tv House Hearing on Presidents 2020 Budget CSPAN March 12, 2019 9:00pm-11:56pm EDT
>> join us on booktv this saturday at noon eastern as we speak with local cedar rapids authors. sunday at 2:00 p.m. on c-span three is american history tv. working with her cable partners as we explore the american tort and transport story. now hearing on the budget request. the house committee heard. the acting director of the office of management and budget. . . .
on the president's budget submission and certainly welcoming acting director of omb thank you for the opening statement and i will welcome you to recognize myself. thank you for coming here to testify today on the president's 2020 budget proposal the eyes and ears of the american taxpayer on the priorities of the trump administration has weakened the budget appropriations process for 2020. unfortunately when you look at the budget the trump administration has produced, it is not responsible or even usable. i described the president's first budget as betrayal, harsh
words but abandoned working americans and families. second proposal continues the pattern relying on extreme cuts to the impact of republican tax scams at the expense of the same working families and americans. now the third budget proposal offers more of the same and it relies on a patchwork of gimmicks and extreme cuts that forfeit any responsibility for the well-being of the american people and our nation. what this administration is saying to work veterans as the federal government will no longer have a role making sure we remain an opportunity based society and the american dream is out of reach. in 2020 the proposal would have us do the unthinkable, the 9% cut of 5% of the white house claims and nondefense discretionary funds over the course of the decade would/nondefense discretionary
spending by more than $1 trillion crippling our economic and national security by this investing in education, public health, energy, healthcare research, infrastructure and activities directly related to the national security. including homeland security diplomatic operations, veterans health care, law enforcement, disease prevention and control and in short it is a complete abandonment of our responsibility to the american people, and it is intentional. you can't cut medicare by half a trillion dollars without knowing that it will hurt the nation's seniors and you can't cut medicaid without knowing the results of the families losing health care coverage. you can't cut student loans by more than $200 billion without knowing that it will make it harder if not impossible for people to go to college. you can't cut nutrition assistance by more than 220 billion without knowing it will lead to families without food on the table and you cannot
cut by more than 30% without knowing that there will make the air less safe and water less clean. these cuts are not a tightening of the bill or a trimming of the fat or even a serious attempt at training and spending they are extreme to a level that is malicious and intended to do harm. that's not all. on top of the damage done in the note of the so-called fiscal restraint, the budget calls for a trillion dollars of additional tax cuts for the wealthy. this is on top of the texas game and acted that showed tax cuts for the rich and wealthy corporations and lost trillions to the deficits. none of that adds up or make sense which explains the more creative aspects of the president's budget the administration uses a free every alternative projection and trick in the book one of the most striking parts of the budget is the inclusion of $165 billion
for overseas contingencies operations a stunning figure. you aryou're not even trying toe this cap and obscure the true cost of military obligations. in the op-ed you in for the conservatives to accept the gimmick as a backdoor way to supercharged defense spending and avoid the negotiating realistic responsible budget cuts for both defense and nondefense funding. i'm sorry that you don't get many points for being dishonest it doesn't work that way. this is a gimmick and it deserves the dismissal with which it has been met. the only way we can begin a productive budget in the process is by committing to honest and realistic budgeting and reaching an agreement for the caps of discretionary spending. it's my hope for the hearing we can conduct an honest examination of the priority set forth in the administration and begin to craft a budget that
reflects the needs and priorities of the american people. once again i want to think the acting director for being here today and i look forward to your testimony. >> as the committee works to craft a budget resolution for the fiscal year ahead, we appreciate the opportunity to discuss the budget and its spending priorities with you today. as you know it gives congress the power of the purse the priority is of the american people while addressing its not an easy task it requires collaboration on both sides of the aisle, both chambers of the b. and both ends of pennsylvania avenue. this is particularly true when the american people in the senate divided government to have the 116th congress. that's why hearing from the administration today is so important. as the congressional budget office warned earlier this year
the nation is nearing a fiscal crisis. i would argue we are already in one. it may not seem like one. the markets haven't responded yet, but i sense there is some smoldering going on that could lead to a potential raging fire as it were regarding the nation's deficit and debt. current spending levels over the decades will be 11.6 trillion the national debt will rise to nearly 34 trillion in the same period the debt held by the american people will reach 93% of gdp, the highest that level since just after world war ii. we cannot continue down this path we have to lead by example making tough choices necessary to resort to the rigorous course while there is still much work to do, the president's budget takes steps in the right direction. it reduces the deficit fight
2.8 trillion between 2020 and 2029 whereas under the current while the deficitlaw the deficia trillion dollars annually under this proposal the deficit would be lowered to 202 billion that the number of priority is to see in the budget for example for the security of the american people use the most fundamental purpose of the federal government and i appreciate the administration's commitment to these priorities. i also appreciate the administration's focus in the oe budget on improving the long-term health of the american people by investing in life-saving medical research, efforts to combat the opioid
epidemic and reforms to improve our health care system. and as i've said before, our biggest threat to all of these priority is and to the long-term security health and prosperity of the nation is out of control mandatory spending. it's a mandatory programs account for 70% of all federal spending and are projected to increase to 78% by 2029. these programs have grown far beyond their intended size and scope and have far exceeded what we can afford. without action they will be unable to deliver they are choosing to ignore the reality and introduce ideas for the new mandatory programs while also looking to raise the budget controls the internet for 2020. as we move forward in the budget process, again i ask what is your plan to offset these in
croesus and our members last week were pleased to hear from the distinguished majority member of the house mr. hoyer who was very productive discussion about the need for the caps deal if that is our benchmark i look forward to hearing recommendations for the increases in discretionary spending by addressing out-of-control mandatory spending. before i yield back i saw the news and suggested there is a debate about whether the majority party plans to do a budget and i want you to know i feel your pain. i've been there. but it's like asking if we are going to do our jobs. and i know i'm speaking to the
choir a little bit with my friend the budget chairman because we were in agreement. it needs to change and we need budget process reform. with that i look forward to today's discussion and yield back. >> thank you and if any other members of opening statements, they may submit them and they will be published in the record. now once again i introduced the acting director and yield five minutes to him for his remarks. thank you for the opportunity to testify on the fiscal year 2020
budget. yesterday i submitted my full statement for the record, however for my oral testimony i want to get a few key points. over the past two years president trump has unleashed the american economy for the progrowth agenda resulting in the return to prosperity for the american people. working alongside many of you in the committee president trump scientist with tax reform into law barking the first time in more than 30 years the tax code was updated and improved and provided much-needed relief to americans especially the middle class. throughout his administration he's implemented a robust regulatory agenda resulting in small businesses in the american economy facing more than $33 billion burdensome regulatory costs. however, these achievements will be challenging to maintain if we do not get our fiscal house in order. order. annual deficits or continuing to rise irise and will exceed 1 trn a year on the national debt
projected to exceed military spending in 2024. at this level of debt is unsustainable and threatens the prosperity of economic freedom this reduction to the discretionary and mandatory spending than any other president in history. yet each time the president has called for fiscal restraint, spending reform, he has been blatantly ignored. instead, those opposed to decreasing the spending have called for large tax increases and the means to deficits however not only would this punish taxpayers, destroy jobs and slow the economic engine but it would also ignore the reality of the current fiscal situation. contrary to the predictions of
the passage of historic tax reform, revenues are increasing and aligned with 50 year historic averages. the problem is not that americans taxed too little is that washington's been just too much. the budget is yet another fiscally responsible commonsense spending plan from president trump and i look forward to working with members of the committee and congress had remained hopeful that we can prove to the american people that the government is capable of balancing the budget by prioritized in efficient and effective spending. thank you for your time and i look forward to answering questions. >> i think the witness and as is the pattern the ranking member and i will defer questions until all of the other members have had their chance. with that i will yield five minutes to the vice chairman. thank you very much for joining us here today.
i want to share a quote from a prominent publication has talked about endless deficits and says they would waive the country down like an anchor and that we are on the verge of a debt crisis. you know who said that house speaker paul ryan in 2013 was commenting on the obama administration in the midst of the year of reducing the federal deficit and the percentage of gdp. in reality, how much of the deficits and debt exploded due to the tax law deficits have worsened in the first two years ago for the ten years we believe that the deficits will improve. they are consistently revised its estimate since the tax law was passed for how big the deficits will be. >> over the life of ten years tweet is it true that you have
revised up since it was passed back the >> estimates have been revised to account for the fact that the tax cut in the short term has led to -- it's been revised up. >> 1.9 trillion is the estimate that we have that is the estimate that you have produced. just curious how many of mr. trump's $8.6 billion walls could he build with $1.9 trillion tax >> i haven't done the math. >> it is more than 220, not miles for 220 of the wall. to compare that democratic priority is what do you think 1.9 trillion would do for education funding in the united states? would that make a difference in our kids lives? >> it fully fund what is necessary to continue to educate our children. we have 50 billion -- >> we can continue falling
behind other competitors around the world in our education standards. is that what you would like -- >> we are putting forward a different proposal. we have the school choice tax credit that can be done both of the public leveatthe public leve level. it's a paradigm shift that we think is important. >> 1.9 trillion devoted to education, that wouldn't be imported? >> we believe we need to fund the education programs that work and that art efficient and beneficial. there is no debate. >> it's a matter of who is doing the spending. parents and families, states and localities can do a better job. >> that the 1.9 trillion wouldn't help.
>> it's to educate our children. >> how many years did the president trump claimed it would take to eliminate the national debt under his program? >> the president made a commitment to the american people to get the fiscal health -- >> how many years did he say? >> he said he would work on getting a physical plant in eight years. >> how high does it predict or project the budget deficit to beat in 2024? >> we would still be looking at the trillion dollar deficits over the last years in office by nearly $500 billion. i want to jump quickly to veterans. the budget quotes the statement that it is our moral and solemn
obligation to demonstrate to our veterans a continuing credit to the unwaveringratitudeunwaverind meaningful encouragement. how is cutting veterans disability benefits by rounding down cost of living and increases consistent with this statement? should we be making veterans pay for exploding deficits by denying them the full cost of living adjustments? >> this budget has incredibly high increases for veterans pending. >> where you just decreasing the cost of living in the united states is going down? >> 8% decrease -- >> i'm just asking why you are decreasing the cost of living. >> programs to ensure that the veterans programs over ten years of -- >> it will improve by i now
recognize the gentleman from georgia for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman and for what you do, i've only got into surf with two presidents while i've been in congress. president obama i believe loved this country but ever want to send a budget capitol hill that balanced in about five years, ten years, not 15 or 60. so, i want you to know i know you are making to positions but the president sending a budget that balanced we could have done it by now but we haven't. i was listening about the cuts that were going on. my first two years in congress we reduced the total federal spending year-over-year with actual outlays declined one year to the next and then declined one year to the next, two years in a row. how often in your budget did the president's budget proposal are we spending less than next year and we were in the previous
but i want to be clear i am looking at those tax revenue lines and they appear to increase not just one year or not just in the out years but every single year of the budget. we are already collecting does it give your position that not only are we collecting more money today than we ever have in american history that we are going to collect more and more in every year of the president's budget? in fiscal year 17 we spent and received 3.31 trillion in revenues in 2018. we will generate 3.329 in revenues in 2019. we will generate 3.4 m. revenues in 2020 we will generate 3.6 trillion on and on. it's why over ten years we are confident that the economic policies of this administration, which we assume in the budget,
cbo doesn't assume what is enough current wall we assume the economic policies of this administration will more than paid for the cost of the tax cut. we think that's important from the standpoint of getting the economy going and allowing people to have more of their hard-earned money to be able to build and invest in their communities. let me get off script for a second and think back to when the president obama's budgets where he introduced the cpi something republicans have long been advocating for the responsible budgeting the moment that he put and they began to kick him in the shins for cutting benefits here and there and elsewhere rather than taking yes for an answer we turned it into a political talking point. i don't know the answer to this question so i'm reluctant to ask is there anything in the budget that perhaps i might like less as a conservative republican but my colleagues on the other side of the aisle may be off to take yes for an answer as opposed to turning to the political talking points as we do day in and day
out? >> i'm sure that i'm going to get this question but many of the reforms to continue to increase the spending every single year and also allow for certain program integrity proposals. with your leadership i know we will be able to take yes for an answer i hope where we do find agreement we will do it for the american people.
i yield back. >> i've never known you to be scripted. [laughter] and i will yield five minutes to the gentleman from new york to a corporate tax cuts pay for themselves generally speaking this is prolonged economic growth. >> the most optimistic estimates of corporate tax cuts for every dollar that you give away henry captured about 32 cents i don't
think there's credible evidence to suggest the corporate tax cut in and of themselves pay for themselves. as for the deficit everybody likes to talk about is a big problem but we also have as you know a growth problem in the american economy. we hit a two, 2.5% growth which is not the three or 4% the president had talked about. about. there's very littlthere is veryt here relative to infrastructure. they pay for themselves for every dollar that you spend on infrastructure, you can expect minimally a 2-dollar return the last time we had 4% sustained
we are very supportive of the types of research that they perform, but i've also just say that no agency can spend well when they don't live in a resource constrained world, and whecomingto when we put forwards in congress just without analysis with additional spending increases on the table, we actually think that that degrades the ability for nih to do research. >> for the justification for cutting the genera journal cancr research by $900 million is that the administration focusing on other diseases from which to fund important research? >> we take it off-line reduction for nih and allocated across-the-board with some exceptions like pediatric cancer. we are trying to prompt a debate we have for the first two
budgets about ways that nih might be able to do things better if they didn't have as high administrative costs, they often pay more for the administration costs than other private sector researchers and we think that is an important debate we need to have. >> when you deal with cancer research in particular and the only failure in the research is when you are forced to quit because of a lack of funding the national cancer institute funds about 97% of all fda approved cancer drugs in the past eight years. so, you know, new treatmen trear this delay this treatment denied and at a time when you have incredible promise in the area of therapy that is being tested at places like boswell park cancer institute in buffalo new york it seems very shortsighted
that the administration is picking winners and losers and relates to what diseases we decided to invest in for new promising treatments because it costs not only money that lives abut livesas well and with thato back. the gentleman from north carolina. >> like many of my friends that you are hearing from today, i am deeply concerned that the mandatory spending that accounts for 70% of the federal budget in ten years and plus the federal debt will be the same for all of our federal revenue. for the free college tuition and other things the payments on the dead are thdebt are the fastestg
line item in the budget. hundreds of billions of dollars is wasted because congress failed to address the debt problem is our principal concern as a government. the president budget in the mandatory reductions in going to give you the opportunity to expand a bit further on how he would achieve the $2 trillion for savings specifically the proposed changes to the medicaid payment structures of medicare. >> thank you, congressman.
$2.7 trillion in savings that we proposed for in this budget. 1.9 trillion of those are reductions to mandatory savings reforms and again these are programs that will continue to increase every year over the life of the ten-year window. we achieved about $517 billion in saving and medicare as i've already mentioned many of the numbers you've seen on the press in the last 24 hours are inaccurate. what we try to defend medicare s lower drug prices and when we lower drug prices as the result of achieving in medicare and we also think it's important medicare doesn't pay for the uncompensated care within the medicare program so again we don't actually do not pay for uncompensated care that we move
it outside of the program with a slower rate of growth. another large amount of savings. we think the proposal would benefit students that right now there is a patchwork of the plans and we provide one we think the welfare reform is important we have a $300 billion in savings and welfare reform. much of it is simply with the proposal to have a work requirement within different programs such that when housing, food stamps, medicaid, and we have hardship exemptions no one is wanting people that can't work to be able to work that we do value work and if it's
something from the standpoint of human dignity, we want to be able to transition individuals and families and households to do self-sufficiency. we sold it in the reforms in the 1990s and we have long said we want to build on it and we do that in this budget. the budget budget are sometimes described as aspirational and serve an important purpose of setting forth real concrete dollars in terms to the american people to get 218 people to agree with us on how we want to go forward, so thank you mr. chairman.
i yield back. i now yield five minutes to the gentleman from. i just want to get some facts out there. for the budget proposal reduces medicare spending by $845 billion as you describe it as efficiency and production is that correct? >> that's not correct. there is a gross federal savings for medicare in the budget. when you add back the proposals that we include four the uncompensated care pool outside of medicare for children, the number is about $517 billion in savings. so the reduces medicare spending by bob 500 billion, the report suggests 500 billion of the savings would go to the deficit
and you are saying that it's less than that. i thought you were asking about the number that has been reported in the press 845 billion about what is the accurate number. >> we increased medicare spending every year. i am providing an answer 517 billion in savings within medicare over ten years is the medicare savings member. >> medicare spending as i mentioned will continue to rise each and every year. you are reducing the budget by 517 billion. >> we are identifying savings that would result in a reduced drug price cost i know you are saying let's reduce drug costs and that is a great thought it would specifically how are you going to do it?
the president hasn't supported any bill. would you commit today that the bill could reduce the cost and would consider supporting the? >> look at analyzing any piece of legislation that's out there as it pertains. >> does the president of legislation hohavelegislation ho achieve these? >> has anyone introduced the legislation? what legislation is their? there are thousands of bills. is there a single bill the president introduced to be of savings that you want to? fifty proposed we specifically propose policies that congress can turn --
>> you haven't worked with any member of congress for legislation to get a 500 some billion dollars of reduction that you say you want? is there a single number that you can point to? there is an active legislative office is working to turn the policies into actual proposals. he proposed a billion dollars in the national science foundation is that correct? >> the single biggest thing $7 billion for the science foundation is a very healthy --
>> would you disagree with the characterization to double the budget with the secretary i would point out it doesn't need to be immune to the extent they spend money on the programs they are supposed to be investing in science and yet we still find that waste, fraud and abuse isn't something that they are free from we bring the national institutes onationalinstitutes t 33 billion. >> bought trying to be partisan but do you see why some people may think that you don't believe in science and technology when you're cutting the national science foundation by italy in and cutting the national institute by 4 billion at the republican congress increased 2 billion last time that is
exactly what we spend in the last two years and we allocated differently we talk about going off script and i think that we are fairly following the script and some of the things we say are very predictable and i'm sure that you anticipated some of that and i do wish that some colleagues would get a chance to answer the questions that is common courtesy to give the chance to respond.
deficits and only talking about tax policy is a dishonest conversation at the moment and i will give you a good example, and i bet you know this because you are obviously very bright and it's amazing to me that you can come up with these numbers and answers off the top of your head. going back to when i was younger, ronald reagan was famous for tax cuts yet after the recession i'm curious to you know what happened to the government revenue after the tax cuts when the recession was over? it is an economic fact that you can have economic growth which leads to revenue increases as a result of tax cuts and again it
an honest argument when you are not willing to recognize that. i would ask you to respond to what i've said is there anything you would add or that you think is worth emphasizing? >> is important to reflect on the fact that in the 1960s, we had spending as a percentage of gdp roughly and the 16% range should. since the 1960s, pfc and spending skyrocket to the neighborhood of 22% in the gdp whereas in revenues have ticked up to be in the neighborhood of 17%. so one of the reasons we think it's important to maintain revenues where they are and not going that direction is revenues under the budget although they have a slight dip in the short term will average at exactly the 50 year average of 17.3%. so we think spending is a problem. we've been upfront about that
and that isn't even getting to the fact when you are raising taxes not only are you increasing the burden of the american people, but also worsening of the economy and we wouldn't want to do that either. >> you had a more technical precise way of making the point and i want to hit on something quickly in one minute and ten seconds. i was a former military member when i was flying we had something like 156 fighter squadrons. several years ago we had 57. 156. when i was flying, there was no question in the worl world thate were the best military in the world. we could take on any adversary and win and defeat them in combat and as you may have seen in a recent study and others there are serious questions on whether that remains true. would you address the importance of increasing the spending and why that is a priority for you and the president? >> i just talked with him about
it yesterday and the importance of the 750 billion-dollar defense budget being used to procure the aircraft that we need and the battleships that we needed research and development that we need and missile defense 110 new aircraft, ten battleships putting online with this budget continues to be something that is a major priority. the president wants the world to know we have the most awe-inspiring military that's been known in the world. we believe we can have peace through strength. he doesn't want thshe doesn't wn that this is about promulgating endless wars. the president has had a long conversation with the american people about that. he wants to continue to rebuild the military so we don't have to fight wars in the future because the world knows we are the strongest military on the face of the planet. >> i now recognize the gentleman from new jersey. >> thank you for being here.
if these tax bills and tax cuts do not deliver what you are projecting, are you going back to cut more of the medicare medicaid social security program's? >> let's make a projection that they don't. >> we think the most accurate way to look up the next ten at n years is to assume the economic growth assumptions we put forth a 3% of the first two years we've been the most accurate administration in history we projected 2.5% and 3.1% and they said that was ridiculous and outrageous and we were delusional. we not only had those numbers that we have been the most accurate. >> where would you go to get the money? >> we are not suggesting you're going to make any changes to the budget although the aspect is
you look at what's coming in and what's coming out and each and every year you make adjustments. that's the importance of the federal budget process and certainly broke and i agree with the chairmen and ranking memberr we can make reforms but i would also say that the budgets are about putting sufficient funds for the american people. >> let's go to something more local and sure many members here serve in local office why is it that the president's and people feel eliminating the block grants are necessary? this is a program that helps communities that cannot apply for the fundings so yet every year you want to eliminate the program this is a texas paper for the communities. i just don't understand why they
feel it's necessary to just abolish. have you talked to people who served in local officserve in le used this grand? >> we have spoken with those people. we look at this program and we look at the record since 1972, 74 when it was initiated and it's about $170 billion we've spent on this program, and we have seen no economic results. >> i disagree with you there. i've served and many people here have served local office this is a tax saver for that community rather than increasing tax for the community you get a grant and that means you don't pass it on to the taxpayers. >> all our federal taxpayers and we have a trillion dollar deficit that we can't afford. >> i agree with you and this tax
cut doesn't help. >> we think it puts more money in the pockets of hard-working american people to be able to spend. >> it's already hurting and new jersey badly we are probably one of the states that are hurt the most by the tax cuts. the other issue that i have is cutting affordable housing money. have you made any contingency plans once you start cutting these programs that you are going to have more homeless people on the streets? what do you want to do for those people? the budget projection and i appreciate that question because one of the questions at the top of my mind every time we write the budget for the department of housing and urban development is to make sure that we are not clogging homelessness. i don't want the proposals to have that result in any way so the reforms here would lead to
additional homelessness but the reality is we have housing programs that are because they are contingent on local rates which are increasing the housing programs are almost acting like a mandatory program into a discretionarthediscretionary bue trying to put forth reforms and update -- the >> we need housing for veterans and if we cut affordable housing, where do the veterans fit in all this? >> we don't think there will be an increase as a result of the budget. we have a healthy ongoing increase of 7.5% for the department of veterans affairs specifically because we don't want to -- we want to ensure that the veterans are fully funded. >> i now recognize mr. johnson
of ohio. >> thank you mr. chairman. acting director, i appreciate you being here today to present the budget request and i appreciate the budget addresses the mounting problem of unsustainable debt that we are facing in the country especially on the mandatory side of the ledger wer where 70% of federal spending happens as well as discretionary policies to right size the government so it works for all americans and i also think the proposal to continue the tax relief provided by the tax cuts and jobs act is a wise policy given what we heard from the cbo director earlier this year that increasing taxes, which would obviously be a requirement to find all of the new spending programs of my colleagues on the other side are presenting that increasing taxes would dampen economic growth, job creation and wage increases.
so, i'm glad to see that the budget proposal includes 2 trillion savings from reforms to mandatory programs. director, do yodirector, do yout mandatory spending is the true driver of our debt? >> i think it is a definite driver of the dead and our spending problems certainly structurally and in the years ahead particularly after the ten year window, but i wouldn't want there to be an impression that discretionary spending is also not a driver of our national debt. we have 30% is spent on discretionary spending. we have a trillion dollar nondefense budgets every single year, and one of the things this budget is trying to articulate and prompt a conversation with congress about is that we often say we are there for going to handle the mandatory spending and then we passed 350 billion-dollar budget agreements that we can't afford because we've never grappled
with the paradigm between a dollar nondefense increased for furball or defend. the problem with that is we think we need to have a debate about all of those nondefense dollars and we want to find beauty supply place for fraud and abuse. >> but i want to get to the mandatory side of the ledger because we don't work over there. i mean, i get all of the discretionary and defense spending but as you mentioned that is a small part of what the federal government spends and even if we zero out all of that, there's been an curve is still going in the wrong directions of again would you agree mandatory spend thing is the biggest driver of the national debt? >> it's a very large driver. >> how can you say it's not the biggest if it is two thirds of what we are spending? >> i don't want to leave the impression -- >> i didn't say that it wasn't important, but we've got to continue to make the case that mandatory spending is the main driver and without that we are
never going to get out of the debt crisis that we are in so could you outline some of the reforms in the budget? >> we have proposals to find savings in student loans by consolidating programs and offering one student debt income repayment plan. we have savings and reforms and welfare that provide a requirement to expand the current workforce requirement other programs that we have savings and reforms to the federal retirement benefits to more appropriately aligned with the private sector. we have reforms to health care to continue to repeal and replace obamacare. we want to restore balance in medicaid and we offer students stayed block grants that lowered the cost so that we can allow states to target the most
directly eligible participants in medicaid so that medicaid focuses on those individuals. again we have 1.9 trillion in mandatory savings. i don't want you to come away with the view that we don't think it's absolutely important, but i do want to prompt the debate to suggest to the extentt we say mandator mandatory is a s we are going to keep increasing discretionary and then when we do these deals in the mandatory savings for the first two rounds and bought the third, mandatory reforms we are talking about are not the type that are in the budget, they are things like extending user fees and the wall that was already in place. we don't think that is actually the type of reform that allow us to fit the problem you are addressing but i do appreciate the question. >> mr. chairman, i will yield back. >> i now recognize the gentleman
from california, mr. peters, for five minutes. >> thank you for being here. you're budget assumes long-term growth rates are a full percentage point above projections by cbo and most private pastors. it's one thing to wish for economic growth 50% stronger than everyone else and it's another thing to build the budget based on it. do you explain the confidence in the 3% reduction in wha what wae deficit impact the if the economy grew at around 2% over the long run as opposed to what other forecasters believe? >> my answer is t two parts. number one, we have had an understanding that turned out to be true our economic policies would lead to growth we projected over the first two years of the budget we were the most accurate administration in history. >> i want to hear your answer but what would it be i understand you believe -- >> we haven't run alternative scenarios because we believe
that we are going to be vindicated when it comes to the budgets we've assumed. >> i didn't ask that, you aboutu addressed that before. i asked what would it be i be tt were 2% and the problem is as her mom taught you pray for the best but plan for the worst. we were pretty exposed if it comes to 2% we haven't planned for it. let me ask you a question about energy. your budget cuts energy research development programs by more than 60% while eliminating tax benefits for businesses and households for investing in renewable energy efficiency and electric vehicles. but the administration's assessment conducted by independent evaluation experts showed the department of energy's programs have provided at least $7 in benefits for every 1 dollar invested and probably much more compared with the private sector would have achieved on its own. we talked about the dynamic scoring in the context of tax cuts but here's an example of what we are getting in return.
why would the budget programs that are successfully supporting u.s. innovation and competitiveness and job creation and emerging clean energy for protecting the environment and public health? >> we believe in the time of the trillion dollar deficits, the resources that the department of energy has should be devoted towards basic research that wouldn't otherwise be done by the private sector. it shouldn't be focused on applied research back are the types of activities that the private sector could continue to do. that said, we fully fund the basic and keep the labs open. we are caught the scent of this activity being funded by the private sector. >> the budget proposes larger cuts for energy efficiency and well established highly profitable industries. is there a reason for that? >> there is not a specific
reason. >> fossil fuel extraction still needs propping up. >> we've generally taken an approach to all of the above from an energy perspective in the budget. we do have some specific investments for instance we have a new faster test reactor to support the nuclear industry which is something many experts say is vital to have a thriving -- >> i'm just referring to the fossil fuel. >> of the tax policies are over time we are trying to align with our view that spending in this case subsidies should be devoted to basic or empty as opposed to more later stage. >> maybe we will get to the treatment over time. with respect to the border, responsible corporate governance includes protecting migrants in honoring the national obligations for the asylum cla claim. whatever you think of the law as it is we need to process those
folks. how does the budget increase the capacity to process the asylum claims humanely and specifically are we putting more into the officers and other related personnel? >> happy to get back to you on what we are doing for the asylum officers but it's a priority of the budget on the southern border. we continue to request funding for the humanitarian crisis that we found common agreement with this body. ..
any thoughts on the irs enforcement, do they need more reinforces to be more effective and make sure everyone is paying their fair share of taxes questioning. >> we do think the irs needs a dollar that a dollar well spent. it's one of the reasons we have a program integrity cap adjustment in the budget to make sure the irs gets the natural resources within the budget and it causes us to generate savings over the life of the tenure window. >> thank you. my time is expired. >> recognize the gentleman from south carolina, mr. norman, five minutes. >> thank you. i appreciate you coming today to present the budget. it is my comment, i think i join most americans who are tired of hearing big numbers, tired of hearing deficits, they know something's not right. and they wanted done now. and while i would've liked to see more cuts in this budget at least it's a start. and i heard -- in fact it was yesterday, the new leader of the
democratic party when they asked her how she was going to play for medical care, free medical care, free education, she said we just are. and i have a solution, and again, i'm from the private sector, i'm a real estate developer, how we go along with her free medical care, get the doctors to work for free. i would go along with free education, get the professors to work for free. that solves the whole problem and maybe even that congress work for free. sacrifice our salaries. that being said, i keep hearing about the wall. the dollars funding for the wall. would you agree that not having any type of border security is costing this country a dollar amount question. >> yes i would. >> would you entertain maybe a hundred 11 billion a year more
or less? >> we haven't done any specific analysis but we definitely think there are savings over time we would be able to achieve continuing to invest in our border and we think it's a very aspect of this budget is to secure the necessary resources along the border. .6 billion will be return on investment and is far more even at 12 months then spending than the cost questioning. >> we believe there'll be a return, i wouldn't want to anchor it specifically in a dollar amount. >> the rescission pack is that most of my friends on the left voted for, voted against which basically took unallocated escrow dollars, is that taken into account in this budget? >> the rescission -- the bill that we set up flasher questioning.
>> yes. >> it is it's one of the ways we go from 5% cut from fiscal 19 level we take that down with a 5% cut to be in the 560s and the rest would be built to use many of the same rescissions that congress has used in the past. money that was never going to be spent within children's health insurance program. again, this is money that is not going to be spent. congress since 2011 has used these chimps, these rescissions to the tune of $50 billion. and yet, the minute that we try to use this to actually deal with the deficit or to remove them from the appropriations process so they can't be used as an offset somehow we are hurting families in children's health insurance programs. yes, we do rely on them to get down to the actual cap level and we think they will be absolutely no impact on children's health programs. >> what you just said is exactly what matt mulvaney said when he mentioned he cannot understand why there is any argument over
the 15 billion in cuts. the money couldn't be used even if they wanted to so this is not a cut. let's go over what mr. johnson mentioned about the -- you would agree the biggest cost of our -- the biggest factor is mandatory spending questioning. >> again, i would agree it's one of the largest drivers. i might actually agree it's vegas. but when i say that, i am trying to avoid conceding the fact that we have not dealt with our discretionary problem. and that that in many ways is how you start is a country getting a hold of your fiscal challenges is by identifying the waste and the abuse in the inefficiencies and the votes that members take every single year. this is in the process -- this is a process that's on no autopilot. so were trying to prompt a debate with congress to say, yes, let's talk about mandatory spending. we propose more savings than any
president budget in history. but not at the expense of continuing to increase agencies year-over-year and what they're allowed to spend. because quite friendly, does have a significant impact on the american people. >> i appreciate this effort and i appreciate you presenting a budget that is as least -- of first step in this long stairway of getting financially independent and not leaving our children with a $70000 debt for every man, woman and child in this country. thank you for your efforts, i look forward to working with you further and i yield the balance of my time. >> thank you gentlemen. i now recognize the gentleman from texas, mr. doggett for five minutes. >> thank you thank you for your testimony. i shared the subcommittee on health. and as i reviewed the portions of your budget concerning prescription drugs, i think my main complaint is that the folks to prepare this budget didn't listen carefully to president trump. you do on page 41 say -- you
quote in one of his greatest priorities is reducing the cost of prescription drugs, but when it comes to doing anything to achieve that objective, i think your proposal accomplishes as little as his rose garden press conferences in the last two years in which the prices of prescription drugs have continued to go up. president trump did not campaign on a slogan, elect me in the price of prescription drugs won't go up quite as fast as it has been over the last few years. he talked about bringing the cost of prescription prices down. he said -- and he said it very boldly -- that we could save billions of dollars by what he called bidding on prescription drugs. outside estimates are that hundreds of billions of dollars could be saved not only for medicare beneficiaries but for the taxpayers on medicare if we
had an effective prescription drug negotiation proposal. as you know, i have one, i think mr. connor refrigerant, hundred and 20 members of this house have signed onto the proposal, whether you like the specifics are not all they want to know is whether the administration, your office, currently agrees with president trump said that an important part of addressing the cost of prescription drugs is direct medicare negotiation for the prices of those drugs questioning. >> president trump has not put forth those policies -- he hasn't proposed what he advocated as a candidate? -- we see many of the issues -- >> medicare prescription drug negotiation is not one of them. are you against a questioning. >> we have currently not proposed those policies as an administration -- doesn't mean you're against it, you're just agnostic on a questioning. >> i think we want to have a conversation with congress and all of the proposals that you put forward similar to how we
doing infrastructure -- i want to talk about that next. i have questions about that as well. i want that genuine conversation. let me ask you more specific issue. you and all of her colleagues are well aware of the opioid crisis we have in this country. big pharma has exploited that crisis by raising the cost by seven 100% of the lifesaving opioid overdose drug relaxin is a burden that has burdened our first responders, police and ems in taxes, local taxpayers to provide it. president trump's own opioid commission recommended that we negotiate the price of no oxen. last week the office of national drug control policy director part of your ministration, said he couldn't agree more with the need to negotiate the prices can
you agree we at least ought to do that to provide this life stating drug at a reasonable price instead of it being gouged by big pharma questioning. >> i would defer to the statements of the other members of the administration that have been more acutely involved in this issue and happy to work with you on lowering the cost of drug prices. >> you mentioned emphasis structure. we've gone now over two years and we have the same one-page description of the president's plan that we had this last time. all we have is because actually includes one third less in resources than you provided in the one pager last year. you proposed in the same budget that you saw the people that are stuck in traffic all over america today by cutting the department of transportation budget by 20%. i don't see how cutting the transportation budget by 20% reducing by a third the amount of resources that you want to provide is going to get people out of the gridlock that we have all over the country today.
we need a bolder infrastructure program and just like our prescription drugs, we need the administration to lead. that is the only way our republican colleagues can be supportive of the revenue needed to deal with our infrastructure problems. we were told only last week and the ways and means committee. that it will take a hundred and $60 billion over the next ten years just to keep the third rate system we've got now if we are going to upgrade it, we have to have more revenue, more resources do that. finally with reference to education, i am greatly troubled that it is time that we face a shortage, a growing shortage, you propose to eliminate all of the loan forgiveness programs that are available to get those physicians as well as law enforcement and teachers into underserved areas. this is a great step backwards, as are your cuts and student financial assistance. i hope you'll reconsider those. i do hope that our republican colleagues, because this does so
much embody the values of the top administration, will your entire budget up for a vote. we need an up or down vote on your budget as you proposed that one 100% the way it is to see whether they want to go along with discussed education, healthcare, medicare and not doing enough about prescription drugs. with that, i go back. >> the witnesses care to respond ? >> real briefly on infrastructure, if we continue to be a major priority of the ministration we put forward $200 billion which is the same amount of previous budgets. from the standpoint of why, it's important verification, we are responding to the fact that the further details that you all have soundly not proposed legislation as a result of, you have your own views as to how we could structure and infrastructure package. we want to allow you to do that and were very interested in what
you all -- >> with all the respect is that you respond to why you cut the department transportation by 20% and why you reduce the amount of total resources from 1.5 trillion last year to 1 trillion this year? >> it looks like you're going backwards? >> is not going backwards, sir. as you know when the last deal was struck and there was a substantial increase of non-defense spending above what we allocated. we asked congress to say use a portion of that spending to really invest on the discretionary side of the transportation department. in some respects it was a one time fund. the department of transportation is being set at above the fiscal year 17 level and we are continuing high levels of infrastructure and continue to be committed and years ahead. >> the time is expired. i now recognize the guy from oklahoma, mr. hearn. >> i want to thank you for testifying and i appreciate your work to lowering our national debt and protecting her nation's borders and rebuilding our
military. as a reminder to us all here, the federal government has no money. it only has her taxpayers money and we are supposed to be good stewards of that. most out there outside the beltway would say we been a terrible steward of the money we have sent them. beyond lack of majority of the politicians in washington, d.c. i've been a small business owner for 30 years, job creator, on the other side of the legislation that the wall that we passed is refreshing to see an administration operating its budget as efficiently as a business. as i know and as the president knows, business there are three things to consider. either there is a revenue problem, spending problem or both. as a small business owner, my businesses never had an open checkbook. we had to make a budget just a house. we couldn't spend more than we bring in. when a business person needs to raise revenue here she has options. they can raise prices with results to customers going to competitor to get a better deal,
increase sales, or increase your customer base meaning you get more customers coming to the door. when the government needs to raise revenues, he can raise taxes, which will discourage innovation, not to renew her shift in economic activity. we see this working with the tax cuts and job act with companies giving out large bonuses, benefits, increases and races. or increase the number of people working by deregulating businesses. when the government gets out of the way it allows for businesses to grow and hire which result in a longer taxpayer base. we seen this in the trip administration and acting this basic principle and it's working terrifically. in fact, i think you call it mag and onyx. my questions, some critics contend that your economic forecast is overly optimistic. nevertheless, fitting your forecast would see economic growth averaging 2.9% a year in line with the long-term historical growth of gdp in the united states, roughly 3% questioning. >> i've never done the math that
way but i trust your fax. >> okay. i always like that. regarding work requirements, does the president agree that the aim of government assisted programs should be to move as many people as possible off of public assistance in into self-sufficiency ? >> we do, we will make sure that we maintain a social safety net that is important to provide the basic necessities but we don't want that to be the permanent situation for families across this country. we want to move families and individuals to self-sufficiency and is one of the reasons that we believe that welfare reform is so important. it's one of the reasons we believe work is so important. even though we do provide certain hardship exemptions we know that there are some exceptions that are needing to be provided but we want to be able to increase human dignity
by encouraging people to work and getting them self-sufficiency and off of the federal program. >> i appreciate the president wanting to help those who need help but those who can help themselves need to find a job. there plenty of jobs out there, after the tax reform plan was enacted many communist boosted their forecast to the u.s. economic growth over the next year. cpl said tax cuts and drawbacks will promote 1 million jobs over the next decade. how much do you think tax reform has boost the economies of potential questioning. >> we think the tax cuts are one of the major aspects of her economic program. we think of the economic program as holistically. we think that it will lead to 3% economic growth in the years ahead. if you really unpack what's going on, what separates the difference between our numbers and say cbo's numbers question is because we are assuming that businesses will have invest in capital formulation. we look at the fact that nonresidential fixed income has increased by 7%. what is that look like?
businesses investing in the companies and expanding it, leading to additional jobs. and that's why there are long-term implications. this is not just juicing of the economy. this is long structural change to economic growth that will pay dividends for decades. >> thank you. i would like to also point out that the trip administration we have seen unprecedented job creation with an appointment at 50 year lows across all sectors. with record low unemployment of minority and women and with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> thank you gentlemen, i recognize the gentleman from virginia mr. scott, for five minutes. >> thank you. mr. director do i understand that you see the tax cuts will pay for themselves? the economic program of which the tax cut is a major part, yes we believe will pay for themselves. >> when you talk about tax cuts, to some tax cuts create better economic stimulation than others customer. >> we think that our tax policies don't come in the same ability to impact economic growth. we do think that the policies
that were contained dashed. >> the woods assimilate the best are aimed at the low and moderate income ranges in the least effective of corporate and high income tax cuts questioni questioning. >> no, we wouldn't say that. the policies that are included in the tax cuts that the president signed dashed. >> would you not say the tax cuts aimed at low and moderate income stimulate the economy better than those corporations and the high income questioning. >> from the standpoint of economic growth, no i would not rank those higher in the terms ability to provide long-term economic growth. i would say the policies that are included are all important for various economic reasons. >> thank you. a former member said he would never been here with a balanced budget. you can see that i have been here we had a balanced budget. in fact, there is a pattern on that. if you look at the blue areas, each blue president going back to president carter had a better
deficit then he started and every red president going back to nixon ended up worse and they started. is that true? >> i know church are, i also note that president clinton vettebenefited from a republican congress that was committed to balancing the budget. >> and he had to shut and the government to stop them from messing up his budget. so don't give them any credit for going into surplus. in fact, when bush came in, can you tell me what president -- what happened during the bush ministration with a republican congress that messed up the budget? >> it did lead to an increase in the deficit. >> that's right, what did they do to accomplish that feat ? >> we are not here to say that spending control has not been a bipartisan problem. we are saying that dashed. >> we already established under democratic presidents against
that under republican presidents it gets worse. under the education budget, it's been pointed out that you cut the education department by how much? 12%, is that right? >> we contribute another $15 billion education so i think that more than offsets the 12% reduction that you know and the department of education. >> is a 5 billion a year trace program questioning. >> it is. >> 15 billion over ten years, how do you limit to 5 billion? where do we get details on the program? >> we will be happy to get details of the bar department of education. it's not the money that we felt that we cannot justify in the current dashed. >> how do you limit on april 15 when people file their taxes, how do you know can only be 5 billion? >> treasury will be providing guidance. if you all see fit to enact into law, states will have quite a
bit of discussion to design their programs. their discussion will be based on treasury rules that -- >> this thing would have to get through congress before. >> absolutely. >> how do you help students pay off their loans? i understand you cut student loan assistance by over $200 billion ? >> we find savings and student loan programs but we feel like we have put forward a proposal -- >> savings like eliminating public service loans, subsidized loans and payments for account maintenance fees questioning. >> we consolidate programs to be able to offer one student income driven pit repayment plan that will provide certainty and allow anyone that is receiving a payment now to be eligible under that. we think it will be certainty and generous after 15 years you can walk away from your debt. for graduate student after 30 years. >> how does that change the
present law? >> it consolidates and put forward the new proposal to do that. >> does your buzzard recognize the pending will to fund pension crisis? >> we do. we put forward premium increases to be able to -- >> increases won't deal with hundreds of billions of dollars if these plans go broke. do you have a plan to address the multi employer pension fund crisis ? we have had studies at her last hearing on the education committee that showed there will be hundreds of billions of dollars in adverse impact on the federal budget if things go broke because pension years will not be paying tax, they will be more likely to use food stamps and medicaid and will have an impact of hundreds of billions of dollars if we don't do something. is there a proposal to do something questioning. >> it's not the proposal that we might agree on but there's a proposal to address this. >> do you recognize the adverse impact that doing nothing has?
>> absolutely. >> is that in the budget questioning. >> we have a proposal. >> is that it questioning. >> the gentleman time is expired. i recognize mr. muse or of pennsylvania for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. director wrote, thank you for coming before the committee today in the fiscal year 2020 budget your office has outlined a plan to invest in programs that are central to many americans while also reducing the discretionary spending and reducing the growth amended terry spending. i am concerned about the nation's rising debt and i appreciate the fact that president is putting us on a plan that moves us toward responsibility like decreasing spending on nondiscretionary programs by 5% next year as well as reducing mandatory growth through reforms targeted at waste, fraud and abuse and lowering drug prices.
our federal revenue growth projected for 2020 is 4.9%. that number? >> yeah. >> most states in our country would love to have that sort of revenue growth. the only ones that probably have it would occur after a sizable tax increase. 4.9% of revenue growth is very strong. of course our problem is our spending levels are quite a bit higher than that. would you say is accurate that during the previous administration of president obama, that are debt, national debt went from 9.5 trillion to $19.5 trillion in any year.
>> it sounds about right. >> it sounds about right. can you quantify the general impact of the affordable care act on our current mandatory spending levels questioning. >> i think it's roughly it's a sizable aspect of the mandatory programs. healthcare expenditures in general for medicare to medicaid to the affordable care act, expansions of medicaid and the exchange premiums collectively absorb a very large portion of the mandatory side. >> in spite of there being various taxes that would along with the affordable care act, would it be fair to say that the current deficit has approximately 300 billion to $400 billion in it do the affordable care act increasing the debt by 300 to 400 billion in 2020. >> i haven't looked at the numbers recently but i take your word for it. >> my colleagues on the other side of the day say that the
projected deficit has grown by the enactment of the 2017 tax cut and job back. understanding is that this does add to the deficit by approximately a hundred and $50 billion. is that about accurate questioning. >> the affordable care act certainly did not help us from a federal spending trajectory. i would agree with that. >> but the tax cuts, the deficie tax-cut have attributed to approximately dashed in current year or the next fiscal year hundred and $50? hundred and $50 billion? >> that's about right. >> since the enactment of tax cut bill we have about 3 million private sector jobs created. what would you say the estimate of the job -- of these jobs would you say perhaps two thirds or better have received employer based health care?
>> that would be my assumption. yet 5 million new jobs that have been created since the administration took office. many of these given the fact that we have employer provide healthcare in this country. we received incredible healthcare as a result. and i would certainly think that's intuitive assumption from that. >> just doing some easy math on that. i would add up to key people not a fan employment roles but also providing them healthcare. that could add up to 50 - $60 billion right there. >> perhaps. >> one last question, in your modeling for economic growth, and i suppose the answer to this is no because i don't think you engaged in too much dynamic in current law. but has a plan for opening up trade worldwide, the president's goal of reciprocal trade
lowering tariffs but the goal to getting to 0% tariffs, is that working to he their formula at ? >> that's one of the reasons i categorize economic policies as a whole when i talk about revenues that are generated. we include the tax cuts impact, we include better trade agreements, we actually include infrastructure, spending which has an impact on economic growth. one of the questions i received, we will have to wait until the cancel of economics report coming up in the next few weeks as to be able to provide more details on the breakdown amongst all of those different categories. but is an ongoing story we intend to tell. >> the time is expired. i now recognize the gentleman from michigan.
>> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you mr. vote for being here i have a couple things that i wanted her to cover. but i want to follow up on a statement that she may not that long ago regarding a program that i'm quite familiar with having spent 25 years in local government. that is the community development program. i want to make sure he got this right, i think i heard you say, that it urinalysis or the analysis of the administration that the community development program demonstrated no economic value? is accurate questioning. >> it's that we think the program has been effective from the standpoint of federal taxpayers, we understand it will offset this locality. >> is that the reason the democrats and republicans come together to fund cdbg just to offset local government costs or is it something greater than that? has it been traditionally a
public investment that has a return? >> we would disagree as to whether the return to the federal government has been worth -- do you think the federal government benefits, for example, when there's a reduction in crime in a community, is that a public value that the government has a stake in questioning. >> certainly. but we wouldn't say that the cbgb program would -- >> on what basis have you come to the conclusion that the cdg program does not result in the reduction in crime? do you have any published. review studies that demonstrate that this cd gp program does not deliver to the value of the federal government questioning even specifically on the reduction of crime or or any other category customer.
>> we believe it's important to reduce crime, is something that we adequately fund at the department of justice resources. >> so you think crime is adequately funded in fighting crime in this country is adequately funded? we don't need to do anything else to help communities create infrastructure that reduces crime? let me give you an example. this is a sore subject for me. i spent a lot of time working in communities across the country into my hometown that deal with abandoned property and seeing the impact that they have. i have a study from the journal of criminal justice that points out the eligible activities and cdbg of benguet and abandoned properties, has in impact on violent crime. it is just one of many studies that i would say. if i could have the study included in the record of the committee i would appreciate that. >> without objection.
>> i obviously i think you and i disagree. of course many of my democratic and republican colleagues who seem quite willingly to show up at ribbon-cutting ceremonies that include cd e.g. dollars also disagree with you on the subject. i understand your point that you assert that cutting taxes contributes to economic growth and has a possible impact ultimately on tax revenues questioning i disagree with the analysis but understand that your point of view. you ever believe that there is a circumstance for increased spending has the effect of reducing the deficit? >> i can't think of a scenario -- >> you don't believe for an example, that the national institutes of health, were able to somehow through the work of the congress double the amount of research into diabetes? if the amount of research going into diabetes led to, and five years, a cure for diabetes, do
you think that would have a positive impact on deficits, on spending, on the overall impact that the dreaded disease has on our economy questioning. >> it would certainly have positive impact. >> so cutting the national institutes of health by definition then, could reduce the possibility of that positive impact, is that correct questioning. >> we don't think so. now by definition is there an assumption that when you take money from federal taxpayers and contributed to worthy investments, which we believe that $33 billion is a worthy investment for the national institute -- >> but not worthy enough to maintain at its current level. not worthy enough to take the bet, for example, that those people out there who happened to be united states taxpayers, who are suffering from diseases like diabetes, multiple cirrhosis, alzheimer's, shouldn't be able
to be given a chance by supporting important research that would not only potentially ease their suffering, which is ample justification. but using your values, which i don't think we necessarily share, if potentially and probably almost certainly, will lead to significant reductions in the cost of healthcare in this country. easing suffering does not necessarily mean we can also do something positive, have a positive economic impact. so whether it's research into dreaded diseases, cleaning up abandoned houses and beat up old neighborhoods, or for example, the reduction -- clean drinking water, i would suggest internalizing the negative externalities in these decisions. i think you will find a
different priorities will take us a lot further. i yield back. >> you may respond. >> i think it's a fair point. and i don't want to suggest that some of the research advances that we make at the national institute of health wouldn't have a long-term impact on the cost of paying for coverage for those diseases for the people that benefit from healthcare programs. we don't have -- we haven't done the source of economic analysis to tell you what this would be. but i do think it matters as to where the investments were making and not making just a blanket statement just because dollar of federal spending that is going to result in some kind of dynamic -- that's what i would reject on the bakken. i take your point. >> gentlemen time has expired. i now recognize the gentleman from tennessee, mr. bridget, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman and ranking member. i grew up in a pretty cool home. i remember daddy had a little thing on izmir and is said, you deny me before man and i will
deny you before the gates of heaven. i want to thank you for your service to our country right now and preparing for this, i noticed when you testified before the senate, i thought you were unfairly attacked for your faith. and i thought it was outrageous at the time and it seems to me it's an appropriate moment to say thank you for being in the public square as a person of faith. it troubles me that a u.s. senator would ignore the first amendment and to question the motives of anybody, anybody, any public official, based on religion. i wonder if you'd want to comment on that, what precluded that, if not, for good. >> i don't have any comment. i'm here to be representing the administration on the budget policies that the president's budget puts forward. >> thank you. let me start off by stating i am full agreement that the president's goal of fiscal responsibility, specifically with education.
i'm complementing on this, i believe the states should have the full authority over education. i stated the department of education will be better off if they dissolved it and sent the money to the stage directly. i think the people at the state and local level, schoolboard level, know exactly what is going on in the classroom. in some bureaucrat appear doesn't have a clue other than to preserve the jobs and the jobs of others. reducing the education budget moving forward and can we see any savings by giving the money back to the states? do you see any movement in that direction questioning. >> we hope so. it's one of the reasons we prefer the policy in this budget. get a 50 billion-dollar investment of allowing people to keep more of their own money and be able to invest in state scholarship programs under public private choice. so we think that is a better way to invest in students and communities in their education system. we also want to make sure that we continue to be able to focus precious federal dollars that we are stewards of from a taxpayer
perspective, on programs work. we continue to fund programs that we do think that work. many of the formula programs within the department of education, but we also look to eliminate programs that don't work. one program, the 21st century community education program, these are centers that don't work. they don't have an increase in proficiency in reading and math. students stay in these centers very short amount of time. it's one of the things from an effective standpoint that we have looked at and said this is the dollar does not well spent. in some of the cases in the budget, will we have a program that is not working we try to reform it. in this instance we didn't think we could reformat so would rather focus of dollars elsewhere. >> i agree in education. i was certified to teach in my mama taught forever. in my daddy was a long time dean and my sister still as an
educator and i have never ever seen a federal bureaucrat in our classrooms. they seem to always want to pass it down to our locals and that drives me crazy. i also want to complement the president on his proposal regarding hiv. a lady in my district, close to me, she is my political party, and she lost her son to hiv. and she started an organization called positively living, which i'm proud to support. my wife is going to be sitting at her table at an event i believe thursday. could you provide more details on how the goal is going to be achieved regarding hiv? i know the president basically said he want to eliminate it. of course this change so much. i have friends that i grew up with, i'm pretty sure some of them died of hiv, they were just more or less ostracized but now it seems we got medication, we
got things but it's so expensive. is there a way you could address that, please? >> thank you for that question. it's one of the initiatives in this budget that we are very proud of. as we went to the budget process we worked with the department of health and human services and they put forward a proposal that said we could make serious gain here based on the drugs that are out there but we need people to be tested. 300 million-dollar investment in this budget is allocated within hhs and there is money for herself. and there's money for the ryan white healthcare programs. there is some money for indian health services and we are not only trying to increase the testing to be able to make sure people can get the life-saving medications that have not been developed and change and prolong their life. which is fantastic.
>> gentlemen time is expired, i now recognize the gentleman from new york, mr. murali. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for your testimony today. a couple of quick observations and a couple of questions. the tax cut bill that has been referred to and by economist at the stimulus was largely unnecessary as it relates to tax policy during economic expansion which is well underway for secure prior to this administration. if you look at charter in 2010 unemployment wages and rates have continued on an upward path since 2010. tax cut did not pay for itself and it's been pretty well established in it does not appear to have added to the long-term economic expansion. there been some short-term stimulus. the textbook also caps state and local tax duct ability which is
been part of the income structure which is created in 19 century. with the president the ministration supports elimination of cap on the sole deduction questioning. >> as the president has stated he is willing to consider it but it's something that he feels that congress should take a look at and if they want to send him a bill he is willing to consider it, but it's a debate that he thanks should start with congress. we have not assumed any changes in our revenue policies. >> i want to go back to something that i think was raised by the gentleman from california, he talked about, i want to make sure i get this. related to not only the cbo's budget projections or economic projections rather, but the federal reserve and most of private economists do not agree with the administration assessment on the rate of growth. in fact, i know a number have
indicated they think 3% is unlikely to be maintained in the long run, and that we barely got the 3% in 2018. it may been impacted by temporarily stimulus. and they forecast annual average growth rate of less than 2%. you indicate in your testimony that you have not even considered or projected a lower growth rate. but given the fact that there is a substantial body of economist both in the public and private sector that don't agree. i can't imagine you haven't looked at projections that are to 3%. that way your testimony was that you haven't even considered that >> we know it will have an impact and we have had some rough modeling but is not the type of precision that we would be able to put forward like we do with the economic report of the president. i would mention with regard to the private forecasters, they were wrong. the first two years they said it was outrageous and ludicrous.
we were proven right in both years. the most accurate administration in history as far as the data has been collected. >> i do note that even in the budget as i understand it, 20205 which is when there is a substantial likely to be, i think cbo estimates, it will boost modestly economic growth but ultimately serves as a drag on growth rates beginning in 2025. i wondered if your modeling -- it obviously is different from cbo. how do you adjust that? what is your explanation and what is different in the two models questioning. >> i do know that in the president's budget in 20205 it does show a substantial step in the growth of receipts started in 2025. >> specifically, the difference between us and cbo as it pertains to the out your growth rates has to do with capital
formulation. in the fact that cbo does not, we believe track with the economic literature that suggests that there will be significant increases in capital investment and we are early scene that year-to-year with the figure that i gave earlier with the increase in nonresidential fixed investment. an increase of 7%, so this is an example as a result of capital investment companies are expanding their businesses in making investments and we believe that that is the fundamental reason for why the tax cuts are not in the economy to move on with their lives but actually producing long-term fundamental structural high revenues and economic growth for the country to benefit from. >> i do know that it's not only congressional budget office but also the federal reserve don't necessarily concur with that assumption. let me quickly move on. i recognize i'm almost at times. i would like to come back off-line to talk about medicare. but your estimate is that i have
training dollar reduction in the rate of growth over the next ten years is a result of your post is questioning. >> yes. we have $570 billion in savings and medicare. these are program integrity and drug pricing reductions. a number of scenarios where we think that common sense would dictate that we pay particular sites of care the same whether they are still nursing under nursing facilities or long-term care hospital. >> thank you. >> gentlemen time is expired i recognize the gentleman from texas, mr. roy. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you for taking the time to come here. we appreciate your service to this country. couple questions, would you agree that when you balance your budget at home that the most of
america people budget their balance and look at revenues, that is income they receive, they don't set against what they need to spend on the other side and they're trying to spend within the amount that they bring in revenues questioning. >> yes. >> is that the goal, should that be the goal of the united states question work that we look at our revenues and look what we got and spend within our means questioning. >> is absolutely should be. >> is that the goal of our budget to set us on a path toward spending within the memes question. >> it is absolutely. i appreciate the question, it would be easy when you don't balance within ten years, which is the normal budget window that budgets provide for to say balance isn't important. we do believe that. we believe balance is important. it's a debate that every family has across this country about what they can spend versus what they bring in. and we want the federal government to operate more like an american family from that standpoint which is one of the reasons we said, all right, what
can we do outside the normal window, we can get there within 15 and we did so. >> thank you. i appreciate you presenting a budget actually bounces. you know as well as i do i'd rather see that in ten or five. but i appreciate you submitting the balance. in order to do that on the revenue side, we need to get revenues up or keep them up. is that what you're assuming based on economic growth under this president's policy that were getting revenues up questioning. >> absolutely ass in doing so, i heard a lot of concerns about the cost of the tax cuts. would you agree that c.b.o. last year said that the cut initially would cost 1.6 trillion under trillion dollars. the amended that -- c.b.o. by the way not y'all, but amended that on increases in revenue and amended down that we would save 1.1 trillion of that because of economic growth because we would have 6.1 trillion bigger economy by 2027. we was able hundred $50 billion on the entitlement side of the lecture and that would leave us
with $440 billion net cost because of the tax increases. this asinine questioning. >> i believe that sounds right with the c.b.o. said. the basic point is that -- there's been a debate in the last three years, does tax cuts lead to economic growth chris marked as increase revenues questioning and we believe the c.b.o. is coming our way insane since the president took office there is been 1.3 trillion in additional receipts generated from economic growth. they are not making the same claims that we are with regard to economic policies covering the cost of the tax cut. i am not here to say that they are. but we do think there providing data points that argue in favor of what we've been arguing for two years. >> on the other side of the coin, will we talk about spending, is it 30% discretionary and 70% mandatory christmas. >> cracked. >> within mandatory, can you tell me what you feel about the press conference that was held
on the capital on a bipartisan basis with masses proposals to deal with mandatory spending and entitlements you agree with all the points made with members on both sides of the aisle questioning. >> i don't recall specifically what press conference you're referring to but i note that mandatory spending is a significant issue and often congress has put forward increases to mandatory spending. were seeing that with proposals that are being offered for medicare for all. which would be in the neighborhood of $32 trillion. >> you recall the incident happened? are you aware of any serious proposal in congress to massively reform entitlement spending questioning. >> i am not aware of that. >> on either side of the aisle questioning. >> i think that one side of the aisle has attempted to look at mandatory spending of the last several years, but, again, this is the spending as a bipartisan problem and i'm not here to say otherwise. >> is there any serious political capital being spent to promote such a plan? >> not that we have seen so far.
>> half defense, half non- dissents discretionary, on the non-defense does this chart roughly reflect what we've seen with respect to caps and busting caps over the last six or seven years questioning. >> yes. >> the chart that mr. scott put forward. you noted 1994 we had a republican congress that came in to work with the president who admitted the big air of government was over and try to work with us. then we noted the deficit spending under a president obama increase massively. what happened in 2011 the cost to read deficits reduce ? >> will happen in 2011? >> the bca. >> the bca agreements. certainly -- report a series of spending caps that were designed to limit and pay for the debt limit increase of the time. unfortunately congress has lost the spending caps back every two
years and increase the spending as a result. >> and q. >> the time is expired and i now recognize the germa lady from t. >> i thank you very much and i think the ranking member. we are all committed to the america people. but as i look up and raise up this budget that says for better america, you know that i have a completely contrary view of this. in fact, i think this hurts the most vulnerable in america and people who have worked in america, seniors who have worked in america. i want to pose questions along those lines. first of all, i think it's important to note that the top 10% of america's population now average for the nine times as much income as the bottom 90%. nine times, americans in the top 1% average over 40 times more income than the bod bottom 90%. the nation's top 0.1% are taking
over 98 times the income of the bottom 90%. that's a lot of people. african-american families with just over $3500 owns 2% of the wealth. i don't believe that this budget that is interested in cutting from the very heart of the needs of people from education to healthcare to the environment $2.7 trillion is seriously committed to working in a bipartisan manner to provide for the great america so that all people have the ability. my question to you, it involves issues around medicare. $850 billion how does that in any way make america better? when you attack the most vulnerable questioning. >> as i mentioned earlier thank you for your statement. i do believe budgets are about visions for the country.
it is inaccurate to say that our budget cuts medicare by $845 billion. we increase medicare every single year. the savings that we include and assume in this budget is $517 billion. the $845 billion number that has been reported in the press comes from the fact that there is not an assumption that we are other places outside the medicare providing for uncompensated care. graduate medical education in our hospital. >> if i might, those kind of shenanigans and manipulation may sound good but it is accurate that there are cuts coming out of medicare of $845 billion. almost $850 billion.
also i want to take note of the fact that here is a president who engages with russia, north korea, was to pull troops out of syria and afghanistan. so why in the world are you asking for $750 billion for defense in contrast to the enormity of the amount of millions -- billions of dollars that your cutting from education, environment, medicaid and medicare. what is the purpose of using non-defense discretionary, this statement of mandatory which makes it sound negative, of course, from the very beginning. why is always a target question and answer ? >> minorities who have not had equal opportunities, and african-americans to the contrary of this ministry should representation. it is not been good to them. where you going after the vulnerable in this budget questioning. >> we don't think we are going after the vulnerable in this budget. we think that we are trying to find reforms that make sense, that would improve the lives of the beneficiaries. two points, i think i reflected
in your comments that i do want to get to. i think it is fair to say why are we always looking on the mandatory side. one of the reasons i been having a conversation with -- the members on the side of the aisle is that we think the non-defense discretionary spending in the area where we need to do our best to continue to look for efficiencies and get rid of wasteful program. >> reclaim my time. i appreciate the interest of engagement. let me make it very clear the and. this budget attacks the most vulnerable in this nation. it is unequal and wealth. the tax scam is still the most powerful undermining of growth and prosperity in this nation. by pushing money toward the top 0.1% for the top 1% and leaving those who can add to the economy along the highway of despair. this budget will not go. i yield back. >> any further comments from the witness? >> no, sir.
>> i recognize the gentleman from texas mr. crenshaw for five minutes. >> think mr. chairman. doctor thank you for being here in your testimony and i like to thank you for your hard work in tough choices that went into this budget. one of the benefits of going last i get to observe the differences between democrats and republicans. here are a couple of my observations. there is a key difference in how we view spending and where it should occur. there's a key difference in where we view where government services should occur. the democrat side i believe they are overlooking the fact that we have local and state governments. every single problem in some of these are real problems, some are real investments. but there's a belief that it always has to be solved at the federal level. always. i believe your budget takes note of that. i believe your budget takes note of the fact that maybe, just maybe, some of these things and some that we mentioned today
maybe it's law-enforcement crime, clean water, housing, clean water, maybe some of these things can be solved by state and local actors. where constituents can go down the street and knock on the door of the representation and say, yeah you can raise my taxes but i wanted going towards us. those of the federa federal govt wish. they really have annoyed you with the taxes are going. it's also interesting to note this idea that more must always be better. but the bigger the $is, the bigger there your heart is. you know, and there's this notion that if we want to cut back on programs and in many cases you noticed and you noted we will get to this, what a cut really means. but just because you might want to cut down on something that isn't benefiting the american people the you are now antiscience or into healthcare, that's a moral accusation. that's an accusation against our intentions and that's not right.
we have different views of how we should spend this money. it's really as simple as that. i want to give you an opportunity again to explain because there's been a lot of confusion over this, what a cut is versus what slowing growth is? it is been noted over and over again that maybe we should reform the pattern of growth on medicaid and medicare. are we actually cutting these programs because you said it over and over again but i want to clarify these programs seem to be increasing the budget every single year. pretty drastically actually. >> they are congressman and we would have a similar definition of a cut which is the dollar amount increase less than the previous year. not a amount less in projection from someone in the year before. . . .
>> let me get back to you on that particular question we are excited about the reforms we have in the health savings accounts growth in medicare and outside. one of the situations that we see is that the rules of the programs are too restrictive so if you have an insurance product that attempts to provide and absorb the cost for generics and take care of other preventative medicine to lower their cost is no longer eligible for an hsa. what is an actuarial way in which we can make that assessment and expand the programs. i think republicans need to come up with a conservative
sustainable solution and i want to ask about the cuts to the army corps of engineers budget and why that might be the case witwhat is the justification for this with about $100 million for the infrastructure investment and in places like houston we care a great deal about that and it's a worthy investment for the future. >> one of the things we have been most frustrated with is how slow they are with many of the projects. we are trying to say continue to focus on the backlogs and things that are already underway to say not to go forward with new starts particularly when there's so much disastethereis so much e system that needs to get spammed as well. we do support the army corps of engineers spending and we think that this is a sustainable
level, but we also understand where you're coming from. do you agree with this statement? >> no i don't agree with that statement. and in october there's another statement that was made. a suggestion was made for the defense budget of 7 billion which would've bee would have bt over the previous fiscal year do you agree with that proposal lacks >> i remember the conversation we had in developing the budget where -- >> do you agree with that statement that it should be cut by 2% and that we should get rid of the fat and the waste?
you disagreed with the president of the united states both of tht the statements were made by donald trump and in december he said they had $716 billion this year and then in october when they told the cabinet to get rid of the fact and waste and suggest the defense budget of 7 billion which would have been a 2% cut strange support between the president of trump said and what some of us have been saying for some time so the acting director how much did the the president cut in the total national defense funding in his 2020 budget we were increasing by 5% and might i respond you are proposing an increase of 5%
for the dod spending, not a decrease of 2% which is what the president said he wanted in october. they've been on defense spending also go up by 4.7 or 5.7 in your budget? is it 5%? >> from the fiscal year 19 discretionary cap level. >> so overall the cut is what? it is 5 cents on the cut. if you include all of the gimmicks that congress uses to hide the cost of the agencies spend at, it is higher. >> what is the number of >> roughly an average of 10%. >> double of the increase its 5% for defense and the cut is 10% of nondefense discretionary which education healthcare and a number of other critical
priorities. now let me ask you about the slush fund and your boss who is now serving as th the presidents chief of staff referred to the overseas contingency operation funding as a slush fund he agreed back when he was in congress and the house armed services chairman smith has also called a slush fund in the budget how much does the proposed cutting the defense department slush fund in fiscal year 20. >> we propose increasing -- >> how much are you proposing to increase it by? >> 164 billion. >> so to increase the callback to the president's chief of staff and the chairman of the armed services committee i went hundred 38% to 165 billion over 2019 you made a statement earlier in the hearing the
national science foundation doesn't need to be immune from waste fraud and abuse correct? >> it is not immune. >> doesn't need to be, is not immune. immune. you think the defense department should be immune from waste fraud and abuse of? and do you know when every congress mandated when they should undergo in audit did youw when that happened? >> 1990 when was the first comprehensive audit of the pentagon done? >> this year. so almost 30 years later we did an audit of an agency that has a budget price now and you are proposing a significant increase and the individual audits that are a part of this audits of the pentagon, how many of those failed, where does the pentagon failed all of these edits to
just received a passing grade and they estimated that the pentagon made improper payments, that's their term for which isn't necessarily fraud that its payments that lacit's payments k sufficient or appropriate documentation and approval which means we have no idea where that money went into the 957 million in 2017 and 1.2 billion in 2018 select me ask you through you'd think through should get through increase and through budget and why that might through later we did an audit for 30 years? >> we are the first administration to comply and
actually do the audit thank you mr. chairman and i yield back. >> it's the work of president trump and the work of congress in putting the act and reducing the unnecessary regulation or policy is going to be number one in the world. various aspects. it truly the policies of serving the american people and not the government itself. and the president's budget, he makes some difficult spending
decisions. while i don't agree with all of them, i commend the president for making this tough calls. the cuts in mandatory spending reins in the cost of health care by giving control back to states and patients, reforms the welfare program while maintaining the safety net and detaining the historical reforms from the tax cuts and jobs act. in particular i'm glad president trump shares my views on the importance of making the 20% pass-through rate for small businesses permanent. it's an important reform from the tax bill that expires in 2025 if we don't act. the small business owner optimism is at an all-time high
we want to extend that scott's and provide certainty to the businesses that are making investments. i am not sure as a business owner how you can make long-term investments when you are facing an expiration of the tax provisions so again, when we talk about the promise is kept, we are talking about keeping our promise to the american taxpayers and small business owners to be able to say it's not just a one-time tax cuts that we arcut thatwe are extends into permanent law. >> i was glad to hear in the president's state of the union address about the attempt to increase investments in fighting pediatric cancer research. can you explain a little bit about that in the presidents
budget? >> it's a line item that isn't just a line item is a spending initiative that's important to the president. we are taking spending for pediatric cancer from about 548 million to 598 million an increase of 50 million every single year because we think it's so important. >> i totally agree and i appreciate seeing that. i am pretty excited that this is how the process has started. the president has brought forth the budget to congress and it is a beginning point. i just hope and reiterate my colleagues on the other side of the aisle eight years of voting against republican budget through the floor of the house of representatives for the entire congress to vote on a budget the president has done the heavy lifting.
you have done the heavy lifting by presenting a budget and they've done a good job at attacking. now let's see the democrat alternative. the gentleman's time is expired and i now recognize the gentleman from california mr. panetta for five minutes. >> i appreciate this opportunity thank you for being here as well as coming yesterday to the meeting to appreciate that. i'm going to talk about the supplemental nutrition assistance program. normally the gentleman from connecticut would be asking a loyoufive questions about this t fortunately for me she's not here. she may come a little bit later and i will be throwing some softballs compared to her hardball so i can tell you that. you are aware of the program and i'm sure you've are aware of the
42 million a nation that rely on it as well as 18 million children and 74,000 in my district on the central coast of california who rely on the supplement of attrition program otherwise known as food stamps. now in this budget, you kind savings of 220 billion over ten years from that program. you are aware of the far the fas passed obviously we would call that a bipartisan farm bill. democrats and republicans voted on it in which they rejected the mandatory work requirements that are being imposed in this proposal, this budget right now, correct? >> you are right. >> even though it was proposed initially but then rejected in order to pass the farm bill.
>> thank you. and one of the reasons i can tell you being on the committee at that time, one of the reasons why that proposal failed is because there was absolutely no evidence that those proposals would work. it was based on ideology, emotion, not evidence and as a former prosecutor, i knew early on i couldn't just stand say upd say someone is guilty and sit back down. i have to prove my case. that proposal was rejected by democrats and republicans and that is how we were able to get to the farm bill. what evidence do you have that this proposal will work? >> pivot at the history of the 1990s and what we've seen since then. the work requirements were placed into reduced caseloads. people who were exiting the welfare were able to achieve higher levels of income to go
back to work. >> but you wouldn't look at the evidence you don't have any pilot programs or things of that nature doubled work right now, correct? reclaiming my time. thank you. part of the proposal, part of the savings is the 5.8 billion to serve food stamp participants with the blue apron style food box delivery service it was during the buildup of the farm bill and it was rejected by food assistance experts, correct? >> not all good ideas we've continuecontinue to put forth am
that we think is excited about we continue to see value in it. >> there were issues like distribution. do you know whether or not this food box with the distributed door-to-door? >> those are the kind of questions working with congress would answer but we have had a lot of feedback from working with the private sector that would be interesting engaging with us. >> what would have been in the time of natural disasters would it be distributed through the distribution center didn't know any of the details? >> we are not prepared to offer a lot of details. >> reclaiming my time do you know what would be in this food box yes or no? >> we've been working with the department of agriculture to ensure that a balanced -- juice,
cereal, pasta, peanut butter, canned fruits and vegetables and canned meat. i haven't eaten at all today. it's lunch time but i'm not hungry right now after reading that. this wasn't meant to replace the benefits that are currently receiving. there would still be cash benefits but these are the types of details that we would hope we could work with you on. it's not a static proposal. we think that the basic concept is something that works for people who are not on food stamps let me give you an example from the standpoint of a daughter that relies on medicine and comes at a certain time the impact is that it goes back to fedex and we are out in number because we were not home.
individuals are responsible enough whether they are on food stamps or not to be able to work with the federal government and whoever the contractor is to be able t to debugger give liver am at home to receive the food that is necessary and we are willing to work with you to make sure that what people receive is something they would be excited about. it's with regards to the private sector option. i'm going to take my time now for one point and a couple brief questions. i want to remind my colleagues on the other side of that when they scored the affordable care act before its enactment they estimated the legislation would reduce federal deficit by 124 billion over the 2010 to 2019 period and by roughly one half% of gdp over the ensuing decade moreover the march 2010 baseline before the enactment projected medicare spending
before 20,195,828,000,000,000. cbo latest project for 20,198,632,000,000,000 so projected medicare spending is almost one quarter less than before the aca. in part due to the containment measures and delivery system reforms in the law and i might mention tha dripping 2009 and 20 when we proposed 750 billion of cost-saving to medicare and my colleagues on the other side many of whom were not there then but democrats had the same argument that you are now making versus regards to the reductions in medicare. your budget contemplates the full repeal of the act is that correct? >> i wouldn't say that it's a full repeal of all. >> repeal and replace medicaid
with state health care block grants. we see that the way to comparison is to add the state and medicaid program dollars going forward in those states health care block grants to figure out the amount of money states would have to meet the needs and the statute to provide coverage. >> the structure of medicaid expansion would be replaced, so in kentucky where nearly half a million of the 4.4 million residents now receive their health care through the medicaid expansion would be in serious jeopardy of losing their care was up 1.48 trillion savings in medicaid that we replaced that with 1.2 trillion in spending for the state block grants in which we assume a lot of
policies in the graham cassidy legislation that would continue to ensure populations are covered with healthcare. >> right now under the aca medicaid federal share of the reimbursement is 90% under the law. it would be under the replacement. assuming that a state even continued to ensure the same amount of people the federal contribution would be significantly lower. >> we think that's an important part of the reform that we have moved away from paying 57% on average for the most important and needy populations and now we are paying for 90% of the cost of the population that medicaid was never intended to cover. we think as a result of the program perspective that medicaid has lost focus on the disabled and medicaid has lost focus when it comes to women and
children as opposed to able-bodied adults rethink this is now a fundamental incentive problem in the medicaid program. >> you have a significant argument from people in my district who now have medicaid coverage because of the expansion and the other 420,000 in kentucky so i would yield back my time and bracket guys ms. omar -- recognize ms. omar. >> thank you for the testimony today. i want to talk a little bit about how your budget proposal is going to have impact on the millions of children across the country. i wanted to tell you a little bit about the impact i see it's would have because i don't feel like you or the administration or chomp gets it. one out of five children struggle with hunger and for
many of the children, the free lunch and breakfast they get in school is often the only meal they get to have if the budget you are proposing in this administration and trump is proposing makes $1.7 billion cut from school meals over the next ten years. a cut that largely would result in more than 29,000 children losing access to free school meals program in my home state of minnesota alone. with thiwhat this budget does te literally take food out of the mouths of children. how can these kids be expected to be fully present to learn in the same space as other kids how can we expect them to unleash their full potential and how can we expect them to be able to be
on the same footing as other kids around the world? i often say budgets or a value statement as you have many times in the committee added they are committed to having the promise is kept. what does this budget and your proposal in putting the child nutrition programs say about the promises that we want to keep the children and where our values really are? >> we don't think the budget cuts in the program you referred to specifically, we think that it's important that high income schools are currently grouped together right now to receive benefits because they are grouped with low income schools and that is unfair for the programs themselves. similarly some of the reductions you've talked about our with regards to one-time decisions that are not needed to be able to cover all of the children
that we currently project. >> how is the assessment made with child deserves to eat and what child doesn't? my understanding is we should care about every single child arriving in that school having the resources that they need to be able to get educated and be fully present. we have parents that might fall off the threshold of whatever that income is to pack breakfast for their kids, should those kids not be able to have deals in the school so they can be fully present in that classroom is that for this administration values? >> it's important thos importane ineligible to receive these types of benefits not receive the benefits and the only the communities that are eligible to receive them. >> how is the judgment of what
the benefits made if we are talking about children in a classroom and out america's most vulnerable. earlier you talked about if they are not home they should pay a price. that's the example you used if you are not home then you pay a fee so what penalty would you think should we propose for people who may not be home to receive? >> i wasn't referring to suggesting they should pay a penalty. the point i was making is that we don't think it matters where you are on the income scale to be able to determine if certain level of responsibility to receive in the mail. that is what you are expecting to receive in the mail. >> i get that. what i'm saying is we have a responsibility to make sure that
here in the united states people are fed. we are talking about food, about children having food. we gave humanitarian assistance to people around the world because we believe people should not experience food insecurity, people shouldn't starve. but here in the united states, we decided to increase the defense budget that might lead to not having our budgets be fully intact but we decided to say that we don't have enough money to feed our most vulnerable we will now recognize this schakowsky from illinois. >> it is incredible we are not
-- that is scandalous i think. i want to say this budget envisions a radically different america than i think most americans can and wants to envision. the budget is built, the politics i think division, the politics of present and which is then the president kicked off the campaign on the other hand is sure to surprise and does surprise a lot of people since the press conference announcing
the candidacy medicare, medicaid, social security without cuts has to do it and get the budget you don't want to hear it hundred 45 billion, so i will say th that number, $517 billion will come out at medicare. the budget before us cut medicare by medicaid by $1.5 trillion before cannibalizing and converting it into a block grant. the budget before us cut social security by $25 billion. it'its terrible entitlements bui feel the pressure for millions and millions did president trump acknowledged he was breaking the key campaign promise when he agreed to the budget that cut
medicare by $517 billion he doesn't believe he's breaking it out all there are no structural changes to medicare. there were no cuts to medicare. it continues to grow each and every year and the president commits to the american people he was going to attempt to lower drug prices. many of the reforms within medicare that generates savings simply because the federal government pays for the drugs of seniors is because we are trying to lower drug costs. >> it's so interesting that you would want to predict you are predicting he's going to end up lowering the drug prices and you build that in and therefore the projected amoun amount that youk is actually going to be saved.
did he acknowledge he was breaking a key campaign promise when he supported the cuts to medicaid and then turned it into a block grant? >> we do not believe we are breaking the commitment in the least that medicaid spending in addition to where we transfer reforms to medicaid estate block grant would continue to grow every year. >> do you think all the seats in the nation you predict are going to continue to make sure low-income people most of whom are children are going to have as much money for medicaid by transferring all that authority to the states to decide? >> we think the reforms we put forth with the assumption to have the state health care block grant can lead to better coverage at the state and local
level. medicaid is not what we would view as the optimal program. i believe when henry waxman said there's not a lot of millionaires on medicaid and we ask the question why is the that the driver dies from a toothache and medicaid because he never receives care we don't think it is the optimal way to continue to provide healthcare coverage and that's why we are supportive of many of the reforms in the way we move forward with the block grants because we are trying to do it better and make sure the populations that they were designed to cover get the care. >> it's interesting that there isn't anyone involved in the medicaid program who was involved in delivering care that believes that this is a reform and the news is this budget will never become lost and i yield
back. >> the chair recognizes new york for five minutes from nevada. vice president biden used to say show me the budget and i will tell you what i value. he plans to cut anywhere from half a trillion dollars to 840 billion in delhi is continuing tax breaks for the rich while imposing to needy children, families, medicaid, child nutrition assistance and seniors on medicare this is the gop budget and sadly to my colleagues on the other side they are here to continue to
defend you have a tough job. it's where they stand and where their values are. you talk about the vision and i think it speaks to our values. first i want to cover something specific to my district and address the yucca mountain nuclear waste repository located in the district about 90 miles west of las vegas. they failed eight 218 against storing radioactive waste at yucca mountain many of which challenge the department of research and analysis and the people of nevada don't want it even the president said he agrees with us i think you
should do things where people want them to happen so i would be inclined against it. we will be looking at it very seriously over the next few weeks and i agree with the people of nevada. i would like to enter into the record a letter from the state of nevada requesting a meeting to express our objections on why he includes this in his budget. >> without objection. >> why is the president breaking his promise that he made the people in october of 2018 by proposing $116 million for yucca mountain. he's very open and the
conversation for the military construction the president requested $3.6 billion by 2020 emergency fund to back the bill of 2019 military construction that he is deferring for his declaration for the wall. the proposal threatens to cut federal funding for these projects for active-duty military efforts in my district. we have the air force base at risk losing $59 million. this is the base that is performing critical military missions across the world at the air force base at risk of losing $5.9 million the national guard readiness at risk of losing $32 million can you assure me none of the projects in my district will be delayed or have
the funds stripped away to pay for the use of the border wall all the projects you mentioned i don't have the ability to say one way or the other. i don't know if it is because -- >> will these projects that i'm providing critical missions for the national security we talk about national security in this hearing and you are proposing to use money from active-duty military in need in order for these individuals to meet their obligations. >> we have not identified the projects that would be eligible for delay. >> but you've identified $3.6 billion you are moving from the fund. we identifie identify the levelg that we think would be comfortable based on a certain requirement but a reclaim my
time. we are also talking about the cuts to medicaid more than 640 million of those relying on medicaid there's a proposal in here based on the graham cassidy bill that couldn't even pass the republican-controlled senate, house and white house didn't know you have it in the budget including the former governor why is your administration touching a failed proposal once again? >> because we think it is good policy and will lead to better outcomes. >> you can get it passed by the last congress why do you think it is going to change now that we are in the majority? >> it's about putting forth our vision. >> it's dead on arrival in the house.
>> thanks again for being here today i will try not to take up all of my time. you have a tough job. if you look at the spectrum of the federal government, how is it possible to come up with any kind of a planned from any kind of a budget that could satisfy all of the desires of the projects, all of the needs, all of the urgency is how is it possible to do that when you have a limited amount of resources with which to work, how do you do with? >> we live in a resource constrained world. every family across the country lives in a resource constrained world.
so you try to accomplish what is absolutely vital in the constitution in terms of the role of the federal government and then you try to make all of the investments necessary and prudent if we take a long time to propose the budgets because it's a labor-intensive work product. >> the priorities change from year to year and there are different sets of urgent matters that come up from time to time that you have to take a look at in other words it's kind of a fluid budgetary environment, is it not? >> it's one of the reasons we believe in budgeting every year. we should be doing more budgeting not less. >> do you think those watching the hearing are touching excerpt on it can relate to the fact that they are always more things you want or need then there are resources to provide, do they do this at home? >> they do and i think they understand the exercise of the occult by statute to do which is budget for federal government
along the lines of how they do it. >> along the course of time in the family budget which the federal budget on a smaller scale from time to time there will be not enough resources to do the things that you like to see on the expense side so what do they do with your health? it's how we are spending accordingly, and we just do the best we possibly can. we try to avoid that. that's something that every family tries to do when they are trying to get serious about theiabouttheir fiscal house whay do, they turned their credit cards. >> do you make some tough choices? these traces sometimes can be somewhat painful. they can deny you some things you might otherwise have that makes life a little easier to go through a day upon day at the end of the day you've got to
make some tough choices. have you ever weaned at half? >> i have not. >> do you know what happens when tim from cattle country what happens when you lean eight half? >> it is one of the noisiest, loudest, heartbreaking events that a cattleman goes through th but he knows he has to do it and i use this example not at the risk of somebody from the other side saying that the ranking member wants to compare people to cattle, i don't. i just suggest that any time you take somebody off of something they've become dependent on in the case there is a wailing and gnashing of teeth unlike you see so when you present a budget that makes the choices i just talked about, you can expect that there's going to be a lot of things to go along with it.
would you not suggest we have to do those to prepare ourselves to be stronger fiscally? >> that's the importance of the fiscal it allows you to make trade-offs while we think balance is important even if it is over a 15 window it because it allows us to enter every one of the decisions you were just referring to an essay can we afford this and if not, how do we pay for it or not spend on it. >> there are some things that they must do it provide for the common defense. we can argue about how much that we have to do that, do we not come it's in the constitution. >> it's one of the most vital roles of the government. >> provided in the general welfare that is kind of a broad subject and i think we can have a debate that goes a long time about what constitutes general
welfare or what doesn't. but there was a comment i'm using one example many that came up in the hearing today on the other side of the cd bg in an old mayor slain very familiar with the block grant program and into the budget proposes to eliminate it. are you familiar with revenue sharing that the federal government used to do? it was a program, federal revenue-sharing to the nation and i want is want to say nixos findings with all -- findings with the wall was born out of the need in new york with a budget deficit we would take federal money and share it with other political subdivisions of the federal government and i remember because i was a city cy council member in the early
1980s when federal revenue-sharing ended and much like the bawling of a half and weaning there were mayors and others associated with local government that scream to high heaven that this was going to be terribly damaging to the balance sheets of a lot of the cities and towns. and it seems like they survived. we became dependent on something and was part of our regular revenue streams fo stream so the just assumed it was always going to be there. $22 trillion in debt is a lot of money. the trillion dollar deficits that would feed into that 22 trillion is a lot of money would you not agree x. we have to examine the spectrum of the federal government and as you said early on in your testimony
in response with your opening ... it was important for federal bureaucracies on the discretionary side because we spent a lot of time talking about mandatory spending but you said on the discretionary side we cannot forget that there are places where we can analyze our priorities and approach from the perspective we are addressing the urgent needs with mia on fiscal responsibility did you not? so as a part of the budget you do advocate for the discretionary budget of the federal government cannot be held exempt from them about the examinatiobut theexamination wen the mandatory side. >> absolutely we don't believe any part of the federal government spending should be exempt. >> you have a difficult job and before i close i just want to
acknowledge a couple of people seated behind you. i'm assuming a lot of these folks are staff. i know there's one guy with red hair that used to work for me so i know he's part of your staff i want to give a shout out to your staff because they've spent a lot of midnight oil trying to prepare a document that a lot of people are going to throw a lot of tomatoes at. but between now and the time that we fund the government on october 1 of 2020, we still have a lot of ground to plow and it will have decisions to make between the legislative and executive branch to put america's priority is. >> i appreciate that and saying that i appreciate this as you mentioned it's a six-month process and takes a lot of late nights so i thank you for reflecting that.
this is obviously a difficult and contentious process i would have to agree with you on that. i hope to pick up the analogy is clear from your budget that the administration fears of the most privilege in america afraid of losing their tax cuts and i hope the administration can also hear the thanks. please be advised members can set it for ten questions to be answered in later writings and they will be made a part of the record and any member who wishes to submit a question for the record may do so within seven days. without objection this hearing is adjourned.