Reflects and builds upon the economic policies of this president which have unleashed one of the most powerful economies in american history. Unemployment is down across the board. People are coming back into the work force. Wages are rising. Pensions and College Savings accounts are growing. This budget continues these economic policies and once again provides a path for enduring economic expansion by tacking the very real problem of deficits in our nations debt. The plan offered today proposes to balance the budget within 15 years by proposing more deficit reduction, 4. 6 trillion, than any president in history. Under this budget, of trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see will be reduced to 261 billion in 2030 with a surplus in 2035. Debt as a percentage of gdp currently at 81 and projected to grow to 100 within ten years will drop to 66 by the end of the tenyear window. But this budget is not a green eye shades budget. It Funds National priorities that this administration believes are vital for the security and prosperity of the American People. Let me give you a few examples. 741 billion for the defense of this country. This amount comes on the heals of Defense Budgets of 716,000,000,738 billion in prior nears. Nuclear modernization will receive a 20 increase from the last fiscal year. At the same time it reflects an assumption that our overseas operations will require less funding as the president works to end endless wars. The budget also makes substantial investments in Border Security and immigration enforcement. Ensures that every high school has a high quality career and Technical Education program. Funds nasas return to the moon by 2024 as a platform to mars and thereafter and grows va medical care at 13 to fully fund the mission act. It includes substantial resources to fight against the Opioid Epidemic and proposes a 1 trillion infrastructure package to rebuild our roads and bridges. It also keeps the promises that President Trump has made to the American People such as protecting Social Security and medicare for seniors. This president is a promises made, promises kept kind of president and this budget is no different. Despite the predictable misleading claims by many across the other side. Medicare will grow on average of 6 a year under this budget. The budget does propose Good Government reforms to lower drug prices, root out improper payments and address wasteful spending. This budget proposes to remove from medicare certain programs such as uncompensated care and graduate medical education which are draining the Medicare Trust fund even though they benefit more than just seniors. To be clear, these programs would be funded outside of medicare, but with reforms to limit their growth. Similarly this budget proposes payment site neutrality for the same service being performed as a Different Health care location. A cat scan costs the same as an outpatient hospital as it does at the physician office. Lowering the cost of health care is not a cut. Medicaid will grow at 3 which is higher than the rate of inflation. But the program has 57 billion in improper payments last year, and hhs lacks the statutory tools to recoop most of the costs. The budget would provide authority while giving the states options of a block grant or per capita payment. The budget proposes other common sense mapd tory savers such as a universal work requirement for medicaid, housing and food stamps. This will ensure that we are helping to lift able bodied adults without dependence off of a cycle of dependency and onto a ladder of economic opportunity. In terms of discretionary spending, this bumgt proposes a reduction similar to previous budgets. While budgeting at a defense cap under current law, this budget proposes a 5 cut. This budget continues to be a statement from this president and his administration that we stand with families and businesses across the country who have to balance their budgets. Washington d. C. Does not stand with them, and for too long has operated under a different principle of recklessly spending other peoples money. That has to change and hopefully this budget leads to it. Im ready to take your questions. Chairman yarmuth thank you, mr. Vought, for your opening statement. We will begin our question and answer session now. As a reminder, members may submit written questions to be answered later this writing. Those questions and mr. Voughts answers will be made part of the formal hearing record. Any members who wish to submit questions for the record may do so within seven days. We will defer our questions until the end of the hearing. And i recognize the vice chairman of the committee from massachusetts for five minutes. Moulton thank you very much for being here today. I want to address my questions to the president s claim that this budget is good for National Security. For National Defense. I find that a little bit hard to believe when it conflicts so directly with the advice that he has been given by his own generals. And as cochair of the future Defense Task Force on the House Armed Services committee, im particularly concerned about the investments that china is making in rnd to develop a new generation of weapons that we are failing to match. Do you recall how we responded to the sputnik moment in 1957 . We increased our National Investment to make sure we were prepared for our adversaries. Right, and where did we increase the investments . We increased them in the research and development. Specifically in graduate school education. And yet, this budget proposes a limited subsidized Student Loans. It cuts 8 on the department of education. How does that meet our next Generation Defense needs if were not doing this basic rnd, if were not investing in the people who will make the new discoveries essential for our National Defense . We believe we are investing in our people in this budget. We believe that we are making significant reforms to education as a result of this budget. For instance, theres a new proposal, an education block grant to take 30 different programs that we believe can be better reformed and give states more flexibility to have Better Outcomes, and they know their people and their schools and communities better. Thats an example where we think for basically the same amount of money when you control for the fact that were eliminating certain programs that are wasteful for the same amount of money that you appropriated last year, well have Better Outcomes at the state level in the area of education. At its best, youre saying well have the same amount of money when the president claims were actually investing more . But what i would suggest is maybe you make the reforms first and show how you can save the money before you cut 8 from the department of education. Because that is not going to help us prepare for a new generation of threats. Let me give you another example. Congress and president johnson came together and established darpa to a deal with a new generation of defense. The kinds of things that in the 19 of 0 1960s are analogous to in todays dollars, thats 4,500 million. The president s budget proposes a total of 459 million in defense airnd. 459 million compared with 450. Were not meeting this threat. Compared to 4500. Were not meeting this threat. We believe weve got a substantial investment, particularly in the area of ai and in quantum. Its substantial unless you look at what the competition is doing. General mattis said if you dont fund the state department fully, i need to buy more ammunition. Admiral mike mullen, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff said more money in development is needed not less. Why does this cut the state department by 21 . Because theres a difference between diplomacy which we fully fund and on aid which we think we have gone on too long with providing i was just in vietnam. I was just in vietnam two weeks ago. Its become a critical ally in the growing economic competition with china. I heard from our officers they want to be with us, not with authoritarian im. But our diplomatic and Development Effort is not keeping pace with chinas belt and road initiative. Theyre asking for more development money. Our military officers on the ground. Youre doing the opposite. I mean, does President Trump know more than our military officer on the ground . More than general mattis and admiral mullmullen . Admiral mullen . We tripled the funding for the so we can compete with china. We have a strategy in which countries in which youve mentioned would benefit. We think its time we get out of the situation where we pay for statutes to bob dylan and other wasteful spending. Statues to bob dylan and other wasteful spending. I think the president ought to spend some time on the ground in vietnam. I know he doesnt believe in that personally. He was happy to send someone else in his place. But it might teach him a little bit about what development and diplomacy does for our military. Gentlemans time expired. I now recognize the gentleman from ohio, mr. Johnson. Thank you. Sometimes these lines of questioning just appear to me to be very uninformed. When did the sputnik challenge occur . Late 50s, early 60s. When did we put a man on the moon . Late 60s. When did the department of education come into being . Late 70s. Yeah. Yeah. Seems to me were pretty smart people. We learned how to solve a lot of problems. The lightbulb, nuclear energy, space travel, overcoming the soviet threat. And we did it without help from washington bureaucrats on how to educate our kids. I applaud what the president is doing. Mr. Vought, thanks for being here today. We saw the president s budget. Its a first important step in addressing the federal spending issue. I look forward to discussing the president s budget, and i hope working with my colleagues here to address our nations unsustainable fiscal path in ensuring our economy remains strong. Over the last few days ive heard a lot of criticism from my democratic colleagues about the president s budget. How it is a blueprint for destroying america and how budgets are a reflection of our values, even the speaker of the house has said the budget is a statement of our values. I find these statements ironic and quite frankly hypocritical if my colleagues truly believe that a budget is a reflection of our values, then they should produce a Budget Proposal of their own. Why is this the second year that the House Democrats have not produced a budget . Why did they not produce a budget the last time they had control of the house . If as they say, it is a reflection of our values . I dont get that. One of my democrat colleagues even called the president s Budget Proposal a declaration of war on the american dream. I would like to respectfully remind my colleagues that the president s Budget Proposal is just that, a proposal. And im grateful that the president s budget is forcing us to have a discussion that many of my colleagues dont want to have. There is no question that federal spending is out of control. Medicare and Social Security are on a path to insolvency and our congressional budget process is broken. As members of this committee, we must come together and find a bipartisan solution to solve these critical problems. The president submitted his budget to congress. Now its time for congress to produce a budget. Today, we are here to discuss the president s 2021 Budget Proposal. It includes reforms of mand tear spending programs, key mandatory spending programs, key investments in National Security funding and a commitment to eradicate waste in government spending. More importantly, it provides for important investments in Rural America. A region of the country that i represent. As a representative of rural eastern and south eastern ohio, im happy to see that the president s budget is investing in rural communities. Communities that are facing serious challenges like the need for rural broad band and greater access to health care. Mr. Vought, can you tell me and our colleagues how the president s budget is investing in Rural America specifically, how it invests in telecommunications, Infrastructure Telecommunications infrastructure to better provide better access to broad band in rural states . Thank you. I would draw your attention to two things in particular. Number one, the infrastructure package as a whole is something that we believe is going to have a substantial investment in Rural America. That infrastructure package is a tenyear reauthorization at higher levels of the current formula for highway spending, but it also includes 190 billion surge to be able to deal with nationally significant areas, Rural America, broad brand, things of that nature. We continue to provide high levels of funding for the Broad Band Initiative at the department of agriculture. We have a 250 Million Investment this year. Thats on top of about 1. 8 billion sitting there waiting to be spent of carryover. Were providing as much money as can be spent in that important area. You know, the last week we passed legislation here in the house to repeal the prefunding mandate thats cost the Postal Service an average of 5. 4 billion Postal Service in Rural America is another very, very Important Service that our people need. Can you discuss how the budget, the president s budget helps put the Postal Service on a sustainable path to avoid a taxpayer bailout and protect the benefits earned by postal workers . Yeah. Its something weve considered in previous budgeted. Its reflected in this. At the high level we want to make sure the post office has while maintaining service to Rural America, we want to be able to give them the tools that are necessary to cut costs and to have flexibility to operate as much as a normal business as possible. If you look at postal reform over the last 30 or 40 years, the hope was that the post office in the 1970s, early in the 1970s would be freed up to become as close to operating as a business as possible. Unfortunately, that has not been the case. To the extent that there have been bailouts, thats been unfortunate. Were trying to continue to put reforms included in this budget to be able to get them on a better Firm FoundationGoing Forward. Thank you. And mr. Chairman, i yield back. The gentlemans time expired. I now recognize the gentleman from new york. Thank you, distinguished chair for your leadership and for yielding. Mr. Vought, prior to you assuming your current position, you were a conservative political operative. Is that right . I both worked on capitol hill in this committee. I grew up professionally working for a number of the members who served on this committee as a budget staffer and i have a great fondness and affection for this place. I also did work at the Heritage Foundation in getting people involved in the political process. As Vice President of heritage action, is that correct . Thats correct. And thats the political wing of the Heritage Foundation. It gets people involved in the political process. I am interested in trying to reconcile the public statements that President Trump has made relative to his budget and policy priorities versus whats actually in the document that he submitted to this congress. On february 8th, President Trump tweeted we will not be touching your Social Security or medicare in fiscal 2021 budget. Is that correct . He did say that. But the 2021 budget would result in a 500 billion cut to medicare over a tenyear period. True . That is not true. It does not cut medicare or medicaid. Okay. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, its a duck. Its a 500 billion cut to medicare over a tenyear period of time. Now, the president s budget also cuts Social Security disability by 24 billion. True . The budget has reforms to the Disability Insurance program to ensure people are getting off a cycle of dependency and getting back to the work force when they can get jobs in the national economy. And that would result in a 24 billion cut. Correct . We dont believe it will be a cut. We believe there are savings to be had from getting people back to work. Its also 7 billion of improper payments in the Disability Insurance program. That is reflected in our budget, theres no cuts. If we can stick to facts as opposed to alternate facts, that would be helpful. The president stated i have made an ironclad pledge to american families, we will always protect patients with preexisting conditions. Did he make that statement . He did, and he believes it. Theres nothing in the 2021 budget that protects individuals with preexisting conditions. True . There is a Health Care Allowance that reflects a future proposal. It does not reflected in the budget to the degree of specificity but this president has proposed continues to propose that reclaiming my time. Let me ask a question with precision. Does this budget support the repeal of the Affordable Care act . The budget has a series yes or no . The budget has a series of reforms with regard to Health Care Reform that tackle some of the drivers. Some of which were created as a result of the obama care law that was passed ten years ago. But we believe medicaid will continue to grow at 3 and medicare will grow at 6 . Is the president currently in court through his department of justice supporting the repeal of the Affordable Care act as unconstitutional . Yes or no. The Justice Department is involved. Our view is that we want the court to work its will on a law thats long been viewed as unconstitutional. But that doesnt mean that no matter what happens in the court that this administration wont respond with a clear repeal and replace piece of legislation as we have had specifics in previous budgets. Right. Theres nothing in this budget that proposes a replacement for the Affordable Care act that the Trump Department of justice is trying to declare unconstitutional. Thats not true. There is a Health Care Allowance that is meant to look forward to a repeal and replace piece of legislation that fully protects individuals with preexisting conditions. Okay. Thats inaccurate, but lets move on. President trump repeated a Campaign Promise recently that mexico would be paying for the wall on the southern border. He says mexico, is, in fact, you will soon find out, paying for the wall. He has made that statement. I think if you look at the mention what mexico is doing does. Your budget propose 2 billion in american taxpayer money for the border wall along the u. S. mexico border . It continues to propose money for the border wall along the southern border. We believe mexico is doing a tremendous job in helping us deal with the apprehensions along the southern border. Unfortunately, theyve had to step up reclaiming my time. Simply, the president s budget is a living, breathing, fact check on all of the public lies that hes told relative to his policy priorities. And thats shameful. I yield back. I recognize the gentleman from missouri, mr. Smith for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you acting chairman director for being here. Lets look at some facts quick. I was reminded listening to my colleague ask a few questions, youre a budget acting director. I think of the number 302. 302. What do you think that is . Do you have any idea . I dont know if its a trick question but i think of it in terms of allocation. Thats maybe because im from this committee. No. It is how many days have expired since the democrats have failed to produce a budget from last year. 302 days ago congress was supposed to pass a budget. We didnt pass a budget. But you know what . 63 is another number we need to Pay Attention to. Thats how many days we have to pass this years budget. Lets see if we can do either one of them. You work for a gentleman who has presented a budget every year that he was required to present. I serve with the democrats who have failed to even file a budget since they have been in the majority. Every year that the republicans were in control, we passed a budget out of this very committee. In fact, the republicans have a budget right now. The president submitted a budget. Just file a budget. Just put it on paper. Its so funny. I laughed. Start of this week. The leader of the House Democrats, speaker pelosi, reiterated on twitter on sunday, the budget is a statement of your values. Just sunday. The budget is a statement of our values. Yesterday, in a press conference, she says its the heart and its the beginning of all things that start out in congress. Well, i guess we cant start because the other side cant file a budget. Just file a budget. Show us your values. Your speaker says that a budget is a statement of your values. I just wonder. I mean, dont they have values . Dont they have initiatives . Maybe its because they dont want the American Public to know exactly what their plans are. What their proposals are. What their budget is. More than half of the democrats on this very committee are sponsors of the Green New Deal and medicare for all. That needs to be in your budget if you had a budget. But guess what . That would cost over 120 trillion. Thats why you cant get a budget. Because you dont want the American People to see how out of touch you are. Since our country has been around our National Debt is 22 trillion and growing. Just their two main proposals that they are campaigning on in New Hampshire and iowa and now South Carolina costs more than 120 trillion. The American People are onto you. Thats why you wont file a budget. We serve on this budget committee. I want to see your values if you have them. So mr. Vought, dont you think that this committee should present a budget and pass it so it can go on to the floor of the house . I do. It honestly saddens me to the extent that the house of representatives have stopped doing budget resolutions. When i was serving in this important body, that was something that was a staple every year. That the majority or the minority would put forward alternatives that we have debated in march. Wed be able to see where do the members of this chamber put their values . We need to see the values. I want to tie onto something that was asked to you in the prior questioning about preexisting conditions. The president was very clear. Hes very clear every time he speaks at a rally that he wants to protect preexisting conditions. Just because you want to repeal obama care and replace it with Effective Health care legislation, you can do that and we will do that by protecting people with preexisting conditions. Its not an all or nothing approach. We want to get rid of the garbage of obama care and replace it with a Great Health Care plan that protects preexisting conditions. Thank you for being here. Gentlemans time expired. I now recognize the gentleman from new york for five minutes. For the record, there is only one federal law that protects people with preexisting conditions. Its the Affordable Care act. The president is trying to gut the Affordable Care act through the courts. If he succeeds, there will be no law existing that protects people with preexisting conditions. That is a fact. Sir, in 2017 with the tax cut and jobs act, we were told in a letter by the White House Council of economic advisers that the result of that action would yield 4,000 to 9,000 per American Household on a recurring basis. Has that occurred and will it occur . Since the president took office, weve had 6,000 in disposable income for families on average. So far from the tax cut, only a few years in were at 2,000 at disposable income. Thats a substantial savings of people being able to keep their own hardearned money. Is it 6,000 or 2,000 . Its 6,000 is the disposable income from the economic boom. I dont understand that. Its 6,000 since the president took office. There are many things thats contributing to the economic boom that weve seen. Everything from the deregulatory initiative to investment confidence in the economy. These are leading to real results in peoples pocketbooks. Of the tax cut alone, 2000 is what has materialized thus far. We believe its going to get up to the 4,000 level for sure. What about the 4,000 to 9,000 recurring every year . We believe there will be significant savings along those lines. I dont believe it. I dont believe you. We were also told the tax cuts would pay for themselves. Are they . We are on track for the economic agenda of this president to pay for the cost of this tax cut. And thats the fully loaded cost of both the original score from cbo. Thats the cost of the extension, and thats the debt service cost. Are you familiar with the economist, mark zandi . I am. Would you characterize him as a conservative economist . Not really. Did he advise democrats or republicans . John mccain, generally viewed as a credible conservative economist. He had said that the tax cuts of 2017 for every dollar you give away, you can hope to reclaim 0. 32. Thats a 68 loss on investment. So tax cuts dont pay for themselves. And because tax cuts dont pay for themselves, we went from an annual budget deficit of 600 billion to more than a trillion dollars. And its projected that we will take in 1 trillion less than we spend for this year and the outyears moving forward. Under because tax cuts dont pay for themselves, in the 36 months of this presidency, theres an increase in 3 trillion to the National Debt. Thats because tax cuts dont pay for themselves. Because tax cuts dont pay for themselves, you have a medicare cut of 756 billion over ten years. You have a Social Security cut of 24 billion. You have a medicaid cut of 920 billion. Cancer research has been cut. The Community Development black Grant Program has been eliminated. The national unendowment for the arts and humanities is eliminated. Low Energy Income assistance eliminated. Educational grants eliminated. You brought up infrastructure. Your Infrastructure Program is weak and pathetic. The president promised a 2 trillion infrastructure bill. What we need to do thats equivalent equivalent to what we spent rebuilding the roads and bridges in iraq and afghanistan. Those nations are approximately 35 million people. Everything we build for them, they destroy. We should nation build at home. So i would encourage you to encourage the president to fulfill the obligation that we made to to do a 2 trillion infrastructure bill. Its not just the bricks and mortar of infrastructure. Its the growth that would occur, because the same economists that i referred to before, mark zandy, a conservative economist, it said that for every dollar that you spend in infrastructure, you can expect to recapture in future Economic Growth about 1. 60. The return on investment for Infrastructure Investment is about 60 . I would encourage you to review the infrastructure proposal here and consider making changes. With that i yield back. The gentlemans time expired. I recognize the gentleman from utah for five minutes. Thank you mr. Chairman and acting director, thank you for being here. Thank you for whats clearly a tough job. Im going to quote something. I think everyone will recognize it. Theodore roosevelt said it is not the critic who counts nor where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to he who is in the arena. For heavens sakes. Its easy to sit upon here and criticize an effort, but if youre not doing that thing yourself, then you have no position. You have no authority in a real way to criticize the effort of this president. If you dont have a budget, you havent stated your values. Again, its easy to sit up here and criticize and peck like a chicken along the ground. But thats all youre doing. Because you havent done the work. Youre not in the arena saying what you all would do. Youre sitting on the sidelines and criticizing what others have done. You know, theres one other thing. The budget its a serious effort. It should be bipartisan or at least as much as it can be, and i get it. I understand theres a debate over the issues and there always has been and probably always will be. We all i think can agree were trying to do the same thing. Were trying to provide for our National Defense. For equal justice and for the common good, and again, i get it. The debate over those details can be contentious, but when the language is so over the top, and its so contentious, most americans dont believe it. If you accuse a president of actually targeting Senior Citizens as if he hates them and wants to deliberately hurt them, most americans dont believe that. If you accuse a president of targeting the poorest and the most vulnerable among us, as if the president hates them and actually wants to deliberately hurt them, most americans dont believe that. And when you couch every detail or every disagreement as if its a lie, or if t pathetic, most americans think thats incredibly divisive and they dont accept it. And thats much of what weve heard here today. From those who wont do the work themselves who sit on the sidelines and criticize and say things so over the top and outrageous, most americans think i dont think that sounds true to me. I dont think the president actually wants to hurt the poor and the elderly. Now, maybe if you just hate the president so badly you actually believe that stuff, theres a few people who do that. Some of them are sitting up here. But most americans dont feel that way. Id like to ask you something now regarding and i think this is a key to most of what youre presenting here today. We spend 800 billion annually on more than 90 antipoverty programs. What is the measure of success . How do we know if were doing a good job at that . Is it by how much money we spend . Have we done better if we were enrolled more and more and more people on these programs . Or is it better for us to measure that by saying hey, you know what . Weve provided jobs for people . Weve provided an access for them into the middle class lifting them out of poverty and allowing them a ladder forward . Mr. Vought, how should we measure the success of the programs, the 800 million we spend . We believe in outcomes. We believe in measuring what were doing based on the results that they have as opposed to figuring out how much from year to year were spending as a dollar amount. Washington d. C. Often wants to say whats the dollar amount and makes that the value for how youre doing with regard to your commitment, but i would take an example of education, for instance, and respond to an earlier question and say were providing 50 billion in tax incentives for additional education at the state level in addition to what were providing for the department of education. We believe thats a reflection of our values as well. But if you look at it from a green eye shades perspective in d. C. , its just a revenue reduction. And its anything but that. That is the point i think the success of these programs should be determined by americans graduating off these programs. Providing an economy where they have the dignity of work and the selfsatisfaction that comes from improving their lives rather than just the dependence on the federal government. Sometimes generational. And my time is almost up, and i will continue with those who, again, arent in the arena, havent put a budget forward themselves, and they will continue to criticize you and the president for the work that youve done. But were grateful for that, and the American People are dwratful as well. Thank you. The gentlemans time expired. I now recognize the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. Boyle. Thank you for being here. And thank you, mr. Chairman. Here we go again. A couple years ago, three years ago now, we sat here debating the massive republican tax cut. A number of us on the this side of the aisle pointed out that this was actually step one in a three step plan. Step one, cut taxes mostly for the top 1 to the tune of 1. 5 to 2 trillion. That would spike the deficit, spike the debt. And then step three, this white house and republican friends would come back, say my god, theres a deficit, and a huge debt problem. We need to cut Social Security, medicare and medicaid. Step one happened. The massive trump tax cut, 83 of which went to the wealthnest 1 , was passed. Step two is happening. We have the Fastest Growing deficit and expanding economy in american history. And now here we are with step three, massive cuts to Social Security, medicare, medicaid, education, snap, transportation funding, et cetera. I want to focus, since a number of my colleagues have focused on the massive cuts to Social Security, medicare and medicaid, since i am cochairman of the Public Loan Forgiveness Program caucus, i do want to focus on that program specifically. But first before i get to that, just in terms of student loan spending generally, let me read from a report from cnbc just yesterday. Quote, as student debt continues to climb, President Trump on monday released a budget for 2021 that would slash many of the programs aimed at helping borrowers. Student loan spending would be cut by 170 billion in trumps plan. One of those areas that would be cut, forget cut, eliminated is the Public ServiceLoan Forgiveness Program. This was a bipartisan achievement actually signed into law in 2007 by george w. Bush. How in the world does cutting Student Loans by 170 billion and eliminating the Public ServiceLoan Forgiveness Program in any way help families afford and pay for college . Bearing in mind that right now we just hit the overall mark of 1. 7 trillion in total debt in terms of all of the Student Loans owed by every american combined. That is a major threat to our economy. So here is a budget that would take that situation and make it far worse. Its totally untrue, congressman. Reclaiming my time, the cnbc report is untrue about cutting 170 billion . There are savings for consolidating programs. Savings. Into one new program. Most normal americans would call a cut. No, because were replacing it with an income driven Debt Repayment plan. Reclaiming my time since were limited. For those at home anytime anyone from washington talks about savings, hold on to your wallet. The savings are coming from you. Let me specifically focus though back to the Public Service loan forgive necessary program. I mentioned that i am cochair, i have a republican cochair, mr. Joyce of ohio. This is a program that has had bipartisan support going back to its beginning in 2007. Why did you decide to just flatout eliminate it . Because we dont want to pick winners and losers and we were replacing it with an income driven repayment plan that the president has had in every single one of his plans. Reclaiming my time, what do you think this will do to those who have decided to enter Public Service, who forgo higher salary in the private sector, have taken on a ton of student debt, and now here you are eliminating the Loan Forgiveness Program they signed up for . Theyd be eligible for the new program weve been proposing for five years. Finally with just 30 seconds left, let me say, it is true, a budget is a statement of ones priorities. We see the priorities of this administration, massive tax cuts for the wealthiest 1 paid for by cuts to ordinary americans. I yield back. Gentlemans time has expired. Now recognize the gentleman from texas, mr. Florez, for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Vought, you didnt have a chance to respond. Would you like to expand so the American People get the true story of what the president is proposing in terms of coming up with a more efficient, fair Student Loan Program . Happy to. Put forward an income driven student repayment plan that would allow students after 15 years to have debt relief, but in that years they would pay a set amount towards Debt Repayment, at 12. 5 of their income for 15 years and graduate students relief after 30 years. We consolidate a number of programs to be able to provide that program, and we think it will lead to more simplicity for student borrowers who instead of having many different programs out there and trying to figure out the best one, wed have an opportunity to have one simple 15year debt relief plans for students. This is what the president ran on. Its been in every one of his budgets. In this particular situation, to address the claims that were made by the last questioner, if you had somebody that decided to go into Public Service and selected, you know, in a lower income level, then in that particular situation, this loan repayment plan would automatically address that . It would be eligible for this new plan. Okay. One of the things that the president is proposed in this budget, and i think its wise, because all the health care provides in my district, particularly the hospitals, have talked about the shortage of medical professionals. And so the president s budget proposes to pull graduate medical education out of the Medicare Part of the budget. Can you explain the logic for that . It sounds perfectly reasonable to me based on what im hearing from realworld america . Sure. Were going to commit to graduate medical education but dont want the trust fund to be drawn down. We dont want to increase the insolvency. From a benefit thats far beyond todays seniors. It helps a vast majority of the country and hospitals across the nation. So this is an example where we take it out of medicare and we allow it to grow each and every year, just not at the same level of medical inflation. And then youve done the same thing with compensated care as well. The net result of both of these is to strengthen the Medicare Trust fund . Absolutely. Americans have that wrong, theyre better off because of this because the president has taken two things that arent part of medicare and pulled them out, and allowed medicare to be more selfsustaining. I guess, you know, one of the things you hear is this word cuts a lot. What is the medicare spending level in the tenth year versus the near year . Medicare will grow 6 on average each and every year in this president s budget. Okay. There is no cuts to medicare whatsoever. So grow is not a cut. To the extent anybody uses this word cut, when the dollars are higher in the out year than the inyear, theyre not being truthful . Thats correct. We extend it by at least ten years. We do have assumptions that will provide for lower prescription drugs. We thought it was a bipartisan priority to have Better Health care at lower costs. Thanks for your answers to set the record state on these important issues. I yield back the balance of my time. I now recognize the gentleman from california, mr. Khanna, for five minutes. Thank you. Representative langoven yesterday at hask asked for people to testify about the president s defense budget. He was told that witnesses have been directed by you, explicitly not to speak to the president s budget request. This has never happened in the history of congress, whether it was president reagan, president bush. Can you explain why you gave an illegal directive obstructing congress to tell witnesses not to testify . I didnt. Are you claiming that your office did not give that directive . We typically like to have this omb testimony be the first testimony. So that may be what youre referring to. But in terms of not allowing agency heads to speak about the president s budget, thats not true. So, its your testimony that you completely are okay with having agency heads testify, and that the witnesses yesterday if they implied that you or omb had instructed them not to do so are lying . Not lying. My gut is that they are reflecting the reality that we want the omb testimony here in the House Budget Committee to be the first set of testimony on behalf of the president s budget and then to let agency heads go from there. Thats my guess. But the idea that we would not want agency heads to go to the hill and talk about the president s budget is not true. Did you tell them at any time not to talk to the committees until you did . Im sure we had communication with agencies along those lines, but i i certainly didnt. Im sure as ive said, we provide guidance to the agencies that says, we dont want agency heads to go up to the hill until we have an opportunity to come before this committee. Going forward, now that you have, you will be completely fine with agency heads going to of course. Its a vital aspect of this process. In terms of the president wanting to lower drug costs, what is your view on hr bill 3, and whether that would do that . We have concerns with that piece of legislation. We put out a statement of administrative policy against it. We appreciate the desire, the intent to lower drug prices. But our counsel of economic advisers looked at that legislation and said it would lead to shutting down a third of the innovative drugs in the pipeline. Cbo didnt have numbers quite as large as that, but they said there would be an impact on innovation. We want to get to the same place that you all are in terms of lowering prescription drugs. We would love to have a bill on the president s desk. This is one of the bipartisan areas we would endeavor to pursue. Its one of the reasons in years past weve provided specificity. In this one we provide a general allowance to be able to have the house and senate work its will. Does the president have a plan . Hes rejecting our plan. Has he offered a plan of what he would support . Weve certainly offered plans in the past, things like having a price cap in Medicare Part b, reforming the part d plan to put a catastrophic path for seniors and change some of the disincentives. Some are reflected in hr3. But we are concerned to the extent we dont some of those proposals are reflected in hr3. But we are concerned to the extent we dont want to fall on the other side of the balance of impacting innovation. I would say, as the father of a child that has Cystic Fibrosis and is about to go on to medication that is diseasehalting, that kind of groundbreaking innovative perception drugs is what we want to make sure future kids we all want to do that. On infrastructure, there has been a sense that the president wants to work with us. Weve gone the speaker has gone, the senator leader has gone, they agree on doing a infrastructure bill, and then two days later nothing happens because theres no agreement by the president on how to pay for it. We are going to be working on an infrastructure bill that the House Democrats will propose. Will the president be committed to actually passing it and offering pay fors through the senate . Dir. Vought i think your question reveals the problem with where we are on infrastructure, which is that we want to pay for it by providing spending cuts and reforms. You all every time we try to have a conversation about infrastructure, the expectation is were going to roll back the president s tax cut. We are not going to do that. Were not going to have anything that raises taxes on this. Let me have one quick followup. Why wouldnt you be willing to Fund Infrastructure which would lead to 3 Economic Growth . You didnt have all pay fors on your tax cuts and the economists agree into structure would lead to growth. Why doesnt the president commit he is going to do an infrastructure bill . Dir. Vought he has committed. There is a trillion dollar infrastructure package in this budget resolution. It continues to be a priority. Weve put forward savings along those lines. Infrastructure has been something thats been paid for. But we are providing 4. 4 in spending reductions and deficit reductions that could be used for potential payfors. The gentlemans time has expired. I now recognize the gentleman from South Carolina, mr. Norman. Thank you for appearing today. Some of these comments ive sat here and listened to are really amazing. One that caught my eye was that my friends from the left are saying blueprint for financial disaster. Do you live in a house . Dir. Vought i do. I am a contractor. We build things. I am probably a deplorable, i drive pickups. What if i said i want to build your house, what would you ask for . And a blueprint. You would say, where is the blueprint . Congressman stuart is an accomplished pilot. What if i came to him and i said i want you to learn to fly a plane. He would have a right to say what kind of plane . Thats what my friends from the left are asking the American People to believe. We havent had a budget in two and a half years. Let me tell you some other things. Theyre proposing free medical care. Put it on paper. What is the cost . Unless doctors are willing to work for free, which i dont think they are. Free education has been mentioned. Are tenured professors not going to get a salary . Put it on paper. Free housing ive heard. Somebody has to pay for it. Open borders, is one of the cuts and i just heard this yesterday. Are one of the cuts that my socalled friends from the left are saying is if you come into this country and cant speak english, then youre disabled. Have you heard that . Dir. Vought it is one of the qualifying factors right now within the Disability Insurance program that were trying to reform. How dumb is that . If you come into this country and cant speak english youre entitled to the benefits because you cant speak english. The American People are on to it. Tax cuts dont pay for themselves. I think weve got a growing economy, the likes we havent seen since this president took office. The previous eight years cant boast the numbers we are boasting. Thats code language the taxpayers are too dumb to spend their own money. Let unelected bureaucrats and my liberal friends spend it for you. Thats why you hear the socialist programs coming up. I applaud you for defending this budget. Youve at least got a budget. I would ask for us, weve got 60some days to come up with a budget on paper. Defend what youre promising the American People, which they are simply not doing. Could you go into some more you havent been allowed to finish many of your answers. Could you elaborate more on some of the theyre claiming, as they always do, cuts in Social Security, gutting medicare, medicaid. Can you go into examples of where this is untrue . Dir. Vought sure. There are no cut to Social Security and medicare. The president s commitment to seniors is fully reflected in this budget. We reform medicare. It grows at 6 . What we mean by reforms is lowering the cost of health care. 135 billion in savings from prescription drugs from lower costs to seniors. That shows up as savings, but its not a cut. But they classify it as a cut. They dont want anything to change. Thats why theyre not putting it on paper. Military, go into some of the dollars where its being spent. Because this is something really to brag about from the trump administration. Dir. Vought fourth year of high defense spending, 741 billion fully consistent with the budget agreement that was recently asked. Within that top line, we have a 20 increase to the nnsa to make sure Nuclear Modernization continues to be Going Forward on track. So we really went big in that area. We continue to have 44 new ships over the next five years within the defense program. We invest heavily with regard to r d to make sure some of the concerns, to compete with our adversaries, part are fully funded. This continues with the president promised to the American People, to rebuild our defenses. We want to make sure this continue to grow. Its called looking after the taxpayers dollars. Youre looking at them and everything as return on investment, what is the taxpayer getting for the dollars he is putting in . I applaud you for it. I dont think, as has been implied, granny is not going over the cliff. If we dont get ahold of this 22 trillion deficit, which is the cruelest tax on future generations, then we are leading our children and grandchildren over the cliff. Its unfair and unamerican. Thank you for what you are doing. I yelled back. Gentlemans time expired. I recognize the gentleman from North Carolina for five minutes. Welcome to the committee. I want to ask a quick question first to clear up a little of the rhetoric weve heard this morning, then turn to a more substantive inquiry. The last year our republican friends were in the majority, 2018, did they or did they not bring a fiscal 2019 budget resolution to the house floor for a vote . Dir. Vought i dont recall. The answer is no. The answer is no. Its critically important that we all recognize the influence that omb has, not only over the budgets president s request sent to the congress, but over the administration of funding that is provided by the congress. Thats what i want to ask you about. I want to ask you about important investments in infrastructure and Disaster Assistance congress enacted and the president signed into law regarding puerto rico and other areas devastated by natural disasters. Congress has already registered its frustration with the department of housing and urban development over repeated midst deadlines and a refusal to move this muchneeded funding out the door. But this is not just about hud, it is also about omb. As the director of omb, you are responsible for the prudent execution of these plans, and in fact youre required by law to make sure the funds are made available to hud. First, why are the demonstrated need for this funding in puerto rico and the Virgin Islands has omb refused to apportion the funding as immediately available for obligation . And secondly, hud has provided testimony saying that omb has purported to curtail their ability to even request this funding be made available to hud. Is this true . Have you done this at the president s direction with regard to puerto rico . Omb has no authority in law or anywhere else to control what an Agency Requests. What an Agency Requests in the first place. Do you disagree with that . Dir. Vought with regard to puerto rico, 90 million is projected to be spent to help them recover from the hurricanes from a few years ago. Given the situation politically in that territory, where theres rampant corruption, you had an administration that had to resign, a governor that had to resign excuse me, but we have an inspector generals report, we dont have to rely on your word for it. Is it not true that actually the finding came up that the administering agency in puerto rico was not rampant corruption, that they operated according to normal procedures . That is not what i am asking. I am not asking for your personal judgment about puerto rico, i am asking about your authority in the way you exercised your authority. These are very specific questions. Dir. Vought we operate with agencies on funding notifications, with cdbg, we had to implement the statute which has never been authorized by congress. Congress appropriated a new statute for mitigation funding and left the agency on its own and said implement it however without any instruction. I am sorry, there are many programs not authorized. That is a red herring. Dir. Vought not new ones at that level. We need a cdbg dr authorization. Were hoping that our friend Mitch Mcconnell will agree with that. We are apportioning everything hud needs to move forward with funding. We provided the initial 1. 5 billion and an additional 8. 2 billion for unmet needs. Here is the issue, we dont want this money to go to waste. We want it to help the people of puerto rico. We want to make sure that they dont all get it one lump sum and it overwhelms their political system where they had a governor that had to resign for corruption where fema finds undistributed has anybody remotely suggested you should hand the money in one lump sum . Dir. Vought your question suggests no, it doesnt. These are statutory deadlines. It turns out when deadlines are missed, we put them in statute. There are ample, ample opportunities, checkpoints, for judgments to be made about letting this or that go forward. Thats not what im asking you. I am asking you about what the hud people tell us, that they have had trouble getting authority to request the money from omb. And im looking for your what your authority is to do that. Dir. Vought im not going to get into the deliberative process. Im not asking about your deliberative process. Im asking about where this Authority Comes from . Dir. Vought it comes from our apportionment statutes, the ability to make sure money is spent efficiently and economically, to make sure there are spend plans in place, and it comes from our authority to consider when there are notifications to be able to have new regulatory pronouncements that go out to make sure they go through a rigid factbased process. Im going to ask for the record a detailed account of your answer to my question with the citations of the authorities you are talking about. Dir. Vought sure, happy to. Follow campaign 2020 to nevada this weekend. Tonight at 11 p. M. Eastern, joe biden, pete buttigieg, senator Amy Klobuchar, tom steyer, senator Bernie Sanders and senator Elizabeth Warren speak before clark county democrats. On sunday live at 5 p. M. Eastern, joe biden, pete buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar and tom steyer speak on a forum on infrastructure. Watch ondemand at cspan. Org and listen on the go on the cspan radio app. Q a, a look at american president s through the lens of historians. The story has often been you sought in the quote that kennedys father was the one pulling the strings behind the scenes. That is not true. There are multiple times brought up the Pulitzer Prize. He told another story and i would rather win a Pulitzer Prize than be president. Because he had the strong desire for literary fame even though he didnt really want to do literary work, he got himself the prize. People had been gossiping, did kennedy really write the book . I wonder how much money they are getting out of the royalty checks. Then, the pulitzer changed the equation and i think it made it a moral question an ethical question. Leaders realized this too. I looked at the letters kennedy was receiving in 1957 and librarians were sending him letters, schoolteachers were sending him letters, saying did you really write this book . You wouldnt have accepted this prize if you didnt read the book, would you . Watch sunday night at 8 00 p. M. Eastern on cspans q a. Family and friends gathered for a Memorial Service for pbs newshour anchor jim lehrer. He passed away on january 23. The speakers reflected on his life and career. God is our shelter and strength, a real and present help in our time of need. May the peace of god be with you all. Good afternoon. We have gathered together today to celebrate the life of jim lehrer and to offer comfort to his family who has called this