▶ 0:17:29Chair Paul: The hearing to consider the nomination russell vought to be the director of the office of management and budget 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 dollars to the national debt. This is truly a bipartisan problem.
▶ 0:17:58Chair Paul: 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. 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.
▶ 0:18:24Chair Paul: The office of management and, omb, 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.
▶ 0:18:43Chair Paul: Make no mistake of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in congress are also complicit in this reckless approach to spending by refusing to put any meaningful guard rails or parameters on taxpayers money. For example, each year, I put forth a budget, planning to balance the budget in five years. Last year I put forth a plan started out as a one penny plan, you could cut 1% over five years and balance the budget.
▶ 0:19:12Chair Paul: Last year it was 6% because of the explosion of money that happened during covid. Every single democrat opposed this and seven republicans. We got a big chunk of the problem and caucus on that bill. Instead of taking advantage of an opportunity for fiscal responsibility in 2025, we've added another trillion dollars to our deficit in four months since I introduced my budget. Report out today was that over $700 billion in debt in the last three months.
▶ 0:19:42Chair Paul: For years, I've been beating the drum on waste on our government. Each year I release a festivus report highlighting a new and egregious examples of waste I found. Just last month, I release the latest iteration of this report which identified over a trillion dollars in unnecessary, often of certain government spending, such as, $400,000 to determine whether or not lonely rats seek cocaine more than happy rats.
▶ 0:20:11Chair Paul: $3 million for girl-centric climate action in brazil. $10 million in maintaining, leasing, furnishing empty federal government buildings. 12 million-dollar sport a pickle ball complex in las vegas. 4.8 million dollars for social media influencers in ukraine. $20 million on teaching pakistan, vietnam, colombia, and brazil how to use fertilizer.
▶ 0:20:44Chair Paul: $2 million to new york university 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.
▶ 0:21:11Chair Paul: Vought has been a consistent advocate for fiscal sanity and has continually suggested strategies to decrease excess spending. The director of omb plays a critical role in our economy especially now. Our government is over $36 trillion in debt and the congressional budget office predicts an average of about $2 trillion per year for the next 10 years, no end in sight. We need a strength of character like Mr. vote to put the foot down, put the hammer down and say enough is enough.
▶ 0:21:42Chair Paul: Mr. vought is well qualified for the role. Having fiercely served as the director and acting capacity. As well as being the deputy director. As director, Mr. vought will be taxed with spearheading the president's budget. You'll 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.
▶ 0:22:11Chair Paul: 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 remain hopeful the incoming administration will take the necessary steps to restore fiscal sanity. With that, I'd like to recognize the ranking member senator peters.
▶ 0:22:30Sen. Peters: Thank you, Mr. chairman. Mr. vought, thank you for being here before us today. 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.
▶ 0:22:57Sen. Peters: We have a constitutional duty to thoroughly review the backgrounds, the experience and qualifications of nominees that lead our government agencies and provide transparency and accountability to the american people. While I recognize this is not your product, 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.
▶ 0:23:24Sen. Peters: 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, omb, is a critical office in the office of the president with significant responsibilities ranging from developing and executing the budget to improving agency performance, as well as reviewing regulations.
▶ 0:23:55Sen. Peters: Mr. vought, you have previously served as both a 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'm 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.
▶ 0:24:26Sen. Peters: The constitution is 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 congresss affirmed this congress' role and not the president. As a member of the reserve and the senate, I swore an oath to uphold and follow our constitution. It's my expectation, if confirmed, you will do the same.
▶ 0:24:58Sen. Peters: Yet, during your time at omb, you consistently ignore laws passed by congress that directed how taxpayer dollars should be spent. In 2020, an investigation by the government accountability office found that omb under your leadership broke the law eight times. That is quite a record. Eight times breaking the law, by directing certain federal agencies to continue to operate during the 2018-19 shut down.
▶ 0:25:26Sen. Peters: Gao also found 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 from the department of housing and urban development found again, under your leadership, omb inappropriately delayed disaster relief funding for puerto rico following devastations after hurricane maria.
▶ 0:25:56Sen. Peters: People who were hurting, people who were suffering, people who didn't know where they would put a roof over their head and have food in their belly, and you inappropriately delayed disaster funding to those people in need. I will be knowingly delayed giving resources to communities following a disaster even after we passed a law specifically requiring the funds to be disbursed on time.
▶ 0:26:19Sen. Peters: 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. The people who were desperate. I'm deeply concerned by another action you push toward during your time at omb to replace nearly 50,000 nonpartisan career civil servants with appointees whose only qualifications is that they are politically loyal.
▶ 0:26:50Sen. Peters: Not that they are competent, not that they follow the law, they have to be politically loyal. That is unacceptable. This would have removed employees with years of knowledge and experience and posed a grave threat to our national security. More than 70% of the federal workforce serves an agency is critical to our national defense and national security.
▶ 0:27:12Sen. Peters: 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 undermine the public trust in government.
▶ 0:27:34Sen. Peters: In fact, you have even referred to the dedicated public employees who secure our borders for 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 americans get things like their social security checks on time which every senior citizen needs, and you refer to these people as "villains." the people doing the work every day, you refer to them as villains.
▶ 0:28:05Sen. Peters: 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.
▶ 0:28:29Sen. Peters: Giving your 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. I look forward to hearing your response to questions that you will be getting from my colleagues.
▶ 0:28:53Chair Paul: Russell vought is currently the president of the center for renewing america. During president trump's first administration, Mr. vought served as the 42nd director of the office of management and budget, the same position he is being considered for 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.
▶ 0:29:20Chair Paul: Vought also received his ba from wheaton college and law degree from the george washington law school. Mr. vought, please stand. It is the practice of the committee to swear in witnesses. Please stand and raise your right hand. Do you swear the testimony you will get before this committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you god? You are recognized for your opening statement.
▶ 0:29:57Mr. Vought: Thank you Mr. chairman, members of the esteemed committee, for the opportunity to appear before you today. Let me begin by thanking my girls, ella and porter, who are now returning to the scene of congressional confirmation hearings as 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.
▶ 0:30:26Mr. Vought: It is a profound honor to be nominated a second time by president trump to serve as the director of the office of management and budget. The president has promised the american people a federal government that works for all americans, not the interests of bureaucrats and entrenched establishment. Making a start and prickling that might vital progress during my previous time at omb as deputy director and director was among the most rewarding experiences of my career.
▶ 0:30:56Mr. Vought: Throughout my career, I have been driven by a commitment to taxpayers and their families. Growing up as the son of an electrician and schoolteacher, 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.
▶ 0:31:25Mr. Vought: Today, nearly 80% of americans do not feel confident that their children will lead better lives than they have. That is nearly double the 40% of americans who said the same just two decades ago. When I look at government waste in our national debt, I fear for my daughter's futures. 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.
▶ 0:31:56Mr. Vought: I'm 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 budget, 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.
▶ 0:32:24Mr. Vought: A strong intra-agency process delivers the best results for all americans, and I believe omb is collaborative ethos is key to achieving those outcomes. The civil servants at omb are among the most resourceful and innovative 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.
▶ 0:32:54Mr. Vought: Because inflation driven by irresponsible federal spending taxes americans twice. The average american household has lost roughly 2000 purchasing power since january 2020 one. 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.
▶ 0:33:20Mr. Vought: 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 the best interests at their 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.
▶ 0:33:48Chair Paul: Thank you payment we will now proceed to question 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's a practice of this committee to ask this question.
▶ 0:34:13Chair Paul: 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?
▶ 0:34:21Mr. Vought: Yes, I will be up here always with the advice and counsel of our team.
▶ 0:34:26Chair Paul: I reserve the rest of my time and recognize the ranking member for his questions.
▶ 0:34:36Sen. Peters: Mr. vought, under your leadership in 2019, omb illegally withheld $214 million that congress appropriated to the department of defense to provide security assistance to ukraine. The government accountability office concluded that omb's actions were a violation of the control act and that your actions then forced congress to we appropriate the funds.
▶ 0:35:06Sen. Peters: 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, if you are confirmed as omb director again, do you commit to follow the law and allow omb to withhold funding from -- and not allow omb to withhold funding from programs that congress as appropriate?
▶ 0:35:35Mr. Vought: 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 will continue to do so.
▶ 0:35:49Sen. Peters: So you can withhold funds appropriated by congress, you think that is within the law?
▶ 0:35:54Mr. 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 release the funding by the end of the fiscal year.
▶ 0:36:07Sen. Peters: Do you believe the impoundment control act of 1974 is the law of the land that you must follow?
▶ 0:36:14Mr. Vought: It is the law of the land. As you know, the president has run on that issue. He believes it is unconstitutional. For 200 years, presidents had the ability to spend less in 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. As it pertains to the parameters of how we would use that, that is something his team will have to consider when confirmed in these roles.
▶ 0:36:40Sen. Peters: You know the impoundment control act has created a process that has been held by courts over and over again. Consistently rejected attempts by presidents to withhold funds unless congress clearly allows it. In clinton versus new york, also determined laws that allow the president to unilaterally cancel appropriations are unconstitutional.
▶ 0:37:06Sen. Peters: Correct me if I'm wrong but is there anywhere in the constitution that gives the omb director to determine whether a law is unconstitutional?
▶ 0:37:12Mr. Vought: Again, there is 200 years of practice by the presidents of the united states --
▶ 0:37:18Sen. Peters: You are saying the courts are wrong? These are the laws of the land now.
▶ 0:37:23Mr. Vought: I'm aware of the caseload on the books. This is something the administration will consider when in these roles if confirmed.
▶ 0:37:30Sen. Peters: So you will continue to challenge and break the law going forward?
▶ 0:37:35Mr. Vought: Sir, I will not continue to break the law. I'm giving my commitment to uphold the laws of this land.
▶ 0:37:43Sen. Peters: You don't care about court precedents?
▶ 0:37:46Mr. Vought: That is not what I have said. The president has run on the issue of impoundment, has reminded the country that 200 years of presidents have used this authority and will be developing our approach to this issue and strategy once his administration is in office.
▶ 0:38:04Sen. Peters: As a member of the senate appropriations committee, I worked very hard with comics to negotiate in good faith and reach bipartisan spending agreements. I'm concerned about your actions and statements about the president going to be able to unilaterally refuse to spend money that congress has appropriated. I get it, he ran for office, but that doesn't change the constitution. There are the processes we have to go through.
▶ 0:38:32Sen. Peters: You don't allow president to act outside the constitution. Certainly would hope that you advise the president, he is taking an oath of office in a few days to uphold the constitution and we have to abide by that, not just because you believe something. There is a process to go through. My question is how can congress negotiate in good faith if the president is simply able to disregard a bipartisan laws passed through the appropriation process?
▶ 0:39:00Sen. Peters: How do we negotiate with somebody who says I will just do what I want, the hell with the constitution?
▶ 0:39:05Mr. Vought: Again, I think that is a mischaracterizing of the president's viewpoint on this matter, not something that would impact bipartisan negotiations, notwithstanding anything she announces with regard to impoundment.
▶ 0:39:17Sen. Peters: If the president can refuse to spend appropriations passed by congress, wouldn't he have the power to simply pick all the winners and losers who receive government funding? Basically he has all that power?
▶ 0:39:29Mr. Vought: I will not get into the parameters of the power that requires a policy process by his incoming team.
▶ 0:39:38Sen. Peters: Very concerning. Congress has granted the president brought 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 chairman and I have noted. Senator paul and I have worked together on bipartisan legislation to curb the abuse of presidential emergency powers and reassert proper congressional oversight.
▶ 0:40:08Sen. Peters: I'm deeply concerned about reporting that indicates that you designed the plan to abuse the national emergencies act to circumvent laws passed by congress by moving military construction money to build a border wall. My question for you is, do you commit do not recommend the use of presidential emergencies to accomplish the president's policy agenda?
▶ 0:40:29Mr. Vought: Senator, with regard to that instance in our first term, we were specifically using the transfer of authority that had been provided in the language at the department of defense appropriations to be able to transfer that authority to the army corps of engineers for its use on the border wall. It was specifically a transfer of authority that congress had given the president in the underlying appropriation.
▶ 0:40:54Sen. Peters: You circumvented the law, I think it is pretty clear. Next question, last question here. Will you support efforts to rein 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?
▶ 0:41:17Mr. Vought: I will not speak on future legislation but the an illustration will review anything that comes to their desk. Omb will have a role in reviewing that legislation for the president.
▶ 0:41:31Sen. Peters: Simple question, do you think congress has a rightful role in the use of emergency powers?
▶ 0:41:37Mr. Vought: Again, congress provided the laws that the president uses to declare emergencies. If congress wants to make changes to those laws, that is their prerogative to do and the administration will consider those and have a position if those bills get to his desk.
▶ 0:41:52Sen. Peters: Thank you, Mr. chairman.
▶ 0:41:55Chair Paul: With regard to the subject, I am sympathetic to some of the points senator peters is making. There was a vote at the time and I voted with many on the opposite side of the aisle to say the power of the purse is congress is. When we decide to spend money somewhere. However, given that was my position, still is my position, there is some debate over transfer of authority, moving money, what you are allowed to do and not. I disagree.
▶ 0:42:23Chair Paul: If we appropriate something for a cause, that is where it is supposed to go. That will still be my position. But I think there is some debate over the legality of repurchasing, reauthorizing, the transfer in the law. If we want to make it less so, we may need to tie up the rules and boundaries more to what we do with everything. There is a national security waiver, presidential waiver, all of these emergencies. Congress has made the mistake of giving too much power to the executives regardless of party.
▶ 0:42:55Chair Paul: This is something I'm still open to it no matter who is president. Hopefully we can continue to discuss. Senator johnson.
▶ 0:43:03Sen. Johnson: Congratulations on your new position here. Looking forward to working with you to reinvigorate congressional oversight which we have allowed to atrophy. Really want to work very cooperatively with you to do so. First chart I will put up here describes and shows dramatically what bipartisan spending cooperation yields us.
▶ 0:43:31Sen. Johnson: 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, we went on a massive spending spree and spent $6.5 trillion that year. An american family, let's say you spend $100,000 a year, you have a family member who get sick, maybe you have $60,000 in expenses that year.
▶ 0:43:57Sen. Johnson: The following year, if you get well, you don't keep spending $150,000 and you certainly don't borrow money to do so. But the federal government in effect did this time thing 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.
▶ 0:44:25Sen. Johnson: Vought, do you see any rationale for continuing the spending levels?
▶ 0:44:29Mr. Vought: No, senator. Thank you for the question. 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. Now you're in a situation where we surpass what we spend on defense. 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.
▶ 0:44:59Sen. Johnson: Let's talk about how we reset spending two reasonable levels. Let's say that same family makes $100,000 and they have a child, so their population grows 25%. If their income grew from $100,000 to $125,000, or on top of that 3% inflation. That family is kept whole, right? No harm.
▶ 0:45:28Sen. Johnson: They have been able to maintain their spending level with increased population and inflation. I'm trying to figure out some way to justify a lower spending level. I have gone back in time, back to bill clinton's administration, 19 98, the first year we had a surplus since 1969. Back then bill clinton spent $1.9 trillion. Last year we spent $6.9 trillion.
▶ 0:45:57Sen. Johnson: If you take bill clinton's spending level -- I don't think bill clinton spent too little -- and you inflate the spending to increase it based on population growth and inflation, with this caveat, you slide 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 dollars is $5.5 trillion of baseline spending.
▶ 0:46:26Sen. Johnson: If that is too reasonable for you and you want to spend more money, you could look at president obama's 2014 spending. He spent $3.5 trillion. Inflate his base spending, population and inflation, using biden's social security medicare and interest, he would be spending $6.2 trillion. Those would be reasonable baselines, correct?
▶ 0:46:52Sen. Johnson: I also did 2019, I don't like the result, because we are at $6.5 trillion. That is not good enough. Let's go to our next chart. Here is the one you have in front of you that I want to use. We have a new administration. President trump, you are probably key in producing this budget, budgeted for 2025, spending level of $5.4 trillion.
▶ 0:47:22Sen. Johnson: If you take that budget, inflate all the spending except for social security and medicare and interest, that is what we spent this year, predicted to spend in 2025, the baseline but it would be $6 trillion. My question, having gone through this, I realize a lot of numbers, a 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?
▶ 0:47:51Mr. Vought: Senator, I very well think it could be. If confirmed, we have to look at the numbers, and begin the formal budget development for the president's fiscal year 26 budget. Haven't begun to do that. There is a clear template in terms of the previous budgets the president has put forward. He put forward more spending cuts and reforms and savings than any president in history. It was largely ignored by congress.
▶ 0:48:18Mr. Vought: Our hope is the budgets he puts forward that there is more of a take-up rate in congress with regard to the spending cuts that are necessary to get us out of this hole.
▶ 0:48:26Sen. Johnson: Would you agree right now that this is the primary metric that we need to be focusing on, how much in total the federal government spends? I am hearing people say, in order to sign onto a budget, I have to see $3 trillion to 5 trillion dollars in cuts, measured against what?
▶ 0:48:47Sen. Johnson: I will point out in terms of metrics, you start at a $6 trillion level when we are already spending seven, that is $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?
▶ 0:49:09Mr. Vought: 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 to whether your fiscal house is good or not is the extent to what you are spending. The way that drives your debt, that is the area that we will be looking at to be able to bring it back into some rationality.
▶ 0:49:33Sen. Johnson: I didn't point out, on the previous chart, I show the clinton level, if you inflate that to $5.5 trillion, just so happens to match what president biden is predicting for revenue. We are that close to a balanced budget. It is possible using clinton spending priorities or even obama spending priorities. Thank you, Mr. chairman.
▶ 0:50:01Chair Paul: Senator hassan.
▶ 0:50:05Sen. Hassan: , thank you for the hearing. Welcome, Mr. vought, welcome to your family as well. In 2018, president trump signed into law the 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.
▶ 0:50:30Sen. Hassan: For example, by helping to 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 had previously supported rescinding funds for fully funded programs that require further authorization. Congress meanwhile has appropriated funds for next year for the support act services.
▶ 0:50:58Sen. Hassan: If confirmed, will you commit to distributing funds appropriated by congress for support act programs?
▶ 0:51:02Mr. Vought: Senator, thanks for the question. As you know, the opioid epidemic is a huge priority for the president. We will look at all the funds necessary to combat that epidemic. I cannot speak to it beyond that because we haven't begun the process. You can certainly be a sure this is something that you heard about in the first term with regard to the president's interest in this area and I can imagine it will continue to be.
▶ 0:51:31Sen. Hassan: Let me be clear here because I'm following up on a point that senator peters made. We have appropriated the money. We had a bipartisan agreement to reauthorize the program. So I'm disappointed that you will not make a clear commitment here today to ensure that the life-saving programs signed into law by president trump will continue to receive funds that have been provided by congress. And I urge you to rethink your position as your nomination is considered by the senate.
▶ 0:52:03Sen. Hassan: Government shutdowns put public safety and our national security at risk. But you have repeatedly come Mr. vought, called for brinkmanship around government shutdowns and oppose 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 is a quote, simply must be prepared to shut the government down.
▶ 0:52:31Sen. Hassan: And "need to dig deep and embrace the sort of brinkmanship that shows they are playing to win." if confirmed, you would play a role in negotiation 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?
▶ 0:52:54Mr. Vought: Senator, I don't think I have been a person that has wanted to have government shutdowns. I had to be the one that kept the government open consistent with the law for the longest shut down in history. I know the impact it has on the federal government.
▶ 0:53:11Mr. Vought: 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 appropriations bills have to have bipartisan support, and to get that done as soon as possible so you don't have the kind of pilots at the end of the fiscal year that we have seen.
▶ 0:53:37Mr. Vought: I think the breakdown of the budget process here in congress is something that has not been good. I hope that 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.
▶ 0:53:52Sen. Hassan: Unfortunately, this is a situation where the 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. And I will note, the impact of government shutdowns, impacts not just the federal government but the american people in significant ways.
▶ 0:54:22Sen. Hassan: This isn't about people in government offices. This is about them and the people they serve in the united states. That is the reality and that is why it is so important that government is efficient, effective, right sized government continues to stay open. I like to ask you about the nonpolitical role that omb plays in distributing grant funding and ask for your commitment to fulfill this role in a nonpartisan way.
▶ 0:54:51Sen. Hassan: In december, president biden signed grant transparency act into law, bipartisan bill that I worked on with senator cornyn to require agencies to require reader transparency with how grant applications are evaluated. The law is intended to provide grant applicants with a clearer picture of how their applications will be reviewed so that the grantmaking making process is fair and competitive.
▶ 0:55:14Sen. Hassan: Yes or no, if confirmed, do you commit to ensuring agencies do not evaluate a grant application with the applicant's political identity or views in mind?
▶ 0:55:23Mr. Vought: Certainly look forward to looking at those laws. Those are the types of transparency laws we have supported before. Many of these new requirements, new transparency initiatives are things that in my first opportunity to do the job, we made a concerted effort to get done, to actually move forward and not let this be something that we just say we don't have the resources to do. I look forward to continuing to do that.
▶ 0:55:49Sen. Hassan: I appreciate that, but the question was yes or no. If confirmed, do you ensure to commit that agency do not evaluate a grant application with the applicant's political identity or views in mind?
▶ 0:56:01Mr. Vought: If it is the law of the land, absolutely. We have no business in understanding someone's political views.
▶ 0:56:09Sen. Hassan: If confirmed, do you ensure to commit that agencies do not evaluate a grant applications emitted by a state based on that state's political makeup, whether it is red, blue, or purple?
▶ 0:56:19Mr. Vought: The extent to which we make decisions will be based on the policy grounds, the agenda of the president of the united states.
▶ 0:56:29Sen. Hassan: If the president says to you I don't care what the law says, I don't like california and I'm not going to give them the disaster aid they need, you are going to stand up to the president and say, sir, that is not appropriate?
▶ 0:56:41Mr. Vought: I do not engage in hypothetical but the president was never asked me to do something along those lines.
▶ 0:56:47Sen. Hassan: History speaks to fitly 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?
▶ 0:56:59Mr. Vought: Again, we make decisions that omb based on the policy grounds, the laws in place. We do not look at people's political inclinations.
▶ 0:57:08Sen. Hassan: Even if you somehow found out about people's political inclination, you would not allow that to influence your decision-making at omb.
▶ 0:57:16Mr. Vought: Correct.
▶ 0:57:18Chair Paul: Senator marino.
▶ 0:57:23Sen. Moreno: Thank you 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'm here because I never thought I would be doing this. I have to convince up front I've been a fan of yours before even thought about running for public office.
▶ 0:57:50Sen. Moreno: 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 talk, I was not born in this country, I came 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 in your teens. I studied the constitution up and down.
▶ 0:58:21Sen. Moreno: I have a question for you because you are more the expert that I am. Where in the U.S. constitution does the bureaucracy stand in terms of power versus the president?
▶ 0:58:31Mr. Vought: Senator, thanks for the kind words, great question. The constitution visions the bureaucracy would work for the president of the united states in article two.
▶ 0:58:41Sen. Moreno: I come from the private sector when I ran companies with thousands of employees. I suspect it should work but correct me if I'm wrong, if you are the chief executive, that means all the people that work for you actually work for you, is that true in government also?
▶ 0:58:58Mr. Vought: It is not the case currently but it is something as a policy objective, our congress would have envisioned that way.
▶ 0:59:05Sen. Moreno: Meeting the president, not congress, not the judicial branch, has total and complete discretion over who serves at his or her pleasure?
▶ 0:59:15Mr. Vought: Again, those are not up the laws on the books that we know today. The president has many laws and paradigms have been put in place to ensure that the american people's will when they selected president are not what prevails in the agenda setting process.
▶ 0:59:37Sen. Moreno: I would suggest that most voters, somebody like me who was not into politics a few years ago with suspect the president is actually the one making these decisions, not some unnamed bureaucrat, whether they are a good person or bad person or have been here for five years or 25 years, that it is the president's agenda that should be implemented. Is that correct I would hope that would be their suspicion.
▶ 1:00:02Sen. Moreno: When you look at the separation of powers, a fascinating conversation among the federalist papers, they were concerned about the decentralization of power. There's a lot of conversation about what the congress does, president does, judiciary does. In your point of view, is it the president's ability to unilaterally terminate student, for example no, sir.
▶ 1:00:28Sen. Moreno: It seemed the prior administration did that. They found it to be unconstitutional. And yet, president biden continued to forgive student debt. What would be your point of view on that?
▶ 1:00:41Mr. Vought: We believe that was not the right course of action, that the president did not have that authority. An example of the biden administration's own willingness to follow the law.
▶ 1:00:54Sen. Moreno: 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, if you are somebody who was introducing legislation here in this body to forgive student debt, not something that I think we should be doing, we shouldn't be forgiving anyone stepped -- certainly in my case in ohio we sit and have 70% of the people who didn't attend college to pay for the 30% who did.
▶ 1:01:24Sen. Moreno: But do you find it hypocritical if you are somebody who is introduced legislation to forgive student debt and now is lecturing you about the executive overreach powers, would you find that to be hypocritical?
▶ 1:01:36Mr. Vought: I did not find any outrage on the democratic side with regard to president biden's actions on that. I will leave it at that.
▶ 1:01:44Sen. Moreno: If you don't mind, I will yield a few of my minutes back, but if you don't mind, a personal question. How old are your daughters?
▶ 1:01:53Mr. Vought: 12 and 10.
▶ 1:01:56Sen. Moreno: When they are our age at some point, if we don't do something, actually do something serious, when they are in their 50's, Mr. vought, what will their future be like?
▶ 1:02:10Mr. Vought: Less freedom, less opportunity. The extent to which we don't tackle our fiscal situation means the amount of burden that will inevitably come from a higher taxes, that will inevitably put on their batch with regard to debt and what they are inheriting is not what we were given. We were given a better shot.
▶ 1:02:34Mr. Vought: I think that is one of the things that keeps me up at night, the extent to which we have not seen progress in the area of dealing with our fiscal situation, and that has to change or it will 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 it affords.
▶ 1:02:54Sen. Moreno: If I could ask one last personal question. When you think about what you're going through here in this hearing, what you are about to inherit going into work, very tough situation. Is it fair to say that you are doing this because you genuinely lo this country and are concerned about the future of this nation?
▶ 1:03:12Mr. Vought: Absolutely, yes, sir.
▶ 1:03:15Sen. Moreno: I appreciate it. Thank you to your family. It is absolutely a side of patriotism for you to be here. Look forward to 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. chairman.
▶ 1:03:36Sen. Blumenthal: Thank you, for your service, Mr. vote, your willingness to come back. Thank you also to your family. As you know, in the closing days of the last session, united states congress by overwhelming majorities approved disaster relief funding going to the department of agriculture as well as fema, for disaster relief all around the country.
▶ 1:04:05Sen. Blumenthal: Will you commit to releasing those funds promptly and fully to the areas that depend on that disaster relief funding?
▶ 1:04:13Mr. Vought: We will continue to release the money that is appropriately been funded for these areas as we always have with regard to the fema dollars.
▶ 1:04:23Sen. Blumenthal: So the answer is yes?
▶ 1:04:25Mr. Vought: Yes, we will continue to --
▶ 1:04:29Sen. Blumenthal: You will not continue because you are not yet in office. You will release that money fully and promptly to the agencies that provide the relief. For example, the $31 billion, I believe it is, for the army corps and agriculture department, the $2.2 billion for the small business
▶ 1:05:01Sen. Blumenthal: Administration, $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?
▶ 1:05:10Mr. Vought: Again, senator, I will not get ahead of the policy process of the incoming administration but when it comes to responding to disasters, the president has always been someone that cares deeply about these areas --
▶ 1:05:24Sen. Blumenthal: I am talking about the ukraine funding which I believe is essential to congress. It is vital. It has been authorized and appropriated. Will you release that remaining $3.8 billion?
▶ 1:05:37Mr. Vought: Again, senator, I will not get ahead of the president on a foreign policy issue with the magnitude --
▶ 1:05:44Sen. Blumenthal: Let me ask you. Do you believe the impoundment control act is constitutional?
▶ 1:05:50Mr. Vought: I do not believe the impoundment control act is constitutional.
▶ 1:05:54Sen. Blumenthal: Have you read train versus new york? The united states supreme court is saying it is constitutional. You are saying you are just going to defy the courts, the office of legal counsel under both administrations including then attorney rehnquist, after becoming supreme court justice, wrote for the office of legal counsel, you will simply take the law under your own hands.
▶ 1:06:23Mr. Vought: I did not say that nor imply that on behalf of the incoming administration. Earlier to a question from senator peters, I said the incoming administration would take the president's view on this as he stated on the campaign, work it through with the lawyers of the department of justice, some of whom becoming before congress today, if confirmed, to put that through a policy process. I cannot prejudge that policy process but I can certainly announce the parameters of what it would produce.
▶ 1:06:52Sen. Blumenthal: I am astonished and aghast that someone in this responsible a position would, in effect, say the president is above the law and that the united states supreme court is entitled to their opinion but
▶ 1:07:23Sen. Blumenthal: Mine should supersede it. It is 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. This issue goes beyond republican or democrat. It is bigger than one administration or another.
▶ 1:07:50Sen. Blumenthal: It is whether the law of the land should prevail or maybe it is up for grabs emma 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, to give you an opportunity to recast your answer. Which I think should be disqualifying for both sides of the aisle, frankly.
▶ 1:08:20Sen. Blumenthal: Because what goes around comes around. The next administration could be democratic, could be independent. But the supreme court in train versus new york said it is constitutional. That has been the clear consensus. Let me move on. I am the ranking member of the veterans affairs committee.
▶ 1:08:43Sen. Blumenthal: I am concerned by your proposal that there should be a means test for who deserves veterans affairs disability compensation. For me, nothing is more important than caring for our veterans. I think that is true for 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?
▶ 1:09:11Mr. Vought: Senator, the president has been a firm supporter of veterans spending, I'm getting everything veterans need. That was always reflected in all the buckets the president sent to the hill.
▶ 1:09:23Sen. Blumenthal: I am going to interrupt you with apology because my time is running out. Do you believe there should be a means test for disability benefits going to veterans?
▶ 1:09:34Mr. Vought: Again, I will not speak to --
▶ 1:09:38Sen. Blumenthal: You are not going to answer the question but you have taken positions in the past that you think there should be means tests.
▶ 1:09:43Mr. Vought: The president has always put forward everything that the department of ea does and I fully expect that to continue.
▶ 1:09:53Sen. Blumenthal: Do you believe disability compensation benefits for veterans should be eliminated if any veteran has a disability rating below 30%?
▶ 1:10:05Mr. Vought: Senator, I'm not here on behalf of what I think.
▶ 1:10:09Sen. Blumenthal: That is the proposal from the organization that you found it. Do you continue to believe it?
▶ 1:10:16Mr. Vought: It is a think tank that I'm currently 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 --
▶ 1:10:28Sen. Blumenthal: Is that what he believes?
▶ 1:10:31Mr. Vought: You should judge him by the budgets he sends forth to congress. I am here on behalf of of the fiscal responsibility that he wants to restore and I fully intend to do that if confirmed.
▶ 1:10:43Sen. Blumenthal: Thank you, Mr. chairman.
▶ 1:10:46Chair Paul: As I said previously, I am sympathetic not only to the arguments that senator peters made but senator blumenthal is making on the 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'll see a release of it. There's a great deal of discretion given to the president on when it is released and how much is released.
▶ 1:11:18Chair Paul: For example, last fall, when we passed the ukraine money, they decided to call some of it loans, so they did. A month later, they gave the loans. I was like when that they even start begin paying on the loans? I learned that their payment wasn't supposed to begin for 40 years. That is disingenuous. It is a loan, we are going to forgive it. When are they supposed to start repaying? 40 years. And there is great latitude.
▶ 1:11:48Chair Paul: If we want to limit with the president does of moving money around which I'm so pathetic to, we should have the power of the purse, we have to write better legislation. Everything that we put out has a national waiver for national security. What about in times of war? They just use that for everything. You will find there will be a bunch of issues where there will be emergencies declared on. We need to readdress this. I am so pathetic to it.
▶ 1:12:16Chair Paul: Senator peters and I have a bill on emergency powers that I hope will get a vote which says 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. There is I think a difficulty in the witness answering, will you spend all ukraine money? It is complicated and they have all kinds of parameters for how much you spend, when and where.
▶ 1:12:48Chair Paul: We had let him not made it that explicit. Did you want to comment?
▶ 1:12:51Sen. Blumenthal: I will say briefly, Mr. chairman, the reason congress rights laws with attempted precision, not always, but sometimes providing latitude , is to enable some flexibility in the executive branch releasing funds. That is a prerogative of congress. But then the president has to obey what we say in releasing the money.
▶ 1:13:16Chair Paul: I would just argue the window is too big.
▶ 1:13:19Sen. Blumenthal: My comment goes to obeying the law that has been upheld repeatedly as constitutional. As opposed to saying, no, we don't need to obey it because we believe it is unconstitutional.
▶ 1:13:35Chair Paul: I think it is a good debate. Senator kim. Sen. thank you Mr. chair. Mr. vought, thank you for coming out before us. I want to start by reading you a quote you had said.
▶ 1:14:04Chair Paul: Quote, there is certainly going to be massive layoffs and firing, particularly at some of the agencies we don't even think should exist. I want to give you an opportunity to clarify, what are the agencies you think shouldn't exist?
▶ 1:14:17Mr. Vought: I didn't say that. If you look back at the interview, I said there needs to be -- I'm not here to do that or elaborate on any plans to that effect because I'm not sure that they exist.
▶ 1:14:36Sen. King: -- Sen. kim: some entities in the executive branch have some independence, the federal reserve and other. You said it is hard to square the fed independence with the constitution. Could you elaborate on that?
▶ 1:14:53Mr. Vought: I am not think -- I am not here is a think tank. The president has not spoken on that matter and I am here on his behalf and for his agenda.
▶ 1:15:03Sen. Kim: We are trying to assess your capabilities to do this job. I guess I just wanted a sense of your understanding of the constitution and the executive branch, in particular the president's capacity to be able to shape that. I would like to ask you, should the president have the ability to set interest rates?
▶ 1:15:22Mr. Vought: The president has run on the issue of bringing independent agencies and for regulatory review. He has not spoken to the question that you just asked. I'm here on behalf of -- I'm here on his behalf, not anything I've stated with regard to policies at the center for renewing america. I'm here for his agenda.
▶ 1:15:45Sen. Kim: I guess I will ask it a different way. Do you believe the president has the authority to set interest rates?
▶ 1:15:52Mr. Vought: I'm not going to speak to the matter. It is a hypothetical --
▶ 1:15:57Sen. Kim: It's not a hypothetical. I'm trying to get a sense of your understanding of the power of the president. If confirmed, you will serve in the office of the president and I want to have a sense of your understanding of what the president is allowed to do and not allowed to do and I think that is a valid concern.
▶ 1:16:15Mr. Vought: I'm 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 it is important for the president to have someone in this role who wants to accomplish his agenda and not their own personal agenda. That is what I will go for and continue to be.
▶ 1:16:37Sen. Kim: I will move on to something that is very clearly not hypothetical. Your previous work in the past it administration. You said in your written testimony quote, the civil servants at omb are among the most resourceful and innovative I have worked with but I've also heard you say in other circumstances quote, do we want the bureaucrats to be dramatically affected, we want them to not want to go to work because they are increasingly viewed as the villains. We want to put them in trauma.
▶ 1:17:06Sen. Kim: I raise this with you because I was a career nonpartisan civil servant. I've worked in multiple departments and agencies. I wanted to ask you why you would use language like villains talking about people serving our nation.
▶ 1:17:20Mr. Vought: In those comments I was referring to the bureaucracies I believe have been weaponized. There are portions of weaponized bureaucracies across the federal government. That does not mean there are not amazing career civil servants, many of whom I worked with at omb.
▶ 1:17:37Mr. Vought: I look forward to getting back to work with them and being able to rely on their expertise, their understanding of federal programs and to be able to allow them to help us have more implementable policies on behalf of the president. I do believe there are bureaucracies that are weaponized against the american people.
▶ 1:17:58Sen. Kim: Even within omb?
▶ 1:18:01Mr. Vought: No sir, not omb.
▶ 1:18:03Sen. Kim: At the end of your term as omb director, you implement it schedule f and you implement of that as well at omb . Do you know what percentage of personnel at omb you categorized as schedule f?
▶ 1:18:18Sen. Kim: We implemented it at 90%. That was not to fire anyone. It was to change the classification.
▶ 1:18:25Sen. Kim: What is the purpose of the changing of that classification?
▶ 1:18:29Mr. Vought: It is to ensure that the president, that has policy-setting responsibility has individuals who are also confidential policymaking positions, 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 and I didn't find
▶ 1:18:59Mr. Vought: That to be the case with regard to anyone at omb.
▶ 1:19:01Sen. Kim: But you felt it was necessary to take that step and hang that over them.
▶ 1:19:08Mr. Vought: The president instructed all agencies to use the schedule f classification. Omb is essentially all policymaking officials. That is why we had a higher percentage and I am someone that is going to abide by the president's viewpoints.
▶ 1:19:27Mr. Vought: I think it was a sound policy as it pertains to making sure 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.
▶ 1:19:40Sen. Kim: Hold on a second. Has the president-elect had conversations with you about restarting schedule f in starting january 20?
▶ 1:19:53Mr. Vought: I don't speak to the conversations I had with the president. Those are private deliberations.
▶ 1:19:58Sen. Kim: 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 you do. I want to ask one particular question here. In the first administration, and so far for hiring and the second, have you or any other managers asked candidates for employment or current employees who they have voted for in the election, what party they are affiliated with or if they have -- or if they have donated to
▶ 1:20:29Sen. Kim: Campaigns?
▶ 1:20:29Mr. Vought: No.
▶ 1:20:30Sen. Kim: Nobody that you know of?
▶ 1:20:33Mr. Vought: No.
▶ 1:20:34Sen. Kim: Some people within the administration are asking those questions, what would be your response to that?
▶ 1:20:42Mr. Vought: I can only speak for myself.
▶ 1:20:44Sen. Kim: I yield back.
▶ 1:20:45Chair Paul: Senator shocking. >> looking forward to working with you. I am a former c.I.a. Officer and pentagon official. I did three tours in iraq. I worked very proudly for democrat and republican and ministrations -- republican administrations. I'm also a democrat who won in a trump state.
▶ 1:21:17Chair Paul: I think what is interesting is we don't 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've been in for 26 years in this town,, in the senate, you've started a think tank. You clearly know the rules well of this town.
▶ 1:21:40Chair Paul: You've said, and I agree with you, that a budget is a reflection of a presidents priorities -- president's priorities. The thing that was disturbing as a michigander, three out of the four budgets you prepared last time was to zero out the great lakes restoration initiative, this huge program to maintain the great lakes, 20% of the freshwater of the world.
▶ 1:22:06Chair Paul: It took bipartisan work, including 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 is accessible for commercial traffic. What is your view on the glri? Re: going to have this conversation again when you zeroed out in the budget?
▶ 1:22:36Mr. Vought: I have not started working on the 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 in the recommendations we give for the president. Inevitably what we come up here and defend. >> 460 five projects in ohio, 1200 projects in wisconsin, a ton in michigan.
▶ 1:23:08Mr. Vought: Can you confirm you submitted a zeroing out of that program three years in a row last time you were director?
▶ 1:23:13Mr. Vought: I would have to go back and refresh my memory on the specifics of our budgets that I am happy to do that in the qfrs. >> yeah. 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 lakes states where it was allocated for?
▶ 1:23:38Mr. Vought: I'm not going to engage in hypotheticals. >> we've heard it, we've heard it. The other question I have is your views of the civil service. As a cia officer, which has been reformed over the years, to provide best assessment and advice to the president. You said that omb was not an agency where you had a bureaucratic problem.
▶ 1:24:09Mr. Vought: Which bureaucracy specifically do you believe has been weaponized?
▶ 1:24:13Mr. Vought: I'm not going to get into all of the agencies that I believe have some of those characteristics -- >> give an example of one.
▶ 1:24:20Mr. Vought: The department of justice is clearly one that has bureaucracies within it that engaged in trying to take out their own president during the first term. The extent to which the fbi goes and investigates someone that goes to a school board meeting in loudoun county for being concerned about the situation with his daughter and gets investigated as a domestic terrorist. >> the director and the deputy director of these agencies are at the prerogative of the president.
▶ 1:24:50Mr. Vought: Any president has about 1500 political appointee jobs they get to allocate all over the bureaucracy. I don't quibble with that. Do you believe that intelligence agencies and law enforcement agencies need more political appointees to keep management at those agencies?
▶ 1:25:06Mr. Vought: I'm not going to speak on behalf of a specific proposal the president has not made -- >> what is your view? Would you support a proposal? You want the job. Would you support a proposal to put more political appointees to oversee the activities of american law enforcement at the federal level and intelligence communities?
▶ 1:25:27Mr. Vought: The president has not spoken to that matter and I'm not here on behalf of my own personal views. >> the feeling that we have, the thing that keeps coming up is I don't quibble at all with the fact that the president is going to put in people I don't agree with on a policy perspective. That's not my debate.
▶ 1:25:48Mr. Vought: My concern with you and with potential secretary hegseth is when asked clear constitutional questions about the allocation of money, you can't answer a straight constitutional question. We are going to disagree on policy, no question about that. That is not my issue. My issue is the constitutional side. You are going to swear an oath to the constitution, not to donald trump. Just like any other confirmed official.
▶ 1:26:17Mr. Vought: 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?
▶ 1:26:25Mr. Vought: I absolutely will abide by the constitution at all times. >> uh-huh. And your interpretation does not trump the interpretation of the supreme court, or the current practice on the books.
▶ 1:26:40Mr. Vought: Lead administration goes through a very extensive policy process with the -- >> this is what I'm saying. You can see this bureaucratic wonky answer you keep giving. You claim to -- you claim to be an outsider but you keep giving the most wonky answers. I just want to confirm that when you hold up your hand like many of us have done, that you are going to protect and defend the constitution as interpreted by the people in a position to interpret it.
▶ 1:27:10Mr. Vought: That is what bothers me about you. It's not that we disagree on policy. It is that basic tenet that a lot of us have had to do on both sides of the aisle. That's all I care about. With that I will yield back but I wish for nominees we see across the board, just be straight on the U.S. constitution.
▶ 1:27:28Chair Paul: Senator lankford.
▶ 1:27:32Sen. Lankford: Good to see you again. You have done a lot of work for the united states. Your family has paid a big price for that and for that, I say thank you to all of your family and to you. I often will refer to omb and people look at me confused and I say it is the most important agency you've never heard of. It is a common refrain that everything has to come through there.
▶ 1:28:01Sen. Lankford: You are keeping us out of legal trouble, getting the budget train on track. All of those things are incredibly important. It is super wonky nerdy work but it is incredibly important so thank you for stepping into that. I've got several things I want to talk through. Mr. chairman I would like to ask permission to put something on the screen.
▶ 1:28:22Chair Paul: Without objection.
▶ 1:28:23Sen. Lankford: Thank you. You started work at omb on a bill that was passed that was called the taxpayers right to know, to create a federal program inventory. That was great work. To their credit the biden administration and omb continued that work. This is what it looks like now. It should be a listing of every program in all the federal government.
▶ 1:28:47Sen. Lankford: We've never been able to as members of congress or 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 has put together a lot of search features. It is unfinished. There are more programs to get into it. It is a tool that we look forward to using. It has been on gao's top list for years now. There are some areas that are unfinished that I wanted to highlight. The biden administration has than a lot of work to get the skeleton going.
▶ 1:29:18Sen. Lankford: Let me give you one example. This is not about youthbuild as a program. It is just one of the many entities that are here. This lists how much spending is done on it, different authorities, different regulations. Also one of the requirements is to ask what are the results? Here is the money that americans are spending. What do we get for that? For this particular one, it has results of what was done in 2016, 2017 it was not evaluated.
▶ 1:29:51Sen. Lankford: 2018 it was not evaluated. 2019 was evaluated based on how much money was spent, not the results. Then nothing in 2021, something about covid I guess. 2022 and 2024 it just says we spent this much money in this many places. That's not really the question. The question is what did we get for that money?
▶ 1:30:14Sen. Lankford: My question to you is, as you are stepping into this project that you started and others have worked on and now needs to be finished, how does this rank as a priority for you, which is the law now, to be able to have a way to look at every program and to see how it is evaluated, if at all? That helps all of us to be able to look at it and say there are 12 different programs that seem to do the exact same thing. Two of them seem to be successful and 10 of them aren't.
▶ 1:30:45Sen. Lankford: We can't see all of that until we ask gao to chase it for us unless this is finished. How does this rank as a priority for you?
▶ 1:30:52Mr. Vought: It will be a high priority. 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 and there were a lot of objections from individuals, that we don't have the bandwidth to do this. We brought all sides of omb together internally.
▶ 1:31:20Mr. Vought: I provided director level leadership to say I will push through the barriers that exist to be able to get this set up. I'm looking forward to seeing where we are and I would want to finish the job if given another opportunity by the senate.
▶ 1:31:32Sen. Lankford: I look forward to that. This is nonpartisan work. This is taking every program out there and saying what is happening? Nothing to hide, this is full transparency the american people are looking for. All of us in congress are looking for it as well.
▶ 1:31:53Sen. Lankford: Circular a4 was rewritten I the biden administration, something that had been used for years by democrats and republican presidents to just evaluate cost-benefit. The biden administration came in, changed the rules that had been done for decades and said we want to rewrite this and we want to say we are going to evaluate based on the immediate cost but the long-term benefits. We are going to look at the cost in a small area but get the global gain.
▶ 1:32:23Sen. Lankford: They changed the rules of how regulation is done. You can't say how you are going to act on this but I would say, change it back. There should be no disagreement. Use the same rules president obama used. This was a nonpartisan rule until they tilted the scales and said we want to be able to change the scales on this.
▶ 1:32:48Sen. Lankford: Something else you put in place that I thought was a great benefit was that all guidance documents had to be online. If an agency had guidance, it could not be hidden guidance. There could not be hidden surprises in some business out there saying you violated our guidance when people would say I've never even seen that. Most agencies didn't have any other guidance publicly until you helped put it online and it could all be done.
▶ 1:33:15Sen. Lankford: The biden administration came in and turned that off and said the american people and businesses can't see the guidance from agencies. You've got to guess what guidance agencies are putting out. I think that's wrong. I think if a regulator is going to put a guidance document out there, they should have the guidance and you should be able to find it, rather than having to play mother may I to guess what it is.
▶ 1:33:41Sen. Lankford: You are not in that seat but I would recommend based on the desire of the american people, if the government is going to put guidance out, they should at least know where to find it and to be able to have that. You have a lot of responsibility in the days ahead are helping us deal with spending. The chairman brought this up at the beginning. My question to you is, how do we get a hold of the grants?
▶ 1:34:08Sen. Lankford: We have a grant that came out from the state department doing an investigation on if helmets improve safety in ghana. I can go ahead and not spend a dollar and say helmets improve safety they are just like they do here. I don't need to spend that money. But for some reason we decided it was in america's best interest to do a study in ghana. How do we get the parameters to make sure grants going out are actually in america's best interest and the best use of taxpayer dollars?
▶ 1:34:37Mr. Vought: Thank you for all of 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, the management side is a very important office. Offm putting forth rules and regulations to guide agencies on the grants process, but also asking the oversight questions.
▶ 1:35:05Mr. Vought: Many of the times that omb is accused of withholding money, these are not empowerment questions, these are us asking questions of the agencies, how are you going to spend the money wisely so we can get on the same page as to whether something is going to be wasteful or not. That is one of the important aspects of getting in and getting into this role.
▶ 1:35:27Chair Paul: The question was brought up briefly about the constitutional oath and obeying the constitution and I would not diminish that at all. I would argue it is a little more complicated. Article one, section 10 of the constitution, clause one says no state shall pass an expos facto law.
▶ 1:35:54Chair Paul: The president was convicted of a law that was passed 20 years after the alleged crime and that year -- that law was passed at the behest of one individual, which is also potentially unconstitutional. Not everyone appears to agree with what I said. Some people loved it and thought it was a great use of a prosecutor who ran to try and convict the president. There are debates over what the constitution says.
▶ 1:36:23Chair Paul: With regard to article one section 10 clause one, it also says states may not accept anything but gold and silver coin as tender in payment of debt. That's not adhered to by every state, and yet we are not going to somehow say are you going to obey the gold and silver clause?
▶ 1:36:44Chair Paul: The loan program, this was a case that was even more clear cut on the constitution, where the court is actively telling president biden that what he is doing is illegal and he is actively doing the opposite of it. I'll 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 cdc which did not apply.
▶ 1:37:14Chair Paul: The biden administration continued it also. 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 the law as written and interpreted?
▶ 1:37:30Mr. Vought: Yes senator.
▶ 1:37:32Chair Paul: Senator gallego.
▶ 1:37:39Sen. Kelgallego: Thank you Mr. chairman. Will you be giving advice to the president?
▶ 1:37:46Mr. Vought: Yes, senator.
▶ 1:37:49Sen. Gallego: This is why I would like to get to more of your thought processes because while I don't disagree that you are going to follow the best as possible, when it comes to the constitution, I don't question at all whether or not you will abide by that, I do think it is important to understand your thought process because you will be advising the president.
▶ 1:38:13Sen. Gallego: As such, I would like to know what your thought process was in the past and previous -- and in your previous roles. Going back to senator blumenthal. I am a veteran, I receive v.a. Disability. Many of the men I served with in the marines also receive disability. I've gotten very frightened phone calls in the past about different things they've heard. A lot of times online, either the democrats or the republicans are going to cut v.a. Disability.
▶ 1:38:45Sen. Gallego: It comes from both sides. 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. We heard what senator blumenthal said about your past position, that people below 30% v.a. Disability should have that disability cut off altogether.
▶ 1:39:16Sen. Gallego: I'm not saying you are going to project this going forward, because you said you will go by what the president tells you to do. What was your thought process back in the day, in terms of your belief of why that was a good program? I'm sure there was some reason for it, saving money or whatever it is but I would love to hear the thought process.
▶ 1:39:38Mr. Vought: First of all, I want to say thank you and I don't take it for granted for you to accept that I will be someone that upholds the constitution and perform the duties of the omb director. I'm grateful for your comments on that. I'm not here on behalf of proposals -- I am here on behalf of the president. He fully supported veteran spending.
▶ 1:40:04Mr. Vought: One of his most proud initiatives was some of the reforms that were made to provide additional health care resources and flux ability to make sure veterans got all the care they needed. It was a huge priority in the first term. We were always fully funding the needs of the v.a. And we will continue to do so.
▶ 1:40:23Sen. Gallego: And no doubt, as someone -- I've been a veteran since the bush administration and I have seen great progression under all at administration -- under all the administrations.
▶ 1:40:41Sen. Gallego: Why I am asking is prior to starting this line of questioning, I asked will you be giving advice to the president and that is why I'm trying to get at, what is your thought process because that is going to give me a good indication about where future decisions are going to be made and future advice will be given.
▶ 1:41:00Sen. Gallego: I have zero doubt you will fully execute whatever the president will tell you to do but at some point you will also be giving advice and that is why I ask about certain things whether it is your past position in government, or as the head of your think tank. It is concerning when it comes to means testing, there are places within government benefits that there should be some means test.
▶ 1:41:26Sen. Gallego: When it comes to veterans and v.a. Disability benefits, a lot of us don't believe they should be means tested for something that we did and received in service to the country. If you could explain at least that, what was the thought process? At help me determine what is going to be the advice you will be giving to the president because it does concern veterans.
▶ 1:41:48Sen. Gallego: We would be concerned if somebody is going to cut our benefits, or if at minimum we understand where the process is and say this is someone that is being reasonable and maybe we can try to work with them in any way possible.
▶ 1:42:01Mr. Vought: I think the best way to get a sense of the advice I will be giving is based on what the president ran on. My view of this role is you take what the president wants to do, what he ran on, what he has articulate it and figuring out how to best implement it and do it in the most efficient manner.
▶ 1:42:22Mr. Vought: The president ran on fully funding veteran programs and providing what is necessary and I think that should give you a good sense even though I won't get into the specific advice I give to the president.
▶ 1:42:32Sen. Gallego: So when your interpretation of the president being a stalwart supporter of veterans, and I think he definitely ran on that. We can agree on that. Certainly everyone I served with voted for the president, so they believed that. With that include the fact that that would be including protecting v.a. Disability? That would match the president's point of view.
▶ 1:43:01Mr. Vought: I'm not going to get ahead of the budget process other than to say it has been a priority to fully fund the need of the veterans and that will continue if confirmed.
▶ 1:43:11Sen. Gallego: I yelled back.
▶ 1:43:13Chair Paul: Senator scott.
▶ 1:43:17Sen. Scott: Thank you chairman. Congratulations on your nomination, Mr. vought. I enjoyed working with you before and I know you will do a great job. We have seen the burden of the federal government under the biden administration. He has added $8 trillion to the national debt, increasing federal spending by 53%. The population is up 2%.
▶ 1:43:44Sen. Scott: We cannot continue down this trend. With the past four years of joe biden there has not been any serious discussion about how to control spending or reduce our debt. If you travel around florida, here is what you'll hear from people. They can't afford it. They can't afford this inflation. They say I could afford to live a few years ago but today, I can't go and buy a house. Interest rates are up. You can't buy a car.
▶ 1:44:15Sen. Scott: I better pay off my credit card because the interest rates are high there. What things do you think are doable to deal with inflation and interest rates?
▶ 1:44:26Mr. Vought: I appreciate the kind words. One of the things that our past budgets have really gone after is nondefense discretionary spending, which happens to be where bureaucracy is funded on an annual basis, which gives members the annual ability to go after some of that waste and many of it shows up in the reports from senator paul on an annual basis.
▶ 1:44:53Mr. Vought: But it is also those agencies that have been overbearing on the american people and I think that will be one of those areas that we can target first but the president has also put forward reforms to reduce or have better outcomes with regard to welfare, get people back into the labor force and those are potentially substantial amounts of savings as well.
▶ 1:45:15Sen. Scott: So 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 -- we used to say we are not going to spend more than that and hopefully we will have a profit. Is the right way of looking at this saying why do we have this unbelievable increase in spending?
▶ 1:45:43Sen. Scott: 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?
▶ 1:45:49Mr. Vought: It is certainly a valid line of reasoning, and one that we will explore if confirmed and trying to think through what our fiscal goals might be. I've certainly been aware of the debates appear as you have all 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.
▶ 1:46:11Sen. Scott: So the regulatory costs, when I was governor of florida, we added 1.7 million jobs, we cut taxes and fees. We reduced 20% of the regulatory environment and streamlined the permitting requirement -- environment. You are entitled to it. He didn't have to go hire a lawyer or lobbyist.
▶ 1:46:41Sen. Scott: What are some of the things you think we could be doing with what you are going to do, with doge to reduce the cost and build up the economy?
▶ 1:46:53Mr. Vought: Certainly in the first term the president was very active in this area, it was one of his main deregulatory priorities. He was horrified by the extent to which all of these projects would take cades to get approval and his view was that agencies should be on a time clock. It doesn't mean you're always going to win if you are trying to do the project but the agencies should respond quickly and that is the way he thinks and that is the way you will see many of our deregulatory ideas and initiatives to flow.
▶ 1:47:23Sen. Scott: What is success for you? Yeah -- let's say you are confirmed and you have the job for four years. At the end, what would you say you were successful for?
▶ 1:47:35Mr. Vought: I want to do the best I can to implement the president's agenda. My hope is that we can deal with the spending components of inflation, to get a handle on our fiscal house, the put forward budgets and 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.
▶ 1:48:06Mr. Vought: That is how we would define success at the end of the term.
▶ 1:48:07Sen. Scott: So why is this job important to you? Why did you want to come back and do this?
▶ 1:48:13Mr. Vought: I think the president deserves to -- having done this the first time, the people who know how to do the job can do it well on day one, who can implement his agenda and it is very rare in life that you get an opportunity to think about a job for four years and tried to go back and do it even better. I think the president deserves that and I look forward to being confirmed and doing that job.
▶ 1:48:38Sen. Scott: Thank you. I yelled back.
▶ 1:48:41Chair Paul: Senator hawley.
▶ 1:48:44Sen. Hawley: Good to see you. Thank you for being willing to do this job again. I look forward to seeing you back in this office. Let me ask you one of the most important functions of omb, the role it plays in managing procurement. Would you agree with me that it is a problem -- I think one out of every 10 taxpayer dollars goes to federal contractors.
▶ 1:49:14Sen. Hawley: That's a lot of money, a big part of our budget. Would you agree it is a problem that we are sending federal contracting dollars to entities, firms, consulting firms that are simultaneously taking money from and doing business with our most lethal opponents, like china for example?
▶ 1:49:33Mr. Vought: That is concerning.
▶ 1:49:34Sen. Hawley: Here's a prime example of this kind of behavior. Mckenzie, the consulting firm. They got over 850 $1 million worth of consulting work. 95 contracts from the dod. $132 million from the air force. $37 million from the air force -- from the navy.
▶ 1:50:05Sen. Hawley: At the same time, they had 1000 employees in china. They were doing business directly with the chinese government and they advise chinese state owned enterprises that have been blacklisted by our own military. My view is if they want to do business with china, I don't recommend it but I suppose it's fine as long as it is in illegal -- it isn't illegal. I don't think they should be simultaneously getting hundreds of millions of dollars in federal ill terry contracts from our own government.
▶ 1:50:36Sen. Hawley: You will have a lot of influence in this process because of procurement rules. Will you be an advocate for protecting american taxpayer dollars in this contracting process? Will you be an advocate for making sure it is not going to entities who are effectively doubledealing and advising our enemies?
▶ 1:50:57Mr. Vought: Absolutely. I'm excited to get back to working with ofbp, giving guidance as far as the far counsel, and to really look at what are the regulations that are in place and how can we get them better?
▶ 1:51:13Sen. Hawley: That's fantastic. Still on the procurement topic, to me a sense of how you might ensure that procurement policies for your ties american-made goods and services, particularly in industries that are vital to our national security? I thick about our experience for covid and you were there for the onset of the pandemic and when we learned that the most basic medical supplies we were importing from overseas.
▶ 1:51:43Sen. Hawley: Our medical supply chains are so compromised. Have you given some thought to how the procurement process might be used to safeguard those critical supply chains and prioritize american manufacturers?
▶ 1:51:53Mr. Vought: I think clear leadership from the director to make sure the viewpoint from the president is implemented at the level of policy that the ofbp is reviewing. A lot of the functions that omb, they 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 we fully intend to do and robustly.
▶ 1:52:24Sen. Hawley: Let me shift gears, still thinking about federal regulations. You will have a lot of influence on the regulatory landscape 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 for decades.
▶ 1:52:49Sen. Hawley: She would not commit to that and as you know, the biden administration pretty promptly walked back their commitment to it and has been violating the law because it is the law. They've been violating it for years now. 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 heideman meant and we are not spending federal dollars to promote abortion in any way?
▶ 1:53:17Mr. Vought: We will abide by all laws on the books.
▶ 1:53:21Sen. Hawley: A couple more things, when it comes to the policies of life because you are going to have a lot of influence over the regulatory environment. Would you agree that federal funding for family planning through title x, through that grant program should not include federal funding for abortion providers?
▶ 1:53:38Mr. Vought: The president has made his views on abortion clear throughout the campaign. I'm not going to get ahead of the president with regard to the budget process. We have cemented budgets in years past that give the senate a sense of how he would budget but I'm not going to get ahead of the president.
▶ 1:53:54Sen. Hawley: Let me ask you this. What I just asked about was the trump policy from his first term. 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 as a matter of federal rules, pregnancy resource centers ought to be eligible?
▶ 1:54:15Mr. Vought: The president is pro-life. He had a very pro-life record. He had extensive debates within the campaign on his views and I'm not going to get ahead of him on the budget process but the country has a good sense of where he is.
▶ 1:54:30Mr. Vought: The mexico city
▶ 1:54:32Policy -- Sen. Hawley: The mexico city policy. That is the policy that says 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. Do you agree with the mexico city policy?
▶ 1:54:51Mr. Vought: We will implement anything the president has asked me to direct.
▶ 1:54:55Sen. Hawley: Thank you Mr. chairman.
▶ 1:54:58Chair Paul: Senator ernst.
▶ 1:55:00Sen. Ernst: Thank you Mr. chairman and thank you chair and ranking member. It is good to be back on the committee after a hiatus. Good afternoon Mr. vought. Thank you for the robust discussion yesterday. I truly appreciate that and thanks for being here.
▶ 1:55:20Sen. Ernst: 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 very inappropriately question 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.
▶ 1:55:52Sen. Ernst: I truly appreciate that and I want to be on the record as stating people of all faiths should have a place in the public square but thank you so much. As the chair of the senate doge caucus, I look forward to working with you to make the government more transparent, accountable and efficient.
▶ 1:56:18Sen. Ernst: It's impossible to achieve these goals if we don't 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 to report all projects that are $1 billion over budget or five years or more behind schedule.
▶ 1:56:42Sen. Ernst: Another requires the pentagon to put a public price tag on all 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.
▶ 1:57:01Sen. Ernst: Likewise, the bipartisan law that originated in this committee requiring all government spending to be disclosed in a searchable public website is being circumvented by bureaucrats who are hiding billions of dollars of secret spending awarded as other transaction agreements from usa spending.
▶ 1:57:29Sen. Ernst: 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?
▶ 1:57:41Mr. Vought: It's a great question, one that we will definitely take note of and make sure that will we are sitting up -- setting up on the management side, 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.
▶ 1:57:59Sen. Ernst: I look forward to working with you. Will you also require agencies to start reporting otas to usaspending.gov?
▶ 1:58:10Mr. Vought: We will abide by the law and make sure the spirit of the law is executed.
▶ 1:58:14Sen. Ernst: And that is the spirit of the law. 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 D.C. offices so infrequently that the calendars in their cubicles are still flipped to march 2020.
▶ 1:58:41Sen. Ernst: That is why it is entirely unsurprising that gao found federal government headquarter buildings are operating at an average occupancy rate of just 12%. Meanwhile, I recently published a report on federal telework, which I asking an amiss consent to enter into the record -- unanimous consent to enter into the record.
▶ 1:59:05Chair Paul: Without objection.
▶ 1:59:06Sen. Ernst: Which details some truly shocking statistics, and my staff will hand you a copy of this as well. Before covid, just 3% of employees eligible to telework did so. Now, 6% of those employees say they report in person on a full-time basis. 6% showing up for work every day.
▶ 1:59:32Sen. Ernst: Depending on the agency, between 23% and 68% of survey to telework employees are boosting their salaries by receiving incorrect locality pay. Some employees claim to be working in D.C. while living more than 2000 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.
▶ 2:00:04Sen. Ernst: Strong leadership from your office to correct the biden administration's asleep 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?
▶ 2:00:25Mr. Vought: Yes.
▶ 2:00:26Sen. Ernst: Congress has a set 60% 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?
▶ 2:00:43Mr. Vought: I think we are going to make it a priority. You've heard through your doge leadership that this is a major area they are looking at. We are going to be looking at ways that omb can come along beside and asked the right questions both on the management and budget side to get a sense for how our agencies are monitoring their own employees, that might be benefiting from the D.C.
▶ 2:01:12Mr. Vought: Pay rate when they are not living in D.C. part of it is having a -- to do that oversight and then to get into these roles and figure out where we are on a day-to-day granular basis and figure out what can be done about it.
▶ 2:01:28Sen. Ernst: And what would your plan be to get federal employees, including those who are covered by collective bargaining agreements, to show up for work?
▶ 2:01:41Mr. Vought: We will take a look at the collective bargaining agreements. We are aware of the extent to which the biden administration is locking in or attempting to bind the trump administration with these cbas that last and extended period of time. I don't have anything to announce except to agree with you that it is a concerning phenomenon and something we are looking at very closely.
▶ 2:02:04Sen. Ernst: I have a number of other questions as well. We went through a number of these yesterday in my office. I appreciate that. I could go on and on. I would encourage everyone if you would like a copy, we may have some extra. 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.
▶ 2:02:28Chair Paul: Thank you senator ernst. We are very interested in this. I think it would be illustrative to bring in some people who could tell us stories about people not coming to work. I recall that when the baby formula problem happened and baby formula was contaminated, we had the heads of three or four agencies and one of the senators asked a question, when was the last time you were in the office and most of the heads of the agencies, they hadn't been in the office for a month.
▶ 2:02:58Chair Paul: We need to talk about this and if nothing else we need to shame some people into going back to work. There has to be some metrics. Private practice works because you have profit and someone monitors your work. Let's work together on maybe doing a hearing on this in the near future. With regard to the regulations senator scott brought up, it brought to mind a couple of things. We had a bridge collapse in kentucky a few years ago.
▶ 2:03:30Chair Paul: I thought, when they tell you these regulations take three or four years to get, maybe we should have an exemption if your bridge falls down, you are building a bridge in exactly the same place, you don't need to do a review at all. I got 20 votes or whatever. We couldn't even pass an amendment.
▶ 2:03:58Chair Paul: Did you see the story recently about -- apparently it was discovered back in the 1970's when they were building a dam in tennessee. We got someone to admit that he told people at the time, this will stop the dam. It's a new species. Apparently they have done all of this genetic testing and it is not a new species and they are finding out it is everywhere. We had one in kentucky.
▶ 2:04:28Chair Paul: We had to lower one of our dam lakes by 30 feet. While that was lowered to rebuild, they found some in the river and they said we can't feel the creek -- fill the creek because it'll hurt them. My question was it's a fish, doesn't like water? We have the pocketbook muscle. It's been listed on the endangered species act.
▶ 2:04:59Chair Paul: Have you ever seen them? They are everywhere. So this was put on the endangered species list and then for the last 20 years they've been looking for, everywhere they look, they find it. There is no endangerment. It's a scam. We had a sewage plant in a city that was overflowing sewage into the lake. Nobody wants that so we wanted to build a new one.
▶ 2:05:26Chair Paul: First we have to get a consultant, 150 grand for this consultant to study the pocketbook muscle population, and indian artifacts. All it does is enrich the consultants. It slows everything down. This isn't a question, this is a rant. Anything you can do to fix that stuff, I'm all for it. Tell us what we need to do to fix it.
▶ 2:05:54Chair Paul: We will do another round and start with senator peters for five minutes.
▶ 2:05:56Ranking Member Peters: Thank you. Mr. vought, the federal government relies on the in -- on the inspector general to conduct independent oversight. There are ways to root out fraud and abuse and of -- so my question for you is do you agree that the inspector general is vital to protecting federal programs from inefficiency and waste?
▶ 2:06:20Mr. Vought: Yes, absolutely. As a congressional staff to her director of omb, various roles have benefited greatly from the ig community.
▶ 2:06:30Ranking Member Peters: During your previous tenure as omb director, you did not comply with an investigation into delayed disaster recovery funding for puerto rico -- my question for you is under the inspector general act, agency heads are required to provide all information and assistance, requested by ig's to the extent practical.
▶ 2:07:00Ranking Member Peters: So why did you and your staff failed to comply with the law during the hud oig investigation?
▶ 2:07:06Mr. Vought: I assure you I'm always responding to the advice of counsel and the extent to which applied in that instances. -- we go through a process, all the requests that come in and we figure out what we are required to do and we did that and we will do that again on a case-by-case basis.
▶ 2:07:35Ranking Member Peters: So again, I have to echo my colleagues. You give really good bureaucratic answers which is why people are crazily frustrated with bureaucrats. You are very good bureaucrat at not answering questions. Even when you avoid the law, you try to find some bureaucratic runaround seeking get away from doing what is right. It is really unfortunate.
▶ 2:08:04Ranking Member Peters: Omb also obstructed the gao review on delayed ukraine resistance -- assistance by refusing to comply with requests for information and you also defied a congressional subpoena that was issued by the house intelligence committee in 2019. 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 in the past?
▶ 2:08:32Mr. Vought: 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, we are not going to be allowed to participate in those proceedings and therefore protect privileged information, not to go to the help.
▶ 2:08:52Mr. Vought: Of course I will come to congress if subpoenaed, but there is a reason why we consult our lawyers as to their determinations with protecting the presidency and an agency had has to listen to what they have to say.
▶ 2:09:08Ranking Member 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 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.
▶ 2:09:34Ranking Member Peters: Vought, will you commit to complying with all oversight requests you receive from the inspector general, the government accountability office and congress will I get the same bureaucratic runaround answer I have received?
▶ 2:09:46Mr. Vought: That's not how I would characterize it.
▶ 2:09:49Ranking Member Peters: Of course not.
▶ 2:09:50Mr. Vought: We will respond to all oversight requests and make sure that subject to the advice of counsel, you are getting the information you need to do your oversight response abilities. That is a priority of my time at omb. When I get letters from senators, I take them very seriously. I want to know about then he immediately so that we can get after responding to senators and what they have asked for.
▶ 2:10:14Ranking Member Peters: I expect I will get the same question for my last answer -- I look at the same answer to my last question. When you commit to responding to oversight requests from this committee and other members? You've already stated you will take these letters seriously.
▶ 2:10:29Mr. Vought: I will definitely respond to your letters.
▶ 2:10:34Ranking Member Peters: Sorry, we can comply, as that what we should expect? How is it going to be different?
▶ 2:10:41Mr. Vought: I would go back to something earlier you said. We come up here and when you subpoena us, using the subpoena power, we come to congress. Outside of the impeachment situation, you don't 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.
▶ 2:11:09Mr. Vought: That will continue and we will continue to help you do the oversight process that I think is vital, I giving you the information you need. At the same time, reciting 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.
▶ 2:11:26Ranking Member Peters: Time will tell.
▶ 2:11:28Chair Paul: Senator lankford.
▶ 2:11:32Sen. Lankford: I don't think this committee wants to discuss who is and isn't willing 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 to the biden administration for mayorkas and christopher wray to come and give a public accounting for it and a stiff armed this committee for months and refused.
▶ 2:12:03Sen. Lankford: I understand what happened during the impeachment time but that was a very unique moment that I hope is not repeated. But this committee certainly has not had a response from the biden administration.
▶ 2:12:16Ranking Member Peters: Senator lankford, I hope that you will recognize I call that out very aggressively. I have been consistent in that. I was way out front and calling out that was wrong.
▶ 2:12:29Sen. Lankford: I was grateful for that. Just a moment to say that this didn't just happen under the trump administration.
▶ 2:12:37Chair Paul: I would follow with it is us against them. Not republican against democrat. Us against the executive. While I'm going to vote for russell vought, I want him to correspond with us and if we ask for records, I'm going to ask with you.
▶ 2:12:57Sen. Lankford: Let me let's through some topics here. Gao does a list. Do you evaluate that? When I asked them to do was take their high-risk list and split it. Executive branch can do this, legislative branch has to act on that. So we each get a to do list. Is that important to you?
▶ 2:13:20Mr. Vought: Absolutely.
▶ 2:13:21Sen. Lankford: We are both going to have quite a list on this. I have a question on e-verify. It should not be a challenge but it has been through multiple administrations. The law requires e-verify be used for federal contracting, but gao has looked at this and determined no one is really checking it. No one is asking the next question, are they really using e-verify?
▶ 2:13:50Sen. Lankford: Sometimes they do on the primes, but all the sub primes, no one is asking. There is without question, we have federal taxpayer dollars, contracts being used right now where the folks doing it are not legally present in the united states. I think most people would be shocked by that. We've also asked the question on otas, are we asking e-verify for that and the answer we got was kind of a sheep us -- a sheepish no.
▶ 2:14:21Sen. Lankford: So if a ota is used, no one is asking. While we talk about buy american for products, we are not always hiring american, even in the united states. How does that get fixed?
▶ 2:14:36Mr. Vought: I will take -- Mr. vought: I will inquire.
▶ 2:14:46Sen. Lankford: There is retrospective review. If a regulation wasago and lefte if a regulation wasago and leftd look at it years later and say, did it work, is it costing more? I bring this up because during covid president trump put out a statement to say, for all those regulations, we understand everything is weird across the country, we have to cement a process and do work and figure out the regulations.
▶ 2:15:16Sen. Lankford: Somehow we survived with relaxed regulations. I think there is a need to go back to regulatory review and say what regulations were relaxed that we later learned, the country still works without? Is that a need to go back and do regulatory review not only during that time but others?
▶ 2:15:33Mr. Vought: Very much. The president has given us a new goal. He originally had a two for one goal and now a 10 for one goal. We believe we can hit that. But it requires looking at everything that does not make sense within government and reassessing.
▶ 2:15:52Sen. Lankford: I can't tell you how many oklahomans want us to have the government make sense. Do it in a way that is logical, not based on somebody in michigan one time did some things in of the whole country has to do something different or produce a lot of paperwork. That is helpful. One final question. Sitting in this hearing for the last hour I have heard your name pronounced three different ways.
▶ 2:16:18Sen. Lankford: Can you clarify for this committee and the american people how do you pronounce your last name?
▶ 2:16:23Mr. Vought: I appreciate the -- that. I have heard all of them. It is russell "vote."
▶ 2:16:33Sen. Lankford: We will put that on record. >> I was not sure how to say russell, either. [laughter] thank you Mr. vought for your time today and your commitment to working with the committee. There are filed biographical questionnaires, answered questions and have their financial statements are viewed by the office of government ethics.
▶ 2:16:58Sen. Lankford: Without objection this information we 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 statements and questions for the record. We are adjourned. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap.org]