[Senate Hearing 119-4]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 119-4
NOMINATION OF THE HONORABLE
RUSSELL T. VOUGHT, OF VIRGINIA, TO
BE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF
MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
January 22, 2025--HEARING ON THE NOMINATION OF THE HONORABLE RUSSELL T.
VOUGHT, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND
BUDGET
January 30, 2025--EXECUTIVE BUSINESS MEETING ON THE NOMINATION OF THE
HONORABLE RUSSELL T. VOUGHT, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE
OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Budget
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
58-373 PDF WASHINGTON : 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina, Chairman
CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa JEFFREY A. MERKLEY, Oregon
MIKE CRAPO, Idaho PATTY MURRAY, Washington
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin RON WYDEN, Oregon
ROGER MARSHALL, Kansas BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
JOHN CORNYN, Texas SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island
MIKE LEE, Utah MARK R. WARNER, Virginia
JOHN KENNEDY, Louisiana TIM KAINE, Virginia
PETE RICKETTS, Nebraska CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
BERNIE MORENO, Ohio BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
RICK SCOTT, Florida ALEX PADILLA, California
Nick Myers, Majority Staff Director
Ben Ward, Minority Staff Director
Mallory B. Nersesian, Chief Clerk
Alexander C. Scioscia, Hearing Clerk
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
January 22, 2025--The Nomination of the Honorable Russell T.
Vought, of Virginia, to be Director of the Office of Management
and Budget..................................................... 1
January 30, 2025--Executive Business Meeting on the Nomination of
the Honorable Russell T. Vought, of Virginia, to be Director of
the Office of Management and Budget............................ 297
OPENING STATEMENTS BY COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Senator Lindsey O. Graham, Chairman..............................1, 297
Senator Jeffrey A. Merkley....................................... 2
Prepared Statement........................................... 44
STATEMENTS BY COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Senator Grassley................................................. 10
Senator Murray................................................... 11
Senator Johnson.................................................. 13
Senator Sanders.................................................. 15
Senator Cornyn................................................... 17
Senator Warner................................................... 19
Senator Kennedy.................................................. 20
Senator Kaine.................................................... 22
Senator Ricketts................................................. 24
Senator Van Hollen............................................... 26
Senator Moreno................................................... 28
Senator Lujan.................................................... 30
Senator Scott.................................................... 33
Senator Padilla.................................................. 34
Senator Marshall................................................. 36
Senator Whitehouse............................................... 37
Senator Lee...................................................... 40
Senator Wyden.................................................... 41
WITNESSES
The Honorable Russell T. Vought, of Virginia, to be Director of
the Office of Management and Budget............................ 4
Prepared Statement........................................... 47
Statement of Biographical and Financial Information.......... 49
APPENDIX
Responses to pre-hearing questions for the Record
Hon. Vought.................................................. 61
Responses to post-hearing questions for the Record
Hon. Vought.................................................. 79
Chart submitted by Senator Merkley............................... 131
Chart submitted by Senator Whitehouse............................ 132
Document submitted for the Record by Senator Merkley............. 133
Document submitted for the Record by Senator Van Hollen.......... 136
Documents submitted for the Record by Senator Lujan.............. 145
Statement submitted for the Record by American Forest & Paper
Association.................................................... 290
Statement submitted for the Record by Citizens for Responsibility
and Ethics in Washington (CREW)................................ 292
Statement submitted for the Record by Independent Women's Voice.. 295
THE NOMINATION OF THE HONORABLE
RUSSELL T. VOUGHT, OF VIRGINIA, TO
BE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF
MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
----------
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 22, 2025
Committee on the Budget,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
The hearing was convened, pursuant to notice, at 10:01
a.m., in the Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Lindsey O.
Graham, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Graham, Grassley, Crapo, Johnson,
Marshall, Cornyn, Lee, Kennedy, Ricketts, Moreno, R. Scott,
Merkley, Murray, Wyden, Sanders, Whitehouse, Warner, Kaine, Van
Hollen, Lujan, Padilla.
Also present: Republican staff: Nick Myers, Majority Staff
Director; Erich Hartman, Deputy Staff Director; Katherine
Nikas, Deputy Staff Director and Chief Counsel; Walker Truluck,
Senior Policy Advisor.
Democratic staff: Ben Ward, Minority Staff Director; Mike
Jones, Deputy Staff Director; Melissa Kaplan-Pistiner, General
Counsel; Joshua Smith, Budget Policy Director.
Witness:
The Honorable Russell T. Vought, of Virginia, to be
Director of the Office of Management and Budget
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN GRAHAM
Chairman Graham. Good morning, everybody. Welcome. So we
are going to have a hearing with Mr. Vought, right, Russell? It
is Vought like vote, right?
Hon. Vought. Yes sir.
Chairman Graham. Okay. So I'm going to give a quick
introduction. You can say anything you want. We are going to
have five minute questioning. Be hard, be challenging. Do not
make a complete ass of yourself and let us get to this thing.
All right.
So with that said, you are no stranger to this job. Mr.
Vought had this job. He was deputy director. He was Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) Director in President Trump's first
term. He was born in Mount Vernon, New York. He attended
Wheaton College, graduated in '98. Completed a Juris Doctor
(JD) from Georgetown University.
He worked on Capitol Hill as a legislative assistant for
Senator Phil Gramm and Chuck Hagel, that's a big delta there.
From 2004 to 2008 he worked as Executive Director for the
Republican Study Committee, and from 2009 to 2010, he was
Policy Director of the House Republican Conference. Again, he
was OMB Director under the first Trump term, the deputy. Then
he became OMB Director when Mulvaney left.
So you have done it once and you want to do it again, and
we are glad on our side you are willing to do it again. Senator
Merkley.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MERKLEY \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Prepared statement of Senator Merkley appears in the appendix
on page 44.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Merkley. Well, thank you very much Mr. Chairman and
congratulations on your new role. I look forward to working
with you, and welcome to the Committee. Senator Cornyn, Senator
Ricketts and new to the Senate and new to the Committee,
Senator Moreno. Welcome.
This Congress, the Senate Budget Committee is going to be
deeply engaged in the policies that emerge, because
reconciliation is going to play a central role, and
reconciliation begins right here in this room. We will consider
Trump's budget request, and I must say my deepest concern about
the reconciliation bills is that they are going to betray
working Americans.
Working Americans who President Trump appealed to in his
campaign, working Americans who listened to the strategies that
he laid out, that he proposed. But certainly the actual plan
does not help working people. The actual plan is to help the
wealthy get wealthier with massive tax giveaways, with working
families paying the bill.
Now how are these massive giveaways to the wealthiest
families going to be paid for? Well, by slashing services to
working families and the struggling families who are trying to
get on their feet so they can thrive and get to the middle
class. This is the great betrayal.
And today, we will consider the President-Elect's
nomination of Russell Vought to lead the Office of Management
and the Budget, which is really the place where this campaign
is coordinated. And we will hear very different ideas about how
to take our country forward.
From my friends across the aisle and from Mr. Vought, we
will hear that we need to continue to give tax giveaways,
massive tax giveaways to the wealthiest Americans, and we will
hear about how non-partisan expertise that makes our country
run smoothly should be replaced by those with blind political
loyalty.
You will hear how the programs that have assisted for the
environment or for unions, organizing working people for public
health, should instead be replaced by programs to serve big
corporations and the mega-millionaires.
Our side of the aisle has a different vision, that will
stand up for working families, that the wealthy need to pay
their fair share of our taxes. The government should serve
everyone, not just the privileged and the powerful.
From my side of the aisle, you'll hear about how we need to
expand Medicare's ability to negotiate the price of 15
expensive drugs. Those drugs were laid out by President Biden
according to the laws he left. I will submit this for the
record, Mr. Chairman.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Document submitted by Senator Merkley appears in the appendix
on page 133.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman Graham. Absolutely.
Senator Merkley. And those drugs, include for example the
weight loss drugs, that currently serve 2.3 million people. You
know, the first ten drugs that were negotiated, cut the price
some thirds to two-thirds or more, including 79 percent on one
drug.
And Americans are simply outraged that we spend more on R&D
to develop these drugs than any other nation, that is our
taxpayer dollars, and then we get the highest price, the
highest price among the developing countries instead of the
best, which we deserve.
This vision, as laid out, is the great betrayal of
America's working families. And we will continue to debate that
I am sure in the course of the hearings that are ahead. And I
have no doubt, Mr. Vought, that you have the intellectual
expertise and the experience. You were OMB Director before. You
know all the ins and outs.
It is really a question of whether we are going to
accomplish something that provides a foundation for American
families to thrive, or simply to increase the wealth
disparities that make this a government by and for the powerful
instead of by and for the people.
The Washington Post reported that officials said the result
of your last tenure underscored the tensions that come with
having a deeply ideological operative thrust in a position with
complicated, often non-partisan challenges. And this turned out
to be spot on. You were responsible for the fiscal year 2021
budget issued by the Trump administration, and it had close a
trillion dollar cuts to health care for struggling Americans.
It had $300 billion in cuts to social safety programs,
things like nutrition assistance and earned income tax credit
and the child tax credit. $170 billion cut by increasing the
cost of college loans for those who aspire. You know, I am the
first in my family to go to college. I think college should be
affordable to everyone, not making it more expensive so only
rich families can afford to go, have their kids go to college.
So we certainly profoundly disagree. You zeroed out
programs like the community development block grants, which are
used for housing all around this country. Meanwhile, you
proposed over a trillion dollars in tax giveaways, with over
two-thirds going to the top ten percent. That is very, very
troubling.
And Mr. Vought, you were at the center of the strategy of
impounding funds. Now we had this conversation in 1974 here in
Congress. We passed the Budget and Impoundment Control Act
because Congress said when we say this amount of money should
be spent on this program, it is not up to the President to
spend less.
But you told me in your office that you are quite
comfortable assuming that the law does not matter, and that you
will just treat the money for a program as a ceiling, as a
ceiling rather than a required amount. Well, the courts have
found otherwise, but the fact that you are willing to say this
is exactly what you plan to do again should trouble every
single Member of the Senate.
And when you were at the center of the impoundment of the
funds for Ukraine, that resulted in the impeachment of
President Trump and his former service, you blamed a staff
subordinate. That troubles me too. That is something you were
so involved in. When it goes awry, you say ``Oh, it was not me.
I gave that responsibility to somebody else who works for me.''
That is not--that is not leadership. And certainly your
views are deep held, deeply held. You continue to advocate for
them in your think tank, the Center for Renewing America. So we
saw that. There is other things that trouble many of us. The
fact that you were for the abolition of abortion rights and do
not believe in exceptions. Not exceptions for rape, not
exceptions for incest, not exceptions for the life of the
mother.
And it is troubling that you continue to participate in the
big lie that the 2020 election was rigged. This may be
essential for your loyalty test to the President, but it is a
willingness to manipulate and deceive Americans that certainly
bothers me.
I think we need a director who respects the rule of law,
not the rule of one man; who is guided by facts, not partisan
ideology; who serves working families, not mega-millionaires
and billionaires. So I am disturbed that you are eager to lead
the betrayal of America's working families.
Mr. Chairman, I turn it back to you.
Chairman Graham. And we will put you in the undecided
column. So I disagree with what he said. But that is why we
have the hearing here. More importantly, the American people
apparently disagree because we won and you know, I do not know
what your views on abortion are. I do not know how it really
much matters.
President Trump said it was rigged, he won. I do not
particularly agree with that but you know, the bottom line is I
think you are qualified for the job. I know why he picked you.
I think all of us are going to vote for you and none of them
will vote for you. But you do need to explain, the best you
can, how you see the job, why you do the things you do, whether
or not you are betraying the country or trying to get the
country on a more sustainable track, and again we just had an
election and when you win, you get to pick people.
And I am glad he picked you. So would you stand up and let
me swear you in? Raise your right hand, please. Do you solemnly
swear that the testimony you give before this Budget Committee
is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help
you God?
Hon. Vought. I do.
Chairman Graham. Thank you. The floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF THE HONONRABLE RUSSELL T. VOUGHT OF VIRGINIA, TO
BE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Prepared statement of Hon. Vought appears in the appendix on
page 47.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon. Vought. Thank you Mr. Chairman, the Ranking Member,
Members of this esteemed Committee for the opportunity to
appear before you today.
Let me begin by thanking my girls, Ella and Porter, who are
now returning to the scene of Congressional confirmation
hearings as veterans. Their love and support and enthusiasm for
me serving again is a major reason why I feel that going back
to OMB is the right endeavor at the right moment.
Beyond my enthusiasm for being at President Trump's side,
it is a profound honor to be nominated a second time by
President Trump to serve as the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget. The President has promised the American
people a federal government that works for all Americans, not
the interests of bureaucrats and the entrenched establishment,
making his start in fulfilling that vital promise during my
previous time at OMB as both Deputy Director and Director was
among the most rewarding experiences of my career.
Throughout that time, I have been driven by a commitment to
taxpayers and their families. Growing up as the son of an
electrician and a school teacher, I saw firsthand the
sacrifices my parents made to balance their budget and save for
the future. They are a reminder of the burden government
spending can place on everyday Americans. My parents and
countless others like them have always been the measure by
which I evaluate policies and spending decisions.
Today, nearly 80 percent of Americans do not feel confident
that their children will lead better lives than they have,
nearly double the 40 percent of Americans who said the same two
decades ago. When I look at the government waste and our
national debt, I know that I fear for my daughters' future.
More than half of our fellow citizens expect their standard
of living to be worse than that of their parents, a critical
part of understanding the President's election. I am eager to
get back to fulfilling the promise of a federal government that
works as hard as people like my parents.
OMB's mission goes beyond crafting the President's budget.
It encompasses the management of the federal government,
reforming regulation and coordinating policy across agencies to
ensure efficient and effective implementation of the American
people's will, as expressed by the last election.
A strong interagency process delivers the best results for
all Americans, and I believe OMB's collaborative ethos is key
to achieving those outcomes. The civil servants at OMB are
among the most resourceful and innovative individuals I have
ever worked with. It has been my privilege to work alongside
them, and I look forward to leading and supporting them as
Director once again, as we labor together to make government
work.
We have to use taxpayer dollars wisely, because Inflation,
driven by irresponsible spending, taxes Americans twice. The
average American household has lost roughly $2,000 of
purchasing power since January 2021. The forgotten men and
women of this country, those who work hard every day in cities
and towns across America, deserve a government that empowers
them to achieve their dreams.
While Office of Management and Budget may not be a
household term, the agency's work profoundly impacts their
lives. If confirmed, I will continue to serve with their best
interest at heart, striving to ensure every decision
contributes to a more prosperous future for all Americans.
Thank you for considering my nomination. I look forward to
answering your questions, and the opportunity to discuss how
OMB can continue to deliver on that vital mission.
Chairman Graham. Thank you very much, and to your family,
welcome. So to start with, what would happen to the economy if
the 2017 tax cuts that were passed through reconciliation by
the Republicans expire and go away? What would happen?
Hon. Vought. I think Americans would have a major tax
increase on their hands, that would lead to a lot less
innovation, a lot less productivity and we would have a
worsening economy that I would not want to predict how bad it
would be.
Chairman Graham. So the Treasury Secretary nominee said it
would be catastrophic. Do you agree with that?
Hon. Vought. Yes, sir.
Chairman Graham. Okay. So that is one of the things we want
to do on our side. What would--is it like $4 and \1/2\ trillion
in new taxes, if all this goes away?
Hon. Vought. That is the static cost of it, yes sir.
Chairman Graham. Yeah. So we do not want it to go away. I
guess they do. So on regulations, do you have a say about
regulations, government regulations?
Hon. Vought. OMB runs the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs. It is going to be charged to set up--reset-
up the President's deregulatory agenda, and if confirmed that
will be a major aspect of the job.
Chairman Graham. So when it comes to energy production,
will you pledge to try to make it easier for America to soundly
and safely extract the natural resources that we--we own, so we
do not have to buy oil and gas from people who hate our guts?
Hon. Vought. Yes, Senator.
Chairman Graham. Okay. Do you believe that would make us
safer if we are energy independent?
Hon. Vought. I do believe it is vital from a security
standpoint and from the standpoint of Americans' pocketbooks to
rely on cheap American energy and not just squander that.
Chairman Graham. Is it part of the goal of this
administration is to make sure that we, in the Artificial
Intelligence (AI) space, we dominate?
Hon. Vought. Yes, it is.
Chairman Graham. Will you have a role in that, how to
create a regulatory environment that allows us to compete with
China?
Hon. Vought. We will. We help as part of the policy process
and articulating to the federal agencies the guidance that the
President would like with regard to the artificial
intelligence.
Chairman Graham. When it comes to spending, is it your goal
to reduce federal spending where you can responsibly?
Hon. Vought. Yes, sir.
Chairman Graham. Do you believe there is some room in our
budget to eliminate programs that would--most Americans would
not feel the effect of?
Hon. Vought. I do. There are plenty of areas in the federal
government to be able to begin to tackle our spending and debt.
Chairman Graham. So you promise me you would do the best
you can to reduce federal spending in a responsible way?
Hon. Vought. Yes, Senator.
Chairman Graham. Good. When it comes to the President's
Executive Order about suspending foreign assistance for 90
days, do you know exactly how that works? Does that stop money
going to Israel?
Hon. Vought. No, Senator. Senator, it is a 90 day review--
--
Chairman Graham. Review, okay.
Hon. Vought [continuing]. Of the programs that are in
place, and it is to ensure that all of those programs are
consistent with the President's viewpoint, of which of course
aid to Israel will continue to be one of them.
Chairman Graham. What's the most important function of the
federal government, in your view?
Hon. Vought. I believe it is to keep the American people
safe and secure, so they can enjoy their liberties and to
protect their rights.
Chairman Graham. Are you familiar with the amount of money
we spend gross domestic product (GDP)-wise on defense? What is
it right now?
Hon. Vought. I am aware. I think we're----
Chairman Graham. It is like 3.1 percent?
Hon. Vought. Three percent. Yes, Senator.
Chairman Graham. And it is going down to the mid-2's? Do
you realize that only four times in American history we have
had that small of amount of money spent on our defense? Will
you be open-minded to make sure that we can defend this nation,
including a bigger Navy?
Hon. Vought. Absolutely, Senator. It is a priority of the
President. It was a priority at OMB in the first term, to make
sure that we establish maritime supremacy in this country and
it will be, if confirmed.
Chairman Graham. What is the size--do you know how much
money the State and Foreign Operations Subcommittee spends on
the State Department and foreign assistance?
Hon. Vought. Off the top of my head no, I do not know what
the allocation is for those----
Chairman Graham. It's $69 billion. Now that is for the
entire State Department, all our embassies, everybody, and the
aid we provide to distressed places in the world. What
percentage of the federal budget is that? Do you know, outlays?
Hon. Vought. I believe if you did a small percentage, it
would be a small percentage compared to----
Chairman Graham. It is one percent. Now having said that,
try to save money. Let us do not waste money. But I believe, I
am a pretty hawkish guy. If you do not get involved in the
world and you do not have programs in Africa, where China is
trying to buy the whole continent, we are making a mistake.
So it is one percent of the budget. You could eliminate it
all. You are not going to balance the budget. I think soft
power is a critical component of defending America and our
values. I look forward to working with you to make that count
better. But the concept of soft power means a lot to me, and
that is coming from a pretty hawkish guy. With that, Senator
Merkley.
Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And on
Day 1, President Trump issued an Executive Order that requires
agencies to pause the disbursement of funds that were
authorized in the Inflation Reduction Act and the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.
There is a legal mechanism for changing past law. It is
called a rescission, and there is an illegal way. It is called
an impoundment, where you send a rescission message to
Congress, or you use the illegal impoundment strategy.
Hon. Vought. Senator, thanks for the question. Those EOs
were again pauses to ensure that the funding that is in place
is consistent and moves in a direction along the lines of what
the President ran on, unleashing American energy away from the
Green New Deal.
Senator Merkley. Rescissions or impoundments? Which
strategy will you use? That is a simple question.
Hon. Vought. There is a section in those EOs that says that
the Office of Legislative Affairs will work with the Office of
Management and Budget. They may put forward rescissions, but
they--again, the language of the Executive Order (EO) says
``required by law,'' and it is meant to do a programmatic delay
to figure out what are the best ways to make sure that the----
Senator Merkley. Okay. Well, very good. Thank you, thank
you. I will just note that you are not willing to say that you
will use rescissions, the legal method, rather than the illegal
method. That is a big concern for all of us here, because the
Constitution laid out the vision that Congress makes the law,
not the President.
So the fact that you continue to advocate for this
impoundment strategy, that is completely in violation of our
Constitution, and I am deeply disturbed that you will not
renounce that today.
So let us turn to work requirements. You have been a big
advocate of work requirements. You encourage states to adopt
waivers that would allow them to do that for Medicaid. One
state tried it, Arkansas. It produced no increase in the hours
worked, no increase in employment. It failed.
Why did it fail? Because the way that people are able to
work is when they are healthy. When they cannot access health
care because you want to cut it off, they are really trapped in
poverty and trapping people in poverty is really--well, not
helpful. Now that your idea failed so miserably, are you going
to advocate for it again?
Hon. Vought. You know Senator, one of the major
legislations that our side has been very proud of since the
1990's was the impact of welfare reform in the 1990's. It held
to caseload reductions, people getting off of welfare going
back into the workforce.
And we think that that--that type of thinking should be
applied to other federal programs, and it has informed not only
Medicaid but other programs, to be able to encourage people to
get back in the workforce, increase labor force participation
and give people again----
Senator Merkley. And you believe cutting off health care
encourages people to work when they need to get better health
in order to work? It does not make any sense, and it has been a
failed experiment. But you have answered the question. You are
still an advocate of that failed approach, that traps people in
poverty and is quite disturbing.
Now according to the Treasury Department analysis produced
this month, the Trump tax giveaways would give an average tax
cut of $314,000 to the richest Americans, the top .01 percent,
and $6 annually to the average member of the bottom ten
percent. A cup of coffee for those trying to get on their feet
in the course of a year, and $300,000 in additional income for
the richest Americans. Is this not kind of ass backwards?
Hon. Vought. Senator, the President's tax cuts provided tax
cuts for all Americans. It had a sizeable increase in the child
tax credit. It had expansion of the standard deduction. It was
something that benefited all Americans, and as a result led to
a strong economy that we hope to replicate again by having an
extension of those important tax cuts.
Senator Merkley. So you are very comfortable with a cup of
coffee per year for the bottom ten percent, while you give
$300,000 to the richest Americans, according to the Treasury
Department analysis?
Hon. Vought. Well, there are people at the higher end who
are in charge of small businesses, that are taking great risk
to innovate and hire additional people that are not in their
tax bracket. And that is part of the way that you structure
economic growth.
Senator Merkley. My final question, because I am running
out of time. At your think tank in 2023, you proposed a $3.6
trillion in tax giveaways, primarily going to the richest
Americans, and to make the numbers work, you assume that your
giveaway would produce the magic asterisk.
You are probably familiar with the magic asterisk. Magic
asterisk is saying don't worry, be happy. The economy will
improve because we give away the Treasury to the richest
Americans and more revenue will come in. It has failed every
single time it has been put forward. Not a single analysis has
confirmed it, and not from any serious analysis from CBO, the
Congressional Budget Office, not from the Joint Committee on
Taxation, and yet are you still a believer in the magic
asterisk?
Hon. Vought. Senator, I am a believer in dynamic growth for
sure, that when you cut taxes, it actually has a dynamic impact
on the economy and we see that with revenues continuing to go
up after all of the tax cuts that we have seen in history,
1920's, 1960's, 1980's. Both of the Bush tax cuts and then
including the--and then the Trump tax cuts. We have seen a
dynamic impact on the economy.
Senator Merkley. Your facts are wrong, but we will continue
the discussion I am sure.
Chairman Graham. During the first Trump term before COVID,
were not African-American/Hispanic household incomes at their
highest?
Hon. Vought. Yes, Senator.
Chairman Graham. Thank you. Senator Grassley.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR GRASSLEY
Senator Grassley. Yeah. I have got a figure in front of me
of $610 billion of improper payments just in health care. I
would bet a lot of this information comes from whistleblowers.
So my question to you is about whistleblowing. Do you have any
role in protecting whistleblowers, encouraging whistleblowers,
maybe changing the culture in a lot of agencies that treat
whistleblowers like skunks at a picnic? Would you tell me about
if there is anything you can do to help this process of
whistleblowing? It helps us explain not just the waste of
money, but also improper government action?
Hon. Vought. Senator, thanks for the question. I think that
whistleblowers play an enormous role in helping us weed out
waste, fraud and abuse. As a Senate staffer and Hill staffer, I
have benefited greatly from reading Inspector General reports.
From my standpoint at OMB, my view is OMB should be an
advocate for whistleblowers in every possible way, and to make
sure that we value and as a result agency heads value the work
that they do. And so we will always be looking for
opportunities along those lines.
Senator Grassley. I would like your view of how you can
play a role in making the recent Supreme Court decision
overturning the Chevron doctrine, the Loper case, how that can
help you stop our government from being over-regulated,
bureaucrats over-reaching, using a statute that may be--can be
liberally interpreted, and all that?
Hon. Vought. Thank you, Senator. It is all those aspects of
the regulatory process in terms of deregulating, in terms of
making sure that agencies are sticking to the law, that we want
to make sure if confirmed we get properly set up. That would be
part of the review process, not unlikely cost-benefit analysis
and making sure agencies are not coming up with new
interpretations of what the statute should say. We want to
stick to the statute.
Senator Grassley. So you will be watching that regulatory
process, to make sure that Loper is followed?
Hon. Vought. Yes, Senator.
Senator Grassley. Okay. Another thing that irritates me
about--by the way, these problems I am talking about are not
just Democrat problems. They are Republican and Democrat
problems that we have got to deal with. So another one would be
not answering our letters.
Now I do not know whether I got a lot of letters to your
department or not that have not been answered, but I can give
you the Justice Department's example. When Pam Bondi was in my
office, I gave her a stack of 158 letters that the Justice
Department just in the last four years have not answered, and
it was somewhat the same under Obama and Trump in previous
years.
We have got a constitutional responsibility to make sure
that the executive branch faithfully executes our laws. So we
want to make sure that these letters are answered.
So on September 15th, 2023, I sent President Biden's OMB
Director a letter asking a simple question. Where is the
implementation and guidance for the Open Government Data Act,
as just one example? At that point, OMB was five years late in
issuing the guidance. The guidance was intended to make
government information more open and available.
In the final days of the Biden administration, they
released the guidance, but they never directly responded to my
request. If confirmed, will you commit to ensuring OMB provides
timely and complete responses to Congressional oversight?
Hon. Vought. Yes, Senator. I think it is very important. It
is one of the things that I asked my team to know, to let me
know immediately, the day of, when Senators and Congressman are
writing and sending us letters.
I want to be immediately aware and quite frankly, and I
have said this to all of you in our individual meetings. I want
to know before it gets time to have to send a letter, which
that is an important part of the process.
Senator Grassley. Should you be confirmed, you will face a
daunting task of reining in the bloated federal government.
Besides crafting a responsible budget, what actions can you
take as OMB Director to begin right-sizing the federal
government?
Hon. Vought. Well, we are going to go, if confirmed
Senator, right into the process of finishing the fiscal year
'25, helping the President come to a view on how that should
proceed. We will be in the process of various discussions with
regard to reconciliation, of which are very important.
And then there is just the normal management of different
agencies for waste, fraud and abuse beyond sending up a
Presidential budget, of which we will have to get started and
get caught up, based on just the normal process of an incoming
administration.
Senator Grassley. Thank you.
Chairman Graham. If I were you, I would answer Senator
Grassley's letter, if he ever sent one, and I would be pro-
whistleblower. Senator Murray.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR MURRAY
Senator Murray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Vought, I
appreciated the opportunity to meet with you last week, but I
do continue to have very serious concerns regarding your
nomination, starting with your position and record on
impoundments.
I do not believe what happened in the case of withholding
security assistance to Ukraine in 2019 while you were acting
OMB Director, was an accident or a misunderstanding. And I fear
it is actually a harbinger of what is to come these next four
years.
In fact, on his first day in office, we saw the President
order, among other things, what appears to be an illegal
deferral of Inflation Reduction Act, Bipartisan Infrastructure
law and foreign assistance funds, as Senator Merkley referred
to.
Mr. Vought, your written response when pressed on this,
that you will follow the advice of the incoming OMB general
counsel, Mark Paoletta, someone who has called the Impoundment
Control Act a stupid law, and recently tweeted at you to
``impound baby, impound'' is a bit rich.
Look. As I said to you at our meeting, members of Congress
on both sides must know a deal is a deal. A deal is a deal when
we reach a bipartisan agreement on major legislation.
Agreements cannot happen and Congress cannot function without
that level of trust, and ``impound baby, impound'' is not the
answer I am looking for.
So I want to ask you today, will you, if confirmed as
Director, faithfully follow the law, the Impoundment Control
Act, yes or no?
Hon. Vought. Senator, we will faithfully uphold the law.
The President ran on a notion that the Impoundment Control Act
is unconstitutional. I agree with that. I would in response to
both questions say that what the President has unveiled already
are not impoundments; they are programmatic----
Senator Murray. Has the impoundment law ever been said to
be unconstitutional by a court of law?
Hon. Vought. Not to my knowledge.
Senator Murray. No, it has not. So it is the law of the
land. I do not care what the President said when he was
running. It is the law of the land. So will you follow that law
if you are confirmed to this office?
Hon. Vought. Senator, the President and his team is going
to go through a review with our lawyers, if confirmed,
including the Department of Justice, to explore the parameters
of the law with regard to the Impoundment Control Act. He has
not developed a strategy that he has announced as it pertains
to how we would approach it. There are pieces of legislation
that have been proposed by members of this Committee.
Senator Murray. But we propose legislation all the time. If
the rule of the law states that it is a 15 mile an hour speed
limit, you cannot just say ``Well, I think that is
irresponsible and I am going to challenge it, so therefore I do
not have to follow it.''
The impoundment law is the law. Will you follow it or not?
You cannot say that we are going to look at it and might
challenge it in court, but it is the law today. Will you follow
that law as Director?
Hon. Vought. Senator, the reason why the President ran on
this is that 200 years of presidents had this----
Senator Murray. You are telling me why you do not agree
with the law. But the law is the law. Will you follow the law?
Hon. Vought. And what he found in the first term was that
we had agencies that would push out spending at the end of the
fiscal year----
Senator Murray. Mr. Chairman, I am going to take my time
back from him and just tell all of us. We work all the time on
Appropriations, where I am Ranking Member, to come to
agreement. Senator Graham and I work on agreements and we
decide yeah, okay. We'll both vote for this. We have an
agreement.
How can we ever have an agreement in the future if a
President, whoever he or she may be in the future, has say over
that saying yep, never mind; I am not going to pay for this
part of it? We have to have agreements. It is the law of the
land, and I have to say that your answer to this should be
disconcerting to every single member on this Committee.
I have a minute left, and I want to ask you another
important question because as Director of the powerful Office
of Management and Budget, your job will not be merely to
execute the President's agenda. It is also advise the President
on policy, as you have made clear.
So I want to ask about women's health policy. You were a
lead author of the Anti-Abortion Project 2025. You were also
caught just a few minutes ago saying that when it comes to
abortion, you ``want to get to abolition.'' Now everyone should
understand that abortion abolition means zero abortions under
any circumstance whatsoever.
So Mr. Vought, you have said that you do not believe in
exceptions for rape, for incest or life of the mother. Is that
your position?
Hon. Vought. Senator, my views are not important. I am here
on behalf of the President as his nominee to restore fiscal
accountability----
Senator Murray. I am asking you a question under oath, sir,
because you want to be director of an office that will advise
the President and we have a right to know your views. Will you
answer the question?
Hon. Vought. I will Senator, because it is consistent with
the views that the President ran on repeatedly, made his views
very clear on abortion with regard--in the last election.
Senator Murray. Even in the case of rape, incest, or life
of the mother?
Hon. Vought. That is his view, and I will strictly abide by
the President's view. And that will be a general theme
throughout this entire hearing. My view of the position is that
you come into an administration and you do what the President
ran on, what the President's viewpoints are, and you do--you
take that viewpoint----
(Simultaneous discussion.)
Senator Murray. My time is up. It is very clear on what
your stance is on this, and people in this country, women and
men alike, should know that.
Chairman Graham. Senator Crapo. Senator Johnson.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHNSON
Senator Johnson. Mr. Vought, thanks for being here again.
Hope this is, you know, one of many appearances before this
Committee. In your appearance before the Homeland Security
Committee, I really spent a lot of time on spending.
I want to focus on the other part of the budget, which is
revenue on this one. But I do want to just kind of talk in
general on macro terms. If you take a look at federal outlays
averages over the decades, back in the 60's we spent 8.2
percent on average. 70's, it was 19.6. 80's, 21.5. The 90's,
19.9 percent. 2000's, 19.6 percent. 2010 through '19, 21
percent.
This year we are right around 25 percent of GDP, federal
spending. What do you think is an appropriate level as a
percent of GDP? I mean what would be a goal for this
administration to again, we talked about getting to a pre-
pandemic level of spending.
2019, we spent 4.4. Last five years, we have averaged 6.5
percent or $6.5 trillion. What is an appropriate percent of GDP
for federal spending?
Hon. Vought. Well Senator, it is a great question. You
know, we have not set a fiscal goal yet for this
administration. But I think trying to get back to historical
levels of outlays is one of those important first steps, to
begin to find out ways to be able to not set records as a
percentage of GDP, whether that is spending, outlays as a
percentage of GDP or debt as a percentage of GDP.
As you know, we are now above levels in World War II which,
you know, we never thought we would get there outside of
crises. And we need to change the trajectory that we are on as
a country for sure.
Senator Johnson. Okay. So we want to work very closely with
you to again, bring down that level of spending to a reasonable
pre-pandemic levels. It is absurd that we are basically
spending at pandemic levels.
In terms of, you know, the automatic tax increase that
would go into effect if we do not take action, I would think
the first goal would be to return certainty that that will not
happen. Would you agree with that? I mean that we----
Hon. Vought. Yes, Senator.
Senator Johnson. Okay. You know, one way of doing that, I
proposed this morning at a political event is I know people are
talking about one big beautiful bill or two step. I would
actually recommend three steps, you know. First,
reconciliation, handle the border. Keep it simple. We all agree
on that.
Second would be just extend the Tax Cut and Job Act as it
is. That would take any tax increase off the table, because
what I want to do--in the third step is simplify and
rationalize the tax code, and one thing I found is there is
nothing simple about doing that. So I just want to throw that
out there.
I think we Republicans are all agreed that we want to
return certainty. There is not going to be a massive tax
increase. This would be one way to do it. Just let us quick get
in there, extend it using current policy, Senator Crapo's idea
there, which makes a lot of sense.
By the way, let us just discuss that for a minute. In past
budgets, we adhere to the rule that a spending policy that
expires, if you extend that, there is no cost. But if it is a
tax cut that expires, now all of the sudden you are dealing
with, you know, trillions of dollars. And by the way, I do not
believe those scores.
Do you not think it makes a lot of sense to treat both
spending and taxes exact same way, that if we pass a budget in
this Committee it is going to be based on current policy, both
for spending and for taxes?
Hon. Vought. Senator, I am not here to make any
announcements strategically for the administration. But I do
think it makes sense to be able to treat spending in the same
way that you treat the tax baseline.
And so I think that is something that should be considered
as you navigate the reconciliation process and have
conversations with the parliamentarians. But I think that is a
very important discussion that needs to continue to move
forward, to give options for the President for this body.
Senator Johnson. So again, I am always speaking in terms of
goals of things. So again, I think it is a goal to return that
certainty. Let us take any kind of automatic tax increase off
the table as quickly as possible.
Then whatever we do do, and again I do not like the term
``tax reform''; I like the term ``tax simplification and
rationalization.'' But whatever we do, it needs to be
permanent. Let us not make the mistake of having automatic tax
increases in what we do next.
Now that is going to be complex, okay? There is nothing
simple about tax simplification. One of the things I think we
ought to look at are tax expenditures. I just had my staff, you
know, print me out the list of tax expenditures. This is like
about 170 of them totaling almost $1.7 trillion, about six
percent of our economy.
Now some of these, I looked at these, are legitimate
business deductions. I would not consider them a tax
expenditure. Is this something the administration is willing to
take a look at, is just trying to dramatically simplify our tax
system. It cost $400 billion at least to comply with it. I mean
is that something that you and the Treasury Department and the
President will work with me and this Committee on trying to
simplify our tax system?
Hon. Vought. Yes, Senator. Happy to look at that list as
well.
Senator Johnson. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Graham. I do not know if it is going to be one
step, two steps or three steps, but let us take a step. Senator
Sanders.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR SANDERS
Senator Sanders. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to
working with you.
Chairman Graham. Yes, sir.
Senator Sanders. Mr. Vought, thanks for being here.
Hon. Vought. Thank you.
Senator Sanders. Mr. Vought, we are living in a moment in
American history, we are at a time when 60 percent of our
people are living paycheck to paycheck. We have more income and
wealth inequality that we have ever had. Three multi-
billionaires own more wealth than the bottom half of American
society.
People are struggling to put food on their table. The very
rich are getting much richer. We have heard from our Republican
colleagues in the House, that they think it is a good idea to
go forward to provide massive tax breaks for the billionaire
class, and at the same time help pay for that by cutting back
on Medicaid.
Now I know that you are more than aware that Medicaid not
only provides health care to tens of millions of lower income
people, but two out of three people in nursing homes in
America, elderly people are on Medicaid, paid for by Medicaid.
You are going to be an advisor to the President if you are
approved.
Will you tell the President that it is immoral, that it is
wrong to cut Medicaid, cut health care for lower income
Americans, for children and for the elderly, and give tax
breaks to the very richest people in our society? Is that
something we can count on you to do?
Hon. Vought. Senator, one of the problems, and I appreciate
the question, is one of the problems that we have in the
Medicaid program is the extent to which instead of being a
program for the poor, it is alone in that and to the extent to
which it is meant for nursing homes and things of that nature,
we have able-bodied working adults on the program that are
benefiting from a higher match rate than the populations that
it was originally designed for.
And as a result of that expanded match, you also have
states kind of chasing that match in other ways that have made
it so that they are not looking at improper payments and----
Senator Sanders. All right. You are going into an--I do not
have a lot of time. You are going into another area, and that
is the health care system in general. As you well know,
unfortunately the United States of America is the only major
country on Earth not to guarantee health care to all people as
a human right.
And the result of that despite Medicaid, and we can argue
about this or that aspect of Medicaid, despite that 85 million
Americans are uninsured or under-insured, and importantly--and
your colleague Mr. Musk made this point. We are spending far
more on health care than any other country per person.
I wonder as an advisor to the President, will you try to
determine how it is that countries around the world are able to
provide care to all of their people and in some cases spend 50
percent per capita of what we are spending?
Do you think the function of the American health care
system should be to make huge profits for the insurance
companies and the drug companies, or do you think maybe we
should have a system that guarantees health care to all people
as a human right? Do you believe that health care is a human
right?
Hon. Vought. Senator, I believe that it is very, very
important that we put the health care dollars that the
taxpayers are covering for the health care system, which you
just mentioned is substantial, to make sure we have the best
outcomes in those programs.
I want--I want the people who benefit from Medicaid to have
a great Medicaid program. And I look at a situation and a
tragedy we had, where Deamonte Driver, a 12 year-old, dies of a
toothache because the infection was never--never found.
Senator Sanders. Right. All right, you are right. Yeah,
health care--all right, look. I do not want to argue. The
health care system in my view is broken, it is dysfunctional.
But my question to you, it is a simple one.
As an advisor to the President, do you think we should join
every other major country on earth and say ``You know what,
whether you are poor, you are rich, you are young, you are old,
health care is a human right.'' We are the richest country in
the history of the world. Do you think we should do what every
other major country on earth does?
Hon. Vought. Senator, I think it is important to provide
legitimate, evidence-based outcomes for people within the
health care system, and to make sure that we tailor all of the
dollars that are spent towards----
Senator Sanders. But that--you did not answer my question.
Hon. Vought [continuing]. And ensure that they have good
health care.
Senator Sanders. Mr. Vought, my question, fine. The
question is a simple question. In America, should we do what
every other major country does and say ``I do not care if you
are poor, you are rich, you are old, you are young. Health care
is a human right.'' Yes, no?
Hon. Vought. Senator, I think the President has not made
a--he ran on providing good health care outcomes. That is my
view.
Senator Sanders. You are an advisor to the President. You
are going to be key advisor if you are approved. Do you think
that health care is a human right that every American should be
entitled to?
Hon. Vought. I believe the role of the Office of Management
and Budget Director is to take what the President has run on,
the things that the President has as a policy agenda, and to
turn that into policy, to implement that. And so to the extent
that he has run on having lower prescription drugs, that is a
priority of the administration.
Senator Sanders. Good for you. Well, thank you. All right.
The President in the past, I do not know about recently, has
indicated that he would maybe do what President Biden did,
stand up to Big Pharma. We are paying now in some cases ten
times more, as you know, for the same exact drug that other
countries are paying.
Are you going to advise the President to take on Big Pharma
and do what he promised to do? And that is have Americans not
pay a nickel more than other countries for prescription drugs?
Will you--will you advise him to do that?
Hon. Vought. Senator, the President has not made an
announcement since he has been in office, but he certainly ran
on this issue. There was a speech with regard to making sure
that we were--we were getting the same types of arrangements
that the other countries were, given the amount that we are
investing in it.
But he also, Senator, wants to do it in a careful way, so
that we are not ruining the phenomena and the industry that
allows us to have life-saving medications.
Senator Sanders. I got it. I do understand.
(Simultaneous discussion.)
Senator Sanders. We want innovation, but will you maintain
what we fought very hard to, to do what every other country
does, have Medicare negotiate prescription drug prices with the
industry?
Hon. Vought. No, Senator. I am not here to get in front of
the President on any of his policies, other than to say that
this has been a priority for him, and I think your question
reflects that it has been a priority of his.
Senator Sanders. Okay. I have over-extended my time.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Graham. Thank you, Senator Sanders. Senator
Cornyn.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR CORNYN
Senator Cornyn. Mr. Vought, thank you for your willingness
to serve the nation again, and especially you and your family.
You know that this job comes with its more than its fair share
of abuse that you receive. But it is--I believe this is a once
in a generation opportunity to do what we need to do to get our
spending in check and to--and to make sure that we do what you
said, I think at the beginning of your testimony, which is the
most important thing the federal government does, is provide
for the security and safety of the American people.
You remember 15 years ago, Admiral Mullen, Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the biggest threat to our national
security was our debt. Now when he said that, I thought that
was kind of an unusual thing to say. But if you think of it as
a prediction, it has literally become true, because now we
spend more money on interest on the national debt than we do
on--on defense.
And that is a recipe for disaster, in what I think is the
most dangerous world we have seen since World War II. But let
me take you back to the issue of inflation. We have just come
off of a 40 year high inflation rate for the American people,
which is sort of a silent tax which degrades the standard of
living for all Americans.
And how is inflation related to government spending?
Hon. Vought. Well, thank you Senator. This is an important
moment historically for our country, to be able to get a handle
on our debt and deficits. I believe that spending is a--is a
big driver of inflation. I think you saw that under the Biden
administration, when they put forward some of the COVID
packages early in his administration. All of the sudden we had
an inflation problem.
I predicted it at the time. Larry Summers on the Democrat
side predicted it at the time, and we saw something that the
so-called experts told us we would never see again, which is
inflation at the levels that the American people could not
absorb, nor should they ever be expected to.
So I think it is both an energy phenomena. I think it is a
regulatory phenomena, and I think it's the spending component.
Senator Cornyn. I think Milton Friedman would agree with
you, on the spending side certainly. So the federal government
spends roughly $6.75 trillion at the present time. I know none
of us can really even get our brain around how much money that
is. It is a lot of money.
But we also took in last year about $4\1/2\ trillion in
revenue. So there is a significant gap between what the federal
government spends and what the federal government gets in terms
of revenue. Do you think that is sustainable?
Hon. Vought. No sir, it is not. We have to get spending
under control. I think what we have seen though is that
revenues have been hovering about where they have been
historically as a percentage of GDP, and as a result the
problem is primarily on the--on the spending side. And that is
one of the reasons that you have seen in the first term the
President put forward substantial numbers of savings and
reforms, to get a handle on the spending component of the
federal budget.
Senator Cornyn. And right now, the Congress appropriates
roughly 28 percent of the money that the federal government
spends. The rest of it is on--is mandatory spending, and is
spent under the Tax Code, as Senator Johnson pointed out. I do
not know how we are ever going to balance the budget just
looking at 28 percent of what the federal government spends.
That is not to say that we should not look at it, but do
you agree with me that we need to look at mandatory spending
programs? I understand that Medicare and Social Security,
absent bipartisan support, are unlikely to be the sources of
any savings on spending.
But we spend, I think at last count, roughly $700 billion a
year on mandatory spending programs that Congress turns on. It
does not cap. It does not have a cost of living index. It is
just based on demand, and they grew at six, seven, eight
percent.
Do you think we need to look at non-Social Security, non-
Medicare mandatory spending to find some of the savings?
Hon. Vought. Yes, Senator, and it is one of the reasons why
there are substantial numbers of savings and reforms, many of
it is just getting better outcomes in these programs that were
consistent with the President's protection of Social Security
and Medicare, that still allowed us to get to balance in the
budget that we last sent up in the first term.
The President's approach has been get after the bureaucracy
that is largely wasting money, and to be able to get people
back to work with things like welfare reform and other reforms
that we have seen historically worked, to get better labor
force participation and a better economy.
Senator Cornyn. Thank you.
Chairman Graham. Senator Warner.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR WARNER
Senator Warner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Vought, good
to see you. You know, these hearings are important. I kind of
view them as a job interview. I have got to tell you though. I
am kind of curious about your background. A dozen years on the
Hill. Government bureaucrat. Right wing think tank.
Seems to me you are a total product of what MAGA folks call
``The Swamp.'' I am not sure how that swamp expertise is going
to help you in this job, you know. I am, you know, I am a
little different than most folks. I actually run a business,
met a payroll, managed an operation. You have no private sector
experience, and I look then at what you have said. From just
the management standpoint, it seems like what you want to do is
how many federal workers we can get to quit, how many federal
work offices can y'all go out and relocate.
And I have got to tell you. Your words, ``We want the
bureaucrats to be traumatically affected, because they are
increasingly viewed as villains. We want to put them in
trauma.'' I have got to tell you, you want to be OMB and help
oversee this workforce, and you want to put the workforce in
trauma?
Sir, that would be management malpractice. I appreciate the
fact of what you have done in the past. Let us look at your
record. It is an interview. 2019, you helped move the Bureau of
Land Management (BLM) out. 170 percent increase in vacancies at
the BLM. Government Affairs Office (GAO), the folks who are
supposed to be independent. Said that move dramatically
impaired its ability to serve the American people.
Another failure that some of us pointed out. Last time you
said ``Let's move part of the Department of Agriculture out.''
Two bureaus. Led to 40 percent and 60 percent reduction in
effectiveness. Then we get to your madness, and at least I give
you credit for putting it down in writing. Project 2025 and
that handbook.
Sir, I do appreciate the fact one of the things you have
said, which was you think it is important for the federal
government to keep our nation safe. Probably the most important
thing I have done in this job is my work with the intelligence
community. I am chair--I am vice chair now.
We have got thousands of men and women who work in the
intelligence community without a lot of fanfare. You realize,
of course I hope, that to become a Central Intelligence Agency
(CIA) agent it takes about a year to get a secured clearance.
Are you aware of that?
Hon. Vought. Yes, Senator.
Senator Warner. All right. So in your Project '25 madness,
you put forward the idea that somehow breaking up the CIA and
moving it around the country would make our nation more safe?
Do you not understand sir, that if President Trump, by
having the intelligence community close to him, to have ability
from folks from National Security Agency (NSA), the CIA, the
Pentagon, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in this
region, your idea of let us somehow go on this ideological
jihad to break up the intelligence community's effectiveness?
I would ask you sir, can you show any evidence that somehow
we would make our nation safer if you put your political litmus
test and, you know, this idea of bringing trauma to the federal
workforce by taking the intelligence community, which has been
supported on a bipartisan basis year-in and year-out, and
somehow breaking it up and spreading it hither and yon, just
for a political purpose? How does that make our nation safer?
Hon. Vought. Senator, I never proposed that and the
President has disassociated himself from Project 2025. It is a
mischaracterization of----
Senator Warner. So all right. Okay, good. We are here on
the record. You are going to commit to make sure that, you
know, I would argue you have to make a business case before you
start breaking up the government. I am all for effectiveness.
Will you be willing here to commit not to undermine our
national intelligence community by arbitrarily trying to break
them up and spread them around, just because you want to blow
up the federal workforce in this region?
Hon. Vought. Yes, Senator. There is no--there is no policy
process that the Trump administration had done that is
producing arbitrary results. And let me speak to a question
that you raised with regard to my comments about the
bureaucracy. It was specifically in reference to the weaponized
bureaucracy that we've seen----
Senator Warner. And so you are the arbiter of who is
weaponized and who is not? Again, I hope my colleagues will
raise I think you are completely irresponsible actions on so-
called Schedule F. You know, we put a civil service in place.
But I urge you sir, if you become in this position, think long
and hard about the men and women of the national security and
the intelligence community before you go on some political
jihad of trying to score points by simply trying to break up an
operation that actually functions better because of their close
collaboration.
And your comments about the federal workforce I find
disqualifying on its basis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Graham. Thank you. Senator Kennedy.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR KENNEDY
Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Vought,
welcome.
Hon. Vought. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Kennedy. In my judgment, I do not know a single
person, in Washington or outside Washington, who knows more
about the federal budget than you do. I used to read your--your
suggestions during President Trump's first term, many of which
Congress ignored. We should not have.
I am delighted that the President picked you. I have read
that since 2019, the population of America has increased two
percent, and our spending has increased 55 percent under
President Biden, I wish him well. If we had discovered life on
Mars, he would have sent it money. Is that sustainable?
Hon. Vought. Senator, it is totally unsustainable, and the
problem is is that you go on these trajectories that we are
currently on, and you do not know when you are going to get to
the--the point at which you have some major, major problems as
an economy, as a country, and we know that historically.
Senator Kennedy. I hope you start with the low-hanging
fruit. There is a lot. When we send out stimulus checks to save
our economy, 1.6 billion went to dead people, and the checks
were cashed, obviously fraud. OMB has estimated that in fiscal
year 2023, we sent out $1.3 billion of checks to dead people,
which were cashed, obviously fraud.
When you die in America, your name is sent to the Social
Security Administration. As you know, you become part of the
master death file. Senator Carper and I discovered that Social
Security would not share that information with any other
department of government. So we passed a bill saying you have
to share it with Treasury and other people who write checks so
we will stop paying dead people. Duh.
We got pushback, believe it or not, on the bill. We had to
agree to a trial period, and that trial period ends at the--in
2026. Will you help us make that program permanent, so we can
stop paying dead people?
Hon. Vought. Yes, Senator.
Senator Kennedy. Now you served in Washington for years.
You are going to be called, you are going to be challenging the
status quo. You are going to be called crazy. Many people also
called Noah crazy, and then the rains came and all the fact
checkers died. You have to persevere.
You know, I am asking you--I am not asking you to get ahead
of President Trump. But if you were king for a day, tell me how
you would save money in the federal budget without impacting
the American people?
Hon. Vought. Thank you, Senator. I think it is the strategy
that we had in the first term, which is to go really and take a
very close look at the agencies that are spending and wasting
money, and I believe weaponized at times against the American
people.
When they put a 77 year-old Navy veteran in jail, Joe
Robertson, for 18 months for building four ponds on his ranch
to be prepared for wildfires, that is the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), I think we have to look at that. And
we have to look at the agencies that Congress has to vote on
every single year through the appropriations process.
And then I think we need to go after the mandatory programs
that Senator Cornyn mentioned, that are keeping people out of
the workforce because they have become not just a social safety
net, but they have become a benefit hammock, and increasingly
so in the aftermath of COVID, as many of these policies were
impacting people's decisions to go back into the workforce.
And I believe, because we produced budgets along these
lines, you can get sizeable levels of savings and reforms that
can lead to a balanced budget and get us back headed in a
fiscal trajectory, not only that we would all be proud of, but
we could say this is going to keep us from fiscal ruin.
Senator Kennedy. My time's expired. Ella, Porter, do you
have anything you would like to add? Okay. Now's your shot.
Thank you, Mr. Vought, for your time.
Hon. Vought. Thank you.
Senator Kennedy. Congratulations.
Chairman Graham. Good call there, young lady. So apparently
we are going to Mars, and I am going to reserve whether or not
I want to help them. I don't know what we do if we find them up
there. So anyways, to dead people, I do not want to give them
checks or they shouldn't vote either. So Senator Kaine.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR KAINE
Senator Kaine. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Congratulations on the
nomination, Mr. Vought. I want to go back to the comment that
Senator Warner read to you. There are 140,000 federal employees
in Virginia, and you gave a speech that got a lot of attention
when you said ``we want bureaucrats to be traumatically
affected. When they wake up in the morning, we want them to not
want to go to work because they are increasingly viewed as the
villains.''
Now I pay attention to the way people say things, because
there is a million ways you can make a point. And the way you
choose to make a point tells you something about the person.
There was a wonderful--since I had an Old Testament reference
over there, I will go to a New Testament on Luke 6:45. ``From
the fullness of the heart, the mouth speaks.''
We want people to be traumatized. We want people to be
traumatized. I've heard a million people in this room give
speeches about we want to cut the budget, we want to reduce
federal spending, we want to deal with the deficit. But I have
not heard anybody give a gleeful speech about traumatizing the
federal workforce.
You do not want federal air traffic controllers going to
the airport traumatized, do you Mr. Vought?
Hon. Vought. No, Senator.
Senator Kaine. You do not want the people inspecting our
food, our medicine, our infant formula as federal--you do not
want them to go to work traumatized, do you?
Hon. Vought. No, Senator.
Senator Kaine. You do not want the people interdicting
drugs at the border, you do not want them going to work
traumatized, do you?
Hon. Vought. No, Senator.
Senator Kaine. And you do not want people who are working
for you at the OMB, who many people would think well, they're
in the White House. They must be--you do not want them
traumatized, do you?
Hon. Vought. No, Senator. Thank you for expanding on that.
Senator Kaine. Yeah. I mean so I felt like I had to,
because I got 140,000 people and most of them have families,
and they are trying to do a good job. Was your comment about
people being traumatized just focused on the federal workforce,
or is it more broadly about state employees and local
government employees too?
Hon. Vought. Senator, it was about the weaponized
bureaucracy that unfortunately----
Senator Kaine. I am going to get to weaponized in a minute.
But you were talking about the federal workforce, so you were--
--
Hon. Vought. I was talking about the bureaucracy that I
experienced and I have----
Senator Kaine. At the federal level?
Hon. Vought. At the federal level.
Senator Kaine. You were not talking about state employees--
--
Hon. Vought. I have no experience with the states.
Senator Kaine. You were not talking about local employees?
Hon. Vought. I was not.
Senator Kaine. Your mother was a public school teacher,
correct?
Hon. Vought. Yes, Senator.
Senator Kaine. So you were talking about, you want the
federal workforce to be traumatized?
Hon. Vought. Bureaucracies.
Senator Kaine. I like a lot of presidents. I am a Lincoln
fan. Are you a Lincoln fan?
Hon. Vought. Yes, Senator.
Senator Kaine. Lincoln spoke to a nation at war, and he
said ``with malice towards none, and charity towards all,'' and
he was saying that to the North and the South. He did not say
``we want you to be traumatized.'' He was a bridge builder and
a unifier, and that is what public servants should be. They
should not gleefully be wishing trauma on people who are trying
to serve their fellow men.
I want to get to woke and weaponized. You were the
president of the Center for Renewing America and the think tank
produced a 2023 budget proposal calling it ``A Commitment to
End Woke and Weaponized Government.'' Do you remember that?
Hon. Vought. Yes, Senator.
Senator Kaine. And that is the correct title?
Hon. Vought. Yes, Senator.
Senator Kaine. It's 104 pages of details to end woke and
weaponized government, and it proposes deep cuts to the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) program. Is
providing nutrition assistance to low income kids woke and
weaponized?
Hon. Vought. Senator, I am not here to talk about the
budget that the Center put out. I am here on behalf of the
President----
Senator Kaine. But you just said you did that. I want to
know what is woke and weaponized about providing food
assistance to low income kids?
Hon. Vought. Well again, I am not behalf of my Center, on
behalf of the President----
Senator Kaine. I know that. But this is your work product.
I mean you can say it is not woke and weaponized, or you can
tell me why it is woke and weaponized. I do not think SNAP
programs or benefits for kids are woke and weaponized. Do you
agree with me?
Hon. Vought. When we refer to the federal government being
weaponized, we are referring to bureaucracies that are----
Senator Kaine. Okay. So you are not--you did not include
SNAP. You proposed to cut SNAP, but you are not saying it is
woke and weaponized?
Hon. Vought. I am. Again, I am--I am not going to answer
questions about the Center for Renewing----
Senator Kaine. You proposed deep cuts to Pell grants. Is
helping kids pay for college and helping their families, is
that woke and weaponized?
Hon. Vought. Again, I am not here to defend the Center for
Renewing America.
Senator Kaine. I get it that you are not here to defend
that work product, and I kind of understand why. You propose
deep cuts to Medicaid for millions of low income families. Why
is that woke and weaponized? You propose undermining health
insurance. Why is that woke and weaponized?
Eliminating tenant-based rental assistance. Why is that
woke and weaponized? Eliminating the low income housing energy
assistance program. This was all in your document about ending
woke and weaponized government. Okay, let us see.
We want to traumatize federal employees, and then we want
to take all these programs that help everyday people who are
struggling and cut them because they're woke and weaponized.
Those are your words, not mine. From the fullness of the heart,
the mouth speaks. I yield back.
Chairman Graham. Thank you. Senator Ricketts.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICKETTS
Senator Ricketts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My colleague
next to me here from Louisiana has already referenced the
federal spending, roughly $4.4 trillion in 2019 and $6.8, $6.9
in 2024, I think the budget--the budget Biden's proposal is for
$7 trillion.
He referenced a 55 percent increase in just 5 years. We
greatly expanded federal spending, recklessly expanded it,
including a number of areas that the colleague, my colleague
from Virginia just was referencing.
Areas were expanded, for example, during COVID and never
brought back down to say 2019 levels. That reckless spending
has led to 40-year high inflation. We have talked about that as
well, and you in your opening remarks remarked how Americans
are worse off today, four years later after Joe Biden, because
of his reckless spending, contributed to this inflation.
But that is not the only thing that contributed to how
Americans are being hurt by the policies of the Biden
administration that just left. One of the other areas that they
have been hurt by is the regulation, and you have mentioned
some of the bureaucracy out of control, throwing a man, a 77
year-old in prison for building ponds.
But if you look over the last 4 years, the Biden
administration put in over 100,000 pages of new regulation, 43
feet tall. Taller than a three-story building with the
regulations. One study said it was adding $3,300 to the cost of
every American household.
This kind of like hidden cost that we see on American
households is also one of the reasons why Americans are worse
off today than they were four years ago. One of the examples of
hiding some of these costs was actually in the EPA, with the
tailpipe regulations, also known as the Electric Vehicle (EV)
mandate. That was a 573-page document, and there was one table
on costs. One table.
And so what we see from this outgoing administration is
hiding the cost from the American people, so that they do not
understand and do not see what their government is trying to do
to them, how their government is actually laying on these
regulations that harm them, and that is why they feel worse off
today than they did four years ago.
If you are confirmed, will you commit that you work with me
to help reverse and expose the regulations and how agencies try
to hide the cost, try to play around with the numbers? You may
have heard the phrase ``there's lies, damn lies and
statistics,'' right?
We need to make sure that when we are passing regulations,
that we have a full cost-benefit analysis that people
understand the trade-offs we are making by having regulation.
Will you, if you are confirmed, commit that you will work with
us to be able to make sure that we fully understand the costs
and that these agencies will not try to hide the cost of
regulations?
Hon. Vought. Yes, absolutely. This is one of those
fundamental apparatuses that we need to get back in place that
we had in the first term. If confirmed, it will be one of the
earliest projects that I am a part of.
Senator Ricketts. Great. Thank you very much, Mr. Vought.
Also, I want to switch gears on you a little bit here as well,
because it is also another example of how the bureaucracy is
failing.
As you know, biofuels are important to my state of
Nebraska. We are an agricultural state. Biofuels are a way for
us to be able to help clean up the environment, reduce our
reliance on foreign sources of energy, and it is great for
farmers and ranchers as well. It also helps save consumers
money at the pump.
The renewable fuel standard and the renewable volume
obligations, RVOs, are priorities for me and my state. And the
2026 RVOs were supposed to be filed November 1st, 2024 and now
it looks like it is going to be December, and I am sure the
folks who were in business in the past know that certainty is
important for businesses, and we will be over a year behind.
Will you commit to working with me, to help make sure that
the bureaucracies are following the law and fulfilling their
obligations, for example in this case specifically, to get the
RVOs out on a timely basis?
Hon. Vought. Yes, Senator.
Senator Ricketts. Great. And then one last area, since I am
running out of time here real quick. We must tackle the
national debt. It is biggest internal threat. We have kind of
talked about it already, but the Chinese Communist Party is the
biggest external threat we face as a nation.
How will you ensure that we are protecting federal dollars
in the contracting process, to make sure that our adversaries
and entities that are hostile to us, like the Chinese Communist
Party, are not being subsidized by our American tax dollars,
and how will you advise the administration on that?
Hon. Vought. Well, it will be a priority through our role
in advising contractors and the agencies that are engaged with
them. In the first term, we had a lot of work that we were
doing on behalf of the laws that were passed, to make sure that
Huawei was not a part of getting taxpayer contracts, and that
will be a trend that we will continue.
And we will be working with you on any new laws that are
put forward, and looking closely at the statutes that are
already in place.
Senator Ricketts. Thank you, Mr. Vought. I appreciate it. I
have run over my time, but you also have very cute daughters. I
am glad they are here today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Graham. Senator Van Hollen.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR VAN HOLLEN
Senator Van Hollen. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Vought,
good to see you. Look. We are just a few days into the Trump
administration and already seeing a huge gap between what
candidate Trump ran on, which was helping working men and women
in this country, and what he is actually focused on, including
recently pardoning people who had been convicted of assaulting
and bludgeoning police officers, including an Executive Order
that stops ongoing initiatives to reduce the costs of
prescription drugs, including, as we have heard today, a
renewal of a tax plan that disproportionately benefited the
very wealthy and the biggest corporations at the expense of
other Americans.
As we saw on the dais during the swearing in, the golden
age for America will be great for the billionaire tech titans,
who had seats better than those of the incoming cabinet
officers. So, President Trump was very clear that he is going
to govern in a way that was different than candidate Trump.
You are going to play a very instrumental role in this
administration if confirmed, and I believe that the best way to
sort of judge or guess what the future looks like in terms of
your conduct is to look at the past, and in December 2019 I
wrote to the GAO, asking them if OMB, you, the previous Trump
administration, had violated the Impoundment Control Act (ICA)
by withholding funds from Ukraine.
And in January, I got the response back and their
conclusion was yes, that you had violated the Impoundment
Control Act. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the
letter I received from GAO be entered into the record.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Document submitted by Senator Van Hollen appears in the
appendix on page 136.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman Graham. Without objection.
Senator Van Hollen. Now I listened very carefully to the
exchange you had with Senator Murray, and you had a very clear
opportunity to say yes, you will comply with the Impoundment
Control Act. I did not hear you say that. So just to give you
another chance, will you comply with the Impoundment Control
Act?
Hon. Vought. Senator, the President ran against the
Impoundment Control Act----
Senator Van Hollen. This is--Mr. Vought, I know what the
President did. He wants to change lots of things. He can submit
legislation to do that. But you are going to be the head of OMB
and here today at this hearing, you are refusing to commit to
comply with the Impoundment Control Act. Is that right? Are you
refusing to commit to complying?
Hon. Vought. Senator, the administration has to go through
a policy process to understand the legal parameters for
operating in the ICA.
Senator Van Hollen. Okay. I am going to reclaim my time. I
am sorry. I was just--it seems that complying with the current
law, even if you disagree with it, would result in a clear
answer. Yes, I will comply with current law including the
Impoundment Control Act.
Let me turn to Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).
All of us support greater government efficiency. I would like
to see it in many different agencies, including the Pentagon,
which is the one agency which has continued to fail audits.
Now Elon Musk is going to head up DOGE, and what I am
worried about DOGE is that it will not bring efficiency, but it
will open the door to political cronyism. So my question to you
is this. Will Elon Musk and the other folks at DOGE, will they
be required to recuse themselves from recommending changes to
programs in which they are huge beneficiaries, because I think
as you know, Elon Musk has lots of interests in government
actions and government contracts.
So, will those members be--have to recuse themselves from
putting forth proposals in areas where they have a clear
conflict of interest?
Hon. Vought. Senator, this administration has the highest
ethical standards and anyone who is a federal employee will be
going through the recusal process and the ethics process that
is expected and required for all employees of the federal
government.
Senator Van Hollen. So they will be? Good. Now I just want
to pick up on the quote that Senator Kaine and Senator Warner
mentioned about traumatically inflicting, you know, trauma on
federal employees. I just--this is an opportunity for you to
retract that statement and apologize to the civil servants. Do
you want to use this opportunity to do that?
Hon. Vought. Senator, as I have said before, I was
referring specifically to weaponized bureaucracies that are
aimed against the American people themselves, and the
President, that was their boss, the person that was put in
charge of that.
Senator Van Hollen. I have looked at the transcript. It was
much broader than that. It was not just focused on those
individuals. I will say on Schedule F, and this is my last
question, because there are lots of concerns that this will be
used to convert a merit-based civil service, which we have
today, into one based on political cronyism.
So if you were successful at going through with Schedule F
and you decided to fire an individual, would they continue to
have the due process rights that merit-based civil servants
have?
Hon. Vought. Senator, Schedule F is not a tool to fire
individuals. It is something that is--so that the President
gets people who are policy-based, confidential staffers that
are still merit, are still career. They are still----
Senator Van Hollen. Mr. Vought, I am sorry. My question was
if you choose to fire somebody, are you firing them at will or
will they have the due process rights that currently apply to
merit-based civil servants, to avoid having them fired for
political reasons?
Hon. Vought. Senator, Schedule F is a different
classification. It is meant to ensure that the administration,
the President has people who are working for him that are
actually going to do the policies that he ran on, that he is
articulating.
We think that is an important fundamental principle, and it
does not mean that we have any intent to use that to fire
career civil servants. I worked with them. I value the work
that they do. I hope that the same people there that was
working for--I had one person that was there from Jimmy Carter.
I actually had a person there from Lyndon Baines Johnson (LBJ).
I love the fact that the career individuals from OMB bring
with them that expertise, to be able to advise us on our
policies. It is not a desire to just fire anyone that has that
classification.
Senator Van Hollen. I understand. But Mr. Chairman, let the
record show I asked simply whether those individuals, when they
are fired, would have any due process rights as they currently
have within the merit-based civil service, and the answer--it
was not--I was not given an answer.
Chairman Graham. Well, as I understood it, you are not
firing anybody. You are just saying if you are going to be in
this job, you need to be like moving in the direction the
President's going.
(Simultaneous discussion.)
Senator Van Hollen. But if you do fire somebody--but if you
do fire someone in one of these jobs----
Chairman Graham. Sure, yeah.
Senator Van Hollen. Then does that person have any due
process rights?
Chairman Graham. I just do not think there is a right to a
particular job in the government is what we're all saying.
Senator Van Hollen. No, the question is right to due
process and not being fired for political reasons.
Chairman Graham. Senator Moreno.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR MORENO
Senator Moreno. Thank you Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Vought.
You have two shots, two interviews with me. So you have double
bonus here, so you did a great job in the Homeland Security
Committee.
Appreciate your transparency, your answers, and I will
start where I ended in that session, which is thank you. Thank
you for your willingness to serve. Thank you for your
willingness to put yourself through this process, and thank you
for the great thought and intellect that you are going to bring
to this job.
Since this is a meeting where we should be questioning you
and not just giving you opinions that you respond to, if it is
okay I will give you some quick ten questions. Is that okay?
Hon. Vought. Sure.
Senator Moreno. So there has been a lot of comments,
especially from the Ranking Member about betraying working
Americans. So let me ask you a question. When the government
forgives the debt of people who paid, took out a loan for
college debt, does that help working Americans like my
technicians, my sales consultants, my receptionist, my drivers,
my car wash guys who did not go to college? Does it help them
when student debt is illegally forgiven?
Hon. Vought. It does not.
Senator Moreno. When you have insane government spending
that unleashes generally high inflation, that makes going to
Taco Bell a luxury, does that help working class Americans?
Hon. Vought. It does not.
Senator Moreno. When you spend hundreds of billions of
dollars to fight endless wars in foreign countries that most
Americans do not even know where they are, does that help
working Americans?
Hon. Vought. No.
Senator Moreno. When you have policies that all of them
voted for, every single one of them voted for electric vehicle
subsidies, so that when I had a Rolls-Royce dealership, a
customer could come in and lease a $515,000 Rolls-Royce
Spectre, that's a fully electric Rolls Royce and get a check
for $7,500 from the U.S. government, does that help working
class Americans?
Hon. Vought. No.
Senator Moreno. And again, I just put on the record that
every single one of my colleagues on the Democrat side voted
for just such a subsidy. When you house illegals in this
country, people are not invited here like I was, like my family
was, when you house them luxury hotels at a cost of $6,000 per
month per room, does that help working class Americans?
Hon. Vought. No.
Senator Moreno. When you give health care to those very
illegals, when Americans do not have the health care that they
need, does that help working class Americans?
Hon. Vought. No.
Senator Moreno. When you provide food to illegals, and in
some cases when they do not like the food, you give them
thousand-dollar prepaid credit cards, does that help working
class American citizens?
Hon. Vought. No, sir.
Senator Moreno. When you give sex change operations to
illegals, does that help working class Americans?
Hon. Vought. No.
Senator Moreno. When you offer Diversity, Equity and
Inclusion (DEI) courses, and instead of being promoted based on
merit and rather you have this insane move to DEI, does that
help working class Americans?
Hon. Vought. No.
Senator Moreno. And when you fly immigrants from foreign
countries to the United States on private jets, does that help
working class Americans?
Hon. Vought. No.
Senator Moreno. So last question for you, you can answer it
however you would like, Mr. Vought. Why do you think hourly
wages for working class Americans declined under the policies
of Joe Biden and Democrat control of Congress, and yet when
President Trump was in the White House, hourly wages actually
went up for the first time in a generation?
Hon. Vought. Well Senator, thank you for the question. I
think it is because we had an administration that was doing
everything it can to unleash the American economy, have cheap
energy, to be able to have a regulatory sector that was not
adding burdens that was not worth it from a cost-benefit
perspective, and to free the American people and entrepreneurs
to take risk and to hire people and to increase salaries.
And I think you get that with the policies that the
President has run on, and I think we are going to see that in a
very soon amount of time.
Senator Moreno. So if you were to say who betrayed working
class Americans, was it Joe Biden and the Democrats or
President Trump?
Hon. Vought. It certainly was not President Trump.
Senator Moreno. Thank you.
Chairman Graham. Senator Lujan.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR LUJAN
Senator Lujan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Mr.
Vought, you authored sections of Project 2025, which sets forth
a blueprint for dangerous plans under this new administration.
You will have an enormous responsibility at OMB and given
your record, I have serious questions about whether you can be
trusted to carry out the law and safeguard programs that many
Americans rely on like Medicare and Medicaid, Social Security
and many more.
You also authored this 2023 budget proposal at a foundation
that I believe that you helped to found over at the Center for
Renewing America; is that correct?
Hon. Vought. I did help found the Center for Renewing
America and put that together.
Senator Lujan. And you stand by your name?
Hon. Vought. Senator, I am not here to talk about the
proposals of the Center for Renewing America.
Senator Lujan. That is not my question. Mr. Vought, my
question is a simple one. Do you stand by your--do you stand by
your name?
Hon. Vought. I do stand by my name.
Senator Lujan. Do you stand by your word?
Hon. Vought. Yes, sir.
Senator Lujan. Well, I appreciate that because you signed
this document. This is your signature?
Hon. Vought. Yes, sir.
Senator Lujan. Appreciate that. Mr. Vought, in 2021, what
was the reason for founding this center?
Hon. Vought. We wanted to continue the work on policies
that were based on the principles of President Trump running
for office in his first term, and we wanted to make sure that
the political class here, the agenda-setting functions were not
going to ignore those important America First perspectives.
But again Senator, I am not here on behalf of the Center.
I am here on behalf of the President's policies that he ran
on.
Senator Lujan. Appreciate that.
Hon. Vought. And he is already acting on.
Senator Lujan. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
submit this into the record.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Document submitted by Senator Lujan appears in the appendix on
page 170.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Lujan. Mr. Vought, do you know how many families
receive assistance through the Low-Income Energy Assistance
Program?
Hon. Vought. Not off the top of my head.
Senator Lujan. Would you surprise you if it was estimated
about 5.9 million families, according to the National Consumer
Law Center?
Hon. Vought. It would not.
Senator Lujan. Your 2023 budget from Center for Renewing
America proposed eliminating Low-Income Home Energy Assistance
Program (LIHEAP) funding entirely, which would force millions
of Americans to see skyrocketing energy costs, especially this
week as temperatures are dipping below zero across the country.
I think that is important, especially to those of us who
represent states where many of our constituents depend on these
programs when it gets cold. Mr. Vought you authored Chapter 2
of Project 2025 titled ``Executive Office of the President of
the United States'' correct?
Hon. Vought. Yes, sir.
Senator Lujan. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent to enter Chapter 2 of Project 2025 into the record.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Document submitted by Senator Lujan appears in the appendix on
page 145.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman Graham. Without objection.
Senator Lujan. In this chapter, you wrote that ``the Trump
administration must reaffirm its commitment to `preventing drug
use before it starts, providing treatment that leads to long-
term recovery.' '' Mr. Vought, do you know that Medicaid is the
largest payer for substance abuse disorder services in the
United States?
Hon. Vought. Yes, Senator.
Senator Lujan. About 38 percent of folks in this space
depend on that program. But in the budget from your group, the
Center for Renewing America, you included significant cuts to
Medicaid, a total of $2.3 trillion of cuts over 10 years.
Now Mr. Vought, on April 8th, 2024 you tweeted that
``defending life is the most important thing to me.'' Does that
sound correct?
Hon. Vought. Senator, on behalf of the administration, I
will be putting in place the President's views on life and
abortion.
Senator Lujan. Mr. Vought, do you know that roughly or do
you know what roughly percentage of American babies are born
with Medicaid health coverage every year?
Hon. Vought. I do not know.
Senator Lujan. About 41 percent. Would that surprise you?
Hon. Vought. It would not.
Senator Lujan. In your same budget, you called to eliminate
the federal matching percentage floor for states. This would
eliminate crucial investments that will put the health care of
pregnant mothers in jeopardy. Your budget says that it would
cut over $650 billion from that program alone.
Hon. Vought, do you know that Head Start promotes school
readiness for children from birth to age five?
Hon. Vought. Yes, Senator.
Senator Lujan. Do you know how many children were served by
Head Start in Fiscal Year (FY) '23?
Hon. Vought. Not off the top of my head, Senator.
Senator Lujan. Over 770,000 children. Your budget proposes
a 50 percent funding reduction for Head Start programs. In your
budget, you included a standard that said ``Head Start
participants have worse behavior and academic outcomes than
children who do not enroll in the program.''
Two members of this Committee are Head Start graduates,
including myself. Does that surprise you?
Hon. Vought. No.
Senator Lujan. That outcomes from Head Start guide a couple
of folks to the United States Senate?
Hon. Vought. It does not surprise me, Senator.
Senator Lujan. Would you like to apologize about that
statement?
Hon. Vought. I was not referring to anybody in particular,
Senator. We were looking at the program, the reforms that were
a part of that proposal, and that proposal is not an
administration document, and I am not here to defend it.
Senator Lujan. I appreciate it. Mr. Chairman, could I add
to the record a document from the National Head Start Alliance
that cites over 30 studies that find the advantage for Head
Start kids.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Document submitted by Senator Lujan appears in the appendix on
page 284.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman Graham. Absolutely.
Senator Lujan. And Mr. Chairman, just one last question on
Native American programs around safety. Mr. Vought, I assume
that you support making American communities safer?
Hon. Vought. Yes, sir.
Senator Lujan. Does this include Native American
communities surrounding rural, local and border towns?
Hon. Vought. Yes, sir.
Senator Lujan. Do you plan to defund Bureau of Indian
Affairs (BIA) and tribal police again as you did under your
first tenure in OMB?
Hon. Vought. Senator, we have not begun the budget process.
I am not confirmed and will not be able to comment on what a
future budget, where we do not have a fiscal goal that the
President has agreed to would look like at this point.
Senator Lujan. You are not willing to say no today?
Hon. Vought. I am not willing to comment on any programs
that have not been articulated as part of the budget process
that has not----
Senator Lujan. Appreciate that. Mr. Chairman, I just hope
that in this case when we talk about border security, safety in
our communities, bipartisanly we have worked on several of
these committees to improve law and order, support for the
Bureau of Indian Affairs with Native American police officers,
things of that nature.
This is an area where there is bipartisan support to
protect these programs, and I hope that we can continue to do
that. I yield.
Chairman Graham. Thank you very much. Senator Scott.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR SCOTT
Senator Scott. Mr. Vought, congratulations.
Hon. Vought. Thank you.
Senator Scott. You did a great job under the first Trump
administration, and I know you are going to do a great job
under this administration, and I look forward to working with
you.
We have seen the bloating of the federal government under
the Biden administration. In the last 4 years, he has added $8
trillion to the national debt, increased our federal spending
by 53 percent, while population growth was 2. We can't continue
down this path of spending way above pre-pandemic levels, and
with the past 4 years of Joe Biden, there has not been any
serious discussion or plan on how to control spending or reduce
our $36 trillion of debt. In the last--I mean this is just
crazy where the debt is.
Can you talk about this existential threat to our economy
and what we are leaving to our children if we do not address
it?
Hon. Vought. Well, we are currently living in a--a legacy
of debt and higher taxes if we do not deal with the fact that
as a country, we are spending too much. And that is one of the
reasons that we have consistently in the first term put forward
budgets that would address the fiscal situation, have
commonsense reforms, savings, get a handle on the agencies that
we think are wasting taxpayer dollars, and also to keep the
economy growing.
I mean that is a part of what is necessary to balance the
books. You have got to also have a dynamic accounting where you
bring revenues in, and that is something that is going to be
very, very important for this administration.
Senator Scott. I went to a drive-through restaurant the
other day, and one of the ladies said to me, she said that she
moved to Florida when I was governor because she thought she
could get a job, and she clearly did. We added 1.7 million
jobs. But she said the last four years with the inflation, she
is finding it very difficult to--to survive. She has got two
little kids.
So what are some of the policies that could be implemented,
not that you--you know, you have not done this yet. What are
some of the ideas that President Trump could implement to start
reducing inflation?
Hon. Vought. Well Senator, we are clearly going to address
the spending side. The President has instituted, created a DOGE
in addition to OMB. He has already put out an EO to unleash
American energy and directing all the agencies to be trying to
do everything they can to get permits going, to be able to get
rid of regulations that are binding, the pursuit of American
energy.
And then the deregulatory process of getting that back up
and running. The President has given us a new goal. In the
first term, we had a two for one goal, now we have one for--ten
for one. We think we can hit that. We overshot the first goal
and we fully intend to do our best to hit that goal.
But those are all things that are going to be impacting the
bottom line, the pocketbook of the person that moved to Florida
for that--for that precise reason.
Senator Scott. So if we do not--you know, you have seen
some of Senator Ron Johnson's work he has put out, that how
much the budget has just grown. If you look at inflation
adjusted since Clinton, the inflation adjusted after Obama, it
is just--it is staggering how much it has grown.
So what is--what is the chance that we are going to see a
significant reduction in interest rates, which are hurting
people, the high interest rates under Biden? What is the chance
that we are going to see inflation come under control if we do
not get this budget down?
Hon. Vought. I think those two come together. I think you
have got to tackle your budgets, your spending to be able to
have a shot at taming inflation, about having interest rates
that can come down. Obviously when we left--when we left
office, interest rates were nowhere near where they are. The
debt was--we spent $350 billion on interest payments the last
year that I was there.
We are now up to about $900 billion in interest payments
beyond what we spend in defense. So this is--this is the wrong
trajectory that you want to be on, and we fully intend, if
confirmed for me to have a role in changing that course.
Senator Scott. So this is not the easiest job you had
before. It is not the easiest job you are going to--you are
going to, you know, do again. Why do want to do this?
I mean it is work to try to eliminate the cruel inflation
and the impact on people's inability to buy a house because of
interest rates and things like that. Why would you want to do
this?
Hon. Vought. Well, I think that I bring a particular
expertise, having done the job before, that I want to be able
to hit the ground running. And it is very rare that you have a
chance to do a job better after thinking about it for four
years, and I am very thankful that the President has given me
this opportunity and I hope that--hopefully I get through it as
a confirmed appointee.
Senator Scott. Alright. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Graham. Thank you. Senator Padilla.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR PADILLA
Senator Padilla. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Vought, thank
you for being here. I cannot help but notice how many times I
have heard throughout the hearing today your argument that the
Impoundment Control Act is unconstitutional. But the fact that
the incoming general counsel at OMB, along with you in your
final days of the first Trump administration, specifically
requested legislative adjustments to the Impoundment Control
Act.
So what that tells me is that you do in fact understand the
constitutionality of this law as not just currently on the
books but upheld by the courts. In your testimony here today
and through how you served in the first Trump administration,
it also strikes me you come across as someone who thinks they
know better than Congress, better than this Committee, and at
times even better than the President during the first Trump
administration.
You testified last week that you have been thinking about
returning to the OMB for the last four years, and I can only
hope and pray that should you be confirmed, that you would
uphold the Constitution above all else. I mean I normally thank
folks willing to put themselves out for a position of public
service for their willingness, because it is not easy.
My colleague Senator Lujan raised some of your
contributions to Project 2025, and in that Project 2025, you
write that the OMB Director should be ``aggressive in wielding
the tool of apportionment on behalf of the President's
agenda.'' And ``defend the apportionment power against attacks
from Congress.''
It is particularly striking that there are so many members
of this Committee that seem eager, anxious, ready to vote for
your confirmation, when there is a clear disregard and disdain
for Congress' appropriation authority. Frankly Mr. Chairman,
you are one of the appropriators. I wish you would join us in
trying to drive home this point, because it is setting the
stage for how we will be working together over the next four
years.
I have to take this opportunity to echo Senator Peters, who
raised a specific concern during your hearing in the Homeland
Security Committee last week, outlining the fact that your
record is particularly concerning for disaster impacted states,
given your previous unlawful actions to politicize, withhold
and slow the distribution of disaster or even foreign aid.
So my question to you is this, Mr. Vought. If confirmed,
will you or will you not politicize disaster funding and deny
funds provided by Congress for American families and businesses
that have been devastated by natural disasters?
Hon. Vought. Senator, I would not politicize the disbursing
of federal funds in any capacity----
Senator Padilla. Well, that is great to hear, because you
say you are going to implement the President's agenda, and I
have been paying very close to his remarks since the outset of
the devastating fires in Southern California these last few
weeks.
I would like to ask you, Mr. Vought, will you commit to
getting Congressionally appropriated funding out to
Californians devastated by these fires as quickly as possible?
Hon. Vought. Senator, the President has always been a firm
distributor of federal resources to areas that need disaster
money, and I do not expect that to change. And that has been--
that has characterized my time at OMB the first time around. To
your earlier question, I do support and will take an oath to
uphold the Constitution, and that will continue if confirmed in
this capacity.
Senator Padilla. So two comments, just again for the
record. Glad you are pledging to uphold the Constitution
because the Constitution and the law is clear as it pertains to
the Impoundment Control Act. So unlike some of your clearly
understood efforts in the first term, I hope you do not go back
to those bad faith practices and efforts in the second term,
and you are suggesting that you are not going to politicize the
disbursement of funds. You are going to get them out the door
as quickly as possible.
Again, I would appreciate you for living up to that
commitment that you stated here today, because I continue to
hear comments from President Trump from leaders in--Republican
leaders in Congress on both sides of the Capitol, about
attaching disaster funding to a debt limit vote or attaching
disaster funding to some other element of the new
administration's agenda, whether it is tax breaks for
billionaires, or whether it is some unrelated issue in Northern
California as it pertains to federal land management or
anything else.
So thank you for your comments on the record. I look
forward to holding you to them.
Chairman Graham. Thank you. Senator Marshall.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR MARSHALL
Senator Marshall. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, Mr. Vought. Glad to have you here. I think I want to
speak today in terms of hard-working families in Kansas. The
average salary back home for hard-working Kansans is about
$50,000 a year.
Over the last 4 years, we have seen cumulative inflation of
20 percent. So that $50,000 only really can purchase about
$40,000 worth of goods and services, almost $1,000 a month hit
to the average Kansan. When we think about the Trump tax cuts
though, they put a--those put $1,000 a month back into the
pockets of Kansans.
Overall, if this Trump tax cut goes away, it is going to
cost Americans about $4.3 trillion over 10 years. Middle
America is going to get hit without about 60 percent of that.
Again, $1,000 a month. If those tax cuts go away, it is going
to impact hard-working Kansans to the tune of $1,000 a month.
I just want you to comment just a second on how big of a
priority getting these tax cuts made actually permanent would
be, and how it would impact our economy and those hard-working
Kansans back home?
Hon. Vought. Oh I think, Senator, thank you for the
question. I think it would devastate their bottom line, and
having to face a massive tax increase that they are not
prepared for, nor should they. I think there should be, and the
President has run on this, an extension of the tax cuts and
some of the other provisions that he has proposed on the
campaign trail.
And we have got to go after the spending. We have to go
after insuring that we have or producing as much American
energy as we possibly can, and we have got to get beyond the
regulatory burden that we have put on the American people.
And I think those are all policies that you will see if
confirmed me prioritize in this role.
Senator Marshall. Let us talk a little bit about budgeting.
Folks back home, they are expected to balance their tax--or
balance their checkbooks, pay off their credit card debt.
Unfortunately, they are seeing their credit cards are maxed
out. It is tough times, no doubt about it.
But Congress seems to not care about a budget. If Congress
would go to a zero-based budgeting reform, working with your
office, what could be the impact of that? And I mean zero-based
budgeting, even grants. We make grants on five-year terms
typically. But if we would just start looking at those grants,
especially the ones that are going out of the country, what
impact will zero-based budgeting have for--to getting towards a
balanced budget?
Hon. Vought. Well, I think what you--the concepts of zero-
based budgeting is that you get a sense of what are the things
that you have not taken a look at in a long time, and starting
from the ground up. It does not mean you are not going to fund
that. Just it means that you are taking an approach to looking
at each agency spend and where the big dollars are coming from.
And I think every family does that in America. They look at
what is the amount that they are going to bring in from a
paycheck, and then they look at their spending and they say
what are the big pockets of discretionary funding that they
could do without.
And that is what I think that budgeting is about, and I
think it is important not to lose that level of common sense
that comes from a family budget, balancing their own books.
Senator Marshall. Okay. I think, just keeping a little time
here, to just discuss inflation in general. You made the
comment earlier that federal borrowing causes inflation, and
that is pretty intuitive to some of us. But I think I just want
you to take that just a little bit and explain to again those
folks back home. When the federal government is borrowing
money, spending more than they have, how does that lead to
inflation?
Hon. Vought. Well, you certainly have more money in the--in
the system that is coming from federal dollars that are--are
providing competition and the ability to have prices go up as a
result of that. And you add the component to which who is
buying much of that debt?
Much of that debt it being bought by the Federal Reserve,
that is printing money to buy that debt, and then goes back
into the economy.
Senator Marshall. And of course--and of course that is
going to impact interest rates as well. So one of the goals
will be to get interest rates down. What is it going to take
for interest rates to meaningfully come down, not just because
of what the Fed is doing?
Hon. Vought. Well, it is going to require us to get a
handle on our spending, to begin to have deficits that are much
more manageable.
Senator Marshall. Thank you, Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Graham. Senator Whitehouse.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR WHITEHOUSE
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and welcome to
the seat recently occupied by myself. I am delighted to see you
there and look forward to working with you.
Chairman Graham. Me too.
Senator Whitehouse. Mr. Vought, the backdrop to the
conversation we are having here is indicated by this graph,
which shows from 1980 to 2020 how income has grown in the
United States. The bottom line, showing essentially no income
growth, is the bottom 20 percent of income earners. And as you
can see, their household income has stayed essentially flat.
The second line up, this lower one, is how the top 1
percent of income earners have done. They are up 600 percent
yearly, compared to near 0 percent for the working people in
that lowest 20 percent. And if you look at the top-most line
that is up more than 800 percent, that is top .01 percent.
What worries me as we go into this effort is that what we
are trying to produce is a golden age for fat cats,
billionaires and polluters that is going to make this
discrepancy worse and worse and worse. And it is in that
context that I would like to ask you some questions about these
Executive Orders.
President Trump fired off 26 Executive Orders I believe his
first day. Are you familiar with them?
Hon. Vought. I am getting familiar with them, Senator. I
have been trying to stay abreast to them and read them. I have
not read through all of them. But I--I am aware that he has
been very active and I have been reading a number of them.
Senator Whitehouse. Did you have any role in preparing any
of them?
Hon. Vought. Senator, I am--that is part of the
deliberative process that transition goes through, and I am not
going to invade that deliberative process.
Senator Whitehouse. Wait, wait, wait. Hold, hold. Can we--
can I have a point of order here and stop the clock? I was the
Chairman--you can put that down now--for a Congress in which we
had I think over 40 hearings and in those hearings never once
did I tell a Republican colleague what questions they could or
could not ask.
Those are kind of not my business, and we had some pretty
out there questions, I will tell you, and we certainly never
had a witness tell Senators what questions they could and could
not ask. So I want to--I guess I am like why can I not get an
answer? Is there some new rule in this Committee as to where
these Executive Orders came from?
That is perfectly, to me, legitimate Congressional
oversight. And over and over this witness has told us what he--
what questions he will answer. But the oath he took was to tell
the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in
response to our questions.
So if there is some new limitation about what question I
can ask, I would like to understand that. If not, I would like
to have the Chair tell the witness to answer my questions.
Chairman Graham. Well, as I understand it, there is no
attorney-client privilege here, right? Are you--you are not--
you are not claiming attorney-client privilege.
Hon. Vought. I am not claiming a privilege, Senator.
Chairman Graham. Okay. Yeah, well you are not part of the
administration. Generally speaking, you know, I guess the
question is did you advise on Executive Orders and which ones?
Is that the question?
Senator Whitehouse. Yes.
Chairman Graham. Can you kind of--kind of tell us that
please, if you could?
Hon. Vought. Senator, I was not a member of the transition.
I was not a member of the President's campaign.
Senator Whitehouse. Do you have knowledge of where the
Executive Orders were drafted?
Hon. Vought. I do not have a comprehensive knowledge of
where the Executive Orders were drafted.
Senator Whitehouse. Do you have any knowledge of where the
Executive Orders were drafted? Do you know, for instance, if
some of them came out of language from the Center for Renewing
America, or some of them came out of Project 2025, or some of
them came out of the Heritage Institute, or some of them came
out of the American Petroleum Institute? Do you know an answer
to those questions?
Hon. Vought. I cannot imagine they came from Project 2025.
The President disassociated himself repeatedly from that. But
no, I cannot give you a comprehensive answer with regard to
where the Executive Orders were compiled. My assumption is that
they were compiled within the transition.
Senator Whitehouse. Well, we will see, because I think
there is every reason to believe that they came from special
interests and lobbyists, and we will pursue that.
Let me ask you about a letter that you wrote some time ago
on Center for Renewing America letterhead to the Judicial
Conference. I think it is the only letter that you ever wrote
to the Judicial Conference. It was dated December 18th, 2023
and it goes into a certain amount of detail about the Ethics in
Government Act and about Justice Jackson's financial disclosure
forms.
Did you do the research for this letter into the Ethics in
Government Act and into the Judicial Financial Disclosure forms
personally?
Hon. Vought. Senator, our Center did the research on that.
Senator Whitehouse. And who in your Center did the research
on that?
Hon. Vought. Our Center did the research on that, and I
cannot speak to who did the work specifically on it.
Senator Whitehouse. You do not know?
Hon. Vought. No, I did not say that, Senator. I said it is
not----
Senator Whitehouse. Why cannot you speak to that? There is
no privilege about that.
Hon. Vought. No, but they are--a think tank is a public
policy organization that has a decision to note who does the
work on something and who does not do the work on it, and I
stand by that letter. I have not read it in some time. I am
happy to look at it, but I am aware that we sent it, that I
signed it.
Senator Whitehouse. Did Mr. Paoletta, who is here, have a
role in preparing this letter?
Hon. Vought. He is a member of the Center for Renewing
America, but I am not going to speak beyond that.
Senator Whitehouse. Here we go again, Mr. Chairman. I am
not going to speak----
(Simultaneous speaking.)
Chairman Graham. He said he stands by the letter. It is his
letter.
Senator Whitehouse. That is not the question.
Chairman Graham. Yeah. Well, he just said it.
Senator Whitehouse. That is not the question. My time is
up.
Chairman Graham. All right, thanks. Senator Lee.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR LEE
Senator Lee. Thanks so much for being here, Mr. Vought, and
for your willingness to serve. The administrative state has
been crushing the American economy and American innovation. It
is also something that operates in a manner that is
fundamentally contrary to the structure and intent of the U.S.
Constitution.
Article I, Sections 1 and 7 make clear that only Congress
may enact federal law. And Article I, Section 7 in particular
makes it clear that you cannot make a federal law until you
follow the formula, and the formula involves bicameral passage
of a single bill, a single item, legislative text in both
houses, followed by a submission to the President for
signature, veto or acquiescence.
Unless you follow that model, you cannot under the
Constitution make a federal law. For the last 80 or 90 years,
Congress has been veering off course in that direction, and
tragically the courts have been at least inconsistent or you
might say largely absent in enforcing these restrictions.
Nonetheless, it is important that we arrest the problem,
because the problem is arresting Americans, in some cases very
literally, and not just metaphorically. It is estimated that in
2024 alone, executive branch bureaucrats in the Biden
administration promulgated federal regulations that added $1.5
trillion in regulatory compliance costs just during that narrow
time period.
This, on top of previous estimates, suggesting as far as
back as 2016-2017, that existing regulatory compliance costs
imposed by federal regulators in Washington, where somewhere in
range of around $2 trillion. So it is much higher than that
now.
These laws are written by unelected, unaccountable
bureaucrats. They cannot really be fired by anyone. They
certainly do not even have to stand for election. They are not
known to the American people. And they promulgate nearly
100,000 pages of law, federal law or initial drafts that could
become law every single year.
A simple solution to that would involve passage of a bill
called the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny
(REINS) Act. The REINS Act stands for Regulations from the
Executive in Need of Scrutiny, would require that all federal
regulations before they may be enforced as federal law, if they
qualify as major rules imposing affirmative legal obligations
on the public, would have to be subjected to bicameralism and
presentment standard imposed by Article I, Section 7.
Mr. Vought, what are your views on the REINS Act, and will
you and the Trump administration work with Congress to enact
reforms like these?
Hon. Vought. Thank you, Senator. It is obviously an
important area for the President, of ensuring that the
bureaucracies cannot promulgate regulations that are harming
the economy, harming the American people and it is one of those
creative ideas that I think Congress should take a strong look
at, and the administration certainly supports the thrust of the
direction of the legislation.
Senator Lee. Now there are--there are those who argue that
a significant amount of reform to federal regulations and that
the process itself could be carried out through the executive
branch itself acting alone.
What are your views on that and whether that would or could
adequately do the job? Is there not a risk there that if it is
performed only by the executive branch, that might bring relief
to Americans as long as this President is in office, but
subject us to the same risk immediately after he leaves?
Hon. Vought. That would be the problem, and we saw that
with regard to, you know, some of the proposals regarding
administrative pay-go. When you give the administration or
whoever the OMB Director is the ability to execute this outside
of statute, then you have got a situation where you can
minimize costs and maximize benefits, and potentially escape
the process of what Congress has intended.
Senator Lee. I have recently reintroduced a bill in this
Congress that I introduced last year. It is a bill called the
America First Act. The America First Act imposes a simple
principle on American law, a principle that most Americans
agree with, which is that welfare benefits provided by the
federal government should be available to Americans, and not to
those who are not Americans, especially those who are here
unlawfully.
It would ensure specifically that only U.S. citizens and
lawful permanent residents could be eligible to receive
benefits under programs like Medicaid, SNAP, housing,
education, some tax benefit programs and a handful of other
government benefits.
These are things that impose significant costs on the
American economy. They are draining resources meant to benefit
Americans and not those who have come here, contrary to our
laws, in order to receive them. Mr. Vought, would you commit to
working with Congress to bring about reforms like these?
Hon. Vought. Absolutely, Senator. This is exactly the types
of reforms that the President ran on.
Senator Lee. Great. I see my time has expired. Thank you
very much. Thank you, Chairman.
Chairman Graham. We have one more. You okay?
Hon. Vought. Yeah.
Chairman Graham. Senator Wyden.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR WYDEN
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Vought, let me
ask you about Medicaid, because you know I am the Ranking
Democrat on the Finance Committee. I have been perplexed by
your views about Medicaid over the years, because Medicaid is
already an incredibly efficient payer within the health care
system.
So here we have this program that helps with rest homes. It
helps with workers. It helps with kids. It helps with disabled.
The track record is it is efficient. Do you disagree with that?
Hon. Vought. Well Senator, thanks for the question. I think
it is the extent to which Medicaid is now----
Senator Wyden. Yes or no. Do you agree with the point that
I am making, that Medicaid is efficient, because I have read
everything you have had to say about it. You are an influential
figure. Your politics are different than mine, but I look at
the merits of the arguments. And Medicaid is an efficient
program that helps vulnerable people. And I want to know, do
you think Medicaid is inefficient?
Hon. Vought. Well, I do not know if we are using the same
definition of efficiency, and I think the challenge----
Senator Wyden. You use something that would suggest other
than the point I am making, because every--right now, per
person spendings grew less than Medicare and private insurance
over the last few years. So this program that you want to
clobber, that you want to reduce is more efficient than
practically a host of other things. And I want to know what
your argument is for Medicaid being inefficient, which you use
to justify the cuts.
Hon. Vought. Well, I am not sure I used efficiency as the
reason to justify reforms to Medicaid. What I was referring to
and have, particularly defending the budgets that President
Trump sent up, is that the populations that you mentioned are
no longer just the populations of Medicaid.
But now we have able-bodied working adults that get a
higher match, and that has taken away from the ability to have
a focus on those specific populations, because you have states
chasing the match instead of trying to focus on those that it
was intended for and weed out improper payments and waste,
fraud and abuse. And we know that there is improper payments in
Medicaid to a very high degree.
Senator Wyden. Well, what we know is that spendings grew
less in all these other programs, and that the analyses that
have been done by objective people is dollar for dollar, this
is an important way to help the poor.
So we will start with that, and you have not told me
anything this morning that would suggest that you have a good
argument that indicates you believe Medicare is inefficient,
because the facts suggest otherwise, and let us leave the
record open. You can send me anything you want.
Let me ask you one other question, because my time is
short. I think the distillation of the Trump economic program
is to give tax breaks to all the people at the top, and it is
going to be paid for by these kinds of cuts, cuts in efficient
health care programs like Medicaid and hunger programs and the
like.
And I would like to know does that concern you at all, that
we have these values that are going to help the people right at
the top, at the tippy-top of the top and we're going to cut
these programs like Medicaid and hunger? Are those your values?
Do you think that that is something that is in line with
American values, because I think we want everybody to have a
chance to get ahead?
Hon. Vought. Senator, I fully support the notion that we
want everyone to get ahead, and we would not characterize our
economic program that way. We think it is important to give
people tax cuts at all levels. The President wants to extend
those tax cuts.
Senator Wyden. Well, what about the vulnerable people who
are going to get hurt in the process, because no matter how you
try to reframe this, this is an efficient program, Medicaid.
It serves some of the most vulnerable people in America. It
is a lifeline for them, and the people at the top--excuse me.
The people at the top are going to get the benefits. And I
gather that you do not have a problem with that, and I think
most Americans want a sense of fairness that you are not
offering today?
Hon. Vought. Senator, I hope there is a better Medicaid
program, and that Medicaid is an important program for the
poor, and that they get better health care as a result of the
reforms that align the incentives, so that states are doing
everything they can to have the best programs that they
possibly can, as opposed to expanding them unnecessarily, that
hurts the federal taxpayer and honestly I believe hurts the
people that the Medicaid program was meant for.
Senator Wyden. If you have a way to show that you can make
Medicaid more efficient, because right now it is clearly
meeting the objective test of using federal dollars in a smart
way and do it without hurting them and perhaps, heaven forbid,
you would take some of the money that is going to go tax breaks
for people at the top to do it, I will be all ears.
But right now what I see is a path to hurting many more
vulnerable people, and instead the money is going to go to the
people at the top, and I do not think that is right. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Graham. Senator Wyden, Mr. Vought. Thank you. Well
done for appearing before the Committee today. Your full
statement will be included in the record. The hearing record
will remain open until noon tomorrow for the submission of
statements and questions for the record, delivered to the
Committee Clerk.
Senator Merkley and I met yesterday. We had a very good
meeting. Our staffs are working together the best we can. I
enjoyed our meeting and I thought we had a good hearing today,
and I will speak later about the Impoundment Act at the mark-
up. I have concerns too, and I will share those with you there.
But thank you very much, Mr. Vought. Anything? If not, the
hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:11 p.m., Wednesday, January 22, 2025, the
hearing was adjourned.]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
BUSINESS MEETING TO CONSIDER THE
HON. RUSSELL VOUGHT TO BE
DIRECTOR OF OMB
----------
THURSDAY, JANUARY 30, 2025
Committee on the Budget,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
The hearing was convened, pursuant to notice, at 12:18
p.m., in the President's Room, of The Capitol Building, Room S-
216, Hon. Lindsey O. Graham, Chairman of the Committee,
presiding.
Present: Senators Graham, Grassley, Crapo, Johnson,
Marshall, Cornyn, Lee, Kennedy, Ricketts, Moreno, and R. Scott.
Also present: Republican Staff: Nick Myers, Staff Director;
Katherine Nikas, Deputy Staff Director and Chief Counsel; Erich
Hartman, Deputy Staff Director; Caitlin Wilson, Senior Counsel;
Lillian Meadows, General Counsel; Nick Wyatt, Professional
Staff Member.
Democratic Staff: Melissa Kaplan-Pistiner, General Counsel;
Tyler Evilsizer, Director of Scorekeeping.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN GRAHAM
Chairman Graham. The Senate Budget Committee will come to
order. Our condolences to Senator Marshall and all those
affected by the tragic plane crash last night. So we're
thinking about you and yours. Today we're meeting on the
nomination of Russell Vought to be the Director of the Office
of Management and Budget. We usually have opening statements by
the Ranking member and Chairman. I think he's a great pick.
Senator Merkley's not here.
Senator Cornyn. Mr. Chairman, where are the Democrats?
Chairman Graham. They're not here. They chose not to be
here. It's their right not to be here, so enjoy the time.
Senator Cornyn. Slightly juvenile.
Chairman Graham. But we're here. We'll now move directly to
the vote. Committee members may also make statements for the
record to the committee clerk by 12 noon tomorrow. I will note
that for the record a quorum is present. The clerk will call
the roll.
The Clerk. Mr. Grassley.
Senator Grassley. Aye. Can I go now?
Chairman Graham. Yes, you can.
The Clerk. Mr. Crapo.
Senator Crapo. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Johnson.
Senator Johnson. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Marshall.
Senator Marshall. Aye.
Chairman Graham. Just wait and we vote then go.
The Clerk. Mr. Cornyn.
Senator Cornyn. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Lee.
Senator Lee. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Kennedy.
Senator Kennedy. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Ricketts.
Senator Ricketts. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Moreno.
Senator Moreno. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Scott.
Senator Scott. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Merkley.
(No response.)
The Clerk. Mrs. Murray.
(No response.)
The Clerk. Mr. Wyden.
(No response.)
The Clerk. Mr. Sanders.
(No response.)
The Clerk. Mr. Whitehouse.
(No response.)
The Clerk. Mr. Warner.
(No response.)
The Clerk. Mr. Kaine.
(No response.)
The Clerk. Mr. Van-Hollen.
(No response.)
The Clerk. Mr. Lujan.
(No response.)
The Clerk. Mr. Padilla.
(No response.)
The Clerk. Chairman Graham.
Chairman Graham. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the ayes are 11 and the nays are
zero.
Chairman Graham. The nomination is reported favorably. You
have till 12 noon tomorrow to make statements. The committee
stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., Thursday, January 30, 2025, The
Senate Budget Committee was adjourned.]
[all]