[Senate Hearing 119-4]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                          S. Hrg. 119-4

                      NOMINATION OF THE HONORABLE
                   RUSSELL T. VOUGHT, OF VIRGINIA, TO
                      BE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF
                         MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                        COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                    ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

January 22, 2025--HEARING ON THE NOMINATION OF THE HONORABLE RUSSELL T. 
  VOUGHT, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 
                                 BUDGET
 January 30, 2025--EXECUTIVE BUSINESS MEETING ON THE NOMINATION OF THE 
HONORABLE RUSSELL T. VOUGHT, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE 
                        OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET

                               __________

           Printed for the use of the Committee on the Budget
           
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]          

                            www.govinfo.gov
                            
                                __________

                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
58-373 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2025                  
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------                                
                          
                        COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET

              LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina, Chairman
              
CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa            JEFFREY A. MERKLEY, Oregon
MIKE CRAPO, Idaho                    PATTY MURRAY, Washington
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin               RON WYDEN, Oregon
ROGER MARSHALL, Kansas               BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
JOHN CORNYN, Texas                   SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island
MIKE LEE, Utah                       MARK R. WARNER, Virginia
JOHN KENNEDY, Louisiana              TIM KAINE, Virginia
PETE RICKETTS, Nebraska              CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
BERNIE MORENO, Ohio                  BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
RICK SCOTT, Florida                  ALEX PADILLA, California

                  Nick Myers, Majority Staff Director
                   Ben Ward, Minority Staff Director
                   Mallory B. Nersesian, Chief Clerk
                  Alexander C. Scioscia, Hearing Clerk
                            
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
January 22, 2025--The Nomination of the Honorable Russell T. 
  Vought, of Virginia, to be Director of the Office of Management 
  and Budget.....................................................     1
January 30, 2025--Executive Business Meeting on the Nomination of 
  the Honorable Russell T. Vought, of Virginia, to be Director of 
  the Office of Management and Budget............................   297

                OPENING STATEMENTS BY COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Senator Lindsey O. Graham, Chairman..............................1, 297
Senator Jeffrey A. Merkley.......................................     2
    Prepared Statement...........................................    44

                    STATEMENTS BY COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Senator Grassley.................................................    10
Senator Murray...................................................    11
Senator Johnson..................................................    13
Senator Sanders..................................................    15
Senator Cornyn...................................................    17
Senator Warner...................................................    19
Senator Kennedy..................................................    20
Senator Kaine....................................................    22
Senator Ricketts.................................................    24
Senator Van Hollen...............................................    26
Senator Moreno...................................................    28
Senator Lujan....................................................    30
Senator Scott....................................................    33
Senator Padilla..................................................    34
Senator Marshall.................................................    36
Senator Whitehouse...............................................    37
Senator Lee......................................................    40
Senator Wyden....................................................    41

                               WITNESSES

The Honorable Russell T. Vought, of Virginia, to be Director of 
  the Office of Management and Budget............................     4
    Prepared Statement...........................................    47
    Statement of Biographical and Financial Information..........    49

                                APPENDIX

Responses to pre-hearing questions for the Record
    Hon. Vought..................................................    61
Responses to post-hearing questions for the Record
    Hon. Vought..................................................    79
Chart submitted by Senator Merkley...............................   131
Chart submitted by Senator Whitehouse............................   132
Document submitted for the Record by Senator Merkley.............   133
Document submitted for the Record by Senator Van Hollen..........   136
Documents submitted for the Record by Senator Lujan..............   145
Statement submitted for the Record by American Forest & Paper 
  Association....................................................   290
Statement submitted for the Record by Citizens for Responsibility 
  and Ethics in Washington (CREW)................................   292
Statement submitted for the Record by Independent Women's Voice..   295

 
                    THE NOMINATION OF THE HONORABLE
                   RUSSELL T. VOUGHT, OF VIRGINIA, TO
                      BE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF
                         MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET

                              ----------                              


                      WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 22, 2025

                                           Committee on the Budget,
                                                       U.S. Senate,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The hearing was convened, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 
a.m., in the Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Lindsey O. 
Graham, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Graham, Grassley, Crapo, Johnson, 
Marshall, Cornyn, Lee, Kennedy, Ricketts, Moreno, R. Scott, 
Merkley, Murray, Wyden, Sanders, Whitehouse, Warner, Kaine, Van 
Hollen, Lujan, Padilla.
    Also present: Republican staff: Nick Myers, Majority Staff 
Director; Erich Hartman, Deputy Staff Director; Katherine 
Nikas, Deputy Staff Director and Chief Counsel; Walker Truluck, 
Senior Policy Advisor.
    Democratic staff: Ben Ward, Minority Staff Director; Mike 
Jones, Deputy Staff Director; Melissa Kaplan-Pistiner, General 
Counsel; Joshua Smith, Budget Policy Director.
    Witness:
    The Honorable Russell T. Vought, of Virginia, to be 
Director of the Office of Management and Budget

              OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN GRAHAM

    Chairman Graham. Good morning, everybody. Welcome. So we 
are going to have a hearing with Mr. Vought, right, Russell? It 
is Vought like vote, right?
    Hon. Vought. Yes sir.
    Chairman Graham. Okay. So I'm going to give a quick 
introduction. You can say anything you want. We are going to 
have five minute questioning. Be hard, be challenging. Do not 
make a complete ass of yourself and let us get to this thing. 
All right.
    So with that said, you are no stranger to this job. Mr. 
Vought had this job. He was deputy director. He was Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) Director in President Trump's first 
term. He was born in Mount Vernon, New York. He attended 
Wheaton College, graduated in '98. Completed a Juris Doctor 
(JD) from Georgetown University.
    He worked on Capitol Hill as a legislative assistant for 
Senator Phil Gramm and Chuck Hagel, that's a big delta there. 
From 2004 to 2008 he worked as Executive Director for the 
Republican Study Committee, and from 2009 to 2010, he was 
Policy Director of the House Republican Conference. Again, he 
was OMB Director under the first Trump term, the deputy. Then 
he became OMB Director when Mulvaney left.
    So you have done it once and you want to do it again, and 
we are glad on our side you are willing to do it again. Senator 
Merkley.

            OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MERKLEY \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Prepared statement of Senator Merkley appears in the appendix 
on page 44.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Senator Merkley. Well, thank you very much Mr. Chairman and 
congratulations on your new role. I look forward to working 
with you, and welcome to the Committee. Senator Cornyn, Senator 
Ricketts and new to the Senate and new to the Committee, 
Senator Moreno. Welcome.
    This Congress, the Senate Budget Committee is going to be 
deeply engaged in the policies that emerge, because 
reconciliation is going to play a central role, and 
reconciliation begins right here in this room. We will consider 
Trump's budget request, and I must say my deepest concern about 
the reconciliation bills is that they are going to betray 
working Americans.
    Working Americans who President Trump appealed to in his 
campaign, working Americans who listened to the strategies that 
he laid out, that he proposed. But certainly the actual plan 
does not help working people. The actual plan is to help the 
wealthy get wealthier with massive tax giveaways, with working 
families paying the bill.
    Now how are these massive giveaways to the wealthiest 
families going to be paid for? Well, by slashing services to 
working families and the struggling families who are trying to 
get on their feet so they can thrive and get to the middle 
class. This is the great betrayal.
    And today, we will consider the President-Elect's 
nomination of Russell Vought to lead the Office of Management 
and the Budget, which is really the place where this campaign 
is coordinated. And we will hear very different ideas about how 
to take our country forward.
    From my friends across the aisle and from Mr. Vought, we 
will hear that we need to continue to give tax giveaways, 
massive tax giveaways to the wealthiest Americans, and we will 
hear about how non-partisan expertise that makes our country 
run smoothly should be replaced by those with blind political 
loyalty.
    You will hear how the programs that have assisted for the 
environment or for unions, organizing working people for public 
health, should instead be replaced by programs to serve big 
corporations and the mega-millionaires.
    Our side of the aisle has a different vision, that will 
stand up for working families, that the wealthy need to pay 
their fair share of our taxes. The government should serve 
everyone, not just the privileged and the powerful.
    From my side of the aisle, you'll hear about how we need to 
expand Medicare's ability to negotiate the price of 15 
expensive drugs. Those drugs were laid out by President Biden 
according to the laws he left. I will submit this for the 
record, Mr. Chairman.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Document submitted by Senator Merkley appears in the appendix 
on page 133.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Chairman Graham. Absolutely.
    Senator Merkley. And those drugs, include for example the 
weight loss drugs, that currently serve 2.3 million people. You 
know, the first ten drugs that were negotiated, cut the price 
some thirds to two-thirds or more, including 79 percent on one 
drug.
    And Americans are simply outraged that we spend more on R&D 
to develop these drugs than any other nation, that is our 
taxpayer dollars, and then we get the highest price, the 
highest price among the developing countries instead of the 
best, which we deserve.
    This vision, as laid out, is the great betrayal of 
America's working families. And we will continue to debate that 
I am sure in the course of the hearings that are ahead. And I 
have no doubt, Mr. Vought, that you have the intellectual 
expertise and the experience. You were OMB Director before. You 
know all the ins and outs.
    It is really a question of whether we are going to 
accomplish something that provides a foundation for American 
families to thrive, or simply to increase the wealth 
disparities that make this a government by and for the powerful 
instead of by and for the people.
    The Washington Post reported that officials said the result 
of your last tenure underscored the tensions that come with 
having a deeply ideological operative thrust in a position with 
complicated, often non-partisan challenges. And this turned out 
to be spot on. You were responsible for the fiscal year 2021 
budget issued by the Trump administration, and it had close a 
trillion dollar cuts to health care for struggling Americans.
    It had $300 billion in cuts to social safety programs, 
things like nutrition assistance and earned income tax credit 
and the child tax credit. $170 billion cut by increasing the 
cost of college loans for those who aspire. You know, I am the 
first in my family to go to college. I think college should be 
affordable to everyone, not making it more expensive so only 
rich families can afford to go, have their kids go to college.
    So we certainly profoundly disagree. You zeroed out 
programs like the community development block grants, which are 
used for housing all around this country. Meanwhile, you 
proposed over a trillion dollars in tax giveaways, with over 
two-thirds going to the top ten percent. That is very, very 
troubling.
    And Mr. Vought, you were at the center of the strategy of 
impounding funds. Now we had this conversation in 1974 here in 
Congress. We passed the Budget and Impoundment Control Act 
because Congress said when we say this amount of money should 
be spent on this program, it is not up to the President to 
spend less.
    But you told me in your office that you are quite 
comfortable assuming that the law does not matter, and that you 
will just treat the money for a program as a ceiling, as a 
ceiling rather than a required amount. Well, the courts have 
found otherwise, but the fact that you are willing to say this 
is exactly what you plan to do again should trouble every 
single Member of the Senate.
    And when you were at the center of the impoundment of the 
funds for Ukraine, that resulted in the impeachment of 
President Trump and his former service, you blamed a staff 
subordinate. That troubles me too. That is something you were 
so involved in. When it goes awry, you say ``Oh, it was not me. 
I gave that responsibility to somebody else who works for me.''
    That is not--that is not leadership. And certainly your 
views are deep held, deeply held. You continue to advocate for 
them in your think tank, the Center for Renewing America. So we 
saw that. There is other things that trouble many of us. The 
fact that you were for the abolition of abortion rights and do 
not believe in exceptions. Not exceptions for rape, not 
exceptions for incest, not exceptions for the life of the 
mother.
    And it is troubling that you continue to participate in the 
big lie that the 2020 election was rigged. This may be 
essential for your loyalty test to the President, but it is a 
willingness to manipulate and deceive Americans that certainly 
bothers me.
    I think we need a director who respects the rule of law, 
not the rule of one man; who is guided by facts, not partisan 
ideology; who serves working families, not mega-millionaires 
and billionaires. So I am disturbed that you are eager to lead 
the betrayal of America's working families.
    Mr. Chairman, I turn it back to you.
    Chairman Graham. And we will put you in the undecided 
column. So I disagree with what he said. But that is why we 
have the hearing here. More importantly, the American people 
apparently disagree because we won and you know, I do not know 
what your views on abortion are. I do not know how it really 
much matters.
    President Trump said it was rigged, he won. I do not 
particularly agree with that but you know, the bottom line is I 
think you are qualified for the job. I know why he picked you. 
I think all of us are going to vote for you and none of them 
will vote for you. But you do need to explain, the best you 
can, how you see the job, why you do the things you do, whether 
or not you are betraying the country or trying to get the 
country on a more sustainable track, and again we just had an 
election and when you win, you get to pick people.
    And I am glad he picked you. So would you stand up and let 
me swear you in? Raise your right hand, please. Do you solemnly 
swear that the testimony you give before this Budget Committee 
is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help 
you God?
    Hon. Vought. I do.
    Chairman Graham. Thank you. The floor is yours.

 STATEMENT OF THE HONONRABLE RUSSELL T. VOUGHT OF VIRGINIA, TO 
     BE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Prepared statement of Hon. Vought appears in the appendix on 
page 47.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Hon. Vought. Thank you Mr. Chairman, the Ranking Member, 
Members of this esteemed Committee for the opportunity to 
appear before you today.
    Let me begin by thanking my girls, Ella and Porter, who are 
now returning to the scene of Congressional confirmation 
hearings as veterans. Their love and support and enthusiasm for 
me serving again is a major reason why I feel that going back 
to OMB is the right endeavor at the right moment.
    Beyond my enthusiasm for being at President Trump's side, 
it is a profound honor to be nominated a second time by 
President Trump to serve as the Director of the Office of 
Management and Budget. The President has promised the American 
people a federal government that works for all Americans, not 
the interests of bureaucrats and the entrenched establishment, 
making his start in fulfilling that vital promise during my 
previous time at OMB as both Deputy Director and Director was 
among the most rewarding experiences of my career.
    Throughout that time, I have been driven by a commitment to 
taxpayers and their families. Growing up as the son of an 
electrician and a school teacher, I saw firsthand the 
sacrifices my parents made to balance their budget and save for 
the future. They are a reminder of the burden government 
spending can place on everyday Americans. My parents and 
countless others like them have always been the measure by 
which I evaluate policies and spending decisions.
    Today, nearly 80 percent of Americans do not feel confident 
that their children will lead better lives than they have, 
nearly double the 40 percent of Americans who said the same two 
decades ago. When I look at the government waste and our 
national debt, I know that I fear for my daughters' future.
    More than half of our fellow citizens expect their standard 
of living to be worse than that of their parents, a critical 
part of understanding the President's election. I am eager to 
get back to fulfilling the promise of a federal government that 
works as hard as people like my parents.
    OMB's mission goes beyond crafting the President's budget. 
It encompasses the management of the federal government, 
reforming regulation and coordinating policy across agencies to 
ensure efficient and effective implementation of the American 
people's will, as expressed by the last election.
    A strong interagency process delivers the best results for 
all Americans, and I believe OMB's collaborative ethos is key 
to achieving those outcomes. The civil servants at OMB are 
among the most resourceful and innovative individuals I have 
ever worked with. It has been my privilege to work alongside 
them, and I look forward to leading and supporting them as 
Director once again, as we labor together to make government 
work.
    We have to use taxpayer dollars wisely, because Inflation, 
driven by irresponsible spending, taxes Americans twice. The 
average American household has lost roughly $2,000 of 
purchasing power since January 2021. The forgotten men and 
women of this country, those who work hard every day in cities 
and towns across America, deserve a government that empowers 
them to achieve their dreams.
    While Office of Management and Budget may not be a 
household term, the agency's work profoundly impacts their 
lives. If confirmed, I will continue to serve with their best 
interest at heart, striving to ensure every decision 
contributes to a more prosperous future for all Americans.
    Thank you for considering my nomination. I look forward to 
answering your questions, and the opportunity to discuss how 
OMB can continue to deliver on that vital mission.
    Chairman Graham. Thank you very much, and to your family, 
welcome. So to start with, what would happen to the economy if 
the 2017 tax cuts that were passed through reconciliation by 
the Republicans expire and go away? What would happen?
    Hon. Vought. I think Americans would have a major tax 
increase on their hands, that would lead to a lot less 
innovation, a lot less productivity and we would have a 
worsening economy that I would not want to predict how bad it 
would be.
    Chairman Graham. So the Treasury Secretary nominee said it 
would be catastrophic. Do you agree with that?
    Hon. Vought. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Graham. Okay. So that is one of the things we want 
to do on our side. What would--is it like $4 and \1/2\ trillion 
in new taxes, if all this goes away?
    Hon. Vought. That is the static cost of it, yes sir.
    Chairman Graham. Yeah. So we do not want it to go away. I 
guess they do. So on regulations, do you have a say about 
regulations, government regulations?
    Hon. Vought. OMB runs the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs. It is going to be charged to set up--reset-
up the President's deregulatory agenda, and if confirmed that 
will be a major aspect of the job.
    Chairman Graham. So when it comes to energy production, 
will you pledge to try to make it easier for America to soundly 
and safely extract the natural resources that we--we own, so we 
do not have to buy oil and gas from people who hate our guts?
    Hon. Vought. Yes, Senator.
    Chairman Graham. Okay. Do you believe that would make us 
safer if we are energy independent?
    Hon. Vought. I do believe it is vital from a security 
standpoint and from the standpoint of Americans' pocketbooks to 
rely on cheap American energy and not just squander that.
    Chairman Graham. Is it part of the goal of this 
administration is to make sure that we, in the Artificial 
Intelligence (AI) space, we dominate?
    Hon. Vought. Yes, it is.
    Chairman Graham. Will you have a role in that, how to 
create a regulatory environment that allows us to compete with 
China?
    Hon. Vought. We will. We help as part of the policy process 
and articulating to the federal agencies the guidance that the 
President would like with regard to the artificial 
intelligence.
    Chairman Graham. When it comes to spending, is it your goal 
to reduce federal spending where you can responsibly?
    Hon. Vought. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Graham. Do you believe there is some room in our 
budget to eliminate programs that would--most Americans would 
not feel the effect of?
    Hon. Vought. I do. There are plenty of areas in the federal 
government to be able to begin to tackle our spending and debt.
    Chairman Graham. So you promise me you would do the best 
you can to reduce federal spending in a responsible way?
    Hon. Vought. Yes, Senator.
    Chairman Graham. Good. When it comes to the President's 
Executive Order about suspending foreign assistance for 90 
days, do you know exactly how that works? Does that stop money 
going to Israel?
    Hon. Vought. No, Senator. Senator, it is a 90 day review--
--
    Chairman Graham. Review, okay.
    Hon. Vought [continuing]. Of the programs that are in 
place, and it is to ensure that all of those programs are 
consistent with the President's viewpoint, of which of course 
aid to Israel will continue to be one of them.
    Chairman Graham. What's the most important function of the 
federal government, in your view?
    Hon. Vought. I believe it is to keep the American people 
safe and secure, so they can enjoy their liberties and to 
protect their rights.
    Chairman Graham. Are you familiar with the amount of money 
we spend gross domestic product (GDP)-wise on defense? What is 
it right now?
    Hon. Vought. I am aware. I think we're----
    Chairman Graham. It is like 3.1 percent?
    Hon. Vought. Three percent. Yes, Senator.
    Chairman Graham. And it is going down to the mid-2's? Do 
you realize that only four times in American history we have 
had that small of amount of money spent on our defense? Will 
you be open-minded to make sure that we can defend this nation, 
including a bigger Navy?
    Hon. Vought. Absolutely, Senator. It is a priority of the 
President. It was a priority at OMB in the first term, to make 
sure that we establish maritime supremacy in this country and 
it will be, if confirmed.
    Chairman Graham. What is the size--do you know how much 
money the State and Foreign Operations Subcommittee spends on 
the State Department and foreign assistance?
    Hon. Vought. Off the top of my head no, I do not know what 
the allocation is for those----
    Chairman Graham. It's $69 billion. Now that is for the 
entire State Department, all our embassies, everybody, and the 
aid we provide to distressed places in the world. What 
percentage of the federal budget is that? Do you know, outlays?
    Hon. Vought. I believe if you did a small percentage, it 
would be a small percentage compared to----
    Chairman Graham. It is one percent. Now having said that, 
try to save money. Let us do not waste money. But I believe, I 
am a pretty hawkish guy. If you do not get involved in the 
world and you do not have programs in Africa, where China is 
trying to buy the whole continent, we are making a mistake.
    So it is one percent of the budget. You could eliminate it 
all. You are not going to balance the budget. I think soft 
power is a critical component of defending America and our 
values. I look forward to working with you to make that count 
better. But the concept of soft power means a lot to me, and 
that is coming from a pretty hawkish guy. With that, Senator 
Merkley.
    Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And on 
Day 1, President Trump issued an Executive Order that requires 
agencies to pause the disbursement of funds that were 
authorized in the Inflation Reduction Act and the 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.
    There is a legal mechanism for changing past law. It is 
called a rescission, and there is an illegal way. It is called 
an impoundment, where you send a rescission message to 
Congress, or you use the illegal impoundment strategy.
    Hon. Vought. Senator, thanks for the question. Those EOs 
were again pauses to ensure that the funding that is in place 
is consistent and moves in a direction along the lines of what 
the President ran on, unleashing American energy away from the 
Green New Deal.
    Senator Merkley. Rescissions or impoundments? Which 
strategy will you use? That is a simple question.
    Hon. Vought. There is a section in those EOs that says that 
the Office of Legislative Affairs will work with the Office of 
Management and Budget. They may put forward rescissions, but 
they--again, the language of the Executive Order (EO) says 
``required by law,'' and it is meant to do a programmatic delay 
to figure out what are the best ways to make sure that the----
    Senator Merkley. Okay. Well, very good. Thank you, thank 
you. I will just note that you are not willing to say that you 
will use rescissions, the legal method, rather than the illegal 
method. That is a big concern for all of us here, because the 
Constitution laid out the vision that Congress makes the law, 
not the President.
    So the fact that you continue to advocate for this 
impoundment strategy, that is completely in violation of our 
Constitution, and I am deeply disturbed that you will not 
renounce that today.
    So let us turn to work requirements. You have been a big 
advocate of work requirements. You encourage states to adopt 
waivers that would allow them to do that for Medicaid. One 
state tried it, Arkansas. It produced no increase in the hours 
worked, no increase in employment. It failed.
    Why did it fail? Because the way that people are able to 
work is when they are healthy. When they cannot access health 
care because you want to cut it off, they are really trapped in 
poverty and trapping people in poverty is really--well, not 
helpful. Now that your idea failed so miserably, are you going 
to advocate for it again?
    Hon. Vought. You know Senator, one of the major 
legislations that our side has been very proud of since the 
1990's was the impact of welfare reform in the 1990's. It held 
to caseload reductions, people getting off of welfare going 
back into the workforce.
    And we think that that--that type of thinking should be 
applied to other federal programs, and it has informed not only 
Medicaid but other programs, to be able to encourage people to 
get back in the workforce, increase labor force participation 
and give people again----
    Senator Merkley. And you believe cutting off health care 
encourages people to work when they need to get better health 
in order to work? It does not make any sense, and it has been a 
failed experiment. But you have answered the question. You are 
still an advocate of that failed approach, that traps people in 
poverty and is quite disturbing.
    Now according to the Treasury Department analysis produced 
this month, the Trump tax giveaways would give an average tax 
cut of $314,000 to the richest Americans, the top .01 percent, 
and $6 annually to the average member of the bottom ten 
percent. A cup of coffee for those trying to get on their feet 
in the course of a year, and $300,000 in additional income for 
the richest Americans. Is this not kind of ass backwards?
    Hon. Vought. Senator, the President's tax cuts provided tax 
cuts for all Americans. It had a sizeable increase in the child 
tax credit. It had expansion of the standard deduction. It was 
something that benefited all Americans, and as a result led to 
a strong economy that we hope to replicate again by having an 
extension of those important tax cuts.
    Senator Merkley. So you are very comfortable with a cup of 
coffee per year for the bottom ten percent, while you give 
$300,000 to the richest Americans, according to the Treasury 
Department analysis?
    Hon. Vought. Well, there are people at the higher end who 
are in charge of small businesses, that are taking great risk 
to innovate and hire additional people that are not in their 
tax bracket. And that is part of the way that you structure 
economic growth.
    Senator Merkley. My final question, because I am running 
out of time. At your think tank in 2023, you proposed a $3.6 
trillion in tax giveaways, primarily going to the richest 
Americans, and to make the numbers work, you assume that your 
giveaway would produce the magic asterisk.
    You are probably familiar with the magic asterisk. Magic 
asterisk is saying don't worry, be happy. The economy will 
improve because we give away the Treasury to the richest 
Americans and more revenue will come in. It has failed every 
single time it has been put forward. Not a single analysis has 
confirmed it, and not from any serious analysis from CBO, the 
Congressional Budget Office, not from the Joint Committee on 
Taxation, and yet are you still a believer in the magic 
asterisk?
    Hon. Vought. Senator, I am a believer in dynamic growth for 
sure, that when you cut taxes, it actually has a dynamic impact 
on the economy and we see that with revenues continuing to go 
up after all of the tax cuts that we have seen in history, 
1920's, 1960's, 1980's. Both of the Bush tax cuts and then 
including the--and then the Trump tax cuts. We have seen a 
dynamic impact on the economy.
    Senator Merkley. Your facts are wrong, but we will continue 
the discussion I am sure.
    Chairman Graham. During the first Trump term before COVID, 
were not African-American/Hispanic household incomes at their 
highest?
    Hon. Vought. Yes, Senator.
    Chairman Graham. Thank you. Senator Grassley.

                 STATEMENT OF SENATOR GRASSLEY

    Senator Grassley. Yeah. I have got a figure in front of me 
of $610 billion of improper payments just in health care. I 
would bet a lot of this information comes from whistleblowers. 
So my question to you is about whistleblowing. Do you have any 
role in protecting whistleblowers, encouraging whistleblowers, 
maybe changing the culture in a lot of agencies that treat 
whistleblowers like skunks at a picnic? Would you tell me about 
if there is anything you can do to help this process of 
whistleblowing? It helps us explain not just the waste of 
money, but also improper government action?
    Hon. Vought. Senator, thanks for the question. I think that 
whistleblowers play an enormous role in helping us weed out 
waste, fraud and abuse. As a Senate staffer and Hill staffer, I 
have benefited greatly from reading Inspector General reports.
    From my standpoint at OMB, my view is OMB should be an 
advocate for whistleblowers in every possible way, and to make 
sure that we value and as a result agency heads value the work 
that they do. And so we will always be looking for 
opportunities along those lines.
    Senator Grassley. I would like your view of how you can 
play a role in making the recent Supreme Court decision 
overturning the Chevron doctrine, the Loper case, how that can 
help you stop our government from being over-regulated, 
bureaucrats over-reaching, using a statute that may be--can be 
liberally interpreted, and all that?
    Hon. Vought. Thank you, Senator. It is all those aspects of 
the regulatory process in terms of deregulating, in terms of 
making sure that agencies are sticking to the law, that we want 
to make sure if confirmed we get properly set up. That would be 
part of the review process, not unlikely cost-benefit analysis 
and making sure agencies are not coming up with new 
interpretations of what the statute should say. We want to 
stick to the statute.
    Senator Grassley. So you will be watching that regulatory 
process, to make sure that Loper is followed?
    Hon. Vought. Yes, Senator.
    Senator Grassley. Okay. Another thing that irritates me 
about--by the way, these problems I am talking about are not 
just Democrat problems. They are Republican and Democrat 
problems that we have got to deal with. So another one would be 
not answering our letters.
    Now I do not know whether I got a lot of letters to your 
department or not that have not been answered, but I can give 
you the Justice Department's example. When Pam Bondi was in my 
office, I gave her a stack of 158 letters that the Justice 
Department just in the last four years have not answered, and 
it was somewhat the same under Obama and Trump in previous 
years.
    We have got a constitutional responsibility to make sure 
that the executive branch faithfully executes our laws. So we 
want to make sure that these letters are answered.
    So on September 15th, 2023, I sent President Biden's OMB 
Director a letter asking a simple question. Where is the 
implementation and guidance for the Open Government Data Act, 
as just one example? At that point, OMB was five years late in 
issuing the guidance. The guidance was intended to make 
government information more open and available.
    In the final days of the Biden administration, they 
released the guidance, but they never directly responded to my 
request. If confirmed, will you commit to ensuring OMB provides 
timely and complete responses to Congressional oversight?
    Hon. Vought. Yes, Senator. I think it is very important. It 
is one of the things that I asked my team to know, to let me 
know immediately, the day of, when Senators and Congressman are 
writing and sending us letters.
    I want to be immediately aware and quite frankly, and I 
have said this to all of you in our individual meetings. I want 
to know before it gets time to have to send a letter, which 
that is an important part of the process.
    Senator Grassley. Should you be confirmed, you will face a 
daunting task of reining in the bloated federal government. 
Besides crafting a responsible budget, what actions can you 
take as OMB Director to begin right-sizing the federal 
government?
    Hon. Vought. Well, we are going to go, if confirmed 
Senator, right into the process of finishing the fiscal year 
'25, helping the President come to a view on how that should 
proceed. We will be in the process of various discussions with 
regard to reconciliation, of which are very important.
    And then there is just the normal management of different 
agencies for waste, fraud and abuse beyond sending up a 
Presidential budget, of which we will have to get started and 
get caught up, based on just the normal process of an incoming 
administration.
    Senator Grassley. Thank you.
    Chairman Graham. If I were you, I would answer Senator 
Grassley's letter, if he ever sent one, and I would be pro-
whistleblower. Senator Murray.

                  STATEMENT OF SENATOR MURRAY

    Senator Murray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Vought, I 
appreciated the opportunity to meet with you last week, but I 
do continue to have very serious concerns regarding your 
nomination, starting with your position and record on 
impoundments.
    I do not believe what happened in the case of withholding 
security assistance to Ukraine in 2019 while you were acting 
OMB Director, was an accident or a misunderstanding. And I fear 
it is actually a harbinger of what is to come these next four 
years.
    In fact, on his first day in office, we saw the President 
order, among other things, what appears to be an illegal 
deferral of Inflation Reduction Act, Bipartisan Infrastructure 
law and foreign assistance funds, as Senator Merkley referred 
to.
    Mr. Vought, your written response when pressed on this, 
that you will follow the advice of the incoming OMB general 
counsel, Mark Paoletta, someone who has called the Impoundment 
Control Act a stupid law, and recently tweeted at you to 
``impound baby, impound'' is a bit rich.
    Look. As I said to you at our meeting, members of Congress 
on both sides must know a deal is a deal. A deal is a deal when 
we reach a bipartisan agreement on major legislation. 
Agreements cannot happen and Congress cannot function without 
that level of trust, and ``impound baby, impound'' is not the 
answer I am looking for.
    So I want to ask you today, will you, if confirmed as 
Director, faithfully follow the law, the Impoundment Control 
Act, yes or no?
    Hon. Vought. Senator, we will faithfully uphold the law. 
The President ran on a notion that the Impoundment Control Act 
is unconstitutional. I agree with that. I would in response to 
both questions say that what the President has unveiled already 
are not impoundments; they are programmatic----
    Senator Murray. Has the impoundment law ever been said to 
be unconstitutional by a court of law?
    Hon. Vought. Not to my knowledge.
    Senator Murray. No, it has not. So it is the law of the 
land. I do not care what the President said when he was 
running. It is the law of the land. So will you follow that law 
if you are confirmed to this office?
    Hon. Vought. Senator, the President and his team is going 
to go through a review with our lawyers, if confirmed, 
including the Department of Justice, to explore the parameters 
of the law with regard to the Impoundment Control Act. He has 
not developed a strategy that he has announced as it pertains 
to how we would approach it. There are pieces of legislation 
that have been proposed by members of this Committee.
    Senator Murray. But we propose legislation all the time. If 
the rule of the law states that it is a 15 mile an hour speed 
limit, you cannot just say ``Well, I think that is 
irresponsible and I am going to challenge it, so therefore I do 
not have to follow it.''
    The impoundment law is the law. Will you follow it or not? 
You cannot say that we are going to look at it and might 
challenge it in court, but it is the law today. Will you follow 
that law as Director?
    Hon. Vought. Senator, the reason why the President ran on 
this is that 200 years of presidents had this----
    Senator Murray. You are telling me why you do not agree 
with the law. But the law is the law. Will you follow the law?
    Hon. Vought. And what he found in the first term was that 
we had agencies that would push out spending at the end of the 
fiscal year----
    Senator Murray. Mr. Chairman, I am going to take my time 
back from him and just tell all of us. We work all the time on 
Appropriations, where I am Ranking Member, to come to 
agreement. Senator Graham and I work on agreements and we 
decide yeah, okay. We'll both vote for this. We have an 
agreement.
    How can we ever have an agreement in the future if a 
President, whoever he or she may be in the future, has say over 
that saying yep, never mind; I am not going to pay for this 
part of it? We have to have agreements. It is the law of the 
land, and I have to say that your answer to this should be 
disconcerting to every single member on this Committee.
    I have a minute left, and I want to ask you another 
important question because as Director of the powerful Office 
of Management and Budget, your job will not be merely to 
execute the President's agenda. It is also advise the President 
on policy, as you have made clear.
    So I want to ask about women's health policy. You were a 
lead author of the Anti-Abortion Project 2025. You were also 
caught just a few minutes ago saying that when it comes to 
abortion, you ``want to get to abolition.'' Now everyone should 
understand that abortion abolition means zero abortions under 
any circumstance whatsoever.
    So Mr. Vought, you have said that you do not believe in 
exceptions for rape, for incest or life of the mother. Is that 
your position?
    Hon. Vought. Senator, my views are not important. I am here 
on behalf of the President as his nominee to restore fiscal 
accountability----
    Senator Murray. I am asking you a question under oath, sir, 
because you want to be director of an office that will advise 
the President and we have a right to know your views. Will you 
answer the question?
    Hon. Vought. I will Senator, because it is consistent with 
the views that the President ran on repeatedly, made his views 
very clear on abortion with regard--in the last election.
    Senator Murray. Even in the case of rape, incest, or life 
of the mother?
    Hon. Vought. That is his view, and I will strictly abide by 
the President's view. And that will be a general theme 
throughout this entire hearing. My view of the position is that 
you come into an administration and you do what the President 
ran on, what the President's viewpoints are, and you do--you 
take that viewpoint----
    (Simultaneous discussion.)
    Senator Murray. My time is up. It is very clear on what 
your stance is on this, and people in this country, women and 
men alike, should know that.
    Chairman Graham. Senator Crapo. Senator Johnson.

                  STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHNSON

    Senator Johnson. Mr. Vought, thanks for being here again. 
Hope this is, you know, one of many appearances before this 
Committee. In your appearance before the Homeland Security 
Committee, I really spent a lot of time on spending.
    I want to focus on the other part of the budget, which is 
revenue on this one. But I do want to just kind of talk in 
general on macro terms. If you take a look at federal outlays 
averages over the decades, back in the 60's we spent 8.2 
percent on average. 70's, it was 19.6. 80's, 21.5. The 90's, 
19.9 percent. 2000's, 19.6 percent. 2010 through '19, 21 
percent.
    This year we are right around 25 percent of GDP, federal 
spending. What do you think is an appropriate level as a 
percent of GDP? I mean what would be a goal for this 
administration to again, we talked about getting to a pre-
pandemic level of spending.
    2019, we spent 4.4. Last five years, we have averaged 6.5 
percent or $6.5 trillion. What is an appropriate percent of GDP 
for federal spending?
    Hon. Vought. Well Senator, it is a great question. You 
know, we have not set a fiscal goal yet for this 
administration. But I think trying to get back to historical 
levels of outlays is one of those important first steps, to 
begin to find out ways to be able to not set records as a 
percentage of GDP, whether that is spending, outlays as a 
percentage of GDP or debt as a percentage of GDP.
    As you know, we are now above levels in World War II which, 
you know, we never thought we would get there outside of 
crises. And we need to change the trajectory that we are on as 
a country for sure.
    Senator Johnson. Okay. So we want to work very closely with 
you to again, bring down that level of spending to a reasonable 
pre-pandemic levels. It is absurd that we are basically 
spending at pandemic levels.
    In terms of, you know, the automatic tax increase that 
would go into effect if we do not take action, I would think 
the first goal would be to return certainty that that will not 
happen. Would you agree with that? I mean that we----
    Hon. Vought. Yes, Senator.
    Senator Johnson. Okay. You know, one way of doing that, I 
proposed this morning at a political event is I know people are 
talking about one big beautiful bill or two step. I would 
actually recommend three steps, you know. First, 
reconciliation, handle the border. Keep it simple. We all agree 
on that.
    Second would be just extend the Tax Cut and Job Act as it 
is. That would take any tax increase off the table, because 
what I want to do--in the third step is simplify and 
rationalize the tax code, and one thing I found is there is 
nothing simple about doing that. So I just want to throw that 
out there.
    I think we Republicans are all agreed that we want to 
return certainty. There is not going to be a massive tax 
increase. This would be one way to do it. Just let us quick get 
in there, extend it using current policy, Senator Crapo's idea 
there, which makes a lot of sense.
    By the way, let us just discuss that for a minute. In past 
budgets, we adhere to the rule that a spending policy that 
expires, if you extend that, there is no cost. But if it is a 
tax cut that expires, now all of the sudden you are dealing 
with, you know, trillions of dollars. And by the way, I do not 
believe those scores.
    Do you not think it makes a lot of sense to treat both 
spending and taxes exact same way, that if we pass a budget in 
this Committee it is going to be based on current policy, both 
for spending and for taxes?
    Hon. Vought. Senator, I am not here to make any 
announcements strategically for the administration. But I do 
think it makes sense to be able to treat spending in the same 
way that you treat the tax baseline.
    And so I think that is something that should be considered 
as you navigate the reconciliation process and have 
conversations with the parliamentarians. But I think that is a 
very important discussion that needs to continue to move 
forward, to give options for the President for this body.
    Senator Johnson. So again, I am always speaking in terms of 
goals of things. So again, I think it is a goal to return that 
certainty. Let us take any kind of automatic tax increase off 
the table as quickly as possible.
    Then whatever we do do, and again I do not like the term 
``tax reform''; I like the term ``tax simplification and 
rationalization.'' But whatever we do, it needs to be 
permanent. Let us not make the mistake of having automatic tax 
increases in what we do next.
    Now that is going to be complex, okay? There is nothing 
simple about tax simplification. One of the things I think we 
ought to look at are tax expenditures. I just had my staff, you 
know, print me out the list of tax expenditures. This is like 
about 170 of them totaling almost $1.7 trillion, about six 
percent of our economy.
    Now some of these, I looked at these, are legitimate 
business deductions. I would not consider them a tax 
expenditure. Is this something the administration is willing to 
take a look at, is just trying to dramatically simplify our tax 
system. It cost $400 billion at least to comply with it. I mean 
is that something that you and the Treasury Department and the 
President will work with me and this Committee on trying to 
simplify our tax system?
    Hon. Vought. Yes, Senator. Happy to look at that list as 
well.
    Senator Johnson. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Graham. I do not know if it is going to be one 
step, two steps or three steps, but let us take a step. Senator 
Sanders.

                  STATEMENT OF SENATOR SANDERS

    Senator Sanders. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to 
working with you.
    Chairman Graham. Yes, sir.
    Senator Sanders. Mr. Vought, thanks for being here.
    Hon. Vought. Thank you.
    Senator Sanders. Mr. Vought, we are living in a moment in 
American history, we are at a time when 60 percent of our 
people are living paycheck to paycheck. We have more income and 
wealth inequality that we have ever had. Three multi-
billionaires own more wealth than the bottom half of American 
society.
    People are struggling to put food on their table. The very 
rich are getting much richer. We have heard from our Republican 
colleagues in the House, that they think it is a good idea to 
go forward to provide massive tax breaks for the billionaire 
class, and at the same time help pay for that by cutting back 
on Medicaid.
    Now I know that you are more than aware that Medicaid not 
only provides health care to tens of millions of lower income 
people, but two out of three people in nursing homes in 
America, elderly people are on Medicaid, paid for by Medicaid. 
You are going to be an advisor to the President if you are 
approved.
    Will you tell the President that it is immoral, that it is 
wrong to cut Medicaid, cut health care for lower income 
Americans, for children and for the elderly, and give tax 
breaks to the very richest people in our society? Is that 
something we can count on you to do?
    Hon. Vought. Senator, one of the problems, and I appreciate 
the question, is one of the problems that we have in the 
Medicaid program is the extent to which instead of being a 
program for the poor, it is alone in that and to the extent to 
which it is meant for nursing homes and things of that nature, 
we have able-bodied working adults on the program that are 
benefiting from a higher match rate than the populations that 
it was originally designed for.
    And as a result of that expanded match, you also have 
states kind of chasing that match in other ways that have made 
it so that they are not looking at improper payments and----
    Senator Sanders. All right. You are going into an--I do not 
have a lot of time. You are going into another area, and that 
is the health care system in general. As you well know, 
unfortunately the United States of America is the only major 
country on Earth not to guarantee health care to all people as 
a human right.
    And the result of that despite Medicaid, and we can argue 
about this or that aspect of Medicaid, despite that 85 million 
Americans are uninsured or under-insured, and importantly--and 
your colleague Mr. Musk made this point. We are spending far 
more on health care than any other country per person.
    I wonder as an advisor to the President, will you try to 
determine how it is that countries around the world are able to 
provide care to all of their people and in some cases spend 50 
percent per capita of what we are spending?
    Do you think the function of the American health care 
system should be to make huge profits for the insurance 
companies and the drug companies, or do you think maybe we 
should have a system that guarantees health care to all people 
as a human right? Do you believe that health care is a human 
right?
    Hon. Vought. Senator, I believe that it is very, very 
important that we put the health care dollars that the 
taxpayers are covering for the health care system, which you 
just mentioned is substantial, to make sure we have the best 
outcomes in those programs.
    I want--I want the people who benefit from Medicaid to have 
a great Medicaid program. And I look at a situation and a 
tragedy we had, where Deamonte Driver, a 12 year-old, dies of a 
toothache because the infection was never--never found.
    Senator Sanders. Right. All right, you are right. Yeah, 
health care--all right, look. I do not want to argue. The 
health care system in my view is broken, it is dysfunctional. 
But my question to you, it is a simple one.
    As an advisor to the President, do you think we should join 
every other major country on earth and say ``You know what, 
whether you are poor, you are rich, you are young, you are old, 
health care is a human right.'' We are the richest country in 
the history of the world. Do you think we should do what every 
other major country on earth does?
    Hon. Vought. Senator, I think it is important to provide 
legitimate, evidence-based outcomes for people within the 
health care system, and to make sure that we tailor all of the 
dollars that are spent towards----
    Senator Sanders. But that--you did not answer my question.
    Hon. Vought [continuing]. And ensure that they have good 
health care.
    Senator Sanders. Mr. Vought, my question, fine. The 
question is a simple question. In America, should we do what 
every other major country does and say ``I do not care if you 
are poor, you are rich, you are old, you are young. Health care 
is a human right.'' Yes, no?
    Hon. Vought. Senator, I think the President has not made 
a--he ran on providing good health care outcomes. That is my 
view.
    Senator Sanders. You are an advisor to the President. You 
are going to be key advisor if you are approved. Do you think 
that health care is a human right that every American should be 
entitled to?
    Hon. Vought. I believe the role of the Office of Management 
and Budget Director is to take what the President has run on, 
the things that the President has as a policy agenda, and to 
turn that into policy, to implement that. And so to the extent 
that he has run on having lower prescription drugs, that is a 
priority of the administration.
    Senator Sanders. Good for you. Well, thank you. All right. 
The President in the past, I do not know about recently, has 
indicated that he would maybe do what President Biden did, 
stand up to Big Pharma. We are paying now in some cases ten 
times more, as you know, for the same exact drug that other 
countries are paying.
    Are you going to advise the President to take on Big Pharma 
and do what he promised to do? And that is have Americans not 
pay a nickel more than other countries for prescription drugs? 
Will you--will you advise him to do that?
    Hon. Vought. Senator, the President has not made an 
announcement since he has been in office, but he certainly ran 
on this issue. There was a speech with regard to making sure 
that we were--we were getting the same types of arrangements 
that the other countries were, given the amount that we are 
investing in it.
    But he also, Senator, wants to do it in a careful way, so 
that we are not ruining the phenomena and the industry that 
allows us to have life-saving medications.
    Senator Sanders. I got it. I do understand.
    (Simultaneous discussion.)
    Senator Sanders. We want innovation, but will you maintain 
what we fought very hard to, to do what every other country 
does, have Medicare negotiate prescription drug prices with the 
industry?
    Hon. Vought. No, Senator. I am not here to get in front of 
the President on any of his policies, other than to say that 
this has been a priority for him, and I think your question 
reflects that it has been a priority of his.
    Senator Sanders. Okay. I have over-extended my time.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Graham. Thank you, Senator Sanders. Senator 
Cornyn.

                  STATEMENT OF SENATOR CORNYN

    Senator Cornyn. Mr. Vought, thank you for your willingness 
to serve the nation again, and especially you and your family. 
You know that this job comes with its more than its fair share 
of abuse that you receive. But it is--I believe this is a once 
in a generation opportunity to do what we need to do to get our 
spending in check and to--and to make sure that we do what you 
said, I think at the beginning of your testimony, which is the 
most important thing the federal government does, is provide 
for the security and safety of the American people.
    You remember 15 years ago, Admiral Mullen, Chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the biggest threat to our national 
security was our debt. Now when he said that, I thought that 
was kind of an unusual thing to say. But if you think of it as 
a prediction, it has literally become true, because now we 
spend more money on interest on the national debt than we do 
on--on defense.
    And that is a recipe for disaster, in what I think is the 
most dangerous world we have seen since World War II. But let 
me take you back to the issue of inflation. We have just come 
off of a 40 year high inflation rate for the American people, 
which is sort of a silent tax which degrades the standard of 
living for all Americans.
    And how is inflation related to government spending?
    Hon. Vought. Well, thank you Senator. This is an important 
moment historically for our country, to be able to get a handle 
on our debt and deficits. I believe that spending is a--is a 
big driver of inflation. I think you saw that under the Biden 
administration, when they put forward some of the COVID 
packages early in his administration. All of the sudden we had 
an inflation problem.
    I predicted it at the time. Larry Summers on the Democrat 
side predicted it at the time, and we saw something that the 
so-called experts told us we would never see again, which is 
inflation at the levels that the American people could not 
absorb, nor should they ever be expected to.
    So I think it is both an energy phenomena. I think it is a 
regulatory phenomena, and I think it's the spending component.
    Senator Cornyn. I think Milton Friedman would agree with 
you, on the spending side certainly. So the federal government 
spends roughly $6.75 trillion at the present time. I know none 
of us can really even get our brain around how much money that 
is. It is a lot of money.
    But we also took in last year about $4\1/2\ trillion in 
revenue. So there is a significant gap between what the federal 
government spends and what the federal government gets in terms 
of revenue. Do you think that is sustainable?
    Hon. Vought. No sir, it is not. We have to get spending 
under control. I think what we have seen though is that 
revenues have been hovering about where they have been 
historically as a percentage of GDP, and as a result the 
problem is primarily on the--on the spending side. And that is 
one of the reasons that you have seen in the first term the 
President put forward substantial numbers of savings and 
reforms, to get a handle on the spending component of the 
federal budget.
    Senator Cornyn. And right now, the Congress appropriates 
roughly 28 percent of the money that the federal government 
spends. The rest of it is on--is mandatory spending, and is 
spent under the Tax Code, as Senator Johnson pointed out. I do 
not know how we are ever going to balance the budget just 
looking at 28 percent of what the federal government spends.
    That is not to say that we should not look at it, but do 
you agree with me that we need to look at mandatory spending 
programs? I understand that Medicare and Social Security, 
absent bipartisan support, are unlikely to be the sources of 
any savings on spending.
    But we spend, I think at last count, roughly $700 billion a 
year on mandatory spending programs that Congress turns on. It 
does not cap. It does not have a cost of living index. It is 
just based on demand, and they grew at six, seven, eight 
percent.
    Do you think we need to look at non-Social Security, non-
Medicare mandatory spending to find some of the savings?
    Hon. Vought. Yes, Senator, and it is one of the reasons why 
there are substantial numbers of savings and reforms, many of 
it is just getting better outcomes in these programs that were 
consistent with the President's protection of Social Security 
and Medicare, that still allowed us to get to balance in the 
budget that we last sent up in the first term.
    The President's approach has been get after the bureaucracy 
that is largely wasting money, and to be able to get people 
back to work with things like welfare reform and other reforms 
that we have seen historically worked, to get better labor 
force participation and a better economy.
    Senator Cornyn. Thank you.
    Chairman Graham. Senator Warner.

                  STATEMENT OF SENATOR WARNER

    Senator Warner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Vought, good 
to see you. You know, these hearings are important. I kind of 
view them as a job interview. I have got to tell you though. I 
am kind of curious about your background. A dozen years on the 
Hill. Government bureaucrat. Right wing think tank.
    Seems to me you are a total product of what MAGA folks call 
``The Swamp.'' I am not sure how that swamp expertise is going 
to help you in this job, you know. I am, you know, I am a 
little different than most folks. I actually run a business, 
met a payroll, managed an operation. You have no private sector 
experience, and I look then at what you have said. From just 
the management standpoint, it seems like what you want to do is 
how many federal workers we can get to quit, how many federal 
work offices can y'all go out and relocate.
    And I have got to tell you. Your words, ``We want the 
bureaucrats to be traumatically affected, because they are 
increasingly viewed as villains. We want to put them in 
trauma.'' I have got to tell you, you want to be OMB and help 
oversee this workforce, and you want to put the workforce in 
trauma?
    Sir, that would be management malpractice. I appreciate the 
fact of what you have done in the past. Let us look at your 
record. It is an interview. 2019, you helped move the Bureau of 
Land Management (BLM) out. 170 percent increase in vacancies at 
the BLM. Government Affairs Office (GAO), the folks who are 
supposed to be independent. Said that move dramatically 
impaired its ability to serve the American people.
    Another failure that some of us pointed out. Last time you 
said ``Let's move part of the Department of Agriculture out.'' 
Two bureaus. Led to 40 percent and 60 percent reduction in 
effectiveness. Then we get to your madness, and at least I give 
you credit for putting it down in writing. Project 2025 and 
that handbook.
    Sir, I do appreciate the fact one of the things you have 
said, which was you think it is important for the federal 
government to keep our nation safe. Probably the most important 
thing I have done in this job is my work with the intelligence 
community. I am chair--I am vice chair now.
    We have got thousands of men and women who work in the 
intelligence community without a lot of fanfare. You realize, 
of course I hope, that to become a Central Intelligence Agency 
(CIA) agent it takes about a year to get a secured clearance. 
Are you aware of that?
    Hon. Vought. Yes, Senator.
    Senator Warner. All right. So in your Project '25 madness, 
you put forward the idea that somehow breaking up the CIA and 
moving it around the country would make our nation more safe?
    Do you not understand sir, that if President Trump, by 
having the intelligence community close to him, to have ability 
from folks from National Security Agency (NSA), the CIA, the 
Pentagon, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in this 
region, your idea of let us somehow go on this ideological 
jihad to break up the intelligence community's effectiveness?
    I would ask you sir, can you show any evidence that somehow 
we would make our nation safer if you put your political litmus 
test and, you know, this idea of bringing trauma to the federal 
workforce by taking the intelligence community, which has been 
supported on a bipartisan basis year-in and year-out, and 
somehow breaking it up and spreading it hither and yon, just 
for a political purpose? How does that make our nation safer?
    Hon. Vought. Senator, I never proposed that and the 
President has disassociated himself from Project 2025. It is a 
mischaracterization of----
    Senator Warner. So all right. Okay, good. We are here on 
the record. You are going to commit to make sure that, you 
know, I would argue you have to make a business case before you 
start breaking up the government. I am all for effectiveness.
    Will you be willing here to commit not to undermine our 
national intelligence community by arbitrarily trying to break 
them up and spread them around, just because you want to blow 
up the federal workforce in this region?
    Hon. Vought. Yes, Senator. There is no--there is no policy 
process that the Trump administration had done that is 
producing arbitrary results. And let me speak to a question 
that you raised with regard to my comments about the 
bureaucracy. It was specifically in reference to the weaponized 
bureaucracy that we've seen----
    Senator Warner. And so you are the arbiter of who is 
weaponized and who is not? Again, I hope my colleagues will 
raise I think you are completely irresponsible actions on so-
called Schedule F. You know, we put a civil service in place. 
But I urge you sir, if you become in this position, think long 
and hard about the men and women of the national security and 
the intelligence community before you go on some political 
jihad of trying to score points by simply trying to break up an 
operation that actually functions better because of their close 
collaboration.
    And your comments about the federal workforce I find 
disqualifying on its basis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Graham. Thank you. Senator Kennedy.

                  STATEMENT OF SENATOR KENNEDY

    Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Vought, 
welcome.
    Hon. Vought. Thank you, Senator.
    Senator Kennedy. In my judgment, I do not know a single 
person, in Washington or outside Washington, who knows more 
about the federal budget than you do. I used to read your--your 
suggestions during President Trump's first term, many of which 
Congress ignored. We should not have.
    I am delighted that the President picked you. I have read 
that since 2019, the population of America has increased two 
percent, and our spending has increased 55 percent under 
President Biden, I wish him well. If we had discovered life on 
Mars, he would have sent it money. Is that sustainable?
    Hon. Vought. Senator, it is totally unsustainable, and the 
problem is is that you go on these trajectories that we are 
currently on, and you do not know when you are going to get to 
the--the point at which you have some major, major problems as 
an economy, as a country, and we know that historically.
    Senator Kennedy. I hope you start with the low-hanging 
fruit. There is a lot. When we send out stimulus checks to save 
our economy, 1.6 billion went to dead people, and the checks 
were cashed, obviously fraud. OMB has estimated that in fiscal 
year 2023, we sent out $1.3 billion of checks to dead people, 
which were cashed, obviously fraud.
    When you die in America, your name is sent to the Social 
Security Administration. As you know, you become part of the 
master death file. Senator Carper and I discovered that Social 
Security would not share that information with any other 
department of government. So we passed a bill saying you have 
to share it with Treasury and other people who write checks so 
we will stop paying dead people. Duh.
    We got pushback, believe it or not, on the bill. We had to 
agree to a trial period, and that trial period ends at the--in 
2026. Will you help us make that program permanent, so we can 
stop paying dead people?
    Hon. Vought. Yes, Senator.
    Senator Kennedy. Now you served in Washington for years. 
You are going to be called, you are going to be challenging the 
status quo. You are going to be called crazy. Many people also 
called Noah crazy, and then the rains came and all the fact 
checkers died. You have to persevere.
    You know, I am asking you--I am not asking you to get ahead 
of President Trump. But if you were king for a day, tell me how 
you would save money in the federal budget without impacting 
the American people?
    Hon. Vought. Thank you, Senator. I think it is the strategy 
that we had in the first term, which is to go really and take a 
very close look at the agencies that are spending and wasting 
money, and I believe weaponized at times against the American 
people.
    When they put a 77 year-old Navy veteran in jail, Joe 
Robertson, for 18 months for building four ponds on his ranch 
to be prepared for wildfires, that is the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA), I think we have to look at that. And 
we have to look at the agencies that Congress has to vote on 
every single year through the appropriations process.
    And then I think we need to go after the mandatory programs 
that Senator Cornyn mentioned, that are keeping people out of 
the workforce because they have become not just a social safety 
net, but they have become a benefit hammock, and increasingly 
so in the aftermath of COVID, as many of these policies were 
impacting people's decisions to go back into the workforce.
    And I believe, because we produced budgets along these 
lines, you can get sizeable levels of savings and reforms that 
can lead to a balanced budget and get us back headed in a 
fiscal trajectory, not only that we would all be proud of, but 
we could say this is going to keep us from fiscal ruin.
    Senator Kennedy. My time's expired. Ella, Porter, do you 
have anything you would like to add? Okay. Now's your shot. 
Thank you, Mr. Vought, for your time.
    Hon. Vought. Thank you.
    Senator Kennedy. Congratulations.
    Chairman Graham. Good call there, young lady. So apparently 
we are going to Mars, and I am going to reserve whether or not 
I want to help them. I don't know what we do if we find them up 
there. So anyways, to dead people, I do not want to give them 
checks or they shouldn't vote either. So Senator Kaine.

                   STATEMENT OF SENATOR KAINE

    Senator Kaine. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Congratulations on the 
nomination, Mr. Vought. I want to go back to the comment that 
Senator Warner read to you. There are 140,000 federal employees 
in Virginia, and you gave a speech that got a lot of attention 
when you said ``we want bureaucrats to be traumatically 
affected. When they wake up in the morning, we want them to not 
want to go to work because they are increasingly viewed as the 
villains.''
    Now I pay attention to the way people say things, because 
there is a million ways you can make a point. And the way you 
choose to make a point tells you something about the person. 
There was a wonderful--since I had an Old Testament reference 
over there, I will go to a New Testament on Luke 6:45. ``From 
the fullness of the heart, the mouth speaks.''
    We want people to be traumatized. We want people to be 
traumatized. I've heard a million people in this room give 
speeches about we want to cut the budget, we want to reduce 
federal spending, we want to deal with the deficit. But I have 
not heard anybody give a gleeful speech about traumatizing the 
federal workforce.
    You do not want federal air traffic controllers going to 
the airport traumatized, do you Mr. Vought?
    Hon. Vought. No, Senator.
    Senator Kaine. You do not want the people inspecting our 
food, our medicine, our infant formula as federal--you do not 
want them to go to work traumatized, do you?
    Hon. Vought. No, Senator.
    Senator Kaine. You do not want the people interdicting 
drugs at the border, you do not want them going to work 
traumatized, do you?
    Hon. Vought. No, Senator.
    Senator Kaine. And you do not want people who are working 
for you at the OMB, who many people would think well, they're 
in the White House. They must be--you do not want them 
traumatized, do you?
    Hon. Vought. No, Senator. Thank you for expanding on that.
    Senator Kaine. Yeah. I mean so I felt like I had to, 
because I got 140,000 people and most of them have families, 
and they are trying to do a good job. Was your comment about 
people being traumatized just focused on the federal workforce, 
or is it more broadly about state employees and local 
government employees too?
    Hon. Vought. Senator, it was about the weaponized 
bureaucracy that unfortunately----
    Senator Kaine. I am going to get to weaponized in a minute. 
But you were talking about the federal workforce, so you were--
--
    Hon. Vought. I was talking about the bureaucracy that I 
experienced and I have----
    Senator Kaine. At the federal level?
    Hon. Vought. At the federal level.
    Senator Kaine. You were not talking about state employees--
--
    Hon. Vought. I have no experience with the states.
    Senator Kaine. You were not talking about local employees?
    Hon. Vought. I was not.
    Senator Kaine. Your mother was a public school teacher, 
correct?
    Hon. Vought. Yes, Senator.
    Senator Kaine. So you were talking about, you want the 
federal workforce to be traumatized?
    Hon. Vought. Bureaucracies.
    Senator Kaine. I like a lot of presidents. I am a Lincoln 
fan. Are you a Lincoln fan?
    Hon. Vought. Yes, Senator.
    Senator Kaine. Lincoln spoke to a nation at war, and he 
said ``with malice towards none, and charity towards all,'' and 
he was saying that to the North and the South. He did not say 
``we want you to be traumatized.'' He was a bridge builder and 
a unifier, and that is what public servants should be. They 
should not gleefully be wishing trauma on people who are trying 
to serve their fellow men.
    I want to get to woke and weaponized. You were the 
president of the Center for Renewing America and the think tank 
produced a 2023 budget proposal calling it ``A Commitment to 
End Woke and Weaponized Government.'' Do you remember that?
    Hon. Vought. Yes, Senator.
    Senator Kaine. And that is the correct title?
    Hon. Vought. Yes, Senator.
    Senator Kaine. It's 104 pages of details to end woke and 
weaponized government, and it proposes deep cuts to the 
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) program. Is 
providing nutrition assistance to low income kids woke and 
weaponized?
    Hon. Vought. Senator, I am not here to talk about the 
budget that the Center put out. I am here on behalf of the 
President----
    Senator Kaine. But you just said you did that. I want to 
know what is woke and weaponized about providing food 
assistance to low income kids?
    Hon. Vought. Well again, I am not behalf of my Center, on 
behalf of the President----
    Senator Kaine. I know that. But this is your work product. 
I mean you can say it is not woke and weaponized, or you can 
tell me why it is woke and weaponized. I do not think SNAP 
programs or benefits for kids are woke and weaponized. Do you 
agree with me?
    Hon. Vought. When we refer to the federal government being 
weaponized, we are referring to bureaucracies that are----
    Senator Kaine. Okay. So you are not--you did not include 
SNAP. You proposed to cut SNAP, but you are not saying it is 
woke and weaponized?
    Hon. Vought. I am. Again, I am--I am not going to answer 
questions about the Center for Renewing----
    Senator Kaine. You proposed deep cuts to Pell grants. Is 
helping kids pay for college and helping their families, is 
that woke and weaponized?
    Hon. Vought. Again, I am not here to defend the Center for 
Renewing America.
    Senator Kaine. I get it that you are not here to defend 
that work product, and I kind of understand why. You propose 
deep cuts to Medicaid for millions of low income families. Why 
is that woke and weaponized? You propose undermining health 
insurance. Why is that woke and weaponized?
    Eliminating tenant-based rental assistance. Why is that 
woke and weaponized? Eliminating the low income housing energy 
assistance program. This was all in your document about ending 
woke and weaponized government. Okay, let us see.
    We want to traumatize federal employees, and then we want 
to take all these programs that help everyday people who are 
struggling and cut them because they're woke and weaponized. 
Those are your words, not mine. From the fullness of the heart, 
the mouth speaks. I yield back.
    Chairman Graham. Thank you. Senator Ricketts.

                 STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICKETTS

    Senator Ricketts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My colleague 
next to me here from Louisiana has already referenced the 
federal spending, roughly $4.4 trillion in 2019 and $6.8, $6.9 
in 2024, I think the budget--the budget Biden's proposal is for 
$7 trillion.
    He referenced a 55 percent increase in just 5 years. We 
greatly expanded federal spending, recklessly expanded it, 
including a number of areas that the colleague, my colleague 
from Virginia just was referencing.
    Areas were expanded, for example, during COVID and never 
brought back down to say 2019 levels. That reckless spending 
has led to 40-year high inflation. We have talked about that as 
well, and you in your opening remarks remarked how Americans 
are worse off today, four years later after Joe Biden, because 
of his reckless spending, contributed to this inflation.
    But that is not the only thing that contributed to how 
Americans are being hurt by the policies of the Biden 
administration that just left. One of the other areas that they 
have been hurt by is the regulation, and you have mentioned 
some of the bureaucracy out of control, throwing a man, a 77 
year-old in prison for building ponds.
    But if you look over the last 4 years, the Biden 
administration put in over 100,000 pages of new regulation, 43 
feet tall. Taller than a three-story building with the 
regulations. One study said it was adding $3,300 to the cost of 
every American household.
    This kind of like hidden cost that we see on American 
households is also one of the reasons why Americans are worse 
off today than they were four years ago. One of the examples of 
hiding some of these costs was actually in the EPA, with the 
tailpipe regulations, also known as the Electric Vehicle (EV) 
mandate. That was a 573-page document, and there was one table 
on costs. One table.
    And so what we see from this outgoing administration is 
hiding the cost from the American people, so that they do not 
understand and do not see what their government is trying to do 
to them, how their government is actually laying on these 
regulations that harm them, and that is why they feel worse off 
today than they did four years ago.
    If you are confirmed, will you commit that you work with me 
to help reverse and expose the regulations and how agencies try 
to hide the cost, try to play around with the numbers? You may 
have heard the phrase ``there's lies, damn lies and 
statistics,'' right?
    We need to make sure that when we are passing regulations, 
that we have a full cost-benefit analysis that people 
understand the trade-offs we are making by having regulation. 
Will you, if you are confirmed, commit that you will work with 
us to be able to make sure that we fully understand the costs 
and that these agencies will not try to hide the cost of 
regulations?
    Hon. Vought. Yes, absolutely. This is one of those 
fundamental apparatuses that we need to get back in place that 
we had in the first term. If confirmed, it will be one of the 
earliest projects that I am a part of.
    Senator Ricketts. Great. Thank you very much, Mr. Vought. 
Also, I want to switch gears on you a little bit here as well, 
because it is also another example of how the bureaucracy is 
failing.
    As you know, biofuels are important to my state of 
Nebraska. We are an agricultural state. Biofuels are a way for 
us to be able to help clean up the environment, reduce our 
reliance on foreign sources of energy, and it is great for 
farmers and ranchers as well. It also helps save consumers 
money at the pump.
    The renewable fuel standard and the renewable volume 
obligations, RVOs, are priorities for me and my state. And the 
2026 RVOs were supposed to be filed November 1st, 2024 and now 
it looks like it is going to be December, and I am sure the 
folks who were in business in the past know that certainty is 
important for businesses, and we will be over a year behind.
    Will you commit to working with me, to help make sure that 
the bureaucracies are following the law and fulfilling their 
obligations, for example in this case specifically, to get the 
RVOs out on a timely basis?
    Hon. Vought. Yes, Senator.
    Senator Ricketts. Great. And then one last area, since I am 
running out of time here real quick. We must tackle the 
national debt. It is biggest internal threat. We have kind of 
talked about it already, but the Chinese Communist Party is the 
biggest external threat we face as a nation.
    How will you ensure that we are protecting federal dollars 
in the contracting process, to make sure that our adversaries 
and entities that are hostile to us, like the Chinese Communist 
Party, are not being subsidized by our American tax dollars, 
and how will you advise the administration on that?
    Hon. Vought. Well, it will be a priority through our role 
in advising contractors and the agencies that are engaged with 
them. In the first term, we had a lot of work that we were 
doing on behalf of the laws that were passed, to make sure that 
Huawei was not a part of getting taxpayer contracts, and that 
will be a trend that we will continue.
    And we will be working with you on any new laws that are 
put forward, and looking closely at the statutes that are 
already in place.
    Senator Ricketts. Thank you, Mr. Vought. I appreciate it. I 
have run over my time, but you also have very cute daughters. I 
am glad they are here today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Graham. Senator Van Hollen.

                STATEMENT OF SENATOR VAN HOLLEN

    Senator Van Hollen. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Vought, 
good to see you. Look. We are just a few days into the Trump 
administration and already seeing a huge gap between what 
candidate Trump ran on, which was helping working men and women 
in this country, and what he is actually focused on, including 
recently pardoning people who had been convicted of assaulting 
and bludgeoning police officers, including an Executive Order 
that stops ongoing initiatives to reduce the costs of 
prescription drugs, including, as we have heard today, a 
renewal of a tax plan that disproportionately benefited the 
very wealthy and the biggest corporations at the expense of 
other Americans.
    As we saw on the dais during the swearing in, the golden 
age for America will be great for the billionaire tech titans, 
who had seats better than those of the incoming cabinet 
officers. So, President Trump was very clear that he is going 
to govern in a way that was different than candidate Trump.
    You are going to play a very instrumental role in this 
administration if confirmed, and I believe that the best way to 
sort of judge or guess what the future looks like in terms of 
your conduct is to look at the past, and in December 2019 I 
wrote to the GAO, asking them if OMB, you, the previous Trump 
administration, had violated the Impoundment Control Act (ICA) 
by withholding funds from Ukraine.
    And in January, I got the response back and their 
conclusion was yes, that you had violated the Impoundment 
Control Act. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
letter I received from GAO be entered into the record.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Document submitted by Senator Van Hollen appears in the 
appendix on page 136.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Chairman Graham. Without objection.
    Senator Van Hollen. Now I listened very carefully to the 
exchange you had with Senator Murray, and you had a very clear 
opportunity to say yes, you will comply with the Impoundment 
Control Act. I did not hear you say that. So just to give you 
another chance, will you comply with the Impoundment Control 
Act?
    Hon. Vought. Senator, the President ran against the 
Impoundment Control Act----
    Senator Van Hollen. This is--Mr. Vought, I know what the 
President did. He wants to change lots of things. He can submit 
legislation to do that. But you are going to be the head of OMB 
and here today at this hearing, you are refusing to commit to 
comply with the Impoundment Control Act. Is that right? Are you 
refusing to commit to complying?
    Hon. Vought. Senator, the administration has to go through 
a policy process to understand the legal parameters for 
operating in the ICA.
    Senator Van Hollen. Okay. I am going to reclaim my time. I 
am sorry. I was just--it seems that complying with the current 
law, even if you disagree with it, would result in a clear 
answer. Yes, I will comply with current law including the 
Impoundment Control Act.
    Let me turn to Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). 
All of us support greater government efficiency. I would like 
to see it in many different agencies, including the Pentagon, 
which is the one agency which has continued to fail audits.
    Now Elon Musk is going to head up DOGE, and what I am 
worried about DOGE is that it will not bring efficiency, but it 
will open the door to political cronyism. So my question to you 
is this. Will Elon Musk and the other folks at DOGE, will they 
be required to recuse themselves from recommending changes to 
programs in which they are huge beneficiaries, because I think 
as you know, Elon Musk has lots of interests in government 
actions and government contracts.
    So, will those members be--have to recuse themselves from 
putting forth proposals in areas where they have a clear 
conflict of interest?
    Hon. Vought. Senator, this administration has the highest 
ethical standards and anyone who is a federal employee will be 
going through the recusal process and the ethics process that 
is expected and required for all employees of the federal 
government.
    Senator Van Hollen. So they will be? Good. Now I just want 
to pick up on the quote that Senator Kaine and Senator Warner 
mentioned about traumatically inflicting, you know, trauma on 
federal employees. I just--this is an opportunity for you to 
retract that statement and apologize to the civil servants. Do 
you want to use this opportunity to do that?
    Hon. Vought. Senator, as I have said before, I was 
referring specifically to weaponized bureaucracies that are 
aimed against the American people themselves, and the 
President, that was their boss, the person that was put in 
charge of that.
    Senator Van Hollen. I have looked at the transcript. It was 
much broader than that. It was not just focused on those 
individuals. I will say on Schedule F, and this is my last 
question, because there are lots of concerns that this will be 
used to convert a merit-based civil service, which we have 
today, into one based on political cronyism.
    So if you were successful at going through with Schedule F 
and you decided to fire an individual, would they continue to 
have the due process rights that merit-based civil servants 
have?
    Hon. Vought. Senator, Schedule F is not a tool to fire 
individuals. It is something that is--so that the President 
gets people who are policy-based, confidential staffers that 
are still merit, are still career. They are still----
    Senator Van Hollen. Mr. Vought, I am sorry. My question was 
if you choose to fire somebody, are you firing them at will or 
will they have the due process rights that currently apply to 
merit-based civil servants, to avoid having them fired for 
political reasons?
    Hon. Vought. Senator, Schedule F is a different 
classification. It is meant to ensure that the administration, 
the President has people who are working for him that are 
actually going to do the policies that he ran on, that he is 
articulating.
    We think that is an important fundamental principle, and it 
does not mean that we have any intent to use that to fire 
career civil servants. I worked with them. I value the work 
that they do. I hope that the same people there that was 
working for--I had one person that was there from Jimmy Carter. 
I actually had a person there from Lyndon Baines Johnson (LBJ).
    I love the fact that the career individuals from OMB bring 
with them that expertise, to be able to advise us on our 
policies. It is not a desire to just fire anyone that has that 
classification.
    Senator Van Hollen. I understand. But Mr. Chairman, let the 
record show I asked simply whether those individuals, when they 
are fired, would have any due process rights as they currently 
have within the merit-based civil service, and the answer--it 
was not--I was not given an answer.
    Chairman Graham. Well, as I understood it, you are not 
firing anybody. You are just saying if you are going to be in 
this job, you need to be like moving in the direction the 
President's going.
    (Simultaneous discussion.)
    Senator Van Hollen. But if you do fire somebody--but if you 
do fire someone in one of these jobs----
    Chairman Graham. Sure, yeah.
    Senator Van Hollen. Then does that person have any due 
process rights?
    Chairman Graham. I just do not think there is a right to a 
particular job in the government is what we're all saying.
    Senator Van Hollen. No, the question is right to due 
process and not being fired for political reasons.
    Chairman Graham. Senator Moreno.

                  STATEMENT OF SENATOR MORENO

    Senator Moreno. Thank you Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Vought. 
You have two shots, two interviews with me. So you have double 
bonus here, so you did a great job in the Homeland Security 
Committee.
    Appreciate your transparency, your answers, and I will 
start where I ended in that session, which is thank you. Thank 
you for your willingness to serve. Thank you for your 
willingness to put yourself through this process, and thank you 
for the great thought and intellect that you are going to bring 
to this job.
    Since this is a meeting where we should be questioning you 
and not just giving you opinions that you respond to, if it is 
okay I will give you some quick ten questions. Is that okay?
    Hon. Vought. Sure.
    Senator Moreno. So there has been a lot of comments, 
especially from the Ranking Member about betraying working 
Americans. So let me ask you a question. When the government 
forgives the debt of people who paid, took out a loan for 
college debt, does that help working Americans like my 
technicians, my sales consultants, my receptionist, my drivers, 
my car wash guys who did not go to college? Does it help them 
when student debt is illegally forgiven?
    Hon. Vought. It does not.
    Senator Moreno. When you have insane government spending 
that unleashes generally high inflation, that makes going to 
Taco Bell a luxury, does that help working class Americans?
    Hon. Vought. It does not.
    Senator Moreno. When you spend hundreds of billions of 
dollars to fight endless wars in foreign countries that most 
Americans do not even know where they are, does that help 
working Americans?
    Hon. Vought. No.
    Senator Moreno. When you have policies that all of them 
voted for, every single one of them voted for electric vehicle 
subsidies, so that when I had a Rolls-Royce dealership, a 
customer could come in and lease a $515,000 Rolls-Royce 
Spectre, that's a fully electric Rolls Royce and get a check 
for $7,500 from the U.S. government, does that help working 
class Americans?
    Hon. Vought. No.
    Senator Moreno. And again, I just put on the record that 
every single one of my colleagues on the Democrat side voted 
for just such a subsidy. When you house illegals in this 
country, people are not invited here like I was, like my family 
was, when you house them luxury hotels at a cost of $6,000 per 
month per room, does that help working class Americans?
    Hon. Vought. No.
    Senator Moreno. When you give health care to those very 
illegals, when Americans do not have the health care that they 
need, does that help working class Americans?
    Hon. Vought. No.
    Senator Moreno. When you provide food to illegals, and in 
some cases when they do not like the food, you give them 
thousand-dollar prepaid credit cards, does that help working 
class American citizens?
    Hon. Vought. No, sir.
    Senator Moreno. When you give sex change operations to 
illegals, does that help working class Americans?
    Hon. Vought. No.
    Senator Moreno. When you offer Diversity, Equity and 
Inclusion (DEI) courses, and instead of being promoted based on 
merit and rather you have this insane move to DEI, does that 
help working class Americans?
    Hon. Vought. No.
    Senator Moreno. And when you fly immigrants from foreign 
countries to the United States on private jets, does that help 
working class Americans?
    Hon. Vought. No.
    Senator Moreno. So last question for you, you can answer it 
however you would like, Mr. Vought. Why do you think hourly 
wages for working class Americans declined under the policies 
of Joe Biden and Democrat control of Congress, and yet when 
President Trump was in the White House, hourly wages actually 
went up for the first time in a generation?
    Hon. Vought. Well Senator, thank you for the question. I 
think it is because we had an administration that was doing 
everything it can to unleash the American economy, have cheap 
energy, to be able to have a regulatory sector that was not 
adding burdens that was not worth it from a cost-benefit 
perspective, and to free the American people and entrepreneurs 
to take risk and to hire people and to increase salaries.
    And I think you get that with the policies that the 
President has run on, and I think we are going to see that in a 
very soon amount of time.
    Senator Moreno. So if you were to say who betrayed working 
class Americans, was it Joe Biden and the Democrats or 
President Trump?
    Hon. Vought. It certainly was not President Trump.
    Senator Moreno. Thank you.
    Chairman Graham. Senator Lujan.

                   STATEMENT OF SENATOR LUJAN

    Senator Lujan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Mr. 
Vought, you authored sections of Project 2025, which sets forth 
a blueprint for dangerous plans under this new administration.
    You will have an enormous responsibility at OMB and given 
your record, I have serious questions about whether you can be 
trusted to carry out the law and safeguard programs that many 
Americans rely on like Medicare and Medicaid, Social Security 
and many more.
    You also authored this 2023 budget proposal at a foundation 
that I believe that you helped to found over at the Center for 
Renewing America; is that correct?
    Hon. Vought. I did help found the Center for Renewing 
America and put that together.
    Senator Lujan. And you stand by your name?
    Hon. Vought. Senator, I am not here to talk about the 
proposals of the Center for Renewing America.
    Senator Lujan. That is not my question. Mr. Vought, my 
question is a simple one. Do you stand by your--do you stand by 
your name?
    Hon. Vought. I do stand by my name.
    Senator Lujan. Do you stand by your word?
    Hon. Vought. Yes, sir.
    Senator Lujan. Well, I appreciate that because you signed 
this document. This is your signature?
    Hon. Vought. Yes, sir.
    Senator Lujan. Appreciate that. Mr. Vought, in 2021, what 
was the reason for founding this center?
    Hon. Vought. We wanted to continue the work on policies 
that were based on the principles of President Trump running 
for office in his first term, and we wanted to make sure that 
the political class here, the agenda-setting functions were not 
going to ignore those important America First perspectives.
    But again Senator, I am not here on behalf of the Center.
    I am here on behalf of the President's policies that he ran 
on.
    Senator Lujan. Appreciate that.
    Hon. Vought. And he is already acting on.
    Senator Lujan. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 
submit this into the record.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Document submitted by Senator Lujan appears in the appendix on 
page 170.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Senator Lujan. Mr. Vought, do you know how many families 
receive assistance through the Low-Income Energy Assistance 
Program?
    Hon. Vought. Not off the top of my head.
    Senator Lujan. Would you surprise you if it was estimated 
about 5.9 million families, according to the National Consumer 
Law Center?
    Hon. Vought. It would not.
    Senator Lujan. Your 2023 budget from Center for Renewing 
America proposed eliminating Low-Income Home Energy Assistance 
Program (LIHEAP) funding entirely, which would force millions 
of Americans to see skyrocketing energy costs, especially this 
week as temperatures are dipping below zero across the country.
    I think that is important, especially to those of us who 
represent states where many of our constituents depend on these 
programs when it gets cold. Mr. Vought you authored Chapter 2 
of Project 2025 titled ``Executive Office of the President of 
the United States'' correct?
    Hon. Vought. Yes, sir.
    Senator Lujan. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent to enter Chapter 2 of Project 2025 into the record.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Document submitted by Senator Lujan appears in the appendix on 
page 145.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Chairman Graham. Without objection.
    Senator Lujan. In this chapter, you wrote that ``the Trump 
administration must reaffirm its commitment to `preventing drug 
use before it starts, providing treatment that leads to long-
term recovery.' '' Mr. Vought, do you know that Medicaid is the 
largest payer for substance abuse disorder services in the 
United States?
    Hon. Vought. Yes, Senator.
    Senator Lujan. About 38 percent of folks in this space 
depend on that program. But in the budget from your group, the 
Center for Renewing America, you included significant cuts to 
Medicaid, a total of $2.3 trillion of cuts over 10 years.
    Now Mr. Vought, on April 8th, 2024 you tweeted that 
``defending life is the most important thing to me.'' Does that 
sound correct?
    Hon. Vought. Senator, on behalf of the administration, I 
will be putting in place the President's views on life and 
abortion.
    Senator Lujan. Mr. Vought, do you know that roughly or do 
you know what roughly percentage of American babies are born 
with Medicaid health coverage every year?
    Hon. Vought. I do not know.
    Senator Lujan. About 41 percent. Would that surprise you?
    Hon. Vought. It would not.
    Senator Lujan. In your same budget, you called to eliminate 
the federal matching percentage floor for states. This would 
eliminate crucial investments that will put the health care of 
pregnant mothers in jeopardy. Your budget says that it would 
cut over $650 billion from that program alone.
    Hon. Vought, do you know that Head Start promotes school 
readiness for children from birth to age five?
    Hon. Vought. Yes, Senator.
    Senator Lujan. Do you know how many children were served by 
Head Start in Fiscal Year (FY) '23?
    Hon. Vought. Not off the top of my head, Senator.
    Senator Lujan. Over 770,000 children. Your budget proposes 
a 50 percent funding reduction for Head Start programs. In your 
budget, you included a standard that said ``Head Start 
participants have worse behavior and academic outcomes than 
children who do not enroll in the program.''
    Two members of this Committee are Head Start graduates, 
including myself. Does that surprise you?
    Hon. Vought. No.
    Senator Lujan. That outcomes from Head Start guide a couple 
of folks to the United States Senate?
    Hon. Vought. It does not surprise me, Senator.
    Senator Lujan. Would you like to apologize about that 
statement?
    Hon. Vought. I was not referring to anybody in particular, 
Senator. We were looking at the program, the reforms that were 
a part of that proposal, and that proposal is not an 
administration document, and I am not here to defend it.
    Senator Lujan. I appreciate it. Mr. Chairman, could I add 
to the record a document from the National Head Start Alliance 
that cites over 30 studies that find the advantage for Head 
Start kids.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ Document submitted by Senator Lujan appears in the appendix on 
page 284.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Chairman Graham. Absolutely.
    Senator Lujan. And Mr. Chairman, just one last question on 
Native American programs around safety. Mr. Vought, I assume 
that you support making American communities safer?
    Hon. Vought. Yes, sir.
    Senator Lujan. Does this include Native American 
communities surrounding rural, local and border towns?
    Hon. Vought. Yes, sir.
    Senator Lujan. Do you plan to defund Bureau of Indian 
Affairs (BIA) and tribal police again as you did under your 
first tenure in OMB?
    Hon. Vought. Senator, we have not begun the budget process. 
I am not confirmed and will not be able to comment on what a 
future budget, where we do not have a fiscal goal that the 
President has agreed to would look like at this point.
    Senator Lujan. You are not willing to say no today?
    Hon. Vought. I am not willing to comment on any programs 
that have not been articulated as part of the budget process 
that has not----
    Senator Lujan. Appreciate that. Mr. Chairman, I just hope 
that in this case when we talk about border security, safety in 
our communities, bipartisanly we have worked on several of 
these committees to improve law and order, support for the 
Bureau of Indian Affairs with Native American police officers, 
things of that nature.
    This is an area where there is bipartisan support to 
protect these programs, and I hope that we can continue to do 
that. I yield.
    Chairman Graham. Thank you very much. Senator Scott.

                   STATEMENT OF SENATOR SCOTT

    Senator Scott. Mr. Vought, congratulations.
    Hon. Vought. Thank you.
    Senator Scott. You did a great job under the first Trump 
administration, and I know you are going to do a great job 
under this administration, and I look forward to working with 
you.
    We have seen the bloating of the federal government under 
the Biden administration. In the last 4 years, he has added $8 
trillion to the national debt, increased our federal spending 
by 53 percent, while population growth was 2. We can't continue 
down this path of spending way above pre-pandemic levels, and 
with the past 4 years of Joe Biden, there has not been any 
serious discussion or plan on how to control spending or reduce 
our $36 trillion of debt. In the last--I mean this is just 
crazy where the debt is.
    Can you talk about this existential threat to our economy 
and what we are leaving to our children if we do not address 
it?
    Hon. Vought. Well, we are currently living in a--a legacy 
of debt and higher taxes if we do not deal with the fact that 
as a country, we are spending too much. And that is one of the 
reasons that we have consistently in the first term put forward 
budgets that would address the fiscal situation, have 
commonsense reforms, savings, get a handle on the agencies that 
we think are wasting taxpayer dollars, and also to keep the 
economy growing.
    I mean that is a part of what is necessary to balance the 
books. You have got to also have a dynamic accounting where you 
bring revenues in, and that is something that is going to be 
very, very important for this administration.
    Senator Scott. I went to a drive-through restaurant the 
other day, and one of the ladies said to me, she said that she 
moved to Florida when I was governor because she thought she 
could get a job, and she clearly did. We added 1.7 million 
jobs. But she said the last four years with the inflation, she 
is finding it very difficult to--to survive. She has got two 
little kids.
    So what are some of the policies that could be implemented, 
not that you--you know, you have not done this yet. What are 
some of the ideas that President Trump could implement to start 
reducing inflation?
    Hon. Vought. Well Senator, we are clearly going to address 
the spending side. The President has instituted, created a DOGE 
in addition to OMB. He has already put out an EO to unleash 
American energy and directing all the agencies to be trying to 
do everything they can to get permits going, to be able to get 
rid of regulations that are binding, the pursuit of American 
energy.
    And then the deregulatory process of getting that back up 
and running. The President has given us a new goal. In the 
first term, we had a two for one goal, now we have one for--ten 
for one. We think we can hit that. We overshot the first goal 
and we fully intend to do our best to hit that goal.
    But those are all things that are going to be impacting the 
bottom line, the pocketbook of the person that moved to Florida 
for that--for that precise reason.
    Senator Scott. So if we do not--you know, you have seen 
some of Senator Ron Johnson's work he has put out, that how 
much the budget has just grown. If you look at inflation 
adjusted since Clinton, the inflation adjusted after Obama, it 
is just--it is staggering how much it has grown.
    So what is--what is the chance that we are going to see a 
significant reduction in interest rates, which are hurting 
people, the high interest rates under Biden? What is the chance 
that we are going to see inflation come under control if we do 
not get this budget down?
    Hon. Vought. I think those two come together. I think you 
have got to tackle your budgets, your spending to be able to 
have a shot at taming inflation, about having interest rates 
that can come down. Obviously when we left--when we left 
office, interest rates were nowhere near where they are. The 
debt was--we spent $350 billion on interest payments the last 
year that I was there.
    We are now up to about $900 billion in interest payments 
beyond what we spend in defense. So this is--this is the wrong 
trajectory that you want to be on, and we fully intend, if 
confirmed for me to have a role in changing that course.
    Senator Scott. So this is not the easiest job you had 
before. It is not the easiest job you are going to--you are 
going to, you know, do again. Why do want to do this?
    I mean it is work to try to eliminate the cruel inflation 
and the impact on people's inability to buy a house because of 
interest rates and things like that. Why would you want to do 
this?
    Hon. Vought. Well, I think that I bring a particular 
expertise, having done the job before, that I want to be able 
to hit the ground running. And it is very rare that you have a 
chance to do a job better after thinking about it for four 
years, and I am very thankful that the President has given me 
this opportunity and I hope that--hopefully I get through it as 
a confirmed appointee.
    Senator Scott. Alright. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Graham. Thank you. Senator Padilla.

                  STATEMENT OF SENATOR PADILLA

    Senator Padilla. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Vought, thank 
you for being here. I cannot help but notice how many times I 
have heard throughout the hearing today your argument that the 
Impoundment Control Act is unconstitutional. But the fact that 
the incoming general counsel at OMB, along with you in your 
final days of the first Trump administration, specifically 
requested legislative adjustments to the Impoundment Control 
Act.
    So what that tells me is that you do in fact understand the 
constitutionality of this law as not just currently on the 
books but upheld by the courts. In your testimony here today 
and through how you served in the first Trump administration, 
it also strikes me you come across as someone who thinks they 
know better than Congress, better than this Committee, and at 
times even better than the President during the first Trump 
administration.
    You testified last week that you have been thinking about 
returning to the OMB for the last four years, and I can only 
hope and pray that should you be confirmed, that you would 
uphold the Constitution above all else. I mean I normally thank 
folks willing to put themselves out for a position of public 
service for their willingness, because it is not easy.
    My colleague Senator Lujan raised some of your 
contributions to Project 2025, and in that Project 2025, you 
write that the OMB Director should be ``aggressive in wielding 
the tool of apportionment on behalf of the President's 
agenda.'' And ``defend the apportionment power against attacks 
from Congress.''
    It is particularly striking that there are so many members 
of this Committee that seem eager, anxious, ready to vote for 
your confirmation, when there is a clear disregard and disdain 
for Congress' appropriation authority. Frankly Mr. Chairman, 
you are one of the appropriators. I wish you would join us in 
trying to drive home this point, because it is setting the 
stage for how we will be working together over the next four 
years.
    I have to take this opportunity to echo Senator Peters, who 
raised a specific concern during your hearing in the Homeland 
Security Committee last week, outlining the fact that your 
record is particularly concerning for disaster impacted states, 
given your previous unlawful actions to politicize, withhold 
and slow the distribution of disaster or even foreign aid.
    So my question to you is this, Mr. Vought. If confirmed, 
will you or will you not politicize disaster funding and deny 
funds provided by Congress for American families and businesses 
that have been devastated by natural disasters?
    Hon. Vought. Senator, I would not politicize the disbursing 
of federal funds in any capacity----
    Senator Padilla. Well, that is great to hear, because you 
say you are going to implement the President's agenda, and I 
have been paying very close to his remarks since the outset of 
the devastating fires in Southern California these last few 
weeks.
    I would like to ask you, Mr. Vought, will you commit to 
getting Congressionally appropriated funding out to 
Californians devastated by these fires as quickly as possible?
    Hon. Vought. Senator, the President has always been a firm 
distributor of federal resources to areas that need disaster 
money, and I do not expect that to change. And that has been--
that has characterized my time at OMB the first time around. To 
your earlier question, I do support and will take an oath to 
uphold the Constitution, and that will continue if confirmed in 
this capacity.
    Senator Padilla. So two comments, just again for the 
record. Glad you are pledging to uphold the Constitution 
because the Constitution and the law is clear as it pertains to 
the Impoundment Control Act. So unlike some of your clearly 
understood efforts in the first term, I hope you do not go back 
to those bad faith practices and efforts in the second term, 
and you are suggesting that you are not going to politicize the 
disbursement of funds. You are going to get them out the door 
as quickly as possible.
    Again, I would appreciate you for living up to that 
commitment that you stated here today, because I continue to 
hear comments from President Trump from leaders in--Republican 
leaders in Congress on both sides of the Capitol, about 
attaching disaster funding to a debt limit vote or attaching 
disaster funding to some other element of the new 
administration's agenda, whether it is tax breaks for 
billionaires, or whether it is some unrelated issue in Northern 
California as it pertains to federal land management or 
anything else.
    So thank you for your comments on the record. I look 
forward to holding you to them.
    Chairman Graham. Thank you. Senator Marshall.

                 STATEMENT OF SENATOR MARSHALL

    Senator Marshall. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
Welcome, Mr. Vought. Glad to have you here. I think I want to 
speak today in terms of hard-working families in Kansas. The 
average salary back home for hard-working Kansans is about 
$50,000 a year.
    Over the last 4 years, we have seen cumulative inflation of 
20 percent. So that $50,000 only really can purchase about 
$40,000 worth of goods and services, almost $1,000 a month hit 
to the average Kansan. When we think about the Trump tax cuts 
though, they put a--those put $1,000 a month back into the 
pockets of Kansans.
    Overall, if this Trump tax cut goes away, it is going to 
cost Americans about $4.3 trillion over 10 years. Middle 
America is going to get hit without about 60 percent of that. 
Again, $1,000 a month. If those tax cuts go away, it is going 
to impact hard-working Kansans to the tune of $1,000 a month.
    I just want you to comment just a second on how big of a 
priority getting these tax cuts made actually permanent would 
be, and how it would impact our economy and those hard-working 
Kansans back home?
    Hon. Vought. Oh I think, Senator, thank you for the 
question. I think it would devastate their bottom line, and 
having to face a massive tax increase that they are not 
prepared for, nor should they. I think there should be, and the 
President has run on this, an extension of the tax cuts and 
some of the other provisions that he has proposed on the 
campaign trail.
    And we have got to go after the spending. We have to go 
after insuring that we have or producing as much American 
energy as we possibly can, and we have got to get beyond the 
regulatory burden that we have put on the American people.
    And I think those are all policies that you will see if 
confirmed me prioritize in this role.
    Senator Marshall. Let us talk a little bit about budgeting. 
Folks back home, they are expected to balance their tax--or 
balance their checkbooks, pay off their credit card debt. 
Unfortunately, they are seeing their credit cards are maxed 
out. It is tough times, no doubt about it.
    But Congress seems to not care about a budget. If Congress 
would go to a zero-based budgeting reform, working with your 
office, what could be the impact of that? And I mean zero-based 
budgeting, even grants. We make grants on five-year terms 
typically. But if we would just start looking at those grants, 
especially the ones that are going out of the country, what 
impact will zero-based budgeting have for--to getting towards a 
balanced budget?
    Hon. Vought. Well, I think what you--the concepts of zero-
based budgeting is that you get a sense of what are the things 
that you have not taken a look at in a long time, and starting 
from the ground up. It does not mean you are not going to fund 
that. Just it means that you are taking an approach to looking 
at each agency spend and where the big dollars are coming from.
    And I think every family does that in America. They look at 
what is the amount that they are going to bring in from a 
paycheck, and then they look at their spending and they say 
what are the big pockets of discretionary funding that they 
could do without.
    And that is what I think that budgeting is about, and I 
think it is important not to lose that level of common sense 
that comes from a family budget, balancing their own books.
    Senator Marshall. Okay. I think, just keeping a little time 
here, to just discuss inflation in general. You made the 
comment earlier that federal borrowing causes inflation, and 
that is pretty intuitive to some of us. But I think I just want 
you to take that just a little bit and explain to again those 
folks back home. When the federal government is borrowing 
money, spending more than they have, how does that lead to 
inflation?
    Hon. Vought. Well, you certainly have more money in the--in 
the system that is coming from federal dollars that are--are 
providing competition and the ability to have prices go up as a 
result of that. And you add the component to which who is 
buying much of that debt?
    Much of that debt it being bought by the Federal Reserve, 
that is printing money to buy that debt, and then goes back 
into the economy.
    Senator Marshall. And of course--and of course that is 
going to impact interest rates as well. So one of the goals 
will be to get interest rates down. What is it going to take 
for interest rates to meaningfully come down, not just because 
of what the Fed is doing?
    Hon. Vought. Well, it is going to require us to get a 
handle on our spending, to begin to have deficits that are much 
more manageable.
    Senator Marshall. Thank you, Chairman. I yield back.
    Chairman Graham. Senator Whitehouse.

                STATEMENT OF SENATOR WHITEHOUSE

    Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and welcome to 
the seat recently occupied by myself. I am delighted to see you 
there and look forward to working with you.
    Chairman Graham. Me too.
    Senator Whitehouse. Mr. Vought, the backdrop to the 
conversation we are having here is indicated by this graph, 
which shows from 1980 to 2020 how income has grown in the 
United States. The bottom line, showing essentially no income 
growth, is the bottom 20 percent of income earners. And as you 
can see, their household income has stayed essentially flat.
    The second line up, this lower one, is how the top 1 
percent of income earners have done. They are up 600 percent 
yearly, compared to near 0 percent for the working people in 
that lowest 20 percent. And if you look at the top-most line 
that is up more than 800 percent, that is top .01 percent.
    What worries me as we go into this effort is that what we 
are trying to produce is a golden age for fat cats, 
billionaires and polluters that is going to make this 
discrepancy worse and worse and worse. And it is in that 
context that I would like to ask you some questions about these 
Executive Orders.
    President Trump fired off 26 Executive Orders I believe his 
first day. Are you familiar with them?
    Hon. Vought. I am getting familiar with them, Senator. I 
have been trying to stay abreast to them and read them. I have 
not read through all of them. But I--I am aware that he has 
been very active and I have been reading a number of them.
    Senator Whitehouse. Did you have any role in preparing any 
of them?
    Hon. Vought. Senator, I am--that is part of the 
deliberative process that transition goes through, and I am not 
going to invade that deliberative process.
    Senator Whitehouse. Wait, wait, wait. Hold, hold. Can we--
can I have a point of order here and stop the clock? I was the 
Chairman--you can put that down now--for a Congress in which we 
had I think over 40 hearings and in those hearings never once 
did I tell a Republican colleague what questions they could or 
could not ask.
    Those are kind of not my business, and we had some pretty 
out there questions, I will tell you, and we certainly never 
had a witness tell Senators what questions they could and could 
not ask. So I want to--I guess I am like why can I not get an 
answer? Is there some new rule in this Committee as to where 
these Executive Orders came from?
    That is perfectly, to me, legitimate Congressional 
oversight. And over and over this witness has told us what he--
what questions he will answer. But the oath he took was to tell 
the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in 
response to our questions.
    So if there is some new limitation about what question I 
can ask, I would like to understand that. If not, I would like 
to have the Chair tell the witness to answer my questions.
    Chairman Graham. Well, as I understand it, there is no 
attorney-client privilege here, right? Are you--you are not--
you are not claiming attorney-client privilege.
    Hon. Vought. I am not claiming a privilege, Senator.
    Chairman Graham. Okay. Yeah, well you are not part of the 
administration. Generally speaking, you know, I guess the 
question is did you advise on Executive Orders and which ones? 
Is that the question?
    Senator Whitehouse. Yes.
    Chairman Graham. Can you kind of--kind of tell us that 
please, if you could?
    Hon. Vought. Senator, I was not a member of the transition. 
I was not a member of the President's campaign.
    Senator Whitehouse. Do you have knowledge of where the 
Executive Orders were drafted?
    Hon. Vought. I do not have a comprehensive knowledge of 
where the Executive Orders were drafted.
    Senator Whitehouse. Do you have any knowledge of where the 
Executive Orders were drafted? Do you know, for instance, if 
some of them came out of language from the Center for Renewing 
America, or some of them came out of Project 2025, or some of 
them came out of the Heritage Institute, or some of them came 
out of the American Petroleum Institute? Do you know an answer 
to those questions?
    Hon. Vought. I cannot imagine they came from Project 2025. 
The President disassociated himself repeatedly from that. But 
no, I cannot give you a comprehensive answer with regard to 
where the Executive Orders were compiled. My assumption is that 
they were compiled within the transition.
    Senator Whitehouse. Well, we will see, because I think 
there is every reason to believe that they came from special 
interests and lobbyists, and we will pursue that.
    Let me ask you about a letter that you wrote some time ago 
on Center for Renewing America letterhead to the Judicial 
Conference. I think it is the only letter that you ever wrote 
to the Judicial Conference. It was dated December 18th, 2023 
and it goes into a certain amount of detail about the Ethics in 
Government Act and about Justice Jackson's financial disclosure 
forms.
    Did you do the research for this letter into the Ethics in 
Government Act and into the Judicial Financial Disclosure forms 
personally?
    Hon. Vought. Senator, our Center did the research on that.
    Senator Whitehouse. And who in your Center did the research 
on that?
    Hon. Vought. Our Center did the research on that, and I 
cannot speak to who did the work specifically on it.
    Senator Whitehouse. You do not know?
    Hon. Vought. No, I did not say that, Senator. I said it is 
not----
    Senator Whitehouse. Why cannot you speak to that? There is 
no privilege about that.
    Hon. Vought. No, but they are--a think tank is a public 
policy organization that has a decision to note who does the 
work on something and who does not do the work on it, and I 
stand by that letter. I have not read it in some time. I am 
happy to look at it, but I am aware that we sent it, that I 
signed it.
    Senator Whitehouse. Did Mr. Paoletta, who is here, have a 
role in preparing this letter?
    Hon. Vought. He is a member of the Center for Renewing 
America, but I am not going to speak beyond that.
    Senator Whitehouse. Here we go again, Mr. Chairman. I am 
not going to speak----
    (Simultaneous speaking.)
    Chairman Graham. He said he stands by the letter. It is his 
letter.
    Senator Whitehouse. That is not the question.
    Chairman Graham. Yeah. Well, he just said it.
    Senator Whitehouse. That is not the question. My time is 
up.
    Chairman Graham. All right, thanks. Senator Lee.

                    STATEMENT OF SENATOR LEE

    Senator Lee. Thanks so much for being here, Mr. Vought, and 
for your willingness to serve. The administrative state has 
been crushing the American economy and American innovation. It 
is also something that operates in a manner that is 
fundamentally contrary to the structure and intent of the U.S. 
Constitution.
    Article I, Sections 1 and 7 make clear that only Congress 
may enact federal law. And Article I, Section 7 in particular 
makes it clear that you cannot make a federal law until you 
follow the formula, and the formula involves bicameral passage 
of a single bill, a single item, legislative text in both 
houses, followed by a submission to the President for 
signature, veto or acquiescence.
    Unless you follow that model, you cannot under the 
Constitution make a federal law. For the last 80 or 90 years, 
Congress has been veering off course in that direction, and 
tragically the courts have been at least inconsistent or you 
might say largely absent in enforcing these restrictions.
    Nonetheless, it is important that we arrest the problem, 
because the problem is arresting Americans, in some cases very 
literally, and not just metaphorically. It is estimated that in 
2024 alone, executive branch bureaucrats in the Biden 
administration promulgated federal regulations that added $1.5 
trillion in regulatory compliance costs just during that narrow 
time period.
    This, on top of previous estimates, suggesting as far as 
back as 2016-2017, that existing regulatory compliance costs 
imposed by federal regulators in Washington, where somewhere in 
range of around $2 trillion. So it is much higher than that 
now.
    These laws are written by unelected, unaccountable 
bureaucrats. They cannot really be fired by anyone. They 
certainly do not even have to stand for election. They are not 
known to the American people. And they promulgate nearly 
100,000 pages of law, federal law or initial drafts that could 
become law every single year.
    A simple solution to that would involve passage of a bill 
called the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny 
(REINS) Act. The REINS Act stands for Regulations from the 
Executive in Need of Scrutiny, would require that all federal 
regulations before they may be enforced as federal law, if they 
qualify as major rules imposing affirmative legal obligations 
on the public, would have to be subjected to bicameralism and 
presentment standard imposed by Article I, Section 7.
    Mr. Vought, what are your views on the REINS Act, and will 
you and the Trump administration work with Congress to enact 
reforms like these?
    Hon. Vought. Thank you, Senator. It is obviously an 
important area for the President, of ensuring that the 
bureaucracies cannot promulgate regulations that are harming 
the economy, harming the American people and it is one of those 
creative ideas that I think Congress should take a strong look 
at, and the administration certainly supports the thrust of the 
direction of the legislation.
    Senator Lee. Now there are--there are those who argue that 
a significant amount of reform to federal regulations and that 
the process itself could be carried out through the executive 
branch itself acting alone.
    What are your views on that and whether that would or could 
adequately do the job? Is there not a risk there that if it is 
performed only by the executive branch, that might bring relief 
to Americans as long as this President is in office, but 
subject us to the same risk immediately after he leaves?
    Hon. Vought. That would be the problem, and we saw that 
with regard to, you know, some of the proposals regarding 
administrative pay-go. When you give the administration or 
whoever the OMB Director is the ability to execute this outside 
of statute, then you have got a situation where you can 
minimize costs and maximize benefits, and potentially escape 
the process of what Congress has intended.
    Senator Lee. I have recently reintroduced a bill in this 
Congress that I introduced last year. It is a bill called the 
America First Act. The America First Act imposes a simple 
principle on American law, a principle that most Americans 
agree with, which is that welfare benefits provided by the 
federal government should be available to Americans, and not to 
those who are not Americans, especially those who are here 
unlawfully.
    It would ensure specifically that only U.S. citizens and 
lawful permanent residents could be eligible to receive 
benefits under programs like Medicaid, SNAP, housing, 
education, some tax benefit programs and a handful of other 
government benefits.
    These are things that impose significant costs on the 
American economy. They are draining resources meant to benefit 
Americans and not those who have come here, contrary to our 
laws, in order to receive them. Mr. Vought, would you commit to 
working with Congress to bring about reforms like these?
    Hon. Vought. Absolutely, Senator. This is exactly the types 
of reforms that the President ran on.
    Senator Lee. Great. I see my time has expired. Thank you 
very much. Thank you, Chairman.
    Chairman Graham. We have one more. You okay?
    Hon. Vought. Yeah.
    Chairman Graham. Senator Wyden.

                   STATEMENT OF SENATOR WYDEN

    Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Vought, let me 
ask you about Medicaid, because you know I am the Ranking 
Democrat on the Finance Committee. I have been perplexed by 
your views about Medicaid over the years, because Medicaid is 
already an incredibly efficient payer within the health care 
system.
    So here we have this program that helps with rest homes. It 
helps with workers. It helps with kids. It helps with disabled. 
The track record is it is efficient. Do you disagree with that?
    Hon. Vought. Well Senator, thanks for the question. I think 
it is the extent to which Medicaid is now----
    Senator Wyden. Yes or no. Do you agree with the point that 
I am making, that Medicaid is efficient, because I have read 
everything you have had to say about it. You are an influential 
figure. Your politics are different than mine, but I look at 
the merits of the arguments. And Medicaid is an efficient 
program that helps vulnerable people. And I want to know, do 
you think Medicaid is inefficient?
    Hon. Vought. Well, I do not know if we are using the same 
definition of efficiency, and I think the challenge----
    Senator Wyden. You use something that would suggest other 
than the point I am making, because every--right now, per 
person spendings grew less than Medicare and private insurance 
over the last few years. So this program that you want to 
clobber, that you want to reduce is more efficient than 
practically a host of other things. And I want to know what 
your argument is for Medicaid being inefficient, which you use 
to justify the cuts.
    Hon. Vought. Well, I am not sure I used efficiency as the 
reason to justify reforms to Medicaid. What I was referring to 
and have, particularly defending the budgets that President 
Trump sent up, is that the populations that you mentioned are 
no longer just the populations of Medicaid.
    But now we have able-bodied working adults that get a 
higher match, and that has taken away from the ability to have 
a focus on those specific populations, because you have states 
chasing the match instead of trying to focus on those that it 
was intended for and weed out improper payments and waste, 
fraud and abuse. And we know that there is improper payments in 
Medicaid to a very high degree.
    Senator Wyden. Well, what we know is that spendings grew 
less in all these other programs, and that the analyses that 
have been done by objective people is dollar for dollar, this 
is an important way to help the poor.
    So we will start with that, and you have not told me 
anything this morning that would suggest that you have a good 
argument that indicates you believe Medicare is inefficient, 
because the facts suggest otherwise, and let us leave the 
record open. You can send me anything you want.
    Let me ask you one other question, because my time is 
short. I think the distillation of the Trump economic program 
is to give tax breaks to all the people at the top, and it is 
going to be paid for by these kinds of cuts, cuts in efficient 
health care programs like Medicaid and hunger programs and the 
like.
    And I would like to know does that concern you at all, that 
we have these values that are going to help the people right at 
the top, at the tippy-top of the top and we're going to cut 
these programs like Medicaid and hunger? Are those your values? 
Do you think that that is something that is in line with 
American values, because I think we want everybody to have a 
chance to get ahead?
    Hon. Vought. Senator, I fully support the notion that we 
want everyone to get ahead, and we would not characterize our 
economic program that way. We think it is important to give 
people tax cuts at all levels. The President wants to extend 
those tax cuts.
    Senator Wyden. Well, what about the vulnerable people who 
are going to get hurt in the process, because no matter how you 
try to reframe this, this is an efficient program, Medicaid.
    It serves some of the most vulnerable people in America. It 
is a lifeline for them, and the people at the top--excuse me. 
The people at the top are going to get the benefits. And I 
gather that you do not have a problem with that, and I think 
most Americans want a sense of fairness that you are not 
offering today?
    Hon. Vought. Senator, I hope there is a better Medicaid 
program, and that Medicaid is an important program for the 
poor, and that they get better health care as a result of the 
reforms that align the incentives, so that states are doing 
everything they can to have the best programs that they 
possibly can, as opposed to expanding them unnecessarily, that 
hurts the federal taxpayer and honestly I believe hurts the 
people that the Medicaid program was meant for.
    Senator Wyden. If you have a way to show that you can make 
Medicaid more efficient, because right now it is clearly 
meeting the objective test of using federal dollars in a smart 
way and do it without hurting them and perhaps, heaven forbid, 
you would take some of the money that is going to go tax breaks 
for people at the top to do it, I will be all ears.
    But right now what I see is a path to hurting many more 
vulnerable people, and instead the money is going to go to the 
people at the top, and I do not think that is right. Thank you, 
Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Graham. Senator Wyden, Mr. Vought. Thank you. Well 
done for appearing before the Committee today. Your full 
statement will be included in the record. The hearing record 
will remain open until noon tomorrow for the submission of 
statements and questions for the record, delivered to the 
Committee Clerk.
    Senator Merkley and I met yesterday. We had a very good 
meeting. Our staffs are working together the best we can. I 
enjoyed our meeting and I thought we had a good hearing today, 
and I will speak later about the Impoundment Act at the mark-
up. I have concerns too, and I will share those with you there.
    But thank you very much, Mr. Vought. Anything? If not, the 
hearing is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 12:11 p.m., Wednesday, January 22, 2025, the 
hearing was adjourned.]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                    BUSINESS MEETING TO CONSIDER THE
                       HON. RUSSELL VOUGHT TO BE
                       DIRECTOR OF OMB

                              ----------                              


                       THURSDAY, JANUARY 30, 2025

                                           Committee on the Budget,
                                                       U.S. Senate,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The hearing was convened, pursuant to notice, at 12:18 
p.m., in the President's Room, of The Capitol Building, Room S-
216, Hon. Lindsey O. Graham, Chairman of the Committee, 
presiding.
    Present: Senators Graham, Grassley, Crapo, Johnson, 
Marshall, Cornyn, Lee, Kennedy, Ricketts, Moreno, and R. Scott.
    Also present: Republican Staff: Nick Myers, Staff Director; 
Katherine Nikas, Deputy Staff Director and Chief Counsel; Erich 
Hartman, Deputy Staff Director; Caitlin Wilson, Senior Counsel; 
Lillian Meadows, General Counsel; Nick Wyatt, Professional 
Staff Member.
    Democratic Staff: Melissa Kaplan-Pistiner, General Counsel; 
Tyler Evilsizer, Director of Scorekeeping.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN GRAHAM

    Chairman Graham. The Senate Budget Committee will come to 
order. Our condolences to Senator Marshall and all those 
affected by the tragic plane crash last night. So we're 
thinking about you and yours. Today we're meeting on the 
nomination of Russell Vought to be the Director of the Office 
of Management and Budget. We usually have opening statements by 
the Ranking member and Chairman. I think he's a great pick. 
Senator Merkley's not here.
    Senator Cornyn. Mr. Chairman, where are the Democrats?
    Chairman Graham. They're not here. They chose not to be 
here. It's their right not to be here, so enjoy the time.
    Senator Cornyn. Slightly juvenile.
    Chairman Graham. But we're here. We'll now move directly to 
the vote. Committee members may also make statements for the 
record to the committee clerk by 12 noon tomorrow. I will note 
that for the record a quorum is present. The clerk will call 
the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Grassley.
    Senator Grassley. Aye. Can I go now?
    Chairman Graham. Yes, you can.
    The Clerk. Mr. Crapo.
    Senator Crapo. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Johnson.
    Senator Johnson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Marshall.
    Senator Marshall. Aye.
    Chairman Graham. Just wait and we vote then go.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cornyn.
    Senator Cornyn. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lee.
    Senator Lee. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Kennedy.
    Senator Kennedy. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Ricketts.
    Senator Ricketts. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Moreno.
    Senator Moreno. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott.
    Senator Scott. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Merkley.
    (No response.)
    The Clerk. Mrs. Murray.
    (No response.)
    The Clerk. Mr. Wyden.
    (No response.)
    The Clerk. Mr. Sanders.
    (No response.)
    The Clerk. Mr. Whitehouse.
    (No response.)
    The Clerk. Mr. Warner.
    (No response.)
    The Clerk. Mr. Kaine.
    (No response.)
    The Clerk. Mr. Van-Hollen.
    (No response.)
    The Clerk. Mr. Lujan.
    (No response.)
    The Clerk. Mr. Padilla.
    (No response.)
    The Clerk. Chairman Graham.
    Chairman Graham. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the ayes are 11 and the nays are 
zero.
    Chairman Graham. The nomination is reported favorably. You 
have till 12 noon tomorrow to make statements. The committee 
stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., Thursday, January 30, 2025, The 
Senate Budget Committee was adjourned.]

                                  [all]