Wealthy Scott Bessent Scowls At Dem Rep. For Bringing Up Americans' Economic Struggles

The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Vegas, Mr. Horsford. Thank you to the chairman and to the ranking member, and I look forward to working with Congressman Miller and the other members of the Committee on the Parity Act, which is a true bipartisan bill. Before I begin, though, I want to thank Chairman Smith for his commitment to working with me also on the Full House Act. Prior to the Senate-passed bill, gaming patrons could deduct 100% of their gambling losses. They were taxed on what they actually earned, nothing more, nothing less. The Senate changed that. This provision was included without meaningful debate and creates a fundamentally unfair outcome for taxpayers who participate in legal gaming activities. Under the new provision, patrons can deduct only 90% of their losses. That means someone who breaks even or even loses money overall could still face a federal tax bill. So, Mr. Secretary, will you work with Chairman Smith and me to fix this issue and to protect gaming jobs and tourism-dependent economies like Nevada? We'd be glad to, sir. Thank you. Now, you, Mr. Secretary, you talked a lot about permanency throughout today's hearing. For the tip worker, for the warehouse worker, for the teacher, for the nurse, and for the small business owners in Nevada, they don't need a temporary tax gimmick. They need permanently lower cost and permanently higher take-home pay. Yet, when Republicans wrote their bill, they made a choice that the tax cuts for billionaires and large corporations would be made permanent while making the tax relief for working people temporary. To me and to the workers, that tells them exactly who they were thinking about when they wrote it. That's why I have introduced the Tips Improvement Act as well as the Overtime for All Workers Act, because I believe workers who earn tips or who work overtime should receive permanent tax relief, not temporary. If Republicans are serious about helping working families, they should join me in making tax relief for workers permanent, just like they did for billionaires. Now, Mr. Secretary, I want to discuss tariffs, which are hidden taxes that American consumers pay, including businesses. The Supreme Court ruled that this administration's broad tariff policy was unlawful, but American families already paid the price. Small businesses paid it through higher costs. Consumers paid it through hidden higher prices. According to the Yale Budget Lab, the average household paid roughly $1,800 more because of these tariffs. At a time when you talk about giving relief to workers, temporary relief, on the other hand, they are feeling the effect of higher prices. So let me ask you directly, do Americans deserve refunds for money collected through tariffs that the Supreme Court ruled illegal? Yes or no? Congressman, the American people had the money. It was in the U.S. Treasury, and it didn't take it away. Do you agree that they deserve the money back that the Supreme Court ruled is illegal? Yes or no? It's not a yes or no question, because every Democratic attorney general applied. The Supreme Court ruled that they were illegal, Mr. Secretary. I know, and they applied for them to go back to the companies. So do the companies deserve the money back? To the payers of record. So do they deserve their money back? That is an issue for Customs and Border Patrol. No, no, no. Mr. Secretary, while the Homeland Security Act of 2002 may have transferred a number of custom functions from Treasury to DHS, Treasury retains oversight over trade policy and the protection of revenue functions. Treasury can delegate those functions, but it cannot delegate that statutory authority. Just last week, the Justice Department appealed a court order that would have accelerated refunds to importers and to businesses. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to submit for the record the May 29th article U.S. to appeal judges' order for broad refund of Trump tariffs. Without objection. Thank you. Secretary Besant, yes or no? Did you participate in discussions about appealing efforts to speed up tariff refunds? No. Treasury helps shape major fiscal policy. Returning roughly $165 billion to businesses and consumers is a major fiscal decision. So why wasn't the Treasury involved? Again, we act as the payment agent. Your bank does not tell you which bills to pay. You tell your bank which. Well, from the public's perspective, taxpayers' perspective, the administration is fighting harder to keep their money than to return it. That's why I've introduced the Relief Act, to give automatic refunds within 90 days to the people who paid the tariffs. And that once the refunds are made, that the benefit goes to the consumers that ultimately paid the price in higher cost. The Relief Act creates an automatic refund process, something that this administration has not been working to accomplish, and this would actually address the economic uncertainty that has been caused by these across-the-board tariffs. Not strategic, not in the best interest of American consumers, and it's time that we give the money back to the people who paid it. With that, I yield back. And many foreign companies, and I think we're going to see that the payers of record, many of them are overseas entities. Well, Mr. Secretary, families in America don't experience the economy through GDP reports or stock market indexes. They experience it through rent and groceries. They experience it through utility bills. What does that have to do with tariffs? That's exactly right. What does it have to do? It has to do with the average family not being able to meet their monthly budget obligations because this administration is so aloof to the reality that the majority of Americans are facing.