Russell Vought Confirmation Hearing

Dr. Paul (00:00):

… [inaudible 00:00:00] every six months. Now, for the first time in history, servicing our debt has come at a cost that is more than our entire defense budget. Interest now exceeds our military budget. This isn't sustainable. The Office of Management and Budget, or OMB, is the largest office within the Executive Branch, with the primary responsibility of producing a workable budget for the president. Unfortunately, over the past four years, OMB failed to address our nation's fiscal situation, and in fact took actions that accelerated the country's fiscal crisis.

(00:36)
Make no mistake, my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in Congress are also complicit in this reckless approach to spending by refusing to put any meaningful guardrails or parameters on taxpayers' money. For example, each year I put forth a budget, a plan to balance the budget in five years. Last year, I put forth a Six Penny Plan. Started out as a one-penny plan, you could cut 1% over five years and balance your budget, last year it was 6% because of the explosion of money that happened during Covid. Every single Democrat opposed this, and seven Republicans, but we got a big chunk of the Republican caucus on that bill. But instead of taking advantage of an opportunity for fiscal responsibility in 2025, we've added another trillion dollars to our deficit in four months since I introduced my budget. Reports out today were over $700 billion in debt in the last three months.

(01:33)
For years I've been beating the drum on waste in our government. Each year I release a Festivus Report highlighting the new and egregious examples of waste I found. Just last month, I released the most recent iteration of this report, which identified over a trillion dollars in unnecessary and often absurd government spending, such as $400,000 to determine whether lonely rats seek cocaine more than happy rats, $3 million for girl-centric climate action in Brazil, $10 billion in maintaining, leasing, and furnishing empty federal government buildings, $12 million for a pickleball complex in Las Vegas, $4.8 million for social media influencers in Ukraine, $20 million on teaching Pakistan, Vietnam, Colombia, and Brazil how to use fertilizer, $2 million to New York University to study kids looking at Facebook ads about food. The list goes on and on. It is beyond time for our federal government to start taking responsibility for this reckless and irresponsible approach to spending.

(02:50)
While I was disappointed to see our nation's annual budget deficit grow during President Trump's first term, I remain optimistic about President Trump's nominee, Russell Vought. Mr. Vought has been a consistent advocate for fiscal sanity and has continually suggested strategies to decrease excess spending. The director of OMB plays a pivotal role in our economy, especially now. Our government is over $36 trillion in debt and the Congressional Budget Office predicts an average of about $2 trillion per year for the next 10 years. No end in sight.

(03:26)
We need someone with the strength of character, like Mr. Vought, to put the foot down, to put the hammer down and say, "Enough's enough." Mr. Vought is well qualified for this role having previously served as the director in both an official and acting capacity, and as well as being the deputy director. As director, Mr. Vought will be tasked with spearheading the President's budget. He will also be tasked with overseeing agency use of funds, coordinating agency activities across the federal government and working with Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy's Department of Government Efficiency. However, unless the new administration has the courage to tackle entitlement reform, the national debt will continue to explode. I support Mr. Vought's nomination, and I remain hopeful that the incoming administration will take the necessary steps to restore fiscal sanity.

(04:19)
With that, I'd like to recognize the ranking member, Senator Peters.

Senator Peters (04:23):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Vought, welcome to being here before us today. I want to begin by noting that this committee has moved forward with this nomination on a very expedited timeline that has given committee members a very short amount of time to adequately review all the documents and information that our committee normally requires before having a hearing. We have a constitutional duty to thoroughly review the backgrounds, the experience and qualifications of nominees that lead our federal government agencies, and to provide transparency and accountability to the American people. And while I recognize that this isn't your fault, Mr. Vought, we should all be able to agree that this committee needs sufficient time and access to this information to effectively carry out our responsibility. I'll continue to review all the information and documents provided so far, and I also intend to seek additional information about your background ahead of any committee vote on your nomination. The Office of Management and Budget, OMB, is a critical office in the Executive Office of the president, with significant responsibilities ranging from developing and executing the budget to improving agency performance, as well as reviewing regulations. Mr. Vought, you have previously served as both the director and deputy director of OMB. Unfortunately, your record and actions in these roles raise serious concerns about how you're going to lead this critical agency that touches literally every single part of the federal government. Above all, I am concerned by actions you took to demonstrate a total disregard for following the laws that Congress has passed, particularly regarding how to spend taxpayer dollars.

(06:18)
The Constitution, as part of the key checks and balances of our democracy, gives Congress the responsibility to decide how federal resources should be spent. Federal courts have consistently affirmed this Congress's role and not the President. It's Congress's role. As a member of the US Navy Reserve, and again, as a member of the US Senate, I swore an oath to uphold and follow our constitution. It's my expectation that, if confirmed, you will do the same. Yet during your time at OMB, you consistently ignored laws passed by Congress that directed how taxpayer dollars should be spent.

(06:58)
In 2020, an investigation by the Government Accountability Office found that OMB, under your leadership, broke the law eight times. That's quite a record. Eight times breaking the law by directing certain federal agencies to continue to operate during the 2018/19 shutdown. GAO also found that under your leadership, OMB violated the law by withholding vital security assistance to Ukraine that Congress explicitly provided, putting our national security at risk.

(07:32)
In 2021, the Inspector General for the Department of Housing and Urban Development found that again, under your leadership, OMB inappropriately delayed disaster relief funding for Puerto Rico following devastations after Hurricane Maria. People who were hurting, people who were suffering, people who were not knowing where they're going to put a roof over their head, have food in their belly, and you inappropriately delayed disaster funding to those people in need. OMB knowingly delayed getting critical resources to communities following a disaster even after we passed a law specifically requiring the funds to be dispersed on time. As communities across our country continue to face devastating natural disasters, including these recent wildfires in Los Angeles, I find it very concerning that you played a critical role in slowing down needed federal assistance to people who were desperate.

(08:28)
I'm deeply concerned by another action you pushed for during your time in OMB to replace nearly 50,000 nonpartisan career civil servants with appointees whose only qualifications is that they're politically loyal. Politically loyal. Not that they're competent, not that they follow the law, they have to be politically loyal. That's unacceptable. This would've removed employees who have had years of knowledge and experience, and posed a grave threat to our national security. More than 70% of the federal workforce serves in agencies that are critical to our national defense and our national security.

(09:04)
Last September, this committee held a hearing on the issue, and we heard testimony from former national security officials who served under presidents of both parties about how removing nonpartisan career experts would slow down vital services to the American people, make us less prepared for disasters or emergencies, and undermine the public's trust in government. In fact, you have even referred to the dedicated public employees who secure our borders, who are keeping us safe every day on the border, who are responding to emergencies and helping those who have been devastated by natural disasters, and folks who ensure that Americans get things like their social security checks on time, which every senior citizen needs, and you refer to these people as, quote, "Villains." These people who are doing this work every day, you refer to them as "villains". Statements like this reflect a troubling disregard for the dedicated civil servants who work tirelessly to support our government and serve the American people.

(10:06)
Mr. Vought, you are one of the architects of Project 2025, which sets forth a blueprint for implementing these unlawful and dangerous plans under this new administration. Leading the Office of Management and Budget is an enormous responsibility, and given you a record, I have serious questions about whether you can be trusted to carry out the laws that Congress has passed under the Constitution. I appreciate you being here with us today to answer these and other questions about how you intend to manage the operation and budget of the federal government if confirmed. And I look forward to hearing your response to questions you'll be getting from my colleagues.

Dr. Paul (10:48):

Russell Vought is currently the President of the Center for Renewing America. During President Trump's first administration, Mr. Vought served as the 42nd director of the Office of Management and Budget, the same position he's being considered for here today. Prior to becoming director, he served as the deputy director and acting director of OMB. Mr. Vought has also served in various roles across Congress throughout his career. Mr. Vought received his BA from Wheaton College, and his law degree from the George Washington Law School.

(11:24)
Mr. Vought, please stand. It's the practice of the committee to swear in witnesses. Mr. Vought, please stand and raise your right hand.

(11:32)
Do you swear that the testimony you will give before this committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Russell Vought (11:41):

I do.

Dr. Paul (11:41):

You are recognized for your opening statement.

Russell Vought (11:50):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, members of the esteemed committee for the opportunity to appear before you today. Let me begin by thanking my girls, Ella and Porter, who are now returning to the scene of congressional confirmation hearings as wily veterans. Their love, and support, and enthusiasm for me serving again is a major reason for why I feel that my going back into OMB is the right endeavor at the right moment beyond my enthusiasm for being at President Trump's side. 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 an entrenched establishment. Making a start in fulfilling that vital promise during my previous time at OMB, as deputy director and director, was among the most rewarding experiences of my career.

(12:48)
Throughout my career, I have been driven by a commitment to taxpayers and their families. Growing up as the son of an electrician and a school teacher, I saw firsthand the sacrifices my parents made to balance their budget and save for the future. They are a reminder of the burden of government spending can place on everyday Americans. My parents and countless others like them have always been the measure of which I evaluate policies and spending decisions.

(13:16)
Today, nearly 80% of Americans do not feel confident that their children will lead better lives than they have. That's nearly double the 40% of Americans who said the same just two decades ago. When I look at government waste and our national debt, I know I fear for my daughters' futures. Almost half of our fellow citizens expect their standard of living to be worse than that of their parents, a critical part of understanding the President's overwhelmingly successful election.

(13:48)
I'm 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 policies across agencies to ensure efficient and effective implementation of the American people's will as expressed by both their legislative and executive representatives. A strong interagency process delivers the best results for all Americans, and I believe OMB's collaborative ethos is key to achieving those outcomes. The civil servants at OMB are among the most resourceful and innovative individuals I have worked with. It has been my privilege to work alongside them and I look forward to leading and supporting them as director once again as we labor to make the American government work again.

(14:43)
We have to use taxpayer dollars wisely, because inflation driven by irresponsible federal spending taxes Americans twice. The average American household has lost roughly 2,000 of purchasing power just since January, 2021. The forgotten men and women of this country, those who work hard every day in cities and towns across this country, deserve a government that empowers them to achieve their dreams. While Office of Management and Budget may not be a household term, the agency's work is profoundly one that impacts their lives. If confirmed, I will continue to serve with the best interests at their heart, to serve and strive to ensure every decision contributes to a more prosperous future for all Americans.

(15:31)
Thank you for considering my nomination. I look forward to answering your questions and the opportunity to discuss how OMB can continue to deliver on its vital mission.

Dr. Paul (15:42):

Thank you. We will now proceed to questions, where each member will have seven minutes. I want to be clear at the outset that the committee will not tolerate any disruptions of today's procedures. The committee will direct the Capitol Police to immediately remove any member of the audience that attempts to disrupt the hearing. Mr. Vought, it's a practice of this committee to ask this question. Do you agree without reservation to comply with any request or summons to appear and testify before any duly constituted Committee of Congress if you are confirmed?

Russell Vought (16:15):

Yes, I will be up here always with the advice and counsel of our team.

Dr. Paul (16:20):

I reserve the rest of my time and recognize the ranking member for his questions.

Senator Peters (16:31):

Mr. Vought, under your leadership in 2019, OMB illegally withheld $214 million that Congress appropriated to the Department of Defense to provide security assistance to Ukraine. The Government Accountability Office concluded that OMB's actions were a violation of the Impoundment Control Act and that your actions then forced Congress to reappropriate the funds. Just four years ago, you told this very committee that under your leadership OMB would abide by the Impoundment Control Act. However, your past actions and public statements suggest that you may not follow this law in the future. So my question for you, sir, is, if you are confirmed as OMB director again, do you commit to follow the law and not allow OMB to withhold funding from programs that Congress has appropriated?

Russell Vought (17:29):

Senator, thanks for the question. I will always commit to upholding the law. I disagree with the characterization of the General Accounting Office. My time at OMB, we followed the law consistently and we will continue to do so

Senator Peters (17:43):

So that you can withhold funds that are appropriated by Congress, you think that's within the law?

Russell Vought (17:47):

Again, Senator, we did not hold, inappropriately, funds. We were engaged in a policy process with regard to how funding would flow to Ukraine. We released the funding by the end of the fiscal year.

Senator Peters (18:01):

Do you believe the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 is the law of the land that you must follow?

Russell Vought (18:07):

It is the law of the land. As you know, the President has run on that issue. He believes it's unconstitutional. For 200 years, presidents had the ability to spend less than an appropriation if they could do it for less. And we have seen the extent to which this law has contributed to waste, fraud, and abuse. But as it pertains to the parameters of how we would use that, that's something that his team will have to consider when they're confirmed in these roles.

Senator Peters (18:33):

So you know that the Impoundment Control Act has created a process that's been held by courts over and over again. Courts in Train versus City of New York have consistently rejected attempts by presidents to withhold funds unless Congress clearly allows it. And Clinton versus New York also determined that laws which allow the president to unilaterally cancel appropriations are unconstitutional. Correct me if I'm wrong, but is there anywhere in the Constitution gives the OMB director to determine whether or not a law is unconstitutional?

Russell Vought (19:05):

Again, there are 200 years of practice by the presidents of the United States have used this-

Senator Peters (19:10):

So you're saying these courts are wrong? That's fine if they're wrong, but these are the laws of the land right now.

Russell Vought (19:15):

I'm aware that they're the laws of the land and the caseload that is on the books. And this is something that the administration will consider when they're in these roles, if confirmed.

Senator Peters (19:24):

So you're going to continue to challenge and break the law going forward.

Russell Vought (19:29):

Sir, I'm not going to continue to break the law. I'm giving you my commitment to uphold the laws of this land. This administration-

Senator Peters (19:36):

And these court precedents? You don't care about the court precedents?

Russell Vought (19:39):

No sir, that's not what I've said. I've said that the president has run on the issue of impoundment and has reminded the country that 200 years of presidents have used this authority, and we'll be developing our approach to this issue and strategy once his administration is in office.

Senator Peters (19:56):

Okay, well, as a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I'm on in addition to this, I've worked very hard with colleagues to negotiate in good faith and reach bipartisan spending agreements. And I'm concerned about your actions and statements about the President going to be able to unilaterally refuse to spend money that Congress has appropriated. I get it, he ran for office, but that doesn't change the Constitution. There are other processes that we have to go through. We don't allow presidents to act outside of the Constitution. I would certainly hope you'd advise the President that he is also bound, that he will take an oath of office here in a few days to uphold the Constitution, and we have to abide by that. Not because you just believe something, there is a process to go through. But my question is, how will Congress be able to negotiate in good faith if the President is simply able to disregard the bipartisan laws that are passed through the appropriation process? How do we negotiate with someone who says, "I'm just going to do what I want. To the hell with the Constitution."

Russell Vought (20:57):

Again, Senator, I think that's a mischaracterization of the President's viewpoint on this matter, and it is not something which would impact bipartisan negotiations, notwithstanding anything that he announces with regard to impoundment.

Senator Peters (21:09):

So if the President can refuse to spend appropriations passed by Congress, wouldn't he now just basically have the power to simply pick all the winners and losers who receive government funding? Basically, he has all that power. Is that what you want?

Russell Vought (21:22):

No, of course not. But again, I'm not going to get into the parameters of the power that requires a policy process by his incoming team.

Senator Peters (21:32):

Very concerning. Congress has granted the President broad authorities to respond to real emergencies and crises, like pandemics and natural disasters. However, past administrations of both parties have unfortunately abused these authorities, as the chairman and I have noted. In fact, Senator Paul and I have worked together on bipartisan legislation to curb the abuse of presidential emergency powers and reassert proper congressional oversight. And I'm deeply concerned about reporting that indicates that you designed the plan to abuse the National Emergency Act, to circumvent laws passed by Congress by moving military construction money to build the border wall. So my question for you, sir, is, do you commit to not recommend the use of presidential emergencies to accomplish the President's policy agenda?

Russell Vought (22:23):

Senator, with regard to that instance in our first term, we were specifically using the transfer authority that had been provided in the language of the Department of Defense Appropriations to be able to transfer that authority to the Army Corps of Engineers for its use on the border wall. It was specifically a transfer authority that Congress had given the President in the underlying appropriation.

Senator Peters (22:49):

You circumvented the laws. I think it's pretty clear. My next question and last question here in my remaining time, will you support efforts to rein in presidential authority and ensure that Congress has a rightful say, that Congress has a rightful say in the use of emergency powers? Will you support those efforts?

Russell Vought (23:11):

I'm not going to to speak on future legislation, but the administration will review anything that comes to their desk. And OMB will have a definite role in reviewing that legislation, as you know, in terms of our Enrolled Bill process for the President.

Senator Peters (23:24):

So, very simple question. Do you believe Congress has a rightful role in the use of emergency powers?

Russell Vought (23:30):

Again, Congress provided the laws that the president uses to declare emergencies. If Congress wants to make changes to those laws, that's their prerogative to do. And the administration will consider those and have a position if those bills get to his desk.

Senator Peters (23:46):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Dr. Paul (23:48):

With regard to the subject, I'm sympathetic to some of the points Senator Peters is making. There was a vote at the time, and I actually voted with many on the opposite side of the aisle to say the power of the purse is Congress's when we decide it's going to be spent somewhere. However, given that that was my position and still is my position, I think there is some debate over transfer authority, and moving money, and what you're allowed to do, and what you're not allowed to do. I disagree with it. I think if we appropriate something for a cause, that's where it's supposed to go, and that will still be my position. But I think there is at least some debate over the legality of repurposing, reauthorize, and the transfer in the law. And if we want to make it less so, we may need to tie up the rules and the boundaries more. See what we do to everything, there's a national security waiver, there's a presidential waiver, all these emergencies. Congress has made the mistake of giving too much power to the executives regardless of party.

(24:46)
So this is something I'm still open to, no matter who is president, and hopefully we can continue to discuss. Senator Johnson.

Senator Johnson (24:54):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me congratulate you on your new position here and say I'm really looking forward to working with you to reinvigorate congressional oversight, which we've allowed to atrophy, quite honestly. So really want to work very cooperatively with you to do so.

(25:11)
First chart I'm going to put up here describes and shows dramatically what bipartisan spending cooperation yields us. In 2019, prior to the pandemic, the federal government total spending was $4.4 trillion. During the pandemic, with the severe recession, trying to help Americans out of that, we went on a massive spending spree and spent $6.5 trillion that year. Now, in an American family, let's say you spend a $100,000 a year, and you have a family member that gets sick, and you have extraordinary expenses, maybe 50,000, you spend 150,000 that year. The following year, if you get well, you don't keep spending 150,000 bucks, and you certainly don't borrow money to do so. But the federal government in effect did the exact same things. For the last five years, we've averaged $6.5 trillion. Last year we spent over $6.9 trillion. This is $2.1 trillion above 2019 levels. This is absurd.

(26:17)
Mr. Vought, do you see any rationale for continuing these spending levels?

Russell Vought (26:22):

No, Senator, and thank you for the question. I mean, we are in a situation, we have $36 trillion in debt, our fiscal house continues to be a mess. When I left office, we were spending about $350 billion in interest per year too much. And we're now in a situation where it has surpassed what we spend on defense. And we have to put forward budgets and spending plans, we have to consider them in Congress, the budget process needs to work again, and we've got to tackle this problem that you're clearly articulating.

Senator Johnson (26:52):

So let's talk about how we reset spending to a reasonable level. Let me put up my next chart.

(26:57)
Another family analogy. Let's say that same family makes a $100,000, and they have a child, so their population grows 25%. So if their income grew from a 100 to $125,000, and let's say throw on top of that 3% inflation, so now you're at $128,750 total income. That family's kept whole, right? No harm. They've been able to maintain their spending level with increased population and inflation. Well, again, I'm trying to figure out some way to justify a lower spending level. So I've gone back in time. I went back to Bill Clinton's administration, 1998, the first year we had a surplus since 1969. Back then, Bill Clinton spent $1.7 trillion. Last year we spent 6.9 trillion. Now, if you take Bill Clinton's spending level, again, I don't think Bill Clinton spent too little, and you inflate the spending to increase or increase it based on population growth and inflation, with this caveat, you slide in President Biden's spending on social security, and Medicare, and interest, you leave those as they are, but you inflate it. That $1.7 trillion would be $5.5 trillion of a baseline spending.

(28:17)
Now, if that's too reasonable for you, and you want to spend more money, you could look at President Obama's 2014 spending. Back then, he spent $3.5 trillion. Now, inflate his base spending, population inflation using Biden's, social security, Medicare, and interest, you'd be spending $6.2 trillion. Those would be reasonable baselines, correct? Now, I also did it 2019. I don't particularly like the result because we'd be at $6.5 trillion. That's not good enough. Let's go to our next chart.

(28:51)
Here's the one, and I think you've got this in front of you, that I want to use. Because we have a new administration, President Trump, the [inaudible 00:29:02] administration, you were probably key in producing this budget, budgeted for 2025 a spending level of $5.4 trillion. So if you take that budget, inflate all the spending except for social security, Medicare, and interest, that is what we spent this year anyway, or projected spend in 2025, the baseline budget would be $6 trillion.

(29:29)
So my question to you is, having gone through this, I realize a lot of numbers, a little bit of a rationale here, why wouldn't this be a very reasonable baseline spending as a starting point for the next 10 years?

Russell Vought (29:45):

Senator, I think it very well could be. I mean, I think we have to get into office if confirmed and look at the numbers, begin the formal budget development for the President's fiscal year '26 budget. Haven't begun to do that. But there's a clear template in terms of the previous budgets

Hon. Russell Vought (30:00):

Budgets that the president has put forward. He put forward more spending cuts and reforms and savings than any president in history. It was largely ignored by Congress. Our hope is that the budgets that he puts forward, that there's more of a take-up rate here in Congress with regard to the spending cuts that are necessary to get us out of this hole.

Senator Johnson (30:19):

Would you agree right now that this is the primary metric that we need to be focusing on is how much in total the federal government spends? It's not… I'm hearing people saying, "Well, in order to sign on to a budget, I've got to see $3 to $5 trillion in cuts." Measured against what? I will just point out by the way, in terms of metric, you started about a $6 trillion level when we're already spending seven. That's a trillion dollar difference over 10 years. That's $10 trillion in reduced spending versus what the current Biden baseline is. I would also ask, do you think any American who voted for President Trump expected that spending levels would remain at Biden levels?

Hon. Russell Vought (31:02):

No. The President ran on the issue of fiscal accountability dealing with our inflation situation, and to your earlier question, Senator, like any family in the country, the main metric with regard to whether your fiscal house is good or not is the extent to what you're spending and the way that drives your debt. And that's the metric and that's the area that we'll be looking at to be able to bring it back into some rationality.

Senator Johnson (31:27):

By the way, I didn't point it out on the previous chart there. I showed the Clinton level, if you inflate that to $5.5 trillion, just happens to match what President Biden is projecting for revenue. If we do this, we're that close to a balanced budget, so it's possible and it's possible using Clinton spending priorities or even Obama spending priorities. I'd just as soon use President Trump's. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Dr. Paul (31:53):

Senator Hassan.

Senator Hassan (31:55):

Thank you Mr. Chair and Ranking Member Peters for this hearing. Welcome Mr. Vought and welcome to your family as well. In 2018, President Trump signed into law of the Support Act, a comprehensive bipartisan package to help address the opioid crisis in this country. The Support Act expanded resources for the state law enforcement officials and first responders who are on the front lines of this opioid crisis by, for example, helping provide overdose reversal medication to states and localities. Unfortunately, Elon Musk killed a recent bipartisan agreement to authorize the Support Act for the next five years, and you've previously supported rescinding funds for fully funded programs that require further authorization. Congress meanwhile has appropriated funds for next year for the support act services. If confirmed, will you commit to distributing funds appropriated by Congress for Support Act programs?

Hon. Russell Vought (32:56):

Senator, thanks for the question. As you know, the opioid epidemic is a huge priority for the President. We'll be taking a look at all of the funds that are necessary to combat that epidemic. I can't speak to it beyond that because we haven't… Not confirmed, we haven't begun that process, but you can certainly be assured that this was something that you heard about in the first term with regard to the President's interest in this area, and I can imagine it will continue to be that.

Senator Hassan (33:24):

Well, let me just be clear here because I'm following up on a point that Senator Peters made. We've appropriated the money. We had a bipartisan agreement to reauthorize the program. So I am disappointed that you won't make a clear commitment here today to ensure that the life-saving program signed into law by President Trump will continue to receive funds that have been provided by Congress. And I urge you to rethink your position as your nomination is considered by the Senate. Government shutdowns put public safety and our national security at risk, but you have repeatedly, Mr. Vought, called for brinksmanship around government shutdowns and opposed bipartisan deals to keep the government open.

(34:10)
In 2011, for example, you wrote in an article that, "Republicans simply must be prepared to shut the government down." That's a quote. "Simply must be prepared to shut the government down." And, "Need to dig deep and embrace the sort of brinksmanship that shows they are playing to win." If confirmed, you'd play a role in negotiations to prevent a government shutdown later this spring. Why have you repeatedly advocated the use of the threat of a government shutdown as a political bargaining chip? If confirmed, would you continue to favor a partisan agenda over keeping the government open?

Hon. Russell Vought (34:48):

Senator? I don't think I have been a person that has wanted to have government shutdowns. I've had to be the one that kept the government open consistent with the law for the longest shutdown in history. I know the impact that it has on the federal government and I want to be a part of a process that sends budgets as soon as they can, meeting all the statutory deadlines to be able to start the process with the appropriators as early as possible so that on a bipartisan basis, recognizing the appropriations bills have to have bipartisan support and to get that done as soon as possible so that you don't have the kind of pileups at the end of the fiscal year that we have seen. And I think the breakdown of the budget process here in Congress is something that has not been good, and I hope that it is brought back to a good degree and that we can have a bipartisan spending process of which I look forward to participating in if confirmed.

Senator Hassan (35:45):

Well, unfortunately, this is a situation where there seems to be kind of a confirmation conversion because your words in articles and in talks reflect a different view about the use of government shutdowns. And I will note that the impact of government shutdowns, not just impact on the federal government, it impacts the American people in significant ways. So this isn't about people in government offices, this is about them and the people they serve in the United States, and that's the reality and that's why it's so important that government, efficient, effective right-sized government continues to stay open.

(36:33)
I'd like to ask you about the non-political role that OMB plays in distributing grant funding and ask for your commitment to fulfill this role in a nonpartisan way. In December, President Biden signed the Grant Transparency Act into law, a bipartisan bill that I worked on with Senator Cornyn to require agencies to provide greater transparency regarding how grant applications are evaluated. The law is intended to provide grant applicants with a clear picture of how their applications will be reviewed so that the grant making process is fair and competitive. So yes or no, if confirmed, do you commit to ensuring that agencies do not evaluate a grant application with the applicant's political identity or views in mind?

Hon. Russell Vought (37:17):

Certainly look forward to looking at that law. Those are the types of transparency laws that we have supported before and many of these new requirements, new transparency initiatives are things that in my first opportunity to do this job, we made a concerted effort to get it done, to actually move forward and not let this be something that we just say, "Hey, we don't have the resources to do," and I look forward to continuing to do that.

Senator Hassan (37:42):

Well, I appreciate that, but the question was yes or no. If confirmed, do you commit to ensuring that agencies do not evaluate a grant application with the applicant's political identity or views in mind?

Hon. Russell Vought (37:54):

If it's the law of the land, absolutely. We have no business in trying to engage in understanding someone's political views.

Senator Hassan (38:01):

If confirmed, do you commit to ensuring that agencies do not evaluate a grant application submitted by a state based on that state's political makeup, whether it is red, blue, or purple?

Hon. Russell Vought (38:12):

Again, Senator, the extent to which we make decisions are going to be based on the policy grounds, the agenda of the President of the United States. We will continue to do that.

Senator Hassan (38:23):

So if the President says to you, "I don't care what the law says, I don't like California and I'm not going to give them the disaster aid they need." You're going to stand up to the President and say, "Sir, that's not appropriate."

Hon. Russell Vought (38:34):

Senator, I don't engage in hypotheticals, but the President would never ask me to do something along those lines.

Senator Hassan (38:39):

Well, history speaks a little bit differently to that point. And if confirmed, would you direct agencies to withhold grant funding from eligible grant applications that hold different political identities or views from President-elect Trump?

Hon. Russell Vought (38:52):

Again, we make decisions at OMB based on the policy grounds, the laws that are in place, and we do not look at people's political inclinations.

Senator Hassan (39:02):

And even if you somehow found out about people's political inclinations, you would not allow that to influence your decision-making at OMB.

Hon. Russell Vought (39:10):

Correct.

Senator Hassan (39:11):

Thank you.

Dr. Paul (39:12):

Senator Moreno.

Senator Moreno (39:16):

See? This is how you know you're a newbie. You don't know to hit the button. Thank you, Mr. Chairman for having me on the committee. Thank you, Mr. Vought, for being here. I probably can't imagine that like me, you're thinking to yourself, "Why am I doing this?" I know. I think about that every once in a while when I'm here because I never thought I would be doing this, so I'm going to confess up front that I've been a fan of yours before I even thought about running for public office, and I think your selection to run OMB is an incredible service that you're about to provide to this country. One of the good news that I've heard so far in this hearing is a lot of talk about the United States Constitution. As you know, when we talked, I wasn't born in this country, I came here as a young kid. I had a tough mom who made me study for the citizenship test. She made me read all 88 Federalist papers as a teenager, and not fun to read today, let alone when you're in your teens. I studied The Constitution up and down, so I have a question for you because you're more the expert than I am, where in the United States Constitution does the bureaucracy stand in terms of power versus the President?

Hon. Russell Vought (40:24):

Senator, it's great question and thanks for the kind words. The Constitution envisions that the bureaucracy would work for the President of the United States in Article II.

Senator Moreno (40:33):

So now I come from the private sector where I ran companies with thousands of employees. I suspect it should work, but correct me if I'm wrong, where if you're the chief executive, that means that all the people that work for you actually work for you. Is that true in government also?

Hon. Russell Vought (40:52):

It is not the case currently, but it is something that as a policy objective, I think our founders would've envisioned it that way.

Senator Moreno (40:58):

So meaning that the President, not Congress, not the judicial branch, has total and complete discretion over who serves at his or her pleasure?

Hon. Russell Vought (41:09):

Again, those are not the laws that are on the books that we know today. The President has many laws and paradigms have been put in place to ensure that the American people's will when they select a President, are not what prevails in the agenda setting process.

Senator Moreno (41:30):

Because I would suspect that most voters, somebody like me who wasn't into politics a few years ago, would suspect that the President is actually the one making these decisions, not some unnamed bureaucrat, whether they're a good person or a bad person or been here for five years or 25 years, that it's the President's agenda that should be implemented. Is that correct?

Hon. Russell Vought (41:50):

I'd hope that would be their suspicion.

Senator Moreno (41:52):

And when you look at the separation of powers, which is a fascinating conversation among the 88 Federalist papers, they were really concerned about the decentralization of power. There's a lot of conversation about what Congress does, what the President does, and what of course, the judiciary does. In your point of view, is it the President's ability to unilaterally terminate student debt, for example?

Hon. Russell Vought (42:19):

No, sir.

Senator Moreno (42:20):

But it seems like the prior administration did that. It went to judicial branch, they found it to be unconstitutional, and yet President Biden continued to forgive student debt. What would be your point of view on that?

Hon. Russell Vought (42:34):

Again, we believe that that was not the right course of action, that the President did not have that authority, and I think an example of Biden administration's unwillingness to follow the law.

Senator Moreno (42:48):

Now, did you find a lot of outrage about that from those who are now asking you the same question about a potential Trump administration? Meaning, if you were somebody who was introducing legislation here in this body to forgive student debt, not something I think we should be doing, I don't think we should be forgiving anybody's debt. We certainly shouldn't have, in my case in Ohio, 70% of the people who didn't attend a college to pay for the 30% who did, but do you find it hypocritical if you're somebody who's introduced legislation to forgive student debt and now is lecturing you about the executive overreach powers, would you find that to be hypocritical?

Hon. Russell Vought (43:30):

I note that I did not find any outrage on the Democratic side with regard to President Biden's actions on that. And I'll just leave it at that.

Senator Moreno (43:36):

And if you don't mind, now, I'll yield a few of my minutes back, but I want to, if you don't mind asking you a personal question, how old are your daughters?

Hon. Russell Vought (43:46):

12 and 10.

Senator Moreno (43:47):

12 and 10. So if they're our age at some point, really old, by the way, if we don't do something, like actually do something serious, when they're in their fifties, Mr. Vought, what will their future be like?

Hon. Russell Vought (44:03):

Less freedom, less opportunity. I mean, the extent to which we don't tackle our fiscal situation means that the amount of burden that's going to inevitably come from higher taxes that's going to inevitably put on their back with regard to debt and what they're inheriting is not what we were given and we were given a better shot. And I think that's one of the things that keeps me up at night is the extent to which we haven't seen progress in the area of dealing with our fiscal situation and that has to change or it's going to have profound impact on the next generation and the next generation of those who are trying to take advantage of this country and the opportunity that it affords.

Senator Moreno (44:47):

And if I could just ask you one last personal question. When you think about what you're going through here in this hearing and what you're about to inherit going into work in a very tough situation, is it fair to say that you're doing this because you genuinely love this country and are concerned about the future of this nation?

Hon. Russell Vought (45:05):

Absolutely. Yes, sir.

Senator Moreno (45:06):

Well, thank you for doing it. I appreciate it. Thank you to your family. It is a absolute sign of patriotism for you to be here. Look forward to having you and every single one of President Trump's overqualified nominees to have this body confirmed so that we can get to work to put this country back on track. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Dr. Paul (45:26):

Senator Blumenthal.

Senator Blumenthal (45:28):

Thanks Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your service, Mr. Vought, and your willingness to come back. Thank you also to your family. As you know in the closing days of the last session, the United States Congress by overwhelming majorities approved disaster relief funding going to the Department of Agriculture, as well as FEMA, for disaster relief all around the country. Will you commit to releasing those funds promptly and fully to the areas that depend on that disaster relief funding?

Hon. Russell Vought (46:07):

We will continue to release the money that's appropriately been funded for these areas as we always have with regard to the FEMA dollars.

Senator Blumenthal (46:17):

So the answer is yes.

Hon. Russell Vought (46:18):

Yes, we will continue to do what we did in the first term.

Senator Blumenthal (46:21):

Well, you won't continue because you're not yet in office. You will release that money fully and promptly to the agencies that can provide that relief. For example, the $31 billion I believe it is for the Army Corps and the Agriculture Department, the $2.2 billion for the small business administration, $29 billion for FEMA. These are specific amounts. How about the 3$.8 billion left for security assistance to Ukraine? Will you release that money?

Hon. Russell Vought (47:04):

Again, Senator, I'm not going to get ahead of the policy process of the incoming administration, but when it comes to responding to the disasters, the President has always been someone that cares deeply about these areas and getting them-

Senator Blumenthal (47:17):

Well, I'm talking about the Ukraine funding, which I believe is essential. The Congress believed it's vital, it's been authorized and appropriated. Will you release that remaining $3.8 billion?

Hon. Russell Vought (47:31):

Again, Senator, I'm not going to get ahead of the President on a foreign policy issue of the magnitude of the situation with regards to Ukraine.

Senator Blumenthal (47:36):

Let me ask you, do you believe the Impoundment Control Act is constitutional?

Hon. Russell Vought (47:42):

No, I don't believe it's constitutional. The President ran on that view. That's his view and I agree with it.

Senator Blumenthal (47:47):

Have you read Train v. New York? That's the United States Supreme Court saying it is constitutional. You're saying that you're going to just defy the courts, the Office of Legal Counsel under both administrations, including then-Attorney Rehnquist, afterward becoming Supreme Court Justice wrote for the Office of Legal Counsel, you are simply going to take the law under your own hands.

Hon. Russell Vought (48:16):

I did not say that, nor did I imply that on behalf of the incoming administration. I said earlier to a question from Senator Peters that the incoming administration was going to take the President's view on this as he stated in the campaign, work it through with the lawyers of the Department of Justice, some of whom who are coming before Congress just today, if confirmed and to put that through a policy process. And I can't prejudge that policy process, but I certainly can't announce the parameters of what it would produce.

Senator Blumenthal (48:44):

I am astonished and aghast that someone in this responsible a position would in effect say that the President is above the law and that the United States Supreme Court is entitled to their opinion, but mine should supersede it. It's just baffling that we are in this, I think, unprecedented moment in the history of this country, and I think our colleagues should be equally aghast because this issue goes beyond Republican or Democrat. It's bigger than one administration or another. It's whether the law of the land should prevail or maybe it's up for grabs depending on what the President thinks.

(49:49)
I think it is fundamental, and I hope you will reconsider this view and I'm going to put it in a question for the record to give you an opportunity to recast your answer, which I think should be disqualifying for both sides of the aisle frankly, because what goes around comes around. The next administration could be democratic, could be independent, but the Supreme Court in Train v. New York said it's constitutional. That's been the clear consensus. So, let me move on. I'm the ranking member of the Veterans Affairs Committee. I'm concerned by your proposal that there should be a means test for who deserves Veterans Affairs disability compensation. For me, nothing's more important than caring for our veterans. I think that is true of many of us on both sides of the aisle. Do you believe that veterans should receive disability benefits only if they qualify under some kind of means test?

Hon. Russell Vought (51:05):

Senator, the President has been a firm supporter of veteran spending, of getting veterans everything that they need, that was always reflected in all of the budgets that the President sent to the Hill. And I fully expect-

Senator Blumenthal (51:17):

I'm going to interrupt you with apologies because my time is running out. Do you believe there should be a means test for disability benefits going to veterans?

Hon. Russell Vought (51:26):

Again, I'm not going to speak to the-

Senator Blumenthal (51:30):

So you're not going to answer that question, but you have in the past taken the position there should be a means test.

Hon. Russell Vought (51:35):

The President has always fully supported veteran spending and put forward everything that they need that the Department of VA does, and I fully expect that to continue.

Senator Blumenthal (51:44):

Do you believe that disability compensation benefits for veterans should be eliminated if any veteran has a disability rating below 30%?

Hon. Russell Vought (51:59):

Senator, I'm not here on behalf of what I think, but I'm here on behalf of the President-

Senator Blumenthal (52:02):

That's the proposal from the Center for Renewing America, the organization that you founded, do you continue to believe it?

Hon. Russell Vought (52:08):

It's a think tank that I currently am the president of, it is not the agenda of the incoming President of the United States, and so I'm here on behalf of being his nominee and doing his budgets.

Senator Blumenthal (52:21):

Is that what he believes?

Hon. Russell Vought (52:22):

Again, you should judge him by the budgets that he sent forward to Congress. And I am here on behalf of the fiscal responsibility that he wants to restore, and I fully intend to do that if confirmed.

Senator Blumenthal (52:37):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Dr. Paul (52:40):

As I said previously, I'm sympathetic not only to the arguments that Senator Peters made, but Senator Blumenthal's making on power of the purse. The only thing I would caution with this is as we debate this, so much of this is because Congress hasn't done a good job with clear parameters. So for example, with the Ukraine money, every week or two you'll see a release of it and there's a great deal of discretion given to the President on when it's released and how much is released. For example, in last fall when we passed the Ukraine money, they decide to call some of it loans. And so, they did. And then a month later they forgave the loans and I was like, "Wow, when are they even supposed to start paying on the loans?" I discovered their first payment wasn't supposed to be made for 40 years.

(53:28)
So that's disingenuous. It's a loan. We're going to forgive it. When were they supposed to start paying? In 40 years. But there's a great deal of latitude and part of this, and this is going to be as it moves forward, if we want to limit what the President does with moving money around, which I'm sympathetic to, we should have the power of the purse. We got to write better legislation. Every piece of legislation that we put out has a presidential waiver for national security, and they always say, "If you don't do that, you're crazy. What about in times of war?" Well, no, they just use that for everything. You're going to find that there's going to be a bunch of issues that there's going to be a emergencies declared on, but Congress led him. So we do need to readdress this and I am sympathetic to it.

(54:07)
Senator Peters and I have a bill on emergency powers that I hope will get a vote, which says that basically presidential powers would expire in 30 days unless approved by us. Now, any presidential powers with either the current President or the next President go on forever unless we reject them with a two-thirds vote, an almost impossible bar. But there is, I think, a difficulty in the witness answering, "Will you spend all the Ukraine money?" Since I think they have… It's complicated and they have all kinds of parameters for how much to spend, when and where, we haven't made it that explicit. That's my only point. Did you want to comment?

Senator Blumenthal (54:42):

I will just say briefly, Mr. Chairman, the reason why Congress writes laws with attempted precision, not always, but sometimes providing latitude is to enable some flexibility in the executive branch releasing funds. That's a prerogative of Congress, but then the President has to obey what we say in releasing the money, and-

Dr. Paul (55:09):

I would just argue we've made the windows too big.

Senator Blumenthal (55:11):

… my comment here-

Dr. Paul (55:12):

The waivers too big.

Senator Blumenthal (55:13):

… goes to obeying the law that has been upheld repeatedly as constitutional as opposed to saying-

Dr. Paul (55:21):

I think it's a valid debate.

Senator Blumenthal (55:23):

… "No, we don't need to obey it because we believe it's unconstitutional."

Dr. Paul (55:27):

I think it's a valid debate and a good debate. Senator Kim?

Senator Kim (55:33):

Thank you Mr. Vought for coming. Did you want to-

Speaker 1 (55:37):

Do we go back and forth between parties or does it go…

Dr. Paul (55:39):

No.

Speaker 1 (55:39):

Okay. They gave a [inaudible 00:55:40].

Senator Kim (55:45):

Well, thank you Mr. Chair for leading this committee. I'm excited to be on it. Mr. Vought, thank you for coming out before us. I want to start by just reading you a quote that you had said and is, "There certainly is going to be mass layoffs and firing, particularly at some of the agencies that we don't even think should exist." I want to just give you an opportunity to clarify, what are the agencies that you don't think should exist?

Hon. Russell Vought (56:09):

Well, I didn't say that. If you go back and look at the video of when I said that in an interview, I said there needs to be, I didn't make an announcement on behalf of the incoming administration that there would be, so I'm not here to do that or to elaborate on any plans to that effect because I'm not sure that they exist.

Senator Kim (56:29):

Okay. Well then, let me go a little bit ahead here. There are some entities within the executive branch that have some space of independence, Federal Reserve and others. You've said in the past, "It's very hard to square the Fed's independence with The Constitution." Can you elaborate on that so I can understand your thinking?

Hon. Russell Vought (56:45):

I'm not here as a think tank president, sir. I'm here as a nominee to be OMB director. The President hasn't spoken on that matter. I'm here on his behalf for his agenda.

Senator Kim (56:55):

Well, I'm trying to, we are trying assess your capabilities to do this job, and I guess I just wanted to get a sense of your understanding of The Constitution and the executive branch, in particular, the President's capacity to be able to shape that. I would like to just ask again, for instance, should the President have the ability to set interest rates?

Hon. Russell Vought (57:16):

Sir, the President has run on the issue of bringing independent agencies in for a regulatory review. He has not spoken to the question that you've just asked. I'm here on behalf… On his behalf. I'm not on behalf of anything that I've stated with regard to policies at the Center for Renewing America and I'm here for his agenda.

Senator Kim (57:39):

Well, I guess I'll ask it in a different way. Do you believe that the President has the authority to set interest rates?

Hon. Russell Vought (57:45):

Sir, I'm not going to speak to the matter. That's a hypothetical that is best entertained-

Senator Kim (57:51):

It's not a hypothetical. I'm trying to get a sense of your understanding of the power of the President. You will serve if confirmed in the office of the President, and I want to have a sense of your understanding of what the President is allowed to do and not allowed to do, and I think that that's a very valid concern.

Hon. Russell Vought (58:09):

Again, Senator, I'm here for the President's agenda and my view of OMB is that it is a very important office. It touches all aspects of the federal government, and that it is important for the President to have someone in this role that wants to accomplish his agenda and not their own personal agenda. That's what I'm known for and that's what I'll continue to be if confirmed.

Senator Kim (58:29):

Well, look, I'll move on to something that's very clearly, not hypothetical then, which is your previous work in the past administration. You said in your written testimony here, "The civil servants at OMB are amongst the most resourceful and innovative I've worked with," but I've also heard you say in other circumstances, "We want the bureaucrats to be traumatically affected. When they wake up in the morning, we want them not to want to go to work because they are increasingly viewed as the villains. We want to put them in trauma." I raised this with you because I was a career nonpartisan civil servant. I worked in multiple departments and agencies, and I guess I just wanted to ask you why you would use a language like villains in talking about people serving our nation.

Hon. Russell Vought (59:15):

In those comments, I was referring to the bureaucracies that I believe have been weaponized, and there are portions of weaponized bureaucracies across the federal government. That doesn't mean there's not amazing career civil servants, many of whom I've worked with at OMB. I look forward to, if confirmed, getting back to work with them and being able to rely on their expertise, their understanding of the federal programs, and to be able to allow them to help us have more implementable policies on behalf of the President of the United States. But I do believe that there are bureaucracies that are weaponized against the American people. When you have-

Senator Kim (59:51):

Even within OMB?

Hon. Russell Vought (59:52):

No, sir. Not within OMB.

Senator Kim (59:54):

Well, I guess I wanted to ask you then, at the end of your term as OMB director, you

Andy Kim (01:00:00):

… Implemented Schedule F and you implemented that as well at OMB. Do you remember what percentage of personnel at OMB you categorized as schedule F?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:00:11):

We implemented it at 90%. Again, Senator, that was not to fire anyone. It was to change their classification.

Andy Kim (01:00:18):

And what is the purpose for the changing of that classification? What does that allow you to do?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:00:23):

It is to ensure that the president who has policy setting responsibility has individuals who are also confidential policymaking positions, are responding to his views, his agenda, and it works under the same basis that most Americans work on, which is they have to do a good job or they may not be in those positions for longer. And I didn't find that to be the case with regard to anyone at OMB.

Andy Kim (01:00:55):

But you felt that it was necessary to take this step still and hang that over them?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:00:58):

Well, the president had a policy. He instructed all agency heads to use the Schedule F classification. You look at OMB, it is essentially all policymaking officials. That's why we had a higher percentage and I am someone that is going to abide by the president's viewpoints.

Andy Kim (01:01:17):

Have you had a conversation?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:01:19):

I think it was a sound policy as it pertains to making sure that the president has career civil servants that are going to give us all of their knowledge and expertise and disagreement at times as to what they think about a potential proposal, but at the same time being aware-

Andy Kim (01:01:34):

Hold on for a second. I just wanted to ask this question, which is… Hold on. Has the president-elect had conversations with you about restarting Schedule F in starting January 20th?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:01:46):

I don't speak to the conversations that I have with the president. Those are private deliberations and I'm not here to announce anything on behalf of day one.

Andy Kim (01:01:53):

When we have these confirmation hearings, we ask those that come before us to let us know what are the priorities of the president when it comes to the work that you do. I want to ask one particular question here. In the first administration or so far in hiring for the second administration, have you or any other managers asked candidates for employment or current employees who they have voted for in the presidential election, what party they are affiliated with or if they have donated to campaigns?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:02:21):

No.

Andy Kim (01:02:22):

You have never? No one that you know of?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:02:24):

No.

Andy Kim (01:02:24):

And if you had heard and understood that some people within the administration or incoming administration are asking those questions, what would be your response to that?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:02:34):

I can only speak for myself, Senator. I haven't asked those questions.

Andy Kim (01:02:37):

Okay. I yield back.

Rand Paul (01:02:39):

Senator Slotkin.

Elissa Slotkin (01:02:42):

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Looking forward to working with you. I'm a former CIA officer and Pentagon Official. I did three tours in Iraq. I worked very proudly for both Democrat and Republican administrations, including in the White House of both. I'm also a Democrat who won in a Trump state. Right? A state that we were both on the ballot. And I think what's interesting is we don't have to guess how you'll be in this job because you've been in the job before. You are kind of the ultimate Washington insider. You've been in for 26 years in this town. You've been on the Senate, you've started a think tank. You've been in and out of different policy jobs. So you're definitely of this town and you clearly know the rules well of this town. You've said, and I agree with you, that a budget is a reflection of president's priorities.

(01:03:38)
And I think the thing that was really disturbing as a Michigander was one of the things you did, three out of the four budgets that you prepared last time, was zero out the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. This huge program to maintain the Great Lakes, 20% of the freshwater of the world, where it took bipartisan work, including potentially senators in this room before my time, to claw that back. We have projects on treating algae blooms and invasive species, cleaning up some of our bays, making sure it's accessible for commercial traffic. What's your view on the GLRI? Are we going to have to have this conversation again when you zero it out in the budget?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:04:28):

I have not started because I'm not confirmed, but working on the president's fiscal year '26 budget. I can't speak to those issues, but I'm happy to work with you on your viewpoints as it pertains to that program and consider all of those and the recommendations we give for the president. Never believe what we end up coming up here in defending.

Elissa Slotkin (01:04:49):

Yeah, I mean, I think it was very bipartisan. There's 465 projects in Ohio, 1,200 projects in Wisconsin, a ton in Michigan, so it's something, but can you confirm you submitted a zeroing out of that program three years in a row last time you were OMB director?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:05:05):

It's been a long time, Senator. I have to go back and refresh my memory on the specifics of our budgets, but I'm happy to do that in the QFRs.

Elissa Slotkin (01:05:12):

Yeah. On the issue of impoundment, I know you've addressed this, but if this group on a bipartisan basis authorizes more money as we do every year for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, that you will spend that money in the Great Lakes States where it was allocated for?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:05:31):

Senator, I'm not going to engage in the hypotheticals with regard to the impoundment conversation.

Elissa Slotkin (01:05:36):

We've heard it. We've heard it. It's okay. So the other question I have is on your views of the civil service, again, as a CIA officer, which is set up and has been reformed over the years, that's for sure, to provide best assessment and advice to the president. You said that OMB was not an agency where you had a bureaucratic problem, but which bureaucracies specifically do you believe have been weaponized?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:06:06):

Again, I'm not going to get into all of the agencies that I believe have some of those characteristics.

Elissa Slotkin (01:06:13):

Let's give an example of one.

Hon. Russell Vought (01:06:13):

Well, I think the Department of Justice is clearly one that has bureaucracies within it that engaged in trying to take out their own president during the first term. The extent to which the FBI goes and investigates someone that comes to a school board meeting in Loudoun County for being concerned about the situation with his daughter and then gets investigated as a domestic terrorist.

Elissa Slotkin (01:06:36):

So the director and the deputy director of these agencies, they're at the prerogative of the president. The president, any president has about 1,500 political appointee jobs that they get to allocate all over the bureaucracy. I don't quibble with that. Do you believe that intelligence agencies and law enforcement agencies need more political appointees to keep management at those agencies?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:06:59):

Again, I'm not going to speak on behalf of a specific proposal that the president has not made on that.

Elissa Slotkin (01:07:04):

But what's your view? Would you support a proposal? I'm just asking. You want the job, you want it back. Would you support a proposal to put more political appointees to oversee the activities of American law enforcement at the federal level and American intelligence community?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:07:20):

Again, the president hasn't spoken to that matter to my knowledge, and I'm not here on behalf of my own personal views.

Elissa Slotkin (01:07:25):

Okay. Again, the feeling that we have, the thing that keeps coming up is, again, I don't quibble at all with the fact that the president is going to put in people that I don't agree with on a policy perspective. That's not my debate. My concern with you and with potential Secretary Hegseth yesterday is that when asked clear constitutional questions about the allocation of money, you can't answer a straight constitutional question. Again, we're going to disagree on policy. There's no question about that and that's not my issue with you. My issue is the constitutional side because you are going to swear an oath to the Constitution, not to Donald Trump, just like any other confirmed official. So can you confirm for me please that you will abide by the Constitution and current law as it is, not what you wish it to be?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:08:20):

I absolutely will abide by the Constitution at all times.

Elissa Slotkin (01:08:23):

Uh-huh. And your interpretation does not, pardon the pun, trump the interpretation of the Supreme Court or at current practice on the books?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:08:33):

Again, administration goes through a very, very extensive policy process with the lawyers of the Department of Justice to abide by the Constitution.

Elissa Slotkin (01:08:40):

You can see how this bureaucratic, wonky answer you keep giving, right? You're claiming to be an outsider that says you're going to shake things up, but you're giving the most wonky answers. I just want to hear that when you hold up your hand, like many of us have done in this room, to put themselves in harm's way, that you're going to protect and defend the Constitution as interpreted by the people who are in a position to interpret it like our Supreme Court. And that's what bothers me about you. It's not that we disagree on policy. It's that basic tenet that a lot of us have had to do in this room on both sides of the aisle. That's all I care about. So with that, I'll yield back, but I wish from nominees that we see across the board, just be straight on the US Constitution.

Rand Paul (01:09:23):

Senator Lankford.

James Lankford (01:09:25):

Thanks, Senator Paul. First of all, it's good to see you again.

Hon. Russell Vought (01:09:28):

Good to see you, Senator.

James Lankford (01:09:29):

You have done a lot of work for the United States. You have sacrificed a lot of time. Your family has paid a big price for that. I say thank you to all of your family and to you. I often will refer to OMB when people will look at me with a confused look like, "What is that?" I will say it is the most important agency you've never heard of. It is a common refrain that everything has to come through there to be checked. You're keeping us out of legal trouble. You're getting the budget train on track. All those things are incredibly important and so I thank you for the work. It is super wonky, super nerdy work, but it is incredibly important to be able to do so. Thanks for stepping into that. I've got several things that I want to be able to talk through. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask permission to be able to put something onto the screen as well. Would that be okay?

Rand Paul (01:10:16):

Without objection.

James Lankford (01:10:16):

Thank you. So you started work when you were at OMB before on a bill that was passed called the Taxpayer's Right to Know to create a federal program inventory. That was great work that you laid. To their credit, the Biden administration and OMB continued that work of working on the federal program inventory. This is what it looks like now. It should be a listing of every program in all the federal government. We've never been able to, as members of Congress or certainly not the public, to be able to say how many programs are out there that do this and to be able to search it. The Biden administration's put together a lot of search features into this, tried to get it out. It's unfinished. There's still more programs and things to get into it, but it is a tool that we look forward to using it. It's been on GAO's top list for years now to be able to actually get done.

(01:11:02)
It's getting done on this, but there's some areas that are unfinished on it that I want to just be able to highlight on it. The Biden administration has done a lot of work to be able to get the skeleton of this going. But let me just give you one example. This is not about YouthBuild as a program, not making a policy statement on it. It just is one of the many entities that are here. This lists how much spending is done on it, on the different authorities that are done, what regulations are from it. But also one of the requirements of this is to be able to ask what's the results? Here's the money that Americans are spending, what do we get for that? Well, in this particular one, it has results. What was done in 2016, how it was evaluated, but 2017 wasn't evaluated. 2018 wasn't evaluated. 2019 was evaluated, but it was evaluated based on how much money was spent, not the results of it. Then nothing in '21, '22 or something about the COVID that came during that time period.

(01:11:55)
I guess '22 and '24, it just says we spent this much money in this many places. That's not really the question. The question is what did we get for that money? So my question to you is as you're stepping into this project that you started, others have worked on and now needs to be finished, how does this rank in a priority for you to be able to fulfill? Which by the way, is the law now to be able to have a way to be able to look at every program and to see how it's evaluated, if it's evaluated at all. That helps all of us around this dais to be able to look at it and to say there's 12 different programs that seem to do the exact same thing. Two of them seem to be successful and 10 of them aren't. We can't see all that unless we go ask GAO to go chase it for us unless this is actually finished. So how does this rank in a priority for you as far as getting this done?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:12:45):

Thank you, Senator. It'll be a high priority. As you know, when I came into OMB, I had gone through this process the first time and clearly made aware of the extent of these transparency apparatus that was intended by Congress and there was a lot of objections from individuals said, "Oh, we don't have the bandwidth to do this." And we brought all sides of OMB together internally, we put someone in charge to become an expert. I provided director level leadership to say, I will push through the barriers that exist to being able to get this set up. And so I'm looking forward to seeing where we are and I would want to finish the job if given another opportunity by the Senate.

James Lankford (01:13:26):

That's great. Thank you. Look forward to that because again, this is not partisan work, this just takes every program that's out there and just say, "What's happening?" How is it being used? How is it not being used? Nothing to hide. This is full transparency that the American people are actually looking for to be able to have, and quite frankly all of us in Congress are looking for as well to be able to go through it. I'm want to go through several different things that have come from the last few years. Circular A-IV, which again we're getting into nerdy stuff here, was rewritten by the Biden administration. It's something that had been used for years by Democrats and Republican presidents alike to just evaluate cost benefit. The Biden administration came in, changed all the rules that have been done for decades and said, we want to rewrite this and actually what we want to do is to say, we're going to evaluate it based on the immediate costs, but the long-term benefits.

(01:14:10)
We're going to look at just the cost in a small area, but get the global gain from this. They changed the rules of how every regulation is done. That's something I would just say, you can't say how you're going to be able to act on this because you're not there in the seat on it. But I would say change it back. There should be no disagreement with this body to say, use the same rules President Obama used because this was a nonpartisan rule until they tilted the scales and said, "No, we want to be able to change the scales on this." Something else that you put in place that I thought was a great benefit to the American people was that all guidance documents had to be online. That if an agency had guidance, it couldn't be hidden guidance, there couldn't be surprises show up in some business out there and say, "You violated our guidance," when people would say, "I've never seen it."

(01:14:58)
I don't even know how to find it. Most agencies didn't have any of their guidance publicly until you actually helped put it online and it could all be done. Well, the Biden administration came in and turned that off and said, "No, the American people and businesses can't see the guidance from agencies. You've got to guess what guidance that agencies are putting out." Well, I think that's wrong. I think if there's a regulator is going to actually put a guidance document out there, I think they should actually have the guidance and should be able to find it rather than have to play Mother May I to go get it or guess what it is. So again, you're not in that seat, but I would recommend based on the desire of the American people, if their government is going to put guidance out on what they need to do with the regulation, they should at least know where to be able to find it and to be able to have that.

(01:15:46)
So that's another piece coming up. You have a lot of responsibility in the days ahead for helping us deal with spending. The Chairman brought this up at the very beginning on this. My question to you is how do we get a hold of the grants? We have a grant that came out from State Department doing an investigation on do helmets improve safety in Ghana? Well, I can go ahead and not spend a dollar and tell you probably helmets improve safety there just like they do here on motorbikes and bicycles. I don't need to spend that money on it, but for some reason we decided it's in America's best interest to do a study on helmet safety in Ghana. How do we get the parameters to make sure grants that are going out are actually in America's best interest and best use of Oklahoma taxpayer dollars?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:16:29):

Sure. Senator, thank you for all the questions, particularly on the regulation front and some of these ancient landmarks that the Biden administration moved are certainly we're aware of them and we'll be considering them in detail. As it pertains to grants, obviously the management side is a very important office, OFFM, putting forward rules and regulations to guide agencies on the grant process, but also asking the oversight questions. And many of the times that OMB is accused of withholding money or these are not impoundment conversations, these are us asking the questions of the agencies, how are you going to spend the money wisely so that we can get all on the same page as to whether something's going to be totally wasteful or not? And that is I think, one of the important aspects of getting in and being confirmed for this role.

James Lankford (01:17:18):

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Rand Paul (01:17:21):

The question was brought up previously about the constitutional oath and obeying the Constitution, and I would not diminish that at all, but I would argue that it's a little more complicated than some would make it out. Article one, section 10 of the Constitution, clause two, or no, clause one actually says that no state shall pass an ex post facto law. So recently the president was convicted in New York of a law that was passed after 20 years after the alleged crime. And that law was passed specifically at the behest of going after one individual, which is also a bill of attender and also potentially unconstitutional as well. But not everybody up here agrees with what I'm saying, that it's an ex post facto law. Some people loved it and thought it was a great use of a prosecutor who ran to try to convict the president to go after him.

(01:18:09)
So there are debates over what the Constitution says. With regard to Article one, section 10 clause one, it also says that states may not accept anything but gold and silver coin as tender in payment of debt. That's not adhered to by every state in the union. And yet we're not going to somehow say, "Are you going to obey the gold and silver clause of section one, clause 10?" The loan program. This was a case which is even much more clear-cut on the Constitution where the court is actively telling President Biden that what he's doing is illegal and he's actively doing the opposite of it. Now, I would be fair, during the quarantine, the Trump administration began by saying you no longer have to pay your rent or your debt based on a quarantine resolution from 1938 from the CDC, which did not apply.

(01:19:06)
The Biden administration continued it also. But I think when we talk about obeying the oath of the Constitution, we want sincerity. We want someone who truly believes that they will read and understand and obey the law. Will you obey the Constitution and will you obey the law as written and interpreted?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:19:24):

Yes, Senator.

Rand Paul (01:19:25):

Senator Gallego.

Ruben Gallego (01:19:28):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Vought, as OMB director, will you be giving advice to the president?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:19:38):

Yes, Senator.

Ruben Gallego (01:19:39):

Not just executing whatever you want. Great, perfect. And this is why I'd like to get to more of your thought process because while I don't disagree that you're going to follow the best as possible to every dot when it comes to the Constitution, I don't question at all whether you'll abide by that, I know your patriotism or anything like that. I do think it's important for me to understand your thought process because you'll be advising the President. And as such, I'd like to know what your thought process was in your positions in the past, in your previous roles. So going back to Senator Blumenthal, as someone like me who I am a veteran, I do receive VA disability, many of the men I serve with in the Marines also receive disability. I have gotten very frightened phone calls in the past about different things they've heard a lot of times online that either the Democrats or the Republicans are going to cut VA disability, whatever it is.

(01:20:36)
It always happens. It's not just comes from both sites. They're worried about both sides cutting it and it makes sense if you understand their life. A lot of them have very, very small personal budgets. If something is cut, that could affect their livelihood, their ability to pay rent and things of that nature. And so we heard obviously what Sarah Blumenthal said about potentially your past position that people below 30% VA disability should have that disability cut off altogether. I'm not saying that you are going to project this going forward to the president because clearly you say you're going to abide and go by what the president tells you to do. But what was your thought process back in the day in terms of your belief of why that was a good program? And I'm sure there was some reasoning for it, obviously saving money or whatever it is, breaking down bureaucracy. But I'd love to hear the thought process to that.

Hon. Russell Vought (01:21:32):

Well, first of all, Senator, I would just want to say thank you and I don't take it for granted for you to accept that I will be someone that upholds the Constitution in performing the duties of the OMB director. So I'm very grateful for your comments on that. Look, I'm not here on behalf of proposals, as the president of the CRA might have put forward. I'm here on behalf of the president. He fully supported veteran spending. One of his most proud initiatives was some of the reforms that were made to provide additional healthcare resources and flexibility and to make sure that veterans got all the care that they needed to. It was a huge priority in the first term. We were always fully funding the needs of the VA and we will continue to do so if confirmed.

Ruben Gallego (01:22:17):

And no doubt, as someone that I've been a veteran since the Bush administration, I've seen great progression actually under all the administration's and certainly saw some under the Trump administration. And why I'm asking this is because again, prior to starting this line of questioning, I asked, will you be giving advice to the president? And that's why I'm trying to get at what is your thought process? Because that's going to give me a very good indication about where future decisions are going to be made and future advice will be given to the president. I have zero doubt that you're going to execute fully whatever the president tells you to do, but at some point you'll also likely be giving advice. And this is why I ask certain things, whether it's as your past position in government, whether it's your past position and whether you are not as the head of your think tank.

(01:23:07)
For example, it is concerning when it comes to means testing. There are places obviously I think within when it comes to government benefits that there should be some means tests. When it comes to veterans and VA disability benefits, a lot of us don't believe that there should be means tests for something that we actually did and received in service to the country. And so if you could explain at least that, what is the thought process, because that helps me determine what is going to be the advice that you'll be giving to the president. Because it does concern veterans. We would be concerned if somebody is going to cut our benefits, or if at minimum we understand where the process is and maybe we could say like, "You know what, this is someone that's being reasonable and maybe we could try to work with them in any other way possible."

Hon. Russell Vought (01:23:54):

Thank you, Senator. I think the best way to get a sense of the advice that I'll be giving is based on what the president ran on. My view of this role is that you take what the president wants to do, what he ran on, what he is articulating once in office and figuring out how to best implement it and to do it in the most efficient manner. And the president ran on fully funding veteran programs and providing what is necessary. And I think that should give you a pretty good sense, even though I'm not going to get into the specific advice that I'd give to the president.

Ruben Gallego (01:24:26):

So in your interpretation of the president being a stalwart supporter of veterans, and I think he definitely ran on that. I think we could all agree on that in this committee and certainly almost everyone I serve with voted for the president. So I think they also believe that, would include the fact that that would be including protecting VA disability that would match the president's point of view. And would you advise them to actually follow through on that by protecting VA disability ratings?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:24:55):

Again, Senator, I'm not going to get ahead of the budget process other than to say that it's been a priority to fully fund the needs of the veterans and that will continue if confirmed.

Ruben Gallego (01:25:05):

Okay. I yield back.

Rand Paul (01:25:07):

Senator Scott.

Rick Scott (01:25:12):

Thank you, Chairman. Mr. Vought, congratulations on the nomination. I enjoyed working with you when you were up here before and I know you'll do a great job. We've seen the bloating in the federal government under the Biden administration. In his four years alone, he's added $8 trillion to the national debt. He's increased our federal spending by 53%. Our population is up 2%. We cannot continue down this path of spending way above pre-pandemic levels. And with the past four years of Joe Biden, there hasn't been any serious discussion upon how to control spending or reduce our now $36 trillion worth of debt. If you travel around Florida, here's what you're going to hear from people. They can't afford it. They can't afford this inflation. They said, I could afford to live a few years ago, but today with this inflation and I can't go buy a house, interest rates are up. You can't buy a car. I better sure as heck pay off my credit card because I've got high interest rates there. So what are some of the things that you think are doable to deal with inflation and interest rates?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:26:20):

Thank you, Senator. I appreciate the kind words. Obviously one of the things that our past budgets have really gone after is non-defense discretionary spending, which just so happens to be where the bureaucracy is funded on an annual basis and which gives members, senators the annual ability to go after some of that waste. And many of it shows up in the reports from Senator Paul on an annual basis, but it also is those agencies that I think have been overbearing on the American people. And I think that will be one of those areas that we can target first. But the president has also put forward reforms to reduce or have better outcomes with regard to welfare, get people back into the labor force, and those are potentially substantial amounts of savings as well.

Rick Scott (01:27:08):

So what's the right way of looking at this? We've seen since pre-pandemic, we've seen about a $2 trillion increase in spending. So is the right way of looking at this saying let's go back, like in my business life, what we do is we say, this is where our revenues are going to be. So we're not going to spend more than that and hopefully we're going to have a profit. So is it the right way of looking at this and saying, why do we have this unbelievable increase in spending? Should we go back and say, why can't we go back to 2019 or 2020 spending rather than be stuck with where we are now?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:27:42):

It is certainly a valid line of reasoning and one that we will explore if confirmed in trying to think through what our fiscal goals might be. I've certainly been aware of the debates up here as you all have been trying to get the country's attention with regard to where we are fiscally and we will look for those types of opportunities if confirmed.

Rick Scott (01:28:05):

So the regulatory costs up here, when I was governor of Florida, we added 1.7 million jobs when we cut taxes and fees 100 times. So what really had the biggest impact, we reduced 20% of the regulatory environment and we streamlined the permitting environment. It could take you two years to get a permit you were entitled to under our water management districts. We got it down to just a few days. Because you were entitled to it. You didn't have to go hire a lawyer, didn't have to go hire lobbyists to get it done. What are some of the things you think we can be doing with what you're going to do with Doge to reduce, one, the cost, increase the economy and build up the economy?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:28:47):

Well, certainly in the first term, the president was very active in this area, was one of his main deregulatory priorities. He was horrified by the extent to which all of these projects would take decades to get approval. And his view was that should be on a time clock. It doesn't mean you're always going to win if you're the person who's trying to do the project, but the agency should respond quickly and that's the way he thinks and that's the way I think you'll see many of our deregulatory ideas and initiatives to flow out of that viewpoint.

Rick Scott (01:29:17):

What's success for you? Let's say you're confirmed and you had the job for four years, at the end of four years, what would you say I was successful in this role because of what?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:29:28):

I want to do the best that I can to implement the president's agenda. My hope is that we're able to deal with the spending components of inflation to get a handle on our fiscal house. The president's put forward budgets before and I expect him to put up similar budgets that deal with that problem and to be able to get the regulatory apparatus that we had in the first term back in place where we're actually deregulating as opposed to putting endless burdens on the American people. I think that's how we would define success at the end of the term.

Rick Scott (00:00):

Sen. Scott (01:30:00):

So, why is this job important to you? Why do you want to go back and do this? What drives you to do it?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:30:07):

Well, I think the president deserves to, having done this the first time, people who know how to do the job can do it well on day one, who can implement his agenda and it's very rare in life that you get an opportunity to think about a job for four years, and to try to go back and even do it even better. I think, the president deserves that and I'm looking forward to it being confirmed by the Senate and doing that job.

Sen. Scott (01:30:32):

All right, thank you, Chairman. I yield back.

Dr. Paul (01:30:36):

Senator Hawley.

Sen. Hawley (01:30:37):

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Vought, good to see you. Congratulations on your nomination. Thank you for being willing to do this job again. You did a great job the first time around. Look forward to seeing you back in this office. Let me just ask you, one of the important functions of OMB, is the role that it plays in managing procurements through the Office of Federal Procurement Policy. Would you agree with me, that it is a problem? And by the way, I think 1 out of every 10 taxpayer dollars goes to federal contractors, so that's a lot of money. That's a big part of our budget. Would you agree with me that it's a problem, when we are sending federal contracting dollars to entities, firms, especially consulting firms that are simultaneously taking money from and doing business with, our most lethal opponents like China for example. Doesn't that strike you as a little strange?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:31:26):

That is concerning. Yes, Senator.

Sen. Hawley (01:31:28):

Here's an example. Prime example of this kind of behavior, McKinsey, the consulting firm, so McKinsey got, in the last year for which we had full numbers available, over $851 million worth of consulting work. They had 90 prime contracts with DOD. They got 98 million in contracts from the Army, 132 million from the Air Force, 37 million from the Navy.

(01:31:52)
I think, they advised on the F35 Fighter Jet Program and the Air Force Space and Missile System Center. At the same time, they had a thousand employees in China. They were doing business directly with the Chinese government, and they advised Chinese state-owned enterprises that have now been blacklisted by our own military. Now, my view is that, if they want to do business with China, I don't recommend it. I suppose, it's fine so long as it's not illegal, but I don't think they should simultaneously be getting hundreds of millions, approaching a billion dollars in contracts, federal contracts, military contracts from our own government. Here's my question for you. You're going to have a lot of influence in this process, through the procurement rules and process. Will you be an advocate for protecting American taxpayer dollars in this contracting process, where hundreds of billions of dollars are spend every year, will you be an advocate for protecting that and making sure it's not going to entities who are effectively double-dealing and advising our enemies at the same time?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:32:50):

Absolutely. I'm very excited to confirm getting back to being able to work with OFPP, getting a handle on the guidance that we're giving government-wide as part of the FAR council, and to really look at what are the regulations that are in place and how can we get them better.

Sen. Hawley (01:33:06):

Great. That's great. That's fantastic. Give me a sense, just while still on the procurement topic, how you might ensure that procurement policies prioritize American-made goods and service, particularly services, particularly in industries that are vital to our national security. And I just think about our experience in COVID and you were there for the beginning, the onset of the pandemic, and when we learned that, my gosh, the most basic medical supplies we're importing from overseas, our medical supply chains are so compromised in so many ways. So give me a sense, have you given some thought to how the procurement process might be used to safeguard those critical supply chains, and prioritize American manufacturers?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:33:46):

Yeah, I think clear leadership from the director to make sure that a viewpoint for the president is implemented at the level of policy that the OFPP is reviewing. A lot of times in the management functions at OMB, they're kind of on autopilot with regard to the clear direction of the president and using the President's management tools and his agenda to be able to drive that policy across the federal government, is something that we fully intend to do and to do it robustly.

Sen. Hawley (01:34:16):

Very good. Let me shift gears just a little bit, but still thinking about federal regulations through OIRA, you have a lot of influence thankfully, on the regulatory landscape and environment. I asked your predecessor in this role the Biden administration nominee, if she would commit to the Hyde Amendment and the principle that we should not be using federal taxpayer dollars to promote abortions, which has been a bipartisan commitment, as you well know, for decades. She wouldn't commit to that and indeed, as you know, the Biden administration pretty promptly walked back their commitment to it and has been essentially violating the law because it is the law. They've been violating it for years now. Let me just ask you, when it comes to the Hyde Amendment, which is the law of the land, will you work to ensure that all of our rules and regulations, everything that comes across your desk is in full compliance with the Hyde Amendment, and we are not spending federal taxpayer dollars to promote abortion in any way?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:35:10):

As I've said, senator, we will abide by all laws on the books.

Sen. Hawley (01:35:14):

Very good. Let me ask you just a couple more things and when it comes to the policies of life, because again, you're going to have a lot of influence over the regulatory environment, would you agree that federal funding for family planning through Title 10, through that grant program, should not include federal funding for abortion providers?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:35:32):

Again, the president has made his views on abortion really clear throughout the campaign. I'm not going to get ahead of the president with regard to the budget process. We have submitted budgets in years past, that give the Senate a sense of how he would budget, but I'm not going to get ahead of the president on that.

Sen. Hawley (01:35:48):

But let me ask you this, and just to be clear, what I just asked about was the Trump policy in his first term, but here's another one. Pregnancy resource centers, should they be able to receive federal funding through federal grants? That was the president's policy in his first term. Do you think? Again, as a matter of federal rules, pregnancy resource centers ought to be eligible?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:36:09):

Again, the president's a pro-life president. He had a very pro-life record. He had a extensive debate within the campaign and his views, and I'm not going to get ahead of him in the budget process, but I think the country has a good sense of where he is on the issues.

Sen. Hawley (01:36:22):

Let me ask you just one more. The Mexico City policy, which I know you're familiar with, OIRA is very important in that policy. That's just the policy for those keeping track at home that says that American foreign aid dollars, tax money, shouldn't be spent on abortions overseas. President Trump championed this in his first term. Every Republican president has for decades, now. Do you agree with the Mexico City policy? Would you implement it if the president directed you to?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:36:45):

Absolutely. We'll implement anything the president's asked me to direct.

Sen. Hawley (01:36:47):

Very good. Thank you, Mr. Vought. Great to see you again. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Dr. Paul (01:36:52):

Senator Ernst.

Sen. Ernst (01:36:55):

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, chair and ranking member. It is good to be back on the committee after a hiatus for many years. Good afternoon, Mr. Vought. Thank you for the really robust discussion yesterday. I truly appreciate that and thanks for being here. You were here six and a half years ago as well, and I do remember that, as your kids had been sitting behind you during that as well. And one of my colleagues had very inappropriately questioned you on your faith, as part of your first confirmation hearing before the Senate. And I just want to commend you, because during that period you handled yourself with extraordinary grace. And so, I truly appreciate that and I just want to be on the record as stating that, I think people of all faiths should have a place in the public square. But thank you so much and what a great example for your children.

Hon. Russell Vought (01:37:58):

Thank you, Senator.

Sen. Ernst (01:37:58):

So, as the chair of the Senate DOGE Caucus. I look forward to working with you to make government more transparent, accountable and efficient. And it's impossible to achieve these goals though, if we don't even know how Washington is spending our tax dollars. During my time in the Senate, I've passed numerous laws to do just this. One requires the Department of Transportation to report all projects that are $1 billion over budget or five years or more behind schedule. Another requires the Pentagon to put a public price tag on all R&D projects funded with taxpayer dollars. Despite numerous laws being passed, these were passed and signed into law. Agencies have been completely ignoring the mandates and likewise, the bipartisan law that originated in this committee requiring all government spending to be disclosed in a searchable public website, usaspending.gov, is being circumvented by bureaucrats who are hiding billions of dollars of secret spending, awarded as other transaction agreements or OTAs from USA spending. As director, what actions are appropriate to compel agencies and recipients of taxpayer dollars to comply with these laws and how will you prioritize ensuring compliance?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:39:35):

It's a great question, Senator. It's one that we will definitely take note of and make sure that, when we're setting up on the management side these apparatuses, but also on the budget side that works intimately with the agencies that they're not allowed to get away with these types of gimmicks.

Sen. Ernst (01:39:52):

Okay, and I look forward to working with you. Will you also require agencies to start reporting OTAs to usaspending.gov?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:40:02):

We will definitely abide by the law and make sure the spirit of the law is executed as well.

Sen. Ernst (01:40:08):

And that is the spirit of the law. Thank you. In the years since COVID, our nation's capital has remained a ghost town. As private companies of all sizes from coast to coast have called their employees back to the office. Some federal employees allegedly come to their DC offices so infrequently, that the calendars in their cubicles are still flipped to the March, 2020 page. That's why it's entirely unsurprising that GAO found Federal Government headquarter buildings are operating at an average occupancy rate of just 12%. Meanwhile, I recently published a report on federal telework, which I ask, unanimous consent to enter into the record?

Dr. Paul (01:40:56):

Without objection.

Sen. Ernst (01:40:57):

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Which details some truly shocking statistics and my staff will hand you a copy of this as well, Mr. Vought. Before COVID, just 3% of employees eligible to telework did so. Now, 6% of those employees say they report in person on a full-time basis, 6% showing up for work every day. Depending on the agency, between 23% and 68% of surveyed teleworking employees are boosting their salaries by receiving incorrect locality pay. Some employees claim to be working in DC while living more than 2000 miles from their office. As you are aware, the office of management and budget holds the critical responsibility of, ensuring the federal workforce delivers meaningful results for the American people. Strong leadership from your office to correct the Biden administration's asleep at the wheel approach to federal workforce management, would send a very powerful and much needed message to the rest of the government. To this end, I will ask a few key questions. First, will you share your daily schedule with the public?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:42:19):

Yes.

Sen. Ernst (01:42:20):

Congress has a set 60% utilization goal for your headquarters building and the headquarters building of each federal agency. What steps will you take to get each agency to meet Congress's goal?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:42:36):

Well, I think we're going to make it a priority and obviously you've heard through your DOGE leadership, with the leadership of the President's DOGE, that this is a major area that they're looking at. We're going to be looking at ways that OMB can come along beside and ask the right questions both on the management and the budget side to get a sense for, how our agencies monitoring their own employees that might be benefiting from the DC pay rate, when they're not living in DC. So part of it is having a theory of the case, which we clearly have, to do that oversight and then, to get into these roles and to figure out where we are on a day-to-day granular basis and then figure out what can be done about it.

Sen. Ernst (01:43:21):

Very good. And what would your plan be, to get federal employees, including those that are covered by collective bargaining agreements to show up for work?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:43:33):

Well, we're going to take a look at the collective bargaining agreements. Obviously, we're aware of the extent to which the Biden administration is locking in or attempting to bind the Trump administration with these CBAs that last an extended period of time. I don't have anything to announce other than, to agree with you that it's a concerning phenomena and one that we are looking at very closely.

Sen. Ernst (01:43:56):

Very good. And I have a number of other questions as well. We went through a number of these yesterday in my office. I truly appreciate that. I could go on, and on, and on. I would encourage everyone, if you would like a copy, we may have some extra, but this is just the tip of the iceberg, Mr. Vought, and I look forward to your confirmation and to working with you on these issues.

Hon. Russell Vought (01:44:22):

Thank you, Senator.

Sen. Ernst (01:44:24):

Thank you very much.

Dr. Paul (01:44:24):

Thank you, Senator Ernst. We're very interested and the full committee is very interested in this. I think, it would be illustrative to bring in some people who could tell some stories about people not coming to work. I do recall that, when the baby formula problem happened and the baby formula was contaminated, we had the heads of three agencies or four agencies and one of the senators asked the question, when was the last time you were in the office? Most of the heads of the agencies, like the head of the CDC, FDA, they hadn't been in the office for a month. So, we need to talk about this and if nothing else, we've got to shame some people to going back to work. There has to be some metrics. The private practice works because you have profit and somebody monitors your work. If you're not being monitored and there is no profit number to see whether you're doing any work, it's impossible, but let's work together on maybe, doing a hearing on this in the near future.

(01:45:11)
With regard to the regulations, Senator Scott brought up some of the different regulations and it brought to mind a couple of things. We had a bridge collapse in Kentucky a few years ago. A tugboat hit it and so I thought, well they tell you these NEPA regulations take like three or four years to get. Maybe we should have an exemption, if your bridge falls down and you're going to build the bridge in exactly the same place, you don't have to do any NEPA review at all. And I think, I got about 20 votes or whatever, 15 votes. We couldn't even pass an amendment that common sense, saying it's going in the same place. It reminds me of one other quick anecdote then we'll go back to a couple of questions. Did you see the story recently about the snail darter? So apparently the snail darter was discovered back in the '70s, when they were building a dam in Tennessee.

(01:46:01)
And now, they've got somebody to admit that, well, he told people at the time, "This'll stop the dam. It's a new species." And apparently now they've done all these genetic testing and it's not a new species, and the more they look, the more they found. The snail darter is everywhere. We had a dirt darter in Kentucky, must be a relative of the snail darter, and we had to lower one of our lakes by 30 feet where there's a lot of marinas and recreational activity. And while the dam was lowered to rebuild an earthen dam, lordy, they found some dirt darters in a river and they said, "We can't don't want to fill the… We don't want to fill the river, the creek, the lake back up because we'll hurt the dirt darter." My question was, "It's a fish, doesn't it like water?" But I mean, the craziness of all this stuff. And one more, we have the pocketbook mussel. It's been listed on the Endangered Species Act.

(01:46:50)
Have you ever seen mussels? They are everywhere. Any pond. Lake, creeks, got mussels everywhere. So this was put on the endangered species list and then, for the last 20 years they've been looking for it. Everywhere they look, they find it. There's no endangerment, but somebody put it on the list and it's a scam. So, we had a sewage plant in a city was overflowing with sewage into the lake. Nobody wants that. So we wanted to build a new one in a little town in Kentucky. First, we got to get a consultant, 100 grand, 150 grand, for this tiny little town to study the pocketbook mussel population and Indian artifacts. And all it does is, it enriches the consultants. It lasts two or three years to get it done, slows everything down. But this isn't a question, this is a rant. Anything you can do to fix that stuff, I'm all for you. Tell us what we need to do to fix it. We're going to do another round. We're going to start with Senator Peters, for five minutes.

Senator Peters (01:47:48):

Thank you. Mr. Vought, the federal government relies on the Inspector general to conduct independent oversight, as you know, root out waste, root out fraud and abuse, taxpayer abuse of a taxpayer dollars that it finds. So my question for you sir, is do you agree that the Inspector Generals are vital to protecting federal programs from inefficiency and waste?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:48:13):

Yes, absolutely. As a congressional staffer and director of OMBs with various roles, benefited greatly from the reports of the IG community.

Senator Peters (01:48:22):

Great. So, during your previous tenure as OMB director, you did not comply with an investigation into delayed disaster recovery funding for Puerto Rico. That was conducted by the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Inspector General. So, my question for you is that under the Inspector General Act, agency heads are required to provide all information and assistance requested by IGs to the extent practical. So why did you and your staff fail to comply with the law during the HUD OIG investigation?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:48:59):

Senator, I assure you, I'm always responding to the advice of counsel, and the extent to which that applied in that instances is the same.

Senator Peters (01:49:08):

So your legal counsel said, avoid the law. Just basically violate the law. That's the kind of advice you get.

Hon. Russell Vought (01:49:14):

Again, we go through a process with all the requests that come in and we figure out, what we're required to do and we did that in that instance and we will do that again, on a case by case basis.

Senator Peters (01:49:30):

So again, I have to echo my colleagues, Senator Slotkin, you do give really good bureaucratic answers, which is why people I guess, are crazily frustrated with bureaucrats. You are a very good bureaucrat at not answering questions. Even when you avoid the law, you try to find some sort of bureaucratic run around. So that you can get away from doing what's right. It's really unfortunate. My next question is, under leadership, OMB also obstructed the GAO review on delayed Ukraine assistance by refusing to comply with GAO requests for information and you also defied a congressional subpoena, that was issued by the House Intelligence Committee in 2019. So, you defied a congressional subpoena. Will you comply with a congressional subpoena, if you receive one, from this committee or will you defy it as you've done in the past?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:50:26):

Senator, as you know, the president was being impeached at that time. The office of legal counsel instructed, the appointees of the executive branch because their agency counsel were not going to be allowed to participate in those proceedings and therefore, protect privileged information, not to go to the hill. So of course, I will come to Congress if subpoenaed, but there's a reason why we consult our lawyers, particularly at the Office of Legal Counsel, as to their determinations with protecting the presidency and an agency head has to listen to what they have to say.

Senator Peters (01:51:03):

So I just, Chairman Paul and I, have had many discussions about subpoenas and the fact that our subpoenas are basically ignored by the administration in both parties, in both. This is not partisan in any way, but it's clear. Chairman Paul, we're going to get the same kind of stonewalling on subpoenas, if we get continue to get these kind of bureaucratic answers from OMB under the leadership of Mr. Vought. Mr. Vought, will you commit to complying with all oversight requests you receive from the Inspector General, the government accountability office and Congress, or will I get the same bureaucratic run-around answer that I've received in all the other questions?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:51:40):

That's not how I would characterize it, Senator.

Senator Peters (01:51:41):

Of course not.

Hon. Russell Vought (01:51:42):

We will respond transparently to all the oversight requests and we will make sure that, subject to the advice of the council, you are getting the information that you need, to do your oversight responsibilities. That is a priority of my time at OMB and when I get letters from senators, I take them very seriously. I want to be known immediately about them so that, we can get after responding to senators and what they've asked for.

Senator Peters (01:52:07):

So I suspect I'm going to get the same bureaucratic answer to my last question here. Will you commit to fully and promptly responding to oversight requests from this committee, including from the ranking member and from other minority members? You've already stated that you will take these letters seriously.

Hon. Russell Vought (01:52:22):

We will definitely respond to your letters

Senator Peters (01:52:23):

And respond with another very eloquent, bureaucratic answer that, sorry, we can't comply. Is that what we should expect? We certainly got it the last time you were in OMB. How is it going to be different this time? How will things be different this time?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:52:35):

Senator, I would go back to something earlier that you said. We come up here and when you subpoena us, when you request for us. Even beyond sub using the subpoena power, we come to Congress. You've never, outside of the impeachment situation, you don't have an example to point to, in which we're not willing to come and defend our actions before these bodies and the ones in the house. That will continue and we will continue to help you do the oversight process, that I think is vital, by giving you the information that you need. At the same time, respecting the differences between the executive branch and the legislative branch and that the President has a policy deliberative process, that needs to be respected as well.

Senator Peters (01:53:20):

Well, time will tell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Dr. Paul (01:53:22):

Senator Lankford.

Sen. Lankford (01:53:24):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't think this committee wants to discuss, who is and who isn't willing to be able to come for hearings. When last year, for the first time in 20 years, the Biden administration refused to come for the Global Threats Hearing. So, the request was made month after month after month to the Biden administration, for Mayorkas and Christopher Wray to be able to come and give a public accounting for it and they stiff-armed this committee, for months, and refused to come. So I understand what happened during the impeachment time that, that was a very unique moment that I hope is not repeated again obviously, but this committee, certainly has not had response from the Biden administration, actually coming and appearing before this committee or delivering documents.

Senator Peters (01:54:09):

Well, Senator Lankford. I hope that you'll recognize that, I called that out very aggressively.

Sen. Lankford (01:54:14):

Oh, you did? [inaudible 01:54:15]

Senator Peters (01:54:14):

I have been consistent in that. I was way out front, in calling that that was wrong.

Sen. Lankford (01:54:22):

100%, and I was grateful for that. I was just saying, that's not just a moment to say this happened once during the Trump administration. This is the challenge [inaudible 01:54:29].

Dr. Paul (01:54:29):

And I would just follow on with, it's us against them. We are the legislature. All right?

(01:54:34)
The ambition, to pit ambition against ambition was us against them, not Republican, against Democrat, us against the executive. So, while I'm going to vote for Russell Vought, I want him to correspond with this and if we ask for records, I'm going to ask with you.

Sen. Lankford (01:54:48):

Yep, totally agree. So let me do Blitzkrieg through some different topics here. GAO, does a high risk list, do y'all evaluate that? Do you go through that? Is that meaningful to you? Because, what I asked GAO to do years ago, was to take their high risk list and to split it. Executive branch can do this on their own, legislative branch have got to be able to act on this. They do that now and split it. So we each get our to-do list on that. Is that important to you as you go through it?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:55:13):

Absolutely. Yes, sir.

Sen. Lankford (01:55:14):

Okay, that's helpful because we're both going to have quite a list on this. I have a question on e-Verify. This should not be a challenge, but it has been a challenge and has been over multiple administrations. The law requires, E-Verify be used for federal contracting and for prime, sub-primes and all that. But GAO has looked at this year after year and is determined. No one's really checking it. So no one's asking the next question, are they really using E-Verify? Sometimes they do on the primes, but then all the sub-primes that they use, no one's really asking. There is without question, we have under federal taxpayer dollars, contracts being used right now. Where the folks that are doing it, are not legally present in the United States. I think most people would be really shocked by that.

(01:55:59)
We also have asked the question on OTAs, on those other transactional agreements, are we checking E-Verify for that? And the answer we got was, kind of a sheepish no. We kind of treat those differently. So if an OTA is used, no one is asking on E-Verify on it, to be able to verify, if folks with American taxpayer dollars are actually Americans. So, while we talk about buy American for products, we're not always hiring American, even in the United States on that. How does that get fixed?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:56:28):

I will definitely take a look at that and start to inquire about what's going on with regard to that.

Sen. Scott (01:56:34):

Thank you. Retrospective review, is a big deal. You and I have talked about before, we're back in nerdy territory. To be able to go back and say, if a regulation was made years ago and it's been left alone, we should go back and take a look at it years later and say, "Did it work? Is it costing more? Is it there?" I bring this up because, during the time of COVID, president Trump put out a statement to say, "For all those regulations that are out there, we understand everything's weird right now across the country. We got to figure out how [inaudible 01:57:03] process and do work, and we got to figure out the regulations." Somehow, as a country, we survived. With relaxed regulations on it. I think, there's a need to be able to go back and do a regulatory review and to say what regulations were relaxed at that time that we later learned, the country still works with that. Is that a need to be able to go back and do a regulatory review, not only during that time period, but for all regulations?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:57:26):

Yes, very much Senator. In fact, the President's given us a new goal. He originally had a two-for-one goal in the first term. He's now given us a ten-for-one goal. We believe that we can hit that, but it's going to require looking at everything that doesn't make sense within government and reassessing, and trying to get better outcomes as a result.

Sen. Scott (01:57:45):

I can't even begin to tell you how many Oklahomans would tell me, "I just want the government to make sense." Just do it in a way that's logical. Don't try to do it based on somebody in Michigan, one time did something and so now, the whole country has to do something different or produce a lot of paperwork. They just want it to be able to make sense on it. So that's very helpful to be able to get. Okay. One final question on this. Sitting in this hearing for the last hour or so, I've heard your name pronounced three different ways. Can you clarify for this committee and the American people, how do you pronounce your last name?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:58:16):

I appreciate that question very much, Senator. It is, believe me, I've heard all of them growing up. It is Russell Vought.

Sen. Scott (01:58:22):

Okay. Thank you for clarifying that. So, we will put you on record as an official vote. Got it.

Dr. Paul (01:58:30):

Yeah, I wasn't sure how to say Russell, either. So thank you, Mr. Vought for our time today and your commitment to working with the committee. The nominee has filed responses to biographical and financial questionnaires, answered pre-hearing questions submitted by the committee, and had their financial statements reviewed by the Office of Government Ethics. Without objection, this information will be made part of the hearing record with the exception of the financial data which are on file and available for public inspection and committee offices. The hearing will remain open until noon tomorrow, Thursday, January 16th. For the submission of statements and questions For the record, we are adjourned. Good job.