    [Senate Hearing 116-474]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                          S. Hrg. 116-474

                       NOMINATIONS OF HON. RUSSELL T. VOUGHT
                                    AND CRAIG E. LEEN

    =======================================================================

                                     HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                   HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                         ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

              NOMINATION OF HON. RUSSELL T. VOUGHT TO BE DIRECTOR,
       OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET AND CRAIG E. LEEN TO BE INSPECTOR
                    GENERAL, OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT

                                   __________

                                  JUNE 2, 2020

            Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov

                           Printed for the use of the
            Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                  __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    40-720 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2021

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

            COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

                        RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin, Chairman
    ROB PORTMAN, Ohio                    GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
    RAND PAUL, Kentucky                  THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
    JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma             MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire
    MITT ROMNEY, Utah                    KAMALA D. HARRIS, California
    RICK SCOTT, Florida                  KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona
    MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming             JACKY ROSEN, Nevada
    JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri

                    Gabrielle D'Adamo Singer, Staff Director
           Patrick J. Bailey, Chief Counsel for Governmental Affairs
                   Andrew J. Timm, Professional Staff Member
                   David M. Weinberg, Minority Staff Director
                   Zachary I. Schram, Minority Chief Counsel
                         Laura W. Kilbride, Chief Clerk
                         Thomas J. Spino, Hearing Clerk

                                C O N T E N T S

                                     ------
    Opening statements:
                                                                       Page
        Senator Johnson..............................................     1
        Senator Peters...............................................     3
        Senator Carper...............................................    11
        Senator Hawley...............................................    13
        Senator Scott................................................    16
        Senator Rosen................................................    18
        Senator Hassan...............................................    20
        Senator Portman..............................................    23
        Senator Lankford.............................................    26
        Senator Romney...............................................    28
        Senator Sinema...............................................    30
    Prepared statements:
        Senator Johnson..............................................    37
        Senator Peters...............................................    39
        Senator Scott................................................    41

                                   WITNESSES
                             Tuesday, June 2, 2020

    Hon. Russell T. Vought to be Director, Office of Management and
      Budget
        Testimony....................................................     4
        Prepared statement...........................................    42
        Biographical and professional information....................    44
        Letter from the Office of Government Ethics..................    67
        Responses to pre-hearing questions...........................    70
        Responses to post-hearing questions..........................   120
        Letter of Support............................................   180
    Craig E. Leen to be Inspector General, Office of Personnel
      Management
        Testimony....................................................     6
        Prepared statement...........................................   182
        Biographical and professional information....................   185
        Letter from the Office of Government Ethics..................   212
        Responses to pre-hearing questions...........................   215
        Responses to post-hearing questions..........................   242

               NOMINATIONS OF RUSSELL T. VOUGHT AND CRAIG E. LEEN

                                  ----------

                             TUESDAY, JUNE 2, 2020

                                         U.S. Senate,
                               Committee on Homeland Security
                                      and Governmental Affairs,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:32 p.m., via
    video conference, Hon. Ron Johnson, Chairman of the Committee,
    presiding.
        Present: Senators Johnson, Portman, Lankford, Romney,
    Scott, Hawley, Peters, Carper, Hassan, Sinema, and Rosen.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JOHNSON

        Chairman Johnson. The hearing will come to order. Today we
    are considering the nomination of Mr. Russell Vought to be the
    Director of Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Mr. Craig
    Leen to be Inspector General (IG) of the Office of Personnel
    Management (OPM).
        I would ask consent that my written statement be entered
    into the record.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Senator Johnson appears in the
    Appendix on page 37.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        I will keep my opening remarks pretty short.
        The Office of Management and Budget has a broad mission to
    assist the President in the development and execution of his or
    her policies and programs. While OMB is perhaps the best known
    for its role in overseeing the coordination, production, and
    administration of the President's annual budget, the Office is
    also responsible for coordinating the President's legislative
    agenda, regulatory and information policy, and management of
    the Executive Branch. The OMB Director is a member of the
    President's Cabinet and oversees a staff of close to 500
    employees.
        We certainly want to welcome Mr. Vought. Thank you for your
    current service and appreciate your willingness to serve in a
    confirm capacity.
        The Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the Office of
    Personnel Management audits and investigates waste, fraud, and
    abuse. OPM issues policy guidance and regulations governing the
    Federal civil workforce and manages the health and retirement
    benefits offered to the millions of current and former
    employees and their families. As it continues to struggle to
    recover from the catastrophic 2015 cybersecurity breach, OPM is
    undergoing a radical reorganization. The National Background
    Investigations Bureau (NBIB), which accounted for over one-
    third of OPM's employees, was transferred to the Department of
    Defense (DOD) late last year, and there are serious questions
    about whether OPM is still fit to serve a workforce so
    fundamentally different from when it was established in 1979.
        Those are obviously the job descriptions of positions that
    we are to be talking to nominees about. I want to again thank
    Mr. Leen and thank Mr. Vought for your willingness to serve.
        Before I turn it over to Senator Peters, I do want to just
    comment a little bit in terms of what this Committee has done
    in terms of hearings on coronavirus disease (COVID) as well as
    what we are going to be doing in the future.
        Back on February 12, we held a hearing, ``Are We Prepared?
    Protecting the U.S. from Global Pandemics,'' and we had former
    Centers for Disease Control (CDC) Director Dr. Julie
    Gerberding; former Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
    Commissioner Scott Gottlieb; former Director of Medical and
    Biodefense Preparedness of the National Security Council (NSC),
    Dr. Borio; and others. That, by the way, was the roundtable
    where, certainly, I learned for the first time the
    vulnerability of our supply chain as it relates to
    pharmaceutical drugs. Setting up future hearings, I will talk
    about that a little bit later.
        On March 5, ``The Federal Interagency Response to the
    Coronavirus and Preparing for Future Global Pandemics,'' we had
    the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Acting Secretary Ken
    Cuccinelli and the Department of Health and Human Service (HHS)
    Assistant Secretary for Preparedness, Dr. Kadlec. I thought
    that was a pretty darn interesting hearing.
        Then on May 6, I think the week we returned, we held our
    first WebEx internet hearing, ``How New Information Should
    Drive Policy.'' We had six, a combination of PhD, medical
    doctors, really kind of laying out some of the considerations
    of the shutdown and how we really ought to be coping with
    COVID.
        Coming up now, June 9, we are going to hold a hearing
    evaluating the Federal Government's procurement and
    distribution strategies in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
        Again, on June 9, we will have the Federal Emergency
    Management Agency (FEMA) Administrator Peter Gaynor; HHS
    Assistant Secretary for Health Brett Giroir; Joint Chief of
    Staff, Vice Director for Logistics, Admiral John Polowczyk.
        Then on June 16, ``CBP Oversight: Examining the Evolving
    Challenges Facing the Agency.'' We will have Acting
    Commissioner Mark Morgan, and we are in the process of crafting
    two hearings, one on the medical supply chain, including
    pharmaceuticals, and then the strategic national supply chain
    as well.
        Really through the last couple of months while on extended
    recess because of COVID, the staff has been working tirelessly
    developing the foundational base work and baseline information
    we need to hold these oversight hearings on COVID, on the
    medical supply chain, on the financial strategic stockpile, so
    looking forward to those hearings and hope all of our Members
    can be in attendance for those as well.
        With that, I will turn it over to Senator Peters.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETERS\1\

        Senator Peters. Thank you, Chairman Johnson, and thank you
    to all of our nominees for being here today and for your
    willingness to serve.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Senator Peters appear in the Appendix
    on page 39.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Today we are considering the nominees for two very
    different positions, both critical, to ensuring that the
    Federal Government is effectively serving the American people.
    They are both very challenging roles, certainly, under any
    circumstances, but as our country faces an unprecedented public
    health and economic crisis, we need a Federal Government that
    works strategically and effectively. And that puts the American
    people first.
        States, businesses, workers, and families are looking to
    the Federal Government for guidance, resources, and leadership
    as we work toward safely reopening our economy.
        Mr. Vought, you have served as the Acting Director of the
    Office of Management and Budget for the past year and a half,
    and in this role, you have helped shape spending and policy
    decisions governmentwide. You currently play a central role in
    overseeing how agencies across government are implementing the
    $2.2 trillion relief package in the Coronavirus Aid, Relief,
    and Economic Security (CARES) Act.
        That responsibility includes swiftly getting economic
    relief to those most in need while ensuring that taxpayer
    dollars are protected from waste, fraud, and abuse.
        Chairman Johnson and I worked to include bipartisan
    oversight and accountability provisions in that legislation,
    and I am disappointed by the administration's failure to
    cooperate with that oversight.
        Mr. Leen, if confirmed, you will have a key oversight role.
    As the Inspector General for the Office of Personnel
    Management, you will be the agency's independent watchdog,
    charged with rooting out fraud, waste, and abuse.
        To be successful, you must be relentlessly independent. You
    must follow the facts wherever they may lead, and you must not
    allow political pressure to interfere with your work. As you
    know, that is not going to be easy.
        Over the past 2 months, the President has removed two
    Senate-confirmed Inspectors General and replaced a number of
    Acting Inspectors General with political appointees. These
    actions threaten the integrity and independence of oversight
    across the enter Federal Government enterprise.
        I encourage you both to look to Congress and to this
    Committee as a partner. While we may not always agree on
    specific measures or policies, we all want to protect the
    health and safety of the American people, and we all want to
    reopen the economy safely.
        Mr. Vought, I appreciate the commitments you have made to
    work with Congress and cooperate with oversight efforts, and I
    hope that those commitments actually are demonstrated in
    action.
        Mr. Leen, if confirmed, I hope you will also see this
    Committee as a resource, especially if you encounter challenges
    in carrying out your important oversight work.
        Thank you again, both of you, for being here, and thank you
    for testimony.
        Thank you once again, Mr. Chairman, for the hearing today.
        Chairman Johnson. Thanks, Senator Peters.
        It is the tradition of this Committee to swear in
    witnesses. So if you will both raise your right hand and then
    answer one at a time.
        Do you swear that the testimony you will give before this
    Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
    the truth, so help you, God?
        Mr. Vought.
        Mr. Vought. I do.
        Chairman Johnson. Mr. Leen.
        Mr. Leen. I do.
        Chairman Johnson. Thank you.
        We will start with Mr. Vought. Mr. Russ Vought is the
    Acting Director of the Office of Management and Budget, a
    position he has held since January 2019. In February 2018, Mr.
    Vought was confirmed by the Senate as Deputy Director of OMB.
    Prior to his service at OMB, he worked as a congressional staff
    for several Members of Congress, including Representative Jeb
    Hensarling and Senators Chuck Hagel, Phil Gramm, and Dan Coats,
    and eventually became the Policy Director for the House
    Republican Conference.
        Mr. Vought received his juris doctor from George Washington
    University Law School and his bachelor or arts from Wheaton
    College.
        Mr. Vought.

     TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE RUSSELL VOUGHT\1\ TO BE DIRECTOR,
                    OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET

        Mr. Vought. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the
    Ranking Member and the Members of the Committee for the honor
    of appearing before you today.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Vought appears in the Appendix on
    page 42.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        I also want to thank my family--my wife, Mary, and my
    daughters, Ella and Porter--for the unconditional support they
    have given me not only through this confirmation process but
    throughout my tenure at OMB.
        I am honored that the President has nominated me to serve
    as Director of OMB following in the footsteps of some very
    distinguished public servants. Working at OMB has long been an
    aspiration. I came to OMB at the very beginning of this
    administration. I have had the privilege of helping to lead
    this agency, first as Deputy Director and for the last year and
    a half as Acting Director. I know the caliber of the men and
    women who work there. I know the importance of their mission. I
    know the awesome responsibility of the work that OMB does.
        My mantra at OMB throughout my years in leadership here has
    been ``One OMB'' in order to create a culture, not of silos,
    but of collaborators so that the best expertise can be heard. I
    have had management positions in my career, but none so equally
    challenging and rewarding as the management of this agency. The
    portfolios of the various components of this agency are so
    diverse, and each one of them have a critical nature
    fundamental to the functions of our government.
        The men and women I work with at OMB thrive on information
    gathering and problem solving. They are innovative and smart
    and, frankly, tenacious. They do their best work when they work
    together, bridging gaps between their management and their
    budget and their regulatory functions to find holistic answers
    to complicated challenges.
        There are roughly 500 full-time employees at this agency,
    but I have seen them do remarkable things. It is a privilege to
    work with them and to lead them for the last 3\1/2\ years.
        I have spent my entire career caring about taxpayers and
    their families. I have fought to save them money and ensure
    that their tax dollars are well spent.
        I come from a blue-collar family, the son of an electrician
    and a public school teacher. I know what they went through to
    balance their budget and save for the future. My parents worked
    long, hard hours to put me through school. They worked long,
    hard hours to pay for the government in their lives. I have
    often wondered what else they would have been free to build and
    give without such a high burden.
        My parents represent the forgotten men and women of this
    country. They always were the yardstick by which I tested
    government spending, and I am grateful to work for an
    administration that has made the eyes and hearts of the
    forgotten man the lens from which we see policy.
        These men and women live and work in every city and every
    town in every State in this great country. I believe in their
    dreams, and I believe that our government ought to let them
    pursue those dreams. The very phrase ``Office of Management and
    Budget'' may not be part of their lexicon, but I know that the
    work of OMB has the ability to impact them in immeasurable
    ways.
        If the Senate confirms me to be the Director, know that I
    will be serving for their betterment.
        Thank you for considering my nomination. I am happy to
    answer your questions.
        Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Vought.
        The next nominee is Craig Leen. Mr. Leen is the Director of
    Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) of the
    Department of Labor (DOL). Prior to Federal Government service,
    Mr. Leen served as the City Attorney for Coral Gables, Florida,
    for 6\1/2\ years. Before that, he was the Assistant County
    Attorney in Miami-Dade County and the Chief of the Federal
    Litigation Section.
        If confirmed, Mr. Leen would be only the second Senate-
    confirmed nominee to hold the position of Inspector General of
    the Office of Personnel Management since 1990.
        Mr. Leen received his juris doctor from Columbia University
    and his bachelor of arts from Georgetown University. Mr. Leen.

     TESTIMONY OF CRAIG E. LEEN\1\ TO BE INSPECTOR GENERAL, OFFICE
                        OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT

        Mr. Leen. Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Peters, members
    of the Committee, it is a true honor to appear before you as
    the nominee for Inspector General of the U.S. Office of
    Personnel Management. I thank the President for nominating me
    and this Committee for considering me. If confirmed, I will
    serve with integrity, independence, and a commitment to
    transparency and truth in government.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Leen appears in the Appendix on
    page 182.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        I would like to say a few words about myself. I am married
    to my college sweetheart. We live in Georgetown, only a 15-
    minute walk from where we first met. My wife, Dr. Ana Maria
    Muniz-Leen, is a double board-certified psychiatrist. She works
    at our alma mater providing psychiatric services to Georgetown
    students.
        We have two children we are very proud of, Alex and Pierce.
    Our daughter Alex is 15 years old. She has profound autism and
    a substantial intellectual disability. She loves the outdoors,
    music, and Disney movies. I have struggled and fought for
    accommodations for her for over a decade. These experiences led
    me to become a strong advocate for individuals with
    disabilities. This has been a significant focus of my public
    work, including at OFCCP, and it would certainly continue if I
    become OPM IG.
        Our son, Pierce, is 9 years old. He is a walking miracle.
    He was not supposed to live past 19 weeks in utero, but through
    an amazing procedure called the ``amniopatch'' and a couple
    remarkable doctors, he is here today. He was diagnosed on the
    autism spectrum when he was almost 2 years old. He benefited
    significantly from early therapies and is now succeeding in a
    typical class in third grade. He intends to be a historian.
    Pierce is Alex's best friend and often her voice.
        I would also like to thank my parents and my siblings, who
    I know are watching as well.
        In my career, I have worked in both the public and private
    sectors. Immediately prior to OFCCP, I served in apolitical,
    nonpartisan roles for 12\1/2\ years, first as a Miami-Dade
    Assistant County Attorney and then as Coral Gables City
    Attorney, as you mentioned, Mr. Chairman.
        As City Attorney, I answered to the City Commission,
    serving as chief legal officer and chief ethics officer,
    including overseeing code enforcement prosecutions and police
    legal and conducting internal reviews and issuing legal
    opinions. I was a leading proponent of transparency and ethics
    in government, and I published over 400 City Attorney opinions
    that you can still read, if you would like, on the city's
    website.
        Both Coral Gables and Miami-Dade County commended me
    through proclamations when I completed my service as City
    Attorney, even declaring Craig E. Leen Days in both the county
    and city, which I have on my wall.
        I came to Washington to make a positive mark on the Federal
    level at OFCCP, one of the primary Civil Rights enforcement
    agencies in the United States. I have given my heart and soul
    to this work. OFCCP had its most successful year in history in
    fiscal year (FY) 2019, with over $40 million in recoveries to
    workers, almost double any other year. The agency had a record
    year for compliance assistance to businesses and initiated a
    major new disability inclusion enforcement initiative.
        OFCCP's bread and butter is neutrally scheduled audits
    along with complaint investigations. We have been enhancing the
    economy and efficiency of this work, and we have had excellent
    results.
        I also issued a major transparency directive at OFCCP.
    Transparency has been a hallmark of my tenure.
        This has been great preparation for being an Inspector
    General. If confirmed, I would focus on the following immediate
    priorities: closing open IG recommendations and establishing a
    public dashboard to track progress; addressing improper
    payments and seeking to eliminate them; evaluating OPM's
    guidance related to the pandemic, learning from what went well
    and what could be improved; increasing the amount of
    evaluations done by the OPM IG's office; and ensuring equal
    employment opportunity for all protected classes, including
    ensuring inclusion and accommodations of individuals with
    disabilities.
        I would like to say more on two of these priorities. The
    OPM Inspector General's office has over 300 open
    recommendations going back many years. This is a common issue
    for IGs. So many open recommendations erodes public trust in
    government. I would make closing them a focus from day one.
        Also, I have been OFCCP Director. I have seen that a number
    of best practices that we ask Federal contractors to follow are
    not followed by the Federal Government. I would address this in
    my oversight role as Inspector General, helping ensure the
    civil service system is based on merit and merit alone. In
    these difficult times and at all times, it is critical that
    Civil Rights and equal employment opportunity be a major focus.
        I have enjoyed meeting many Senators and staff members of
    this Committee through this process. Thank you for considering
    me today.
        Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Leen. It is inspiring,
    really, to see how you have taken your own personal family
    experience and turn it into public service. We truly appreciate
    that.
        There are three questions the Committee asks of every
    nominee for the record. I will ask for each question that Mr.
    Vought answer first and then Mr. Leen, and then I will reserve
    the balance of my questions for the very end out of respect for
    my colleagues' time.
        So question No. 1, is there anything you are aware of in
    your background that might present a conflict of interest with
    the duties of the office to which you have been nominated?
        Mr. Vought.
        Mr. Vought. No.
        Chairman Johnson. Mr. Leen.
        Mr. Leen. No.
        Chairman Johnson. No. 2, do you know of anything personal
    or otherwise that would in any way prevent you from fully and
    honorably discharging the responsibilities of the office to
    which you have been nominated?
        Mr. Vought.
        Mr. Vought. No.
        Chairman Johnson. Mr. Leen.
        Mr. Leen. No.
        Chairman Johnson. And, finally, do you agree without
    reservation to comply with any request or summons to appear and
    testify before any duly constituted committee of Congress if
    you are confirmed?
        Mr. Vought.
        Mr. Vought. Yes.
        Chairman Johnson. Mr. Leen.
        Mr. Leen. Yes.
        Chairman Johnson. OK, great.
        Senator Peters.
        Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        My first question is to both Mr. Vought and Mr. Leen. Let
    me start with a question for the two of you. Will you both
    commit to fully and promptly respond to any oversight request
    from this Committee, including from the Ranking Member and
    other minority Members of the Committee?
        Mr. Vought.
        Mr. Vought. Yes. We are going to continue to work with the
    Committee and all the Committee Members to make sure we can be
    as responsive as we possibly can.
        Senator Peters. Thank you.
        Mr. Leen.
        Mr. Leen. Yes, certainly.
        Senator Peters. Mr. Vought, I have been deeply concerned to
    hear that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has been
    unable to receive the information that they need to do some of
    their critical oversight work on the Federal Government's
    coronavirus response and spending. So I just have a few yes or
    no questions for you. If you want to elaborate, that would fine
    as well, but, Mr. Vought, yes or no, will you make a public
    commitment, and as Acting Director and if confirmed, you will
    fully and promptly cooperate with all GAO requests for meetings
    and information?
        Mr. Vought. I will certainly work with GAO closely. It is
    our practice to do that.
        We have just responded to an information request from GAO,
    and we have a great deal of respect for the work that they do.
    And I will continue to work and try to respond as quickly as we
    possibly can.
        Senator Peters. So, again, yes or no, which would be
    related to what you just said. As Acting Director and if
    confirmed, you will commit to have OMB provide GAO the full and
    complete response to several outstanding information requests?
    There are several. You mentioned one in particular, but the
    several requests that the GAO made to OMB, if you could do that
    within the next few weeks, especially those related to the
    coronavirus response?
        Mr. Vought. I certainly view the last week's response as
    the first of many and will be working to prioritize those and
    get back to GAO. Yes.
        Senator Peters. I requested that the GAO review Small
    Business Administration (SBA's) Paycheck Protection Program
    (PPP), but it is my understanding that the GAO has been unable
    to fully conduct its review because the SBA has refused to
    cooperate. As Acting Director and if confirmed as Director, do
    you commit to ensure that all Federal agencies fully and
    promptly cooperate with GAO requests? Clearly, they cannot do
    their job if agencies are not cooperating.
        Mr. Vought. I will certainly commit to looking into it,
    Senator, inquiring with other agencies on that front, and it is
    our practice from an intergovernmental standpoint that agencies
    respond to be able to ensure that the public has the
    transparency, that this Committee has the transparency to be
    able to do its oversight work.
        Senator Peters. Mr. Vought, since the start of the COVID-19
    outbreak, we have seen a disproportionate impact this virus has
    had on our communities of color across the country, and
    certainly, we have seen it firsthand in my home State of
    Michigan as well.
        I know you are aware of these disparities, and we had an
    opportunity to talk about them on Friday together. I would like
    you to say for the record here, what specific steps have you
    taken as Acting OMB Director to try to address this issue?
        Mr. Vought. Thank you for the question, Senator. It is
    something that the task force has been very aware of as soon as
    we began to see some of the disparities and the impact for
    those individuals, those communities, and as a result, the task
    force made it a priority to be able to speak into that need and
    to be able to provide information where appropriate.
        I think you had asked for some further concreteness, and it
    is a lens that we continue to look for, particularly as we are
    in the process of dispensing these funds and figuring out,
    often filling in the gap where there was a statutory lack of
    how to construct these programs for opportunities. I do not
    have specifics to report on other than this has been a
    priority, and it will continue to be a priority.
        Senator Peters. If it is a priority, why do you not have
    more specifics?
        Mr. Vought. There is a need to both get resources out the
    door as quickly as we possibly can and to construct these
    programs where there is not statutory specification. We are
    going continue to do that, and we will keep the Committee up to
    date with all the information as we go forward.
        Senator Peters. So you will be able to give us more
    specifics? Because you have the commitment to me and to all the
    other Members of the Committee that this is a priority for you,
    and if it is a priority for you, that means you will be able to
    come back to this Committee and give us specific action that
    you were involved in?
        Mr. Vought. Yes, sir. It is a priority of the
    administration and I am happy to report back on the
    administration's policy priorities.
        Senator Peters. Mr. Vought, I have urged the administration
    to reopen the enrollment period for the Affordable Care Act
    (ACA) because so many people are clearly losing their jobs now,
    but they still need access to health care, especially during a
    pandemic. Access to health care is critical, particularly in
    the communities of color that we have just been talking about,
    where underlying health conditions are a major part of why so
    many people are losing their lives when affected by this virus.
        So my question is pretty straightforward. Why is the
    administration restricting access to health care coverage
    during a public health crisis when people need it more than
    ever?
        Mr. Vought. We do not think we are, Senator. In fact, there
    is an open enrollment provision that allows for anyone that has
    lost their job or had a change in life experience to be able to
    access the exchange.
        The President signed into law, legislation that would
    increase the Federal Government's share of the Medicaid program
    by 6 percent, to be able to cover more individuals on Medicaid.
        So, again, this is something that we believe that in the
    various four packages, we have either taken action or we have
    done work administratively specifically on the matter that you
    have raised.
        Senator Peters. Why would you not just open up an
    enrollment for the Affordable Care Act just generally? People
    have applied----
        Mr. Vought. Again, we think it----
        Senator Peters [continuing]. And do not have access to
    insurance. They are thinking, ``I will apply. We are in a
    pandemic. I better make sure my family is protected.'' They
    could do it later in the year, but why not allow that to happen
    right now when they need it?
        Mr. Vought. We want to make sure that we do not have any
    disincentives for employers that might drop coverage and put
    people on the exchange. We want to make sure that it is truly
    there for those who have had a specific change in their job
    experience and their life experience to have that be reserved
    for them.
        Senator Peters. Mr. Vought, in Michigan, polyfluoroalky
    substances (PFAS) contamination continues to be a very serious
    public health concern. We talked about that on our call as
    well, and I fought for provisions requiring the administration
    to stop the use of PFAS in firefighting foams and issue
    drinking water standards that will protect public health. Will
    you commit to strongly supporting efforts to phaseout the
    Department of Defense's use of fluorinated foams?
        Mr. Vought. As you know, Senator--and we talked about it
    last week--the issue of the PFAS has been a priority of this
    administration. It continues to be a priority for many
    agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
    We will continue at OMB to efficiently get done rules that come
    from agencies and to ensure that we do everything we possibly
    can to protect the communities where PFAS has, unfortunately,
    risen up as an issue.
        Senator Peters. Your commitment to say you will move these
    as expeditiously as possible and as efficiently--maybe you said
    ``efficiently'' as possible was the actual word that you used.
    Can I then have your commitment to expedite the review of the
    EPA's drinking water standard for PFAS after it is submitted?
        Mr. Vought. Yes, I cannot make any commitment to how long
    that will take, but it will be a priority. And we will move as
    quickly as we possibly can.
        As you know, we were able to clear a recent PFAS regulatory
    initiative within 8 days because as an administration, we had
    to ensure that the interagency process had resolved all of the
    issues, and we were able to move forward. So I do commit to
    trying as fast as I possibly can to make sure that happens
    expeditiously.
        Senator Peters. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator Peters.
        I just want to remind all Members that the little clock is
    in the lower corner of the screen.
        Our next questioner is Senator Carper.
        [Pause.]
        Is Senator Carper there?

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER

        Senator Carper. Yes, just on my voice.
        Chairman Johnson. OK. There you go.
        Senator Carper. All right. Hello, everybody, and to our
    nominees, welcome, good to see you.
        I may have missed some of the earlier questions from our
    Chair and the Ranking Member. So if I repeat what was asked, I
    ask you just to bear with me and just give the same answer that
    you gave before.
        Mr. Vought, as you know, OMB plays a key management and
    coordination role for Federal agencies to administer programs.
    This administration has largely deferred responsibility of the
    coronavirus responses to the States. OMB's role in critical
    issues related to responses such as procuring needed supplies
    for key industries and ensuring worker safety in and outside of
    government and overseeing agency response is unclear. What role
    has OMB had in assisting and overseeing agencies' abilities to
    procure key supplies such as personal protective equipment
    (PPE)?
        Mr. Vought. Thank you for that question, Senator Carper.
        I have sat on the task force, and so I have been very aware
    of the conversations and where OMB could be useful. Much of the
    work that you have asked regarding has been done at FEMA
    working in conjunction with the frontline agencies like HHS,
    and so the work of the agencies has been primarily the ones
    giving the States the resources that they need. And we have
    also been working with Federal agencies to put out guidance as
    it pertains to the Federal workforce and as well as on the
    regulatory front to work with agencies as they are trying to
    move regulatory initiatives through that would have an impact
    on the response or recovery on the coronavirus effort.
        So all three of the major siloes within OMB have been very
    active, but the primary immediate frontline response for
    coronavirus has been at FEMA, working with the task force at
    large.
        Senator Carper. All right. A follow-up question, what role
    has OMB had with regards to ensuring essential worker safety,
    both inside and outside of government?
        Mr. Vought. We put forward guidance on two fronts, Senator.
    We put out guidance at the beginning of the crisis to be able
    to ensure that agencies were moving to maximum and then to
    mandatory telework.
        Then as we are moving and reopening, we have put forward
    guidance to help give a grid to agency heads, and we really
    believe that agency heads need to have the discretion to be
    able to make many of these decisions because their workforce is
    so diversified. The number of localities that they work in is
    so diversified, but we have tried to make sure that they have a
    grid that follows the phases of the Governors in which their
    offices are located and to ensure that they do not open up if
    they do not have the necessary PPE or other resources to be
    able to keep their workers safe. And we want to make sure that
    they have the flexibility to do that.
        So one of the reasons we have not provided more of a
    directive across Federal Government is because this is a 50-
    State issue that needs to be thought through in conjunction
    with the public health officials on the ground.
        Senator Carper. I believe when I joined the hearing, I
    heard Senator Peters asking about responsiveness to the
    questions and information sought.
        Let me just ask this question. You may have been asked this
    before, but I want to ask it again. One of the major jobs that
    we have on this Committee is oversight. Our job of oversight,
    as you know, of our Federal Government, and we take that
    responsibility seriously.
        I never ask questions for information that, frankly, is
    just for fun because I think it is a given that we need the
    information to work it out.
        Let me ask, will you commit to provide material responses
    to what was requested of you in the Committee's prehearing
    questionnaire?
        Mr. Vought. Yes. I do commit to working and doing
    everything I can to be responsive to the Committee.
        There are going to be times when we do not feel like we can
    provide certain information as part of the deliberative
    process, but you have my commitment that I will always try to
    get the Committee what it needs to be able to do its oversight
    and to work in as transparent a fashion as I possibly can.
        Senator Carper. Thank you.
        Normally, I would open with a short statement, but I am
    going to just close with a short statement. My time expired.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you for bringing this together for this
    hearing today.
        As you know, our Nation is facing multiple national
    emergencies, the likes of which we have almost maybe never seen
    in our lifetime, my lifetime, and I have been around for a long
    time. Americans are suffering with the level of intolerance and
    violence. This Committee occupies a unique role as the chief
    oversight committee of the Senate.
        Further, this Committee has come together on previous
    emergencies such as after 9/11, which I witnessed personally,
    to work in a bipartisan way to develop solutions and work to
    address those issues.
        While I am committed to seeing Mr. Vought and Mr. Leen, Mr.
    Leen is here with us today, we have a responsibility as well to
    be responsive to our constituents and we work together to
    develop solutions to the multiple crises I mentioned.
        Let me ask one question, if I can, of Mr. Leen. Mr. Leen,
    if there is just one point you would like to make with those of
    us on this Committee, what thing about your service would you
    like to do as well, what would it be? I like to say the main
    thing, make the main thing, the main thing. What will be the
    main thing for your service, if confirmed?
        Mr. Leen. What would be the main thing for me to focus on
    as IG?
        Senator Carper. Yes. I have a friend who used to say, gave
    me advice when I was elected Governor. He said, ``Just remember
    this, Governor. Keep the main thing, the main thing,'' and that
    is the focus of what is most important, pretty well the most
    important.
        Mr. Leen. The main thing to me is fulfilling the public
    trust that is given to me and doing that to the full extent I
    can. So when you ask would I be responsive to Congress, I would
    be, and my job is to be transparent and to point out
    recommendations and to see those recommendations are done.
        Senator Carper. Last, if you are confirmed, how do you plan
    to maintain the independence and objectivity of the Office of
    Personnel Management as Inspector General?
        Mr. Leen. From day one, the moment I get there, I will talk
    to my staff at the Inspector General's office and let them know
    that we are obviously independent. I will send a message to all
    of OPM, letting them know I am independent and that I have an
    open-door policy. And I would ask the OPM Director or Acting
    Director to send a message to all staff at OPM indicating my
    independence and that they should provide me access to all
    information.
        Senator Carper. And beyond that?
        Mr. Leen. I think that to me is an excellent start, and
    every day I will have to show that I can do that. But I can. I
    have done that in my career. I did that at Coral Gables. I have
    done that at OFCCP even in a political post. I have always been
    an honest broker and given my honest opinion.
        Senator Carper. Keep it up. Thanks so much.
        Chairman Johnson. Thanks, Senator Carper.
        Again, I will remind everybody you have that clock in that
    lower corner of your screen there.
        I saw Senator Scott on briefly, but I do not see him now.
    So unless I hear from him like quick, we will go to Senator
    Hawley.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HAWLEY

        Senator Hawley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Vought, let me start by asking you about the
    administration's deregulatory agenda, if I could. I know this
    has been a major focus for the President, and I know that there
    have been additional deregulatory members taken as part of the
    coronavirus pandemic response. So let me just ask you maybe to
    start with that. Tell us about what steps in response to the
    current health crisis have been taken on the regulatory front,
    and then I am going to ask you about what of those you see
    being made permanent to the overall State of the deregulatory
    effort.
        Mr. Vought. Sure. Thank you, Senator.
        I think this administration has had an outpouring of
    creativity as it pertains to trying to deregulate and use
    enforcement discretion. There has been 600 different actions
    that this administration has done to respond to the coronavirus
    shock that we have seen, everything from ensuring that if the
    manufacturer wants to be able to produce a similarly made
    ventilator or to be able to allow distillers to create hand
    sanitizer or ensuring that a restaurant that has a takeout
    delivery system does not have quite the same nutrition labels.
    These are all things that we have been able to either
    temporarily waive or to be able to use the enforcement
    discretion on.
        The President signed an Executive Order that I am sure you
    have seen that would ask all agency heads to look through those
    lists and identify what they can turn into permanent regulatory
    activity. He was very clear when he signed that and when he was
    talking about it at the Cabinet meeting to ensure that he did
    not have anything specific in mind, and he was not saying that
    agencies do not need to make sure that they continue to abide
    by the statutes and take care of things like public safety and
    all of the things that they are required to do by enforcing
    their laws.
        So I do not want to get ahead of that reporting function,
    but we do look forward to what the agencies bring back to us.
        In terms of the overall deregulatory efforts, it is going
    very well. We have had about seven and a half of deregulatory
    rules for every one. The President committed to the American
    people to do two for one. So we continue to move forward in
    that area, and I think this has been an opportunity to find
    things that we might not have seen before as potential areas of
    deregulatory initiatives had we not gone through this
    unfortunate crisis.
        Senator Hawley. Thank you for that.
        What is the timeline, just by the way, on the Executive
    Order (EO), the report back that the President has asked for?
    When are you expecting those recommendations, those reports to
    come back?
        Mr. Vought. I am expecting them soon. I can get back to you
    with a specific deadline, but I know from talking to my
    colleagues, they are working on this very quickly. Many of them
    were excited to have that direction from the President, and
    they will be coming. I do not expect them to wait on a deadline
    to be able to get back to us.
        Senator Hawley. Very good. I look forward to following up
    with you about that.
        Speaking of Executive Orders, the President last October
    issued two significant orders reforming the treatment of agency
    guidance. I wonder if you could explain a little bit about why
    these Executive Orders were necessary and what reforms they
    instituted when it comes to the guidance question.
        Mr. Vought. Sure. And, honestly, a lot of the idea and
    thinking behind those important EOs came from some of the
    legislative work that started at this Committee.
        But we put forward two Executive Orders. One was designed
    to get guidance out of the dark, to require them to be--for
    agencies to put on a public searchable website, any of the
    guidance that they are going to continue to rely on. And the
    point of that is to make sure that people have certitude and
    certainty with regard to the guidance that agencies are relying
    on.
        Guidance often does not go through the normal process. We
    have asserted that it should have, but often there is a culture
    that would require it not to go through notice and comment and
    the cost-benefit analysis process. So we very much want to make
    sure that when agencies are using guidance as a reason to
    regulate, that that goes through the same procedures as a
    normal rulemaking would.
        With regard to enforcement, again, we want to make sure we
    are getting our arms wrapped around the administrative state.
    We do not ever want to hear about examples in the future of
    someone building four ponds on their property in an attempt to
    fight a future wildfire and find out that they were at cross-
    waves with the EPA and then spend years of their last few years
    of life--and I am thinking of Joe Robertson, the Navy veteran,
    who spent a year and a half of his last 3 years in a prison
    because he built those four ponds. We want to ensure that
    people have information and they know what agencies are relying
    on and that they have an ability to challenge these decisions
    and to be treated with respect from that standpoint. That is
    what the enforcement EO is all about.
        Senator Hawley. It has been about 6 months since those two
    were signed. Do you have any indication--the orders, that is.
    Do you have any indication yet about how effective or not they
    have been?
        Mr. Vought. We think we are on the road to ingraining that
    culture in with the agencies. The first deadline was for the
    websites to be up, and the vast majority of agencies have
    complied.
        The EO allowed us also to extend the deadlines where we
    felt it was necessary, and there has been a couple of
    instances, namely the Department of HHS, where the sheer number
    of mix of agencies and guidance that they need to continue to
    work through gets reflected on the website, but everyone is
    moving full bore ahead.
        Senator Hawley. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Vought. Thank you
    for your testimony today. I look forward to supporting your
    nomination.
        Mr. Leen, just a very few seconds that I have remaining
    there as I glance at the clock, let me just ask you. In your
    written testimony, you noted that over 300 open OIG
    recommendations would be the primary focus for your work as IG.
        I want to talk about the incident in 2015 when OPM was the
    target of what has been described by Federal officials as maybe
    the largest breach of government data in United States history
    at the hands of Chinese hackers who compromised--I think it was
    21.5 million records.
        My understanding is OPM still has several open OIG
    recommendations regarding data protection and privacy that have
    not been implemented. So can you tell me, if you are confirmed,
    will the protection of Americans' personal data rank at the top
    of your list in terms of prioritizing open OIG recommendations?
        Mr. Leen. Definitely. The data breach was a catastrophe,
    and it is something that cannot happen again.
        Many of the open recommendations go to information
    technology (IT) issues and security issues. They will be a top
    priority for me.
        Senator Hawley. Very good. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Johnson. Thanks, Senator Hawley.
        It will next be Senator Scott and then Senator Rosen.
    Senator Scott.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SCOTT\1\

        Senator Scott. OK. Thank you, Chairman, for having this
    Committee hearing today.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Senator Scott appears in the Appendix
    on page 41.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Mr. Vought, thank you very much. I have enjoyed working
    with you since I have been up here, and I know you are very
    focused on how do we watch taxpayer dollars. Thank you for
    focusing on how you are going to work with Inspector Generals
    to make sure our dollars are spent well.
        So now our Federal debt is going to be, what, $25, $26
    trillion by the end of the year? I think for the first time, it
    is going to be more than 100 percent of our gross domestic
    product (GDP), I think, since, what, World War II? So I
    personally believe this is dangerous and unsustainable.
        What steps do you think you can take or we should be doing
    that is going to help address this?
        Mr. Vought. I appreciate the question, Senator. It is a
    passion of mine, and I do share your concern about where we
    are.
        I do not think anyone would argue that this has not been a
    once-in-a-generation shock to the economy from a public health
    standpoint and the economy, and this administration is proud of
    the efforts that we have done to respond. And we will continue
    to do that, if necessary.
        But that should not keep us as a country from coming
    together and being able to pursue reforms where we can agree.
    This administration has put forward more spending reforms than
    any President in history, and we have not had congressional
    support yet. And we hope that will come at some point.
        We have put forward a budget resolution that contains many
    of those reforms, and we will continue to be working with
    Congress to see those turn into law in the future.
        Then we want to make sure we implement the law as best we
    possibly can to make sure that anything that taxpayers have
    been able to provide to meet the crisis where it is, is done in
    as a fiscally responsible manner as possible. There is always
    conversations to start and policy processes to continue as we
    try to reach alignment with Congress, and I am happy to work
    with you in the future as we have since I have been the Acting
    Director.
        Senator Scott. Yes. Well, again, thank you for what you
    have been doing.
        In fiscal year 2018, the GAO's governmentwide estimate of
    improper payments was $152 billion, and then in fiscal 2019, it
    rose to $175 billion in improper payments. So, if confirmed,
    what are you going to do to try to figure out how to get that
    down? It would be nice if it was zero, of course, but what
    would you do to reduce that?
        Mr. Vought. It would, and I think the fact that it has gone
    up is a reflection that spending has gone up.
        But Congress has given us some recent tools with the
    Payment Integrity Improvement Act. So we are hard at work to be
    able to implement that law and some of the new tools allowing
    States to use the Do Not Pay Center at Treasury. We continue to
    look for other reforms that give us more of a statutory
    authority to use the Social Security death file to be able to
    track that with other databases.
        We are trying to change the culture in many agencies, that
    instead of giving them more paperwork to fill out, it gives
    them more of an encouragement to find out what is the root
    cause of where some of these improper payments are coming from.
        So it is certainly something that I will commit to, to be a
    priority, because it has been in all of the budgets that we
    have proposed, but we want to be able to have a declining rate
    in the years ahead.
        Senator Scott. Thank you.
        I recently introduced the Agency Accountability Act, which
    creates a commission to regularly review Federal agencies for
    wasteful spending and inefficiencies. There is currently no
    process for Congress to review Federal agencies in this way,
    and I am very interested in seeing what savings the Federal
    Government could find if we examined in the most efficient way,
    these agencies to operate.
        So do you have any suggestions of areas in the Federal
    Government that you feel that we have ignored, that we might be
    able to find efficiencies and reduce spending?
        Mr. Vought. Thanks for the question, Senator.
        Our budget is chock-full, but let me give you one in
    particular. We have 85 different cultural student exchange
    programs at the Department of State. This has roughly doubled
    just in the last 20 years, and yet as many people that have
    benefited from coming to this country--and we do want people to
    continue to come to this country and see our culture and our
    society and build those ties--only 1 percent of them have been
    using these 85 different programs.
        Congress spends about $607 million in these 85 programs,
    and it is one of the reasons that we have called for not only
    elimination, but a reduction in that area. So that would be one
    place that I would start.
        But I think within every agency, there are opportunities to
    find waste, fraud, and abuse, and I hope that you would
    consider us as a partner in that.
        Senator Scott. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Vought.
        Mr. Leen, I am glad you are from the great State of
    Florida. Thank you for the work you have done so far.
        What do you think is going to be your biggest impact on
    being able to save money?
        Mr. Leen. Part of it is what you just talked about, which
    is improper payments. The OPM IG's office has been very
    successful saving taxpayers a couple billion dollars over the
    last few years.
        I think investing in IG's offices, particularly in the law
    enforcement and audit component, is something that is key to
    reducing wasteful spending.
        In addition, I do think that the IG's office at OPM should
    be doing more evaluations of how the Federal civil service
    works to make sure that we are getting economies and
    efficiencies. We have only been doing about one a year at the
    OPM IG, and I think that considering it is the Federal civil
    service, you are talking about 3 million, approximately,
    workers in the United States. It seems to me that we should be
    focusing more on that and the way that that is done and
    ensuring that there is economy and efficiency there and we are
    always hiring people based on merit. I feel that part of the
    role of the IG is to ensure that occurs.
        Senator Scott. So you would like trying to hold people
    accountable and watch how money is being spent? Because being a
    business guy, no one ever came to my office as Governor and
    said spend less money. They always wanted to spend more money.
    So how are you going to handle all that pressure?
        Mr. Leen. I do. I do like that. I would use you as an
    example when you were Governor of Florida. I remember that you
    did that with the--I was the City Attorney, and you vetoed
    excessive spending. And you were always looking at the pocket
    book.
        I would do that as IG. I would make sure that money is
    being spent correctly, and if it is not, I would make noise. I
    would issue that recommendation. I would inform Congress.
        Senator Scott. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Johnson. Senator Rosen.

                   OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROSEN

        Senator Rosen. Thank you. I want to say welcome to our
    nominees. Welcome, and thank you for your willingness to serve.
        Mr. Vought, I would like to direct my first question to
    you. A couple of weeks ago, the President sent out a tweet
    claiming that if my home State of Nevada--and I am going to
    quote here--``thinks that they can send out illegal vote-by-
    mail ballot,'' unquote, then he, the President, thinks that
    he--and I will quote again--``can hold up funds to the State,''
    unquote. The President directed the tweet to you, Mr. Vought.
    At the end, he tagged you via @RussVought45.
        So because I have limited time and a few questions, I would
    just ask if you would please answer yes or no.
        Did you discuss this tweet with the President before it
    went out, sir?
        Mr. Vought. Senator, I do not make it a practice to talk
    about my conversations with the President, suffice it to say he
    wanted me to be aware of his tweet, and so he chose that as the
    mechanism for letting me know.
        But the President has also indicated that we have not made
    that--he has not made a decision to move in that direction, and
    OMB has not done anything on that front to begin to withhold
    funding as it pertains to those two States.
        Senator Rosen. Thank you.
        Do you know what the President meant when he said he could
    hold up funds to Nevada?
        Mr. Vought. Again, I am not going to get into any kind of
    deliberations that we might have, but in general----
        Senator Rosen. You do not know what he meant by that? We do
    not have any direction there?
        Mr. Vought. I cannot give you any direction. It pertains to
    the ability to look at a program by program, consistent with
    the law, and to identify what flexibilities are there. But,
    again, we have not done that, and the President has not----
        Senator Rosen. So I know----
        Mr. Vought [continuing]. Consistent to move in that
    direction.
        Senator Rosen. So have you had any discussion with the
    President? You had no discussion with him at all as to what
    funds he was referring to?
        Mr. Vought. Senator, I am not going to get into the
    conversations that I have with the President or our
    deliberations at the White House.
        Senator Rosen. So you will not say that you have ever
    advised the President, then, as to what funds he could hold up
    in retaliation for a policy he might not agree with in my
    State?
        Mr. Vought. Senator, again, I think I have been forthcoming
    with sharing that we have not moved forward in any effort to
    make an assessment about what discretionary authorities we
    would have, but I cannot get into the conversations that I have
    with the President of the United States.
        Senator Rosen. Mr. Vought, I just want to be clear that I
    believe it is never right for the President to threaten to
    unlawfully withhold critical funds from States, but it is
    particularly troubling to us now in the midst of a global
    pandemic and the economic crisis that has killed over 100,000
    Americans and has led to my State, the State of Nevada, having
    the highest unemployment in the Nation.
        States across the country are spending billions of dollars
    to help their residents in this time of need, and at the same
    time, our overall tax revenue has taken a major hit. This tweet
    has created such anxiety in our State and for people up and
    down, like I said, Nevada and across the country, people who
    depend on Federal funding right now, small business owners, our
    unemployed workers, our rural hospitals, domestic violence
    service providers, so many others.
        So I just want to say I urge you, if confirmed, to ensure
    that the law is followed and that OMB is not used as a tool to
    hash out political disagreements.
        But I am going to move on to two final questions on this
    topic. As Acting Director of OMB, do you believe that funding
    should be withheld from my State as a result of instituting a
    wholly legal vote-by-mail policy, and if so, what funding do
    you think my home State of Nevada should be denied?
        Mr. Vought. It is not my role to have an opinion on that,
    Senator.
        I would say that I do not have an opinion as it pertains to
    what funds would be eligible because we have not done the
    review, which is what I had said earlier.
        But I would say as a response to the very end of your last
    question that OMB is dogged in accomplishing the President's
    objectives consistent with the law.
        Senator Rosen. Let me stop you because I have limited time.
    I just want to ask you this final question on this topic. If
    the President asked you to withhold funding, will you comply
    with his order, or will you follow the law?
        Mr. Vought. Again, we are always at OMB trying to
    accomplish the President's objectives consistent with the law
    and the belief we----
        Senator Rosen. So you will not follow the law? You will
    follow the President's order, regardless of the law?
        Mr. Vought. Consistent with the law is what I said,
    Senator.
        Senator Rosen. Consistent with the law. Thank you.
        I would like now in the few minutes I have remaining to
    talk a little bit about Yucca Mountain, another very important
    subject to the State of Nevada.
        For more than 30 years, we have been fighting against a
    misguided effort to dump all the Nation's nuclear waste at the
    Yucca Mountain site in Nevada, despite the fact that we have
    never consented to storing other States' waste in our State. So
    instead of wasting more taxpayer money on this project, we
    should find alternative uses for the site, creative uses,
    without threatening the health and safety of Nevadans.
        That is why last year, I introduced the Jobs Not Waste Act,
    which would prohibit the Secretary of Energy from taking any
    action related to the licensing, planning, development, or
    construction of a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain
    until two things happen. One, the Director of OMB, which would
    be you if confirmed, submits a study to Congress on the
    economic viability and the job-creating benefits of alternative
    uses of the Yucca Mountain site; and two, that Congress would
    hold a hearing on these economic benefits and alternative uses.
        And so what I would like to ask you is this. As you have
    noted, unlike several past budget requests, the President's
    fiscal year 2020 budget did not request funding for Yucca
    Mountain. Can you commit that if confirmed, your future budget
    proposals will also not request funding to store the Nation's
    nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain?
        Mr. Vought. Thank you for the question and for noticing
    that the President did not request funding for Yucca Mountain
    in part because one of the reasons is that the State for so
    long has opposed it.
        Look, I am happy to ensure that the President's positions
    are reflected in the budget and take a look at your bill, but I
    think the President agrees with you. And we are going to ensure
    that future budgets continue to reflect where his head is at.
        Senator Rosen. Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
        Chairman Johnson. Senator Hassan.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HASSAN

        Senator Hassan. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Ranking Member
    Peters, for having this hearing today, and to Mr. Vought and
    Mr. Leen, thank you for being here, and thank you for your
    interest in service.
        Mr. Vought, I want to start with a couple questions to you.
    As the coronavirus pandemic unfolded across the United States,
    the President released his fiscal year 2021 budget request that
    called for a $9.5 billion cut to the Department of Health and
    Human Services, including massive cuts to the Centers for
    Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of
    Health (NIH).
        He later amended the budget request for CDC and pandemic
    response, but you are still requesting billions of dollars in
    cuts to the Department of Health and Human Services for fiscal
    year 2021. And you are still requesting less money for the
    National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID),
    the agency headed by Dr. Fauci, the agency that is taking the
    lead in responding to COVID-19.
        In the middle of this pandemic, how can you possibly
    justify cutting spending from Dr. Fauci's agency and cutting
    billions of dollars in Federal health spending in the next
    fiscal year, which starts just 4 months from now?
        Mr. Vought. Thank you for the question, Senator, and for
    noting that we both in our budget and in our budget amendment
    increased funding for the CDC's fight against infectious
    diseases.
        We had originally had a 3 percent increase. We amended our
    budget, because resource needs change, to have a 15 percent
    increase. CDC under the amended budget would have an increase
    of 8 percent.
        In that amendment, we had an increase as well for NIAID
    within NIH.
        In terms of overall from HHS's perspective, they are about
    a $100 billion agency, and we believe that even places like
    NIH--and I support and the President supports basic health
    research--that it is important for all agencies to be able to
    look and find out where they can do things more efficiently. We
    have found that even at CDC, there are things on the
    occupational health side, various studies that have been done
    that we do not think are as much of a priority, given their
    important work to fight infectious diseases, and that is the
    conversation we wanted to have with the Hill.
        Senator Hassan. Mr. Vought, thank you for the answer, but
    let me just be really clear. It is one thing to watch a careful
    cost-efficiency kind of review of an agency. I would suggest to
    you that in the middle of a pandemic, where most people think
    that the Executive Branch's efforts have been stretched, to say
    the least, and ineffective and wanting in some areas, the
    thought of underfunding the agency at this critical time
    instead of looking at what the needs are to meet this moment is
    inappropriate and reflects poor judgment.
        Let us move on to another issue. As we discussed spending
    priorities and the government's role in responding to a public
    health crisis, I want to emphasis how important it is for
    agencies to commit resources to improving the quality of
    Federal information technology. These improvements will allow
    the government to more efficiently and effectively deliver on
    its mission, maintain a robust cybersecurity posture, and
    prepare for and respond to unexpected circumstances.
        Recently, we have seen how the Federal response to COVID-19
    was hampered by aging IT systems across the government, whether
    it was the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) struggling to
    disburse millions of economic relief payments or SBA's E-Tran
    website crashing as it tried to roll out the Payroll Protection
    Program.
        Do you agree that the Federal Government's aging technology
    slowed its response to COVID-19 and delayed critical aid in
    services from getting to the American people?
        Mr. Vought. I would just say that I agree that the aging
    information technology is a problem for all of government. It
    had its implications with regard to this response in recovery.
    We have seen it personally because there is a small portion of
    OMB that is called the U.S. Digital Service that works hand in
    hand with agencies to provide technical assistance, and they
    have been deployed with States to help out on the user
    interface (UI) front and with various agencies throughout this.
        Your concern continues to be our concern, and we want to
    make sure we work together to make sure that when we spend $80,
    $90 billion per year for IT maintenance and improvement that
    when we are in the midst of a crisis and when we are in a
    steady State that we have every opportunity to have the
    American people get the service that they deserve.
        Senator Hassan. Can you elaborate and fairly briefly,
    please, on what steps you will take, if confirmed, to
    prioritize Federal IT modernization investments and help
    agencies achieve their modernization goals? Because in my
    experience, this is one of the things that gets pushed to the
    side. Again, when broad cuts are made without being thoughtful
    about them, this is the type of thing that gets delayed and
    delayed. So what specific steps can you take?
        Mr. Vought. Sure, and I would just say--and I will try to
    do it briefly--when we have constructed budgets on behalf of
    the President, we have never shorted IT when an agency has come
    forward and said this is important from that standpoint.
        We have also prioritized the Technology Modernization Fund
    because we think it is a vital way to move around some of the
    legacy issues that we have, but Office of the Federal Chief
    Information Officer (OFCIO), one of the office's at OMB, will
    continue to make a push to move beyond these old systems and
    move things toward digitally and cloud-based services. And you
    have my commitment to work on that.
        Senator Hassan. Well, thank you for that.
        I am going to turn now to a couple of questions for Mr.
    Leen. Mr. Leen, in recent weeks, President Trump has removed
    several Inspectors General and Acting Inspect General for doing
    their jobs, the jobs that they were assigned under Federal law,
    giving honest assessments about failures in Federal agencies
    and among Federal officials.
        This comes at a time when at least 100,000 Americans have
    died from the COVID-19 pandemic. Millions have lost their jobs,
    and Congress has dedicated trillions of dollars to recovery.
    Taxpayers are depending on all of us to make sure that it is
    acting appropriately, and Inspectors General are vital to
    accountability. But given the President's recent actions, I am
    skeptical that he is nominating independent individuals to
    these roles.
        You have stated that when necessary, you are willing to
    speak truth to power. Do you stand by this statement even now
    as Inspectors General across the government are being targeted
    for their findings?
        Mr. Leen. I do commit to that, speaking truth to power.
    That is something I have done my entire career.
        Senator Hassan. If you are confirmed, how do you plan to
    navigate the tension between performing your duties and an
    administration that is trying to block oversight?
        Mr. Leen. I am not going to necessarily accept that
    premise. I have been nominated, and I believe that I am being
    asked to be an Inspector General, to do my work. It is really
    between the President and Congress about Inspectors General as
    a matter of policy.
        What I can promise you is that I am--the main thing is you
    cannot be worried about keeping your job. You just have to go
    into it, do your work, and if I lose my job because any
    President decides to remove me with the 30 days notice under
    the IG Act, then I will get another job. But the main thing is
    to keep my reputation and to do my work well, and I will. I
    commit to you.
        Senator Hassan. Thank you, and I see that I am out of time,
    Mr. Chair.
        I would look forward to further discussion with you, Mr.
    Leen, about why you do not accept the premise, but I will leave
    that to another day.
        Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
        Chairman Johnson. Thanks, Senator Hassan.
        Senator Portman.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PORTMAN

        Senator Portman. Thank you for having this hearing,
    Chairman Johnson.
        Russell, welcome to the Committee. Congratulations on your
    nomination. I am glad that you will now be nominated for the
    job, and as a former OMB Director, I am glad that we are going
    to be moving from Acting soon, I hope, to a confirmed position.
    You have done a good job, in my view, in your Acting role and
    in your prior roles, and so I am happy to be supportive.
        I do have some questions for you today. The first one is
    just about oversight of the COVID-19 funding. We have not had
    the opportunity as a Congress to do the kind of oversight that
    I wish we had and certainly not that you would normally do on
    four pieces of legislation, now totaling $3 trillion.
        But in the legislation called the CARES Act, we actually
    did provide some measure of oversight. One thing we asked is
    that we need to know whether the CARES assistance is helping to
    preserve or create jobs, and I think that is important. We
    required that people who receive $150,000 or more report how
    many jobs they are creating or preserving. I am quoting now
    from the statute: ``Each covered participant shall submit to
    the agency a report that contains a detailed list of all
    projects or activities for which funds were expended,
    obligated, and including the estimated number of jobs created
    or retained by the project or activity.''
        OMB recently received--or released some guidance that in my
    view seems to contradict what the legislation clearly says. I
    just wanted your comment on that. It says that the OMB
    anticipates that in most instances, centrally available
    economic data will provide sufficient information, quarterly
    reports without the need for recipients of relief funds to
    report the estimated number of jobs clearly retained.
        So you are Acting Director now, I hope soon to be Director.
    I do not see how that guidance comports with the law, and I do
    not see why, again, in the context of spending nearly $3
    trillion, we do not have more rather than less oversight. At
    least the oversight that is provided in the statute ought to be
    followed.
        Can you talk about that?
        Mr. Vought. Sure. And I do appreciate your comments and
    your question, Senator. It is high praise coming from you, a
    former Director, to have you reflect on my time at OMB that
    way.
        As it pertains to more transparency versus less, OMB wants
    to be the partners of Congress with regard to that. That
    portion of
    M-20-21, which was our management guidance, was an attempt to
    be able to communicate to agencies the balance that we believe
    we saw reflected in the law between the oversight and
    transparency requirements that you all enacted or you all voted
    for along with the speed at which you all wanted us to be able
    to get this funding out the door to those who would benefit
    from it. So it was not an attempt to ignore the law as it was
    an attempt to figure out what is the best way to ascertain
    whether a particular program is actually leading to jobs and
    our attempt to do it and not have too much paperwork built up
    on behalf of agencies and the recipients.
        But we are happy to continue the conversation with Congress
    as it pertains to its view of how that provision was written.
        Senator Portman. Yes. We would like to have that
    conversation. I mean, the fact that you say we can rely on
    macroeconomic data, the question is, What is the correlation
    between that and what we have done? So the macroeconomic data
    may indicate that there is an improvement or not, but without
    going through the process of getting the data from recipients,
    it is very hard to know what effect our actual expenditures
    had.
        So I would hope that you would reconsider that and you work
    with us on that.
        Senator Carper and I are about to introduce some
    legislation that came out of our Permanent Subcommittee on
    Investigations (PSI). It has to do with China. It has to do
    with the China talent program stealing our technology,
    innovations, internet protocol (IP). It has to do with Federal
    funding because this is taxpayer money going to NIH or National
    Science Foundation (NSF) or Department of Energy (DOE) or
    elsewhere and then being given out to research universities.
    China finds promising research through its programs. It
    effectively takes that research and sometimes the researchers
    back to China, often commercializing this research long before
    we do. So it is something that everybody, I think, views as a
    problem.
        One of the ways we, I think, can hit it off is to have the
    Office of Management and Budget be more involved in
    coordinating between these Federal agencies like NIH, NSF, and
    Department of Energy.
        We establish a new council. I think you are aware of this
    because your folks were very helpful in providing us technical
    information to be able to put this together properly and
    technical advice as to how it could work going forward. The
    Federal Research Security Council is the name of it.
        Can you tell me, one, what your familiarity is with that
    and whether you are familiar with it or not? We would love to
    work with you going forward, should we be able to enact this
    legislation to make sure it is effective, which would mean
    working with the Office of Science and Technology Policy. They
    have already begun establishing some standards, but really
    requiring these agencies to have transparency between
    themselves, to share information, to let grant-writing, grant-
    giving agencies know who some of the problematic recipients
    are, so that there is shared information. Can you speak to
    that, Russell?
        Mr. Vought. Sure. And I am aware of the bill, and that we
    have been participating and trying to give you all technical
    assistance.
        Without speaking on behalf of the administration, I would
    just say that this has been a theme, a priority in general
    about ways that we can tackle this problem, and so many of the
    ideas are things that I think OMB would be well situated to
    help out with. We would perform this function with regard to
    the supply chain council, and I think that this is--our all-of-
    government perch allows us to play an important role here. So I
    am happy to continue to work with you all as you move forward
    in the legislative process and it gets to the President's desk.
        Senator Portman. Great. Our hope is that this can be even a
    nonpartisan exercise. It has been so far, and I think everyone
    is shocked by what is happening. It is one of five reforms in
    the bill and I think a very important one. So we thank you for
    that and thank you for helping us on the technical assistance
    to get us to this point.
        There is another organization that OMB houses, and that is
    the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council (FPISC).
    This came out of legislation back in 2015, part of the highway
    bill, and it has been terrifically successful, particularly
    recently, saved a billion dollars, as you probably know,
    improving the permitting process. They have reduced permitting
    timelines by about a year and a half for covered projects,
    which is amazing. So of the very few projects that have gotten
    into the system that are able to be covered, they saved over a
    billion dollars, which just shows how much we can do with more
    efficient green lighting of projects through permitting.
        First, are you aware of the permitting council? Have you
    been involved with it? Do you envision it continuing to work as
    it is currently operating, if you are familiar with it? And do
    you have any suggestions about how we can make it work better,
    more transparency, more accountability, and getting more
    projects involved?
        Mr. Vought. Certainly, Senator, I am aware of it and the
    important work that it has been doing to reduce permitting
    timeframes. This has been a priority of the President. Much of
    the work that they are doing is involved around the issue of
    trying to get as much as we possibly can to having one Federal
    decision. I think they are doing important work.
        I do not have any immediate suggestions on how to improve
    on it, but I am happy to take your views with any follow-up to
    provide transparency if there is a need there and to make sure
    that it is bolstered, and it is important work.
        Senator Portman. Great. Russ, thanks very much, and again,
    good luck to you. We have a lot to work on going forward.
        Mr. Vought. Same here. Thank you, Senator.
        Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator Portman.
        I feel bad that I missed Senator Lankford the last time
    around, but, Senator Lankford.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LANKFORD

        Senator Lankford. The redhead is always hard to see. I just
    kind of blend in. I get that full well, so no problem on that.
        Let me ask a couple of questions on this. Mr. Leen, let me
    start with you on this. Thanks for stepping out to do this. We
    have needed someone in this position for 4 years now, and I am
    grateful that you are stepping up and willing to be able to
    take this on.
        You and I have visited before already in my office to be
    able to talk through a lot of these background issues. Tell me
    your thoughts on the retirements for Federal retirees and what
    your thoughts are on trying to be able to help this process
    because this has been a painful process for Federal retirees to
    be able to get into the system for a while.
        Mr. Leen. Yes.
        Senator Lankford. So do you have additional thoughts going
    into this?
        Mr. Leen. Yes. And as I mentioned to you, this will be a
    priority for me. It is just too much of a gap in time for so
    many people to be able to get those retirement benefits that
    they have earned.
        The same issue came up in Coral Gables, to some extent,
    regarding retirement, I think, I mentioned to you, and I
    oversaw a review of our auditor and issued a report. And we
    fixed that problem that came up there. My job as OPM IG would
    be to do the same, to bring attention to that specific issue,
    which should be fixable--it should be fixable--and do
    recommendations focused on that and then bring attention to it.
    I would make that a top priority.
        Senator Lankford. Terrific.
        Mr. Leen. I believe we owe it to our Federal workforce.
        Senator Lankford. Terrific. Glad to hear that because that
    has been something that has been hanging out there for years
    and years and years. Digitizing those records, getting a
    consistent path from every agency to be able to get all the
    information in, especially if someone works for two or three
    agencies, their retirement takes painfully long to be able to
    start. So I appreciate your focus on that.
        Same thing, we have had a lot of recommendations from the
    Chief Human Capital Officers Council (CHCOCs) over the years on
    hiring authorities, management authorities. They seem to be
    floated, but I do not have a set of recommendations that I can
    get from an IG. Is that an area you would want to be able to
    look at on how we are doing hiring authorities, what is
    working, what is not working, what hiring authorities are
    seldom, if ever, used? We have 120 different authorities and
    just a lot of clutter out there in the process, and we need to
    be able to have some consistent pathways.
        So I am not looking for the answer at this point, but your
    commitment to be able to look for how we can get to the answer.
        Mr. Leen. Senator, I really want to look at that. I want to
    look at Schedule A, veterans' preference, hiring of disabled
    veterans, and that is just three of them. There are so many,
    and you are right. It should be made more efficient, and we
    should be using them correctly. It should not be ad hoc,
    depending on the agency and the proclivities of a particular
    agency. There should be general policies.
        Senator Lankford. OK.
        Mr. Leen. I agree with you, and I would focus on it.
        Senator Lankford. I look forward to working with you on
    that one. Senator Sinema and I, that is something that we have
    talked about often on both of those issues. You will find in
    our Subcommittee, some willingness to be able to engage on
    that. I want to try to get that resolved. I look forward to
    your recommendations.
        For Mr. Vought, it is good to see you again. Thanks for all
    the work that you have already done. You have been very
    responsive to our office, and I appreciate that. We have asked
    hard questions. We have asked, at times, for information and
    details and numbers. Your team has been responsive to be able
    to get us answers back, and I appreciate that in the way that
    you are working through some things.
        Let me ask you a couple of things, specifically on guidance
    areas. This is an area that has been a long standing problem
    that if you are new at a business and you want to say what
    guidance is out there from a particular oversight agency, there
    is no place to go. Basically, the Federal Government says to
    every person in every company, ``Go figure out on your own
    where the guidance is located.''
        You have been leading a structure to try to get some kind
    of listing of guidance out there from every agency. I want to
    know how that is going and what is the process. What do you
    expect to do with that in the future?
        Mr. Vought. Thank you, Senator, and appreciate the kind
    words.
        We are making progress on that. To that particular concern,
    anyone who creates a business wants to know what an agency has
    said as it pertains to speaking authoritatively would be able
    to go to that agency and see a searchable public website.
        Most of the agencies have already complied. The EO that the
    President signed last year gave the ability for OMB to grant
    extensions, which we have in some examples, particularly HHS
    that has such a monumental job to get their arms wrapped around
    all the guidance that they want to be reflected on that
    website.
        And then the other aspect of that EO was the agencies would
    put together an actual rule about how they would attempt to
    consider and move through, guidance through the regulatory
    process, and we are making progress on that front.
        We want to make sure that if guidance is being used in
    place of rulemaking that it go through the cost-benefit
    analysis and gives the same level of scrutiny and the American
    people the ability to notice and provide comment to that
    regulatory document that impacts their life.
        So we appreciate your leadership, this Committee's
    leadership on providing bills that kind of articulate this
    direction, and we welcome the ongoing partnership on it.
        Senator Lankford. Yes. There is a bill that we have worked
    on a while, and your team has given some technical assistance
    in that, the Taxpayers Right-to-Know. That bill passed
    unanimously through the House. It has now cleared the
    Republican side, and so I am not sure which one of the
    Democrats at this point is holding up the bill that even
    Speaker Pelosi was for. It is currently being tied up on the
    Democratic side. We are trying to be able to get that resolved.
        One of the No. 1 issues for GAO for years has been that it
    takes them a very long time to be able to compile information.
    That should be readily available.
        The first time that that gets started, I know it will be a
    burden to get it started, but once it started from every
    agency, it would be extremely helpful to GAO, the American
    people, and certainly to Congress to be able to know what each
    agency does, full-time equivalent (FTEs), what the programs
    are, what the costs on those things are, which we do not know
    at this point. My suspicion is it even takes your team a long
    time to be able to compile that. Certainly, that is dark to us.
    So I appreciate your team's help on trying to get the Taxpayers
    Right-to-Know done and to be able to get it right in the
    process.
        Let me ask you another question, though, about Corps of
    Engineers. You and I have spoken specifically because this has
    been a longstanding issue. The Corps of Engineers will say they
    make recommendations to OMB that goes into a black box. Members
    of Congress, myself included, would talk to the Corps and would
    say, ``OK. What are your top priorities?'' They will say,
    ``This particular project in your State is a life safety issue.
    It is a top priority for us,'' and then when it all pops out as
    far as administration proposals, it is not on the list.
        That black box of how decisions are made for Corps of
    Engineers' projects around the country as it gets into the OMB
    part has been hard to be able to get our arms around. It is not
    a partisan issue. It is just an issue of how decisions are
    made.
        I would like to be able to work with you and your team in
    the days ahead and the Corps of Engineers to try to figure out
    how to make this a more transparent process. Are you open to
    that?
        Mr. Vought. Certainly open to it. In the area of reformed
    Army Corps, I would love to work with you. Often what is
    involved there is reflecting the President's views on these
    important decisions as well and making sure the Corps itself
    has that reflected in their plans, but certainly want to be as
    transparent in this as possible. And we believe that OMB is
    actually a part of the process that makes it go more smooth and
    that helps provide information to Congress in a transparent
    manner.
        Senator Lankford. Yes. Look forward to that. Thanks again
    for your willingness to be able to serve on it. Thanks.
        Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator Lankford. Senator
    Romney.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROMNEY

        Senator Romney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
    Peters. My questions also are going to be directed mostly to
    Mr. Vought.
        I appreciate your service already and your willingness to
    take this further.
        I think there is wide bipartisan agreement that during the
    economic crisis and the health crisis that we are undergoing
    that we have to provide the funding necessary to help families
    that need relief and try and keep businesses operating so that
    we are able to have a recovery. So even though a lot of us that
    are spending hawks and debt hawks are concerned about all the
    debt, we recognize that now is the time--if there ever is a
    time, now is the time to be borrowing.
        But I guess the question is as we think about the next
    phase--and whether or not there is going to be another rescue
    package, I do not know, but if there were to be another rescue
    package, do you or does the administration think it would be
    important to include in that rescue package some provision for
    dealing with the structural debt problem, the structural
    deficit problem that we have?
        And by that, I will just note that I have spoken with a
    number of individuals, including a former Secretary of the
    Treasury, who said, ``Look, the world markets that buy our debt
    will understand borrowing during the COVID crisis, but they do
    not understand an extra trillion dollars a year in excessive
    borrowing during good times.''
        So is this a time? Would it make sense to include some
    provision, some process to ultimately deal with our structural
    imbalance?
        Mr. Vought. Senator, thank you for that question, and I
    think you know that I am someone that is very concerned about
    spending and debt deficits, and this President has as well been
    concerned about that with the budgets that he has put forward.
        It often goes unnoticed that the budgets that he has put
    forward have had more spending reforms than any President in
    history, including on the mandatory side to reforms, welfare
    reform, direct pricing reform, and so we believe that there is
    an opportunity in the future to be able to identify some of
    these things, work with Congress, and to be able to enact them.
    And we would welcome that, and we would welcome any ideas that
    Congress has to include in the next package if it is deemed
    necessary, if we have implemented the first four bills, and
    there is a bipartisan consensus to move forward. I think this
    administration and the President would certainly consider
    anything that Congress has in mind to be able to think ahead
    down the road as it pertains to spending and deficits, so to
    consider some of the reforms that we have put in his budgets.
        Senator Romney. Each time the President's budget comes out,
    he identifies places to economize. In many cases, these things
    make a lot of sense.
        The final piece of legislation we are presented typically
    includes a whole list of things we wish were not there,
    programs we wish were eliminated. There is always a list of
    laughable spending, priorities that someone has stuffed in
    there. We all scratch our head and say, ``Why is this?''
        So one of the questions a new Senator like myself has,
    ``Why are these strange, excessive, and unnecessary
    expenditures still being made?'' and at the same time, ``Why
    are some important reforms not being included?''
        And I guess I would ask you, What is wrong with the
    process, and is there a way that you or the administration can
    become more involved in the process of creating the final
    budget, not just your proposal budget, but the final piece of
    legislation that gets passed? What are we missing? What is
    wrong with our process that we cannot deal with the excesses,
    we cannot deal with the silliness of some spending programs, we
    cannot get some reforms done? Is it a failure of the
    administration to interact with Congress? Is it the failure of
    the Congress to work across party lines? What has made it so
    difficult for us to finally get a handle on the excesses and on
    the things that we should not be spending on, and how do we
    change that? Is there some way we can improve?
        Mr. Vought. A couple ideas, and I think one of the things
    we have seen that we have tried to do is to get involved
    earlier and more often. The President has the same view. He
    dislikes when bills get to his desk that are so big, and we
    have not had an opportunity or enough of an opportunity to
    participate in the process. That is one of the reasons why he
    was so opposed to ever doing an omnibus bill again.
        So we have tried to send up letters to work with the
    Appropriations Committee and other committees much earlier in
    the process so that there is a more robust view about what we
    actually find problematic and what we do not.
        I also wish Congress was doing budgets and passing those. I
    think that is a very important part of the legislative process
    that, unfortunately, has fallen by the wayside, because I think
    it helps to have a debate in the world's most deliberative
    bodies about what we can afford, what we cannot, and what you
    find wasteful in addition to what we have found wasteful. In
    those dynamics, our budgets can often be an idea generating
    documents for amendments and debate points.
        We are not here to argue that the system is working. In
    fact, we want to be part of the conversation about how to
    improve it and make sure that we are not jamming the country at
    the end of fiscal years.
        I appreciate much of the hard work that has been done by
    this Committee and various authors on the issue of continuing
    resolutions (CR). That is a very important legislative
    initiative, but I think there is a lot of things that we could
    be working on to improve the process, Senator.
        Senator Romney. Thank you. I will let you go here, but I
    just note that with regards to these relief packages associated
    with COVID that Secretary Mnuchin has been able to insert
    himself in relationships with both the House and the Senate
    that has helped guide, in some respects, the structure of the
    package. I wonder whether it is not possible for OMB and the
    administration to play a much more active role in the process,
    the appropriations process, the budget-creating process so that
    we end up with some of the reforms that the administration is
    looking for.
        With that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back to you.
        Chairman Johnson. Thanks, Senator Romney. You definitely
    asked the $64 question: Why are things so screwed up, and what
    can we do to unscrew it, I guess? So I appreciate that.
        Next, Senator Sinema.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SINEMA

        Senator Sinema. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
        I appreciate the nominees who have joined us today, and I
    look forward to our discussion.
        My question today will focus on Mr. Vought, and I will have
    a couple questions for Mr. Leen that I will submit for the
    record.
        Federal spending is a critical topic as our Nation grapples
    with how best to respond and recover from the virus. It is
    important that we make wise decisions on how best to apply
    Federal resources to issues ranging from acquiring personal
    protective equipment; to support for our State, Tribal, and
    local government partners; to how best to manage the PPE
    program.
        So, in Arizona, we need the Federal Government to be an
    effective partner in these initiatives. Over the past several
    months, the United States has been under significant stress. We
    have seen over 100,000 tragic deaths in our country, which has
    led to an economic downturn that impacts every family across
    the Nation.
        So my question for you, Mr. Vought, is based on your
    observations and as the chief official responsible for managing
    Federal spending and ensuring agencies effectively implement
    the administration's priorities and initiatives, what parts of
    the Federal Government need improvement to be more effective
    and efficient during times of crisis such as this?
        Mr. Vought. Senator, I appreciate the question. I do not
    want to lay blame anywhere in responding, but I do think we can
    always get better in how we work as agencies within the
    interagency to remove barriers to get things done, to move
    faster.
        I think one of this administration's success points has
    been the Vice President's task force that has allowed someone
    like me who has a role to play with regard to the glue amongst
    all the interagency process to be able to help remove barriers
    and work on those issues.
        So I think that it is incredibly difficult when you have
    different agencies with different statutes with different
    stakeholders to get them all moving in the right direction, to
    be able to identify barriers that need to be pulled down,
    regulatory or otherwise, and that is one of the reasons we were
    so proud about the 600 different regulatory initiatives that we
    have taken during the coronavirus response and recovery and
    hope to continue that. And one of the reasons why the President
    does an EO is so that he gets the pulse of the administration
    moving in this direction, but happy to continue to work with
    you in how it is being distributed at the State level.
        Senator Sinema. Thank you for your response.
        I just want to be clear. I want to make sure that I
    understand correctly. You have not observed any part of the
    Federal Government that needs improvement as it relates to the
    coronavirus?
        Mr. Vought. No, I would not say that. When I respond that
    way, where we have been at our best as an administration is
    when the agencies have been all getting in a room and moving
    forward and identifying burdens, and I have many successes on
    that front in terms of how we have scaled the production of
    ventilators, to the production of testing, to ensuring that
    States have the PPE that they need. And I think we can always
    do things better, but nothing immediately comes to mind as
    something that has been broken.
        Senator Sinema. OK. Thank you for clarifying.
        So I think celebrating victories of what we have been able
    to do well is certainly a good thing to do at a later time, but
    now as Americans are still dying and as we are facing a
    potential resurgence of the virus in the fall, in some States
    like mine, the virus is still moving around very strongly. I
    just wanted to be clear that nothing comes to mind about what
    the Federal Government needs to do better to be more effective
    or efficient during a time of crisis such as the one we are in.
    You cannot think of any area where we could do better?
        Mr. Vought. Again, from my vantage point, Senator, I have
    seen an administration and task force that is working as
    expeditiously as we possibly can to meet challenges as they
    arise.
        I remember early on in the process, what it would be for a
    State like New York, and we were seeing numbers that were just
    astronomical, and this administration worked the problem. And
    we have ensured that no one did not have a ventilator who
    needed one, and I think that given where we were, it is an
    example of how we have worked problems in the moment and tried
    to think as much as we possibly can until the next problem
    comes our way. Nothing comes to mind that is structural that
    could have been done better.
        When this is all over, we will try to find and identify
    areas that we can get better and work with Congress for
    identifying things that you have seen and have you speak into
    the process, but we are still in the midst of trying to combat
    this effectively from a public health standpoint and ensure
    that we get the economy recovering as fast as possible.
        Senator Sinema. Thank you.
        So I want to follow up with a very specific question, then.
    As you are probably aware, a $3 million contract was awarded to
    a company established by a former senior official in the White
    House. He had no prior Federal contracting experience. It turns
    out that the company he created provided a large number of
    substandard KN95 respirator masks to the Indian Health Service
    (IHS), and these were all directed to the Navajo Nation. As you
    are, I am sure, aware, the Navajo Nation now has the most
    severe outbreak in the country, even worse than the State of
    New York.
        So do you believe that the Federal response to the outbreak
    on the Navajo Nation and the obligation to provide working PPE
    was both effective and efficiently met?
        Mr. Vought. Again, I do not know the specifics of that
    particular scenario. I did see the news article with regard to
    it. I would refer you to the agency that presumably had made
    that decision.
        But, again, I think there are things like that that we can
    do better. I do not think that is an indication of a structural
    issue in any way about our response in the recovery.
        Senator Sinema. OK. That is an area where I think we could
    probably have further discussion. It sounds like there could be
    a structural problem with failing to adequately vet vendors and
    perhaps awarding contracts to vendors who do not have a proven
    track record, especially in a case as dire as that on the
    Navajo Nation where, again, we are seeing the per capita
    infection and death rates to be the highest in the entire
    Nation.
        I see that my time is expiring. So, Chairman Johnson, I
    will submit the rest of my questions for the record. I do have
    some more concerns around telehealth services, and again, I
    will submit those for the record. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Johnson. OK. Thank you, Senator Sinema.
        As usual, I think our Committee Members have asked some
    great questions. We have covered a lot of topics, and I would
    have to say the nominees, I think, have done an extraordinary
    job of answering with a great deal of confidence and knowledge.
    So I want to thank you for that.
        I will close this thing out with just two questions, one
    apiece.
        Mr. Leen, as I stated in my opening comments, OPM is
    undergoing a significant restructuring. As it has an Inspector
    General's office there, that is going to be something that I
    think you are going to be dealing with and grappling with and
    doing inspections and investigations on.
        Can you just kind of talk a little bit about how you plan
    to handle that situation?
        Mr. Leen. Yes, certainly. OPM obviously is facing a lot of
    challenges at this time, and of course, I believe you are
    referring also to the potential merger with the General
    Services Administration (GSA), which I know is on hold at this
    moment while a report is being done.
        I do believe--and my view is consistent with what OPM IG is
    presently doing--that the IG's office has a significant role in
    overseeing--if there were to be a merger, overseeing that
    merger to protect the core equities of OPM, including the human
    resource (HR) function, Federal Employees Benefits Program
    (FEHB), retirement, the charitable giving. There are so many
    different things that OPM does, and you do not want that to be
    lost within the larger, much larger structure of GSA.
        So there is definitely a role to play for the OPM IG, and I
    plan to play it.
        Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Leen.
        Mr. Vought, I want to join Senator Peters in his
    questioning and request for more information on PPP. We may
    have different questions.
        I share the concern about the number of businesses that
    obtained PPP loans because there is no effective demonstration
    of need. As a result, PPP loans went to, I mean, many
    businesses that really did not need them.
        Again, the criteria was simply it becomes an economic
    uncertainty if you felt you needed a loan for the ongoing
    operations of your business, step up to the plate and try to be
    first in line. So I am not accusing any businesses of any kind
    of fraudulent activity. They did what they thought was best in
    very uncertain times, but now I think we need to make sure that
    any additional money we spend is not allocated or disbursed to
    businesses that really do not need it.
        We do not have an unlimited checking account here, and we
    certainly need to direct future assistance to help open up the
    economy to only those businesses that are viable and really do
    need the support. So I will join Senator Peters in trying to
    develop as much information on PPP.
        But we spoke earlier. I was just trying to get a handle on
    how much of the $2.9 trillion in the first, we will say, three
    and a half phases, but four phases of financial relief, how
    much was actually spent. My own staff has been able to detail,
    working with agencies, about $1.12 trillion of the 2.9.
        We are really going to need a very detailed accounting of
    where the money is spent. To the extent that money has not gone
    out, what is the roadblock? By the way, if it is not needed,
    that is good that we have not spent it, but maybe we need to
    reconsider what has not been spent, remedy some of the
    problems. As I mentioned, in PPP, there is really no control
    over people who do not need it.
        What can you tell us in terms of OMB's role of how much
    information you can provide us, whether you are kind of looking
    at doing the same type of analyses? So that we might need to
    redirect and repurpose part of that $2.9 trillion as opposed to
    talking about a phase four, which is really phase five.
        Mr. Vought. Sure. I appreciate that question. I know that
    you have been asking for that information. It is a priority for
    me to get that information to you.
        Right now, I am trying to make sure that we get the May
    information as to how much has gone out in the month of May
    before we would be able to provide a presentation. So that is
    something that we are in the midst of trying to complete for
    you, and I do believe it is vital for us as we head into any
    consideration of the next piece of legislation.
        The figures that you are using are not dissimilar to the
    ones that we are seeing based on the end of May as it pertains
    to what has been legally obligated. Sometimes that does not
    necessarily reflect the fact that UI is going to be spent out
    over the next year when you are given 52 weeks of benefits or
    whether Treasury is only having to obligate for the credit
    subsidy amount to some of the loans. So I think there is a
    story to tell with regard to each of these programs, but we are
    hearing you loud and clear, Senator. And we are going to get
    you the information that you have requested.
        Chairman Johnson. I appreciate that. The House already
    passed a $3 trillion spending package. Again, we probably have
    not spent--certainly less than half of what we have already
    appropriated. We really need to carefully take a look at that.
    So we will be looking to OMB plus, I think, the agencies as
    well.
        Again, I am not being critical. We had to do something
    massive. We had to do something fast. We all knew this was
    going to be far from perfect, but now is the time to take at
    least some measure of pause here and really analyze what we
    have done and how we can do it better. So, again, we really
    appreciate your cooperation on that.
        I will close out the hearing by just saying the nominees
    have made financial disclosures.
        Senator Peters. Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Johnson. Senator Peters, sure.
        Senator Peters. I have just one last question, if I may.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Vought, something we spoke about before, I would just
    like to reiterate with you today and get your response, and
    that is the FEMA cost share. As you know, States have been hit
    in a major way. Michigan is certainly an example of that but
    other States across the country. What the administration can do
    is increase the FEMA cost share to basically 100 percent, so
    States do not have to put up their portion.
        I know you were concerned about a precedent that that set,
    but we are certainly--and something that is unprecedented, and
    you can certainly make a distinction when you are dealing with
    a hurricane that is basically blowing across the entire country
    that is being hit by natural disaster or a flood or a wildfire,
    that helping States who are impacted in a significant and
    dramatic way would make sense for FEMA to pick up 100 percent
    of the cost.
        So where is the administration on that, particularly in
    this unprecedented time? If you could respond to that question,
    I would appreciate it.
        Mr. Vought. Sure. Thank you, Senator, for that.
        We are in the same place that we were when we talked last.
    We are aware of the request. The President is aware of it. The
    administration has not decided to grant any request yet for 100
    percent cost share. We are considering issues like precedent
    issuing--considering issues where it is always helpful to have
    the States to have a little bit of a share in the cost. It
    helps them to be an important vetter about what is needed and
    what is not at the local. You do not want them to not have the
    important resources that are necessary, but we do want them to
    be partners in ensuring that the Federal Government is not on
    the hook for something that is inappropriate.
        But it is part of the administration's list of things that
    we will continue to work through, and we have not made an
    announcement--or the President has not made a decision on that.
        Senator Peters. Is there a timeline?
        Mr. Vought. We are working through it. There is no timeline
    at this point right now, but we recognize the requests that
    have come in and how passionately you and other members of the
    delegations have spoken on, into the process on it.
        Senator Peters. Very good.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Johnson. Sure. Thanks, Senator Peters.
        This really is the perfect example of why we need
    information and data. I have seen various estimates in terms of
    the projected loss revenue and then plus COVID costs; in other
    words, the budgetary impact of States. Some are being no more
    than $350 billion into fiscal 2021. I think we have already
    authorized something like $240 billion-some for the States. In
    many cases, we do not quite know how that is all being spent.
        So I am not saying those are hard-and-fast numbers. What I
    am saying is that we need the data, which was kind of the point
    in raising this issue with Mr. Vought as well. So I guess it is
    just the accountant in me. I really want some information
    before we start making some of these big decisions.
        But with that, the nominees have made financial disclosures
    and provided responses to biographical and prehearing
    questions\1\ submitted by the Committee. Without objection,
    this information will be made part of the hearing record,\2\
    with the exception of the financial data, which are on file and
    available for public inspection in the Committee offices.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The information of Mr. Vought appears in the Appendix on page
    44.
        \2\ The information of Mr. Leen appears in the Appendix on page
    185.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The hearing record will remain open until 5 p.m., tomorrow,
    June 3, for the submission of statements and questions for the
    record.
        This hearing is adjourned. [Whereupon, at 4:19 p.m., the
    Committee was adjourned.]

                                A P P E N D I X

                                  ----------

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]