Transcripts For CSPAN2 House Budget Committee 2019 Budget 20180215

Social security was much closer to going bankrupt and then it is today. The reason we have it today is the work the commission did, the surplus that was piled up in the intervening years until finally the baby boomer generation began to retire and are drying it down pretty rapidly. An opportunity to do that again, if we could reform Something Like that, we prevented this for three consecutive congresses by this president could be the person who saves Social Security, put it on firm footing and it would be done in a bipartisan way. My friend on the other side of the aisle are always concerned this means cutting but look what Ronald Reagan did with that commission was to bowe neil and Ronald Reagan the next year won reelection with 49 states and to bowe neil remained speaker of the house, you can do this in a bipartisan way as long as you are protecting the program because it is a popular program. The way they did it is gradually raised the age, i was 34, told me youre going to retire at 66, not 65, they raised the putting more income in there as well. They made a modest increase in the deduction as well. In other words, a lot of little tweaks would have huge advantage so i ask in the time you have left what thoughts you have Going Forward. Over 1 trillion program now on firm footing or not. A couple Different Things. We make some small proposed changes to the ss program, some marginal improvements on the state of the trust fund, theres going to be a bigger issue. The best point is the longer we put it off, making small changes, the longer you wait, the larger those changes must be. I was talking to you further about that and look forward just as closely at medicare and medicaid which are larger drivers of the deficit than Social Security and probably a little more complicated to fix but we can deal with those and look forward to working with you. Agree about that. Last night. The gentleman from new york, mister jenkins. Thank you, mister chairman and director, you for being here, we appreciate your accessibility. You have a folksy and modest approach and that is very refreshing in washington. Infrastructure is a centerpiece of this bill, with 159,000 in bridges in america, every second of every day 7 cars drive on a bridge that is structurally deficient, it should be the centerpiece of this bill but the white house infrastructure plan in my estimation is the only veiled hit on local and state taxpayers. For every 6. 50 of local and state road and bridge spending the federal government will spend one dollar. So more state and local taxes to fund railroads and bridges so people get more taxes at the state and local level. Already paying 18. 4 cents a gallon, gas tax to fund the federal highway funds and this plan relies on tolls so people at the local and state level tax three times to finance this bill. Secondly total spending over the next decade will not exceed 200 billion. Oddly that amount in federal spending is equal to the us road and bridge spending in iraq and afghanistan in the past decade. Iraq and afghanistan were a much better deal. The 180 billion spent in the last decade, there was no local match, no toll roads. It was entirely deficit financed by the American People, american taxpayers, no gas tax or toll roads. Every american, democrat, republican and independent should find this to be sickening and highly insulting. On tuesday, september 25, 2017, i was in a meeting with the president and members of the house ways and means committee. I personally had asked the president about infrastructure and he categorically rejected the viability, the workability of publicprivate partnerships. In fact, he pointed to the Vice President , mike pence who told the entire group, i wasnt the only one there, publicprivate schemes didnt work. He cited indiana as a glaring example. The wall street journal in august 2017 the headline was indiana highway gives a black eye to publicprivate partnerships funding infrastructure. The president was referring to a 21 mile stretch of highway in indiana called the highway to hell. Private and state partnership signed by Vice President mike pence in 2014 when he was the governor. The project was two years behind schedule, and only 60 built before the state took over the entire project and issued debt to finance the project in a more traditional way. Nothing here adds up. Not only have a math problem but a math problem for certain but there is a values problem and this is not an America First budget and i think the infrastructure piece in this plan is but one example of that. In order to grow the American Economy you have to invest in it. And infrastructure based on any objective analysis is identified as an essential piece to growth. I applied the administrations goals of achieving 3 to 4 growth. If we could achieve that over a eight year period or four your period that would solve a lot of problems but the budget you have doesnt do that because it takes away from the very people you depend on to spend money because the fundamental of economics are that with higher incomes there is more spending. Where there is more spending there is more demand. Where there is more demand there is more growth and i would submit to you, mister directors that we have a growth problem. Getting and addressing that issue requires investing in growth. You have 20 seconds. Not sure what to do with the 15 second i have left. I will tell you the infrastructure plan has specific provisions we can talk about with other folks to overcome the shortcomings we saw in the obama stimulus where we threw a bunch of money at a problem and didnt solve it. That is why you see publicprivate partnerships and a focus on shortening the regulatory pipeline. You can throw 10 million, 10 trillion at infrastructure today and it is unlikely a single new road would be built within ten years because of the pipeline and how long it takes to get stuff built. We did try to learn from things that have been done in the past that didnt work. Mister mcclintock, california. Bob reflected on how much more infrastructure we could have had if the government would simply get out of the way and we have seen that across the country but i do want to complement you. This Budget Proposal has already achieved a miracle. It has made the democrats suddenly very concerned about the debt. For eight years the Obama Administration literally doubled the entire debt of the United States and there wasnt a people of protest from the other side, in fact they were cheering it. Now they are concerned although their response is to spend more money. I dont see how that addresses the debt but that is a subject for a different day. This sort of hypocrisy is not an excuse for republicans to become complacent about the debt. A Budget Briefing a year ago i asked one of the experts how long we have before a sovereign debt crisis and he said theres no way to make such a prediction, there are many variables that could trigger such a crisis but he said if we start approaching trillion dollar deficits, things will start to get very unstable very quickly and we will upset the stage for a sovereign debt crisis. As i look at these numbers, that is next year. What can you offer to allay these concerns . Keep in mind the trillion dollar deficit means Something Different in a 1 growth environment and 3. 4 growth environment. The real question is the relationship between the size of the debt to the size of the poverty, not an excuse not to balance, im not trying to minimize the challenges we face but one trillion dollar deficits and a 20 trillion economy is not the same as a 25 trillion one concern, the only other time we had a debt this large proportionately to our economy was at the end of world war ii when we exhausted all our resources and our credit fighting that war. We are at that level percentagewise now. That concerns me greatly. Trumans response was to cut spending dramatically. He took the federal budget down to 30 billion in a single year, fired 10 million federal employees, it was cold war demobilization. The keynesians predicted 25 unemployment and a second Great Depression but instead we had the postwar economic boom. He also cut taxes but he cut taxes while he was cutting spending. That is vital for Economic Growth, there are strong early indications it is working beyond our expectations which were very high but having cut taxes we also have a responsibility to restain spending. Why appreciate being quoted by the budget director, that is a first for me and glad somebody was listening over the years. I heard it for six years. I will keep repeating it until somebody is it and i thank you for recognizing taxes and debt are not opposites, they are the same thing. A debt is attacks. Once we decide to spend a dollar we already decided to tax it either now or in the future. Borrowing from the future has very real implications in the present because we borrow from the same pool that would be available to learn to consumers, to make consumer purchases to homebuyers to buy homes, businesses seeking to expand, that money is now not there for Economic Growth because the government has consumed it. My concern is working at cross purposes with the tax bill. By cutting taxes we have produced, in the process of reducing a remarkable economic revival but at the same time we are undermining that by increasing borrowing against the capital pool the private sector desperately needs. How do we deal with this problem . The budget is one of the messages i tried to convey my opening statement, one of the primary messages we hope the budget conveys to the legislature is you dont have to go down that road you dont have to worry about perpetual crowding out which is the economic phenomenon you are describing but even though this budget does not balance in the year 10 the deficit is slightly over 1 of gdp and the total debt as a sign of the overall economy starts to come down, it peaks around 80 , a very real economic concern, and then just have to reaching that peak, how do we solve the problems . Encourage you to take the ideas you like in this budget and incorporate it into your own to solve the problems you just laid out. Gentlelady from washington. Thank you for being with us today. I am disappointed, talk about cuts or reforms there hasnt been talk about return, that would be an important concept. Lets talk about when we make investments there are many investments that give us a great return and save us much more money long into the future, education, infrastructure, research and important programs. Lets talk about snap. The ministration is budget cut 13 billion from Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program snap over the next we 10 years which will place millions of vulnerable americans at unnecessary risk of losing the most basic radical nutrition assistance. The snap benefit is 4. 50 a day. Have you ever taken the snap challenge and had all your food, 4. 50 a day . I havent. I encourage you to do that because i have and it is very difficult to get by on a snap benefit. You are not able to get fresh fruits and vegetables and Healthy Foods and if we expect people to be able to do their best job at work, to be able to be a great student, children to grow up healthy, we need to make sure they have healthy, nutritious food. We care a lot about making sure we could do what we could to make sure people didnt have to stay on Nutrition Program so they could take care of themselves and their families. The last farm bill i served on the ag committee in the conference committee. We put together a Program Based on work done in my state, the basic Training Program people on snap gave them training so they are able to find employment in jobs where they are able to be selfsufficient. And help secure 200 million for usda competitive grant pilot programs to expand job training opportunities for recipients of snap, those programs have been going in usda and if we want to talk about something that works and helps people in a place where they dont need nutrition benefits because they are in a place where they are able to get a good job seem to be great investments that we get a return on. But i worry because now we the focus of this but it seems to be just on cutting snap, putting people in vulnerable positions. 44 of people who rely on snap have one person in the family who is working. This isnt about people who are not working. In many cases people are working and just dont make enough to get by. In the meantime we are saying we should punish them by taking away their access to food and i think that would have a terrible impact on families across the country. Im also trying to understand the proposal that families receiving 90 or more per month would receive a portion of their benefits in the form of a food package, something you talked about as a blue apron type programs that would have only nonperishable products. When we hear from others about the need for healthy food, fresh fruits and vegetables, that is a move in the wrong direction. I have questions and you are relying on such a program, how would it actually work, how much would it cost the government to set up the physical infrastructure necessary to package and distribute boxes like these . A couple things about the Food Box Program. One of the ways you can stretch that 4. 50 a day further is by buying wholesale instead of retail which the government can do and individuals cannot so we have to get more bang for the buck by doing this program. I will point out to you democrats have supported this program in the past, one of the biggest offenders of the program was senator feinstein from california when it comes to the Food Box Program we had for many years for seniors. It does work. It is why we are excited to see the usda propose to expand it because it is one of those programs how do people get these. What is the budget for getting them. Do you have a database so that you know what peoples allergies are, their dietary restrictions, no fresh fruits and vegetables would be part of this. What if a persons housing is unstable, how do you know to give them the package, they dont have a concierge who will sign for a package, how do you know forget to them. The challenge is to get them a box similar to get their cards in the first place because if you are homeless if someone carries a card with you can make and use wherever they are, it is illconceived. Is going to deprive people of the most basic nutrition assistance and cost everyone not only qualityoflife but more money, i yield back. Mister stanford. Let me first say i admire you, appreciate your confidence and the way you handle yourself. You made South Carolina proud. When he talked like this there is a but. All these things are true. But there is a but. I guess i struggle with this budget. I applaud the fact that you all have cuts. Hard to come up with cuts in Public Policy but you have stepped to the plate on that front. I think that this budget perpetuates this myth that we can balance the budget without impacting entitlements. That is a really dangerous myth to perpetuate. We are sleepwalking our way to the largest financial crisis in the history of our country and interesting the wall street journal entitled the budget deal, the guns and butter budget deal. I argue this budget is the guns and optimism budget deal in that gordon sullivan, former chief of staff in the United States army, hope is not a method but there is hope to this. I know you are an optimistic guy by nature but i want to go back to this reality which is if we have a budget that never balances and we predicate it on certain things that stretches and optimism, somewhere between optimism and stretches. You look at this notion of saying we are not going to have a meaningful economic downturn in the next 10 years as a component of Growth Numbers built into this budget i think that is wildly optimistic and if it is wrong we are off by trillions of dollars, not billions but trillions. My colleagues on the democratic side a moment ago mentioned the other projection in terms of economic forecast. The fed says 2. 2, private consensus 2. 4, cbo says 1. 9 and yet we are going to go at 3 . It is not that im not optimistic, i am, but if you look at the Building Blocks of growth, Labor Force Growth and productivity growth getting to the final growth. In an aging population Labor Force Growth is difficult, other variables, i pull some numbers here for responsible government, their point is to hit the 3 growth number, it would take a doubling of the current immigrant population, i dont think that one is realistic, it would mean how about put every single working age adults work including the unemployed, the disabled, those in prison and those in graduate school. That is not going to happen, initiate two simultaneous dot. Com sized rooms developed to utilize innovation that is more consequential than electricity or how about this one . The weekend. Mathematically it is difficult to get there and stay there. We are running back and forth on this one. He won the First Quarter but a couple quarters at the front end did not make a 10 year build out. I think you have a question on growth and Interest Rates. You cant have the growth you all project without a consequent rising Interest Rates. It has never happened in the history of man. The cbo number is close correlation and so i would just say how do we get to these numbers . What they perpetuate is this myth that we can balance a budget move toward balance without affecting entitlements and that is a dangerous myth to hold onto on the democratic or republican side of the isle. In reverse order. Interest rates, we have something a little lower than cbo for the first couple years, slightly higher than cbo in a couple years. Labor force productivity, i encourage you to look at fourthquarter Capital Investment numbers, the gdp numbers were less, the Capital Investment or four times what we expected and it is that Capital Investment, part of the tax bill you voted for the we know we have to have in order to get that productivity growth so this is all part of a plan. Capital investment leads to future productivity growth through additional machinery, additional education, no downturn. All economic analyses, you never know when a recession is coming, look at the Great Recession to now, 3 . We had a Great Depression in the middle of that. We go from the just about every period until 2007 or 8 and we had that 3 even though we had dramatic downturns in the middle. We didnt have a baby boom generation retiring as we do now. Thank you for your question. The gentlelady from florida. Good to see you, thank you for joining us this morning. On the screen i direct your attention to a tweet from the president in 2015 as a candidate which reads i was the first and only potential gop candidate to state there would be no cuts to Social Security, medicare and medicaid. Im sure you know this budget would cut all three of those programs breaking that promise along with many others that have already been broken so the track record is clear and that threatens the health of seniors, children and people with disabilities. The budget would cut Social Security by 72 billion over ten years, medicare i 266 billion and medicaid by 1. 4 trillion, you referenced mister moulton, you dont cut benefits for any of these programs. I beg to differ because you do cut benefits for more than 1 million households in Social Security Disability Insurance which affect more than a third of whom have multiple individuals and those households with disabilities. In cutting medicare, you can argue you arent cutting benefits directly to patients that the provider benefit cuts make it far less likely providers will continue to participate in the medicare programs diminishing the quality of access to healthcare seniors have and diverse city which in many places in this country going to a specialist and adding a scarcity of providers participating in medicare is a challenge. I represent the state of florida with the largest percentage of seniors in the country by population so these cuts disproportionately impact our seniors. The Social Security disability cuts will make it excruciatingly more difficult for people to qualify for ssi. I dont know when you were a legislator if you ever tried to get through the ssi disability process but it takes years which is insane to begin with and now you will make it even harder. We are talking about an extremely vulnerable population. I am trying to understand why donald trump broke this promise to the American People and if you are going to raise the issue of our deficits and debt that doesnt hold water given that you added 1. 5 trillion to the deficit in the taxcut bill donald trump signed into law the end of last year. A couple Different Things in response to that. Lowering drug prices which is what we do in this budget doesnt break that promise pretending the abuse you and i have both railed against the pharmaceutical companies commit in the way they price drugs to medicare doesnt break that promise. I thought that was something we can support putting a cap for the first time on true outofpocket expenses for seniors doesnt break that promise, it is something we could all support. Introducing a 0 copay for needy seniors does not break that promise. Every single one of those things in the budget. You are trying to distract me from the fact the president promised, directing your attention to the screen again specifically that he would not cut medicare, Social Security, and medicaid, that is in writing. Lowering drug prices for seniors is a bad idea . No. Your support for these programs. What i dont support is when the president makes a commitment to the American People and breaks that promise. He said he would not as president cut any of these programs. This budget cuts all of those programs and directly targets the most vulnerable recipients who participate in those programs and is no denying that. You can point to under windowdressing things in this budget which on top of that further explodes the deficit. Let me ask you about an issue of great concern to floridians, the budget would cut noah, Climate Research by 37 . Despite what you might think about Climate Change there is no denying, you are from a state that is in Hurricane Alley on occasion, we are still recovering from one of the most distractive hurricane seasons in recent memory. We have more areas dealing with flooding. I have neighborhoods in my district that flood even when it doesnt rain now even on clear days. Why to this budget turn away from National Efforts to assist communities like mine that are bearing the brunt on clear days . Even on clear days there are times when coastal parts of my district flood. We reprioritize to move away from Climate Change and more towards weather. With that more serve the need to describe. You cut regional coastal resilience. How are communities like mine supposed to make sure they can guard against flooding when youre cutting the funding that will prevent this . Take that one for the record. Lets go to alabama. I sat here and listened to this and i wish i had 30 minutes to talk about Climate Change for instance which we had a record 142 months with no hurricanes, talk about rising ocean levels, dont know how many realize alabama i dont want to get into science, take too long to explain it all but i have Major Concerns about the budget. We had conversations privately and want to continue to work with white house to figure a way forward but i want to dig out some things that are important and helpful in this budget and that is the work requirements and things being suggested and implemented by this administration, for instance kansas implemented work requirements in 2011 and i want to point out since that time incomes for the people who left the Nutrition Program as colleagues referred to it their income increased 247 . Cost came down for the state and the federal government but their incomes my dad blind in one i had an eighth grade education, i understand the benefit of work. I heard our colleagues attack the tax reform bill, first time in 30 years we reform taxes and i want to check out when you give tax cuts to Small Businesses and major corporations it benefits people who grew up like i did because i never had a poor person give me a job. I also want to point out they implement the work requirements in maine and they are earning 7000 people removed from the rolls, these are ablebodied adults, no kids, not everybody, ablebodied adult with no children, their income combined 18 million per year. Its really an effort to get us on a sound fiscal path. Im not sure we are there yet. You and i have had these conversations. I could sit down on a napkin in chile 1. 21. 6 trillion in additional revenues or savings we could get but if we dont fix the appropriations process, if we dont get back to making the house and senate work, it doesnt matter, does it . No, sir, it doesnt. We would very much like to, one of the reasons we supported the cap was to encourage regular order. It is a proper way for money to flow and the administration to participate. Proper way for all all of the l to be hurt and would like to see a return to that paradigm. In that regard if we can get to the appropriations process restored the way it should work, and by the way i think Everybody Knows with fast all 12 appropriation bills last year. We did them into packages. We only had five democrats vote for one of them. We did our appropriations work. But in regard to some issues i think we can deal with in terms of trying to reduce this, our spending, is, you and i talked about the improper payments. In 2010 when the democrats at both houses of congress and the white house, they passed the improper payments and recovery act. In 2012 they amended that act and best improper payments recovery improvement act. Whats going on now is that even though weve tried to address this issue we never did well enforcement so the improper payments rate has continued to go up. Plaster it was 144. 3 billion. Yet youre only showing a savings yet you only showing a savings of about 150 billion over ten. I think we can do better and should be a bipartisan effort. Would you agree with that . I would. We try to be conservative. As a set of probably couldve run that number up ten times, but we just let shown an ability to reduce the payment much larger than we have in the budgets would think the numbers are a lot more solid. We look forward to working with congress on reducing cannot improper payments keeping in mind improper payments cover a wide fright i think that anybody thinks it to check with some of his students have received a check but its a lot more than that as you know. Every dollar we set out improperly is a were paying interest on. Mr. Chairman, i would like to enter into the record the report on kansas and i will print the report from maine come from their department of health and human services. Without objection. Thank the gentleman. Lets go to washington. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, director for being with us. Director, i am calling this a three strikes youre out budget, and its the American People and working people are rounding the bases and they are being called out by this president and this administration. I want to walk through those strikes. Strike one was when you transferred 1. 3 trillion from working people to the wealthiest in this country and the wealthiest corporations. And strike two, our give this to you, in this budget you admit that that was a tax scam, that you dont have the growth to pay for those tax cuts to the wealthiest enjoy now going to saddle this generation and future generations with trillion dollars in debt. 1 trillion in this next year, 7 trillion over the next ten years. Strike three is got all the programs that people actually rely on to have a decent life. Some of these of them called up but i have to say it again. Temporary assistance for needy families cut by 1. 7 billion in this dollars in this budget or Economic Opportunity program cutting half 1 billion from rural and wastewater programs. Caddying jobTraining Programs for workers across the country. Economic Development Agency that invested millions in Coal Communities that donald trump said hes going to save, and programs that help struggling manufacturers. I want to talk about snap because my good friend from alabama just mentioned kansas and maine. I want to tell you what happened in kansas and maine. A year after instituting work requirements in kansas, 40 of unemployed were still unemployed. The snap participants who lost their benefits had an average annual income of 5500 62 per iy that that was a success. Heres what happened in maine. 80 reduction immediately immediately, thats true but a year later 60 still didnt have any income. As secretary perdue himself said, s. N. A. P. Is, his words, a very important effective program. Lets talk about medicaid for second. 1. 4 trillion cut to medicaid. I think this administration would like people to think medicaid assemblages benefiting the poor lacy black, brown, who knows what youre thinking, but 11 million adults with disabilities, 70 of those those folks get their coverage through medicaid. You look at the number of long stay nursing home residents, 60 of those residents get their coverage through medicaid. So i dont know how you can call this a moral budget in any way, shape, or form, mr. Director. And i want to talk about two specific things that are separate from everything i just mentioned. Yesterday when you came to visit with us, and thank you for doing that, i asked you about daca and what subject made in this budget about daca and they believe he told me you have assumed that the Daca Recipients get to stay, that for some permanent solution for daca. What i said, thats mostly correct. What i said was we assume an agreement is reached on immigration, on daca between republicans and democrats. I was disappointed to see democrats in the senate did not allow the debate to go forward yesterday after demanding that the due for thank you, director mulvaney, let me just point out that im sorry, this is my time. Let me point out that the president rescinded daca and put 800,000 800,000 reamers at risk of being deported and the Economic Impact of that is estimates are 280 280 430 billion in either a cat to our gdp or an increase to our gdp. So what happens if this republican Led Legislature in the senate and the house, paul wright has not committed to bring a real daca bill to the floor that capacity, what happens if daca is rescinded . A couple Different Things. I would suggest to you it was the law that rescinded daca and thats not the answer to the question so reclaiming my time. Your question was . I actually think i just answered my own question so i will let you pass that. Let me ask you about whether you know what the suspense Earnings Fund is . The suspense Earnings Fund. No, maam, i dont know that one of the top of my head. That is a fund that is basically earnings that are contributed Social Security where the names of the people and the earnings and the Social Security numbers dont match. There is about 1. 2 trillion in debt fund as of 2012, thats about 200 billion contributed to Social Security by undocumented immigrants into the Social Security does paying for Older Americans today. So if youve assume increases in enforcement as youve done in your budget, have you accounted for the decreases to the economy and to the Social Security fund if that were to pass . The gentleman will have to take that for the record. The german from ohio mr. Renacci. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, director mulvaney, for being here and all your hard work. While i may not agree with every policy decision made in a budget i am encouraged the president remains committed to reducing our National Debt and deficit. Against the be the last time in a Budget Committee hearing what were talking about a budget pickets interesting because mr. Carbajal and i this morning had a bipartisan breakfast we talked about how we have to get politics out of the way. The frustrating thing about the Budget Committee is we get into politics versus in the substance too often but i was taking notes. One of the things you said its easy to spend that to cut. Yes, it is. God help our children and grandchildren. Too often we worry about the next election and not the next generation which is a problem with the politics many times that show up in this committee. You also said something interesting. Both parties have taken credit for balancing the budget in the 90s. Neither party should take credit for balancing the budget in the 90s. If you go back to those years you will find out there were 2 trillion budgeted and 4 trillion spent. We couldnt if control are spending back there, thank goodness we had something called the tech bubble which grew our economy by over 5 for most of those years which gave us the ability to balance the budget of the was no democrat or no republican could ever take credit for the balanced budget. The last thing i want to bring up and i love listing and i apologize i had to run out to a hearing, i hear one of my colleagues on the other side say that this budget will destroy peoples lives. Let me explain something. As a controller general said, a democrat, who sat in it since he last year said we are heading for an unsustainable situation. And thats what will destroy peoples lives. As of this budget reflects i believe we need to take a serious look at the nondefense discussion programs we currently fund and where we can cut out unnecessary federal spending. However, i also understand and i know you understand the drivers of our longterm debt and deficit today for the mandatory spending, 70 of federal spending today that it is, 70 of medicare spending in the next 20 years, that will increase to 80 as mandatory spending. So director mulvaney, to believe this budget does enough to address by the way i give you and the president credit that youve included 1. 7 trillion in mandatory cuts, but do you believe it does enough in the mandatory spending to correct the medical aesthetic problem . I think it reserves the president promises. We talked about this last year and talked about the process we went to with the president to write the budget. That it gave the president certain options within medicare and Social Security that congressman mulvaney probably wouldve supported. The president said i promise people i wouldnt change retarder, i wouldnt change their benefits of medicare. What we done is try to shame in this budget you can still pass have dramatic savings and editor spinney, 1. 17 in a tenure in the tenure window and that touches programs. I think we have given you some ideas of things you can do short of that if you dont want to do that as well. You would probably also agree and thats i want to go back to the tax cut and jobs act. Some has been most of my career and the business will crating jobs and looking for opportunities to expand, i believe that will help the economy grow. I know your projected 3 growth. I i believe it will be higher tn 3 in the early years as of this tax bill starts to roll in. Im not an economist who can judge whether it will stay at 3 , but can you discuss the impact of, i know weve used 3 but just going back to what i talked about in the 90s, we balanced our budget by having five and 6 growth. Not cutting spending, and where do you see is in the nearterm and longterm with your thoughts . We think the numbers we put forth in the budget are defensible and towards the conservative side as evidence i would suggest i would point to the atlanta Federal Reserve that is a practice of projecting the next quarters gdp and i think the number they put forth last week or two weeks ago was a projection of 5. 4 for the First Quarter of this year. Governor sanford. , that would be declined over the course of the tenure window but we expect it will be times about 3 . These numbers we put in the budget are averages and their extraordinarily defensible and we think with the policies critically to back them up and to get us up there. Thank you. Like many of my colleagues we were elected in 2010 with a mandate to reduce Government Spending and ensure that our children and grandchildren are not held with this debt crisis. Right now were quite simply an unsustainable path to appreciate what youre doing and thank you and i use back. Mr. Carbajal from california. Thank you very much. Thank thank you, mr. Mulvaney fr being here today and thank you, mr. Renacci, for touching of those bipartisan discussions. We tried up to see if we can find Common Ground which oftentimes eludes us. Mr. Mulvaney, im incredibly troubled by this budget, budget cuts to domestic programs. Just to name a few, this budget calls for 10. 5 cut to the department of education, including eliminating the Subsidized Student Loan Program and the Public Service loan forgiveness programs. A 34 cut to the Environmental Protection agency, which is yet another attempt to undermine environmental safeguards. 1. 4 trillion, and actually more than 2 trillion if you include medicare, cutting medicaid over the next ten years. I 214 billion cut to s. N. A. P. Over ten years including the new food box proposal that takes choices away from households to buy groceries that they need. This budget pretends to make infrastructure of priority by highlighting the president s 200 billion infrastructure proposal with one hand, taking white infrastructure funding with the other hand. The budget assumes that 122 billion cut in Highway Program after the expiration of the current highway bill. It also cut discretionary expurgation accounts including reductions in amtrak and the elimination of tiger grants and cuts to Capital Investment grants program. Director mulvaney, can you explain to be have budget incorporates the president s new 200 billion infrastructure proposal . With the infrastructure plan actually to a net increase in federal investment in transportation infrastructure . It would and i think i would i was discouraged to be referenced mr. Schumer summers because her flat out wrong which are unfortunately if you look at his numbers what is a sin is 122 billion cut because of a highway trust fund. I would trust that is one or 22 billion short. We all we all know it. And lest you will make a separate appropriations for that money when i get spinney was with one of those classic examples, mr. Carbajal where we compare subject a baseline that of a knows its not right. Its one of the ways Washington County that is different than what the rest of the world count. He takes i think into consideration reduction of the program which might be infrastructure and might not. So really its demagogy and issue instead of talking about ways to win a passive infrastructure built that work. My concern is mr. Schumer is heavily invested in singh the president fail as opposing to talking about the issue to the people back home. Help me understand, if the tiger grants go away, this is a priority of mine. Both Santa Barbara and have apply for tiger grants to widen the u. S. 101quart door which is a a Critical Link for the Regional Movement of goods and to widen highway 44, another critical economic connector which recently served as an alternative route when the disaster hit and mudslides shut down the 101. Without tiger grants, where do you suggest communities like mine pursue funds for this type of infrastructure . To the new Infrastructure Program were proposing. It tiger grants with the answer wouldnt have this problem in the first place. Its just throwing money at the problem. The stimulus ten years ago wouldnt solve the problem. Clearly what weve been doing in the past which include tiger grants doesnt work. Its one of the reasons we have the crumbling infrastructure that we have. I get tremendous credit to the present for at least coming up with new ideas on how to fix the problem. If we simply do the same thing weve always done work when you get the same results weve already got. But we actually inverting the formula the federal government has always utilized to help local communities. That is, they used to do 80 funding and allow local communities to come up with 20 . Now we are saying you come up with 80 and will come up with only 20 we also found when we increase federal spending on infrastructure as we did during the obama stimulus all it did was display state statefunded. No additional roads actually got built. What happened was states to money theyre going to spend on building roads and bridges and other infrastructure and 92 other priorities. The federal money this place that sold nothing additional got built. Well, we will agree to disagree on how that impacted local communities. I was in local government and i will tell you we saw the benefits of those investments which is not the case with whats being proposed here. The gentleman yields. The gentleman from ohio mr. Johnson is recognized for fibers. I thank you mr. Chairman, and director, thank you for being with us. Still need by baseball pants back by the way. Thats an inside joke. He lent me a pair of park my baseball uniform a couple of years. I want to point out that it was much too large. That will be stricken from the record. Well, thank you director mulvaney. I am optimistic and glad to see that the president , you with the president , the administration is look at the other side of the ledger sheet cost and control and spending as we move forward. And i think this budget reflects that now. I do have some questions about the budget but last may when you came before this committee to present President Trumps fy 18 budget, i expressed to you at that time we had a private conversation about the fact that the funny for the Appalachian Regional Commission had been zeroed out, based on a dated seder this year however im very quite pleased that the administrations budget has maintained level funding for arc at 152 million. This funding is so critically important for reinvestment and development of the appalachian region, including eastern and Southeastern Ohio where i live, and to ensure that appellation doesnt continue to get left behind. I know the the president is vey concerned about that area of the country. Im also pleased that the administration has is taken seriously the own good epidemic. As President Trump declared last august this is a National Emergency and one that is sitting eastern and Southeastern Ohio particularly hard. Addiction does not discriminate by age, race, social status, economic status or political party. Solving problems going to take communities, families, local elected officials, churches, faithbased organizations and elected officials from the president all the way down to the lowest level. Its going to be an american the solution. We are all going to have to be vested in the fight. And im pleased to see that the president s budget includes approximately 20 billion to combat the Opioid Crisis. So heres my question. Specifically, can you give us an idea what is the administration doing to combat the Opioid Crisis . And can you expand on how the administration intends to use these funds and how it will coordinate between the agencies and the departments to ensure that these funds are used most efficiently . Iq senator, congressman. Gives me opportunity to letter but you know know you have head already i believe we have named director of the office of National Drug control policy which is good to be extraordinary helpful. If you look at the line items in the budget you will see a dramatic reduction in the ondcp budget. However is result of simply moving the Grant Programs that were managed out of the white house over 12 12 obligate hhs d doj. While it appears on a piece of paper as reduction it is something movement from one section to another. We have 3 billion i think in the 18 budget, 10 billion in the 19 budget for opioids. And then a bunch of other money in other places to bring up that number close to 20 billion as you mentioned. The the first things present tad about his National Advertising campaign, so that what were able to do to simply discourage people from using it. Their powerful tools we have there. One of the most interesting things is a work congressman cole mentioned, nih, weve asked nih with trying to come up with a nonaddictive painkilling replacement for opioids. So theres a bunch of different initiatives and with 20 billion he get a bunch of Different Things. But i think no one can i think about the president s commitment to this. Not in terms of just money because money is not always the best measure whether or not were committed to something but the commitment of energy and time and attention i think is encouraging. I would agree. This is, the Opioid Epidemic is a something were going to be able to spend our way out of, arrest or incarcerate our way out of. Its a big problem. Shifting gears just a little bit. The president request six out of 47 going in base defense Discretionary Spending in fiscal 2019. I think i know the answer but i want to give you a chance to respond. Why is funding of that magnitude necessary . I would defer further details secretary mattis because i i oy have ten seconds left but the lawn that short of it is to deal with some of the new threats including north korea we need a considerable hit up some of our capabilities and to undo some of the decay that was experienced over the last several years. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I yield back and you can keep the baseball pants. The time of the gentleman has expired. Ms. Jackson lee where are we . Mr. Jeffries, your recognized for five minutes. Thank you, thank you, mr. Chd thank you mr. Director for your presence here today. I was confused by statement you made in november, so hopefully you can clarify it for me that you stated in defense of the tax bills obliteration of the state and local Tax Deduction that quote it is simply not fair, not right that the folks who live in low Tax Jurisdictions are actually subsidizing the folks that live in high Tax Jurisdiction. Did you make that statement . Yes, several times. There are two types of states in this country, donor states and thicker states, correct . Are but that deals with the receipt and the government, not those who pay in. Okay. A donor state like new york, new jersey or connecticut regularly send more money to the federal government and we get back in return, correct . I believe that to be true. I dont understand how there can be any of the distinction as it relates to washington speak that you previously decried. When you talk about high Tax Jurisdiction like new york, new jersey and connecticut subsidizing the federal government. We actually received last regularly from the federal government that we get back to return to infect new york, a high tax state, generates 9. 4 of the federal governments income tax receipts. We receive only 5. 6, 5. 9 of federal spending allocated to states. Similarly as i think you are familiar with, a real taker states, states like north dakota, succulent, alabama, kentucky, west virginia, indiana, get more than two dollars back in federal spending for every dollar they sent to the federal government in taxes but isnt that the real donor state taker state the distinction is youre looking at it as a statewide basis and im looking at it as an individual basis. My, was and remains if you and i live in two different states but made exact same amount of money and you live in a higher tax date and i lived in a lower tech state you are paying less federal tax that i was which we didnt think was there and it did act as a subsidy where i was paying more so you could pay less. That strikes me a sort of the washington speak that you consistently decried but ill take your answer is one renewed in good faith. In 2011 you call president obama fiscal year 2012 budget a joke, correct . I dont remember that but that sounds like something i would say. Okay. And that budget you indicate hard to explain how the detached from reality that the country can spend another 1. 16 when it doesnt have the meats. Do you recall making a a statement . Again nonspecifically but i absolutely if i said Something Like that. Back in 2011 you told us at a town hall in sun city, carolina, makes development wonderful place. Im sure. That the country is much worse than i ever thought. Allowing this to get a increase compromise of u. S. Foreignpolicy. Do you a statement . Again no but i absolutely believe that i i made it. In april 2011 you said when asked what the vote to raise the debt limit with something called armageddon you said its no more armageddon and no more catastrophic than what we doing right now, spending 1. 5 trillion that we dont have every you. Do you recall making a statement . That what i actually do remember, yes. Doing and other debt ceiling standoff you stated this is a great one, if reconciliation is used to try and raise the debt ceiling, there may well be blood on the floor of the house chamber. Do you recall making a statement . No, but thats a really good one. I like that one. You voted against raising the debt ceiling in october 2015, correct . I dont recall but i voted against several times. I voted to raise the debt ceiling couple times but i do remember voting against the debt ceiling for the want. Before this committee when asked by representative barbara lee about the cut to Food Assistance for the poor you responded that we should be focusing on the standard of living of your unborn grandchildren, is that correct . I cant i do that but thats what consistent with what i believe . The debt was present 14 trillion tickets now in excess of 20 trillion, correct . Yes, yes, i believe the totat is 20 trillion. I think the debt held by the public this about 16 and change. What confuses me in the time of the remaining is the absence of real intellectual consistency here. Not doubting your good faith but you take one set of positions as a member of congress, and then come forward with an administration supporting a bill the status our children and grandchildren with more than 1. 5 trillion in Additional Debt simply to pay for tax cuts for millionaires, billionaires, big donors to the Republican Party as special interest corporations, and then tripled down on that by presenting a budget that would increase the debt by 7 trillion. I think that unfortunately is a shameful abdication of the fiscal responsibility and i always believed the Republican Party stood for in this nation. Ideally back. Thank you, sir. Gentleman yields back. Mr. Lewis is recognized for five minutes. Director mulvaney, thanks for coming today. I think ive only got one accord of euros going back a couple of days im going to use so you will be related to a that probably. I do want to talk about intellectual honesty in the moment. I get to that but first im not going to sit appear and defend the spending in this budget. But then again i will defend the spin in a number of congressional budgets either. The fact this last sunday he made the salient point that you would hope the democrats would come along on the defense side, but without giving us additional money for welfare spending, but they refuse and thats just the world we live in. I think thats absolutely true. In fact, i dont think its possible in soldier plus of defense from fife and 49 billion, the seven of 16 and zero out social programs. Thats secondbest anybody let alone the u. S. Senate. Instead of shared sacrifice being everybody times the belt across the federal budget, we get these stair steps. You fund mine and i will fund your. Except in a budget youve got discretion is been in the present budget request taking defense up all the way but social spending goes from about 591 with the bba, all the way down to under 400 billion in 2028. How is that not possible enough but it will be possible over ten years . Keep in mind in 18 we just and after the caps as i mentioned and in 19 we dont. Those those are the two budgets that are in front of you now. When we talk 2020 that is the vision for the future. Its not next years budget. What were saying is look, there is a way to get off of this trillion dollar trolley, off of this karros all. One of the ways you could do is to look at what the president will recall that two people in which is reduce these programs over the course of time. We dont put specifics behind it because its out budget. Weve details for 18th and 19th and then policies general ideas Going Forward. We offer one way to get off of that director, its going to be a challenge and a do think we have to get religion on the Budget Committee and in congress that real fiscal restraint means restraint across the budget. This sort of red versus blue tribalism is a work and we end up with a sort of scratcher back, you find mine and i will find yours. They can all take some belttightening. Largest and the rest of the time talk about intellectual honesty and two kinds of deficits. You will see on the screen at president a few decades ago said are two choices that between tax reduction on the one hand, and avoids of large federal deficits on the other, its clear no matter what policy is in barcelona is their National Security needs keep rising and economy have a restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance the budget. I repeat our prodigal choice is not between the tax cut deficit and the budgetary surplus. It is between two kinds of deficits, chronic deficit of inertia, or a temporary deficit of the transition resulting from a tax cut designed to boost the economy, increased taxes and achieve i believe a budget surplus. The first type of deficit is site of weakness. The second is investment in the future. If some of our colleagues were concerned about intellectual honesty they would have to disavow john f. Kennedy speech to the economical and a nuke in 1962 acres of former president made a specific distinction between a deficit that is caused by increased spending which comes out of the Capital Market and the deficit caused by tax reduction side to boost the economy does not increase let me put it tediously. Would you rather have a balanced budget of 4. 4 children by raising taxes, or a budget out of balance of 1 trillion . What we do more deleterious to the economy . Id rather have the latter. So theres a difference between these two kinds of deficits and i hear the other side constantly say that tax cut scandal raises the deficit. You dont give a deficit. That doesnt matter. Its about a spending, is a better . And the type of spending the government does. Recognizing letting people keep more of their own money is suspended. Its an efficient allocation. The productivity increases. I just want to make certain we understand that we could quoteunquote balance the budget by raising taxes but you are still crowding out the Capital Markets if disposable personal income is basically the amount of money you earn minus the taxes you pay, and thats disposable income, consumption you can say the same but if you raise taxes what happens . Actual disposable income goes down so thats crowding out. Spending is at the crowding out, no question. I would just encourage everyone that if you really want to keep your eye on the prize, its not because its a problem no question, interest on the debt but its not assisted all the time how we finance government. Its how much government which is to finance. I will yield back. And by the only one who feels like im on a Radio Program right now . That was she here. Its not cheap or. I enjoy the show. The gentleman yield back. This jackson lee you are recognized for five minutes. Director, its good to see you again. I think the chairman and the Ranking Member for this time in the time that i was a short period there been a lot of quotes by some of your statements, mr. Mulvaney. Im going to quote one of my predecessors and many years ago, the honorable Barbara Jordan sat on the Judiciary Committee during the impeachment hearings of president Richard Milhouse nixon and she said that she was not going to allow the constitution to be diminished. And what i would say to you with all due respect, and im not going to allow the American People to be debased, and to have them be publicly excoriated by a morally bankrupt budget. This is not a personal statement because you were so kind to tell us that a budget is a statement, policy and the lease of the particular administration that offers it. So i think its important to allow just a quick rundown. Your budget zeroes out a federal work study program. It is use Committee Services block grant. It zeroes out help for the seniors and others who need support for heat in the winter and air conditioning in the. It zeroes out the Community Development block grant that some in urban and rural areas are dependent on. I think it zeroes out the Real Development and agriculture that my own small cities depend on. It zeroes out the Senior Citizen Committee Program producers additur important asset of the United States, which is the National Aeronautics and space administration, their science mission. It zeroes it out. It zeroes out the tiger grants. It is this rates the Legal Services corporation it eviscerates the arts, this is a poor statement of what america is about and how the American People voted. I dont believe they voted for the president to destroy the very fabric of this nation so let me raise the question, i believe you have a policy to eliminate federal workers. Right now as relates to the bureau of prisons comes under the department of justice which i sit on the Judiciary Committee, they are looking to cut 6000 jobs nationwide. In my own community 37 jobs. They have preemptively cut these jobs. You are killing federal workers pick you are now causing federal workers to that prisoners to send out to private prisons. Private prisons do not allow for your request to know what theyre doing. Disturbance control is not done by our federal employees, dispatched out to private prisons because they are not capable of putting down disruptions. So ill be asking a question along these lines. Violence against women act or violence or Domestic Abuse has been a major issue over the last couple of days. We have found that to be a problem in your own white house. The inability to speak against it, the ability to denounce it. But yet your budget doesnt have a separate line item for violence against women. You have put it in the victims fund that does have about 13 million. You are a sizable amount for this and many other things and, therefore, what youre saying is the americas tax dollars dont believe in fighting against Domestic Violence because youre thrown it into a fund that really the victims of crime across america should be aware that they can be able to apply for the victims fund but you are throwing the Domestic Violence would you answer the question of getting rid of federal employees and the insignificance of the violence against women funding so much so that it is thrown in to a pot of money that should be for those victims of other crimes . Id be happy to. I get for that and i appreciate your perspective on that. We respectfully disagree. Remove the program into the phone because we thought it was absolute best place to guarantee the flow of funds. Theres immense amount of money there. We are fully funding vawa. I think its a tremendous commitment by the administration to do exactly that. We may disagree over the source of the fonts but not over the use of the funds. We would agree to the Program Needs before the fun and we do exactly that. Could you comment about getting rid of federal employs across america . I cant speak to the present program in particular. I apologize i do we propose reductions in place like the epa as a result of our reductions there but i but i cant speak e federal program. May i reclaim my time with only a few seconds. As indicated i believe this is morally bankrupt. I believe we can do better job in a belief that we are not here to crush the American People and to deny them the very sources of medicare time has expired. Mr. Smucker from pennsylvania you are recognized for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, director. A lot of discussion about the debt and the deficit. I share the concerns that a been expressed on both sides of the hour. I think thats a threat to our Economic Future and to our country if we are not able to get under control. Id like to thank the administration, thank the president particular i think is a very important first step in that is generated strong Economic Growth. I believe that we cannot have 1. 0 1. 0 growth get this under control and so the regulatory relief, a taxi from the president has shown the leadership and really is a first step needed to solve the deficit im disappointed that the budget doesnt balance as you intensified within ten years but im understanding you are saying that you expect annual deficits to decrease. Could you expand on that and further deepening we are, if not within ten years, are we putting with this budget ourselves on the path the balancing the budget within a certain time . If so how long . Sure. The projections right now, these projections may change a little bit simply because weve not had a chance to fully digest the caps deal, bits and pieces, theres a twoyear extension to the mandatory sequester that we have to factor in i think but these numbers should probably stay the same witches were looking at 948 billion and deficits vichy. Back is down to 448 in 2020. I think piece of that in the out years is our assumption that would not raise this yet. Our assumption that the reduction in individual tax rates that phaseout under the tax bill are actually made permanent. So if you ran this against the tax law itself, then numbers would be smart but we thought it was at their point to make the case that we thought that was good policy. The only reason i wasnt permanent was to deal with the reconciliation roles in the senate. The budget assume something that goes beyond what the tax bill does. We transmit down. You would be say that gets the deficit down around 1. 1 of gdp in the last year. To your larger question, outside the budget window we went back and forth on this philosophically within the office, i didnt want to go any further than that. I think, ginseng dilworth, the budget balances in 17 17 yearsr 27 years or 37 years i thought that undermined the credibility of the numbers. It was much more difficult to come in at a better was when balance but i think its more honest and transparent and accountable to do exactly that which is why we did it. I would like to followup on that but i have an additional question. Ill try to give shorter answers. After serving on the Budget Committee for one year, in the past year one of the biggest takeaways is how broken the process is. Thats certainly, thats recognized by probably everyone in the trooper its difficult to even argue the federal budget process is working with in the past 20 years weve had more than 100 crs, an average of five per year. And under the current budget process there have been 19 government shutdowns. Its just simply unacceptable. I see the difference in the state senate, seen the difference in the process there. Very decentralized. Not a lot of accountable in the process. Do you believe there needs to be greater coordination between federal agencies such as omb and congress throughout the current budget process to ensure more fiscal responsibility . I welcome that. I have been pleasantly surprised is somewhat democrat folks to mimi and my staff are being much more available than Previous Administration, both parties so we looked forward to continue the. I would suggest the herbal right now to the appropriations process functioning is not only be an upper house, its the senate. Until they figure out how to Work Together or how to change the rules allow them to pass bills with the majority and not a super majority, it is unlikely well see an end to the current budget impasse that we have . I think there are other changes to drive additional accountability. A few weeks ago introduced a bill that would create a joint commission on ajit process and this is modeled after something we did in pennsylvania where we had a similar difficult problem for decades and created an inside commission. We would include folks from administration, potential yourself. Wanted to get your thoughts on that. Do you believe the administration should be involved in efforts by congress to reform the federal budget process . I encourage you to reach out to counterpart mr. Enzi innocent one of leading voices on budget process of four. Senator daines, a former member of this body, very interesting try to get away to reform the system so that works and we can spend money appropriately. A bipartisan issue, one we should all look to try to solve so thank you and look for to continue discussions on that. Gentleman from california is recognized for five it. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, director mulvaney. Pick award associate myself with my colleagues comments, concern about the cuts in so many social programs. Thats what i posed this budget. Given that i am the last person to ask questions i do want to cover ground that is already been covered so want to bring up two different issues. First in the interest of proving that democrats can Say Something nice when we do agree with the policy perspective, i want to commend you for supporting the will Hurd Robin Kelly bill on modernizing government technology. Its 210 million to help make the government better with the internet and technology. And i think its common sense become a help the Appropriations Committee will fund find that bipartisan effort and i appreciate that being part of the budget. My question is a more philosophical question because i dont think theres a person on this committee who doesnt believe or doesnt want america to succeed and outstrip china be the dominant economy in the 21st century. I remember, i read a report a few days ago by bain. Mitt romney worked there, and years what the report said. Reports that basically we were going through a Technology Revolution similar to the Industrial Revolution the Industrial Revolution took 40 years to transition from manufacturing to services, to 20 years. This Technology Revolution will probably take ten years. It will displace potentially 20 of workers. And this at this is the biggest challenge to americas Economic Growth is actually income inequality because there may not be enough people with money to buy things. We know china doesnt care about the consumer welfare of their individuals. Its all an export driven economy. The success of our country has been a strong middle class that buys things. Not just the perspective of fairness, from a natural perspective of Economic Growth and making sure we outstrip china in the 21st century. I guess my question is simple and really not partisan, but d. C. The world from a similar lens that we have to tackle income inequality and care about the growth of the middle class if we care about americas success . Ill surprise you to say that we do and i think many of my party deeper one of places allsop occurred were starting to vary is how to remedy the situation. Theres many folks in your party writ large would say the way to solve that gap is to redistribute wealth of folks on this side of the i would say no, the best way to do is to allow folks to lift themselves up out of poverty to close the gap. Ive always considered people really dont care much about how much other people make. They caremore about how they make. Its more about income inequality as much as it is my own income. If i feel like unable to provide for my family, able to provide for my children with what a want to give them that it have to get i dont care you make ten times are 100 times what i do. I would point out on the painting, i have seen that but ive seen reports that i would encourage you, i know its a philosophical question, displacement doesnt always mean unemployment. It never has, when cars displaced the horse and buggy ill all do is create new opportunities at higherpaying jobs. Thats why critical to have education as part of this. Weve taken some criticism today from your son regarding son ofe proposal and education. Whats up and mention is the doubling of the command we make to apprenticeships programs because we have proof that the work. Classic example is trade adjustment assistance which the data suggest you to go to the federal program you are worse off than not having gone through it. But if you go through and a Friendship Program you are much better off so the money around. I would agree philosophically we look for to working with you always a midweek Work Together to accomplish that. I appreciate it does on income inequality and i agree that new jobs are going to be the challenge is it took 40 years in the transition when with from agriculture to industrialization. The question is how long is going to take for these new jobs and what are going to do on the transition . My hope would be given the recognition of income inequality maybe the unproductive investments, whether its in technology credentialing, whether its in public colleges, universities, expanding access to the internet. People both sides come together on to say look, weve got to do this because this is whats going to make america competitive in a 21st century i hope sometime in the next year or few years we can working on some of that in a bipartisan basis. Thank you, sir. Thank the gentleman. To wisconsin, mr. Grothman. First of all thanks for coming over here, mr. Secretary. Glad to see you. I will do a follow up on that last question. I personally believe one of the reasons for the widening income gap is whatever motivation there are a lot of programs out there that are designed to make sure that people dont make more money or they lose their benefits. And theres no question i think that the widening gap, both the wealth gap and income gap is cause maybe intentionally by people who like to keep people dependent and maybe unintentionally, you know, to make sure people dont make more money. But i noticed, i thank you for doing what you cant reduce some of these programs, you didnt really touch the Housing Assistance programs which i think are sometimes almost as pernicious as the s. N. A. P. S. N. Programs. Is there any reason why you didnt do things on the Housing Assistance programs which also discourage people from working or getting married . Actually i think of i we did make some proposals there, congressman, deep down in the details. But we tried to encourage folks to work so they can pay a larger percentage of their income towards their rent. Those of folks that can work. Again were taken some criticism that i think and i just mean people of working age who were not disabled. Correct. No question those programs are like designed to keep people we agree. Next question. I voted for the budget last week, a very difficult vote. Sometimes when you take a vote in this business you a choice of 40 for bad things if you vote yes, and worse things if you vote no. But as i get the numbers it was about 10. 4 increase in nondefense discretionary, i mean 10. 4 and defense discretionary, and nine. 4 and nondiscretionary i think what what happened in the negotiation, the executive branch, paul ryan, mitch mcconnell, i think an article up on one you had to go upon the other as a practical matter. I wondered if youd be willing to wait in and say we would reach a final deal rather than going up 10. 4, 9. 4, if say we go up 8. 4 and 6. 450 think that. 4. You think that would be advantageous . The administrations priority was not in terms of increase as much a rod all the increase. Secretary mattis made the case to both parties that he thought a funding level of 700 billion this year and seven or 60 next year was those are starting. I dont mean to cut you off but dont have five minutes. You were talking about 5. 5 increase in defense. Now youre saying 10. 5 increase . I do. I dont think we got a lot of the increases last you that we hope to get you to make up for some lost time. Next question. Im afraid in this budget the because youre giving these increases and the agencies the defense or other agencies have to spin this whole nine or 10 increase in the second half of the year, that the agencies will just be shoveling money out the door because thats the only way they can absorb such a big increase. Do you have any suggestions you can give our negotiators so that these agencies which are getting, some of what was it a 10 increase this year compared to leicester, only have final six months of you to spend could not spend it wastefully . They cant spend all that money in the last six months. The money that i respect will be taken into consideration so you dont get to spend 100, if your budget for your is 150 and youve already spent 75 lets say your budget is ten bucks, okay, you decide to give them a 10 increase and other get 110. Presumably theyre going along at ten bucks in the First Six Months and all of a sudden in the second half you are saying you have six bucks. You have 20 increase, see what im saying . In the final. My point is they dont have 11 to spent and the second half. Its five plus six, not five plus 11. Okay. I do believe thats a potential problem, d. C. What im saying . We tend to agree. One of the things were very proud of, because of work of carver congress the data previously ministrations had done, both parties, the Defense Department is now ready for an audit and going to the process. My final question for you, since this is kind of a height of understanding and discretionary, would you be willing to again and again publicly weighin until the senate agrees to reconciliation instructions to take up some of these welfare type programs that the public believes the so abuse . Mitch mcconnell is not there but would you guys be willing to push to get him there . Again the priorities for us this year are the infrastructure, obviously getting i daca deal, and then infrastructure would come after that. Mr. Woodall of the georgia. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, director, for being here. Thank you for your service. I wanted to thank you for the seriousness of the document that you prepared. It makes our job harder come au recall from your time on this committee to give if you donta series document it would always be easy to come up with some funding numbers and optimistic options and say you got to balance what you did, so thank you for doing that. Also want to thank you for your work in the shutdown a few weeks ago. Another opportunity you could make those as painless as possible we could make those as nonpainless as possible for the people we all represent and this Administration Made it as least painful as they could and im grateful to you for that. I want to ask you and a part of the shutdown context if there were any discussions, you may room in the Carter Administration our great president from the state of georgia, they can shut down for six times more than 60 days come to those months were shut down but prior to the decision you had to close the doors and padlock them, shutdown as meant Something Different. Was the discussion of what a ship that means and whether that has to be a painful event for the American People . There was. In fact, i got direct instruction from present try to make it as painless as possible to keep as many people in work as possible, at work, to keep as much government open as possible. He was extraordinarily proud that the monuments were open for the folks were he to protest against him and we thought that sent a message the president did care about the importance of managing the shutdown properly. What we found was a Previous Administration probably was not as aggressive as a good bit of using carried for funds and the transfer authorities varies agencies have and you could make the argument, and i have, shutdown for political purposes as opposed to make it as painless as possible. As you seem to masseter today a lot of these disagreements are thoughtful little representatives, discredits about how dollars to be spent when we allow a shutdown to weaponized the policy discussion to i think we end up with a less thoughtful decision at the end so thank you for what you did to make that less of an extricated if it be if we can do that more Going Forward i would be grateful. My colleague mentioned americas success has been a strong middle class the buys things. I happen to disagree. I think its a strong middle class that dreams things, that produces things, that builds things and provides things. Appreciate what administration has been doing to make the American Worker more competitive with whats going on around the globe. We have several trade deals going on right now, several tariff conversations going on right now. Im grateful for that. I see oco falls in the tail end of the budget window. I remember you and i worked together on some amendments to try to make oco represent exactly what it was supposed to represent instead of had the dod budget. Does that reduction oco in years represent a movement of fundamental defense dollars into defense spending or anticipation that will be withdrawn from conflicts . Thats a got what it is but we took advantage of the opportunity giving the increase in the caps to move stuff that should have been vocal in the first place onto the base so the oco number more appropriately reflected to oco which is the overseas contingency operation, the war budget for example, so no, it accomplishes if we choose to do it together exactly, what i set out to do several years ago. Is an obvious from your seat now why we require extra oco account as opposed to moving that in come in the absence of ice caps system, he doesnt seem to be a necessary opponent . It does pick also the importance of the supplemental process. For example, we came with the supplemental request to deal a special with the north korean threat and some things we want to accomplish in need of the regarding so forth. Some of flexibility oco gives, some of flexibility emergency supplemental gives are important they are not to abuse them and use them for things that were not originally intended. I appreciate what you all are doing to squeeze every nickel. I would call attention to the corps of engineers funding, particularly in the years. We have a big project going on of National Certificate at the port of savannah in georgia. Is there any conversation about what would be penny wise and pound foolish in terms of reducing some of those Infrastructure Investments when those investments are so close to paying off . A couple Different Things. You all set aside a good bit of money in the emergency supplementals that might be available to other army corps projects which could free up money for projects like savannah. We also offer new ideas on how to do capital spending, capital budget, not doing a full capital budget. I look forward to talking to you more about that. And cuts that are repeated in the 2019 budget. You told me, quote, Social Security disability is not Social Security. Social Security Disability insurance is Disability Insurance. It is a Welfare Program for the disabled, unquote. And i wanted to give you a chance to clarify the answer, but i just want to say that it was added to Social Security in 1954 and the money for both, the retirement and the disability, are paid for by everyone through their same fica, the same fica contributions. And yet, you distinguish them. So i wondered if you could clarify your answer. Sure, i think and i dont remember the exact context, i remember talking with you and others about it last year, was regarding the president s promises and i think what i tried to make the case last year, could make again right now, will make again right now is that there is Something Different about Social Security disability and aa iech achl ssi and which is old age retirement. Ssi is not funded through fica, i do not believe, but again, neither are those what a lot of people consider mainline Social Security. Even though a lot of people think of it as retirement its also an Insurance Program for families. Many people dont think about it as for widows and children as well, regardless of what people think about it i would argue that it is social, Social Security. The ssa, the Social Security administration. The operating budget for Social Security administration dropped 11 from real terms, to 2017. The arj hold time on the phone when you call is 16 minutes up from three minutes in 2010. Half of callers hang up before Getting Services and 12 get busy signals. So, do you consider that as acceptable level of Customer Service for americans . We dont like having served in your position, youre a member of congress for six years, i dont like the hold and wait times any more than you do. Do you think its a question of resources and budgets, and ability to have or are you saying that its mismanaged in some way. No, i apologize, im not as familiar with this off the top of our heads and im looking at our notes right now. Part of the argument we make is that the Social Security administration has not done as good a job as it probably can on modernization on i. T. Work and it could do better than that. Weve asked many other agencies to become more efficient, were asking ssa to do the same thing. So, the 2019 request for the Social Security administrations 5 lower than the current funding level and meanwhile, ssa is expected to serve an additional 1 million beneficiaries each year as baby boomers retire. So, how is the Social Security administration supposed to handle its increased workload and fewer resources . Im sure all our agencies could probably be more efficient, but it seems to me with the tremendous increase in the need, that ssa is in a very difficult position without more resources. I wonder if you could comment . I think, yeah, weve asked many, many administrations, many parts of the bureaucracy to be more efficient. A lot of them have been slow to take up improvement in their system simply because theyve not been required to. Theyve resolved their problems boy asking for more money and orin getting it and until you force them to start making difficult decisions they wont change. I certainly hope you look at that, the Service Aspect is very important to consumers in every single district in this country. And regarding Social Security Disability Insurance, the wait time for hearing decisions for disability claims spiked to 21 months in 2017. Those claims go through the Social Security administration. This Budget Proposal to limit retroactive ssdi benefits for americans with legitimate disability claims at the same time it cuts funding for Social Security administration is a problem. We agree with you and our Research Indicates that part of the difficulty, in fact, a good part of the difficult when it comes to delay on ssdi is the Administrative Law process. We are not the best of hiring in that particular area and our proposal includes way to reform that program so that we can actually get decent alj, Administrative Law judges in there to move things through the system. I think youll see, the research would indicate theres actually a small number of judges account for a large part of the backlog. Thank you, i yield back. Mr. Ferguson of georgia. Director, thank you for being here today and mr. Chairman, thank you for recognizing me. I want to start, theres something that was said very early on by our colleague from new mexico, miss grisham. She talked about the dire straits of new mexico, 20 poverty rate and i think she invited you to go see that firsthand. You know, very dire straits in new mexico. I compare that with my state of georgia, where were thriving in many, many areas, dont you agree that policy and whats reflected here in the budget should reflect those differences and allow states to have flexibility so that new mexico can address their issues in a different way than georgia, and the fact that this budget is growing the economy and creating opportunity i dont believe the administration does not believe that any particular state is condemned to permanent poverty or any is condemned to permanent poverty that every one has a chance to improve themselves. I want to go through the process. I find is very disingenuous, talking about the big lie we tell ourselves is the budget process, since 1974, this process has worked, i think, four times properly. We have seen republicans in the white house, democrats in the white house, republicans in control of the house and senate, in any various form that you want and yet were 20 trillion dollars in debt. Weve put in budget caps, weve gone down the road of removing earmarks, and no matter what we do, we wind up having these same conversations, where the minority voice shuts down the government no matter which party is in control and thats how they get their legislative agenda pushed to the front. Do we agree we need to reform our budget process . Absolutely. I would look forward to working with you on ideas. Again, i dont think that this is the chamber thats necessarily broken at this particular time. Thats an interesting perspective, i think. I think that the entire process is and while this chamber, while the house may be doing some really good work and strong work, we have to do it in the context of realizing that weve got to do this in conjunction with the administration and senate. Id point out. Someone else pointed out that you all have done a good job of passing appropriations bill and i think they get out of committee and sometimes dont get across the floor, but last year all 12, and you need to be commended on that. And anybody weve had a lot of conversation on that and thats the mandatory spending side of the equation. What i think weve got to do. Weve got to change how we have this conversation. We sit in this particular hearing and look at how we framed the conversations. Its either youre cutting it or youre doing something crazy to it. I mean, it becomes a very political environment. Our side demonizes the Minority Party, the Minority Party demonizes us and were not having an honest and transparent conversation about what the future of these programs look like, where we can keep our promises to our seniors, yet, we can have an honest conversation about what the future of those programs looks like for somebody in their 50s, 40s and 30s. How do you think that we should go about having that conversation differently, realizing that the only way that were probably going to be able to do that is for that to be a bipartisan conversation . You know, i dont know if i have any magic answers to that, mr. Ferguson, how to solve the toxicity in the government right now. I think that a good start would probably be to get back to regular order. I cannot tell you this is not the question i asked. How disappointed that mr. Schumer is holding up debate on daca in the senate. He may have relented and allowed it today, but for the last day or so, did not allow something that he insisted on having in the first place. Im not sure how were expected it was a golden opportunity. Youve probably not seen real debate in the house and i only saw is once in the six years i was here. There are folks in the senate welcoming the opportunity to have a floor debate for everybody to have their ideas and voted up or down and thats a fantastic concept, i wish it would be allowed to run its course. One final thing. Weve had a couple of hearings with the Congressional Budget Office on scoring. One. Things that strikes me is that the cbo, i asked the question, do you have accurate number. If you go for any 10year period, your projectionings year one how accurate in year ten. You get to year six and theres no determination of accuracy in your seven, eight, nine and ten. Yet, we are being asked and every congress has been asked to make 10year budget decisions on a number that we have absolutely no idea how accurate it is. How would you address that. The 10year window is voluntary. Other administrations did five, seven, ten. We looked at 20. If thats an issue, i encourage you to do longer or shorter budgets. What matters when the rubber meets the road is this year and next, the rest is aspirational and a messaging document. Thank you. From texas. Thank you, mr. Chairman and thank you, mr. Mulvaney for your heart for Public Service and your love for our country and your support for our president. Im encouraged by what ive seen. The results and the actions of this president , and so, i want to start with the praise that this president has put our safety and security first. And its about time. And our troops are desperately in need of those resources, so, thank you for that and i want to say through you to him how much i appreciate his unwavering commitment also from a National Security perspective to Border Security, and then, of course, your efforts and his efforts to support our moving tax reform through so we could unleash the full potential of our economy, and in west texas, i can tell you, our folks are delighted with keeping more of their money and jobs coming online and wages increasing and so, theres just hope for a better and brighter tomorrow for their families. And i i think the best thing though for the from my perspective that this president has done its whats most needed in this country, its not changing the course over the last seven years and im fully committed by that and by his actions he is and you are, but its the change in the culture. See, hes done exactly when said he would do. Now, i wish he said he would take on entitlement reform in a much bigger and more meaningful way, but hes done exactly what he said he would do and hes a promise keeper. And i appreciate that. I wish we could add to his proposition of promises that we would go more aggressively at what i believe is the greatest threat to the future of this country, and to our children and grandchildren and i believe you believe that. Its obvious by looking at you and others that this is the beginning of lent, its ash wednesday. And the theme is repen repentance for the church, and the spirit of that means to turn from something, turn away and go a different direction, where do we need to repent, mr. Mulvaney, in this government . With respect to our spending, our budget, and fiscal reforms. Where do we need to repent the most . Every dollar is a dollar mr. Arrington and every dollar you can save is one fewer dollar that youre going to not have to borrow, which is why our budget, we think, does offer an idea how to save a bunch of money and we focus on the nondiscretionary side of the budget earlier, 1. 7 trillion dollars of deductions in mandatory spending over the course of the ten years. So, we are openminded about how to do better. We think this is one idea and a really good idea how to get off of that road to permanent trillion dollar deficits. But we look forward to working with both parties to see if theres ways to supplement this and do things in an addition to this. I appreciate the efforts to reduce spending on both sides of the equation, mandatory and nondefense discretionary while were making the appropriate investments in our military and the government. But if were going to solve the debt issue and stave off a crisis and commit to our children, a strong, safe, free america, weve got to go bigger on these entitlement reforms. And i think the issue is, the political will just isnt there, that ive observed in congress to do that. But this president is a fighter and he has got amazing will and he has risen above what is the typical political culture and i just plead with him and through you, to make this a priority. Everything hes made a priority and everything hes promised hes done so i just, i want him to embrace this. For such a time as this, hes there and this what do they say, leaders do the right things, managers do things right. This is the right thing. You know it, i know it, the American People know it. And i think he could make a big difference there, thats just my two cents. Ill certainly deliver that message, thank you, congressman. Im encouraged by the i come from a big swath of rural texas and as you know, these are the food and fuel producers, and these are the backbone of this country from a traditional American Values standpoint, but they dont just contribute to our economy, they contribute to food security, and energy independence. Now, 75 of the geography, rural america, but only one of every six americans lives in Rural Communities by virtuely 100 are by the country boys and girls living in country places. And thank you to the commitment to rural structure. Tell me how that process is going 0 work and how with broadband and access to the internet, which is not happening in 50 of the Rural Communities, and you know its the underpinning for the economy and the community and et cetera. Quickly, what were trying to do a large portion of the infrastructure bill are things that could cash flow, generate receipts, an airport, toll bridge, that type of thing and recognize a large portion of the country those models dont work which is why we earmarked for lack of a better word, i think its 50 billion for things specifically like Rural Broadband because we know they are absolutely critical to the longterm infrastructure of the country and longterm economic health. Country and they couldnt be leveraged the way that other programs might be. Thank you, i yield back. To michigan, general bergman. Thank you, mr. Chairman. And is there anybody left other than me . Okay. I was going to say im last, but i guess im not last. We still have the Ranking Member, too, thats what im sticking around waiting for. Ill start with the general comment, small g. And being from where i am in the First District of michigan, ive got more big water, great lake shoreline than any in the country and the great lakes are truly our life blood and not only of our people in our communities, but also our economies when it comes to the type of industries we have up there. And notwithstanding, that 20 of the worlds fresh surface water reside in the great lakes. So, its something the great lakes is a, id say a global resource, definitely a National Resource that we need to preserve and make sure its healthy. A year ago when we came out with the great lakes, the original great lakes cut to zero. The great lakes restoration, working with colleagues we got it back to 300 million in the budget and 90 cut. There are line items in that gli and 10 are spent in such a way that we need more money because theyre great stewards and 80 are probably okay and 10 that funding line needs to dry up. But my concern in this budget right now is that with that 90 cut, im hopeful to work with the administration and my colleagues and those 22 other districts that border the great lakes to work with you to make that number realistic so that we truly, as we look alt the health of our natural and National Resources, that would be fresh water, that we dont make a mistake there with this 90 cut. Now, we agree on more than we differ and thats the beauty and why i am excited positively about the budget, but of ive got a couple of questions on the Opioid Crisis. We started with boots on the ground, the health care providers, the courts, the law enforcement, the social workers, teachers, all of that to find out what its like in our district, what were dealing with so when we come to a National Level how do we handle this addiction crisis. Any thought or detail you can give me on how this 20 billion thats been allocated, how its going to be allocated on the front end, here . Sure, a couple of Different Things and i would you may not have heard me mention before i would encourage you to not be misled by a reduction dealing with opioids, that appears in the budget. Thats not a true reduction, its about 95 reduction in the line item for the office of National Drug policy, and all of that reflects, congressman, is move of the Grant Programs that currently resided in that program over to the department of justice and hhs. So please dont be misled. A lot of people say its an indication of lack of commitment. All we did was move them to where we thought that would be better administered. And some of the money on nih programs, to try and develop nonaddictive alternatives. We also have a proposal in the budget not mentioned before, to cover methadone treatment in both medicare and medicaid. And we also have money set aside for a fairly Aggressive National ad campaign to try and discourage well, youve answered a couple of times, i apologize, i was in and out. Ive forgotten what ive said a couple of times already. Doesnt hurt to repeat good and solid policy. Any update on the status of the dod audit . Yes, sir, theyre ongoing now and i think you saw the first fruits of it this past week where they said they had had discovered about 800 million worth of improper payments. I want to be very clear on that. First of all, the system is working. The reason we found that money is because they have prepared themselves for audit and going through the process and able to find is stuff and they would not have found before. Thats good. I want to point out. Just because theres an improper payment and said a dollar amount and should not have. 95 cents supposed to send you 1, or 1. 02 instead of 1 or paper work. Ill be interested what they discover. Does any of this look at duplicative hearings . We could do entire hearing on what we could condense. Thank you. Hello. Happy new year, appreciate your work. We all saw the benefits as the people of South Carolina had with you when you were a member of congress and now the whole country is seeing your work. Greatly appreciate your leadership, sir, greatly appreciate the president s leadership. Im particularly heartened to see if your budget youre calling for the idea that the federal employees, when they do a bad job can actually be fired. And at the same time youre proposing a bonus pool so that federal employees who do a good job, and there are those who do excellent work with Service Hearts like you do, for the people, understand that in some professions when you enter its not about you, its about service to others. The federal bureaucracy used to be that way a long time ago, now, the average salary for a federal public official is sometimes double that of a private sector counterpart and you know, all things being equal, thats not right. I dont want to interrupt you congressman 99. 7 of them get their performance bonuses, performance increases. And youre performing that. Count me in as a soldier in that effort to reform that effort. And like i was saying, bonus pools for those doing a good job and i think thats going to make this place run like more of the private sector counterparts, again, recognizing that some professions of about Public Service and service to others. I have a paycheck that would do a lot of these things for congress and we continue to fight, and have your staff note that and id be happy to help in that part of the budget. Inland water ways, youre proposing for the industry for lot of us a pretty bold ways to make ends meet, help our infrastructure. I come from a state that values and has successfully privatized different assets. We never turned them over to an industry or various users of an industry, we always kept it was always about putting up a concession to be run and see who has the best bid and what the best deal was. At all times the legislature kept control of fees and caps and what could be done and making sure that people have equal access and all that. We had this discussion a little bit last time when we talked about air traffic control. Now its not the same as air traffic control, but its the idea that we might turn over the inland water ways, the operation of locks and dams to private actors. The industry puts in 100 to 200 million of 2 im sorry, 100 to 200 to a 1 billion operational cost. If you dont mind the olmstead lock and dam project. It for years was ballooning in costs, previously administrations were letting cost overruns control. Its not unheard of for a corps to get halfway through a project and stop. As i talk with you about the olmstead project, its getting done now because of a cost sharing formula we were able to do on the infrastructure committee. Its going to come in under budget and ahead of schedule and it was headed for disaster. I didnt have to tell you, given your your previous work about the disaster it would be if we cant get grain and steel and all of our raw products out of their inland water ways and on to the market. Its helping with our trade deficit so i would encourage you and your staff and the administration to look at the olmstead project as a poster child for, you know, just say you dont get the votes for privatization or the inland water ways, you know, a few crazier things that happened in congress than not getting the votes. But this might be privatization light and the reason i say this, that name has come up before so i know that weve looked at that as a potential model. Theres a bunch of different models. One of the beauties of the infrastructure bill congressman, its not married to one program. You dont have to be publicprivate partnership. You could do concessions and give incentive to sell the stuff and move it off their books. Theres a bunch of models and we look forward to doing things on examples of things that actually work. Thank you, sir, Jody Arrington eloquently put up for reform on spending. Youre doing some autopilot spending in turns of tania, snap and how much about that yield . Off the top of my head i have no idea what those proposals are because the number gets wrapped in with some. Other reforms. Keep compounding and returning savings outside of thats correct, these are structural returns that reap benefits for many years. Thank the gentleman. And finally, he reserved his questions to the end and im pleased to recognize the Ranking Member, from the commonwealth of kentucky. Thank you very much. And director mulvaney, thank you for hanging around this long, in the spirit of the valentines day ill be nice. Thank you for that and thank you for being nice. And judging what the appropriate role of government is and many of us in this room have different philosophies whats the appropriate role of the federal government. What we should be doing more of and less of and i think its a healthy debate to have always, but it has to be an honest debate and that requires that we make sure the American People understand the discussion were having. So with that in mind, this week on face the nation, you were asked about the spending levels in the president s budget and you said that the democrats, quote, would not you said this actually again today, would not give us a single additional dollar for defense unless we gave them dollars for social programs. And again, you made the similar comment. Yes, sir, those were my wordsments with that in mind, i want to ask you, do you consider the empty eye a social program. Im sorry, i dont know where youre going, nondefense is i wont go through every one, d. E. A. , Drug Enforcement administration, Veterans Health care, fta, tsa, irs, federal court system, nia, census bureau, ice. These are in the nondefense discretionary side of the budget. I hope we have your support for increasing spending in those types of things. And mr. Lewis actually used the term we know what happens when people say social programs, Many Americans think welfare. Mr. Lewis used the terms interchangeably, i think that mr. Grossman mentioned, did the same thing. And we actually kind of ran an analysis and made our own definition the social program and we defined it as something based on income, okay . Means test. Means test the programs and with that standard in mind, basically somewhere less than 11 of nondefense discretionary could be categorized as a social program. So, again, i hope we never get to the point in this debate or in this country where were trying to pit tanks against teachers or many of these other things, Border Security against soldiers, things where we would argue that most of the nondefense discretionary side of the budget is as much involved in National Security, whether its physical security, economic security, or personal security, health security, as the defense budget. So i would appreciate it if you again, your point is well made. I dont know if id go as far as you would, its different philosophies to say that some of the matters that youve addressed are as critical as national defense. Theyre critical, theres no question, but in terms of the priorization, which is what the discussion is about. Regardless how big the pie is, at some point the pie runs out. We can borrow nothing or a trillion dollars and priority, thats what the debate is about. Always agree with you on that. With that in mind, were talking about adding to the federal budget, to the defense side of the budget essentially 195 billion dollars over two years. 80, 85 and then some other things. Its 165, not before you count 80, 80 billion dollars in 18, 19, 165 billion and a lot of it depends on the years, thats a rough estimate, yes, sir. Plus or minus, well say, 195 billion. A huge increase in what were spending on defense, absolutely a huge amount of increase and youve already mentioned until january, the pentagons never been audited and theyve begun an audit, just in the initial stages they have discovered billions of dollars that they cant account for and my question is with an increase like that which amounts to a 14 increase overall in the defense budget, close enough for government work, that weve done this, and i know the the defense committee, the Armed Services Committee Meets and they do an authoritization bill and so forth. Has the administration really dug into the question of what this military needs and what our missions are . Because as i recall during the campaign the president was unabashed in talking about basically reconsidering our role throughout the world, talking about our involvement in afghanistan and so thats my question to you, is what kind of review of our military objectives, short and longterm military needs are. Yes, sir. The answer to the question is yes. Ive been extraordinarily impressed not just with secretary mattis who everybody recognizes, but pat shanahan who came over from the boeing program and was able to return the program p and he and i Work Together regularly. I think he would convince you, sir, this is not a number they picked out of the air, in fact, its the entire opposite. I think theyve backed into a strategydriven amount of money. Weve often talked about that, instead of picking a number and then pick out a strategy. Pick out a strategy and then hue we get here. We could go and secretary shanahan go to lunch and i would appreciate that opportunity. So, we talked about medicare earlier, cuts in medicare and you basically, i think, claimed that it was unfair that we talk about cuts to medicare because were not cutting patient care, were just cutting no, sir, i was trying to discourage the 500 billion number and i didnt think that was accurate, but go ahead. Whatever the number is if its 200 billion reduced or whatever it is, i vividly remember in 2010 and while i wasnt following your campaign individually closely i know that republican candidates all offense the country were beating us to death with the fact that we were proposing to cut 750 billion out of medicare when, in fact, none of that came out of Patient Services, actually we expanded Patient Services and we were crying foul. So if we beat you over the head with it, your party this year, i hope you wont cry foul. Ill cry foul as you probably did in 2010 and no one the republicans wont believe you and the democrats wont believe me. Probably right. So, you compare your current tax revenue estimates in this budget to last years cbo baseline. Given that we dont have an updated cbo estimate yet, based on the tax act that was enacted to get an a comparison. Lets look at how your estimates changed from last year to this year. And if you estimated 3 points last year, 3. 7 trillion dollars more in tax revenues over the period of 2018 to 2027, than your current estimates. How much of that reduction and revenue projection is from the tax cut . Roughly 1. 8 trillion. 1. 8 trillion. Okay. And id be happy to explain the difference between the 1. 8 trillion at the office of tax ota came up with the treasury and the cbo. It generally, you scored it at 1. 5 and we scored it after the fact at 1. 8. The difference the cbo and treasury who does the numbers for us deal with individual mandates. Cbo often said that if you get rid of the individual mandate folks will drop off of medicaid and that actually generates a huge savings. We simply dont believe that it would be the case. We dont believe well experience the same savings from folks not taking medicaid as the cbo assumes. Basically half of the change in revenue estimates that you are projecting this budget came from tax cuts . Yes, sir, another half a trillion dollars you and i think we discussed came from the extension of the individual tax rate reductions. The law that passed spaces that out after five years, we have that being term permanents. Got it. And this is not a contentious question at all, im curious. And im not i dont know what you have in your budget, but you talked about Interest Rates and youre projecting that Interest Rates actually stay fairly low over the period. Yes, sir. I could read them to you if you like or share them. The past months, the 10year treasury note has gone up with significant rise in a short period of time. Out of cure consist it. 3. 1 is the 10year number and i think its your name. 2019, 3. 1. 2020, 3. 4. 2021, 3. 6, 3. 7, 3. 6 out to the budget window. Again, were slightly higher than the cbo baselines from last from january 17th, a little bit lower perhaps than the numbers from june, and then roughly in line with the cbo for the out years. Thanks for that information and thanks for your testimony. I greatly appreciate it. I yield back. Always a pleasure. I thank the Ranking Member. Director mulvaney, we appreciate your time. I think ive destroyed your table here. Thats all right, well add it into the budget. Those who wants questions and answers in writing they will be raid for the record. Anyone who wants to do so within seven days, with that the committee stands adjourned. [inaudible conversations] thank you. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] online coverage of the savannah book festival starts saturday morning at 9 00 eastern and includes the book future war preparing for the new global battlefield author Scott Shapiro with the int internationali internationalist, and se watc beginning 9 00 eastern on cspan2s book tv. Cspans history landmark cases returns with 12 new Supreme Court cases. Each week, joining us to discuss constitutional issues and personnel stories behind the significant Supreme Court decisions, beginning monday, february 26th live at 9 p. M. Eastern and to help you follow all 12 cases, we have a companion guide written by tony morrow, landmark