Overall number in the law, the budget control act, requesting basically a little bit over 1 trillion. 1. 1 trillion as the law allows for. Within that number, he really departed from the budget control act numbers, and he requested a lot more for defense programs. About 54 billion for security related programs. And covers that with an equal amount of cuts in nondefense spending, 54 billion. So thats a violation of the budget control act there. But more than that, its very politically unpopular. Yes members really like the , defense spending increase, but they dont like taking it out of nondefense programs agriculture cut more than 20 . Transportation, federal housing programs cut 15 . Labor, health, Education Programs cut similarly. State Department Programs cut tremendously. And congress is rejecting that. They dont really have their own plan nailed down. While they are inclined to give a lot more to defense, they are not as interested in those nondefense spending cuts. It matters of this budget control act. And the caps that were put in place, explain to our viewers, give them a remind of the budget a reminder of the budget control act and why the president has to stick to it. Nancy this is a law that was passed when obama was president and he was working with the congress, with leaders in a different party, and it was an agreement that they made to set caps on Discretionary Spending. Not those mandatory programs where you have your Social Security checks and so on going out every month, but Discretionary Spending. They agreed to very firm numbers. And if those numbers arent honored in the annual appropriations process, you have something called budget takestration kick in and the funding for the programs down a lot. Budget sequestration is something that members of congress understand and they want to avoid. So if a budget came across the floor of the house and went to the senate with numbers that dont comply with the budget control act, the bill, the package, can be challenged under budgetary point of order and can be knocked down. Thats what we would expect to see. If somehow the house gets a package like that through and sends it to senator Mitch Mcconnell, majority leader. We dont expect hell get the 60 votes for that package. Host our cspan viewers saw the president s cabinet members, the heads of each of these agencies, go up to capitol hill, testify about the president s priorities for their individual agencies. How did Congress Respond . What did the house appropriators do . These are the lawmakers who get to decide what the final number is for each of these agencies. Nancy the House Appropriations committee, the members, the chairman, rodney frelinghuysen, was very polite with these officials. But it seemed that hearing after hearing he told the cabinet officers, remember, congress has the power of the purse. And we set the spending priorities. That message was hammered home time and time again. And we heard the same thing at Senate Appropriations with the republican subcommittee chairman there also. They are not going to follow the president s budget. They are going to set the spending levels like they always do. And i think one of the problems this year has been that they havent really found the president s budget submissions that credible. The first one was what they call the skinny budget that only dealt with Discretionary Spending and not with mandatory programs, tax revenues, economic forecasts. And then when the full budget came out in may, that document had a 2 trillion err in it. These things were not credible and the members of congress reacted pretty poorly to all of this. The worst thing is that there wasnt enough guidance in those documents. So appropriators were mostly on their own to figure it out. Host what have appropriators done so far . How much has been approved in the house . How much has been approved in the senate . When lawmakers return in september, whats left for them to do . Nancy well, a lot is left over. What happened in the house is that the House Appropriations committee worked very hard in the last few weeks before the august recess to get all of their bills out of committee. They worked night and day. Day after day, to report their bills. And four of those bills were put together in something called a minibus and taken to the house floor the last week before Congress Went out of session. That included the big defense bill. And that covered about 800 billion in spending. But none of those bills were passed individually this year. And over in the senate, they worked in the last few weeks before the august recess to mark up six bills. But none them have so far gone to the senate floor. And well be waiting to see if they can get any of the other bills through committee in september. This is one of the first years where we didnt see even an attempt to bring individual spending bills to either the house or the senate floor in the summer. So when they get back in september, House Speaker paul ryan is going to bring up the other eight unfinished Appropriations Bills in the house as a package. Bring them to the floor, and then the word is, is that at the end of that process, attach those four bills that were approved in the minibus, put them in that final package, create a 12bill omnibus appropriations package, and then send it over to the senate. But because that package is going to violate the budget control act, greatly exceeding the caps in that law, its not likely to get the 60 votes that it needs for Mitch Mcconnell to bring it up on the floor. And then congress will only have a week or two before the government runs out of money once again and the leadership and white house will have to get serious and negotiate a stopgap spending bill to prevent a Government Shutdown on september 30. Host nancy of bloomberg bna, thank you very much. Thank you. And now into the hearing , rooms. First we take you back to late may when white house budget director economic mulvaney testified before the house and Senate Budget committees on the president s overall budget request. Chairman black, thank you so much for having me. Thank you for having me here today. Secretary mulvaney its great to be here. To be back in this committee. I served in this committee for two years and its an honor and privilege to be here on behalf of the Trump Administration. Mr. Lewis, welcome. You are sitting in my chair. Its an honor to be here. Im not going to read my opening statement. I am going to make a couple comments and get right to the question and answers. When we looked at the budget for the very first time, i picked it up on friday, the new foundation for american greatness, i spent most of the weekend as you can imagine, reading it. And as i went through it, it struck me we could have come up a different title. And the title could have been the Taxpayer First budget. Because the first time in my memory at least this is a budget that was written from the perspective of the people who actually pay for the government. And we went line by line through what this government does and asked ourselves can we justify this to the folks who are actually paying for it . If im going to take money from diazbalart in taxes and im going to spend it on a program, can i justify to him actually spending that money . If im going to take money from ms. Schakowsky, can i justify it . Can i look you in the eye and say i need to take this money from you in order to give it to a disabled veteran. I think i can. Im not sure i could look at mr. Woodall and say i need to tyke take some of your money to give it to a program thats completely ineffective, doesnt help anybody, and ripe with waste, fraud and abuse. Thats the perspective that we brought to this budget from the very beginning. Maybe thats whats new about the new foundation. The other thing that is new is it does balance. As you know, its been a long sme since the president s budget has balanced. It hasnt happened since i came here in 2010. Somebody mentioned this is a moral document. It is. Heres the moral side. If i take money from you and no have no intention of ever giving it back, that is not debt, that is theft. If i take money from you with an intention to pay it back and show you how i intend to pay it back, that is debt. What we have been doing for two too long, both parties, in this city have been taking money from people without laying out a plan for how were going to pay it back. We start doing that with this budget. This budget does balance within a 10year window. Something that is completely new in this town. Whats the foundation . The foundation for the plan is 3 growth. In fact, that is trumpanomics. Its whatever can get us to 3 growth. I can assure you when i am in the oval office with the president and talking about trade policy, talking about Energy Policy, talking about tax policy, health care reform, budgets. Were trying to figure out a way to get to 3 growth. I have news for you. Both parties, if we do not get the 3 growth, it is unlikely well ever balance the budget again. That is not a plan. That is not a plan for the future. That is not moral to take money from people without having a plan to pay it back. We do everything we can to try to get to 3 growth. I look forward to questions today about how we do that. We do all of this, by the way, and still fund the president s priorities. You heard it by now, we wanted more money for National Security, border security, Law Enforcement, veterans, school choice, even paid parental leave. For the first time ever, President Trump, the first president of either party, is proposing a National Paid parental leave program. 20 billion in this budget to do that. We dont touch Social Security and medicare. Following through on his campaign promises. And were able to do all of that and still balance. Why . Because what we did here is try and change the way washington looks at spending. We no longer want to measure compassion by the number of programs that we have or the number of people that are on those programs. We want to measure compassion, true compassion, by the number of people we help to get off of those programs. We dont want to measure our commitment to the country by the amount of money that we spend, but instead on the number of people that we help get off of these programs and get back in charge of their own lives. That is what we think makes this the american greatness budget. Because we are going to try to get the country back to where we have a healthy economy, people are working again, people are optimistic about the country. If you are under the age of 30, you never had a job as an adult in a healthy American Economy. A healthy American Economy is very, very different than what you have seen for the last 10 years. The dynamism and optimism that comes from that is what this this administration is about and what this president promised. We will do everything in our power to deliver. The budget is a start to that. Again, madam chairman, thank you for having me. I look forward to questions and explaining the budget to members. You have said that the foundation of your budget is 3 growth. I have looked every which way at how you might get there and you cant get there. As a consequence, i think it is disastrously consequential to build a budget on 3 budget. The bible says you cant build a house on a sandy foundation. What it does is it perpetuates a myth we can go out there and balance the budget without touching entitlements. Its not only a myth, its frankly a lie. And if it gets started at the executive branch level, it moves from there. So i think that this notion literally the speaker of the house talked today about the notion of 3 growth and how we can balance the budget. I just again, as earnestly as i have looked at this, i dont know how you get there. What this does is it creates real debates. Legitimately, myself and democratic colleagues can see things quite differently. But for us to have a real debate, we have to base it on real numbers. I would also say its important because im a deficit hawk as you well know. And if you are wrong on these numbers, it means all of a sudden we created a twoplus trillion dollar hole for our kids and grandkids here going forward. I want to walk through a couple different numbers with you. One, this budget presumes a goldilocks economy. I think thats a very difficult thing on which to base a budget. If you look at the average economic expansion in the history of our country, its 58 months. The current expansion that were in is actually the third longest economic expansion in American History. Were at 94 months. But what you presume in this budget is not only will we not have a recession, though were in the third longest economic expansion in history, but its going to keep going for another 214 months. Its not only unprecedented, i would think that to be unreasonable. It assumes that the stars perfectly align with the economic drivers. Can you guess the last time when we had an Unemployment Rate at 4. 8 growth at 3 and inflation , held at 2 . Its never happened. The last time that gross was at 3 , held for a sustained period of time, the 10year bond yield below 5 , youall presume 3. . Can you guess the last time that ever happened . Secretary mulvaney i trust the assumptions chairman sanford its never happened. Were going way out there on the curve in terms of assumption. In terms of the ingredients of growth i broke out some numbers , here. Capital formation would have to go to the record level that we have seen in terms of Capital Growth from 1964 to 1974. Though Capital Formation actually goes down as people retire. They withdraw from the savings accounts. Labor force growth would have to go to see what we saw in the 1970s and 1980s when women were joining the work force en masse. Even if you include the Labor Participation rates and took them back up to the numbers that we saw in the 1990s, we would see a. 2 , a decimal increase not a percentage increase. It would require either radically opening immigration or radical change to demographics as we have 10,000 baby boomer s retire each day. If you look at productivity growth, it would require numbers again that we havent seen since the golden days of 1958 to 1967 and the wave of consumer appliance, and completion of the highway system to achieve what we were seeing. Even if we were at the 1990 numbers, we would only see one quarter of what is necessary to achieve 3 growth. The rand corps says rejection of 15 is to be presumed with aging. I would lastly submit this for the record which is to say, if you look at the correlation between o. M. B. And c. B. O. The gentlemans time has expired. Thanks very much, mr. Chairman. Before we go further, i find it a little bit unfair that mr. Mulvaney and many people in the Trump Administration disparage the director of the c. B. O. When it was tom price, the former republican chairman of the budget committee, who appointed dr. Hall in the first place. Senator sanders lets get that clear. Mr. Mulvaney, as you know the United States today has more income and wealth inequality than any major country on eth. Top. 1 now owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 . 52 of all new income today is going to the top 1 . But your budget thinks that it is good Public Policy to provide 52 billion in tax breaks for the wealthiest family in this country, a family already worth 128 billion. You think that a family like the Walton Family where one guy owns four ferraris, one maseratti , that are worth more than 65 are just in desperate need of million, massive, massive tax breaks. You think that sheldon aidleson, who among other things contributed 5 million for the trump inaugural, is in need of a massive tax break, as well as the koch brothers. My question is pretty simple. I want you to tell the American People why you think it is a good idea to give 3 trillion in tax breaks to the top 1 at a time when the rich are becoming much richer, while at the same time you are going to low 17 going to throw 17 million children in this country off of Health Insurance because of the unconscionable cuts that you are making to medicaid. Why are you going to throw seniors in the state of wyoming or state of vermont off the meals on wheels program, maybe the one nutritious program that they get a day, why youre going to throw women and lowincome babies off of the w. I. C. Program at a time when infant mortality rates in this country was already high. You really think its a great idea to tell a lowincome pregnant woman that you are going to take away the w. I. C. Program, take away nutrition programs from children, in order to give a massive tax break of 52 billion to the Walton Family. Please explain your logic to the American People. Secretary mulvaney ill see if i can handle each of those in reverse. Let me deal with c. B. O. First. I cannot disparage who i dont know. I dont think i have ever disparaged the director. Senator sanders you made a dismissive remark. You guys appointed the director. Secretary mulvaney the results are awful. Senator sanders you appointed him. Lets go with that. Secretary mulvaney i measure performance by results. Senator sanders your opinion is the results are terrible. I have suggesting it was a member of the Trump Administration who appointed this gentleman. Not some kind of radical democrat. Secretary mulvaney so we can agree they pu