[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]