit system that would encourage the building of
affordable housing.
Senator Warner. I appreciate that and look forward to
working with you and HUD on this issue.
I want to take my last two minutes and go to an issue that
is also near and dear to my heart but kind of nerdy, and that
is questions around the Technology Modernization Fund (TMF). I
think if we look back at, frankly, working with Secretary
Mnuchin, where we had to be very creative, and actually the
Chairman and I had, I think, a better plan on income
replacement during COVID, that would have been fairer and more
balanced. It is not often that the Chairman and I find such
complete agreement.
But instead we ended up with a fairly blunt instrument put
forward by the Trump administration of a $400-a-week plus-up on
unemployment insurance. And it was arbitrary, and a lot of that
was due to the fact that we did not have the technology to be
able to do the kind of income replacement that some of our
European partners did instead.
We continue to underinvest. And while I think the
Administration has moved forward a bit on Technology
Modernization Fund, I hope we can add more to this. If we are
going to make Federal Government more efficient and more
transparent and hit the goals of following the money, we are
going to need IT systems that match 21st century. IRS is a
classic example. We have talked about that a lot.
But can you talk a little bit? We made some progress in the
American Rescue Plan, but can you talk about the IT and
technology modernization needs that you have to oversee from
OMB?
Ms. Young. So quickly, the TMF, we were oversubscribed. The
ARP provided $1 billion. We received about $2 billion in
applications from agencies who are in desperate, dire need of
technology upgrades. The government is not keeping up. It makes
us less safe to foreign actors, including some terrible
breaches we have seen in the recent past. Also, we are not
providing the services that the American people deserve.
Senator Warner. Well, I appreciate that, and again, the
Chairman and I worked on, I thought, a more direct plan to help
Americans. I hope we can still put some of those plans in place
going forward, so if we ever have the kind of crisis we had
around a COVID-type experience we have a more efficient system
in place.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Kaine [presiding]. Thank you. Senator Braun.
Senator Braun. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ironically, it was right after I got here Senator Warner
and I had a discussion about what is that level of government
spending at the Federal level that would be acceptable to his
side of the aisle. He always referred to the Europeans.
I want to cite a couple of statistics. On our revenue side,
if you go back 50 years, we average 17 to 18 percent of our
GDP. High rates, we have lower economic growth. Low rates, like
pre-COVID, through the Trump tax cuts, we had better economic
growth. But it almost immutable that we are there.
This budget, I think, is at 25 percent of current GDP. I
mean, that is a quantum leap, even above the European model.
And you have got record taxes embedded into it as well.
And I have got several questions for you so please keep
them as short as you can. Do you have an ideal rate that you
would like to see the Federal Government as a percentage of our
GDP?
Ms. Young. Revenues or debt?
Senator Braun. Spending.
Ms. Young. We believe as long as you are putting forward
proposals to pay for that spending we should not look at the
percentage of GDP, but you should pay for your proposals.
Senator Braun. Are you willing to go to a European level
where a government would get that much larger and try to force
the system to pay a tax rate that it has never been able to do
in past history to support it?
Ms. Young. We believe we should invest in the American
people as a percent of GDP. Non-defense, we talked about a lot,
remains below the historic GDP level.
Senator Braun. And I think we all do too. It is just that
you cannot do it on this paradigm that goes broke in the long
run.
Do you know what interest rates were roughly back in 1978,
say for a home mortgage?
Ms. Young. I was 1, so you will excuse me if I do not
remember that.
Senator Braun. You would not remember it. That is true. I
will tell you, it was 10 percent, and early into the '80s they
got up to right under 20 percent, and that was due to the evil
that has been unleashed, inflation, currently. It took interest
rates into that level to get inflation back to where you take
the tax that robs everyone back in order. That is something
that we need to be concerned about, because currently we are at
8 percent, and even pre-COVID we were at 2.5 percent, it was
stable, and that is something that we need to be worried about.
Where do you think, when it comes to the size of the--not
the revenue size, which we have talked about, on spending? Do
you think that it needs to be reprioritized in any way? Because
currently this budget is calling for, I think, a 14 percent
increase on domestic spending, only 4 percent on defense.
Ms. Young. Thank you so much----
Senator Braun. It seems out of proportion.
Ms. Young. Thank you for that. I will remind everyone the
non-defense side includes our commitment to our veterans, the
FBI, the Department of Homeland Security. There are absolutely
critical--the State Department--critical security elements in
the non-defense side.
Senator Braun. So I think then, with the short amount of
time we have left, it comes back to the theme of what I think
Senator Romney was talking about, and many. For as many people,
in my short time here, that come to the Federal Government,
expect it to have its house in order. And when you are
proposing something that would go way beyond, I think, what
most other Senators on the other side of the aisle would think
that is sustainable, a Federal Government 25 percent of our
GDP, how do you think we can do that, be there for all the
people that do look to it, when you have got like the Medicare
trust fund that completely goes bust here in 4.5 years, Social
Security, which we have actuarially known, the same thing,
paying into since the Depression era, here in about 11 years?
How does that all work out to where any of this will be there
for the people that need it the most down the road?
Ms. Young. Senator, we may disagree on how the President
wants to pay for his proposals but he believes the way to deal
with this is to invest in the American people while also asking
the wealthiest and corporations, many of whom do not pay any
tax in 2020, to pay at least what firefighters, nurses, and
teachers pay, as a part of their tax income.
Senator Braun. So, in summary then, I think it looks like
he thinks the solution, long-term, is to change our economy
into one driven by the Federal Government, that is going to be
larger than even the European economies that at least balance
their budgets, and you are going in the face of historical data
that we are the unique system where we generate the most
prosperity of any country, and there is no arguing about it, it
needs to be looked at who is benefitting from it, would share a
lot of ideas I think that would be similar in terms of trying
to make that more broadly felt. It runs the system into the
ditch in the long run because it defies history in that you
will never be able to pay for it, and to me that is a bad plan.
Thank you.
Senator Kaine. Director Young, good to have you with us.
Congratulations on your recent confirmation.
I want to highlight some points that you made in your
opening but that I think bear repeating. Current trends. Jobs
are booming. When the President was inaugurated, unemployment
was at 6.4 percent. Today it is 3.8 percent. More than 7
million jobs have been created in 13 months.
Number two, the economy overall is growing. Our economy
grew by more than 5.5 percent from the end of 2020 through the
end of 2021, the best year for growth in the last four decades
in America, and we have strong opportunities in 2022 as well.
Workers are taking advantage of tight labor markets to
switch jobs and getting raises. Wages are growing faster than
they have in years, and in particular, wages for many people
who work in some of our lower-paid sectors have done
particularly well.
So these are three very, very strong economic trends. I do
not hear enough discussion of them, but that just means we need
to talk about them more.
There is a fourth trend that is troubling, and that is the
inflation trend. We are seeing higher inflation than we have.
It is often connected to an economy that got constricted pretty
significantly in supply chains that got disrupted during COVID.
The economy is coming back with strong demand and the supply
has not completely caught up to it, and so those disruptions
are a significant reason for inflation.
But I guess what I want to applaud you for is I think you
put a budget on the table that tries to take advantage of the
three strong trends and accelerate them but also offers us some
thoughts about how we can deal with the fourth trend.
So on that issue of inflation, the challenge that we are
grappling with, is inflation a problem that is unique to the
United States right now?
Ms. Young. It is absolutely a global trend. The pandemic
was a global issue. We see most countries coming out of the
pandemic with the same inflationary pressures.
Senator Kaine. What are the key features of the President's
budget to try to help deal with inflation, or in particular,
just pocketbook costs that Americans are experiencing, both
kind of in the near term and then down the road?
Ms. Young. And I want to remind everyone that the Fed
really, and the wisdom of our system, put monetary policy
outside of the political process. So they really have a lot of
the tools with which to deal with inflationary pressure and
they are using them. This President believes in ensuring he
does not interfere with the Fed decisions.
But what we are trying to do, from the Administration, we
are asking you to take a look at, is improve our supply chain
issues. We have seen the issues around the ports in this
country where ships are backed up. That is why--thank you for
the infrastructure bill--we are putting resources into our port
systems. We are also working to get more truckers on the road.
We have an issue driving things to stores. That is increasing
inflationary pressures.
We are also investing in the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
and Department of Justice Antitrust Offices to ensure there is
competition in this country. We believe lack of competition
raises prices.
So those are the things we are asking you to take a look at
as part of this budget to deal with inflation. And one more,
sir. The President continues to call on Congress to send him a
bill that lowers costs for Americans, lowers childcare costs,
lowers health costs, lowers energy costs.
Senator Kaine. If we can lower childcare costs, if we can
lower cost of prescription drugs, if we can lower health care
premiums, I mean, these are three of the big-ticket items that
take a bite out of people's pocketbooks. We need to do that,
and I am very committed to working with my colleagues together
to do it.
The last issue I will ask you about, Director Young, is
mental health investments and also criminal justice
investments. I had a series of meetings last week with
communities in southwest Virginia that really suffered with gun
violence issues. You know, it is a point of sadness for me that
after having dealt with a lot of gun violence issues as a mayor
and then as a governor we have not been able to do anything
credible on gun safety during the time that I have been in the
Senate. It is my hope that we will.
But setting that aside, talk a little bit about some of the
criminal justice investments that this budget would make to
help us deal with crime issues, but also the mental health
investments that the budget would propose as we are dealing
with the aftermath of two very difficult years for most
Americans.
Ms. Young. Thank you, Senator Kaine. The President made
clear in his State of the Union he believes the police are a
key to dealing with our violence issues in our communities. But
he also believes they need to be community-oriented, deep into
the communities. This budget invests $2.3 billion, a 32 percent
increase, for the Department of Justice over 2021, to address
gun violence. We also invest $1.7 billion, almost a $250
million increase, for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms,
and Explosives (ATF) to follow the guns. Guns often end up in
the hands of criminals.
So this budget also believes we are putting forth an issue
for community violence reduction, not just the Department of
Justice (DOJ) but the Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS). We need those wraparound services. And I think you have
heard us talk about our big mental health push to ensure that
mental health coverage is treated the same way as physical
coverage. All of those things are interrelated.
Senator Kaine. Thank you, Director. I will next call on
Senator Scott and return the chair to the Chair. Thank you,
Chair.
Senator Scott. Thank you, Chair. Good morning, Director
Young.
Ms. Young. Good morning.
Senator Scott. You see the number behind me, the budget,
the $5.8 trillion. Do you have any idea what the budget was, by
chance, 20 years ago?
Ms. Young. I do not.
Senator Scott. It was $1.4 trillion, 20 years ago. So how
much do you think the population has increased in 20 years?
What is your guess?
Ms. Young. Percentagewise, 20 percent.
Senator Scott. Yeah, 16. So think about this. The budget is
up four-fold and the population has only gone up by 16 percent.
How does that make any sense?
Ms. Young. Senator, I think many people would tell you,
included in that number, the bulk of that number is Medicare,
Medicaid, Social Security. We have structural issues in this
country, including the aging of our population. And you are
right. The President is not putting forth a proposal that would
cut those benefits. He is not going to do that.
Senator Scott. So how do you think it is sustainable? I
mean, four-fold, with the population increase, and in your
budget the population has increased in the last year 1/10th of
1 percent, and your budget is up 7.4 percent, overall. I mean,
when do we not just stop working?
Ms. Young. Senator, this budget is fully paid for. I
understand if you disagree with the way the President pays for
it through taxing the wealthiest and corporations.
Senator Scott. I am just talking about the numbers----
Ms. Young. He is paying for the investments in this budget.
Senator Scott. The numbers are staggering.
Ms. Young. Most of the increase is because of our
entitlement programs. And you are right. The President is not
going to put forth a budget that cuts those benefits.
Senator Scott. So what is Consumer Price Index (CPI) now?
Ms. Young. CPI is close to 7 percent.
Senator Scott. Yeah, 7.9 percent. And producer price index
(PPI), 10 percent. All right. So in your budget you think that
within a few months it is going to go down to 2.9 percent. Do
you have data that would suggest this is going to go down to
2.9 percent, like that?
Ms. Young. No, Senator.
Senator Scott. Every month that President Biden has been in
office the inflation has increased. It has not gone down. It
has increased.
Ms. Young. You are absolutely right, and what I was going
to say is to get a budget to you to start this lovely dialogue
we locked those inflation and interest rate numbers in
November, and inflation has absolutely changed since that
happened. Our long-term forecasts, however, do remain in line
with private forecasters.
Senator Scott. So what is going to change? What are you
doing? As an example, probably the biggest problem we have got
right now is energy prices. What in this budget is going to get
energy prices down? If energy prices do not come down we cannot
get inflation down, period.
Ms. Young. One, I will remind everyone energy prices,
prices at the pump, are market driven. We are a capitalist
society. The market decides the amount. It has gone up by $1
since Russian aggression. The President has called on oil and
gas companies to ensure that they are pricing things fairly.
Senator Scott. Ms. Young, with respect, you know, it went
up before the invasion too.
Ms. Young. But one dollar since.
Senator Scott. It went up over $1 before the invasion. I
mean, it was not caused because of the invasion.
So you talked about the Federal Reserve. The Federal
Reserve has indicated it is going to raise interest rates this
year, right? And so if they are going to increase interest
rates this year, what is the duration of the Federal debt right
now? Do you know?
Ms. Young. We have talked a lot about that. We do not
typically use that term in budget and economy that I believe
you are referring to how long it pays off the debt. That has as
much to do with the policies made in this Congress as anything
else. So I do not think that is a phrase that many of us use in
budget terms.
Senator Scott. I think we use in budget in Florida. We used
it--how long is our debt out? So locked in our debt so we could
lock in our interest rates, and my understanding is under your
budget you do not lock in interest rates, and so you are
subject to this increase that the Federal Reserve is going to
do in interest rates this year. Is that not right?
Ms. Young. Well, as a reminder, the Federal Government is
different than state governments. We can carry debt. We budget
very differently than state budgets.
Senator Scott. But you could lock it in. You could lock in
the duration of your debt so you know exactly what interest
expense was going to be. And you decide not to do it because
short-term rates right now are a little bit lower than long-
term rates.
But what are you going to do when interest rates go up? I
mean, how are you going to pay for this?
Ms. Young. You will be happy to know our budget actually
does include an assumption that interest rates go up.
Senator Scott. Not by much.
Ms. Young. In line with private forecasters.
Senator Scott. So we have got $30 trillion worth of debt,
and you are projecting another $14 trillion worth of debt. What
is the max? I mean, you are taking it to almost $45 trillion in
the next 10 years. When does this end? When can we not pay this
anymore?
Ms. Young. Again, the bulk of this is entitlements. And you
are right. The President is not forward a proposal to cut
those, and we believe the debt is manageable as long as the
cost of service----
Senator Scott. Ms. Young. You are the OMB director. You
have to fix these things. You cannot just say it is not going
to matter. You have to fix it. Thank you.
Chairman Sanders [presiding]. Thank you very much. Senator
Van Hollen.
Senator Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
Madam Director, for your testimony. Congratulations on your
bipartisan confirmation vote, and thank you for working with
the President to put forward a budget that will help grow our
economy but do it in a way that is more inclusive, so we have
greater prosperity and greater shared prosperity.
And I just want to emphasize a couple points in the budget
that have been covered already but I think they bear repeating.
First of all, the initiative to reduce the cost of prescription
drugs. You know, the Senator from Florida was talking about how
we can make savings in some of these programs. We could save
the Medicare system money by giving Medicare the ability to
negotiate the price of prescription drugs. Is not that true?
Ms. Young. Some estimates are $600 billion, as high as $800
billion in savings.
Senator Van Hollen. Right. So this is a win-win, right? We
can reduce the cost of prescription drugs for American
consumers and we can save money in Medicare.
Ms. Young. Correct.
Senator Van Hollen. I also applaud the provisions in the
budget to reduce the cost of quality childcare. This is
something that is hitting every American family. We need to get
on top of this. We have proposals that we presented here in the
Congress. Unfortunately, our Republican colleagues have not
joined us in supporting those measures. If they did, we could
get this done right away.
I also, you know, continue to listen to my Republican
colleagues on the deficit issue, and at the same time they talk
about the deficit they are opposing the measures in this budget
to increase revenue by asking the biggest multinational
corporations to pay more by closing international tax
loopholes. Is that not how you do it in the budget?
Ms. Young. That is correct.
Senator Van Hollen. And do you not ask billionaires and
very wealthy people to contribute more to the country?
Ms. Young. Correct.
Senator Van Hollen. Right. So, you know, people want to
have this both ways. I was here on this Committee when
Republicans passed a $2 trillion tax cut, mostly for the very
wealthy and big corporations, that increased our deficit. And
now today I hear complaints about the deficit but opposition to
provision to raise funds by asking the very wealthy to pay a
little bit more.
I want to also commend you especially with respect to some
of the education investments in this budget. One of the things
I have tried to do for many, many years was to have full
funding for our schools, especially our neediest schools,
through Title I. And in this budget I think you would double
the allotment for Title I compared to what we just passed in
the omnibus. Is that correct?
Ms. Young. We go a little further. We ask for about $19
billion more between discretionary and mandatory. But I want to
thank you and everyone else for the $1 billion investment in
Title I. We have not seen that level of increase since I have
worked on that program, for many years, so thank you.
Senator Van Hollen. Well thank you for pushing that, and
the President. We have got to do even more, and I applaud you
for putting some mandatory funding in. I think this may be the
first time ever we have seen a President propose mandatory
funding. My view is our education funding should be as certain
as funding for other mandatory programs, because we need to
make sure that our kids and our schools know that money will be
there, year for year, at the levels that are necessary.
Let me just now turn to the issue of the apportionment
process. And one of the things I have worked to do on a
bipartisan basis is to improve accountability in the budget
process by requiring the Executive to report on the
apportionment, the spending and timing of spending of monies
that Congress has appropriated. And you are moving forward on
that process, are you not?
Ms. Young. We are. We met the first timeline. The
Approriations and Budget Committees have access to the system.
Senator Van Hollen. Thank you. No, I know no Executive
really likes Congress to interfere in this way. I do not see it
as interference. I see it as a very important public disclosure
process. I was glad that this Committee supported that
provision on a bipartisan basis years ago, and we included this
provision, as you know, in the omnibus.
And I want to remind people that this would have been
really important during the Trump administration's time when
they withheld money for weapons for Ukraine. So for months they
secretly withheld money that this Congress appropriated to help
in the defense of Ukraine. In fact, they withheld it for so
long that they violated the law. That is what the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) found, that they violated the law
by withholding monies that had been appropriated by the
Congress. And I think as we reflect on the current moment in
Ukraine, it is important to remember that episode. And I am
pleased that we now have in place measures that would address
that issue through the disclosure process.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Sanders. Thank you, Senator Van Hollen. Senator
Lujan.
Senator Lujan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To our Ranking
Member as well, thank you for holding this important hearing
today. Ms. Young, thank you for being here. It has been an
honor to work with you and to learn from you throughout the
years. Mr. Chairman, I had the great honor of learning from
Shalanda not just during my time now in the Senate but during
my time in the House. So Director Young, congratulations on
this very important appointment.
While there are many positive aspects to the budget, I am
going to zero in on some areas that I think that the Congress
must improve upon as we get into appropriation season and we
are working on the next what I would hope is not an omnibus but
that we pass this in regular order, if you will.
Director Young, last year President Biden released an
infrastructure plan, and that infrastructure plan pointed out
that he was requesting $18 billion to upgrade and replacing
aging Veteran Affairs (VA) facilities. Now I know you are not
the VA Secretary, but is it important to me to raise these
issues because there has been a recent announcement that
because of the passage of the MISSION Act, which is being
pointed to for the reason for this new document that came to
Congress, 174 closures of Community-Based Outpatient Clinics
(CBOCs) across America, in every state, 4 in New Mexico in
Hispanic and Native American communities.
And I am not okay with this. I am going to find every way
that I can to stop this from happening. So, hence, you are the
first person I have the honor to visit with, and so you are
going to get the brunt of this, and I apologize for that.
I know you are looking at this particular budget. Is it
correct that you asked for $300 billion for the VA?
Ms. Young. We are asking for $135 billion for the VA, their
top line in discretionary.
Senator Lujan. And what is that increase? What is the
percentage?
Ms. Young. About a 29 percent increase from the 2021 level.
Senator Lujan. So that is important to note that there was
an increase here.
Of that, I believe, is it $3 billion for infrastructure?
Ms. Young. Yes, sir.
Senator Lujan. So if it is $3 billion for infrastructure, I
just want to encourage the team that worked with you for this
specific budget part submission just to look at the
infrastructure package, which asked for $18 billion.
Now, continuing to sleuth I was able to find some other
documents looking at the needs that exist for the VA, and in
one of those documents, which is called the ``Annual Strategic
Capital Investment Planning Process,'' the estimate was $72
billion to $88 billion for capital infrastructure over the next
10 years to maintain and enhance infrastructure for the VA.
That is much more than the $18 billion that was even requested,
which would have been a good start. But I think even though
testimony and through newsletters, and publications, the VA
Secretary said it is only a down payment, and that is referring
to the $18 billion.
Now, if there would have been a significant showing in the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill, which I also supported, I do
not know that we would have these 174 potential closures, and
there is a claim that there are going to be 255 replacement
facilities for these 174 closures by the VA. No one has told me
of the ones coming to New Mexico, so my veterans are going to
have to try to find care somewhere, in a state that has a
shortage of primary care physicians in 32 of 33 counties, and a
shortage of mental and behavioral health physicians in every
one of our 33 counties. And we are not different than the rest
of America. So you see where I am going with this.
I want to see what we can do to fix this, to get us back on
track, to address this. I am going to work with my colleagues,
Democratic and Republican, being a freshman and junior Senator,
to stop the closure of these CBOCs. Our veterans deserve
better, and especially with a budget that is $5.8 trillion. I
think that we can do better. So I am going to be pushing on
this and I am going to be vocal about this.
Now I want to thank you for the work that you are doing in
the area of mental and behavioral health. You have been out
several times and you have explained those provisions very
clearly. And I just want to encourage the Administration and us
as members of the Senate and the Congress to continue to push.
One of my colleagues did say this--I think it was Senator
Sanders--``This was bad before. It is only gotten worse,'' and
it has. We are losing too many brothers and sisters in our
communities, family members, and across America, and we have
got to fix that and make that so much better.
So, Ms. Young, well, I will submit these questions to the
record, to adhere to time. I look forward to learning more from
you, seeing how we can get in front of this with VA closures,
but continuing so we can also increase investment in mental and
behavioral health availability.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you.
Chairman Sanders. Thank you, Senator Lujan. Senator
Padilla.
Senator Padilla. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Hello. We speak
again.
For a second, I just want to echo what Senator Lujan and
others have mentioned in terms of uplifting and prioritizing
the mental health and behavioral health elements of the
proposed budget. As Senator Sanders put it well, it was an
epidemic before the pandemic and it has only been exacerbated
since. So a lot more to work on there, and I would ask that we
particularly be mindful of how we work in partnership with
state and local governments, particularly those who have also
stepped up and committed funding through their budgets, that
has leveraged programs, that has leveraged precious resources
to maximum effect. And I look forward to working with you on
that.
Mental health needs and shortfalls across the country, not
just in my home state of California, is not the only factor but
it is a significant factor in the homelessness issues that we
are experiencing today, coupled with housing affordability
crisis. I also want to thank you for the levels of funding for
housing in the proposed budget.
Similar to mental and behavioral health, the pandemic has
underscored the need for affordable, safe, and supportive
housing. And over the last two years especially, many have lost
their housing, whether they struggled to keep up with rent
payments or mortgage payments, despite our assistance programs,
and these hardships--no surprise--hit especially hard on
communities of color, low-income families, Americans with
disabilities, and other historically marginalized communities.
Affordable housing is essential infrastructure. And I know
other Senators have talked about housing, including Senator
Warner. But I just wanted to underscore that we have an ongoing
need for robust Federal funding for housing programs, more
urgent now than it has ever been. I will call attention to my
Housing For All Act that I introduced several weeks ago, that
builds on proven solutions that have been developed at the
state and local level, effective in terms of addressing
housing, but with respect to unique challenges and
opportunities in communities across my state, and you can apply
that to communities across the country. So building on proven
successful models through these investments I think is a smart
way to go.
So in lieu of asking you a question on that I just wanted
to highlight and underscore my appreciation for that.
Now a question, not unique to California but probably
disproportionately to the West, an issue of wildfires and
disaster preparedness. As we have spoken on a couple of
occasions, in California and across the West we continue to see
how the climate crisis is leading to more frequent and more
severe wildfires. And although we have made progress in recent
years in increasing funding levels for Federal land management
agencies, Americans living in the West still need more support
to truly address the growing problem. And that is both
financial resources as well as personnel, to try to prevent or
mitigate the impact of wildfires. I cannot help but notice that
from 2019 to 2021, the U.S. Forest Service, which is the
Federal Government's primary wildland fire agency, saw its
firefighter ranks drop by more than 20 percent. In California
it is a loss of 1,000 employees.
So I was pleased to see the budget includes $1.8 billion
for the Forest Service and the Department of Interior to
strengthen our Federal firefighting workforce, increase
capacity, and improve firefighter compensation. It is long
overdue. But we know that is just a drop in the bucket.
So, Director Young, can you discuss how these funds will
address the firefighter workforce shortage and help chip away
at the huge backlog of hazardous fuel reduction and post-fire
landscape rehabilitation projects?
Ms. Young. And I would also like to point out the $1.8
billion is a $560 million increase. As you say, it is a start.
It is not a finish. We also are upholding the President's
commitment to make sure firefighters make a minimum wage of
$15. We think that will also help with recruitment. And I know
this an issue of importance to Senator Merkley, who is not
here, but one thing we also support is National Guard being
used in a lot of these areas. We know that recruitment will
take a long time to build up, so our National Guard presence
has been a lifesaver, literally, for a lot of communities. So
we remain committed to doing that as well.
Senator Padilla. Thank you very much.
In closing, Mr. Chair, I know the topic of inflation and
interest rates back in the '70s and '80s came up earlier in the
hearing. I would just like to note for the record that from
1969 to 1974, there was a Republican President; from 1974 to
1977, there was a Republican President; from 1977 to 1981, yes,
there was a Democratic President; and from 1981 to 1989, there
was a Republican President. So I am happy to have these debates
about the economy and interest rates.
Chairman Sanders. Senator Padilla, thank you. I want to
thank Ms. Young for appearing before the Committee today. Her
full written statement will be included in the record. As
information for all Senators, questions for the record are due
by 12 noon tomorrow, with signed hard copies delivered to the
Committee clerk in Dirksen 624. Emailed copies will also be
accepted. Under our rules, Ms. Young will have 7 days from
receipt of our questions to respond with answers.
With no further business before the Committee, this hearing
is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:46 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
ADDTIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
[Prepared statement and responses to written questions
submitted for the record follow:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]
File and source
- File
- CHRG_chrg-117shrg47314_chrg-117shrg47314.htm
- Size
- 102,999 bytes
- SHA-256
- f580fbb0c9e20c9dac99a1614d249c9b35aa0cbbca484faf903ec0c2976fbca5
- Original
- No public link identified.