    [Senate Hearing 119-1]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                              S. Hrg. 119-1

                       NOMINATION OF HON. RUSSELL VOUGHT

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                   HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

               NOMINATION OF HON. RUSSELL VOUGHT TO BE DIRECTOR,
                        OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET

                                   __________

                                JANUARY 15, 2025

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

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

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                       U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    58-382 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2025

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

            COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

                         RAND PAUL, Kentucky, Chairman
    RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin               GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
    JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma             MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire
    RICK SCOTT, Florida                  RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
    JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri                JOHN FETTERMAN, Pennsylvania
    BERNIE MORENO, Ohio                  ANDY KIM, New Jersey
    JONI ERNST, Iowa                     RUBEN GALLEGO, Arizona
    TIM SCOTT, South Carolina            ELISSA SLOTKIN, Michigan

                    William E. Henderson III, Staff Director
                      Christina N. Salazar, Chief Counsel
                          Andrew J. Hopkins,  Counsel
                        Phillip A. Todd, Chief Economist
                   David M. Weinberg, Minority Staff Director
                  Claudine J. Brenner, Minority Senior Counsel
              James F. Heibert, Minority Professional Staff Member
                Dominic S. Thibault, Minority Research Assistant
                         Laura W. Kilbride, Chief Clerk
                       Ashley A. Gonzalez, Hearing Clerk

                                C O N T E N T S

                                     ------
    Opening statements:
                                                                       Page
        Senator Paul.................................................     1
        Senator Peters...............................................     2
        Senator Johnson..............................................     9
        Senator Hassan...............................................    11
        Senator Moreno...............................................    13
        Senator Blumenthal...........................................    16
        Senator Kim..................................................    19
        Senator Slotkin..............................................    21
        Senator Lankford.............................................    23
        Senator Gallego..............................................    27
        Senator Scott................................................    29
        Senator Hawley...............................................    31
        Senator Ernst................................................    33
    Prepared statements:
        Senator Paul.................................................    41
        Senator Peters...............................................    44

                                   WITNESSES
                          Wednesday, January 15, 2025

    Honorable Russell Vought, to be a Director, Office of Management
      and Budget
        Testimony....................................................     5
        Prepared statement...........................................    46
        Biographical and professional information....................    48
        Letter from U.S. Office of Government Ethics.................    69
        Responses to pre-hearing questions...........................    73
        Responses to post-hearing questions..........................    97
        Letter of support............................................   119
        Letters of opposition........................................   121

                                    APPENDIX

    Pre-pandemic vs. post pandemic spending chart....................   140
    How to Balance the Federal Budget chart..........................   141
    Trump FY2025 Budget chart........................................   142
    Federal Program Inventory chart..................................   143
    Senator Ernst chart..............................................   144
    Out of Office Report.............................................   145
    Statement from Glaad.............................................   206

                                 NOMINATION OF
                              HON. RUSSELL VOUGHT

                                  ----------

                          WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 15, 2025

                                         U.S. Senate,
                               Committee on Homeland Security
                                      and Governmental Affairs,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:02 p.m., in
    room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Rand Paul,
    presiding.
        Present: Senators Paul [presiding], Johnson, Lankford, Rick
    Scott, Hawley, Moreno, Ernst, Peters, Hassan, Blumenthal, Kim,
    Gallego, and Slotkin.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PAUL\1\

        Chairman Paul. The hearing to consider the nomination of
    Russell Vought to be Director of the Office of Management and
    Budget (OMB) will come to order. Since taking office four years
    ago, President Biden has added $8.4 trillion to our national
    debt. To be fair, the Trump administration added $7.8 trillion
    to the national debt. This is truly a bipartisan problem. To
    put the pace of our Federal Government spending into
    perspective, for the last eight years, our government has added
    on average $1 trillion to the national debt every six months.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Senator Paul appears in the Appendix
    on page 41.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Now, for the first time in history, servicing our debt has
    come at a cost that is more than our entire defense budget.
    Interest now exceeds our military budget. This isn't
    sustainable. The Office of Management and Budget, is the
    largest office within the Executive Branch, with the primary
    responsibility of producing a workable budget for the
    President.
        Unfortunately, over the past four years, OMB failed to
    address our nation's fiscal situation, and in fact, took
    actions that accelerated the country's fiscal crisis. Make no
    mistake, my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and Congress
    are also complicit in this reckless approach to spending by
    refusing to put any meaningful guardrails or parameters on
    taxpayers' money.
        For example, each year I put forth a budget, a plan to
    balance the budget in five years. Last year, I put forth a six-
    penny plan. Started out as a one-penny plan. You could cut one
    percent over five years and balance your budget last year was
    six percent because of the explosion of money that happened
    during Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Every single
    Democrat opposed this and seven Republicans, but we got a big
    chunk of the Republican caucus on that bill.
        But instead of taking advantage of an opportunity for
    fiscal responsibility in 2025, we have added another $1
    trillion to our deficit in four months since I introduced my
    budget. Reports out today, were over $700 billion in debt in
    the last three months. For years, I have been beating the drum
    on waste in our government. Each year I release a Festivus
    Report highlighting the new and egregious examples of waste I
    found.
        Just last month, I released the most recent iteration of
    this report, which identified over a $1 trillion in unnecessary
    and often absurd government spending such as; $400,000 to
    determine whether lonely rats seek cocaine more than happy
    rats, $3 million for girl centric climate action in Brazil, $10
    billion in maintaining, leasing, and furnishing empty Federal
    Government buildings, $12 million for a pickleball complex in
    Las Vegas, $4.8 million for social media influencers in
    Ukraine, $20 million on teaching Pakistan, Vietnam, Columbia,
    and Brazil how to use fertilizer, $2 million to New York
    University (NYU) to study kids looking at Facebook ads about
    food. The list goes on and on. It is beyond time for our
    Federal Government to start taking responsibility for this
    reckless and irresponsible approach to spending.
        While I was disappointed to see our nation's annual budget
    deficit grow during President Trump's first term, I remain
    optimistic about President Trump's nominee Russell Vought. Mr.
    Vought has been a consistent advocate for fiscal sanity and has
    continually suggested strategies to decrease excess spending.
        The Director of OMB plays a pivotal role in our economy,
    especially now. Our government is over $36 trillion in debt,
    and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) predicts an average
    of about $2 trillion per year for the next 10 years. No end in
    sight. We need someone with the strength of character like Mr.
    Vought to put the foot down, to put the hammer down and say
    enough's enough.
        Mr. Vought is well qualified for this role. Having
    previously served as the director in both an official and
    acting capacity, and as well as being the deputy director. As
    Director, Mr. Vought will be tasked with spearheading the
    President's budget. He will also be tasked with overseeing
    agency use of funds, coordinating agency activities across the
    Federal Government and working with Elon Musk and Vivek
    Ramaswamy's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).
        However, unless the new administration has the courage to
    tackle entitlement reform, the national debt will continue to
    explode. I support Mr. Vought's nomination, and I remain
    hopeful that the incoming administration will take the
    necessary steps to restore fiscal sanity.
        With that, I would like to recognize the Ranking Member,
    Senator Peters.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETERS\1\

        Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Vought, welcome
    to being here before us today.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Senator Peters appears in the
    Appendix on page 44.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        I want to begin by noting that this Committee has moved
    forward with this nomination on a very expedited timeline that
    has given Committee Members a very short amount of time to
    adequately review all the documents and information that our
    Committee normally requires before having a hearing. We have a
    constitutional duty to thoroughly review the backgrounds, the
    experience, and qualifications of nominees that lead our
    Federal Government agencies, and to provide transparency and
    accountability to the American people.
        While I recognize that this is not your fault Mr. Vought,
    we should all be able to agree that this Committee needs
    sufficient time and access to this information to effectively
    carry out our responsibility. I will continue to review all the
    information and documents provided so far, and I also intend to
    seek additional information about your background ahead of any
    Committee vote on your nomination.
        The Office of Management and Budget, is a critical office
    in the Executive Office of the President (EOP) with significant
    responsibilities ranging from developing and executing the
    budget, to improving agency performance, as well as reviewing
    regulations. Mr. Vought, you have previously served as both the
    director and deputy director of OMB. Unfortunately, your record
    and actions in these roles raise serious concerns about how you
    are going to lead this critical agency that touches literally
    every single part of the Federal Government.
        Above all, I am concerned by actions you took to
    demonstrate a total disregard for following the laws that
    Congress has passed, particularly regarding on how to spend
    taxpayer dollars. The Constitution, as part of the key checks
    and balances of our democracy, gives Congress the
    responsibility to decide how Federal resources should be spent.
    Federal courts have consistently affirmed this Congress's role
    and not the President. It's Congress's role.
        As a member of the U.S. Navy Reserve, and again, as a
    member of the U.S. Senate, I swore an oath to uphold and follow
    our Constitution. It's my expectation that if confirmed, you
    will do the same. Yet, during your time at OMB, you
    consistently ignored laws passed by Congress that directed how
    taxpayer dollars should be spent.
        In 2020, an investigation by the Government Accountability
    Office (GAO) found that OMB, under your leadership, broke the
    law eight times. That's quite a record. Eight times, breaking
    the law, by directing certain Federal agencies to continue to
    operate during the 2018-19 shutdown. GAO also found that under
    your leadership, OMB violated the law by withholding vital
    security assistance to Ukraine, that Congress explicitly
    provided putting our national security at risk.
        In 2021, the Inspector General (IG) for the Department of
    Housing and Urban Development (HUD) found that, again, under
    your leadership, OMB inappropriately delayed disaster relief
    funding for Puerto Rico, following devastations after Hurricane
    Maria, people who were hurting, people who were suffering,
    people who were not knowing whether they are going to put a
    roof over their head, to have food in their belly. You
    inappropriately delayed disaster funding to those people in
    need.
        OMB knowingly delayed getting critical resources to
    communities following a disaster even after we passed a law
    specifically requiring the funds to be dispersed on time. As
    communities across our country continue to face devastating
    natural disasters, including these recent wildfires in Los
    Angeles, I find it very concerning that you played a critical
    role in slowing down needed Federal assistance to people who
    were desperate.
        I am deeply concerned by another action you pushed for
    during your time in OMB to replace nearly 50,000 nonpartisan
    career civil servants with appointees whose only qualifications
    is that they are politically loyal, not that they are
    competent, not that they follow the law. They have to be
    politically loyal. That's unacceptable. This would have removed
    employees who have had years of knowledge and experience, and
    posed a grave threat to our national security. More than 70
    percent of the Federal workforce serve in agencies that are
    critical to our national defense and our national security.
        Last September, this Committee held a hearing on the issue,
    and we heard testimony from former national security officials
    who served under Presidents of both parties about how removing
    nonpartisan career experts would slow down vital services to
    the American people, make us less prepared for disasters or
    emergencies, and the public's trust in government.
        In fact, you have even referred to the dedicated public
    employees who secure our borders, who are keeping us safe every
    day on the border, who are responding to emergencies and
    helping those who have been devastated by natural disasters,
    and folks who ensure that Americans get things like their
    Social Security checks on time, which every senior citizen
    needs. You refer to these people as ``villains''. These people
    who are doing this work every day, you refer to them as
    villains.
        Statements like this reflect a troubling disregard for the
    dedicated civil servants who work tirelessly to support our
    government and serve the American people. Mr. Vought, you are
    one of the architects of Project 2025, which sets forth a
    blueprint for implementing these unlawful and dangerous plans
    under this new administration. Leading the Office of Management
    and Budget is an enormous responsibility. Given you a record, I
    have serious questions about whether you can be trusted to
    carry out the laws that Congress has passed under the
    Constitution.
        I appreciate you being here with us today to answer these
    and other questions about how you intend to manage the
    operation and budget of the Federal Government, if confirmed,
    and I look forward to hearing your response to questions you
    will be getting from my colleagues.
        Chairman Paul. Russell Vought is currently the President of
    the Center for Renewing America (CRA). During President Trump's
    first administration, Mr. Vought served as the 42nd Director of
    the Office of Management and Budget, the same position he's
    being considered for here today. Prior to becoming Director, he
    served as the deputy director and acting director of OMB. Mr.
    Vought has also served in various roles across Congress
    throughout his career. Mr. Vought received his Bachelor of Arts
    (BA) from Wheaton College, and his law degree from the George
    Washington Law School.
        Mr. Vought, please stand. It's the practice of the Homeland
    Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (HSGAC) to swear in
    witnesses. Mr. Vought, please stand and raise your right hand.
    Do you swear that the testimony you will give before this
    Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
    the truth, so help you, God?
        Mr. Vought. I do.
        Chairman Paul. You are recognized for your opening
    statement.

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

        Mr. Vought. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Ranking Member Peter, and
    Members of the esteemed Committee for the opportunity to be
    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 wily veterans. Their
    love, and support, and enthusiasm for me serving again is a
    major reason for why I feel that my going back into OMB is the
    right endeavor, at the right moment beyond my enthusiasm for
    being at President Trump's side.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Vought appears in the Appendix on
    page 46.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        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 interest of bureaucrats and an entrenched establishment.
    Making a start in fulfilling that vital promise during my
    previous time at OMB, as deputy director and director, was
    among the most rewarding experiences of my career.
        Throughout my career, 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 of government
    spending can place on everyday Americans. My parents, and
    countless others like them have always been the measure of
    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.
    That's nearly double the 40 percent of Americans who said the
    same just two decades ago. When I look at government waste in
    our national debt, I know I fear for my daughter's future.
    Almost 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 overwhelmingly successful
    election. I am eager to get back to fulfilling the promise of
    the 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 policies across agencies
    to ensure efficient and effective implementation of the
    American people's will as expressed by both their legislative
    and executive representatives. 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 innovated individuals I have 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 to make
    the American government work again. We have to use taxpayer
    dollars wisely because inflation driven by irresponsible
    Federal spending taxes Americans twice. The average American
    household has lost roughly $2,000 of purchasing power just
    since January 2021.
        The forgotten men and women of this country, those who work
    hard every day in cities and towns across this country, 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 is profoundly one that impacts their lives.
    If confirmed, I will continue to serve with their best
    interests at heart to serve and strive 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 its vital mission.
        Chairman Paul. Thank you. We will now proceed to questions
    where each Member will have seven minutes. I want to be clear
    at the outset that the Committee will not tolerate any
    disruptions of today's procedures. The Committee will direct
    the Capitol Police to immediately remove any member of the
    audience that attempts to disrupt the hearing.
        Mr. Vought, it is the practice of this Committee to ask
    this question, do you agree without reservation to comply with
    any request or summons to appear and testify before any duly
    constituted Committee of Congress, if you are confirmed?
        Mr. Vought. Yes, I will be up here always with the advice
    and counsel of our team.
        Chairman Paul. I reserve the rest of my time and recognize
    the Ranking Member for his questions.
        Senator Peters. Mr. Vought, under your leadership, in 2019,
    OMB illegally withheld $214 million that Congress appropriated
    to the Department of Defense (DOD) to provide security
    assistance to Ukraine. The Government Accountability Office
    concluded that OMB's actions were a violation of the
    Impoundment Control Act (ICA), and that your actions then
    forced Congress to reappropriate the funds.
        Just four years ago, you told this very Committee that
    under your leadership, OMB would abide by the Impoundment
    Control Act. However, your past actions and public statements
    suggest that you may not follow this law in the future. My
    question for you, sir, is if you are confirmed as OMB Director,
    again, do you commit to follow the law and not allow OMB to
    withhold funding from programs that Congress has appropriated?
        Mr. Vought. Senator, thanks for the question. I will always
    commit to upholding the law. I disagree with the
    characterization of the General Accounting Office. My time at
    OMB, we followed the law consistently and we will continue to
    do so,
        Senator Peters. So, that you can withhold funds that are
    appropriated by Congress. Do you think that's within the law?
        Mr. Vought. Again, Senator, we did not hold inappropriately
    funds. We were engaged in a policy process with regard to how
    funding would flow to Ukraine. We released the funding by the
    end of the fiscal year (FY).
        Senator Peters. Do you believe the Impoundment Control Act
    of 1974 is the law of the land that you must follow?
        Mr. Vought. It is the law of the land. As you know, the
    President has run on that issue. He believes it's
    unconstitutional. For 200 years, Presidents had the ability to
    spend less than an appropriation, if they could do it for less.
    We have seen the extent to which this law has contributed to
    waste, fraud, and abuse. But as it pertains to the parameters
    of how we would use that, that's something that his team will
    have to consider when they are confirmed in these roles.
        Senator Peters. You know that the Impoundment Control Act
    has created a process that's been held by courts over and over
    again. Courts in Train v. The city of New York have
    consistently rejected attempts by Presidents to withhold funds
    unless Congress clearly allows it. And Clinton v. New York also
    determined that laws which allow the President to unilaterally
    cancel appropriations are unconstitutional.
        Correct me if I am wrong, but is there anywhere in the
    Constitution that gives the OMB Director to determine whether
    or not a law is unconstitutional?
        Mr. Vought. Again, there are 200 years of practice by the
    Presidents of the United States have used this----
        Senator Peters. You are saying these courts are wrong?
    That's fine if they are wrong, but these are the laws of the
    land right now.
        Mr. Vought. I am aware that they are the laws of the land
    and the caselaw that is on the books, and this is something
    that the administration will consider when they are in these
    roles, if confirmed.
        Senator Peters. You are going to continue to challenge and
    break the law going forward?
        Mr. Vought. Sir, I am not going to continue to break the
    law. I am giving you my commitment to uphold the laws of this
    land.
        Senator Peters. These are court precedents. You do not care
    about the court precedents?
        Mr. Vought. No, sir. That's not what I have said. I have
    said that the President has run on the issue of Impoundment,
    and has reminded the country that 200 years of Presidents have
    used this authority, and we will be developing our approach to
    this issue and strategy once his administration is in office.
        Senator Peters. OK. As a member of the Senate
    Appropriations Committee, I am on addition to this, I have
    worked very hard with colleagues to negotiate in good faith and
    reach bipartisan spending agreements. I am concerned about your
    actions and statements about the President is going to be able
    to unilaterally refuse to spend money that Congress has
    appropriated.
        I get it. He ran for office. But that does not change the
    Constitution. There are other processes that we have to go
    through. We do not allow Presidents to act outside of the
    Constitution. I would certainly hope you would advise the
    President that he is also bound, that he will take an oath of
    office here in a few days to uphold the Constitution. We have
    to abide by that not because you just believe something. There
    is a process to go through.
        But my question is, how will Congress be able to negotiate
    in good faith if the President is simply able to disregard the
    bipartisan laws that are passed through the appropriation
    process? How do we negotiate with someone who says, ``I am just
    going to do what I want. To hell with the constitution?''
        Mr. Vought. Again, Senator, I think that's a
    mischaracterization of the President's viewpoint on this
    matter. It is not something in which would impact bipartisan
    negotiations notwithstanding anything that he announces with
    regard to impoundment.
        Senator Peters. If the President can refuse to spend
    appropriations passed by Congress, wouldn't he now just
    basically have the power to simply pick all the winners and
    losers who receive government funding? Basically, he has all
    that power. Is that what you like?
        Mr. Vought. Of course not, but again, I am not going to get
    into the parameters of the power that requires a policy process
    by his incoming team.
        Senator Peters. Very concerning. Congress has granted the
    President broad authorities to respond to real emergencies and
    crises like pandemics and natural disasters. However, past
    administrations of both parties have, unfortunately, abused
    these authorities, as the Chair and I have noted. In fact,
    Senator Paul and I have worked together on bipartisan
    legislation to curb the abuse of Presidential emergency powers
    and reassert proper congressional oversight.
        I am deeply concerned about reporting that indicates that
    you designed the plan to abuse the National Emergency Act to
    circumvent laws passed by Congress, by moving military
    construction money to build the border wall. My question for
    you, sir, is do you commit to not recommend the use of
    Presidential emergencies to accomplish the President's policy
    agenda?
        Mr. Vought. Senator, with regard to that instance, in our
    first term, we were specifically using the transfer authority
    that had been provided in the language of the Department of
    Defense appropriations to be able to transfer, transfer that
    authority to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for its
    use on the border wall. It was specifically a transfer
    authority that Congress had given the President in the
    underlying appropriation.
        Senator Peters. You circumvented the laws. I think it's
    pretty clear. Next question and last question here in remaining
    time. Will you support efforts to reign in Presidential
    authority and ensure that Congress has a rightful say, that
    Congress has a rightful say in the use of emergency powers?
    Will you support those efforts?
        Mr. Vought. I am not to speak on future legislation, but
    the administration will review anything that comes to their
    desk. OMB will have a definite role in reviewing that
    legislation, as you know, in terms of our enrolled bill process
    for the President.
        Senator Peters. So, very simple question. Do you believe
    Congress has a rightful role in the use of emergency powers?
        Mr. Vought. Again, the Congress provided the laws that the
    President uses to declare emergencies. If Congress wants to
    make changes to those laws that's their prerogative to do, and
    the administration will consider those and have a position if
    those bills get to his desk.
        Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Chairman Paul. With regard to the subject, I'm sympathetic
    to some of the points Senator Peters is making. There was a
    vote at the time, and I actually voted with many on the
    opposite side of the aisle to say the power of the purse is
    Congress' and we decide it's going to be spent somewhere.
    However, given that that was my position and still is my
    position, I think there is some debate over transfer authority
    and moving money in what you are allowed to do and what you are
    not allowed to do.
        I disagree with it. I think if we appropriate something for
    a cause that's where it's supposed to go, and that will still
    be my position. But I think there is at least some debate over
    the legality of repurposing, reauthorizing, and the transfer in
    the law.
        If we want to make it less so, we may need to tie up the
    rules and the boundaries more to see what we do to everything.
    There's a national security waiver, there's a Presidential
    waiver, all these emergencies. Congress has made the mistake of
    giving too much power to the executives regardless of party.
    This is something I am still open to no matter who is
    President, and hopefully we can continue to discuss. Senator
    Johnson.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHNSON

        Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Let me congratulate
    you on your new position here. I am really looking forward to
    working with you to reinvigorate congressional oversight, which
    we have allowed to atrophy, quite honestly. So, really want to
    work very cooperatively with you to do so.
        First chart\1\ I am going to put up here describes and
    shows dramatically what bipartisan spending cooperation yields
    us. In 2019, prior to the pandemic, the Federal Government
    total spending was $4.4 trillion. During the pandemic with a
    severe recession trying to help Americans out of that, we went
    a massive spending spree and spent $6.5 trillion that year.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The chart referenced by Senator Johnson appears in the Appendix
    on page 140.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Now, in an American family, if let's say you spend a
    $100,000 a year, and you have a family member that gets sick,
    and you have extraordinary expenses, maybe $50,000, you spend
    150,000 that year. The following year, if you get well, you do
    not keep spending $150,000 and you certainly do not borrow
    money to do so.
        But the Federal Government, in effect, did the exact same
    things. For the last five years, we have averaged $6.5
    trillion. Last year, we spent over $6.9 trillion. This is $2.1
    trillion above 2019 levels. This is absurd. Mr. Vought, do you
    see any rationale for continuing these spending levels?
        Mr. Vought. No, Senator, and thank you for the question. We
    are in a situation where we have $36 trillion in debt. Our
    fiscal house continues to be a mess. When I left office, we
    were spending about $350 billion in interest per year, too
    much. We are now in a situation where it has surpassed what we
    spend on defense, and we have to put forward budgets and
    spending plans. We have to consider them in Congress. The
    budget process needs to work again. We have to tackle this
    problem that you are clearly articulating.
        Senator Johnson. Let's talk about how we reset spending to
    reasonable level. Let me put it in my next chart.\1\ Another
    family analogy. Let's say that same family makes $100,000, and
    they have a child, so their population grows 25 percent. If
    their income grew from $100,000 to $125,000, and let's say
    throw on top that three percent inflation. Now, you are
    $128,750 total income. That family's kept whole, right? Kind of
    no harm. They have been able to maintain their spending level
    with increased population and inflation.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The chart referenced by Senator Johnson appears in the Appendix
    on page 141.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Again, I am trying to figure out some way to justify a
    lower spending level. I have gone back in time and I went back
    to Bill Clinton's administration in 1998. First year we had a
    surplus since 1969. Back then, Bill Clinton spent $1.7
    trillion. Last year, we spent $6.9 trillion. Now, if you take
    Bill Clinton's spending level, again, I do not think Bill
    Clinton spent too little and you inflate the spending or
    increase it based on population growth and inflation.
        With this caveat, you slot in President Biden's spending on
    Social Security, and Medicare, and interest. You leave those as
    they are, but you inflate it. That $1.7 trillion would be $5.5
    trillion of a baseline spending. Now, if that's too reasonable
    for you and you want to spend more money, you could look at
    President Obama's 2014 spending. Back then, he spent $3.5
    trillion. Now, inflate his base spending population inflation
    using Biden's Social Security, Medicare, and interest, he would
    be spending $6.2 trillion. Those would be reasonable baselines.
    Correct? Now, I also did a 2019. I do not particularly like the
    result because we would be at $6.5 trillion. That's not good
    enough.
        Let's go to our next chart\2\ here. Here's the one. I think
    you have this in front of you that I want to use because we
    have a new administration, President Trump, the tale of his
    administration. You were probably key in producing this budget
    budgeted for 2025. A spending level of $5.4 trillion. If you
    take that budget, inflate all the spending except for Social
    Security, Medicare, and interest, that is what we spent this
    year anyway, or projected to spend in 2025. The baseline budget
    would be $6 trillion.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ The chart referenced by Senator Johnson appears in the Appendix
    on page 142.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        My question to you is, having gone through this, I realize
    a lot of numbers, little bit of a rationale here. Why wouldn't
    this be a very reasonable baseline spending as a starting point
    for the next 10 years?
        Mr. Vought. Senator, I think it very well could be. I think
    we have to get into office, if confirmed, and look at the
    numbers, begin the formal budget development for the
    President's Fiscal Year 2026 budget. I haven't begun to do
    that.
        But there's a clear template in terms of the previous
    budgets that the President has put forward. He put forward more
    spending cuts in reforms and savings than any President in
    history. It was largely ignored by Congress. Our hope is that
    the budgets that he puts forward, that there's more of a take
    up rate here in Congress with regard to the spending cuts that
    are necessary to get us out of this hole.
        Senator Johnson. Would you agree right now that this is the
    primary metric that we need to be focusing on, is how much in
    total the Federal Government spends? I am hearing people
    saying, well, in order to sign on to a budget, I have to see $3
    trillion to $5 trillion in cuts. Measured against what?
        I will just point out, by the way, is in terms of metric.
    You started about at $6 trillion level when we're already
    spending $7 trillion. That's $1 trillion difference over 10
    years. That's $10 trillion in reduced spending versus what the
    current Biden baseline is. I would also ask; do you think any
    American who voted for President Trump expected that spending
    levels would remain at Biden levels?
        Mr. Vought. No. The President ran on the issue of fiscal
    accountability, dealing with our inflation situation. To your
    earlier question, Senator, like any family in the country, the
    main metric with regard to whether your fiscal house is good or
    not is the extent to what you are spending and the way that
    drives your debt. That's the metric and that's the area that we
    will be looking at to be able to bring it back into some
    rationality.
        Senator Johnson. By the way, I did not point it out on the
    previous chart there. I showed the Clinton level. If you
    inflate that to $5.5 trillion, it just happens to match what
    President Biden is projecting for revenue. If we do this, we
    are that close to a balanced budget. It's possible, and it's
    possible using Clinton spending priorities or even Obama
    spending priorities. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HASSAN

        Chairman Paul. Senator Hassan.
        Senator Hassan. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and Ranking Member
    Peters, for this hearing. Welcome, Mr. Vought, and welcome to
    your family as well.
        In 2018, President Trump signed into law of the Substance
    Use Disorder Prevention that Promotes Opioid Receovery and
    Treatment (SUPPORT) Act, a comprehensive bipartisan package to
    help address the opioid crisis in this country. The SUPPORT Act
    expanded resources for the State law enforcement officials and
    first responders who are on the front lines of this opioid
    crisis by, for example, helping provide overdose reversal
    medication to States and localities.
        Unfortunately, Elon Musk killed a recent bipartisan
    agreement to authorize the SUPPORT Act for the next five years,
    and you have previously supported rescinding funds for fully
    funded programs that require further authorization. Congress
    meanwhile has appropriated funds for next year forward to
    SUPPORT Act services. If confirmed, will you commit to
    distributing funds appropriated by Congress for SUPPORT Act
    programs?
        Mr. Vought. Senator, thanks for the question. As you know,
    the opioids epidemic is a huge priority for the President. We
    will be taking a look at all of the funds that are necessary to
    combat that epidemic. I cannot speak to it beyond that because
    we have not not confirmed, we have not begun that process. But
    you can certainly be assured that this was something that you
    heard about in the first term with regard to the President's
    interest in this area. I can imagine it will continue to be
    that.
        Senator Hassan. Let me just be clear here because I am
    following up on a point that Senator Peters made. We have
    appropriated the money. We had a bipartisan agreement to
    reauthorize the program. I am disappointed that you won't make
    a clear commitment here today to ensure that the lifesaving
    program signed into law by President Trump will continue to
    receive funds that have been provided by Congress. I urge you
    to rethink your position as your nomination is considered by
    the Senate.
        Government shutdowns put public safety and our national
    security at risk. But you have repeatedly, Mr. Vought, called
    for brinksmanship around government shutdowns and opposed
    bipartisan deals to keep the government open. In 2011, for
    example, you wrote in an article that Republicans simply must
    be prepared to shut the government down. That's a quote,
    ``simply must be prepared to shut the government down and need
    to dig deep and embrace the sort of brinksmanship that shows
    they are playing to win.''
        If confirmed, you would play a role in negotiations to
    prevent a government shutdown later this spring. Why have you
    repeatedly advocated the use of the threat of a government
    shutdown as a political bargaining chip. If confirmed, would
    you continue to favor a partisan agenda over keeping the
    government open?
        Mr. Vought. Senator, I do not think I have been a person
    that has wanted to have government shutdowns. I have had to be
    the one that kept the government open consistent with the law
    for the longest shutdown in history. I know the impact that it
    has on the Federal Government, and I want to be a part of a
    process that sends budgets as soon as they can, meeting all the
    statutory deadlines, to be able to start the process with the
    appropriators as early as possible so that, on a bipartisan
    basis, recognizing the appropriations bills have to have
    bipartisan support and to get that done as soon as possible so
    that you do not have the kind of pile ups at the end of the
    fiscal year that we have seen.
        I think the breakdown of the budget process here in
    Congress is something that has not been good. I hope that it is
    brought back to a good degree, and that we can have a
    bipartisan spending process of which I look forward to
    participating in, if confirmed.
        Senator Hassan. Unfortunately, this is a situation where
    there seems to be kind of a confirmation conversion because
    your words in articles and in talks reflect a different view
    about the use of government shutdowns. I will note that the
    impact of government shutdowns not just impact on the Federal
    Government, it impacts the American people in significant ways.
        This is not about people in government offices, this is
    about them and the people they serve in the United States.
    That's the reality. That's why it's so important that
    government efficient, effective, right-sized government
    continues to stay open.
        I would like to ask you about the non-political role that
    OMB plays in distributing grant funding and ask for your
    commitment to fulfill this role in a non-partisan way. In
    December, President Biden signed the Grant Transparency Act
    into law, a bipartisan bill that I worked on with Senator
    Cornyn to require agencies to provide greater transparency
    regarding how grant applications are evaluated.
        The law is intended to provide grant applicants with a
    clear picture of how their applications will be reviewed so
    that the grant-making process is fair and competitive. So, yes
    or no, if confirmed, do you commit to ensuring that agencies do
    not evaluate a grant application with the applicant's political
    identity or views in mind?
        Mr. Vought. Senator, I look forward to looking at that law.
    Those are the types of transparency laws that we have supported
    before. Many of these new requirements, new transparency
    initiatives are things that in my first opportunity to do this
    job, we made a concerted effort to get done, to actually move
    forward and not let this be something that we just say, hey, we
    do not have the resources to do. I look forward to continuing
    to do that.
        Senator Hassan. I appreciate that. But the question was yes
    or no, if confirmed, do you commit to ensuring that agencies do
    not evaluate a grant application with the applicant's political
    identity or views in mind?
        Mr. Vought. If it's the law of the land, absolutely. We
    have no business in trying to engage in understanding someone's
    political views.
        Senator Hassan. If confirmed, do you commit to ensuring
    that agencies do not evaluate a grant application submitted by
    a State based on that State's political makeup, whether it is
    red, blue, or purple?
        Mr. Vought. Again, Senator, the extent to which we make
    decisions are going to be based on the policy grounds, the
    agenda of the President of the United States. We will continue
    to do that.
        Senator Hassan. If the President says to you, ``I do not
    care what the law says. I do not like California, and I am not
    going to give them the disaster aid they need,'' you are going
    to stand up to the President and say, ``Sir, that's not
    appropriate?''
        Mr. Vought. Senator, I do not engage in hypotheticals, but
    the President would never ask me to do something along those
    lines.
        Senator Hassan. History speaks a little bit differently to
    that point. If confirmed, would you direct agencies to withhold
    grant funding from eligible grant applications that hold
    different political identities or views from President-elect
    Trump?
        Mr. Vought. Again, we make decisions at OMB based on the
    policy grounds, the laws that are in place, and we do not look
    at people's political inclinations.
        Senator Hassan. Even if you somehow found out about
    people's political in inclinations, you would not allow that to
    influence your decisionmaking at OMB?
        Mr. Vought. Correct.
        Senator Hassan. Thank you.
        Chairman Paul. Senator Moreno.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MORENO

        Senator Moreno. Thank you, Mr. Chair for having me on the
    Committee. Thank you, Mr. Vought, for being here.
        I probably cannot imagine that like me, you are thinking to
    yourself, ``Why am I doing this?'' I know, I think about that
    every once in a while when I am here because I never thought I
    would be doing this. I am going to confess upfront that I have
    been a fan of yours before I even thought about running for
    public office. I think your selection to run OMB is an
    incredible service that you are about to provide to this
    country.
        One of the good news that I have heard so far in this
    hearing is a lot of talk about the United States Constitution.
    As you know, when we talked, I was not born in this country. I
    came here as a young kid. I had a tough mom who made me study
    for the citizenship test. She made me read all 88 Federalist
    Papers as a teenager. Not fun to read today, let alone when you
    are in your teens.
        I studied the Constitution up and down, so I have a
    question for you because you're more the expert than I am.
    Where in the United States Constitution does the bureaucracy
    stand in terms of power versus the President?
        Mr. Vought. Senator, it's a great question, and thanks for
    the kind words. The Constitution visions that the bureaucracy
    would work for the President of the United States in Article
    II.
        Senator Moreno. Now, I come from the private sector where I
    ran companies with thousands of employees. I suspect it should
    work, but correct me if I am wrong, or if you are the chief
    executive, that means that all the people that work for you
    actually work for you. Is that true in government also?
        Mr. Vought. It is not the case currently, but it is
    something that as a policy objective, I think our Founders
    would have envisioned it that way.
        Senator Moreno. So, meaning that the President, not
    Congress, not the Judicial Branch, has total and complete
    discretion over who serves at his or her pleasure?
        Mr. Vought. Again, those are not the laws that are on the
    books as we know today. The President has many laws and
    paradigms have been put in place to ensure that the American
    peoples will, when they select a President, are not what
    prevails in the agenda-setting process.
        Senator Moreno. Because I would suspect that most voters,
    somebody like me who was not into politics a few years ago,
    would suspect that the President is actually the one making
    these decisions, not some unnamed bureaucrat, whether they are
    a good person or a bad person, or been here for five years or
    25 years, that it's the President's agenda that should be
    implemented. Is that correct?
        Mr. Vought. I would hope that would be their suspicion.
        Senator Moreno. And when you look at the separation of
    powers, which is a fascinating conversation among the 88
    Federalist Papers, they were really concerned about the
    decentralization of power. There's a lot of conversation about
    what Congress does, what the President does, and what of
    course, the judiciary does in that, in your point of view, is
    it the President's ability to unilaterally terminate student
    debt, for example?
        Mr. Vought. No, sir.
        Senator Moreno. But it seems like the prior administration
    did that. It went to the judicial branch, they found it to be
    unconstitutional, and yet President Biden continued to forgive
    student debt. What would be your point of view on that?
        Mr. Vought. Again, we believe that that was not the right
    course of action. That the President did not have that
    authority, and I think an example of Biden administration's
    unwillingness to follow the law.
        Senator Moreno. Now, did you find a lot of outrage about
    that from those who are now asking you the same question about
    a potential Trump administration? Meaning, like, if you were
    somebody who was introducing legislation here in this body to
    forgive student debt, not something I think we should be doing.
    I do not think we should be forgiving anybody's debt.
        We certainly shouldn't have, in my case, in Ohio, 70
    percent of the people who did not attend a college to pay for
    the 30 percent who did. But do you find it hypocritical if you
    are somebody who's introduced legislation to forgive student
    debt, and now is lecturing you about the executive overreach
    powers. Would you find that to be hypocritical?
        Mr. Vought. I note that I did not find any outrage on the
    Democratic side with regard to President Biden's actions on
    that. I will just leave it at that.
        Senator Moreno. I see, if you do not mind, now just I will
    yield a few of my minutes back. But I want to, if you do not
    mind, to ask you a personal question. How old are your
    daughters?
        Mr. Vought. 12 and 10.
        Senator Moreno. 12 and 10. If they are our age at some
    point, really old, by the way, if we do not do something like
    actually do something serious when they are in their 50's, Mr.
    Vought, what will their future be like?
        Mr. Vought. Less freedom, less opportunity. The extent to
    which we do not tackle our fiscal situation means that the
    amount of burden that's going to inevitably come from higher
    taxes, that's going to be inevitably put on their back with
    regard to debt and what they are inheriting is not what we were
    given. We were given a better shot.
        I think that's one of the things that keeps me up at night,
    is the extent to which we have not seen progress in the area of
    dealing with our fiscal situation. That has to change, or it's
    going to have profound impact on the next generation and the
    next generation of those who are trying to take advantage of
    this country and the opportunity that it affords.
        Senator Moreno. If I could just ask you one last personal
    question. When you think about what you are going through here
    in this hearing and what you are about to inherit going into
    work in a very tough situation, is it fair to say that you are
    doing this because you genuinely love this country and are
    concerned about the future of this nation?
        Mr. Vought. Absolutely. Yes, sir.
        Senator Moreno. Thank you for doing it. I appreciate it.
    Thank you to your family. It is an absolute sign of patriotism
    for you to be here. Look forward to having you and every single
    one of President Trump's overqualified nominees to have this
    body confirmed so that we can get to work to put this country
    back on track.
        Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Chairman Paul. Senator Blumenthal.

                OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BLUMENTHAL

        Senator Blumenthal. Thanks Mr. Chair. Thank you for your
    service, Mr. Vought, and your willingness to come back. Thank
    you also to your family.
        As you know, in the closing days of the last session, the
    U.S. Congress by overwhelming majorities approved disaster
    relief funding, going to the Department of Agriculture (USDA)
    as well as the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for
    disaster relief all around the country. Will you commit to
    releasing those funds promptly and fully to the areas that
    depend on that disaster relief funding?
        Mr. Vought. We will continue to release the money that's
    appropriately been funded for these areas as we always have
    with regard to the FEMA dollars.
        Senator Blumenthal. So, the answer is, yes?
        Mr. Vought. Yes. We will continue to do what we did in the
    first----
        Senator Blumenthal. You won't continue because you are not
    yet in office. You will release that money fully and promptly
    to the agencies that can provide that relief. For example, the
    $31 billion, I believe it is for the Army Corps and the
    Agriculture Department. The $2.2 billion for the Small Business
    Administration (SBA), $29 billion for FEMA. These are specific
    amounts. How about the $3.8 billion left for security
    assistance to Ukraine? Will you release that money?
        Mr. Vought. Again, Senator, I am not going to get ahead of
    the policy process of the incoming administration, but when it
    comes to responding to the disasters, the President has always
    been someone that cares deeply about these areas.
        Senator Blumenthal. I am talking about the Ukraine funding,
    which I believe is essential. The Congress believed it's vital,
    it's been authorized and appropriated. Will you release that
    remaining $3.8 billion?
        Mr. Vought. Again, Senator, I am not going to get ahead of
    the President on a foreign policy issue of the magnitude of the
    situation with regard to Ukraine.
        Senator Blumenthal. OK. Let me ask you. Do you believe the
    Impoundment Control Act is constitutional?
        Mr. Vought. No, I do not believe it's constitutional. The
    President ran on that view. That's his view, and I agree with--
    --
        Senator Blumenthal. Have you read Train v. New York? That's
    the United States Supreme Court saying it is constitutional.
    You are saying that you are going to just defy the courts, the
    Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) under both administrations,
    including then Attorney Rehnquist afterward becoming Supreme
    Court Justice wrote for the Office of Legal Counsel. You are
    simply going to take the law under your own hands.
        Mr. Vought. I did not say that, nor did I imply that on
    behalf of the incoming administration. I said earlier to a
    question from Senator Peters that the incoming administration
    was going to take the President's view on this, as he stated in
    the campaign, work it through with the lawyers of the
    Department of Justice (DOJ), some of whom who are coming before
    Congress just today, if confirmed, and to put that through a
    policy process. I cannot prejudge that policy process, but I
    certainly cannot announce the parameters of what it would
    produce.
        Senator Blumenthal. I am astonished and aghast that someone
    in this responsible position would, in effect, say that the
    President is above the law. That the United States Supreme
    Court is entitled to their opinion, but mine should supersede
    it. It's just baffling that we are in this, I think,
    unprecedented moment in the history of this country.
        I think our colleagues should be equally aghast because
    this issue goes beyond Republican or Democrat. It's bigger than
    one administration or another. It's whether the law of the land
    should prevail or maybe it's up for grabs depending on what the
    President thinks. I think it is fundamental, and I hope you
    will reconsider this view.
        I am going to put it in a question for the record\1\ to
    give you an opportunity to recast your answer, which I think
    should be disqualifying for both sides of the aisle, frankly,
    because what goes around comes around. The next administration
    could be Democratic, could be Independent, but the Supreme
    Court in Train v. New York said it's constitutional. That's
    been the clear consensus.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The question for the record from Senator Blumenthal appears in
    the Appendix on page 114.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Let me move on. I am the Ranking Member of the Veterans
    Affairs Committee. I am concerned by your proposal that there
    should be a means test for who deserves Veterans Affairs
    Disability Compensation. For me, nothing's more important than
    caring for our veterans. I think that is true of many of us on
    both sides of the aisle. Do you believe that veterans should
    receive disability benefits only if they qualify under some
    kind of means test?
        Mr. Vought. Senator, the President has been a firm
    supporter of veteran spending, of getting veterans everything
    that they need. That was always reflected in all of the budgets
    that the President sent to the Hill.
        Senator Blumenthal. I am going to interrupt you, with
    apologies, because my time is running out. Do you believe there
    should be a means test for disability benefits going to
    veterans?
        Mr. Vought. Again, I am not going to speak to the policy--
    --
        Senator Blumenthal. But you are not going to answer that
    question, but you have in the past taken the position there
    should be a means test.
        Mr. Vought. The President has always fully supported
    veteran spending, and put forward everything that they need,
    that the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) does. I fully
    expect that to continue.
        Senator Blumenthal. Do you believe that disability
    compensation benefits for veterans should be eliminated if any
    veteran has a disability rating below 30 percent?
        Mr. Vought. Senator, I am not here on behalf of what I
    think, but I am here on behalf of the President.
        Senator Blumenthal. But that's the proposal from the Center
    for Renewing America, the organization that you founded. Do you
    continue to believe it?
        Mr. Vought. This it's a think tank that I currently am the
    President of. It is not the agenda of the incoming President of
    the United States. I am here on behalf of being his nominee and
    doing his budget.
        Senator Blumenthal. That what he believes?
        Mr. Vought. Again, you should judge him by the budgets that
    he sends forward to Congress. I am here on behalf of the fiscal
    responsibility that he wants to restore, and I fully intend to
    do that, if confirmed.
        Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Chairman Paul. As I said previously, I am sympathetic not
    only to the arguments that Senator Peters made, but Senator
    Blumenthal is making on power of the purse. The only thing I
    would caution with this is as we debate this, so much of this
    is because Congress has not done a good job with clear
    parameters.
        For example, with the Ukraine money, every week or two, you
    will see a release of it. There's a great deal of discretion
    given to the President on when it's released and how much is
    released. For example, last fall when we passed the Ukraine
    money, they decided to call some of it loans. So, they did.
        Ten a month later, they forgave the loans. I was like,
    ``Wow, when did they even supposed to start paying on the
    loans?'' I discovered their first payment was not supposed to
    be made for 40 years. So, that's disingenuous. It's a loan we
    are going to forgive it. When are they supposed to start
    paying? In 40 years?
        But there's a great deal of latitude. Part of this, and
    this is going to be as it moves forward, if we want to limit
    what the President does with moving money around, which I am
    sympathetic to, we should have the power of the purse. We got
    to write better legislation. Every piece of legislation that we
    put out has a Presidential waiver for national security.
        They always say, if you do not do that, you are crazy. What
    about in times of war? No, they just use that for everything.
    You are going to find that there's going to be a bunch of
    issues that there's going to be emergencies declared on. But
    Congress let him.
        We do need to readdress this, and I am sympathetic to it.
    Senator Peters and I have a bill on emergency powers that I
    hope will get a vote, which says that, basically, Presidential
    powers would expire in 30 days unless approved by us. Now, any
    Presidential powers with either the current President or the
    next President go on forever unless we reject them with a two-
    thirds vote. An almost impossible bar.
        But there is, I think, a difficulty in the witness
    answering, will you spend all the Ukraine money--since I think
    they have. It's complicated. They have all kinds of parameters
    for how much to spend when, and there. We have not made it that
    explicit. That's my only point. Did you want to comment?
        Senator Blumenthal. I will just say, briefly, Mr. Chair,
    the reason why Congress writes laws with attempted precision,
    not always, but sometimes providing latitude, is to enable some
    flexibility in the executive branch releasing funds. That's a
    prerogative of Congress. But then the President has to obey
    what we say in releasing the money.
        Chairman Paul. I would just argue the window is too big.
    The waiver's too big.
        Senator Blumenthal. My comment here goes to obeying the law
    that has been upheld repeatedly as constitutional, as opposed
    to saying, no, we do not need to obey it because we believe
    it's unconstitutional.
        Chairman Paul. I think it's a valid debate and a good
    debate. Senator Kim.

                    OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR KIM

        Senator Kim. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for leading this
    Committee, I am excited to be on. Mr. Vought, thank you for
    coming out before us.
        I wanted to start by just reading you a quote that you had
    said, ``There certainly is going to be mass layoffs in firing,
    particularly at some of the agencies that we do not even think
    should exist.'' I want to just for give you an opportunity to
    clarify what are the agencies that you do not think should
    exist?
        Mr. Vought. I did not say that. If you go back and look at
    the video of when I said that in an interview, I said there
    needs to be. I did not make an announcement on behalf of the
    incoming administration that there would be, so I am not here
    to do that or to elaborate on any plans to that effect because
    I am not sure that they exist.
        Senator Kim. OK. Then let me go a little bit ahead here.
    There are some entities within the Executive Branch that have
    some space of independence, the Federal Reserve, and others.
    You have said in the past, ``It's very hard to square the Fed's
    independence with the Constitution.'' Can you elaborate on that
    so I can understand your thinking?
        Mr. Vought. I am not here as a think tank President, sir. I
    am here as a nominee to be OMB Director. The President has not
    spoken on that matter. I'm here on his behalf and for his
    agenda.
        Senator Kim. We are trying to assess your capabilities to
    do this job. I guess I just wanted to get a sense of your
    understanding of the Constitution and the Executive Branches in
    particular, the President's capacity to be able to shape that.
    I would like to just ask again, for instance, should the
    President have the ability to set interest rates?
        Mr. Vought. Sir, the President has run on the issue of
    bringing independent agencies in for a regulatory review. He
    has not spoken to the question that you have just asked. I am
    here on his behalf. I am not on behalf of anything that I have
    stated with regard to policies at the Center for Renewing
    America, and I am here for his agenda.
        Senator Kim. I guess I will ask it in a different way. Do
    you believe that the President has the authority to set
    interest rates?
        Mr. Vought. Sir, I am not going to speak to the matter.
    That's a hypothetical that is best maintained----
        Senator Kim. It's not a hypothetical. I am trying to get a
    sense of your understanding of the power of the President. You
    will serve, if confirmed, in the Office of the President. I
    want to have a sense of your understanding of what the
    President is allowed to do and not allowed to do. I think that
    that's a very valid concern.
        Mr. Vought. Again, Senator, I am here for the President's
    agenda. And my view of OMB is that it is a very important
    office. It touches all aspects of the Federal Government, and
    that it is important for the President to have someone in this
    role that wants to accomplish his agenda and not their own
    personal agenda. That's what I am known for, and that's what I
    will continue to be, if confirmed.
        Senator Kim. Look, I will move on to something that's very
    clearly not hypothetical then, which is your previous work in
    the past administration. You said in your written testimony
    here, ``The civil servants at OMB are amongst the most
    resourceful and innovative I have worked with.'' But I have
    also heard you say in other circumstances, ``We want the
    bureaucrats to be traumatically affected when they wake up in
    the morning. We want them not to want to go to work because
    they are increasingly viewed as the villains. We want to put
    them in trauma.''
        I raised this with you because I was a career nonpartisan
    civil servant. I worked in multiple departments and agencies. I
    guess, I just wanted to ask you why you would use a language
    like villains in talking about people serving our Nation.
        Mr. Vought. In those comments, I was referring to the
    bureaucracies that I believe have been weaponized, and there
    are portions of weaponized bureaucracies across the Federal
    Government. That does not mean there's not amazing career civil
    servants, many of whom I have worked with at OMB. I look
    forward to, if confirmed, getting back to work with them and
    being able to rely on their expertise, their understanding of
    the Federal programs, and to be able to allow them to help us
    have more implementable policies on behalf of the President of
    the United States. But I do believe that there are
    bureaucracies that are weaponized against the American people
    when you have----
        Senator Kim. Even within OMB?
        Mr. Vought. No, sir. Not within OMB.
        Senator Kim. I guess I wanted to ask you then, at the end
    of your term, as OMB director, you implemented Schedule F. You
    implemented that as well at OMB. Do you remember what
    percentage of personnel at OMB you categorized as Schedule F?
        Mr. Vought. We implemented it at 90 percent. Again,
    Senator, that was not to fire anyone. It was to change their
    classification.
        Senator Kim. What is the purpose for the changing of that
    classification? What does that allow you to do?
        Mr. Vought. It's to ensure that the President who has
    policy-setting responsibility has individuals who are also
    confidential policymaking positions are responding to his
    views, his agenda, and works under the same basis that most
    Americans work on. Which is they have to do a good job or they
    may not be in those positions for longer. I did not find that
    to be the case with regard to anyone at OMB.
        Senator Kim. But you felt that it was necessary to take
    this step still and hang that over them?
        Mr. Vought. The President had a policy, he instructed all
    agency heads to use the Schedule F classification. You look at
    OMB, it is essentially all policymaking officials. That's why
    we had a higher percentage. I am someone that is going to abide
    by the President's viewpoints. I think it was a sound policy as
    it pertains to making sure that the President has career civil
    servants that are going to give us all of their knowledge and
    expertise, and disagreement at times, as to what they think
    about a potential proposal, but at the same time being aware--
    --
        Senator Kim. Hold on for a second. I just wanted to ask
    this question. Has the President-elect had conversations with
    you about restarting Schedule F in starting January 20th?
        Mr. Vought. I do not speak to the conversations that I have
    with the President. Those are private deliberations, and I am
    not here to announce anything on behalf of Day 1.
        Senator Kim. When we have these confirmation hearings, we
    ask those that come before us to let us know what are the
    priorities of the President when it comes to the work that you
    do. I want to ask one particular question here. In the first
    administration or so far in hiring for the second
    administration, have you or any other managers asked candidates
    for employment or current employees, if they have, who they
    have voted for in the Presidential election, what party they
    are affiliated with, or if they have donated to campaigns?
        Mr. Vought. No.
        Senator Kim. No one that you know of?
        Mr. Vought. No.
        Senator Kim. If you had heard and come to understand that
    some people within the administration or incoming
    administration are asking those questions, what would be your
    response to that?
        Mr. Vought. I can only speak to for myself, Senator. I have
    not asked those questions.
        Senator Kim. OK. I yield then.
        Chairman Paul. Senator Slotkin.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SLOTKIN

        Senator Slotkin. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Looking forward to
    working with you.
        I am a former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) officer and
    Pentagon official. I did three tours in Iraq. I worked very
    proudly for both Democrat and Republican administrations,
    including in the White House of both. I am also a Democrat who
    won in a Trump State. A State that we were both on the ballot.
    I think what's interesting is we do not have to guess how you
    will be in this job because you have been in the job before.
    You are kind of the ultimate Washington insider. You have been
    in for 26 years in this town. You have been on the Senate, you
    have started a think tank. You have been in and out of
    different policy jobs. So, you are definitely of this town, and
    you clearly know the rules well of this town.
        You have said, and I agree with you, that a budget is
    reflection of President's priorities. I think the thing that
    was really disturbing as a Michigander was one of the things
    you did, three out of the four budgets that you prepared last
    time, was zero out the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative
    (GLRI), this huge program to maintain the Great Lakes, 20
    percent of the freshwater of the world, where it took
    bipartisan work including, potentially, Senators in this room
    before my time to claw that back.
        We have projects on treating algae blooms and invasive
    species, cleaning up some of our bays, making sure it's
    accessible for commercial traffic. What's your view on the
    GLRI? Are we going to have to have this conversation again when
    you zero it out in the budget?
        Mr. Vought. I have not started, because I am not confirmed,
    working on the President's Fiscal Year 2026 budget. I cannot
    speak to those issues. But I am happy to work with you on your
    viewpoints as it pertains to that program and consider all of
    those, and the recommendations we give for the President, and
    what inevitably what we end up coming up here in defending.
        Senator Slotkin. Yes, I think it was very bipartisan.
    There's 465 projects in Ohio, 1,200 projects in Wisconsin, a
    ton in Michigan. Can you confirm you submitted a zeroing out of
    that program three years in a row last time you were OMB
    Director?
        Mr. Vought. It's been a long time, Senator. I have to go
    back and refresh my memory on the specifics of our budgets, but
    I am happy to do that in the questions for the record (QFRs).
        Senator Slotkin. Yes. On the issue of impoundment, I know
    you have addressed this, but if this group on a bipartisan
    basis authorizes more money, as we do every year, for the Great
    Lakes Restoration Initiative, that you will spend that money in
    the Great Lake States where it was allocated for?
        Mr. Vought. Senator, I am not going to engage in the
    hypotheticals with regard to the impoundment conversation----
        Senator Slotkin. OK. We have heard it, we have heard it.
    It's OK. The other question I have is on your views of the
    civil service. Again, as a CIA officer, which is set up and has
    been reformed over the years, that's for sure, to provide best
    assessment and advice to the President. You said that OMB was
    not an agency where you had a bureaucratic problem. But which
    bureaucracy specifically do you believe have been weaponized?
        Mr. Vought. Again, I am not going to get into all of the
    agencies that I believe have some of those characteristics.
        Senator Slotkin. Give an example of one.
        Mr. Vought. I think, the Department of Justice is clearly
    one that has bureaucracy within it that engaged in trying to
    take out their own President during the first term. The extent
    to which the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) goes and
    investigates someone that comes to a school board meeting in
    Loudoun County for being concerned about the situation with his
    daughter, and then gets investigated as a domestic terrorist.
        Senator Slotkin. So the Director and the Deputy Director of
    these agencies are at the prerogative of the President. The
    President, any President has about 1,500 political appointee
    jobs that they get to allocate all over the bureaucracy. I do
    not quibble with that. Do you believe that intelligence
    agencies and law enforcement agencies need more political
    appointees to keep kind of management at those agencies?
        Mr. Vought. Again, I am not going to speak on behalf of a
    specific proposal that the President has not made on that.
        Senator Slotkin. But what's your view? Would you support a
    proposal? I am just asking. You want the job. You want it back?
    Would you support a proposal to put more political appointees
    to oversee the activities of American law enforcement at the
    Federal level and American intelligence community (IC)?
        Mr. Vought. Again, the President has not spoken to that
    matter, to my knowledge, and I am not here on behalf of my own
    personal views.
        Senator Slotkin. OK. Again, the feeling that we have, the
    thing that keeps coming up is, again, I do not quibble at all
    with the fact that the President is going to put in people.
    That I do not agree with on a policy perspective. That's not my
    debate. My concern with you and with, potential Secretary,
    Hegseth, yesterday, is that when asked clear constitutional
    questions about the allocation of money, you cannot answer a
    straight constitutional question.
        Again, we are going to disagree on policy. There's no
    question about that, and that's not my issue with you. My issue
    is the constitutional side, because you are going to swear an
    oath to the Constitution, not to Donald Trump, just like any
    other confirmed official. Can you confirm for me, please, that
    you will abide by the Constitution and current law as it is not
    what you wish it to be?
        Mr. Vought. I absolutely will abide by the Constitution at
    all times.
        Senator Slotkin. Your interpretation does not, pardon the
    pun, trump the interpretation of the Supreme Court, or at
    current practice on the books?
        Mr. Vought. Again, administration goes through a very
    extensive policy process with the lawyers of the Department of
    Justice to abide by the Constitution.
        Senator Slotkin. This is what I am saying.
        You can see how this bureaucratic, wonky answer you keep
    giving. Right? You are claiming to be an outsider that says you
    are going to shake things up, but you are giving the most wonky
    answers. I just want to hear that when you hold up your hand,
    like many of us have done in this room, to put themselves in
    harm's way, that you are going to protect and defend the
    Constitution as interpreted by the people who are in a position
    to interpret it, like our Supreme Court.
        That's what bothers me about you. It's not that we disagree
    on policy. It's that basic tenet that a lot of us have had to
    do in this room on both sides of the aisle. That's all I care
    about. With that, I will yield back. But I just from nominees
    that we see across the board, just be straight on the U.S.
    Constitution.
        Chairman Paul. Senator Lankford.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LANKFORD

        Senator Lankford. Thanks, Senator Paul. First of all, it's
    good to see you again.
        Mr. Vought. Good to see you, Senator.
        Senator Lankford. You have done a lot of work for the
    United States. You have sacrificed a lot of time. Your family
    has paid a big price for that. For that I say, thank you, to
    all of your family, and to you. I often will refer to OMB when
    people will look at me with a confused look like, ``What is
    that?'' I will say, ``It is the most important agency you have
    never heard of.''
        It is a common refrain that everything has to come through
    there to be checked. You are keeping us out of legal trouble.
    You are getting the budget train on track. All those things are
    incredibly important. I thank you for the work. It is super
    wonky, super nerdy work, but it is incredibly important to be
    able to do so. Thanks for stepping into that.
        I have several things that I want to be able to talk
    through. Mr. Chair, I would like to ask permission to be able
    to put something onto the screen as well. Would that be OK?
        Chairman Paul. Without objection.
        Senator Lankford. Thank you. So, you started work when you
    were at OMB before on a bill that was passed called the
    Taxpayers Right-To-Know to create a Federal program inventory.
    That was great work that you laid. To their credit, the Biden
    administration and OMB continued that work of working on the
    Federal program inventory. This is what it looks like now. It
    should be a listing of every program in all the Federal
    Government. We have never been able to, as Members of Congress
    or certainly not the public, to be able to say how many
    programs are out there that do this, and to be able to search
    it.
        The Biden administration's put together a lot of search
    features into this, try to get it out. It's unfinished. There's
    still more programs and things to get into it, but it is a tool
    that we look forward to using it. It's been on GAO's top list
    for years now to be able to actually get done. It's getting
    done on this. But there's some areas that are unfinished on it
    that I want to just be able to highlight on it.
        The Biden administration's done a lot of work to be able to
    get the skeleton of this going. But let me just give you one
    example. This is not about YouthBuild as a program, I am not
    making a policy statement on it. It just is one of the many
    entities that are here. This list, how much spending is done on
    it on the different authorities that are done, what regulations
    are from it. But also, one of the requirements of this is to be
    able to ask, what's the results? Here's the money that
    Americans are spending, what do we get for that?
        In this particular one, it has results. What was done in
    2016, how it was evaluated. But 2017, was not evaluated. 2018
    was not evaluated. 2019 was evaluated, but it was evaluated
    based on how much money was spent, not the results of it. Then
    nothing in 2021, 2022, or something about the COVID that came
    during that time period. I guess 2022 and 2024, it just says,
    we spent this much money in these many places. That's not
    really the question. The question is, what did we get for that
    money?
        My question to you is, as you are stepping into this
    project that is you started, others have worked on and now
    needs to be finished, how does this rank in priority for you to
    be able to fulfill? Which by the way, is the law now to be able
    to have a way to be able to look at every program and to see
    how it's evaluated, if it's evaluated at all.
        That helps all of us around this dais to be able to look at
    it and to say, there's 12 different programs that seem to do
    the exact same thing. Two of them seem to be successful and 10
    of them are not. We cannot see all that unless we go ask GAO to
    go chase it for us, unless this is actually finished. How does
    this rank in priority for you as far as getting this done?
        Mr. Vought. Thank you, Senator. It will be a high priority.
    As you know, when I came into OMB, I had gone through this
    process the first time and clearly made aware of the extent of
    these transparency apparatus that was intended by Congress.
    There was a lot of objections from individuals saying, oh, we
    do not have the bandwidth to do this.
        We brought all sides of OMB together. Internally, we put
    someone in charge to become an expert. I provided Director-
    level leadership to say, I will push through the barriers that
    exist to being able to get this set up. I am looking forward to
    seeing where we are, and I would want to finish the job if
    given another opportunity by the Senate.
        Senator Lankford. That's great. Thank you. Look forward to
    that. Because this, again, is not partisan work, this is just
    taking every program that's out there and just saying what's
    happening? How's it being used? How's it not being used?
    Nothing to hide. This is full transparency that the American
    people are actually looking for to be able to have, and quite
    frankly, all of us in Congress are looking for as well, to be
    able to go through it.
        I want to go through several different things that have
    come within the last few years. Circular A4, which again, we
    are getting into nerdy stuff here, was rewritten by the Biden
    administration. It's something that had been used for years by
    Democrats and Republican Presidents alike to just evaluate cost
    benefit.
        The Biden administration came in, changed all the rules
    that have been done for decades and said, we want to rewrite
    this and, actually, what we want to do is to say, we are going
    to evaluate it based on the immediate costs, but the long-term
    benefits. We are going to look at just the cost in a small
    area, but get the global gain from this.
        They changed the rules of how every regulation is done.
    That's something I would just say you cannot say how you are
    going to be able to act on this because you are not there in
    the seat on it, but I would say change it back there. There
    should be no disagreement with his body to say use the same
    rules President Obama used. OK? Because this was a non-partisan
    rule until they tilted the scales and said, no, we want to be
    able to change the scales on this.
        Something else that you put in place that I thought was a
    great benefit to the American people was that all guidance
    documents had to be online. That if an agency had guidance, it
    could not be hidden guidance. There could not be surprises.
    Show up in some business out there and say you violated our
    guidance. When people would say, I have never seen it, I do not
    even know how to find it. Most agencies did not have any of
    their guidance publicly until you actually helped put it online
    and it could all be done.
        The Biden administration came in and turned that off and
    said, no, the American people and businesses cannot see the
    guidance from agencies. You have to guess what guidance that
    agencies are putting out. I think that's wrong. I think if
    there's a regulator is going to actually put a guidance
    document out there, I think they should actually have the
    guidance and should be able to find it rather than have to play
    mother may I to go get it or guess what it is.
        Again, you are not in that seat, but I would recommend,
    based on the desire of the American people, if their government
    is going to put guidance out on what they need to do with the
    regulation, they should at least know where to be able to find
    it and to be able to have that. That's another piece coming up.
    You have a lot of responsibility in the days ahead for helping
    us deal with spending.
        The Chair brought this up at the very beginning on this. My
    question to you is, how do we get a hold of the grants? We have
    a grant that came out from State Department doing an
    investigation on do helmets improve safety in Ghana? I can go
    ahead and not spend a dollar and tell you probably helmets
    improve safety there, just like they do here on motorbikes and
    bicycles. I do not need to spend that money on it. But for some
    reason, we decided it's in America's best interest to do a
    study on helmet safety in Ghana.
        How do we get the parameters to make sure grants that are
    going out are actually in America's best interest and best use
    of Oklahoma taxpayer dollars?
        Mr. Vought. Sure. Senator, thank you for all the questions,
    particularly on the regulation front. Some of these ancient
    landmarks that the Biden administration moved we are aware of
    them, and we will be considering them in detail.
        As it pertains to grants, obviously, the management side is
    a very important office, the Office of Federal Financial
    Management (OFFM), putting forward rules and regulations to
    guide agencies on the grant process, but also asking the
    oversight questions. Many of the times that OMB is accused of
    withholding money, these are not impoundment conversations,
    these are us asking the questions of the agencies on how are
    you going to spend the money wisely so that we can get all on
    the same page as to whether something's going to be totally
    wasteful or not? That is, I think, one of the important aspects
    of getting in and being confirmed for this role.
        Senator Lankford. Great. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Chairman Paul. The question was brought up previously about
    the constitutional oath and obeying the Constitution. I would
    not diminish that at all, but I would argue that it's a little
    more complicated than some would make it out. Article I,
    Section 10 of the Constitution, Clause I, actually says that no
    State shall pass an ex post facto law.
        Recently, the President was convicted in New York of a law
    that was passed 20 years after the alleged crime. That law was
    passed specifically at the behest of going after one
    individual, which is also a bill of a tender and also,
    potentially, unconstitutional as well. But not everybody up
    here agrees with what I am saying that it's an ex post facto
    law. Some people loved it and thought it was a great use of a
    prosecutor who ran to try to convict the President, to go after
    him.
        There are debates over what the Constitution says with
    regard to Article I, Section 10, Clause I. It also says that
    States may not accept anything but gold and silver coin as
    tender and payment of debt. That's not adhered to by every
    State in the union. Yet, we are not going to somehow say are
    you going to obey the gold and silver clause of Section I,
    Clause 10.
        The loan program. This was a case which is even much more
    clear cut on the Constitution where the court is actively
    telling President Biden that what he's doing is illegal and
    he's actively doing the opposite of it. Now, it would be fair
    during the quarantine, the Trump administration began by
    saying, you no longer have to pay your rent or your debt based
    on a quarantine resolution from 1938 from the Centers for
    Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which did not apply. The
    Biden administration continued it, also.
        But I think when we talk about obeying the oath of the
    Constitution, we want sincerity. We want someone who truly
    believes that they will read, and understand, and obey the law.
    Will you obey the Constitution, and will you obey the law as
    written and interpreted?
        Mr. Vought. Yes, Senator.
        Chairman Paul. Senator Gallego.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR GALLEGO

        Senator Gallego. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Vought, as OMB Director, will you be giving advice to
    the President?
        Mr. Vought. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Gallego. Not just executing whatever you want.
    Great. Perfect. This is why I would like to get to kind of more
    of your thought process, because while I do not disagree that
    you are going to follow to the best as possible every dot when
    it comes to the Constitution, I do not question at all whether
    you will abide by that, nor your patriotism, or anything like
    that, I do think it's important for me to understand your
    thought process. Because you will be advising the President.
        As such I would like to know what your thought process was
    and your positions in the past, in your previous roles. Going
    back to Senator Blumenthal, as someone like me who I am a
    veteran, I do receive VA disability. Many of the men I served
    with in the Marines also receive disability. I have gotten very
    frightened phone calls in the past about different things they
    have heard a lot of times online that either the Democrats or
    the Republicans are going to cut VA disability or whatever.
        It always happens. It comes from both sites. They are
    worried about both sides cutting it. It makes sense if you
    understand their life. A lot of them have very small personal
    budgets. If something is cut, that could affect their
    livelihood, their ability to pay rent, and things of that
    nature.
        We heard obviously what Senator Blumenthal said about,
    potentially, your past position that people below 30 percent VA
    disability should have that disability cutoff altogether. I am
    not saying that you are going to project this going forward to
    the President, because, clearly, you say you are going to abide
    and go by what the President tells you to do.
        But what was your thought process back in the day in terms
    of your belief of why that was a good program? I am sure there
    was some reasoning for it. Obviously, saving money or whatever
    it is, like breaking down bureaucracy. But I would love to hear
    the thought process to that.
        Mr. Vought. First of all, Senator, I just want to say thank
    you, and I do not take it for granted for you to accept that I
    will be someone that upholds the Constitution in performing the
    duties of the OMB director. I am very grateful for your
    comments on that.
        Look, I am not here on behalf of proposals that as the
    President of the CRA might have put forward. I am here on
    behalf of the President. He fully supported veteran spending.
    One of his most proud initiatives was some of the reforms that
    were made to provide additional healthcare resources and
    flexibility, and to make sure that veterans got all the care
    that they needed to. It was a huge priority in the first term.
    We were always fully funding the needs of the VA and we will
    continue to do so, if confirmed.
        Senator Gallego. And no doubt, as someone that, I have been
    a veteran, well, since the Bush Administration. I have seen
    great progression actually on under all the administrations,
    and certainly, saw some under the Trump administration. Why I
    am asking this is because, again, prior to starting this line
    of questioning, I asked, will you be giving advice to the
    President?
        That's why I am trying to get at. What is your thought
    process? Because that's going to give me a very good indication
    about where future decisions are going to be made and future
    advice will be given to the President. I have zero doubt that
    you are going to fully execute whatever the President tells you
    to do. But at some point, you will also likely be giving
    advice. This is why I ask certain things, whether it's as your
    past position in government, whether it's your past position,
    and whether you are not as the head of your think tank.
        For example, it is concerning when it comes to means
    testing. There are places, obviously, I think within, when it
    comes to government benefits that there should be some means
    tests when it comes to veterans and VA disability benefits. A
    lot of us do not believe that there should be means tests for
    something that we actually did and received in service to the
    country. If you could explain at least that, what was the
    thought process? Because that helps me determine what is going
    to be the advice that you will be giving to the President.
        Because it does concern veterans. We would be concerned if
    somebody is going to cut our benefits, or if at a minimum, we
    understand where the process is. Maybe we could say like, this
    is someone that's being reasonable and maybe we could try to
    work with them in any other way possible.
        Mr. Vought. Thank you, Senator. I think the best way to get
    a sense of the advice that I will be giving is based on what
    the President ran on. I mean, my view of this role is that you
    take what the President wants to do, what he ran on, what he is
    articulating once in office, and figuring out how to best
    implement it and to do it in the most efficient manner.
        The President ran on fully funding veteran programs and
    providing what is necessary. I think that should give you a
    pretty good sense, even though I am not going to get into the
    specific advice that I give to the President.
        Senator Gallego. In your interpretation of the President
    being a Star Wars supporter of veterans, and I think he
    definitely ran on that, I think we could all agree on that in
    this Committee. Certainly, almost everyone I served with voted
    for the President. I think they also believe that. Would that
    include the fact that that would be including protecting VA
    disability? That that would match the President's point of
    view? Would you advise them to actually follow through on that
    by protecting VA disability ratings?
        Mr. Vought. Again, Senator, I am not going to get ahead of
    the budget process other than to say that it's been a priority
    to fully fund the needs of the veterans. That will continue if
    confirmed.
        Senator Gallego. OK. I yield back.
        Chairman Paul. Senator Scott.

                   OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SCOTT

        Senator Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Vought, congratulations on nomination. I enjoyed
    working with you when you were up here before, and I know you
    will do a great job.
        We have seen the bloating, the Federal Government under the
    Biden administration. In his four years alone, he's added $8
    trillion to the national debt. He's increased our Federal
    spending by 53 percent. Our population is up two percent. We
    cannot continue down this path of spending way above pre-
    pandemic levels. With the past four years of Joe Biden, there
    has not been any serious discussion or plan of how to control
    spending or reduce our now $36 trillion worth of debt.
        If you travel around Florida, here's what you are going to
    hear from people. They cannot afford it. They cannot afford
    this inflation. They said, I could afford to live a few years
    ago, but today with this inflation, I cannot go buy a house
    because interest rates are up. You cannot buy a car. I better
    sure as heck pay off my credit card because I have high
    interest rates there.
        What are some of the things that you think are doable to
    deal with inflation and interest rates?
        Mr. Vought. Thank you, Senator. I appreciate the kind
    words. Obviously, one of the things that our past budgets have
    really gone after is non-defense discretionary spending, which
    just so happens to be where the bureaucracy is funded on an
    annual basis and which gives Members, Senators, the annual
    ability to go after some of that waste. Many of it shows up in
    the reports from Senator Paul on an annual basis.
        But it also is those agencies that, I think, have been
    overbearing on the American people. I think that will be one of
    those areas that we can target first. But the President has
    also put forward reforms to get to reduce or have better
    outcomes with regard to welfare, get people back into the labor
    force. Those are potentially substantial amounts of savings as
    well.
        Senator Scott. What's the right way of looking at this? We
    have seen since pre-pandemic, about a $2 trillion increase in
    spending. Is the right way of looking at this saying let's go
    back--like, in my business life, what we do is to say this is
    where our revenues are going to be. We are not going to spend
    more than that, and hopefully, we are going to have a profit.
        Is it the right way of looking at this and saying why do we
    have this unbelievably increase in spending? Should we go back
    and say why can't we go back to 2019 or 2020 spending rather
    than be stuck with where we are now?
        Mr. Vought. It is certainly a valid line of reasoning and
    one that we will explore, if confirmed, in trying to think
    through what our fiscal goals might be. Certainly, we have been
    aware of the debates up here as you all have been trying to get
    the country's attention with regard to where we are fiscally.
    We will look for those types of opportunities, if confirmed.
        Senator Scott. The regulatory costs up here, when I was
    Governor of Florida, we added 1.7 million jobs when we cut
    taxes and fees 100 times. What really had the biggest impact,
    we reduced 20 percent of regulatory environment and we
    streamlined the permitting environment.
        It could take you two years to get a permit you were
    entitled to under our water management districts. We got it
    down to just a few days, because you were entitled to it. You
    did not have to go hire a lawyer, didn't have to go hire
    lobbies to get it done. What are some of the things you think
    we can be doing with what you are going to do with DOGE to
    reduce, one the cost, and buildup the economy?
        Mr. Vought. Certainly in the first term, the President was
    very active in this area as one of his main deregulatory
    priorities. He was horrified by the extent to which all of
    these projects would take decades to get approval. His view was
    that an agency, you would be on a time clock. It does not mean
    you are always going to win if you are the person who's trying
    to do the project, but the agency should respond quickly.
    That's the way he thinks. That's the way I think you will see
    many of our deregulatory ideas and initiative to flow out of
    that viewpoint.
        Senator Scott. What's success for you? Let's say you are
    confirmed and you had the job for four years. At the end of
    four years, what would you say I was successful in this role
    because of what?
        Mr. Vought. I want to do the best that I can to implement
    the President's agenda. My hope is that we are able to deal
    with the spending components of inflation to get a handle on
    our fiscal house. The President's put forward budgets before,
    and I expect him to put up similar budgets that deal with that
    problem, and to be able to get the regulatory apparatus that we
    had in the first term back in place where we are actually
    deregulating as opposed to putting endless burdens on the
    American people. I think that's how we would define success at
    the end of the term.
        Senator Scott. Why is this job important to you? Why do you
    want to go back and do this? What drives you to do it?
        Mr. Vought. Having done this the first time, the President
    deserves to have people who know how to do the job, do it well
    on day one, and who can implement his agenda. It's very rare in
    life that you get an opportunity to think about a job for four
    years, and to try to go back and even do it even better. I
    think the President deserves that, and I am looking forward to
    being confirmed, if confirmed, by the Senate, in doing that
    job.
        Senator Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
        Chairman Paul. Senator Hawley.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HAWLEY

        Senator Hawley. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Mr. Vought,
    good to see you. Congratulations on your nomination. Thank you
    for being willing to do this job, again. You did a great job
    the first time around. I look forward to seeing you back in
    this office.
        Let me just ask you. One of the important functions of OMB
    is the role that it plays in managing procurement through the
    Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP). Would you agree
    with me that it is a problem? By the way, I think one out of
    every 10 taxpayer dollars goes to Federal contractors. That's a
    lot of money. That's a big part of our budget. Would you agree
    with me that it's a problem when we are sending Federal
    contracting dollars to entities, firms, especially consulting
    firms that are simultaneously taking money from and doing
    business with our most lethal opponents, like China, for
    example. I mean, doesn't that strike you as a little strange?
        Mr. Vought. It's concerning. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Hawley. Here's an example. Prime example of this
    kind of behavior, McKenzie, the consulting firm. McKenzie got
    in the last year, for which we had full numbers available, over
    $851 million worth of consulting work. They had 90 prime
    contracts with DOD, they got $98 million in contracts from the
    Army, $132 million from the Air Force, $37 million from the
    Navy. I think they advised on the F-35 fighter jet program and
    the Air Force Space and Missile System Center.
        At the same time, they had a thousand employees in China.
    They were doing business directly with the Chinese government,
    and they advised Chinese state-owned enterprises that have now
    been blacklisted by our own military who got rid of. Now, my
    view is that if they want to do business with China, I do not
    recommend it. I suppose it's fine, so long as it's not illegal.
    But I do not think they should simultaneously be getting
    hundreds of millions, approaching a billion dollars in
    contracts, Federal contracts, military contracts from our own
    government.
        Here's my question for you. You are going to have a lot of
    influence in this process through the procurement rules and
    process. Will you be an advocate for protecting American
    taxpayer dollars in this contracting process where hundreds of
    billion dollars to spend every year? Will you be an advocate
    for protecting that and making sure it's not going to entities
    who are effectively double-dealing and advising our enemies at
    the same time?
        Mr. Vought. Absolutely. I am very excited, if confirmed,
    getting back to being able to work with OFPP, getting a handle
    on the guidance that we are giving governmentwide as part of
    the Federal Acquisition Regulatory (FAR) Council and to really
    look at what are the regulations that are in place and how can
    we get them better.
        Senator Hawley. Great. That's great. That's fantastic. Give
    me a sense, just while still on the procurement topic, how you
    might ensure that procurement policies prioritize American made
    goods and service, particularly services, particularly in
    industries that are vital to our national security. I just
    think about our experience in COVID, and you were there for the
    beginning of the onset of the pandemic. When we learned that,
    my gosh, the most basic medical supplies we are importing from
    overseas, our medical supply chains are so compromised in so
    many ways.
        Give me a sense. Have you given some thought to how the
    procurement process might be used to safeguard those critical
    supply chains and prioritize American manufacturers?
        Mr. Vought. Yes, I think clear leadership from the director
    to make sure that a viewpoint for the President is implemented
    at the level of policy that the OFPP is reviewing. A lot of
    times in the management functions that OMB that are kind of on
    autopilot with regard to the clear direction of the President
    and using the President's management tools and his agenda to be
    able to drive that policy across the Federal Government is
    something that we fully intend to do and to do it robustly.
        Senator Hawley. Very good. Let me shift gears just a little
    bit, but still thinking about Federal regulations through the
    Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). You have a
    lot of influence, thankfully, on the regulatory landscape and
    environment. I asked your predecessor in this role, the Biden
    administration nominee, if she would commit to the Hyde
    Amendment and the principle that we should not be using Federal
    taxpayer dollars to promote abortions, which has been a
    bipartisan commitment, as you well know, for decades. She would
    not commit to that.
        Indeed, as you know, the Biden administration pretty
    promptly walked back their commitment to it and has been
    essentially violating the law because it is the law. They have
    been violating it for years. Now, let me just ask you. When it
    comes to the Hyde Amendment, which is the law of the land, will
    you work to ensure that all of our rules and regulations,
    everything that comes across your desk is in full compliance
    with the Hyde Amendment and we are not spending Federal
    taxpayer dollars to promote abortion in any way?
        Mr. Vought. As I have said, Senator, we will apply, we will
    abide by all laws on the books.
        Senator Hawley. Very good. Let me ask you just a couple
    more things when it comes to the policies of life, because,
    again, you are going to have a lot of influence over the
    regulatory environment. Would you agree that Federal funding
    for family planning through Title 10 through that grant program
    should not include Federal funding for abortion providers?
        Mr. Vought. Again, the President has made his views on
    abortion really clear throughout the campaign. I am not going
    to get ahead of the President with regard to the budget
    process. We have submitted budgets in years past that give the
    Senate a sense of how he would budget, but I am not going to
    get ahead of the President on that.
        Senator Hawley. But let me ask you this, and just to be
    clear, what I just asked about was the Trump policy from in his
    first term, but here's another one. Pregnancy resource centers,
    should they be able to receive Federal funding through Federal
    grants? That was the President's policy in his first term. Do
    you think, again, as a matter of Federal rules pregnancy
    resource centers ought to be eligible?
        Mr. Vought. Again, the President's a pro-life President. He
    had a very pro-life record. He had an extensive debate within
    the campaign on his views, and I am not going to get ahead of
    him on the budget process. But I think the country has a good
    sense of where he is on the issues.
        Senator Hawley. Let me ask you just one more. The Mexico
    City Policy, which I know you are familiar with OIRA, is very
    important in that policy. That's just the policy, for those
    keeping track at home, that says that American foreign aid
    dollars tax money should not be spent on abortions overseas.
    President Trump championed this in his first term. Every
    Republican President has for decades. Now, do you agree with
    the Mexico City Policy? Would you implement it if the President
    directed you to?
        Mr. Vought. Absolutely. We will implement anything the
    President's asked me to direct.
        Senator Hawley. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Vought. It's
    great to see you again. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Chairman Paul. Senator Ernst.

                   OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ERNST

        Senator Ernst. Thank you, Mr. Chair and thank you Ranking
    Member. It is good to be back on the Committee after a hiatus
    for many years. Good afternoon, Mr. Vought. Thank you for the
    really robust discussion yesterday. I truly appreciate that.
    Thanks for being here.
        You were here six and a half years ago as well, and I do
    remember that as your kids had been sitting behind you during
    that as well, and one of my colleagues had very inappropriately
    questioned you on your faith as part of your first confirmation
    hearing before the Senate. I just want to commend you because
    during that period, you handled yourself with extraordinary
    grace. I truly appreciate that. I just want to be on the record
    as stating that I think people of all faith should have a place
    in the public square. But thank you so much and what a great
    example for your children.
        Mr. Vought. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Ernst As the chair of the Senate DOGE Caucus, I
    look forward to working with you to make government more
    transparent, accountable, and efficient. It's impossible to
    achieve these goals, though, if we do not even know how
    Washington is spending our tax dollars. During my time in the
    Senate, I have passed numerous laws to do just this. One
    requires the Department of Transportation (DOT) to report all
    projects that are $1 billion over budget, or 5 years or more
    behind schedule. Another requires the Pentagon to put a public
    price tag on all research and development (R&D) projects funded
    with taxpayer dollars.
        Despite numerous laws being passed, these were passed and
    signed into law, agencies have been completely ignoring the
    mandates. Likewise, the bipartisan law that originated in this
    Committee requiring all government spending to be disclosed in
    a searchable public website. USAspending.gov is being
    circumvented by bureaucrats who are hiding billions of dollars
    of secret spending awarded as Other Transaction Agreements
    (OTAs), from USA spending.
        As Director, what actions are appropriate to compel
    agencies and recipients of taxpayer dollars to comply with
    these laws, and how will you prioritize ensuring compliance?
        Mr. Vought. It's a great question, Senator. It's one that
    we will definitely take note of and make sure that when we are
    setting up on the management side these apparatuses, but also
    on the budget side that works intimately with the agencies,
    that they are not allowed to get away with these types of
    gimmicks.
        Senator Ernst. OK. I look forward to working with you. Will
    you also require agencies to start reporting OTAs to
    USAspending.gov?
        Mr. Vought. We will definitely abide by the law and make
    sure the spirit of the law is executed as well.
        Senator Ernst. That is the spirit of the law. Thank you. In
    the years since COVID, our nation's capital has remained a
    ghost town as private companies of all sizes from coast to
    coast have called their employees back to the office. Some
    Federal employees allegedly come to their DC offices so
    infrequently that the calendars in their cubicles are still
    flipped to the March, 2020 page. That's why it's entirely
    unsurprising that GAO found Federal Government headquarter
    buildings are operating at an average occupancy rate of just 12
    percent. Meanwhile, I recently published a report on Federal
    telework, which I ask unanimous consent (UC) to enter into the
    record.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The information from Senator Ernst appears in the Appendix on
    page 145.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Chairman Paul. Without objection.
        Senator Ernst. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Which details some
    truly shocking statistics, and my staff will hand you a copy of
    this as well, Mr. Vought. Before COVID, just three percent of
    employees eligible to telework did so. Now, six percent of
    those employees say they report in person on a full-time basis,
    six percent, showing up for work every day, depending on the
    agency. Between 23 and 68 percent of surveyed teleworking
    employees are boosting their salaries by receiving incorrect
    locality pay. Some employees claim to be working in DC while
    living more than 2,000 miles from their office.
        As you are aware, the Office of Management and Budget holds
    the critical responsibility of ensuring the Federal workforce
    delivers meaningful results for the American people. Strong
    leadership from your office to correct the Biden
    administration's a sleep at the wheel approach to Federal
    workforce management would send a very powerful and much needed
    message to the rest of the government. To this end, I will ask
    a few key questions. First, will you share your daily schedule
    with the public?
        Mr. Vought. Yes.
        Senator Ernst. Congress has a set 60 percent utilization
    goal for your headquarters building and the headquarters
    building of each Federal agency. What steps will you take to
    get each agency to meet Congress's goal?
        Mr. Vought. I think we are going to make it a priority.
    Obviously, you have heard through your DOGE leadership, with
    the leadership of the President's DOGE, that this is a major
    area that they are looking at. We are going to be looking at
    ways that OMB can come along beside and ask the right
    questions, both on the management and the budget side to get a
    sense for how are agencies monitoring their own employees that
    might be benefiting from the DC pay rate when they are not
    living in DC.
        Part of it is having a theory of the case, which we clearly
    have to do that oversight, and then to get into these roles and
    to figure out where we are on a day-to-day granular basis, and
    then figure out what can be done about it.
        Senator Ernst. Very good. What would your plan be to get
    Federal employees including those that are covered by
    collective bargaining agreements to show up for work?
        Mr. Vought. We are going to take a look at the collective
    bargaining agreements. Obviously, we are aware of the extent to
    which the Biden administration is locking in or attempting to
    bind the Trump administration with these Consumer Bankers
    Association (CBAs) that last an extended period of time. I do
    not have anything to announce other than to agree with you that
    it's a concerning phenomenon and one that we are looking at
    very closely.
        Senator Ernst. Very good. I have a number of other
    questions as all as well. We went through a number of these
    yesterday in my office. I truly appreciate that. I could go on
    and on and on. I would encourage everyone if you would like a
    copy. We may have some extra. But this is just the tip of the
    iceberg, Mr. Vought, and I look forward to your confirmation
    and to working with you on these issues. Thank you very much.
        Chairman Paul. Thank you, Senator Ernst. We are very
    interested and the full Committee is very interested in this. I
    think it would be illustrative to bring in some people who
    could tell us some stories about people not coming to work. I
    do recall that when the baby formula problem happened and the
    baby formula was contaminated, we had the heads of three
    agencies or four agencies, and one of the Senators asked the
    question, ``When was the last time you were in the office?''
    Most of the heads of the agencies, like the head of the CDC,
    U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), they had not been in
    the office for a month.
        We need to talk about this and if nothing else, we got to
    shame some people to going back to work. There has to be some
    metrics. The private practice works because you have profit and
    somebody monitors your work. If you are not being monitored and
    there is no profit number to see whether you are doing any work
    it's impossible. But let's work together on maybe doing a
    hearing on this in the near future.
        With regard to the regulations, Senator Scott brought up
    some of the different regulations and it brought to mind a
    couple of things. We had a bridge collapse in Kentucky a few
    years ago. A tugboat hit it. I thought, well, they tell you
    these National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations take
    like three or four4 years to get. Maybe we should have an
    exemption, if your bridge falls down and you are going to build
    the bridge in exactly the same place, you do not have to do any
    NEPA review at all. I think I got about 20 votes or whatever,
    15 votes. We could not even pass an amendment. That common
    sense saying it's going in the same place.
        It reminds me of one other quick anecdote, then we will go
    back to a couple questions. Did you see the story recently
    about the snail darter? Apparently, the snail darter was
    discovered back in the 1970s when they were building a dam in
    Tennessee. Now, they have somebody to admit that, well, he told
    people at the time, this will stop the dam. It's a new species.
        Apparently, now, they have done all these genetic testing
    and it's not a new species. The more they look, the more they
    found the snail darters everywhere. We had a dirt darter in
    Kentucky must be a relative of the snail darter. We had to
    lower one of our dam lakes by 30 feet where there's a lot of
    marinas and recreational activity. While the dam was lowered to
    rebuild an earth and dam lordy, they found some dirt darters in
    a river. They said, we do not want to fill the lake back up
    because we will hurt the dirt darter. My question was, it's a
    fish, doesn't it like water? But I mean the craziness of all
    this stuff.
        One more. We have the pocketbook mussel. It's been listed
    on the Endangered Species Act. Have you ever seen mussels? They
    are everywhere. Any pond, lake, creeks got mussels everywhere.
    This was put on the endangered species list. Then for the last
    20 years, they have been looking for it. Everywhere they look,
    they find it. There's no endangerment, but somebody put it on
    the list, and it's a scam.
        We had a sewage plant in a city was overflowing with sewage
    into the lake. Nobody wants that. We wanted to build a new one
    in a little town in Kentucky. First, we got to get a
    consultant, 100 grand, 150 grand for this tiny little town to
    study this, the pocketbook mussel population, and Indian
    artifacts. All it does is it enriches the consultants. It lasts
    two or three years to get it done, slows everything down.
        But this isn't a question, this is a rant. [Laughter.]
        Anything you can do to fix that stuff, I am all for you.
    Tell us what we need to do to fix it. We are going to do
    another round. We are going to start with Senator Peters for
    five minutes.
        Senator Peters. Thank you.
        Mr. Vought, the Federal Government relies on the inspector
    general to conduct independent oversight, as you know, root out
    waste, root out fraud and abuse of a taxpayer dollars that it
    finds. My question for you, sir, is do you agree that the
    inspector generals are vital to protecting Federal programs
    from inefficiency and waste?
        Mr. Vought. Yes, absolutely. As a congressional staffer and
    Director of OMB with various roles benefited greatly from the
    reports of the IG community.
        Senator Peters. Great. During your previous tenure as OMB
    director, you did not comply with an investigation into delayed
    disaster recovery funding for Puerto Rico that was conducted by
    the Department of Housing and Urban Developments Inspector
    General (HUD OIG).
        My question for you is that under the Inspector General
    Act, agency heads are required to provide all information and
    assistance requested by IGs to the extent practical. Why did
    you and your staff fail to comply with the law during the HUD
    OIG investigation?
        Mr. Vought. Senator, I assure you, I am always responding
    to the advice of counsel, and the extent to which that applied
    in that instances is the same.
        Senator Peters. Your legal counsel said avoid the law. Just
    basically violate the law. That's the kind of advice you get?
        Mr. Vought. Again, we go through a process with all the
    requests that come in, and we figure out what we are required
    to do. We did that in that instance, and we will do that again
    on a case-by-case basis.
        Senator Peters. Again, I have to echo my colleague, Senator
    Slotkin. You do give really good bureaucratic answers, which is
    why people, I guess, are crazily frustrated with bureaucrats.
    You are a very good bureaucrat and not answering questions.
    Even when you avoid the law, you try to find some sort of
    bureaucratic runaround so that you can get away from doing
    what's right. It's really unfortunate.
        My next question is, under leadership, OMB also obstructed
    the GAO review on delayed Ukraine assistance by refusing to
    comply with GAO request for information. You also defied a
    congressional subpoena that was issued by the House
    Intelligence Committee in 2019. So, you defied a congressional
    subpoena. Will you comply with a congressional subpoena if you
    receive one from this Committee, or will you defy it as you
    have done in the past?
        Mr. Vought. Senator, as you know, the President was being
    impeached at that time. The Office of Legal Counsel instructed
    the appointees of the Executive Branch because their agency
    counsel were not going to be allowed to participate in those
    proceedings and therefore protect privileged information not to
    go to the Hill.
        So, of course, I will come to Congress if subpoenaed but
    there's a reason why we consult our lawyers, particularly at
    the Office of Legal Counsel, as to their determinations with
    protecting the presidency and an agency head has to listen to
    what they have to say.
        Senator Peters. Chairman Paul and I have had many
    discussions about subpoenas and the fact that our subpoenas are
    basically ignored by the administration in both parties. This
    is not partisan in any way, but it's clear, Chairman Paul, we
    are going to get the same kind of stonewalling on subpoenas if
    we continue to get these kinds of bureaucratic answers from OMB
    under the leadership of Mr. Vought.
        Mr. Vought, will you commit to complying with all oversight
    requests you receive from the Inspector General, the Government
    Accountability Office, and Congress? Or will I get the same
    bureaucratic runaround answer that I have received in all the
    other questions?
        Mr. Vought. That's not how I would characterize it,
    Senator.
        Senator Peters. Of course not. We will respond
    transparently to all the oversight requests, and we will make
    sure that, subject to the advice of counsel, you are getting
    the information that you need to do your oversight
    responsibilities. That is a priority of my time at OMB. When I
    get letters from Senators, I take them very seriously. I want
    to be known immediately about them so that we can get after
    responding to Senators and what they have asked for.
        Senator Peters. I expect I am going to get the same
    bureaucratic answer in my last question here. Will you commit
    to fully and promptly responding to oversight requests from
    this Committee, including from the Ranking Member and from
    other Minority Members? You have already stated that you will
    take these letters seriously.
        Mr. Vought. We will definitely respond to your letters.
        Senator Peters. And respond with another very eloquent,
    bureaucratic answer that, ``Sorry, we can't comply?'' Is that
    what we should expect? We certainly got it the last time you
    were in OMB. How is it going to be different this time? How
    will things be different this time?
        Mr. Vought. Senator, I would go back to something earlier
    that you said. We come up here and when you subpoena us, when
    you request for us even beyond using the subpoena power, we
    come to Congress. Outside of the impeachment situation, you do
    not have an example to point to in which we are not willing to
    come and defend our actions before these bodies and the ones in
    the House.
        That will continue, and we will continue to help you do the
    oversight process that I think is vital by giving you the
    information that you need, at the same time respecting the
    differences between the Executive Branch and the Legislative
    Branch, and that the President has a policy deliberative
    process that needs to be respected as well.
        Senator Peters. Well, time will tell. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Chairman Paul. Senator Lankford.
        Senator Lankford. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        I do not think this Committee wants to discuss who is and
    who isn't willing to be able to come for hearings. When last
    year, for the first time in 20 years, the Biden administration
    refused to come for the global threats hearing. The request was
    made month, after month, after month to the Biden
    administration for Mayorkas and Christopher Wray to be able to
    come and give a public accounting for it. They stiff-armed this
    Committee for months and refused to come.
        I understand what happened during the impeachment time, but
    that that was a very unique moment that I hope is not repeated
    again, obviously. But this Committee certainly has not had
    response from the Biden administration actually coming and
    appearing before this Committee or delivering documents.
        Senator Peters. Senator Lankford, I hope that you will
    recognize that I called that out very aggressively.
        Senator Lankford. Oh, you did.
        Senator Peters. No, I have been consistent in that it's
    not--I was way out front in calling that that was wrong 100
    percent.
        Senator Lankford. I was grateful for that. I was just
    saying that's not just a moment to say this happened once
    during the Trump administration. This is challenge.
        Chairman Paul. I would just follow-on with it's us against
    them. We are the legislature. All right?
        The ambition to pit ambition against ambition was us
    against them. Not Republican, against Democrat. Us against the
    executives. While I am going to vote for Russell Vought, I want
    him to correspond with this. If we ask for records, I am going
    to ask with you.
        Senator Lankford. Yes. Totally agree. Let me blitzkrieg
    through some different topics here. GAO does a high-risk list.
    Do you-all evaluate that? Do you go through that? Is that
    meaningful to you? Because what I asked GAO to do years ago was
    to take their high-risk list and to split it. Executive Branch
    can do this on their own. The Legislative Branch have to be
    able to act on this. They do that now and split it. We each get
    our to-do list on that. Is that important to you as you go
    through it?
        Mr. Vought. Absolutely. Yes, sir.
        Senator Lankford. OK. That's helpful because we are both
    going to have quite a list on this. I have a question on E-
    Verify. This should not be a challenge, but it has been a
    challenge and has been over multiple administrations. The law
    requires E-Verify be used for Federal contracting and for
    prime, subprimes and all that. But GAO has looked at this year
    after year and has determined no one's really checking it.
        No one's asking the next question, are they really using E-
    Verify? Sometimes they do on the primes, but then all the
    subprimes that they use, no one's really asking. There is
    without question, we have under Federal taxpayer dollars
    contracts being used right now where the folks that are doing
    it are not legally present in the United States. I think most
    people would be really shocked by that.
        We also have asked the question on OTAs and those other
    transactional agreements, are we checking E-Verify for that?
    The answer we got was kind of a sheepish no, we kind of treat
    those differently. If an OTA is used, no one is asking on E-
    Verify on it to be able to verify folks with American taxpayer
    dollars are actually Americans. While we talk about buy
    American for products, we are not always hiring American even
    in the United States on that. How does that get fixed?
        Mr. Vought. I will definitely take a look at that and start
    to inquire about what's going on with regard to that.
        Senator Lankford. Thank you. Retrospective review is a big
    deal. You and I have talked about before. We are back in nerdy
    territory to be able to go back and say if a regulation was
    made years ago and it's been left alone, we should go back and
    take a look at it years later and say, did it work? Is it
    costing more? Is it there?
        I bring this up because during the time of COVID, President
    Trump put out a statement to say, for all those regulations
    that are out there, we understand everything's weird right now
    across the country. We got to figure out how to be a process
    and do work, and we got to figure out the regulations.
        Somehow, as a country, we survived with relaxed regulations
    on it. I think there's a need to be able to go back and do a
    regulatory review, and to say what regulations were relaxed at
    that time that we later learned, the country still works with
    that. Is that a need to be able to go back and do a regulatory
    review, not only during that time period, but for all
    regulations?
        Mr. Vought. Yes, very much Senator. In fact, the
    President's given us a new goal. He had originally had a two
    for one goal in the first term. He's now given us a 10 for 1
    goal. We believe that we can hit that. But it's going to
    require looking at everything that does not make sense within
    government, and reassessing, and trying to get better outcomes
    as a result.
        Senator Lankford. I cannot even begin to tell you how many
    Oklahomans would tell me, ``I just want the government to make
    sense.'' Just do it in a way that's logical. Don't try to do it
    based on somebody in Michigan one time did something and so now
    the whole country has to do something different or produce a
    lot of paperwork. They just want it to be able to make sense on
    it. That's very helpful to be able to get.
        One final question on this. Sitting in this hearing for the
    last hour or so, I have heard your name pronounced three
    different ways. [Laughter.]
        Can you clarify for this Committee in the American people,
    how do you pronounce your last name?
        Mr. Vought. I appreciate that question very much, Senator.
    Believe me, I have heard all of them growing up. It is Russell
    Vought.
        Senator Lankford. Thank you for clarifying that. We will
    put you on record as Russell Vought. Got it.
        Chairman Paul. Yes, I was not sure how to say Russell
    either, so. [Laughter.]
        Thank you, Mr. Vought, for your time today, and your
    commitment to working with the Committee. The nominee has filed
    responses to biographical and financial questionnaires,\1\
    answered pre-hearing questions submitted by the Committee, and
    had their financial statements reviewed by the Office of
    Government Ethics (OGE).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The information for Mr. Vought appears in the Appendix on page
    69.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Without objection, this information will be made part of
    the hearing record with the exception of the financial data
    which are on file and available for public inspection in
    Committee offices.
        The hearing will remain open until noon tomorrow, Thursday,
    January 16, for the submission of statements and questions for
    the record. We are adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 3:02 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                                A P P E N D I X

                                  ----------

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]