[Senate Hearing 117-382]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]





                                                        S. Hrg. 117-382
 
          NOMINATION OF SHALANDA D. YOUNG AND JASON S. MILLER

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

                                HEARING

                               before the

                              COMMITTEE ON
               HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS


                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

         NOMINATION OF SHALANDA D. YOUNG TO BE DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
         OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET AND JASON S. MILLER TO
   BE DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR MANAGEMENT, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET

                               __________

                             MARCH 4, 2021

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

                       Printed for the use of the
        Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
        
        
        
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]        




              U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
44-784PDF           WASHINGTON : 2022 
        
        
        

        COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

                   GARY C. PETERS, Michigan, Chairman
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware           ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire         RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona              RAND PAUL, Kentucky
JACKY ROSEN, Nevada                  JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma
ALEX PADILLA, California             MITT ROMNEY, Utah
JON OSSOFF, Georgia                  RICK SCOTT, Florida
                                     JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri

                   David M. Weinberg, Staff Director
                    Zachary I. Schram, Chief Counsel
                      Claudine J. Brenner, Counsel
              Yogin J. Kothari, Professional Staff Member
                Pamela Thiessen, Minority Staff Director
    Andrew Dockham, Minority Chief Counsel and Deputy Staff Director
Amanda H. Neely, Minority Director of Governmental Affairs and General 
                                Counsel
           Andrew J. Timm, Minority Professional Staff Member
                     Laura W. Kilbride, Chief Clerk
                     Thomas J. Spino, Hearing Clerk
                     

                            C O N T E N T S

                                 ------                                
Opening statements:
                                                                   Page
    Senator Peters...............................................     1
    Senator Portman..............................................     2
    Senator Hassan...............................................    16
    Senator Paul.................................................    18
    Senator Romney...............................................    21
    Senator Rosen................................................    23
    Senator Padilla..............................................    26
    Senator Johnson..............................................    28
    Senator Carper...............................................    30
    Senator Lankford.............................................    34
    Senator Hawley...............................................    37
    Senator Ossoff...............................................    39
Prepared statements:
    Senator Peters...............................................    43
    Senator Portman..............................................    44

                               WITNESSES
                        Thursday, March 4, 2021

Hon. Patrick Leahy, a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont.....     4
Hon. Bill Cassidy, a U.S. Senator from the State of Louisiana....     5
Hon. Haley Stevens, a U.S. Representative in Congress from the 
  State of Michigan..............................................     6
Shalanda D. Young to be Deputy Director, Office of Management and 
  Budget
    Testimony....................................................     8
    Prepared statement...........................................    46
    Biographical and professional information....................    48
    Letter from U.S. Office of Government Ethics.................    67
    Responses to pre-hearing questions...........................    70
    Responses to post-hearing questions..........................    98
Jason S. Miller to be Deputy Director for Management, Office of 
  Management and Budget
    Testimony....................................................     9
    Prepared statement...........................................   112
    Biographical and professional information....................   114
    Letter from U.S. Office of Government Ethics.................   134
    Responses to pre-hearing questions...........................   139
    Responses to post-hearing questions..........................   171

                                APPENDIX

Senator Paul pictures............................................   180


          NOMINATION OF SHALANDA D. YOUNG AND JASON S. MILLER

                              ----------                              


                        THURSDAY, MARCH 4, 2021

                                     U.S. Senate,  
                           Committee on Homeland Security  
                                  and Governmental Affairs,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:15 a.m., via 
video conference and in room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office 
Building, Hon. Gary Peters, Chairman of the Committee, 
presiding.
    Present: Senators Peters, Carper, Hassan, Sinema, Rosen, 
Padilla, Ossoff, Portman, Johnson, Paul, Lankford, Romney, 
Scott, and Hawley.

            OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN PETERS\1\

    Chairman Peters. The Committee will come to order. Today we 
are considering the nominations of Ms. Shalanda Young to be the 
Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), 
and Mr. Jason Miller to be OMB's Deputy Director for 
Management. I certainly welcome both of you, and I know you 
have your family with you, and I look forward to having you 
introduce them shortly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The prepared statement of Senator Peters appear in the Appendix 
on page 43.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I want to first off congratulate you on your nominations 
and thank you for your willingness to serve our nation in these 
very critical roles. Our country is facing a historic public 
health and economic challenge, and over the past year the 
coronavirus pandemic has taken more than 510,000 American 
lives. It has also devastated communities, families, and 
businesses in Michigan as well as all across our country.
    If confirmed, not only will you both play a key role in 
shaping and implementing the American Rescue Plan (ARP), a 
comprehensive relief package that will provide critical aid to 
Michiganders and Americans across the Nation, but also 
developing President Biden's budget and policy agenda across 
the government. In your respective roles, you will be 
responsible for evaluating and coordinating policy decisions to 
help the country recover from the pandemic, from getting 
vaccines in the arms of people as quickly and equitably as 
possible, to reopening our schools and our economy swiftly and 
safely.
    You will also have to help address the long-term challenges 
that we face, including bolstering our nation's cybersecurity 
infrastructure; advancing science-based public health; worker 
safety and environmental protections; as well as strengthening 
our Federal workforce. You will also be responsible for 
ensuring that Federal agencies are addressing and prioritizing 
the needs of communities of color and other underserved and 
vulnerable populations. As part of OMB leadership, it will be 
your duty to ensure that the Federal Government is working 
efficiently and in a transparent manner to deliver for the 
American people.
    I certainly believe that both of you bring that kind of 
experience and expertise and dedication to public service that 
is needed to help steer the country through this unprecedented 
time. I expect OMB will work closely with this Committee as we 
take on the difficult task ahead of us, and I look forward to 
hearing about the serious challenges we are facing today and 
how we can work together to tackle them.
    Thank you both again for your willingness to serve and for 
being here with us today, and with that I will turn it over to 
Ranking Member Portman.

            OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PORTMAN\1\

    Senator Portman. Thank you, Chairman Peters. I am glad to 
join you at the hearing today and welcome to the witnesses. I 
look forward to hearing from you. I have enjoyed our 
conversations we have had by telephone, and it is good to have 
you here in person, and I look forward to having you introduce 
your family members who are with you.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The prepared statement of Senator Portman appears in the 
Appendix on page 44.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As you all know, I think this agency is absolutely critical 
to our government and probably the least-known but one of the 
most important agencies of government. It is the Office of 
Management and Budget, so the purview is almost boundless, 
management of every agency, every department, every program--
not direct management but the oversight of it--and that 
responsibility would fall on you as the two deputies, should 
you be confirmed. Of course, the budget side--incredibly 
important.
    But OMB also looks at every regulation. OMB also looks at 
every policy. It looks at every statement that comes out of the 
White House, and has to approve it, so it is a huge 
responsibility, and I am glad you are willing to step up and 
take it on.
    As Deputy Director of the Office, and then as the Deputy 
for Management, respectively, it is important that you both 
have a background in your respective roles--budgeting, 
management--but also an understanding of all those policy 
issues, regulations, and actions that OMB reviews and 
coordinates across the agencies. Even more important to me is 
the ability to work with folks within the administration, the 
agencies, and with Congress.
    Chairman Peters just talked about the coronavirus disease 
2019 (COVID-19) packages. I hope we do not see a repeat of 
that, because that is not working with Congress. It is working 
with one side of Congress, and both of you have backgrounds 
where you have worked on a bipartisan basis, Ms. Young, in 
particular, on the Appropriations Committee. That is how you 
operate. I have spoken to some of the cardinals who were 
previously in charge, who were Republicans, who worked with 
you, and some who, as ranking members, worked with you, and 
they said you did work with them, and that is very important. 
On COVID, five times we have done that in the last year, and 
unfortunately this latest time the administration chose to go a 
different route. I think it is a mistake for the country. I 
certainly think it is a mistake for trying to build some 
bipartisanship going forward on other issues that OMB will be 
very involved with, like infrastructure.
    I hope you are going to be a voice within the 
administration to say that you are willing and able to work 
with both sides and find that middle ground and get things 
done.
    On the crises that we face, COVID-19 is at the top of the 
list, but it has spawned other crises, including an epidemic 
crisis underneath the pandemic, with regard to substance abuse 
and overdoses. We now believe we are in a year where we are 
going to have the highest overdose death rate in the history of 
our country, which is such a heartbreaking reality we were 
making good progress until the pandemic.
    We also know that our children's education and development 
has been set back, thanks to this coronavirus pandemic, and 
that is a long-term issues we have to address. I spoke to some 
folks this week who tell me that they are educators, that they 
believe the students that they are in charge of teaching and 
developing have lost a year. That is a big deal. Of course, 
there are emotional scars that go along with that. There is a 
mental health crisis in addition to the opioid and drug 
addiction crisis, more generally, higher suicide rates along 
with the record number of overdose deaths. So there is lots to 
do post-COVID-19 to sort of knit this society back together.
    Finally I will say I hope you will be willing to focus on 
fraud in these programs that we have set up. It, to me, is 
unbelievable that we are not doing more, particularly to 
address the fraud in the unemployment insurance system as we 
pump hundreds of billions of dollars of Federal money and we 
find out that there are organized international, in some cases, 
foreign criminal organizations that are taking advantage of 
hard-earned taxpayer money to steal from our taxpayers and to 
fraudulently take Federal funds. But it is true with a lot of 
these programs. We have heard, with regard to every one of 
these big programs, that there is significant fraud. That will 
be something that we look forward to talking to you about today 
and getting you engaged with, should you be confirmed.
    I will say part of that is that there are innocent 
Americans out there, including our constituents, Chairman 
Peters and myself, who are bearing the brunt of this fraud 
because people are stealing their identity and then getting 
checks illegally, and then the government is coming back on the 
constituent, who knew nothing about it. And we are hopeful that 
we can pass an amendment to the COVID bill to address that in 
the next 24 hours, but it is even worse than it might appear, 
because of its impact on so many people.
    The cyberattacks we have seen recently, this massive 
SolarWinds attack is unprecedented. We look forward to your 
comments on that. Cybersecurity is one of the five high-risk 
areas that has actually gotten worse since 2019, based on a 
hearing we had in this room 2 days ago, so clearly we are 
moving in the wrong direction in terms of securing our Federal 
networks. I know Chairman Peters and I want to work closely 
with OMB in that regard, because OMB has a huge role to play, 
particularly with regard to the agencies and making sure they 
are meeting the requirements.
    I am hopeful we can work together to address these 
challenges, to rebuild the economy as we come out of COVID-19, 
which is likely to happen. Despite all the issues I talked 
about, the economy is beginning to grow already, and I think 
that is the good news, and I think it will continue as the 
vaccines become more widely available in ways that will help us 
to move forward.
    If confirmed, the two of you will play an important part in 
all of these efforts, and so Ms. Young and Mr. Miller, I look 
forward to hearing your thoughts today on these important 
issues and other critical ones that would face OMB, should you 
be confirmed.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Peters. Thank you, Ranking Member Portman.
    Today we have some help recognizing our nominees, from some 
of our Senate and in-house colleagues. So next I would like to 
recognize Senator Leahy, who has a video introducing Ms. Young.

   STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE PATRICK LEAHY, A UNITED STATES 
               SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT

    Senator Leahy. I am very happy to be here today to 
introduce Shalanda Young. She is President Biden's nominee to 
be Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
    Now, for the Members of this Committee who also sit on the 
Appropriations Committee, Shalanda is a familiar face. She has 
worked on the House Appropriations Committee for nearly 16 
years. She has been the House Appropriations Staff Director 
since 2017.
    Actually, it is in that capacity I had the pleasure to 
really get to know her well, and I can tell you, without 
reservation, I can think of no one better suited to be Deputy 
Director of OMB than Shalanda. Her deep understanding of the 
often arcane Federal budget process, her years of experience on 
the Appropriations Committee, her tenacity, her dedication to 
public service, her honesty will serve the agency and the 
American people.
    Shalanda began her career in public service in 2001, at the 
National Institutes of Health (NIH). She came first to work on 
Capitol Hill as a detailee with the House Appropriation 
Committee in 2005. She really made a good impression because 
she returned in 2007.
    She worked her way up in the committee over the years. Her 
work in developing the budget and conducted oversight of key 
agencies has given her critical insights into the operation of 
some of our nation's most important agencies, including, of 
course, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Department 
of Interior (DOI), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the 
General Service Administration (GSA). She even served as a 
Staff Director for the legislative branch Subcommittee 
overseeing the budget for Congress.
    Then she became Staff Director of the House Appropriations 
Committee in 2017. Coincidentally, that was the same year I 
became Vice Chairman of the Appropriations Committee. Since 
that time she has helped the House navigate some of the most 
difficult issues before the chamber. She has a reputation as a 
tough, fair negotiator. That is high praise on Capitol Hill, 
and I can attest to the truth of these statements. I have seen 
these skills first-hand.
    Let me tell you a story. Shalanda was a critical figure in 
helping to end the government shutdown in January 2019. Now I 
remember the evening we cut the final deal to end the 35-day 
government shutdown, the longest shutdown in U.S. history. 
Chairman Shelby, Chairwoman Lowey, Ranking Member Kay Granger, 
and I, along with only a very few but highly trusted staff, 
went to my office in the Capitol. We continued talks that 
started earlier that day. We wanted to get away from being 
watched by everybody, the lobbyists, the press, away from the 
cameras. We wanted to see if we could reach a deal.
    Fortunately, Shalanda was with us. As we worked into the 
night on these difficult issues, her knowledge of a vast range 
of Federal programs, her understanding of the political 
process, and her determination to get the country we love back 
on track helped us reach a deal.
    We shook hands on it that night, and we went out, the four 
of us--two Republicans, two Democrats--and we announced it to 
the press. If you look closely at pictures of that moment, 
Shalanda is there in the background. Hopefully she is as proud 
of that moment as I am.
    It was a difficult time for our Nation, but through 
determination and hard work we reached a solution, and that is 
what Shalanda is best at. She knows how to work across the 
aisle to get a deal done. Her relationships with both Democrats 
and Republicans in the House and the Senate will serve her 
well.
    I have heard it said that Office of Management and Budget 
is one of the most powerful government agencies, that most 
Americans have never heard of. It is true. It wields incredible 
influence over not just the Federal budget but over policies 
that affect people's lives. We need people like Shalanda Young 
to help steer the agency in these important decisions. She is 
wonderful.
    Chairman Peters. Next I would like to recognize Senator 
Cassidy, who is joining us virtually. Senator Cassidy, welcome 
to the Committee.

   STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE BILL CASSIDY, A UNITED STATES 
              SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA

    Senator Cassidy. Thank you, Chairman Peters, and thank you, 
Mr. Portman, and thank you, all the Members of the Committee.
    As Senator Leahy just said, this position is one of the 
most important decisions that no one ever hears of. Among the 
qualifications to be a political appointee in this position 
includes a willingness to look beyond partisanship and to 
really accept the intent of Congress when passing a law in 
order to meet the needs of the American people and to respect 
the role of Congress. So this willingness to do so is a 
prerequisite to be approved for this position.
    With this in mind, I have the distinct pleasure of 
introducing Shalanda Young to be the Deputy Director of the 
Office of Management and Budget. The reason I have this 
privilege is that Ms. Young was born in Clinton, Louisiana, and 
grew up in Clinton and in Baton Rouge. Her parents, Loyce and 
Ronald Smith, her grandmother, and other family still live in 
Louisiana.
    Ms. Young graduated from Loyola University in New Orleans 
and Tulane University. She is now, as was just said, a Staff 
Director for the House Appropriations Committee, and in this 
role has worked with both Democrats and Republicans to achieve 
the goals of our country.
    Now recalling what I said earlier, that this position 
requires someone with a history of looking beyond partisanship, 
I was so pleased to receive this message today from a former 
Republican House Appropriations staffer. I am quoting from the 
message. ``I hear you are introducing Shalanda Young today. She 
is amazing, smart, and such a pro. She can explain difficult 
concepts and has the gravitas required to speak truth to power 
and cut deals. Plus, she is very pleasant and funny. A great 
lady. Thanks so much for supporting her. She understands what 
is needed to do this job. As a long-time congressional aid, she 
has cultivated relationships with lawmakers in both parties.''
    Now it is not just fellow staff members that speak so 
highly of Ms. Young. I note there is a list of strong 
bipartisan Senate support. Last week, my Republican colleague 
from Alabama, Senator Shelby, said, ``She is smart, she knows 
the process inside out, and she is an honest broker who has 
demonstrated the ability to work with both sides to get things 
done.''
    Senator Sanders, who is about as far away from Senator 
Shelby as you can get in terms of the political spectrum, 
speaking to her experience, says, ``She has done an excellent 
job in working with Democrats and Republicans.''
    My Democratic colleague, Chair Leahy, just spoke, and he 
said, ``That is what Shalanda is best at. She knows how to work 
across the aisle and get the deal done.'' And my Republican 
colleague from South Carolina, Senator Graham, said, 
``Everybody that deals with you on our side has nothing but 
good things to say.''
    These days, wide bipartisan support is rare, but when 
Senators Graham, Leahy, Sanders, and Shelby agree, either we 
are in some sort of weird space-time continuum or the nominee 
is exceptionally capable. Because she is from Louisiana, I know 
it is the latter. She is exceptionally capable.
    There are unique challenges ahead of us as we recover from 
the pandemic. Ms. Young is a qualified individual with a 
distinguished career in public service. I look forward to the 
Committee and the Senate approving her nomination. Thank you.
    Chairman Peters. Thank you, Senator Cassidy. Next I am 
pleased to welcome my friend and a colleague from Michigan, 
Congresswoman Haley Stevens, who will introduce Mr. Miller 
today.

      OPENING STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE HALEY STEVENS, A 
     REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

    Ms. Stevens. I am Congresswoman Haley Stevens, proudly 
representing Michigan's 11th District. Chairman Peters, Ranking 
Member Portman, and distinguished Members of the Committee, it 
is my great honor and privilege to introduce to you my former 
colleague and dear friend, Jason S. Miller, as you consider him 
to fill the important role of Deputy Director for Management at 
the Office of Management and Budget in the White House.
    My friendship and collaboration with Jason goes back to our 
days working together in the administration of President Barack 
Obama, where he served as Deputy Assistant to the President and 
Deputy Director of the National Economic Council (NEC). As 
Jason often likes to remind me, I was the very first face he 
saw when he walked into government on his first day.
    In the roles where Jason served, he continuously found new 
ways to help government work for people. As his biography will 
tell you, he played critical roles, if it was from working to 
help Puerto Rico address its crisis to helping develop the 
SelectUSA, the first-ever Federal effort to bring job-creating 
investment to the United States from around the world, and he 
also helped to launch Manufacturing USA, a network of public-
private partnerships, manufacturing institutes aimed at 
securing the future of manufacturing in the United States.
    His biography will also show his strong record of 
management expertise, from his multiple graduate degrees, time 
with The Boston Consulting Group and Marakon Association, 
executive roles in the Obama Administration, and his most 
recent leadership position as the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) 
of the Greater Washington Partnership.
    What his biography will not tell you is that many of his 
achievements have had long-lasting impacts that make government 
function better for taxpayers. The Manufacturing USA 
institutes, for instance, that he helped to launch, have 
proliferated into a network of 14 public-private partnerships 
that sprang into action at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, 
when Members of Congress and community leaders were fielding 
calls from hospitals, nursing homes, and businesses who were 
desperate for personal protective equipment (PPE) due to the 
supply chain disruption, when they were eager for ventilators 
and other life-saving materials. Since that time, Manufacturing 
USA institutes have served as critical connectors for 
innovative manufacturers and industry partners who rose to meet 
our national need for those who have been helped with those 
supplies. It was Jason's vision of a multi-connected consortia 
of university partners, small businesses, large businesses, and 
the Federal Government through interagency effort, coming 
together to solve problems. Boy, did they ever, in one of our 
greatest moments of need.
    Certainly, beyond his far-reaching capabilities, Jason is 
above all a dedicated servant to the ideals of our country. The 
ideal of service, being something greater than oneself, that is 
meant to be the fabric of how he will serve in this role and 
how he will continue to make the United States of America 
proud.
    I urge you to consider his confirmation as Deputy Director 
for Management at the Office of Management and Budget, and I 
thank you greatly for your time.
    Chairman Peters. It is the practice of this Committee to 
swear in witnesses, so if both of you would stand and raise 
your right hand.
    Do you swear the testimony you will give before this 
Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but 
the truth, so help you, God?
    Ms. Young. I do.
    Mr. Miller. I do.
    Chairman Peters. You may be seated.
    Ms. Young, you may now proceed with your opening remarks.

   TESTIMONY OF SHALANDA D. YOUNG,\1\ NOMINATED TO BE DEPUTY 
           DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET

    Ms. Young. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Peters, 
Ranking Member Portman, and Members of the Committee, thank you 
for the opportunity to testify today as President Biden's 
nominee for the Deputy Director of the Office of Management and 
Budget.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Young appears in the Appendix on 
page 46.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I want to thank Chairman Leahy and my home State Senator, 
Senator Cassidy, for introducing me to the Committee today. One 
of the joys of being Staff Director of the Appropriations 
Committee has been seeing the amazing relationships and results 
that have come from Chairman Leahy, former Chairman Shelby, 
Ranking Member Granger, and my former boss, Chairwoman Lowey.
    I still vividly remember those four meeting, as you heard 
Chairman Leahy talk about the same meeting, a meeting to avert 
another government shutdown back in February 2019. Even in 
those tense moments, Senator Leahy still took the time to show 
me pictures of his beloved family before announcing to the 
press that a compromise had been reached. I will be forever 
grateful for the kindness Senator Leahy has shown, even in the 
most stressful environments.
    And Senator Cassidy, it has been a delight to get to know 
you during this process. There have not been many people I 
could discuss Baton Rouge high schools with, since I moved to 
DC, and I certainly appreciate the Louisiana hospitality you 
and your staff have shown.
    I am accompanied today by my partner, William Durham. My 
parents, who were here earlier this week, and my grandmother 
are watching from Louisiana. I want to thank William, my 
family, and friends for their unwavering support over the 
years.
    Members of this distinguished Committee, I come before you 
today as someone who grew up in rural America. I spent most of 
my youth in Clinton, Louisiana. Back then, Clinton had a 
population of around 2,000. Like a lot of rural America, it has 
lost 20 to 30 percent of its population. It is where my 
maternal great-grandparents lived, got married, and had my 
grandmother in 1928. Somehow even then, in the segregated 
South, my great-grandparents sent their child, my grandmother, 
to college. I am grateful they prioritized education, a 
commitment that has stayed in my family for generations. All 
families deserve to see their children have that same 
opportunity to pursue their potential.
    Another former boss of mine, Chairman Obey, used to say a 
budget is your values. I share that belief, and firmly believe 
the Federal budget can and should make the promise of this 
country real for all families in all communities.
    I have spent the last 4 years as both the Minority and 
Majority Staff Director of the House Appropriations Committee. 
I care deeply about the institution of Congress and have been 
very proud to serve in a position that required compromise to 
ensure the American people had not only a functioning 
government, but one that invested in their future.
    My work on the Appropriations Committee taught me that both 
sides can compromise without compromising their values, even 
when that means no one gets everything they want. I will 
forever be indebted to this institution and, if confirmed, I 
look forward to using my experience in these halls to ensure 
both branches operate with mutual respect and work toward 
solutions that will improve the lives of those we serve.
    I am not naive about the challenges we face. Last year, I 
worked on the first COVID-19 supplemental that Congress passed 
in March 2020. We were using models of past supplementals for 
Ebola and Zika because the full scale of the pandemic was still 
unclear. With COVID-19 deaths surpassing 500,000, our focus 
must remain on beating the virus, delivering immediate relief 
to millions of struggling Americans, and ensuring that we 
emerge from these crises even stronger than we were before. If 
confirmed, I look forward to engaging with Members of Congress 
from both parties on this and other important work.
    Chairman Peters, Ranking Member Portman, and other Members, 
thank you for allowing me to be here today to testify, and I 
look forward to your questions.
    Chairman Peters. Thank you, Ms. Young, for those opening 
comments.
    Mr. Miller, you may proceed with your opening comments.

    TESTIMONY OF JASON S. MILLER,\1\ NOMINATED TO BE DEPUTY 
    DIRECTOR FOR MANAGEMENT, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET

    Mr. Miller. Thank you, Chairman Peters, Ranking Member 
Portman, and Members of the Committee. Thank you for your 
service and for the opportunity to be here today in front of 
you. Thank you to Congresswoman Haley Stevens, my good friend, 
for that incredibly kind introduction. Haley is right--she is 
the very first face that I saw when I began my prior public 
service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Miller appears in the Appendix on 
page 112.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I am humbled to be President Biden's nominee for the Deputy 
Director of Management for the Office of Management and Budget. 
Serving the American people is a privilege. Having the 
opportunity to serve in a role with such broad responsibilities 
to ensure our Federal Government is delivering every single day 
for the American people would be an honor.
    I am accompanied today by my wife, Katy Platt Miller. 
Undoubtedly, I would not be here without her support and 
wisdom. I want to thank her and my family for their willingness 
to allow me to serve, and the sacrifices that they are willing 
to make if I am confirmed.
    I also want to thank my parents, Peggy and David Miller, 
who taught me the importance of integrity, hard work, and 
kindness, and my three children that could not be here today, 
Annabelle, Theo, and Cora, who always keep me on my toes.
    Public service is my way to give back to a country that has 
given me and my family so much. My grandfather, after whom I am 
named, left Eastern Europe in 1913, escaping anti-Semitism and 
all that came with it, for a better life, settling with his 
parents and seven siblings in Flint, Michigan. My other 
grandfather served our country in World War II, a Jew put in 
charge of the care of German prisoners of war. Upon returning, 
through the GI Bill he completed college, going into business 
in Chicago and starting a family with my grandmother. Today 
would have been my grandmother's 92nd birthday. She passed in 
December, and I carry her love and fondness for good food with 
me today. These are American stories, creating a better life 
and a better world for our children, something that each of us 
should have the opportunity to pursue.
    The challenges we face today as a country are substantial. 
It is in times like these when Americans expect their 
government to deliver, to beat back the pandemic, to provide 
critical relief, to create the conditions for recovery, to 
protect our security, and to position our country to lead.
    The Office of Management and Budget sits at the heart of 
the Executive Branch, responsible for ensuring Federal agencies 
are doing just that, delivering on the President's priorities 
and the laws enacted by the Congress.
    In my experience, successful delivery is built on three 
pillars: ambitious goals built around clear priorities, a 
system for measurement and accountability, and a talented, 
energized, and dedicated team.
    The role of the Deputy Director for Management is to ensure 
those pillars are in place, that the support functions to 
enable agency missions are up to the task, that we are building 
a high-performance government, and that we have the very best 
of the American people serving their fellow citizens.
    In my prior time in Federal Government, I had the 
opportunity to work closely with the talented career staff at 
OMB, and if confirmed, I am thrilled to have the opportunity to 
do so again. Our committed Federal workers are an asset to our 
country, and addressing our challenges will require 
strengthening and energizing our Federal workforce and 
inspiring even more Americans to serve.
    I began my career in management consulting, working with 
large corporations to build smart strategies, create 
organizations to deliver on those strategies, and put in place 
the measures to manage and monitor strong performance. I spent 
nearly 7 years in public service at the White House, tackling a 
wide range of economic policy issues at the highest levels of 
government. Since then, I led an organization, which I helped 
to build from the ground up, working on the most challenging 
economic issues at the State and local levels here in this 
region.
    The common thread across those experiences in the private, 
public and non-profit sectors is that I get stuff done. It is 
what drives me, it is what I believe is needed right now, and, 
if confirmed, I would be honored to wake up every day and get 
stuff done for the American people.
    Thank you for inviting me before this Committee, and I look 
forward to your questions.
    Chairman Peters. Thank you, Mr. Miller.
    Before we get started there are three questions that this 
Committee asks of every nominee for the record, so let me just 
ask both of you, and I will start with Ms. Young and then, Mr. 
Miller, if you would answer these questions and respond 
quickly. A yes or no is appreciated as well.
    First, is there anything you are aware of in your 
background that might present a conflict of interest with the 
duties of the office for which you have been nominated?
    Ms. Young. No, sir.
    Mr. Miller. No, sir.
    Chairman Peters. Second, 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?
    Ms. Young. No, sir.
    Mr. Miller. No, sir.
    Chairman Peters. Last, 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?
    Ms. Young. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Miller. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Peters. Great. Thank you.
    Michiganders, as well as people all across the country are 
still facing significant challenges as a result of the 
pandemic, and President Biden has certainly made it clear that 
the pandemic response needs a whole-of-government approach and 
that we need to take bold action to recover. If confirmed, you 
both will play a central role in coordinating the Federal 
Government's pandemic response efforts.
    So this question is to both of you. How do you envision OMB 
helping to lead and coordinate the administration's pandemic 
response efforts, and, if confirmed, are there one or two 
priorities in that area that you want to talk about? We would 
certainly love to hear.
    Ms. Young, if you could start.
    Ms. Young. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the question. 
Clearly there is nothing more pressing in front of our country, 
and I hope it is a once-in-a-generation challenge for this 
country, both health pandemic, affecting the health of 
Americans, and also one that is leading us, unfortunately, into 
economic crisis. So certainly I believe OMB will be at the 
center of development of legislative proposals, funding and 
policy, to help the administration work with Congress to 
respond to the health effects and the economics of the 
pandemic. I certainly think OMB will be central to that effort.
    I have worked on all of the legislation last year as Staff 
Director of the Appropriations Committee. I am very proud of 
the work that Congress did, as Senator Portman pointed out, in 
a bipartisan manner. But it is hard to claim success when 
500,000 Americans have lost their lives. I certainly see more 
work to be done.
    I know I am not confirmed but I understand the work of 
small business program, Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), for 
example, that is one area where some administrative cleanup and 
action to make sure that funding is getting to the smallest of 
the smalls. I think there is more work to be done there, and I 
certainly hope that I am confirmed and can help ensure that aid 
is getting to the right mom-and-pop businesses, because they 
are the backbone of our economy.
    Mr. Chairman, I think I touched on most of it. I certainly 
want to continue to work on that, and we also, after this 
package, hopefully the Senate comes to conclusion on this week, 
we will have to continue to monitor and make sure we get 
vaccines to everyone and work with Congress if we need another 
package. We have to crush the virus to have a quick economic 
recovery.
    Chairman Peters. Thank you. Mr. Miller?
    Mr. Miller. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Peters, and I 
appreciate the question.
    First and foremost, I agree with Ms. Young. Issue No. 1 in 
front of us is tackling the pandemic, beating back the 
pandemic, and providing economic relief to Americans, both to 
address the current struggles and to create a foundation for 
recovery. If confirmed, in my role as Deputy Director for 
Management, one key first priority is making sure that we are 
operating effectively, efficiently, minimizing waste, and 
delivering relief, delivering on getting vaccines to people, 
with shots in their arms fast, consistent with the laws enacted 
by the Congress.
    The second piece that I think is important and critical at 
this time is ensuring that all Federal agencies are delivering 
on their critical missions, even while they are learning to 
operate in new and different ways in order to keep Federal 
workers safe, to keep Americans safe in the delivery of those 
services.
    So both OMB's central role in tackling the overall issue 
and making sure that the entirety of the Federal Government is 
operating effectively and safely is absolutely critical, and I 
would look forward to the opportunity, if confirmed, to work 
with this Committee to make sure we are doing just that.
    Chairman Peters. Thank you. Both of you have mentioned the 
need for us to get vaccines out as quickly as possible and get 
it into as many arms as possible, and clearly that is the best 
way for us to get to the other side of this pandemic.
    Ms. Young, you and I had an opportunity to talk earlier 
about that, and particularly my concern, which I know you fully 
share, is the need to make sure that underserved communities 
and communities of color have the response in the national 
crisis or localized crisis that in the past they may not have 
received. Clearly we need to make sure the vaccine distribution 
is going and fully available to communities of color and other 
vulnerable communities, and rural communities.
    What role do you see playing in that effort?
    Ms. Young. Senator, as pointed out in this hearing several 
times, I think OMB has wide berth in being able to work with 
the agencies, and certainly with the Department of Health and 
Human Services (HHS). I would certainly be interested in being 
a part of the solution, I think. I watched my own family--I 
have a 92-year-old grandmother--have to search for a vaccine. 
She should be at the front of the line. It should not be 
difficult to find that.
    I certainly know each of the States faces their own 
challenges. I think there is more of a role for the Federal 
Government to ensure that there are some baselines being met 
across the States to ensure vulnerable populations are taken 
care of. And just simple placement of where you put vaccine 
distribution can make a huge difference. I certainly look 
forward to working with you on this very important issue.
    Chairman Peters. Thank you. Earlier this week, the 
Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report, 
requested by Senator Carper, me, and Senator Johnson, showing 
that the previous administration made very little progress in 
addressing polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) contamination 
across our country. These are basically toxic-forever 
chemicals.
    Ms. Young, given OMB's role in reviewing science-based 
public health and environmental protections and supporting the 
Federal Government's efforts to address PFAS contamination, how 
will you ensure that Federal agencies make real progress to 
protecting our drinking water and expediting the cleanup of 
these sites?
    Ms. Young. Senator, during my confirmation process I have 
not been at the administration part of decisions. My 
understanding is EPA and OMB are working expeditiously, 
especially on the hazardous label for something I think we all 
recognize, in a bipartisan manner, is a hazardous chemical that 
has been used in many ways but also by our Federal Government, 
by the Department of Defense (DOD) a lot for firefighting. 
There are lots of communities who now, I think rightfully, look 
to their Federal Government and ask, ``What are you going to do 
to help clean this up?''
    I do believe OMB also has a role in ensuring that we have 
enough Federal resources to help those communities, where the 
Federal Government has used those chemicals.
    Chairman Peters. Thank you. The last real quick question 
that can be answered yes or no by each of you. If confirmed, do 
you commit to ensuring swift OMB review of agency actions to 
address the PFAS crisis. Ms. Young?
    Ms. Young. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Peters. Mr. Miller?
    Mr. Miller. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Peters. Great. Good to hear from both of you. 
Thank you again.
    Ranking Member Portman.
    Senator Portman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and again, thank 
you both for being here and your testimony so far this morning. 
We talked about COVID-19 a minute ago, and I just have to 
interject here. I believe we need new legislation on COVID-19, 
but I think it needs to be far more targeted than what we have 
before us. As an example, the $1.9 trillion is more money than 
we spend in annual appropriations bill, on the discretionary 
spending side. Is that true, Ms. Young? How much do we spend 
every year in Congress----
    Ms. Young. About 1.4.
    Senator Portman. About 1.4 The 1.9 alone is more than we 
spend in an entire year on discretionary spending. The question 
is, where is that money? Some of it is going to good purposes. 
I think the health care side is really important, the vaccine 
distribution and development. Some of it is going to areas 
that, frankly, have a lot of money right now, because less than 
half, we are told, of what was just appropriated at the end of 
the year has actually gone out, which was $900 billion.
    I guess my question to you is, will you work with us in the 
future to make these things more targeted, to be sure taxpayer 
money is well used? With regard to the economy, Mr. Miller, you 
said you thought we needed new legislation to create a 
foundation for our future economic growth. Do you not believe 
the economy is growing now? In January, we had a 10 percent 
increase in income, in household income. The Congressional 
Budget Office (CBO), which is a nonpartisan group up here, 
tells us that the economy is growing, and they believe by 
halfway through this year, we will be back to where we were 
pre-pandemic, in terms of our gross domestic product (GDP).
    I guess a couple of questions. One, will you work with us 
on a more targeted approach, and will you work with us on 
ensuring we have economic growth? By the way, CBO says that 
will happen without any new stimulus. A new report out today 
saying only 20 percent of the money that was in the stimulus 
checks last time actually got spent. The rest of it was mostly 
saved.
    I wonder if you have any thoughts on that, both of you, for 
going forward, how do we work together better?
    Ms. Young. Senator Portman, thank you for that question. 
You have my commitment to work with you on a whole litany of 
things, and certainly on any future need for stimulus in the 
economy. I think we can only solve this together, so you 
certainly have my commitment to working on that. I think you 
have seen some evidence of a willingness by this 
administration. I have not been a part of it. I have not seen 
the final Senate package, but I think if reports are true there 
has been a willingness to look at some more targeting of those 
funds.
    So you certainly have my commitment, and I think the 
administration, as we speak, is working with Senators to ensure 
that there is targeted relief to the American people.
    Senator Portman. Thank you. Mr. Miller?
    Mr. Miller. Thank you, Senator, Ranking Member Portman. 
Thank you for the question, and I concur with Ms. Young on my 
commitment to work with you, Members of this Committee. First, 
on the overall current situation that we are in 10 million 
Americans are out of work. Measures like weekly unemployment 
insurance claims are still historically high, so I think we 
face deep economic challenges. But you are correct that the GDP 
numbers, the GDP growth rates, have been high.
    The issues even prior to the pandemic were deep-seated, and 
I think we need to take appropriate investment looking forward, 
once we make sure we have a strong foundation in place 
regarding our recovery. Irrespective, if confirmed in my role 
as Deputy Director for Management, I would welcome the 
opportunity to work with you and Members of the Committee to 
make sure that we are operating the programs that have been 
enacted by the Congress efficiently and effectively, including 
addressing concerns that have been raised in past programs or 
new programs.
    Senator Portman. Including going after fraud? Would you 
make a commitment to that today?
    Mr. Miller. Yes. Yes, sir.
    Senator Portman. As we talked about earlier.
    I was pleased to see President Biden sign an Executive 
Order (EO) with the intent of striking the Buy America Act, and 
in some ways it actually mirrors our bipartisan BuyAmerican.gov 
bill. In other ways, the Executive Order actually weakens the 
domestic content requirements, specifically by replacing 
existing component test with a new value-added test that 
actually reduces the procurement of U.S. content.
    Will you commit to correcting this problem and to protect 
the integrity of the Buy America Act.
    Mr. Miller. Ranking Member Portman, thank you for the 
question. I commend you for your work and leadership on this 
issue. I think it is critical that our procurement policies are 
enacting strong domestic preference requirements. As I 
understand it, the intent of the Executive Order is to do just 
that and make sure that procurement is increasing the amount of 
domestic economic activity, and you have my commitment to work 
with you to ensure that it does just that.
    Senator Portman. I hope you will work with Senator Murphy 
and me on our legislation, which codifies some of what was just 
done but actually, I think, does a better job of protecting 
American workers.
    Ms. Young and Mr. Miller, last year Senator Carper and I 
introduced a bill called the Safeguarding American Innovation 
Act as a result of two investigations by this Committee 
regarding Confucius Institutes, in one case, and Thousand 
Talents Program, China's Thousand Talents Program in the other 
case. The legislation would help stop foreign governments, 
particularly China, from stealing American technology. This is 
usually taxpayer-funded research and intellectual property.
    A critical part of the legislation would establish a 
Federal Research Security Council at OMB to close the gap we 
identified in coordination and information sharing among the 
various Federal agencies that provide most of the funding for 
that research.
    Would you commit to supporting the Safeguarding America 
Innovation Act?
    Ms. Young. Senator Portman, I am more than familiar with 
the goals. I have not seen every detail of the act, but I am 
committed to working with you on that legislation to make sure 
the goals of it are implemented. It makes common sense to make 
sure our research is protected, and you certainly have my 
commitment to work with you on that.
    Senator Portman. Great. We will get you the legislation and 
we would love to have your help. Mr. Miller?
    Mr. Miller. Thank you, Ranking Member Portman. I agree, it 
is a key issue in making sure that our research enterprise, our 
academic institutions are protected, and would welcome the 
opportunity to work with you on that issue.
    Senator Portman. OK. On permitting reform, we talked about 
this in our conversations and I appreciate your support, 
generally, for the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act 
(FAST-41) bill I co-sponsored in 2015, a bipartisan bill that 
establishes Federal Permitting Improvement Council, by the way, 
which has saved well over $1 billion in terms of permitting, 
and many years of permitting for major projects.
    We, specifically, gave OMB a big role. It was a fight, 
frankly, with the Obama Administration, and they conceded at 
the end and gave you, if you are to be confirmed, at OMB, the 
coordinating rule as putting together the council and 
coordinating these large projects that would be covered. I 
appreciated our conversations again, and I want to ensure that 
we can work together to lift the sunset that is otherwise going 
to happen on FAST-41.
    I want to ask you now, in this forum, will you commit to 
working with me to pass a sunset removal for FAST-41 that 
retains the current law as written?
    Ms. Young. It is hard to argue with success, and the act 
has had a lot of success, so I would certainly commit to 
working with you on the sunset removal.
    Senator Portman. Thank you. Mr. Miller?
    Mr. Miller. I would absolutely commit to working with you 
on it. Reported benefits of the Permitting Council thus far are 
substantial, and I think it is worth considering infrastructure 
investment, increased infrastructure investment is absolutely 
imperative that Federal permitting is working and working 
efficiently.
    Senator Portman. Great. My time has expired. I have so many 
more questions for you, but I have a sense that we will 
probably have an opportunity to have that conversation over the 
next couple of years. So thank you for your answers today and 
for your commitment to service.
    Chairman Peters. Thank you, Ranking Member. The chair 
recognizes Senator Hassan for her questions.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HASSAN

    Senator Hassan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and Ranking 
Member Portman. Thank you to both of our nominees this morning, 
and thank you and your families for your willingness to serve. 
We greatly appreciate it.
    I want to start with a question to Ms. Young. A few weeks 
ago, I asked Ms. Tanden to commit to completing the Federal 
Program Inventory. Having this inventory will improve 
transparency and help eliminate wasteful spending by allowing 
policymakers and the public to access information about Federal 
costs and programs.
    If confirmed, will you also commit to completing the 
inventory and working with me to eliminate programs that are 
duplicative, wasteful, or no longer necessary?
    Ms. Young. You absolutely have my commitment.
    Senator Hassan. Thank you. Now a question to both of you. I 
just want to discuss Federal information technology (IT) 
systems. Information technology supports all Federal 
operations, from accessing health care to combating terrorism, 
so we need those who craft policies, as you both would do, if 
confirmed, to recognize how IT shapes program outcomes, drives 
costs, and delivers a level of service that the American people 
expect in the 21st century.
    If confirmed, will you ensure that agencies analyze the 
impacts that their information technology systems may have on 
programs costs and the ability of the agency to meet program 
goals? Ms. Young?
    Ms. Young. Senator, I would add another topic, improper 
payments and fraud. I think data is central to that and some of 
the lackluster information technology systems helps ensure that 
we cannot fix that problem. So you certainly have my commitment 
to working on those issues.
    Senator Hassan. Thank you. Mr. Miller?
    Mr. Miller. Senator Hassan, thank you for the question. I 
absolutely commit to working with you on this topic. I think as 
we step back it is safe to say that we are not getting adequate 
return on investment (ROI) today on our IT investments, as a 
Federal Government. We have made progress, as I understand it, 
but there is a lot more to do. There is clearly the element 
around cybersecurity, where modernizing our IT systems would 
improve our overall cyber posture, and there is investment 
within the American Rescue Plan to support of that, but I hope 
that is an issue that we can work together on to further those 
goals.
    Senator Hassan. Thank you. I appreciate that, and I am 
going to follow up a little bit more on the whole issue of 
legacy IT, with you, Ms. Young, and then with you, Mr. Miller.
    So to Ms. Young, last year the Federal Government spent $90 
billion on IT systems. About one-third of those funds, $29 
billion, was spent on maintaining legacy systems. As I 
discussed with Comptroller General Dodaro earlier this week, 
legacy systems can create compounding technical debt, leading 
to increased costs and security vulnerabilities and preventing 
the Federal Government from meeting the customer service 
expectations of the American people.
    The Office of Management and Budget plays a critical role 
in eliminating antiquated systems and technical debt, and 
holding agencies accountable for sticking to their 
modernization plans, and you both just talked about different 
ways that our being behind here has impacted our current 
systems.
    So to you, Ms. Young, if confirmed, will you commit to 
modernizing legacy IT systems to improve services for citizens 
and save taxpayer dollars?
    Ms. Young. I commit to that. I also, from my current seat 
on the Appropriations Committee, it is going to take resources. 
We have dealt with budget caps over the last 10 years, and when 
your choice is between programs that impact families and IT 
systems, sometimes IT systems have not won out.
    Senator Hassan. Right. Let me get to that, because one of 
the major challenges here in eliminating legacy systems and 
replacement them with cost-effective modern systems is the 1-
year budget and appropriations cycle, which cannot always 
accommodate the time it takes for agencies to plan and execute 
system upgrades.
    So how are you going to work with agencies and Congress 
appropriators to ensure that the agencies have the flexibility 
that they need to commit to modernization efforts?
    Senator Hassan. Senator, the group of bipartisan members on 
the House and Senate side I think envision the Technology 
Modernization Fund (TMF) to help solve some of those problems. 
So have a centralized place. You may not get everything the 
first year, but have funding in one place so GSA, with OMB's 
assistance, can look across those agencies and do some forward 
planning and not just on an annual basis, which I do agree with 
you is probably not the best way to budget for technology 
investments.
    Senator Hassan. Thank you. I appreciate that answer. I look 
forward to working with you on it.
    Mr. Miller, a big driver of costs associated with legacy IT 
systems is the need for specialized programmers rather than the 
more generalized IT and security personnel that can adapt 
systems as they evolve. This issue speaks to the Federal 
Government workforce challenges more broadly, namely that we 
are failing to hire and retain a highly skilled workforce to 
meet agency missions.
    How will you address the critical need to hire and retain a 
skilled and diverse workforce, especially when it comes to 
Federal IT?
    Mr. Miller. Senator Hassan, thank you for that important 
question. Not only inside the Federal Government but also many 
contractors have to maintain skills solely for the operation of 
Federal IT systems, as you know well. Technical talent, both in 
IT and other places, is going to be a critical element of how 
we think about the Federal workforce. One aspect of that needs 
to be inspiring more Americans to serve. The public service 
aspect has brought may technologists into the U.S. Government 
through U.S. Digital Service (USDS) and other places where we 
can bring people in and rotate them across agencies to tackle 
these. But it is a bigger issue than just that, and we need to 
work with the Chief Information Officers (CIOs), make sure we 
have strong CIOs and agencies, and we are addressing the need 
and being flexible and creative. I would look forward to the 
opportunity to work with you on that.
    Senator Hassan. Thank you very much. Thank you both for 
your answers, for your work, and for your willingness to serve. 
I yield the rest of my time.
    Chairman Peters. Thank you, Senator Hassan. The chair 
recognizes Senator Paul for your questions.

               OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PAUL

    Senator Paul. Ms. Young, we face a $27 trillion deficit. We 
are borrowing a little over $2 million every minute. That means 
we will borrow $50 million, in the next 25 minutes. It is 
extraordinary where we are.
    You have been vocal in your support for earmarks, and we 
have not done earmarks around for a while, when the Republicans 
were in charge. I think maybe it is important that we review 
where some of these earmarks have been going in the past.
    Most people remember the Bridge to Nowhere. This was a $400 
million on a bridge and road to nowhere. It served about 50 
people in Alaska. It was lampooned for years. There was also 
$350 million we spent on an A-3 rocket test stand in a 
Senator's home State. It was completed in 2014, 4 years after 
the program it was designed to be used for was shuttered. 
Earmarks do not have a great history in our country.
    We spent $1 million on a former residence of Thomas Stone, 
a marginal historical figure who argued for reconciliation with 
the British, before signing the Declaration of Independence. 
The house was bought in exchange for a Maryland Congressman's 
vote on a National Parks bill. This is what would happen in the 
past. If they wanted you to vote for something, they say, 
``Well, was your grandmother prominent in her community? We 
will do grandmother's museum for you.'' That literally was 
happening under earmarks.
    A million dollars was spent on exhibits and films for the 
Woodstock Museum. Now some of these things got put in, and then 
someone finally had some sense and took them back out. This one 
never got built, fortunately. Fifty million dollars on a 4.5-
acre indoor tropical rainforest in Iowa, that was never built, 
but was stuck in by a Senator and then fortunately was removed. 
This is sort of the history of earmarks. They are sort of the 
worst of what government represents. I am troubled that this is 
something you voice support for.
    There is $22 million put in a secret DOD program to 
investigate unidentified flying object (UFO) sightings. This 
was one of Senator Reed's passions. I do not think we have to 
go further into discussion of whether or not that is a good use 
of taxpayer money. Fifty thousand dollars to the Detroit 
Institute of Bagels--there is one we really think we need to 
spend some money on. Ninety thousand dollars to create audio 
tours of the National Cowgirl Museum and Hall of Fame. Five 
hundred thousand dollars to the Teapot Hall of Fame, which 
closed before construction was completed. Five hundred thousand 
dollars to travel for high school exchange programs between 
Philadelphia and the Virgin Islands.
    The history of earmarks is not one of our you know, putting 
our best foot forward. I worry that you would go to OMB and 
this is a philosophy that you would bring there, because you 
have publicly advocated for these.
    In the most recent bill, we have $140 million for 
Congressman Pelosi's tunnel in her district. We have $1.5 
million in it for Senator Schumer, for a bridge in his State. I 
think that we really need to look long and hard at this.
    At the peak of earmarking, in 2006, Members of Congress 
added nearly 10,000 pet projects, costing the taxpayer nearly 
$29 billion. During a 10-year period, the earmarks rose, in 
1996, from about 1,000 to 14,000. I think we finally had one 
transportation bill that had 6,000 earmarks on one 
transportation bill, and there literally was stuff named after 
people's grandmothers or somebody prominent in their district. 
They would say, ``Oh, we will do a museum for them.''
    Studies estimated that for every dollar companies spent 
lobbying, they bought $28 in earmarks. At one point, 60 percent 
of the House Armed Services Committee members were channeling 
earmarks to campaign contributors. When they did a reform and 
they said you had to attach your name to the earmark you put 
on, to sort of shame people into this, they found that of the 
81 House and Senate appropriators, who made up 15 percent of 
Congress, they were responsible for 51 percent of the earmarks 
and 61 percent of the money spent.
    So I guess considering where we are on the debt, I would 
like to think why you think it would be a good idea to go back 
to earmarks.
    Ms. Young. Senator, thank you for the question and the 
opportunity to talk about this issue. The first commentary I 
have is the Constitution is very clear about who gets to 
appropriate, and it is Congress, out of the three equal 
branches. It will be your decision, congressional decision, 
House and Senate, on how you spend Federal dollars. If 
confirmed, I think it would be my role, at OMB, to implement 
what you have passed.
    I certainly appreciate any past comments I may have made. I 
am a staffer so doubt I have made many public comments, as you 
have staff. Our bosses tend to make comments. But I believe 
there is going to be a lively debate about how you choose, as 
the Constitution dictates, and I certainly hope to be 
confirmed, and on matters of the budget, if technical 
assistance is needed, if confirmed at OMB, we will be happy to 
provide that. But it is Congress' role to spend dollars.
    Senator Paul. You are right, and Congress will make the 
decision, not you. Do you favor earmarks? Do you think they are 
a good idea?
    Ms. Young. Senator, I certainly think the word ``earmarks'' 
has taken on one definition. I think we earmark now. How do you 
fund the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) or highway 
projects without earmarking? They are in a place, and they cost 
money. So there are some Federal programs that are earmarked, 
by the very definition of being directed, being in someone's 
district or State.
    Senator Paul. But I guess the difference is this. So, for 
example, when Robert Byrd was here he paved about every inch of 
West Virginia because he had the power to do it and he had been 
here forever. I have a bridge that has needed to be fixed, and 
had to have repairs, and we had people lined up for 10 miles on 
either side of it, but I do not think it would be right for me 
to fix this one bridge in there ahead of others. I think what 
would be appropriate is we lay out the rules on which bridges 
should be fixed.
    So you are right. Congress has an obligation. We should not 
just send it to the President, who could then earmark it, which 
would be a mistake. We should say bridges that have the most 
traffic, are the oldest, have had the most repairs, we should 
set the rules for then the Department of Transportation, and 
then ultimately you would think the decision would be made by 
engineers. But that is not the history of earmarks. The history 
of earmarks is the longer you have been here, the more stuff 
you get, and it is true on both sides of the aisle, Republican 
and Democrat. The longer you are here, the more stuff you get 
under the earmark regime, and there has been a little bit less 
of that.
    But I think it is a real mistake to advocate for earmarks 
and to be blase about it, because I think our country really is 
suffering under a great burden of debt, and OMB has some 
oversight in that. So being in favor of earmarks, to me, is not 
a good thing.
    Ms. Young. Thank you, Senator.
    Chairman Peters. Thank you, Senator. Senator Romney, you 
are recognized for your questions.
    Senator Carper. Mr. Chairman, Tom Carper here. Do you know 
where I am in the queue, please?
    Chairman Peters. Senator Carper, we have Senator Romney. 
There are others that are going to be coming that are ahead of 
Senator Romney that are not here yet, but after him you are 
one, two, three, four on the list after Senator Romney, but 
there are one, two, three that may arrive that are ahead of 
Senator Romney, so maybe a few. We will let you know when we 
are getting close.
    Senator Carper. Mr. Chairman, I checked in early. Something 
is wrong with your list. I would just ask that somebody check 
it, OK? Thank you.
    Chairman Peters. My clerk says that you were not checked 
in.
    Senator Carper. Not true. I will talk to the clerk later.
    Chairman Peters. Yes. We will be back to you offline, 
Senator Carper.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROMNEY

    Senator Romney. These Democrats go at each other tooth and 
nail. It is amazing.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I recall during the years of the 
last administration, particularly before the COVID crisis 
occurred, that there was a period of great, robust economic 
growth, and despite that we were generating nearly $1 trillion 
a year in deficits, which, of course, added to the debt. I get 
a text message every morning that tells me what the debt is 
today, and actually yesterday it went over $28 trillion in 
national debt.
    There was a member of the last administration--maybe I am 
paraphrasing--but basically he said, ``Debt is good.'' When 
asked, ``Hey, are you concerned about all this debt, and the 
trillion-dollar deficits?'' he said, ``No, debt is good.'' Do 
you believe debt is good at the level we have and at the level 
we keep adding to it, even during good years?
    Ms. Young. Senator, I would use a different word, not 
``good'' but ``OK.'' I think it is manageable. I would never 
say debt is good, but I think it is OK with interest rates 
being as low as they are, and the tools the Fed has. I think we 
remain, thankfully, in a good place to continue to combat the 
pandemic the way we have.
    Senator Romney. Yes. I am not talking about the pandemic 
necessarily. I am talking about the annual deficits we run of 
roughly $1 trillion. The challenge is, yes, interest rates are 
low now, but if interest rates go up and we still have the 
debt, we have to pay the interest. So last year we spent $390 
billion in interest. If interest rates go back to their normal 
level we will spend $1 trillion a year in interest, which would 
overwhelm our Federal budget.
    I am concerned, in the COVID relief plan, that the 
President--by the way, I fully support helping people that need 
help, helping States and businesses that need help. I am 
concerned that in the current plan there is a lot of excess 
that is just going to add to the debt without creating a 
benefit to our economy or helping people that are in need.
    I am concerned, for instance, that under the plan many 
States that had no revenue loss or no deficit as a result of 
COVID and no unreimbursed COVID expenses, that they nonetheless 
are going to get billions and billions of dollars. I see that 
as a problem. Do you feel that is a problem as well?
    Ms. Young. Senator, I have always looked at it--and I 
worked on the coronavirus relief fund. We did $160 billion in 
bipartisan Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security 
(CARES) bill. That money ran out in December. I have always 
looked at that fund is not just a revenue loss fund but one 
that is meant to, and designed to provide fiscal relief. So 
those States who are doing increased vaccine distribution, that 
have increased costs, this fund is also to ensure that they 
provide needed services.
    I have looked beyond revenue loss as one of the----
    Senator Romney. Of course. So what I am saying is, if a 
State had no net revenue loss--we had 21 States that revenue 
has gone up every year, even during the pandemic, 21, revenues 
have gone up, and we have reimbursed all their excess COVID 
expenses, and we have raised the Federal Medical Assistance 
Percentages (FMAP), so we provided greater support for their 
Medicaid. So these are States that are in fine financial shape.
    California, for instance, I understand their budget surplus 
this year is roughly $20 billion, and yet under the President's 
plan we anticipate giving California another $27 billion. That 
does not make sense to me. Does this make sense to you?
    Ms. Young. Yes, sir, if you consider the regular budget did 
not account for pandemic. So if we want States to step in and 
do a lot of these COVID relief activities----
    Senator Romney. But all the COVID relief activities were 
reimbursed through the CARES Act, and anything not reimbursed 
is appropriately to be reimbursed. So I am saying, if the 
Federal Government agrees to provide all the funding necessary 
to reimburse COVID expenses that a State has, and it fills 
their budget gap from loss of revenue, I do not see a reason to 
give even more money to that State. I hope you will look at. I 
think it is----
    Ms. Young. I am happy to, sir, and, we have certainly 
talked about bipartisanship. This is one. Certainly some of the 
Governors and locals of both parties have given us data that 
says they are not just in need because of revenue loss but 
because of the extra requirements for their citizens.
    Senator Romney. I can assure you, as a former Governor, if 
the Federal Government is going to be handing out billions of 
dollars, I am going to have my hand out to get as much as I 
can. But these are dollars that are going to be paid for by our 
kids and our grandkids, that are being loaned to us by the 
Chinese, among others. We have to be really careful of what we 
send out. What is being proposed, in the President's plan, is 
really not in line with what the actual results are that are 
being seen by States, because States are continuing to receive 
revenue. They receive revenue from income tax, from property 
taxes, at the local level, of course. And so States are not 
seeing the kind of pain that some States are. The States that 
feel pain, got to help them. The States that do not feel pain, 
we should not be sending them billions of dollars that we are 
borrowing for our kids to have to pay back.
    On a different topic, on our trust funds, we have a lot of 
trust funds in trouble, as you know. The Highway Trust Fund 
(HTF) runs out of money this year. Medicare's hospital 
insurance trust fund runs out in 2024. Social Security 
disability trust fund, 2026. Social security retirement fund in 
2031.
    In December, 71 Senators voted for an amendment to the 
budget resolution on the importance of extending the solvency 
of these trust funds, one by one. They specifically called for 
creating individual, bipartisan, bicameral subcommittees to 
look at each one of those trust funds and find a bipartisan 
solution to get each one of those on a solvent basis. Is this 
effort one that you are willing to support and work with as we 
proceed?
    Ms. Young. Senator, I think that is the only way we are 
going to find solutions is through a bipartisan one, where 
Congress works together and the administration works in 
partnerships. So you absolutely have my commitment to support 
such an effort.
    Senator Romney. Thank you.
    Mr. Miller, what consulting firm did you work with?
    Mr. Miller. The Boston Consulting Group.
    Senator Romney. Oh, The Boston Consulting Group. I worked 
there once too. Very fine group. Smart people. I hope you bring 
some of that skill and capability to the new assignment you 
have.
    Can you tell me precisely what are the responsibilities in 
the assignment you would receive? What are the key deliverables 
that you have in the assignment that you are looking to be 
confirmed to?
    Mr. Miller. Senator Romney, thank you for the question. As 
I understand it, the Deputy Director for Management, which was 
created in 1990 by the Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Act, both 
to look at Federal financial management at a time when it was 
quite poor across agencies, as well as look at a broad set of 
general management functions, is to play the central OMB role 
of ensuring that (1) agencies are delivering on their missions 
through clear and consistent policy and guidance on execution 
performance; (2) we have the right policies in place, working 
with the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) on the Federal 
workforce, that we are looking at our technology systems, both 
from a cybersecurity standpoint and from a delivery standpoint, 
and that our procurement policy is consistent with both mission 
of the agencies as well as the broad set of policy goals, such 
as supporting small and disadvantages businesses, strengthening 
the American workforce through domestic preference 
requirements, and more broadly, serving as one of the leaders 
of OMB overall, to support all of OMB's broad missions.
    Senator Romney. I look forward to hearing a report on your 
success in carrying out those responsibilities. I also solicit 
your involvement in our effort to rein in the excesses in 
government, and particularly for us to tame the debt. As a guy 
who was once in the world of leveraged buyouts, I understand 
the value of debt and how you can use debt effectively. But I 
am concerned that the amount of debt we are adding to the 
country, even during good times, puts us in peril down the 
road.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your time.
    Senator Padilla [presiding]. Next we have Senator Rosen, 
joining virtually.

               OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROSEN

    Senator Rosen. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to 
thank both witnesses for being nominees, for being here today, 
for your willingness to serve our country, and I really 
appreciate it.
    I want to talk a little bit about nuclear testing, because 
in 1982, Congress passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, which 
was amended later to select a national and permanent geologic 
repository in Nevada for the nation's nuclear waste. However, 
because of funding shortfalls and, needless to say, strong 
local opposition, there thankfully still is no nuclear 
repository at Yucca Mountain. It is a fight that my colleagues, 
the Nevada congressional delegation and I, have had year after 
year.
    So this Committee just had a hearing earlier this week on 
reducing fraud, waste, and mismanagement across the Federal 
Government and to push to revive the failed Yucca Mountain 
project. It is a prime example of potential government waste. 
My Jobs Not Waste Act would provide 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. No. 1, the Director of 
OMB submits a study to Congress on the economic viability and 
job-creating benefits of alternative uses of the Yucca Mountain 
site, and two, Congress holds a hearing on the economic 
benefits of an alternative use of Yucca Mountain site.
    So OMB, you drive Executive Branch policies and priorities, 
so naturally your office is going to have a large role in this, 
in reviewing these in the future. So, Ms. Young, I would like 
you to respond to a couple of questions. If confirmed, will you 
pledge to not fund licensing, construction, or nuclear waste 
storage at the Yucca Mountain site, consistent with recent 
pledges made by Energy Secretary Granholm and consistent with 
President Biden's commitments?
    Ms. Young. Senator Rosen, one, I certainly, from my current 
role on the Appropriations Committee, appreciate that we will 
be guided by congressional budgets that come, so certainly I 
commit to you to working on this issue. I understand the 
intense--I do not want to get this wrong, but I have worked 
with your colleagues in the House on this, and I understand the 
local issues that come with this. But you certainly have my 
commitment that we need to take a look at this very important 
issue and probably take a pause, but we also will be guided by 
what Congress sends us back in the budget.
    Senator Rosen. But building on that, will you commit to 
working with and the Nevada delegation to explore alternatives 
for the Yucca Mountain site? I have a lot of ideas on how we 
can actually use is, for national safety and security, as 
opposed to a nuclear repository.
    Ms. Young. You have my commitment to work with you on that 
issue and on the issue writ large of nuclear waste. It is very 
clear that it is going to take an approach that OMB, and I, 
hope to be a part of, working with you and your colleagues and 
the rest of Congress to find a comprehensive solution to 
nuclear waste. So you have my commitment on looking at 
alternative uses and also on the issue nuclear waste writ 
large.
    Senator Rosen. Thank you. I would like to actually talk a 
little bit about rural Nevada, because, Ms. Young, you wrote so 
movingly in your testimony about growing up in Clinton, 
Louisiana, a rural town of about 2,000 people, when you lived 
there.
    So my home State of Nevada has many vibrant rural 
communities, frontier communities. We are the most mountainous 
State in the Lower 48. But they are facing challenges as a 
result of COVID-19. I would love to get your perspective on how 
we can help lift up and empower rural America. So how was that 
growing up in rural America? How has it shaped your perspective 
in government and how does it relate to your investment in our 
rural communities?
    Ms. Young. Senator, it is very difficult when growing up in 
a small town to explain to those, I live in Washington, DC. 
now, but it is very difficult to really comprehend unless you 
grew up there how difficult it is, given the lack of access to 
even, cultural institutions, sometimes you have to travel for 
education. I was born two towns over, a hospital. So it is hard 
to quantify sometimes how difficult it is to get a leg up 
coming from rural communities.
    I think one thing we heard a lot of this year from the 
coronavirus perspective is, we just talked about State and 
local funding, is we gave, in the CARES Act, funding to States 
and large metropolitan areas, 500,000 or more. There was an 
outcry from mayors of smaller towns, that they did not see 
those resources trickle down. I certainly appreciate the effort 
Congress is taking now to make sure smaller areas are 
beneficiaries of these direct payments, because they have costs 
without a lot of tax base.
    Senator Rosen. Yes, I think you are right, and I really 
want to discuss the critical rural health care issues, just 
like you mentioned. We want to ensure that there is a clear and 
equitable process for our graduate medical education slots to 
be distributed in the areas that need them the most and address 
those provider shortages, particularly in our rural areas. So 
how do you think OMB can help us with that?
    Ms. Young. Senator, I am happy to work with you and your 
office on specific concerns. Those are ones, again, unless you 
have grown up there it is hard to imagine not having access to 
adequate care, sometimes no care, and having to travel, in 
cases of emergency. I know residencies and graduate medical 
education can fill some of those holes, so I will happily 
commit to you to working on this issue with HHS, and certainly 
OMB as a coordinating role on most things, we will certainly 
work with you on that.
    Senator Rosen. Thank you. I know my time is about to expire 
so you can respond to my question on the record in writing. But 
I really want to talk about how we prioritize modernizing our 
IT systems. We have seen during COVID, whether it is 
unemployment or so many other of our IT systems that are the 
platforms for what we need to do. They are not nimble enough, 
they are not robust enough, and I would love to have that 
conversation with you about IT modernization. But my time has 
expired so we will have to save that conversation.
    Ms. Young. I would love to continue talking to you about 
it, Senator.
    Senator Rosen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Padilla. Next in the queue is Senator Scott. I do 
not see Senator Scott in the hearing room. He will be joining 
virtually. Senator Scott, going once, going twice. We will come 
back to him when he joins.
    Senator Hawley would be next, also not in the hearing room. 
Are we virtual, Senator Hawley? Going once, going twice, we 
will come back to him.
    Then it comes to me, followed by Senator Johnson, who is 
waiting, and Lankford after that.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PADILLA

    So a couple of items I wanted to touch on with both of you. 
In prior hearings, to your counterpart nominees, I have had a 
chance to ask questions generally about equity, and using the 
budget together with policy to advance equity. We have touched 
on what it means in the COVID context, in the climate change 
and environmental justice context, in the context of housing 
and homelessness and others.
    The question I actually wanted to prioritize for today is 
one that speaks more toward management and leadership. We know 
that after years of persistent attacks on Federal employees--
and public employees, more broadly--during the last 
administration, we face significant challenges in the 
recruitment and retention of a talented Federal workforce, and 
especially a diverse, talented Federal workforce.
    The Federal Government seems to be falling behind in the 
hiring of the workforce for tomorrow. A year ago, only 7.3 
percent of the Federal workforce was under the age of 30, 
compared to 23 percent in the private sector. Add to that the 
recognition, both by number and percentage of Federal 
employees, particularly at the senior levels, upper management 
and leadership, that are eligible to retire in the next decade.
    It begs to question, are we prepared to do the proper 
succession planning, to maintain that continuity of leadership 
throughout Federal Government, and coupled with that, the need 
to promote diversity. It seems to remain an obstacle across the 
Federal workforce. People of color are overrepresented in 
entry-level positions but severely underrepresented in senior-
level and career Senior Executive Service (SES) positions. 
Federal agencies must take meaningful, proactive steps to 
recruit the workforce of the future while promoting diversity, 
equity, and inclusion.
    So a question for both you, Ms. Young, and for Mr. Miller. 
What can we do? What ideas and commitments can you commit to, 
to leverage the funding process, to improve the recruiting of a 
young, diverse cohort of professionals, and also what can we do 
to further strengthen the morale of our current workforce to 
help on the retention side of things? Mr. Miller.
    Mr. Miller. Senator Padilla, thank you for the question and 
I commend you for focusing on this issue. Successful 
organizations require talented, diverse, highly engaged teams. 
The data shows that repeatedly. When we look at the Federal 
Government, as you noted at the end of your comments, the 
engagement levels, the morale levels are not where they should 
be. The opportunity to serve our country is a privilege, and 
the Federal workforce is filled with dedicated, talented 
individuals, and we need to empower them to fully do their 
jobs.
    First I think, you noted this, but we do need to broaden 
the sources of recruitment into the Federal Government, 
including by inspiring more people to serve. This includes a 
focus on diversity and inclusion. It also includes a focus on 
technical talent. We need to look at any bottlenecks in the 
system to bring people in, and it is something that in my role, 
if confirmed as Deputy Director for Management, I would be 
willing to work with you, and am excited to work with you and 
Members of this Committee on, work closely with OPM, with the 
Chief Human Capital Officers (CHCO) council, across Federal 
agencies, to make sure we are empowering, lifting up, engaging 
with, and skilling our Federal workforce for our needs today 
and tomorrow.
    Senator Padilla. Ms. Young.
    Ms. Young. I would like to add, one, I agree with 
everything Jason has stated. From my experience, I started at 
the government as a Presidential management fellow. I was lucky 
to find a brochure in a Dean's office in New Orleans. It turns 
out if you were on the East Coast and in school you knew all 
about this program; not so much from other parts of the 
country. I think we have to do a better job of where we recruit 
around the country. I think people will travel. They will serve 
their country. They just do not know a lot of opportunities 
exist.
    I think we can go to community colleges. We need to expand 
where we go look for talent and do a better job. We certainly 
need to do it in these areas we are having trouble recruiting, 
in the technology place. Not everything is about money, and I 
think people are motivated to serve their government, but we 
certainly cannot create hurdles. I have experienced it, where 
you go look for a job on USAJobs and it is not the easiest to 
do.
    I think we need to, as Jason said, remove hurdles from 
serving, in addition to improving our recruitment processes.
    Senator Padilla. Thank you both for that. With the less 
than 2 minutes I have left I wanted to tee up another question 
and allow for both of you to respond to a dynamic that was 
raised earlier in the hearing, and that is the wisdom or 
strategy behind supporting States at this time when some seem 
to be hurting more than others by the COVID-19 pandemic, from 
an economic impact standpoint, and some States experiencing, in 
my view, a false surplus.
    I can speak to California, my home State, but I imagine 
others that made significant cuts in the 2019-2020 fiscal year 
(FY), at the outset of the pandemic, and adopting 2020-2021 
fiscal year budgets that were, frankly, doomsday budgets, not 
knowing the depths of the reception. Some States have been 
buoyed by incredible performance in the stock market, right, 
Wall Street record highs, Dow Jones (DJI) record highs, while 
at the same time I see record lines at food banks and COVID 
testing sites.
    So can you just speak to some of the dynamics that you 
would take into consideration as we act on the wisdom of 
supporting States at this difficult time?
    Ms. Young. Thank you, Senator. You are absolutely right. 
There are some States who saw this coming, took some drastic 
steps, but we certainly cannot use those baselines. There has 
to be an explanation why there are certain people being overly 
left behind in this pandemic. State budgets have to balance. I 
appreciate the difficulties. Where the Federal Government, I 
think, can serve a role here, is to ensure that basic State 
functions can be brought up, and there are some populations 
that require more services during the pandemic, or we are going 
to have more of a wealth gap in this country.
    So more investments are needed. I would look at the 
homeless, the needs of the homeless. I do not think anyone can 
argue that we were doing too much or enough to fix the homeless 
situation. Maybe we should use the COVID pandemic to do better. 
And we saw that population was at more risk. We did not have a 
great handle before the pandemic. So there are some areas, 
especially with communities who were already behind in the 
pandemic, we need to ensure that State services not only stay 
the same but we do better.
    Senator Padilla. Thank you, Ms. Young. Mr. Miller, I see 
you eager to jump in. In the interest of time, let me just say 
that it will be an ongoing conversation. In closing, let me 
just acknowledge that some of the cuts, drastic actions taken 
by States, included deep cuts to the social safety net, No. 1, 
but also to State employees, both staffing levels as well as 
salaries. So that is not lost on me, and to the extent that we 
can help restore those baseline services I think that would 
serve us well.
    Next is Senator Johnson.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHNSON

    Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess I would 
just make a quick comment before I hop into my planned 
questions, is that we certainly have not done a very good job 
targeting what relief we have already authorized, the $4 
trillion. I really do not know how much of that is still left 
unspent. We are hearing somewhere around $1 trillion. So we 
have not done a very good job targeting it.
    First of all, thank you for your previous service in 
government. Thank you for your willingness to serve in this 
capacity. Do either of you dispute some of the economic figures 
I am reading about, that per capita real disposable income is 
up 5.5 percent in 2020, the total savings is up $1.6 trillion, 
that the bottom 20 percentile of wage-earners, the bottom 20 
percent, on average, received $45,000 in some kind of transfer 
payment from somewhere around 100 different transfer programs 
as well as tax credits? Do either of you dispute those numbers? 
Ms. Young. Mr. Miller.
    Mr. Miller. I do not dispute them. I am not familiar with 
the specifics.
    Senator Johnson. OK. So again, I know people are in need. I 
think what we should be doing is taking a look at targeting 
what we have already authorized. When you have literally got 
somewhere around $1 trillion not yet spent, something that is 
not even obligated, before we go rush off and try and pass 
another $1.9 trillion, adding to our $28 trillion in debt, it 
just seems more prudent to kind of take a look back at what 
worked, what did not work so well, and target it to those who 
truly need it.
    Let me just ask, one of the efforts of this Committee, 
twice we passed something called the Guidance Out of Darkness 
(GOOD) Act. I was very disappointed to see that President 
Biden, in one of his first Executive Orders, suspended that. 
Now, I am hoping you both understand what that is, but let me 
quickly describe. All it asks agencies to do is when they issue 
guidance on top of rules, regulations, and laws, the guidance 
that actually affects the business community and people's 
lives, that they publish what that guidance is. If they rescind 
the guidance, they take it off their website. Why in the world 
would the Biden administration rescind such a common-sense, 
good government transparency effort? Ms. Young.
    Ms. Young. Senator Johnson, you, I am sure, understand I 
have not been at the agency and a part of the administration, 
but you have my commitment to work with you and your staff to 
figure--I mean, clearly, transparency has to be--that is a 
central government tenet for people to trust its government. I 
am happy to look into what the decision was behind that and 
work with you and your staff on some of the particulars and any 
concerns the administration had when making that decision.
    Senator Johnson. OK. I appreciate that. I think we 
literally passed it out of this Committee, under my 
chairmanship, twice, I think unanimous bipartisan support. I 
could be wrong on that, but again, we passed it twice, with 
strong bipartisan support. Mr. Miller, will you also make the 
same commitment to look into this and hopefully encourage the 
Biden administration to publish guidance documents, just basic 
guidance?
    Mr. Miller. I share Ms. Young's commitment, and the general 
principle of guidance being transparent and readily accessible 
is the right one.
    Senator Johnson. OK. I really wanted to come down here, but 
just get commitment from OMB to provide Congress information. I 
really thought the Trump administration was pretty transparent, 
and certainly provided this Senator, and I think Congress in 
general, because there were reports they issued. For example, 
the details on what was spent of the $4 trillion that we had 
already authorized.
    One example of that is as we were considering the fourth 
COVID relief package, before the August recess, because of the 
information OMB provided, I was able to provide my colleagues 
with the fact that, at that point in time there was $1.2 
trillion that was unspent, and much of that was unobligated. So 
that certainly changed the debate within our conference.
    In the end, the result was within the Republican targeted 
bill, $350 billion of that--I think it was about $600 billion 
targeted bill--was repurposed from the previous bills, which to 
me makes sense. We all knew we had to do something fast, we had 
to do something massive. We knew it was going to be far from 
perfect.
    And so, again, that is just good governance, you do 
oversight, you take a look back and go, ``OK, well, that did 
not work out the way we planned. Let's target it better.''
    In the most recent package that actually passed in 
December, the $900 billion--again, because of that information 
we had from OMB, $600 billion of the $900 billion package that 
passed was repurposed. In other words, do not let that money 
sit out there unspent, and probably be poorly spent because it 
is not properly targeted. Let's repurpose it. Let's do a better 
job.
    So now here we sit, about ready to go on the floor of the 
Senate and barely debate, a $1.9 trillion bill. By the way, I 
was on the Senate floor yesterday. There are a number of 
analogies to highly what $1 trillion is. My wife has one in 
terms of time. If I give you a dollar every second it takes 
11.7 days, 11.6 days to give you $1 million. It takes almost 32 
years to give you $1 billion. It takes 32,000 years to give you 
$1 trillion. But I think the even better one is the volume one. 
A dollar bill is 4.3 thousandths-of-an-inch thick. If you stack 
$1.9 trillion on top of each other, it is over 130,000 miles. 
That is more than halfway to the moon. That is what we are 
talking about passing with a couple of days of debate.
    So one of the problems I have in providing relevant and 
effective amendments is I do not know how much of the $4 
trillion is unspent and unobligated to be able to craft my 
amendments effectively, to hopefully do a better job. I would 
hope that in this deliberative process that I am going to force 
on the Senate--vote-a-rama is supposed to be unlimited debate, 
unlimited amendments--I am going to hold us to that unlimited 
amendment pledge, so we can carefully consider just about every 
line item of this $1.9 trillion spending behemoth. But it would 
be very helpful if the Biden administration's OMB would provide 
Congress, all of us, exactly how much has been spent, what is 
unspent, and what is unobligated.
    I will just quick ask both of you--and I am running out of 
time--if you are confirmed to these positions, will you utilize 
your position at OMB to be transparent and provide Congress 
with this type of information that we are going to need moving? 
Because I have a feeling this is not going to be the last time 
we are considering some massive spending bill.
    Ms. Young. I have been in your seat where we have not 
gotten the information we needed to make critical decisions on 
the Appropriations Committee, so you certainly have my 
commitment to providing that type of information to both sides 
of the aisle.
    Senator Johnson. Mr. Miller.
    Mr. Miller. You also have my commitment, Senator, to 
provide transparent, timely information.
    Senator Johnson. So just in close, I have been using an 
example of 1993. There was a supplemental appropriation bill, 
about $1.95 billion, introduced by the Clinton Administration. 
The Senate deliberated, debated that for 12 days. What we are 
considering right now is 100 times larger than that. But 
because of that deliberative process, they whittled that $19.5 
billion package--again, we are talking about $1,900 billion, 
they whittled that down to $4 billion, and then it passed 
unanimously, because it was a bipartisan effort.
    I hope that is going to be the result of a more 
deliberative process over the course of hopefully many days. 
Again, we took 12 days to debate $19.5 billion, finally 
whittled it down to $4 billion. That would be, from my 
standpoint, a far more acceptable result than just blowing this 
thing out here in a couple of days.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Peters [presiding]. Thank you, Senator. We have a 
number of members that are in process of getting here. It is a 
busy day. People are running back and forth. Senator Carper, I 
see you are checked in. If you are available we can recognize 
you for your questions, Senator Carper.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER

    Senator Carper. Can you hear me?
    Chairman Peters. Yes, Senator Carper, I can hear you. I 
cannot see you right now.
    Senator Carper. Can you see me now?
    Chairman Peters. We can hear you, if you want to go ahead. 
There you are. Senator Carper, welcome.
    Senator Carper. My apologizes to the group. Gary, can you 
see me? Mr. Chairman, can you hear me?
    Chairman Peters. I can hear you and we can see you. You 
have the floor.
    Senator Carper. Thanks so much. Welcome to our nominees. We 
are delighted that you are before us, and thank you for your 
willingness to serve. Thank you for the time that you spent 
with me earlier this week and with my staff.
    I think since June of last year, GAO has published about 5 
or 6 reports examining the implementation of the CARES Act, a 
number of the programs there, and providing recommendation to a 
bunch of Federal agencies to try to improve their response 
efforts. As of January, about a month ago, the end of January, 
I am told that 27 out of GAO's 31 recommendations remain 
unimplemented. Let me say that again. At the end of this past 
January, like barely a month ago, 27 of GAO's 31 
recommendations remain unimplemented.
    In its January report, GAO commented that it was ``deeply 
troubled''--that is the quote, ``deeply troubled''--``by the 
lack of sufficient Federal action on critical gaps identified 
and by lack of clear plans to address these gaps.'' That is a 
quote from GAO in their January report.
    Ms. Young and Mr. Miller, you will each recall that when my 
staff and I talked with you, we talked about how do we develop 
some synergy with respect to spending taxpayer dollars more 
wisely. We have GAO out there to try to make sure that we are 
not wasting money. They produce the GAO high-risk list every 2 
years at the beginning of the Congress. They just unveiled the 
latest high-risk list. We have actually made some progress in 
some of those aspects. But it is very substantial.
    But if we somehow have a situation where GAO is doing their 
job trying to make sure we are spending money wisely, and we 
have OMB doing the same kind of thing, in different ways but in 
a complementary way, we have the inspectors general (IGs) of 
every agency, whose job is to help ferret out waste, among 
other things. We have this Committee, which we serve on, doing 
oversight and a bunch of things. If we would all be pulling 
together we could actually make some progress. Given the growth 
in our Federal deficit and the coming further growth in that 
deficit in the days ahead, we need all the synergy we can get.
    So my question. Ms. Young, Mr. Miller, can you each take a 
moment to discuss the role OMB plays ensuring agencies work 
with GAO to implement some of the recommendations that I just 
alluded to, and how important is it for OMB to lead by example 
here, and what actions would you take to improve response 
efforts within the various agencies?
    I am going to ask, if you could, Ms. Young, would you go 
first and just lead us off, please.
    Ms. Young. Senator Carper, thank you so much. It was a 
pleasure speaking with you about this issue and others.
    Senator Carper. I was pleased to learn your middle name is 
Forever.
    Ms. Young. I was going to thank you for not revealing my 
middle name to the Senate. [Laughter.]
    I think OMB can serve a critical role in issuing guidance 
to agencies to ensure that they understand responding to GAO 
recommendations. GAO offers an opportunity for agencies to 
dispute things and provide their set of facts, if they disagree 
with recommendations, and they should do that. But where there 
are legitimate things that the agency freely admits needs to be 
improved I also think Congress serves a central role, and this 
Committee being central, and I certainly remember my time on 
the Appropriations Committee having GAO come up first in a 
panel and having agencies come up second, and seeing where the 
truth was in the middle, to make sure these agencies were being 
responsive.
    On the other side, I think OMB can be brought to bear, No. 
1, as you mentioned, leading by example, providing information 
to GAO and also, again, issuing guidance and setting 
expectations. And when GAO has those issues, I know they talk 
to the committees, like this one. OMB should also be a place 
that helps GAO break those logjams with agencies when they are 
not getting information.
    Senator Carper. All right. Thank you for that response. Mr. 
Miller, could you respond, and I am going to ask you to be 
brief and crisp, because I have one more question. Go ahead, 
Mr. Miller, please.
    Mr. Miller. Absolutely. Senator Carper, thank you for that 
question. I know the Comptroller General was in front of this 
Committee a couple of days ago, talking about the 2021 high-
risk list. As I understand it, past practice from some 
individuals who served as Deputy Director for Management, was 
to work closely with the Comptroller General on each of the 
items on the high-risk list, convening agency leaders to make 
sure there was ongoing progress against them.
    There are two in particular that pertain to OMB--
cybersecurity and strategic human capital management--and I 
would expect that if confirmed I would work with GAO, with OMB, 
and with agencies to make sure that we are making progress 
against that.
    Senator Carper. That is great. Thanks so much. In our 
conversation a couple of days ago, I mentioned that, I think 
under both Democratic and Republican administrations in the 
past, there used to be--and you may have just alluded to this--
but there used to be regular meetings with folks from the 
administration and the relevant agencies, with GAO and agency 
leaders, to review high-risk areas and to monitor progress in 
investment program vulnerabilities. And over the past several 
years these regular meetings have stopped occurring, involving 
OMB, involving GAO, and some of the agencies.
    I would just ask of both of you, do you intend to restore 
this practice of regular meetings with GAO and agencies? Ms. 
Young.
    Ms. Young. Yes, Senator. I had a hard time hearing, there 
was a loud buzz, but you have my commitment.
    Senator Carper. Thank you. Mr. Miller.
    Mr. Miller. Absolutely. I think that is a critical role for 
OMB and GAO to play together.
    Senator Carper. Thank you. There used to be a guy named 
Willie Sutton, who was a bank robber back in the Great 
Depression. He robbed a lot of banks and he finally got 
captured and caught and put in jail and brought to trial. He 
was before the judge, back in those days, and the judge said to 
him, ``Mr. Sutton, why do you rob banks?'' Mr. Sutton replied 
famously, ``That is where the money is.''
    In terms of where we are wasting a lot of money in the 
Federal Government spending, mis-spending, is with respect to 
improper payments. We just adopted bipartisan support in the 
last Congress, I think with the support of the Ranking Member, 
the Chair of the Committees, and others, legislation to 
actually get serious with respect to improper payments.
    Why is that important? I think they totaled $1.7 trillion, 
governmentwide, in fiscal year 2003 to 2019, $1.7 trillion. 
That is almost the size of this package that we are about to 
consider on the floor, on the pandemic.
    I understand that OMB has begun the implementation of what 
we passed a year or so ago, the Payment Integrity Information 
Act (PIIA), a law that we felt changed, as I mentioned, which 
is incentive to help track down improper payments.
    Here is my question, and it is an easy one. Ms. Young, Mr. 
Miller, would you each describe, just very briefly, your 
approach to the issues of improper payments? As Deputy Director 
and Deputy Director for Management, how would you lead 
governmentwide efforts to address payment integrity issues and 
curb improper payments? Thank you so much. Thanks, Mr. Chair. 
Ms. Young.
    Ms. Young. Thank you, Senator. I know we are out of time 
but I talked about this earlier. I think one issue OMB can help 
in is improving our data sources, when it comes to improper 
payments. Some of the issues, I know fraud is huge but also if 
we do not have systems that track correctly we are never going 
to fix this issue.
    Senator Carper. Thanks. Mr. Miller, please?
    Mr. Miller. Senator Carper, I commend you and the Committee 
for your work on this issue. As I understand it, the OMB team 
is working on guidance, as you noted, regarding improper 
payments, to implement the Payment Integrity and Improvement 
Act, and if confirmed, I would look forward to the opportunity 
to work with you and the Committee on making sure that the 
execution is consistent with the intent of the law that was 
passed.
    Senator Carper. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, as you know, my 
wife, Martha, complains sometimes to me about spending too much 
time focused on the U.S. Postal Service (USPS). She says, ``Why 
are you always talking about the Postal Service?'' and I say, 
``It is important.'' And she keeps asking me what I want on my 
tombstone when I die, and I say, ``Honey, I do not plan on 
dying any time soon.'' She says, ``Well, what do you want?'' 
and I told her the other day, I said, ``How about Return to 
Sender?'' And given the focus I have had on improper payments, 
if that does not work out, I want it to say he was death on 
improper payments. When we are talking about $1.7 trillion 
between 2003 and today, we need to get serious about it, deadly 
serious.
    Chairman Peters. Thank you, Senator. Senator Lankford, you 
are recognized for your questions.

             OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LANKFORD

    Senator Lankford. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Thanks to both 
of you.
    Senator Carper. Happy birthday, Senator Lankford. Happy 
birthday, Senator Lankford.
    Senator Lankford. Thank you. Thanks to both of you for 
going through the process on this. It is not a fun process to 
be able to go through but thanks for doing it.
    Ms. Young, I have to tell you, you have a great reputation 
among the staff that is here on the Appropriations staff, so 
thanks for the dedication and the work.
    I have about 50 questions that I want to try to run through 
on this, that we will run out of time on, I am sure. Yesterday, 
sitting in that same seat was Gene Dodaro from GAO, who you 
know well. We were talking about multiple things but one of 
them was a bill that we worked on, on a bipartisan basis, for 
years, called the Taxpayer's Right to Know. His statement on 
that bill, that I have worked on for a decade, literally, to 
get passed, it brings a lot of information out so the public 
can see how we manage things. What is in each agency? What is a 
program?
    Gene Dodaro has been a big advocate for that from GAO, 
saying we need that. In fact, last year he said this was the 
top priority for GAO to be able to help them in their work. His 
statement yesterday was this is all going to matter on the 
implementation from OMB.
    Are you familiar with the Taxpayer's Right to Know, and are 
you committing to be able to actually implement that bill so we 
will actually get the information we need?
    Ms. Young. I commit to implementing and working with you. I 
know you have been a leader here, so thank you for that.
    Senator Lankford. Yes, thank you for that very much. 
Senator Hassan and I have worked on trying to get to a solution 
on government shutdowns. You have mentioned that several times, 
what a pain that is and how awful that is for every agency, for 
every government office, for every Federal family member that 
is out there. It is a terrible process.
    So there have been lots of solutions out there of how do we 
end government shutdowns. There has not been on that has stuck. 
So she and I worked together, starting 2 years ago, to try to 
get a bipartisan solution for how do we solve this that we can 
all agree to, and then we built quite a coalition on that.
    The basics of it is that when we get to the end of the 
fiscal year, if we do not have the appropriation bills done we 
would have an automatic continuing resolution (CR), but none of 
us can travel. OMB would be locked in. They could not travel. 
We could not travel. Our staff could not travel. We are all 
locked in together and we are in a quorum call every day until 
we get our work done. It focused on getting the appropriation 
bills done. That is they. When the appropriation bills are 
done, we can move on to other things. When we are not done, we 
are stuck doing those. But it protects Federal workers, it 
protects all of our agencies, so we do not have the chaos of a 
government shutdown.
    Would you be willing to support something like that, 
implement that, help us to be able to think through how we can 
get that done?
    Ms. Young. I mean, I am usually locked in place in times 
like this, so I am happy----
    Senator Lankford. You are already there?
    Ms. Young [continuing]. Yes, I am happy to be locked in 
with you. Look, something has to give, and I am committed, and 
if you would like to invite me to any of these discussions I 
certainly have lots of ideas and would love to work with you on 
this.
    Senator Lankford. Great, because we have to solve this, and 
Senator Hassan and I have worked on this a long time. This is 
not a partisan solution. It is a problem that is out there. We 
have to be able to resolve it. It is an embarrassment for us, 
as a Nation, on the world stage.
    OMB has been traditionally black box when we start dealing 
with things like decisions on USACE priorities. Corps of 
Engineers will set a list of priorities, here are the things 
that need to be done, here are the highest risk. They will give 
those to OMB. No matter who is President, they disappear, and 
the list seems to get shuffled at some point between Corps of 
Engineers and OMB and the actual public. As Senator Paul has 
talked about before, that is why earmarks get pressed so much 
because everyone gets so frustrated, because when we set what 
are the priorities and let's make sure we are doing Federal 
priorities, then those are not actually done, based on the 
administration's priorities rather than the actual Federal 
priorities, it is a problem.
    Can you help us open the black box of decisionmaking in OMB 
and to be able to say when we set Federal priorities and they 
are set by the rules, those actually come out as the projects 
that are actually done?
    Ms. Young. I have never heard more complaints from 
bipartisan members than what happens OMB with the Army Corps 
list. So you have my commitment working on that, and I know 
Army Corps provides that information and something happens, 
that I do not have insight into as well.
    Senator Lankford. So it is a black box to you as well, on 
the outside.
    Ms. Young. It has. I have been sitting on this side and we 
provide the funding, we have it earmarked, something has not 
been on the level. That information just changes by the time it 
gets to OMB.
    Senator Lankford. So the hope is that once you get into the 
machine you help us open the machine rather than saying it was 
good idea to keep it closed.
    Ms. Young. Or people I consider friends will never speak to 
me again. So I think transparency is necessary.
    Senator Lankford. We will hold you to that in the days 
ahead.
    One of the challenges that we have as well is on 
reprogramming funds. This has come up several times in the 
COVID bill. Currently, Congress is debating at some point we 
are supposed to get text. We have not seen the text yet and do 
not know when the text is coming. But we understand there is a 
$1.9 trillion bill coming.
    We have had a challenging trying to get things like 
vaccinations and testing amounts, what is still left over from 
the previous times, because we understand there are tens of 
billions of dollars about to be requested for more when it 
looks like there is still tens of billions of dollars left over 
from previous bills, just on vaccines, testing, distribution, 
all of those things. But we cannot get accurate numbers on it.
    My question is really twofold. How do we get accurate 
numbers rapidly for what has actually been spent, not just 
allocated, and the second portion of it is, what is your 
opinion about reprogramming funds, because there is some 
concern that what this bill really is, is an opportunity to 
give tens of billions of dollars to the administration and they 
can say, oops, we are already paid up but thank you for those 
tens of billions of dollars, we are going to reprogram it for 
something very different in that amount.
    Ms. Young. One, you have my commitment, and I made it 
earlier to Senator Johnson, you should have that kind of 
information. You need it to do your job. So, if confirmed, you 
have my commitment that you will have that, because we should 
know what we are spending, and Congress needs that information.
    On reprogramming, we have to follow the law. I know you 
know, as an appropriator, we have underlying transfer authority 
in reprogramming in the regular appropriations bills. I doubt 
most of that authority applies to a reconciliation bill. So we 
are going to have to read that closely, and I think we will be 
bound by those limitations in the law. We cannot do anything 
the transfer authority does not explicitly say we can do and 
come back to Congress and let you know what we have done.
    Senator Lankford. Great. We will walk through that in the 
days ahead on this.
    Telework is an area that Senator Sinema and I have worked 
on a lot. There are lots of agencies that, if you went back 2 
years ago and you asked them how many employees could telework, 
they would tell you 12 percent, until this year when 85 percent 
was actually teleworking. We have learned a lot in this year.
    The question that we are asking, and that I asking you 
specifically about, is about remote work and telework. Telework 
assumes you are going to come into the office at times. We have 
not teleworked in a year. We have remote worked, where they 
have not come into the office at all, and a lot of agencies 
have learned we can do that.
    So my question is, there is a benefit for the spouses of 
active-duty military that get transferred all over the country 
all the time, Federal workers that work in remote areas, that 
their spouse has a difficult time getting a job. For those 
individuals, and multitudes of thousands and more, to work in 
the Federal workforce and to be remote workers--they are not 
expected to ever come in but they can work for agencies, no 
matter where they get transferred to, with their spouse or with 
their families--would you commit to working with Senator Sinema 
and I to talk more about remote work as a possibility, and 
writing into the job listing itself that this job could be done 
by remote, so someone locally could get it or someone anywhere 
could get this same job, as a United States citizen?
    Ms. Young. Senator, I certainly hope we use these lessons 
from COVID to make systemic changes, and that being one of 
them. My entire staff on the Appropriations Committee wrote 
five bills from home, and I think they did a great job doing 
it. So we have proven it works.
    Senator Lankford. It can be done. Thank you all.
    Ms. Young. Thank you.
    Senator Lankford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Peters. Thank you, Senator Lankford. Senator 
Hawley, you are recognized for your questions.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HAWLEY

    Senator Hawley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you both 
for being here. Congratulations on your nominations.
    Mr. Miller, let me start with you. I put this question to 
Neera Tanden when she as before the Committee a few weeks ago, 
and I want to ask you because I think it is appropriate here. 
It is a broad question about policy priorities. Do you think 
that the big tech companies and Wall Street firms have too much 
influence in our government and society right now?
    Mr. Miller. Yes, I agree with that, and I think the data 
bears out that there is too much concentration, as well, on our 
economy.
    Senator Hawley. I am glad to hear you say that. What about 
a company like Amazon? Do you think Amazon has too much power?
    Mr. Miller. I think, broadly, there are a number of large 
companies that have too much power and, in some cases, too much 
influence.
    Senator Hawley. I am glad to hear you say that too. I asked 
you about Amazon because I understand that the Greater 
Washington Partnership, which you led as CEO for 3 years, from 
2017 to 2020, I think, if I am not mistaken, was one of the 
organizations that was in the front of trying to attract Amazon 
to the Washington, DC. area. Amazon, of course, did ultimately 
choose the D.C. area as a place for one of its expanded 
headquarters. Do you think that the proximity to Congress had 
anything to do with that?
    Mr. Miller. That is correct, I was, in my role as the CEO 
of the Greater Washington Partnership, supportive of creating 
new jobs in the areas. It is a relatively slow-growth region, 
despite lots of strong assets, and bringing that kind of talent 
into the region was a huge benefit.
    Senator Hawley. I have here a report, that maybe you have 
seen, from Mother Jones magazine, ``Amazon has become a prime 
revolving door destination in Washington.'' It extensively 
details the extent to which the company has established this 
revolving door by doing things like hiring 247 government 
officials in the last 10 years. That is on top of $20 million 
Amazon spent on lobbying activities just in 2020.
    Now you have never been employed by Amazon, right?
    Mr. Miller. Correct.
    Senator Hawley. But I would like to know, what do you think 
about this revolving door that Mother Jones and others have 
reported on, and our government, between these mega-
corporations? Do you think that is a problem? Do you think it 
has a negative impact on our public policy?
    Mr. Miller. I have not seen all the specifics of that 
report. When I left public service previously I had the 
opportunity to go in the private sector and chose to help run a 
nonprofit on behalf of this region, and I understand it the 
Biden administration has a very strong and robust standard by 
which it is going to hold all of its appointees to, regarding 
both conduct while in office as well as after.
    Senator Hawley. So you do think that the revolving door, 
that that is a problem, having a revolving door between these 
major corporations, that you said to me a second ago you 
thought had too much power, and government officials, that that 
is a problem. Is that what you are saying?
    Mr. Miller. I think it is appropriate for the 
administration to take clear and consistent guidelines to its 
appointees so that there is trust in government.
    Chairman Peters. Mr. Miller, could you pull the microphone 
just a little closer to your mouth, please?
    Senator Hawley. Let me ask you about that trust in 
government. In your written testimony you write similarly, that 
successful delivery is built on three pillars, and one of those 
is a system for measurement and accountability, which I agree 
with. If you are confirmed, how will you work to ensure that 
companies like Amazon and others, that have such incredible 
power and market concentration, how will you work to ensure 
that they do not unduly influence government policy, whether it 
is through the revolving door, or whether it is through 
lobbying, or other means of influence?
    Mr. Miller. Senator, thank you for the question. I think it 
is important that agencies are putting forward, in their 
strategic plans, clear priorities with measures associated with 
those, transparency associated with are they delivering on 
those measures. If not, why not?
    Part of what I would see as my role, if confirmed as Deputy 
Director for Management, is to work closely with agency 
leadership to put in place clear agency priorities with smart, 
clear metrics associated with them, and hold them accountable 
to deliver on it.
    Senator Hawley. Very good. Will you commit to us here that 
you will work to ensure, if confirmed, you will work to ensure 
that OMB serves the American public first and not Amazon or 
Google and/or a Wall Street bank, or any of these mega-
corporations?
    Mr. Miller. Senator, I absolutely commit to OMB serving the 
American public, first and foremost.
    Senator Hawley. Great. Thank you for that.
    Ms. Young, in my time remaining let me just ask you a 
couple of questions. You will be involved, as Deputy Director, 
if you are confirmed, in decisions that surround the obligation 
of congressionally appropriated funds. Do you believe that 
religious organizations are entitled to compete on equal 
footing with other secular organizations for Federal funding 
that is used to support government programs?
    Ms. Young. Senator Hawley all of these programs are guided 
by their own authorizations, so whatever Congress has decided 
to authorize in passing the law, we will follow the law.
    Senator Hawley. Very good. The former Director of OMB 
issued a memorandum last year which ensured that Federal 
agencies do not discriminate against faith-based organizations 
when it comes to Federal grants, and, in fact, that they take 
steps to prevent States from doing so. This is a big deal 
because if the Federal Government does everything right, some 
States can still discriminate against religious institutions on 
the basis of their faith-based nature. That would be a 
violation of the free exercise clause.
    If you are confirmed, can religious institutions count on 
you to ensure that you will work to prevent either the Federal 
Government or States from discriminating on the basis of faith?
    Ms. Young. Senator Hawley, I think the goal of the American 
government for the American people is discrimination should 
have no place, period, in our government, so you certainly have 
my commitment that I will work toward that goal, which is 
inherent in a free democracy.
    Senator Hawley. Including discrimination on the basis of 
faith?
    Ms. Young. I certainly believe that is one of the tenets. 
We do not discriminate on the basis of faith.
    Senator Hawley. Very good. Thank you for that. Thank you, 
Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Peters. Thank you, Senator. Senator Ossoff, you 
are recognized for your questions.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR OSSOFF

    Senator Ossoff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the 
nominees, and welcome.
    I would like to ask you a question, please, Ms. Young, 
about corporate influence in rulemaking within the Federal 
bureaucracy. What are the mechanisms, the avenues by which 
corporate actors, concentrated powers, special interest groups 
exert influence on Federal rulemaking in the regulatory review 
process?
    Ms. Young. Senator, thank you for that question. We have to 
ensure that when we call for public input it is the real 
public. I think, you know, there are some who are sophisticated 
enough to hire representatives who understand the system well 
enough that we might be hearing from them in louder voices and 
more organized voices than we do from the general public, who 
are the most impacted, and ensure that we get regulations 
right.
    So I think we have to have a regulatory system that regular 
people can understand and be involved in their government, 
because I do think it is easy for corporations with a lot of 
resources to bring those to bear, certainly in the public 
comment timing of regulations. We need to make sure we are 
actually hearing from your constituents and not representatives 
that have the money to bear, to make sure that their facts are 
the only voices that we are hearing during that public comment 
period.
    Senator Ossoff. Thank you, Ms. Young. And where organized 
interests, who may be on different sides of an issue, have the 
greatest capacity to weigh in, in an organized way, on the 
rulemaking process, do you view the Federal rulemaking process 
and the public comment aspect of it as one where those 
organized interests are balanced, or do Federal agencies and 
OMB have an obligation to independently assess the true public 
interest, regardless of how various organized interests are 
weighing in via public comment?
    Ms. Young. I certainly think we need to ensure that our 
system is hearing from, and we have to assess whether or not, 
or where it is being generated. I mean, look, they have the 
right to also petition the government and let the government 
know their opinions, but if we have a system so complicated 
that only those with resources can effectively get to their 
government. So I think it is beholden upon OMB and the agencies 
to ensure that we are getting to the public where they are, so 
they know how to petition their government when they are not 
represented by major financial backing.
    Senator Ossoff. Thank you so much. Will you work with my 
office and this Committee, Ms. Young, should you be confirmed, 
to try to make more responsive and more accessible that process 
so that ordinary people can weigh in and make their voices 
heard?
    Ms. Young. Absolutely, Senator Ossoff.
    Senator Ossoff. Thank you so much, Ms. Young.
    I would like to talk about a couple of issues of particular 
concern to my constituents in Georgia. At Fort Gordon in 
Augusta, and at Fort Benning in Columbus, there have been 
consistent, long-term concerns about the health and safety of 
base housing, and military families who have had to endure 
unsafe, unsanitary, unhealthy conditions at base housing. And 
the commanding officers at both facilities, I believe, are 
making diligent and good-faith efforts to address that issues, 
so military families in Georgia can live in safe conditions.
    Will you commit to working with my office to ensure that 
Federal resources necessary to ensure that housing on post at 
Fort Benning and Fort Gordon is safe for our military families?
    Ms. Young. Senator Ossoff, you see me smiling because my 
partner with me was born at Fort Gordon in Augusta, and grew up 
in Augusta. You absolutely have my commitment. Also, this is a 
good example of when we talk about defense funding, it matters 
not just the top line but what is in it, and we have a lot more 
to do on basic life safety projects. With military housing, our 
men and women in uniform deserve at least that much.
    Senator Ossoff. Well, I know the military families in 
Augusta and Columbus will be grateful, and I appreciate the 
Georgia connection in your family.
    I would like to ask you, as well, about a major 
infrastructure project, which is the Port of Savannah, where a 
multi-year, very expensive deepening of that port, which is 
vital to Georgia and, indeed, national prosperity, is over 
budget and behind schedule. Will you work with my office and 
with Mayor Van Johnson in Savannah to ensure that Federal funds 
are disbursed appropriately and with all appropriate speed, so 
we can complete that project without any more cost overruns or 
delays in the schedule?
    Ms. Young. I have heard a lot about the port in my years on 
the Appropriations Committee. I understand the economic engine 
that it is, the dredging, what it is to the rest of the 
country, not just Georgia. So you have my commitment to working 
with you on that longstanding project.
    Senator Ossoff. Thank you so much, Ms. Young. I would like 
to ask you about the roles of inspectors general at Federal 
agencies, and just offer you the opportunity to reflect on how 
OMB can instruct or encourage components at other Federal 
agencies to comply with requests for information by inspectors 
general, in the interest of good governance. Would you be 
willing, to the greatest extent of your capacity, should you be 
confirmed to this post, to issue such instruction to senior 
government executives, that they must comply within their 
components with requests for information from inspectors 
general?
    Ms. Young. Yes, Senator Ossoff. One, I hope that is 
happening. Where it is not, you certainly have my commitment to 
work on the issue writ large, and if there are any issues, 
serve as someplace that can help resolve those issues between 
the IGs and the agencies they serve.
    Senator Ossoff. Thank you. And final question please, Mr. 
Miller, in my remaining time. What is your view of whether the 
specifics of apportionment decisions made by the administration 
via OMB should be posted publicly?
    Mr. Miller. Senator, thank you for the question. First, 
just briefly on your prior question, if confirmed in the role 
of the Deputy Director for Management I would serve as the 
executive chairman of the Council of Inspectors General for 
Integrity and Efficiency, and I think it is absolutely 
imperative that OMB repair the relationship with inspectors 
general and make sure that they have the resources and the 
access necessary to do their jobs.
    Senator Ossoff. Thank you.
    Mr. Miller. With regards to the specifics of apportionment, 
something that I would commit to work on, as I understand it, 
OMB has returned the authority associated with that to the 
career staff and will follow longstanding past practice.
    Senator Ossoff. My question is what is your view, your 
personal view, on whether apportionment decisions should be 
posted publicly?
    Mr. Miller. On whether apportionment--Senator, the 
specifics of apportionment decisions is not an area that I have 
spent significant past time on, but I would be happy to follow 
up and talk with you further about what is past practice and 
how OMB is going to proceed, and make sure that the work that 
we are doing, including spending data and spending decisions, 
are done in a transparent way.
    Senator Ossoff. OK. I would be grateful for that, for the 
record. And, Ms. Young, did you want to weigh in?
    Ms. Young. I know from where I sit now OMB has provided 
some of the apportionment data, well, all of it that the 
Appropriations Committee has requested to date. The legislative 
solution to this, I think we are all going to have to work 
together, but I do believe when a committee of Congress asks 
for the apportionment data, OMB should be responsive, and I 
have seen that in action during my time on the Appropriations 
Committee, we were finally able to get apportionments from the 
Office of Management and Budget in the last 2 months.
    Senator Ossoff. OK. And we can return to the question of 
whether it should be posted publicly as a matter of course. I 
appreciate you. Thank you for working through this process and 
for your answers today.
    I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Peters. Thank you, Senator Ossoff.
    We are coming to the end of the hearing. I just wanted to 
raise one fine issue with you before we wrap up. As both of you 
are well aware, cybersecurity is a persistent challenge for 
Federal agencies as well as across our economy, and 
particularly even challenging to attract and retain the 
specialized cyber workforce necessary to deal with this 
challenge.
    I introduced, in the last session, two pieces of 
legislation, was working with OMB, and hope to, if confirmed, 
we could continue to work with you. It is the Federal System 
Incident Response Act, which is legislation that arose out of 
the SolarWinds attack and how we deal with that more 
effectively going forward, those kinds of attacks. And the 
Federal Rotational Cyber Workforce Program, that will help us 
both attract and retain quality cyber professionals who make it 
their mission to serve the Federal Government and make the job 
even more rewarding than it already is.
    I would hope, if confirmed, both of you would commit to 
working with me and other legislative proposals, and make these 
a priority, to deal with the cyber threat. Would you be willing 
to make that commitment, Ms. Young?
    Ms. Young. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Peters. Mr. Miller.
    Mr. Miller. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Peters. Well, wonderful. I will look forward to 
working with you, and I will say that it has been a pleasure 
being here with you during the hearing. I appreciate your 
willingness to serve the country, and congratulations on your 
nominations.
    In closing, I will just say that both Ms. Young and Mr. 
Miller have made financial disclosures and have provided 
responses to biographical and pre-hearing questions submitted 
by this Committee,\1\ and without objection this information 
will be made part of the hearing record,\2\ with the exception 
of the financial data, which is on file and available for 
public inspection in the community offices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The information for Ms. Young appears in the Appendix on page 
48.
    \2\ The information for Mr. Miller appears in the Appendix on page 
114.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The hearing will remain open until 12 p.m. tomorrow, March 
5, for the submission of statements and questions for the 
record.
    With that this hearing is now adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 12:28 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                            A P P E N D I X

                              ----------  
                              
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]