Russell Vought Confirmation Hearing Day 2

Senator Lindsey Graham (00:04):

Good morning everybody. Welcome. So we're going to have a hearing with Mr. Vought, right? Russell? It's Vought like voting, right?

Hon. Russell Vought (00:17):

Yes sir.

Senator Lindsey Graham (00:17):

Okay, so I'm going to give a quick introduction. You can say anything you want. We're going to have five minute questioning. Be hard, be challenging, don't make a complete ass of yourself and let's get through this thing.

(00:33)
All right. So, with that said, you're no stranger to this job. Mr. Vote had this job. He was deputy director, he was OMB director in President Trump's first term. He was born in Mount Vernon, New York. He attended Wheaton College, graduated '98, completed the J.D. from Georgetown University. He worked on Capitol Hill as a legislative assistant for Senator Phil Gramm and Chuck Hagel. That's a big delta there. From 2004 to 2008, he worked as executive director for the Republican Study Committee and from 2009 to 2010 as policy director of a House Republican Conference. Again, he was OMB director under the first Trump term. Deputy then became OMB director when Mulvaney left. So you've done it once and you want to do it again and we're glad on our side you're willing to do it again. Senator Merkley.

Senator Jeff Merkley (01:41):

Well, thank you very much Mr. Chairman. Congratulations on your new role. I look forward to working with you and welcome to the committee, Senator Cornyn, Senator Ricketts and new to the Senate and new to the committee, Senator Moreno. Welcome. This Congress, the Senate Budget Committee is going to be deeply engaged in the policies that emerge because reconciliation is going to play a central role and reconciliation begins right here in this room. We'll consider Trump's budget requests and I must say my deepest concern about the reconciliation bills is that they're going to betray working Americans. Working Americans who President Trump appealed to in his campaign, working Americans who listened to the strategies that he laid out that he proposed. But certainly the actual plan isn't to help working people. The actual plan is to help the wealthy get wealthier with massive tax giveaways with working families paying the bill.

(03:07)
Now, how are these massive giveaways to the wealthiest families going to be paid for? Well, by slashing services to working families and to struggling families who are trying to get onto their feet so they can thrive and get to the middle class. This is the great betrayal and today we'll consider President-elect's nomination of Russell Vought to lead the Office of Management and the Budget, which is really the place where this campaign is coordinated and we'll hear very different ideas about how to take our country forward. From my friends across the aisle and from Mr. Vought, we'll hear that we need to continue to give tax giveaways, massive tax giveaways to the wealthiest Americans and we'll hear about how nonpartisan expertise that makes our country run smoothly should be replaced by those with blind political loyalty.

(04:13)
And you'll hear how programs that have assisted for the environment or for unions organizing working people for public health should instead be replaced by programs to serve big corporations and the mega millionaires. Our side of the aisle has a different vision that we stand up for working families, that the wealthy need to pay their fair share of our taxes, that the government should serve everyone, not just the privileged and the powerful. From my side of the aisle, you'll hear about how we need to expand Medicare's ability to negotiate the price of 15 expensive drugs. Those drugs were laid out by President Biden according to the law as he left. I'll submit this for the record, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Lindsey Graham (05:01):

Absolutely.

Senator Jeff Merkley (05:02):

And those drugs include for example, the weight loss drugs that currently serve 2.3 million people. The first 10 drugs that were negotiated cut the price some third to two-thirds or more, including 79% on one drug. Americans are simply outraged that we spend more on R&D to develop these drugs than any other nation that is our taxpayer dollars, and then we get the highest price, the highest price among the developing countries instead of the best which we deserve. This vision, as laid out, is the great betrayal of America's working families and we'll continue to debate that I'm sure in the course of the hearings that are ahead and I have no doubt Mr. Vought that you have the intellectual expertise and the experience.

(06:08)
You were OMB director before, you know all the ins and outs. It's really a question of whether we're going to accomplish something that provides a foundation for American families to thrive or simply to increase the wealth disparities that make this a government by and for the powerful instead of by and for the people. The Washington Post reported that officials said the result of your last tenure underscored the tensions that come with having a deeply ideological operative thrust into position with complicated, often nonpartisan challenges. And this turned out to be spot on. You were responsible for the fiscal year 2021 budget issued by the Trump administration and it had close to a trillion dollar cuts to healthcare for struggling Americans.

(07:05)
It had $300 billion in cuts to social safety programs, things like nutrition assistance and earned income tax credit and the child tax credit, $170 billion cut by increasing the cost of college loans for those who are aspiring. You know I'm the first in my family to go to college. I think college should be affordable to everyone, not making it more expensive so only rich families can afford to go have their kids go to college. So we certainly profoundly disagree. You zeroed out programs like the Community Development Block Grants, which are used for housing all around this country. Meanwhile, you proposed over a trillion dollars in tax giveaways with over two thirds going to the top 10%. That is very, very troubling.

(07:53)
And Mr. Vought, you were at the center of the strategy of impounding funds. Now we had this conversation in 1974 here in Congress. We passed the Budget and Empowerment Control Act because Congress said when we say this amount of money should be spent on this program, it isn't up to the president to spend less. But you told me in your office that you're quite comfortable assuming that the law doesn't matter and that you'll just treat the money for a program as a ceiling rather than a required amount. Well, the courts have found otherwise with the fact that you're willing to say this is exactly what you plan to do again. It should trouble every single member of the Senate.

(08:39)
And when you were at the center of the impoundment of the funds for Ukraine that resulted in the impeachment of President Trump and his former service, you blamed a staff subordinate. That troubles me too. That something you were so involved in when it goes awry, you say, "Oh, it wasn't me. I gave that responsibility to somebody else who works for me." That is not leadership and certainly your views are deeply held. You continued to advocate for them in your think tank, the Center for Renewing America. So we saw that. There's other things that trouble many of us, the fact that you are for the abolition of abortion rights and don't believe in exceptions, not exceptions for rape, not exceptions for incest, not exceptions for the life of the mother.

(09:36)
And it's troubling that you continue to participate in the big lie that the 2020 election was rigged. This may be essential for your loyalty test to the President, but it's a willingness to manipulate and deceive Americans. That certainly bothers me. I think we need a director who respects the rule of law, not the rule of one man; who is guided by facts, not partisan ideology; who serves working families, not mega Millionaires and billionaires. So I'm disturbed that you are eager to lead the betrayal of America's working families. Mr. chairman, I turn it back to you.

Senator Lindsey Graham (10:18):

We'll put you in the undecided column. So, I disagree with what he said. That's why we have the hearing here. More importantly, the American people apparently disagreed because we won and I don't know what your views on abortion are and I don't know how really much matters. President Trump said it was rigged, he won. I don't particularly agree with that, but bottom-line is I think you're qualified for the job. I know why he picked you. I think all of us are going to vote for you and none of them will vote for you.

(10:53)
But you do need to explain the best you can how you see the job, why you do the things you do, whether or not you're betraying the country or trying to get the country on a more sustainable track. And again, we just had an election and when you win, you get to pick people and I'm glad he picked you. So would you stand up and let me swear you in. Raise your right hand please. Do you solemnly swear that testimony you give for this budget committee is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you God?

Hon. Russell Vought (11:24):

I do.

Senator Lindsey Graham (11:24):

Thank you. Floor is yours.

Hon. Russell Vought (11:29):

Thank you Mr. Chairman, the Ranking Member, members of this esteemed committee for the opportunity to appear before you today. Let me begin by thanking my girls, Ella and Porter's, who are now returning to the scene of congressional confirmation hearings as veterans. Their love and support and enthusiasm for me serving again is a major reason why I feel that going back to OMB is the right endeavor at the right moment beyond my enthusiasm for being at President Trump's side. It is a profound honor to be nominated a second time by President Trump to serve as the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. The president has promised the American people a federal government that works for all Americans, not the interest of bureaucrats in an entrenched establishment. Making it start in fulfilling that vital promise, during my previous time at OMB, as both deputy director and director was among the most rewarding career experiences of my career.

(12:28)
Throughout that time, I've been driven by a commitment to taxpayers and their families. Growing up as the son of an electrician and a school teacher, I saw firsthand the sacrifices my parents made to balance their budget and save for the future. They are a reminder of the burden government spending can place on everyday Americans. My parents and countless others like them have always been the measure by which I evaluate policies and spending decisions. Today, nearly 80% of Americans do not feel confident that their children will lead better lives than they have nearly double the 40% of Americans who said the same two decades ago. When I look at the government waste and our national debt, I know that I fear for my daughter's future. Almost half of our fellow citizens expect their standard of living to be worse than that of their parents. A critical part of understanding the President's election, I am eager to get back to fulfilling the promise of the federal government that works as hard as people like my parents.

(13:29)
OMB's mission goes beyond crafting the president's budget. It encompasses the management of the federal government reforming regulation and coordinating policy across agencies to ensure efficient and effective implementation of the American people's will as expressed by the last election. A strong interagency process delivers the best results for all Americans, and I believe OMB's collaborative ethos is key to achieving those outcomes. The civil servants at OMB are among the most resourceful and innovative individuals I've ever worked with. It has been my privilege to work alongside them and I look forward to leading and supporting them as director once again as we labor together to make government work.

(14:17)
We have to use taxpayer dollars wisely because inflation driven by irresponsible spending taxes Americans twice. The average American household has lost roughly $2,000 of purchasing power since January 2021. The forgotten men and women of this country, those who work hard every day in cities and towns across America, deserve a government that empowers them to achieve their dreams. While Office of Management and Budget may not be a household term, the agency's work profoundly impacts their lives. If confirmed, I will continue to serve with their best interest at heart, striving to ensure every decision contributes to a more prosperous future for all Americans. Thank you for considering my nomination. I look forward to answering your questions and the opportunity to discuss how OMB can continue to deliver on that vital mission.

Senator Lindsey Graham (15:12):

Thank you very much and to your family, welcome. So to start with, what would happen to the economy if the 2017 tax cuts that were passed through reconciliation by the Republicans expire and go away? What would happen?

Hon. Russell Vought (15:30):

I think Americans would have a major tax increase on their hands that would lead to a lot less innovation, a lot less productive productivity, and we would have a worsening economy that I would not want to predict how bad it would be.

Senator Lindsey Graham (15:43):

So the Treasury secretary nominee said it would be catastrophic. Do you agree with that?

Hon. Russell Vought (15:48):

Yes sir.

Senator Lindsey Graham (15:49):

Okay, so that's one of the things we want to do on our side. Is it like four and a half trillion dollars in new taxes if all this goes away?

Hon. Russell Vought (15:58):

That's the static cost of it. Yes sir.

Senator Lindsey Graham (16:00):

Yeah, so we don't want it to go away. I guess they do. So, on regulations, do you have a say about regulations, government regulations?

Hon. Russell Vought (16:10):

OMB runs the Office of Information Regulatory Affairs. It's going to be charged to reset up the President's deregulatory agenda and if confirmed, there'll be a major aspect of the job.

Senator Lindsey Graham (16:23):

So when it comes to energy production, will you pledge or try to make it easier for America to soundly and safely extract the natural resources that we own so we don't have to buy oil and gas from people who hate our guts?

Hon. Russell Vought (16:40):

Yes, Senator.

Senator Lindsey Graham (16:42):

Okay. Do you believe that would make us safer we're energy independent?

Hon. Russell Vought (16:46):

I do believe it's vital from a security standpoint and from the standpoint of American's pocketbooks to rely on cheap American energy and not to squander that.

Senator Lindsey Graham (16:55):

Is it part of the goal of this administration is to make sure that in the AI space, we dominate?

Hon. Russell Vought (17:02):

Yes, it is.

Senator Lindsey Graham (17:02):

Will you have a role in that? How to create a regulatory environment that allows us to compete with China?

Hon. Russell Vought (17:08):

We will. We help as part of the policy process in articulating to the federal agencies the guidance that the president would like with regard to the artificial intelligence.

Senator Lindsey Graham (17:17):

When it comes to spending, is it your goal to reduce federal spending where you can responsibly?

Hon. Russell Vought (17:22):

Yes sir.

Senator Lindsey Graham (17:23):

Do you believe there's some room in our budget to eliminate programs that most Americans wouldn't feel the effect of?

Hon. Russell Vought (17:31):

I do. There's plenty of areas in the federal government to be able to begin to tackle our spending and debt.

Senator Lindsey Graham (17:37):

So you promise me you'd do the best you can to reduce federal spending in a responsible way?

Hon. Russell Vought (17:42):

Yes, Senator.

Senator Lindsey Graham (17:43):

Good. When it comes to the President's executive order about suspending foreign assistance for 90 days, do you know exactly how that works? Does that stop money going to Israel?

Hon. Russell Vought (17:57):

No, Senator. Senator, it is a 90- day review-

Senator Lindsey Graham (18:01):

Review? Okay.

Hon. Russell Vought (18:02):

… of the programs that are in place and it is to ensure that all of those programs are consistent with the President's viewpoint of which of course aid to Israel continues to be one of them.

Senator Lindsey Graham (18:14):

What's the most important function of the federal government in your view?

Hon. Russell Vought (18:17):

I believe it's to keep the American people safe and secure so they can enjoy their liberties and to protect their rights.

Senator Lindsey Graham (18:23):

Are you familiar with the amount of money we spend GDP-wise on defense? What is it right now?

Hon. Russell Vought (18:31):

I am aware. I think we're-

Senator Lindsey Graham (18:32):

It's like 3.1%.

Hon. Russell Vought (18:33):

3%. Yes, Senator.

Senator Lindsey Graham (18:34):

And it's going down to the mid-twos. Do you realize that's only four times in American history we've had that small of amount of money spent on defense. Will you be open-minded to make sure that we can defend this nation by creating a bigger Navy?

Hon. Russell Vought (18:50):

Absolutely, Senator. It's a priority of the President. It was a priority at OMB in the first term to make sure that we establish maritime supremacy in this country and it will be if confirmed.

Senator Lindsey Graham (19:02):

What is the size? Do you know how much money the State and Foreign Operations Subcommittee spends on the State Department and Foreign Assistance?

Hon. Russell Vought (19:12):

Off the top of my head, no, I don't know what the allocation is for the three-

Senator Lindsey Graham (19:15):

It's $69 billion. Now that's for the entire state Department, all our embassies, everybody, and the aid we provide to distress places in the world. What percentage of the federal budget is that? Do you know outlays?

Hon. Russell Vought (19:31):

I believe if you did a small percentage, it would be a small percentage compared to-

Senator Lindsey Graham (19:34):

It's 1%. Now having said that, try to save money. Let's don't waste money, but I believe I'm pretty hawkish guy. If you don't get involved in the world and you don't have programs in Africa where China's trying to buy the whole continent, we're making a mistake. So it's 1% of the budget. You could eliminate it all. You're not going to balance the budget. I think soft power is a critical component of defending America and our values. I look forward to working with you to make that count better, but the concept of soft power means a lot to me and that's coming from a pretty hawkish guy. With that, Senator Merkley,

Senator Jeff Merkley (20:17):

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. On day one, President Trump issued an executive order that requires agencies to pause the disbursement of funds that were authorized -- Inflation Reduction Act and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. There is a legal mechanism for changing past law, it's called a rescission. And there's an illegal way, it's called an impoundment. Will you send a rescission message to Congress or will you use the illegal impoundment strategy?

Hon. Russell Vought (20:53):

Senator, thanks for the question. Those EOs were again pauses to ensure that the funding that is in place is consistent and moves in a direction along the lines of what the President ran on unleashing American energy away from the Green New Deal. The language-

Senator Jeff Merkley (21:11):

Rescissions or impoundments? Which strategy will you use? That's a simple question.

Hon. Russell Vought (21:17):

There's a section in those EOs that says that the Office of Legislative Affairs will work with Office of Management Budget. They may put forward rescissions, but again, the language of the EO says required by law and it's meant to do a programmatic delay to figure out what are the best ways to make sure that the funding is shifted.

Senator Jeff Merkley (21:40):

Well, very funny. Thank you. I'll just note that you are not willing to say that you'll use rescissions the legal method rather than the illegal method. That is a big concern for all of us here because the Constitution laid out the vision that Congress makes the law and not the president. So, the fact that you continue to advocate for this impoundment strategy, that is completely in violation of our constitution and I'm deeply disturbed that you will not renounce that today.

(22:13)
So, let's turn to work requirements. You've been a big advocate of work requirements. You encourage states to adopt waivers that would allow them to do that for Medicaid. One state tried it, Arkansas. It produced no increase in the hours worked, no increase in employment. It failed. Why did it fail? Because the way that people are able to work is when they're healthy and they can't access healthcare because you want to cut it off. They're really trapped in poverty and trapping people in poverty is really, well, not helpful. Now that your idea failed so miserably, are you going to advocate for it again,

Hon. Russell Vought (22:54):

Senator, one of the major legislations that our side has been very proud of since the 1990s was the impact of welfare reform in the 1990s. It led to caseload reductions, people getting off of welfare, going back into the workforce, and we think that that type of thinking should be applied to other federal programs and it's informed not only Medicaid but other programs to be able to encourage people to get back into the workforce, increase labor force participation and give people again, the dignity of work.

Senator Jeff Merkley (23:27):

And you believe cutting off healthcare encourages people to work when they need to get better health in order to work? It doesn't make any sense.

Hon. Russell Vought (23:35):

Again, Senator-

Senator Jeff Merkley (23:35):

And it's been a failed experiment, but you have answered the question. You're still an advocate of that failed approach that traps people in poverty and is quite disturbing. Now, according to the Treasury Department analysis produced this month, the Trump tax giveaways would give an average tax cut of 314,000 to the richest Americans, the top 0.1% and $6 annually to the average member of the bottom 10%. A cup of coffee for those trying to get on their feet in the course of a year and $300,000 in additional income for the richest Americans. Isn't this kind of asked backwards?

Hon. Russell Vought (24:16):

Senator, the President's tax cuts provided tax cuts for all Americans that had a sizable increase in the child tax credit, it had expansion of the standard deduction. It was something that benefited all Americans and as a result led to a strong economy that we hope to replicate again by having an extension of those important tax cuts.

Senator Jeff Merkley (24:35):

So you're very comfortable with a cup of coffee per year for the bottom 10% while you give $300,000 to the richest Americans according to the Treasury Department analysis?

Hon. Russell Vought (24:44):

Look, there are people at the higher end who are in charge of small businesses that are taking great risks to innovate and hire additional people that are not in their tax bracket, and that's part of the way that you structure economic growth.

Senator Jeff Merkley (25:00):

My final question because I'm running out of time. At your think tank in 2023, you proposed a $3.6 trillion in tax giveaways primarily going to the richest Americans. And to make the numbers work, you assume that your giveaway would produce the magic asterisk. You're probably familiar with the magic asterisk. Magic asterisk is saying, "Don't worry, be happy. The economy will improve because we give away the Treasury to the richest Americans and more revenue will come in." It's failed every single time it's been put forward. Not a single analysis has confirmed it and not from any serious analysis from CBO, the Congress Budget Office, not from the Joint Committee on Taxation. And yet you're still a believer in the magic asterisk?

Hon. Russell Vought (25:47):

Senator, I'm a believer in dynamic growth for sure. That when you cut taxes, it actually has a dynamic impact on the economy and we see that with revenues continuing to go up after all of the tax cuts that we've seen in history in 1920s, 1960s, 1980s, both of the Bush tax cuts and then the Trump tax cuts. We've seen a dynamic impact on the economy.

Senator Jeff Merkley (26:12):

Your facts are wrong, but we'll continue the discussion I'm sure.

Senator Lindsey Graham (26:17):

During the first Trump term before COVID, weren't African-American and Hispanic household incomes at their highest?

Hon. Russell Vought (26:24):

Yes, Senator.

Senator Lindsey Graham (26:25):

Thank you. Senator Grassley.

Senator Charles E. Grassley (26:28):

I've got a figure in front of me of $ 610 billion of improper payments just in healthcare. I would bet a lot of this information comes from whistleblowers, so my question to you is about whistleblowing. Do you have any role in protecting whistleblowers, encouraging whistleblowers, maybe changing the culture in a lot of agencies that treat whistleblowers like skunks at a picnic? Would you tell me about if there's anything you can do to help this process of whistleblowing that helps us explain not just the waste of money, but also improper government action?

Hon. Russell Vought (27:15):

Senator, thanks for the question. I think that whistleblowers play an enormous role in helping us weed out waste, fraud and abuse. As a Senate staffer and hill staffer, I benefit greatly from reading Inspector General reports in which they were a part of. From my standpoint at OMB, my view is OMB should be a advocate for whistleblowers in every possible way and to make sure that we value and as a result, the agency heads value the work that they do. And so we'll always be looking for opportunities along those lines.

Senator Charles E. Grassley (27:52):

I would like your view of how you can play a role in making the recent Supreme Court decision overturning the Chevron Doctrine, the Loper case, how that can help you stop our government from being over-regulated, bureaucrats overreaching, using a statute that can be liberally interpreted and all that?

Hon. Russell Vought (28:24):

Thank you, Senator. It is one of those aspects of the regulatory process in terms of deregulating, in terms of making sure that agencies are sticking to the law that we want to make sure if confirmed, we get properly set up. That would be part of the review process, not unlike cost-benefit analysis and making sure agencies are not coming up with new interpretations of what the statute should say. We want to stick to the statute.

Senator Charles E. Grassley (28:53):

So you'll be watching that regulatory process to make sure that Loper is followed?

Hon. Russell Vought (29:01):

Yes, Senator.

Senator Charles E. Grassley (29:02):

Okay. Another thing that irritates me about… By the way, these problems I'm talking about aren't just Democrat problems, they're Republican and Democrat problems that we got to deal with. So another one would be not answering our letters. Now, I don't know whether I've got a lot of letters to your department or not that haven't been answered, but I can give you the Justice Department's example. When Pam Bondi was in my office, I gave her a stack of 158 letters that the Justice Department just in the last four years haven't answered. And it was to somewhat the same under Obama and Trump in previous ends. We've got a constitutional responsibility to make sure that the executive branch faithfully executes our laws. So, we want to make sure that these letters are answered.

(29:59)
So on September 15th, 2023, I sent President Biden's OMB director a letter asking a simple question, where is the implementation guidance for the Open Government Data Act? That's just one example. At that point, OMB was five years late in issuing the guidance. The guidance was intended to make government information more open and available. In the final days of the Biden administration, they released the guidance, but they never directly responded to my request. If confirmed, will you commit to ensuring OMB provides timely and complete responses to congressional oversight?

Hon. Russell Vought (30:45):

Yes, Senator. I think it's very important. It's one of the things that I asked my team to let me know immediately the day of when senators and Congressmen are writing and sending us letters. I want to be immediately aware. And quite frankly, and I've said this to all of you in our individual meetings, I want to know before it gets time to have to send a letter of which that's an important part of the process.

Senator Charles E. Grassley (31:12):

Should you be confirmed, you'll face daunting task of reining in the bloated federal government. Besides crafting a responsible budget, what actions can you take as OMB director to begin right-sizing the federal government>

Hon. Russell Vought (31:30):

Well, we're going to go, if confirmed, Senator, right into the process of finishing the fiscal year '25, helping the President come to a view on how that should proceed. We'll be in the process of various discussions with regard to reconciliation of which are very important. And then there's just the normal management of different agencies for waste, fraud and abuse beyond sending up a presidential budget of which we'll have to get started and get caught up based on just the normal process of an incoming administration.

Senator Charles E. Grassley (32:05):

Thank you.

Senator Lindsey Graham (32:06):

If I were you, I'd answer Senator Grassley's letter if you ever sent one and I'd be pro-whistleblower. Senator Murray.

Senator Patty Murray (32:15):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Vought, I appreciated the opportunity to meet with you last week, but I do continue to have very serious concerns regarding your nomination, starting with your position and record on impoundments. I do not believe what happened in the case of withholding security assistance to Ukraine in 2019 while you were acting OMB director was an accident or a misunderstanding, and I fear it is actually a harbinger of what is to come these next four years. In fact, on his first day in office, we saw the President order among other things, what appears to be an illegal deferral of Inflation Reduction Act, bipartisan infrastructure law and foreign assistance funds as Senator Merkley referred to.

(33:05)
And Mr. Vought, your written response when pressed on this that you will follow the advice of the incoming OMB general counsel, Mark Paoletta, someone who has called the Impoundment Control Act a stupid law and recently tweeted at you to impound baby impound is a bit rich. Look, as I said to you at our meeting, members of Congress on both sides must know a deal is a deal. A deal is a deal when we reach a bipartisan agreement on major legislation. Agreements cannot happen and Congress cannot function without that level of trust. And impound, baby impound is not the answer I am looking for. So I want to ask you today, will you, if confirmed, ask director faithfully follow the law, the Impoundment Control Act? Yes or no?

Hon. Russell Vought (33:57):

Senator, we will faithfully uphold the law. The

Hon. Russell Vought (34:00):

… President ran on the notion that the Impoundment Control Act is unconstitutional. I agree with that. I would in response to both questions say that what the President has unveiled already are not impoundments, they are programmatic delays.

Senator Patty Murray (34:15):

Has impoundment law ever been said to be unconstitutional by a court of law?

Hon. Russell Vought (34:19):

Not to my knowledge.

Senator Patty Murray (34:21):

No, it has not. So it is the law of the land. I don't care what the President said when he was running. It is the law of the land. So will you follow that law if you are confirmed to this office?

Hon. Russell Vought (34:31):

Senator, the President and his team is going to go through a review with our lawyers, if confirmed, including the Department of Justice to explore the parameters of the law with regard to the Impoundment Control Act. He hasn't developed a strategy that he's announced as it pertains to how he would approach it. There are pieces of legislation that have been proposed by members of this committee that is-

Senator Patty Murray (34:56):

We propose legislation all the time. If the rule of the law in a state is that it's a 50 mile an hour speed limit, you can't just say, "Well, I think that's irresponsible and I'm going to challenge it so therefore I don't have to follow it." The impoundment law is the law. Will you follow it or not? You can say that, "We're going to look at it and might challenge it in court," but it is the law today. Will you follow that law as director?

Hon. Russell Vought (35:24):

Senator, the reason why the President ran on this is that 200 years of Presidents had this authority-

Senator Patty Murray (35:29):

You're telling me to manage why you don't agree with the law, but the law is the law. Will you follow the law?

Hon. Russell Vought (35:33):

And what he found in the first term was that we had agencies that would push out spending at the end of the fiscal year-

Senator Patty Murray (35:39):

Mr. Chairman, I'm going to take my time back for a minute and just tell all of us. We work all the time on Appropriations where I am Ranking Member to come to an agreement. Senator Graham, you and I work on agreements and we decide, "Yeah, okay, we'll both vote for this. We have an agreement." How can we ever have an agreement in the future if a President, whoever he or her may be in the future, has say over that saying, "Nope, never mind. I'm not going to pay for this part of it?" We have to have agreements. It is the law of the land. And I have to say that your answer to this should be disconcerting to every single member on this committee.

(36:15)
I have a minute left and I want to ask you another important question to me because as director of the powerful Office of Management and Budget, your job will not be merely to execute the President's agenda, it is also to advise the President on policy as you've made clear. So I want to ask about women's health policy. You are a lead author of the anti-abortion Project 2025. You were also caught just a few months ago saying that when it comes to abortion, you "want to get to abolition." Now everyone should understand that abortion abolition means zero abortions under any circumstance whatsoever. So Mr. Vought, you have said that you don't believe in exceptions for rape, for incest, or life of the mother. Is that your position?

Hon. Russell Vought (37:02):

Senator, my views are not important. I'm here on behalf of the President as his nominee to restore fiscal accountability.

Senator Patty Murray (37:08):

I'm asking you a question under oath, sir, because you want to be director of an office that will advise the President and we have a right to know your views. Will you answer the question?

Hon. Russell Vought (37:18):

I will, Senator, because it's consistent with the views that the President ran on repeatedly, made his views very clear on abortion with regard in the last election. I will be-

Senator Patty Murray (37:33):

Even in the case of rape, incest, life of the mother?

Hon. Russell Vought (37:33):

That is his view and I will strictly abide by the President's view and that will be a general theme throughout this entire hearing. My view of the position is that you come into an administration and you do what the President ran on, what the President's viewpoints are, and you take that viewpoint-

Senator Patty Murray (37:49):

You don't need to say anything else. My time is up. It's very clear what your stance is on this and people in this country, women and men alike, should know that.

Senator Lindsey Graham (37:58):

Senator Crapo. Never mind. Senator Johnson.

Mr. Johnson (38:07):

Mr. Vought, thanks for being here again. Hope this is one of many appearances before this committee. In your appearance before the Homeland Security Committee, I really spent a lot of time on spending. I want to focus on the other part of the budget, which is revenue on this one, but I do want to just kind of talk in general on macro terms. If you take a look at federal outlays, averages over the decades, back in the '60s, we spent 8.2% on average, '70s, it was 19.6, '80s 21.5, the '90s 19.9%, the 2000s 19.6%, the 2010 through '19, 21%. This year, right around 25% of GDP, federal spending. What do you think is an appropriate level a percentage of GDP? What would be a goal for this administration to…? Again, we talked about getting back to a pre-pandemic level spending. 2019 we spent 4.4. Last five years we've had 6.5% or $6.5 trillion. What's an appropriate percentage of GDP for federal spending?

Hon. Russell Vought (39:13):

Well, Senator, it is a great question. We haven't set a fiscal goal yet for this administration, but I think trying to get back to historical levels of outlays is one of those important first steps to begin to find out ways to be able to not set records as a percentage of GDP, whether that is outlays as a percentage of GDP or debt as a percentage of GDP. As you know, we're now above levels in World War II, which we never thought we would get there outside of crises and we need to change the trajectory that we're on as a country for sure.

Mr. Johnson (39:47):

Okay, so want to work very closely with you to again bring down that level of spending to a reasonable pre-pandemic level. It's absurd that we're basically spending at pandemic levels. In terms of the automatic tax increase that would go into effect if we don't take action, I would think the first goal would be to return certainty that that will not happen. Would you agree with that?

Hon. Russell Vought (40:15):

Yes, Senator.

Mr. Johnson (40:16):

Okay. One way of doing that I proposed this morning at a political event is.. I know people are talking about one big beautiful bill or two steps. I would actually recommend three steps. First, reconciliation. Handle the border, keep it simple, we all agree on that. Second would be just extend the Tax Cut and Job Acts as it is. That would take any tax increase off the table because what I want to do in the third step is simplify and rationalize the tax code. And one thing I found is there's nothing simple about doing that. So I just want to throw that out there. I think Republicans would all agree that we want to return certainty that there's not going to be a massive tax increase. This would be one way to do it. Just let's quick get in there, extend it using current policy, Senator Crapo's idea there, which makes a lot of sense.

(41:06)
By the way, let's just discuss that for a minute. In past budgets, we adhered to the rule that a spending policy that expires, if you extend that, there's no cost, but if it's a tax cut that expires, now all of a sudden you're dealing with trillions of dollars. And by the way, I don't believe those scores. Don't you think it makes a lot of sense to treat both spending and taxes the exact same way, that if we pass a budget in this committee, it's going to be based on current policy both for spending and for taxes?

Hon. Russell Vought (41:39):

Senator, I'm not here to make any announcements strategically for the administration, but I do think it makes sense to be able to treat spending in the same way that you treat the tax baseline. And so I think that's something that should be considered as you navigate the reconciliation process and have conversations with the parliamentarians, but I think that's a very important discussion that needs to continue to move forward to give options for the President and for this body.

Mr. Johnson (42:07):

So again, I'm always big in terms of goals of things, so again, I think it's a goal to return to that certainty. Let's take any kind of automatic tax increase off the table as quickly as possible. Then whatever we do do, and again, I don't like the term tax reform, I like the term tax simplification or rationalization, but whatever we do, it needs to be permanent. Let's not make the mistake of having automatic tax increases in what we do next. Now that's going to be complex. There's nothing simple about tax simplification. One of the things I think we ought to look at are tax expenditures.

(42:39)
I just had my staff print me out the list of tax expenditures. This is about 170 of them, totaling almost $1.7 trillion, about 6% of our economy. Now, some of these as I look at these are legitimate business deductions. I wouldn't consider them a tax expenditure, but is this something the administration's willing to take a look at, just trying to dramatically simplify our tax system? It costs $400 billion at least to comply with it. I mean is that something that you and the Treasury department and President will work with the me and this committee on trying to simplify our tax system?

Hon. Russell Vought (43:13):

Yes, Senator, happy to look at that list as well.

Mr. Johnson (43:15):

Okay, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Lindsey Graham (43:17):

I don't know if it's going to be one step, two steps, or three steps, but let's take a step. Senator Sanders.

Mr. Sanders (43:27):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and look forward to working with you.

Senator Lindsey Graham (43:29):

Yes, sir.

Mr. Sanders (43:30):

Mr. Vought, thanks for being here.

Hon. Russell Vought (43:31):

Thank you.

Mr. Sanders (43:33):

Mr. Vought, we are living in a moment in American history where at a time when 60% of our people are living paycheck to paycheck, we have more income and wealth inequality than we've ever had, three multi-billionaires own more wealth than the bottom half of American society. People are struggling to put food on the table, very rich are getting much richer. We have heard from our Republican colleagues in the house that they think it is a good idea to go forward to provide massive tax breaks to the billionaire class and at the same time help pay for that by cutting back on Medicaid.

(44:14)
And I know that you are more than aware that Medicaid not only provides healthcare to tens of millions of lower income people, but two out of three people in nursing homes in America, elderly people, are on Medicaid, paid for by Medicaid. You are going to be an advisor to the President if you are approved. Will you tell the President that it is immoral, that it is wrong to cut Medicaid, cut healthcare for lower income Americans, for children, and for the elderly and give tax breaks to the very richest people in our society? Is that something we can count on you to do?

Hon. Russell Vought (45:00):

Senator, one of the problems… I appreciate the questions. One of the problems that we have in the Medicaid problem is the extent to which… Instead of being a program for the poor, it's alone and the extent to which it's meant for nursing homes and things of that nature. We have able-bodied working adults on the program that are benefiting from a higher match rate than the populations that it was originally designed for. And as a result of that expanded match, you also have states chasing that match in other ways that have made it so that they're not looking at improper payments-

Mr. Sanders (45:38):

I don't have a lot of time. You're going into another area and that is a healthcare system in general. As you well know, unfortunately, the United States of America is the only major country on earth not to guarantee healthcare to all people as a human right. And the result of that, despite Medicaid, and we can argue about this or that aspect of Medicaid, despite that, $85 million Americans are uninsured or underinsured and importantly, and your colleague Mr. Musk made this point, we are spending far more on healthcare than any other country per person. I wonder as an advisor to the President will you try to determine how it is that countries around the world are able to provide care to all of their people and in some cases spend 50% per capita of what we're spending? Do you think the function of the American healthcare system should be to make huge profits for the insurance companies and the drug companies? Or do you think maybe we should have a system that guarantees healthcare to all people as a human right? Do you believe that healthcare is a human right?

Hon. Russell Vought (46:46):

Senator, I believe that it's very, very important that we put the healthcare dollars that the taxpayers are covering for the healthcare system which you just mentioned is substantial and to make sure we have the best outcomes in those programs. I want the people who benefit from Medicaid to have a great Medicaid program. And I look at a situation, a tragedy we had where a Deamonte Driver, a twelve-year-old dies of a toothache because the infection was never found.

Mr. Sanders (47:12):

You're right. Look, I don't want to argue. The healthcare system in my view is broken, it's dysfunctional. But my question to you, it's a simple one. As an advisor to the President, do you think we should join every other major country on earth and say, "You know what? Whether you're poor, you're rich, you're young, you're old, healthcare is a human right?" We are the richest country in the history of the world. Do you think we should do whatever the other major country on earth does?

Hon. Russell Vought (47:35):

Senator, I think it's important to provide legitimate evidence-based outcomes for people within the healthcare system and to make sure that we tailor all of the dollars that are spent towards ensuring that-

Mr. Sanders (47:48):

You didn't answer my question-

Hon. Russell Vought (47:49):

That they have-

Mr. Sanders (47:50):

Mr. Vought, my question… Fine. Question is a simple question. In America, should we do what every other major country does and say, "I don't care if you're poor, you're rich, you're old, you're young. Healthcare is a human right?" Yes, no?

Hon. Russell Vought (48:03):

Senator, I think the President has not made a… He ran on providing good healthcare outcomes. That's my view-

Mr. Sanders (48:10):

You're an advisor to the President. You're going to be a key advisor if you are approved. Do you think that healthcare is a human right that every American should be entitled to?

Hon. Russell Vought (48:19):

I believe the role of the Office of Management and Budget director is to take what the President has run on, the things that the President has as a policy agenda and to turn that into policy, to implement that. And so to the extent that he has run on having lower prescription drugs, that's a priority of the administration.

Mr. Sanders (48:38):

Good. Are you…? Well, thank you. All right. The President in the past, I don't know about recently, has indicated that he would maybe do what President Biden, did stand up to Big Pharma. We are paying now in some cases 10 times more, as you know, the same exact drug that other countries are paying. Are you going to advise the President to take on big Pharma and do what he promised to do? And that is have Americans not pay a nickel more than other countries for prescription drugs? Will you advise him to do that?

Hon. Russell Vought (49:07):

Senator, President hasn't not made an announcement since he's been in office, but he certainly ran on this issue. There was a speech with regard to making sure that we were getting the same types of arrangements that the other countries were, given the amount that we are investing in it. But he also, Senator, wants to do it in a careful way so that we are not ruining the phenomena and the industry that allows us to have life-saving, disease-

Mr. Sanders (49:35):

I got it. I do understand that and I don't disagree with that.

Hon. Russell Vought (49:35):

Disease halting drugs.

Mr. Sanders (49:37):

We want innovation, but will you maintain what we fought very hard to do, to do whatever other country does, have Medicare, negotiate prescription drug prices with the industry?

Hon. Russell Vought (49:48):

No, Senator, I'm not here to get in front of the President on any of his policies other than to say that this has been a priority for him. And I think your question reflects that it's been a priority of his.

Mr. Sanders (49:56):

I've over-extended my time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Lindsey Graham (49:58):

Thank you, Senator Sanders. Senator Cornyn.

Senator Charles E. Grassley (50:02):

Mr. Vought, thank you for your willingness to serve the nation again and especially you and your family. You know that this job comes with more than its fair share of abuse that you receive, but I believe this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to do what we need to do to get our spending in check and to make sure that we do what you said, I think at the beginning of your testimony, which is the most important thing the federal government does is provide for the security and safety of the American people.

(50:40)
You remember 15 years ago, Admiral Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said the biggest threat to our national security was our debt. Now when he said that, I thought that was kind of an unusual thing to say, but if you think of it as a prediction, it's literally become true because now we spend more money on interest on the national debt than we do on defense. And that is a recipe for disaster and what I think is the most dangerous world we've seen since World War II. But let me take you back to the issue of inflation. We've just come off of a forty-year high inflation rate for the American people, which is sort of a silent tax which degrades the standard of living for all Americans. And how is inflation related to government spending?

Hon. Russell Vought (51:38):

Well, thank you, Senator. This is an important moment in history for our country to be able to get a handle on our debt and deficits and I believe that spending is a big driver of inflation. I think you saw that under the Biden administration when they put forward some of the Covid packages early in his administration, all of a sudden we had an inflation problem. I predicted it at the time. Larry Summers on the Democrat side predicted it at the time, and we saw something that the so-called experts told us we'd never see again, which is inflation at the levels that the American people could not absorb, nor should they ever be expected to. So I think it's both an energy phenomena, I think it's a regulatory phenomena, and I think it's a spending component.

Senator Charles E. Grassley (52:25):

I think Milton Friedman would agree with you on the spending side certainly. So the federal government spends roughly $6.75 trillion at the present time. I know none of us can really even get our brain around how much money that is. It's a lot of money, but we also took in last year about $4.5 trillion in revenue. So there's a significant gap between what the federal government spends and what the federal government gets in terms of revenue. Do you think that's sustainable?

Hon. Russell Vought (53:01):

No, sir, it is not. We have to get spending under control. I think what we've seen though is that revenues have been hovering about where they have been historically as a percentage of GDP and as a result, the problem is primarily on the spending side. And that's one of the reasons that you've seen in the first term the President put forward substantial numbers of savings and reforms to get a handle on the spending component of the federal budget.

Senator Charles E. Grassley (53:26):

And right now the Congress appropriates roughly 28% of the money that the federal government spends. The rest of it is mandatory spending and id spent under the tax code, as Senator Johnson pointed out. I don't know how we're ever going to balance the budget just looking at 28% of what the federal government spends. That's not to say we should not look at it, but do you agree with me that we need to look at mandatory spending programs? I understand that Medicare and social security, absent bipartisan support, are unlikely to be the sources of any savings on spending, but we spend, I think at last count, roughly $700 billion a year on mandatory spending programs that Congress turns on. It doesn't cap, it doesn't have a cost of living index, it's just based on demand and they grow at six, seven, 8%. Do you think we need to look at non-Social Security, non-Medicare mandatory spending to find some of the savings?

Hon. Russell Vought (54:31):

Yes, Senator. And it's one of the reasons why there's substantial numbers of savings and reforms. Many of this was getting better outcomes in these programs that were consistent with the President's protection of Social Security and Medicare, that still allowed us to get to balance in the budget that we last sent up in the first term. The President's approach has been, "Get after the bureaucracy that's largely wasting money," and be able to get people back to work with things like welfare reform and other reforms that we've seen historically work to get better labor force participation and a better economy.

Senator Charles E. Grassley (55:05):

Thank you.

Senator Lindsey Graham (55:07):

Senator Warner.

Mr. Warner (55:09):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Vought, it's good to see you. These hearings are important. I kind of view them as a job interview. I got to tell you though, kind of curious about your background. Dozen years on the Hill, government bureaucrat, right-wing think tank. Seems to me you are a total product of what MAGA folks call the Swamp. I'm not sure how that Swamp expertise is going to help you in this job. I'm a little different than most folks here. I actually run a business, I'm at a payroll, managed an operation. You've had no private sector experience. And I looked then at what you've said. From just the management standpoint, it seems like what you want to do is how many federal workers can you get to quit? How many federal offices can you go out and relocate? And I got to tell, you your words, "We want the bureaucrats to be traumatically affected," because they are increasingly viewed as villains.

(56:14)
"We want to put them in trauma." I got to tell you, you want to be OMB and help oversee this workforce and you want to put the workforce in trauma? Sir, that would be management malpractice. I appreciate the fact of what you've done in the past. Let's look at your record. It's an interview. 2019, you helped move the BLM out, 170% increase in vacancies of the BLM. GAO, the folks are supposed to be independent, said that move dramatically impaired its ability to serve the American people. Another failure that some of us pointed out. Last time, he said, "Let's move part of the Department of Agriculture out." Two bureaus. Led to 40% and 60% reduction in effectiveness.

(57:08)
Then we get to your madness, at least I'll give you credit for putting it down in writing, Project 2025 and that handbook. Sir, I do appreciate the fact, one of the things you said, which was you think it's important for the federal government to keep our nation safe. Probably the most important thing I've done in this job is my work with the intelligence community. I'm Chair and Vice Chair now, we got thousands of men and women who work in the intelligence community without a lot of fanfare. You realize, of course, I hope that to become a CIA agent, it takes about a year to get a secure clearance. You're aware of that?

Hon. Russell Vought (57:50):

Yes, Senator.

Mr. Warner (57:50):

All right, so in your Projects 2025 madness, you put forward the idea that somehow breaking up the CIA and moving it around the country would make our nation more safe. Do you not understand, sir, that if President Trump, by having the intelligence community close to him, to have ability from folks from NSA, CIA, the Pentagon, the FBI in this region…? Your idea of let's somehow go on this ideological jihad to break up the intelligence community's effectiveness. I would ask you, sir, can you show any evidence that somehow we would make our nation safer if you put your political litmus test and this idea of bringing trauma to the federal workforce by taking the intelligence community which has been supported on a bipartisan basis year in and year out and somehow breaking it up and spreading it hither and yon just for a political purpose. How does that make our nation safer?

Hon. Russell Vought (59:06):

Senator, I never proposed that and the President has disassociated himself from Project 2025. It's a mischaracterization of-

Mr. Warner (59:13):

All right. Okay, good. We're here on the record. You're going to commit to make sure… I would argue you have to make a business case before you start breaking up the government. I'm all for effectiveness, but are you going to be willing here to commit not to undermine our national intelligence community by arbitrarily trying to break them up and spread them around just because you want to blow up the federal workforce in this region?

Hon. Russell Vought (59:39):

Yes, Senator. There's no policy process that the Trump administration had done that's producing arbitrary results. And let me speak to the question that you raised with regard to my comments about the bureaucracy. It was specifically in reference to the weaponized bureaucracy that we've seen at the-

Mr. Warner (59:56):

So you are the arbiter of who's weaponized and who's not? Again, I hope my colleagues will raise, I think, your completely irresponsible actions on so-called Schedule F. We put a civil service in place. But I urge you, sir, if you become in this position, think long and hard about the men and women of the national security and the intelligence community before you go on some political jihad of trying to score points by simply trying to break up an operation that actually functions better because of their close collaboration. And your comments about the federal workforce, I find disqualifying on its basis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Lindsey Graham (01:00:43):

Thank you. Senator Kennedy.

Mr. Kennedy (01:00:47):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Vought, welcome.

Hon. Russell Vought (01:00:52):

Thank you, Senator.

Mr. Kennedy (01:00:55):

In my judgment, I do not know a single person in Washington or outside Washington who knows more about the federal budget than you do. I used to read your suggestions during President Trump's first term, many of which Congress ignored. We shouldn't have. I am delighted that the President picked you. I have read that since 2019, the population of America has increased 2% and our spending has increased 55%. Under President Biden, I wish him well, if we had discovered life on Mars, he would've sent it money. Is that sustainable?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:02:12):

Senator, it's totally unsustainable. And the problem is that you go on these trajectories that we're currently on and you don't know when you're going to get to the point of which you have some major, major problems as an economy and as a country. And we know that historically.

Mr. Kennedy (01:02:31):

I hope you'll start with the low-hanging fruit. There's a lot. When we sent out stimulus checks to save our economy, $1.6 billion went to dead people and the checks were cashed. Obviously, fraud. OMB has estimated that in fiscal year 2023 we sent out $1.3 billion of checks to dead people, which were cashed. Obviously, fraud. When you die in America, your name is sent to the Social Security Administration. As you know, you become part of the master death file. Senator Carper and I discovered that Social Security would not share that information with any other department of government. So we passed a bill saying you have to share it with Treasury and other people who write checks so we'll stop paying dead people. Duh. We got pushback, believe it or not, on the bill. We had to agree to a trial period and that trial period ends in 2026. Will you help us make that program permanent so we can stop paying dead people?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:03:54):

Yes, Senator.

Mr. Kennedy (01:03:56):

Now you've served in Washington for years. You're going to be challenging the status quo. You're going to be called crazy. Many people also called Noah crazy, and then the rains came and all the fact-checkers died. You have to persevere. Now I'm not asking you to get ahead of President Trump, but if you were king for a day, tell me how you would save money in the federal budget without impacting the American people.

Hon. Russell Vought (01:04:51):

Thank you, Senator. I think it's the strategy that we had in the first term, which is to go and take a very close look at the agencies that are spending and wasting money. And I believe weaponized at times against the American people. When they put a 70 seven-year-old Navy veteran in jail, Joe Robertson, for 18 months for building four ponds on his ranch to be prepared for wildfires, that's the EPA, I think we have to look at that and we have to look at the agencies that Congress has a vote on every single year through the appropriations process.

(01:05:24)
And then I think we need to go after the mandatory programs that Senator Cornyn mentioned that are keeping people out of the workforce because they have become not just a social safety net, but they have become a benefit hammock. And increasingly so in the aftermath of Covid, as many of these policies were impacting people's decisions to go back into the workforce. And I believe, and because we've produced budgets along these lines, you could get sizable levels of savings and reforms that can lead to a balanced budget and get us back headed in a fiscal trajectory. Not only we would be all be proud of, but we could say this is going to keep us from fiscal ruin.

Mr. Kennedy (01:06:06):

My time's expired. Ella Porter, do you have anything you'd like to add? Okay. Now's your shot. Thank you, Mr. Vought, for your time.

Hon. Russell Vought (01:06:18):

Thank you.

Mr. Kennedy (01:06:18):

Congratulations.

Senator Lindsey Graham (01:06:20):

Good call there, young lady. So apparently we're going to Mars and I'm going to reserve whether or not I want to help them. Maybe we do if we find them up there. So anyway, as to dead people, I don't want to give them checks and they shouldn't vote either. So Senator Kaine.

Mr. Kaine (01:06:39):

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Congratulations on the nomination, Mr. Vought. I want to go back to the comment that Senator Warner read to you. There's 140,000 federal employees in Virginia, and you gave a speech that got a lot of attention when you said, "We want bureaucrats to be traumatically affected. When they wake up in the morning, we want them to not want to go to work because they are increasingly viewed as the villains." Now, I pay attention to the way people say things because there's a million ways you can make a point and the way you choose to make a point tells you something about the person. There's a wonderful sentence… I had an Old Testament reference over there. I'll go to it. New Testament when Luke 6:45, "From the fullness of the heart, the mouth speaks." "We want people to be traumatized. We want people to be traumatized."

(01:07:29)
I've heard a million people in this room give speeches about, "We want to cut the budget, we want to reduce federal spending, we want to deal with the deficit, but I haven't heard anybody give a gleeful speech about traumatizing the federal workforce. You don't want federal air traffic controllers going to the airport traumatized do you, Mr. Vought?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:07:46):

No, Senator.

Mr. Kaine (01:07:47):

You don't want the people inspecting our food, our medicine, our infant formula as federal… You don't want them to go to work traumatized, do you?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:07:55):

No, Senator. I have already said that.

Mr. Kaine (01:07:55):

You want that people interdicting drugs at the border, you don't want them going to

Mr. Kaine (01:08:00):

Work traumatized, do you?

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

No Senator.

Mr. Kaine (01:08:01):

And you don't want people who are working for you at the OMB who many people would think, well they're in the White House. They must be, you don't want them traumatized, do you?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:08:09):

No Senator, thank you for expanding on that.

Mr. Kaine (01:08:12):

Yeah, well I felt like I had to because I got 140,000 people and most of them have families and they're trying to do a good job. Was your comment about people being traumatized just focused on the federal workforce or was it more broadly about state employees and local government employees too?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:08:30):

Senator, it was about the weaponized bureaucracy that unfortunately-

Mr. Kaine (01:08:33):

I'm going to get to weaponized in a minute, but you were talking about the federal workforce.

Hon. Russell Vought (01:08:36):

I was talking about the bureaucracy that I experienced and that have as we-

Mr. Kaine (01:08:41):

At the federal level?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:08:42):

At the federal level.

Mr. Kaine (01:08:43):

You were not talking about state employees?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:08:45):

I can't speak. I have no experience with the state.

Mr. Kaine (01:08:47):

You were not talking about local employees?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:08:49):

I was not.

Mr. Kaine (01:08:50):

Your mother was a public school teacher, correct?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:08:52):

Yes, Senator.

Mr. Kaine (01:08:53):

So you were talking about you want the federal workforce to be traumatized.

Hon. Russell Vought (01:08:58):

Bureaucracies.

Mr. Kaine (01:09:02):

I like a lot of presidents. I'm a Lincoln fan. Are you a Lincoln fan?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:09:05):

Yes Senator.

Mr. Kaine (01:09:06):

Lincoln spoke to a nation at war and he said with malice towards none and charity towards all, and he was saying that to the North and the South. He didn't say, "We want you to be traumatized." He was a bridge builder and a unifier and that's what public servants should be. They shouldn't gleefully be wishing trauma on people who are trying to serve their fellow man. I want to get to woke and weaponized. You were the president of the Center for Renewing America and the think tank produced a 2023 budget proposal calling a commitment to end woke and weaponized government. Do you remember that?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:09:49):

Yes Senator.

Mr. Kaine (01:09:49):

And that's the correct title?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:09:50):

Yes Senator.

Mr. Kaine (01:09:52):

It's 104 pages of details to end woke and weaponized government and it proposes deep cuts to the SNAP program. Is providing nutrition assistance to low-income kids woke and weaponized?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:10:05):

Senator, I'm not here to talk about the budget that the center put out. I'm here on behalf of the President.

Mr. Kaine (01:10:09):

You just said you did that. I want to know what's woke and weaponized about providing food assistance to low-income kids.

Hon. Russell Vought (01:10:17):

Well again, I'm not here on behalf of my center. I'm behalf of the President.

Mr. Kaine (01:10:22):

I know. But this is your work product. I mean you can say it's not woke and weaponized or you can tell me why it's woke and weaponized. I don't think SNAP programs or benefits for kids are woke and weaponized. Do you agree with me?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:10:34):

When we refer to the federal government being weaponized, we're referring to bureaucracies that contain-

Mr. Kaine (01:10:40):

Okay, so you didn't include SNAP, you proposed to cut SNAP, but you're not saying it's woke and weaponized?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:10:47):

Again, I am not going to answer questions about the Center for Renewing America's Products.

Mr. Kaine (01:10:49):

You proposed deep cuts to Pell Grants. Is helping kids pay for college and helping their families, is that woke and weaponized?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:10:56):

Again, I'm not here to defend the Center for America.

Mr. Kaine (01:10:59):

I get it that you're not here to defend that work product and I'm going to understand why. You proposed deep cuts to Medicaid for millions of low income families. Why is that woke and weaponized? You proposed undermining health insurance. Why is that woke and weaponized? Eliminating tenant-based rental assistance. Why is that woke and weaponized? Eliminating the low income housing energy assistance program. This was all in your document about ending woke and weaponized government. Okay, let's see. We want to traumatize federal employees and then we want to take all these programs that help everyday people who are struggling and cut them because they're woke and weaponized. Those are your words, not mine. From the fullness of the heart, the mouth speaks. I yield back.

Speaker 1 (01:11:48):

Senator Ricketts.

Senator Ricketts (01:11:52):

Thank you Mr. Chairman. My colleague next to me here from Louisiana has already referenced the federal spending, roughly $4. 4 trillion in 2019 and 6.8, 6.9 in 2024. I think the President Biden's proposal was for seven trillion dollars. He referenced the 55% increase in just five years. We greatly expanded federal spending, recklessly expanded it and including a number of areas that my colleague from Virginia just was referencing. Areas were expanded for example during Covid and never brought back down to say 2019 levels. That reckless spending has led to 40 year high inflation. We've talked about that as well and you in your opening remarks remarked how Americans are worse off today four years later after Joe Biden because of his reckless spending contributed to this inflation. But that's not the only thing that contributed to how Americans are being hurt by the policies of this Biden administration that just left.

(01:13:01)
One of the other areas that they have been hurt by is the regulation and you've mentioned some of the bureaucracies out of control. Throwing a man, a 77-year-old in prison for building ponds. But if you look over the last four years, the Biden administration put in over a 100,000 pages of new regulation, 33 feet tall, taller than a three-story building worth of regulations. One study said it was adding $3,300 to the costs of every American household. This is kind of like hidden costs that we see on American households. This is also one of the reasons why Americans are worse off today than they were four years ago.

(01:13:49)
One of the examples of hiding some of these costs was actually in the EPA with the tailpipe regulations also known as the EV mandate. That was a 573-page document and there was one table on costs, one table. And so what we see from this outgoing administration is hiding the cost from the American people so that they don't understand and don't see what their government is trying to do to them, how their government is actually laying on these regulations that harm them and that's why they feel worse off today than they did four years ago. If you're confirmed, will you commit that you will work with me to help reverse and expose the regulations and how agencies try to hide the cost, try to play around with the numbers. You may have heard the phrase there's lies, damn lies, and statistics, right? We need to make sure that when we are passing regulations that we have a full cost benefit analysis that people understand the trade-offs they're making by having regulation. Will you, if you're confirmed, commit that you will work with us to be able to make sure that we fully understand the cost of this and that these agencies will not try to hide the cost of the regulations?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:15:12):

Yes, absolutely. And this is one of those fundamental apparatuses that we need to get back in place that we had in the first term. If confirmed, it'll be one of the earliest projects that I'm a part of.

Senator Ricketts (01:15:23):

Great, thank you very much, Mr. Vought. Also, I want to switch gears on you a little bit here as well because it's also another example of how the bureaucracy is failing. As you know, biofuels are important to my state of Nebraska. We're an agricultural state. Biofuels are a way for us to be able to help clean up the environment, produce our reliance on foreign sources of energy, and it's great for farmers and ranchers as well. Also helps save consumers money at the pump. The renewable fuel standard and the renewable volume Obligations. RVO's are priorities for me and my state. The 2026 RVO's were supposed to be filed November 1st, 2024 and now it looks like it's going to be in December, and I'm sure the folks who were in business in the past know that certainty is important for businesses and we're going to be over a year behind. Will you commit to working with me to help make sure that the bureaucracies are following the law and fulfilling their obligations, for example, in this case specifically to get the RVO's out on a timely basis?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:16:33):

Yes, Senator.

Senator Ricketts (01:16:34):

Great. And then one last area since I'm running out of time here real quick. We must tackle the national debt. It's the biggest internal threat. We've kind of talked about it already, but the Chinese Communist Party is the biggest external threat we face as a nation. How will you ensure that we are protecting federal dollars in the contracting process to make sure that our adversaries and entities that are hostile to us like the Chinese Communist Party are not being subsidized by our American tax dollars? And how will you advise the administration on that?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:17:04):

Well, it'll be a priority through our role in advising contractors and the agencies that are engaged with them. In the first term, we had a lot of work that we were doing on behalf of the laws that were passed to make sure that Huawei was not a part of getting taxpayer contracts and that will be a trend that we will continue and we'll be working with you on any new laws that are put forward and looking closely at the statutes that are already in place.

Senator Ricketts (01:17:36):

Thank you Mr. Vought. I appreciate it. I've run over my time, but you also have very cute daughters, so I'm glad they're here today. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Speaker 1 (01:17:43):

Senator Van Hollen.

Senator Van Hollen (01:17:45):

Thank you Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vought, good to see you. Look, we're just a few days into the Trump administration and already seen a huge gap between what candidate Trump ran on, which was helping working men and women in this country and what he's actually focused on, including recently pardoning people who had been convicted of assaulting and bludgeoning police officers, including an executive order that stops ongoing initiatives to reduce the costs of prescription drugs, including as we've heard today, a renewal of a tax plan that disproportionately benefited the very wealthy and the biggest corporations at the expense of other Americans. As we saw on the dais during the swearing in, the golden age for America will be great for the billionaire tech titans who had seats better than those of the incoming cabinet officers. So President Trump was very clear that he's going to govern in a way that was different than candidate Trump.

(01:18:58)
You're going to play a very instrumental role in this administration if confirmed and I believe that the best way to judge or guess what the future looks like in terms of your conduct is to look at the past. And in December 2019, I wrote to the GAO asking them if OMBU, the previous Trump administration had violated the Empowerment Control Act by withholding funds from Ukraine. And in January I got the response back and their conclusion was yes, that you had violated the Empowerment Control Act. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the letter I received from GAO be entered into the record.

Speaker 1 (01:19:46):

Without objection.

Senator Van Hollen (01:19:48):

Now I listened very carefully to the exchange you had with Senator Murray and you had a very clear opportunity to say, yes, you will comply with the Empowerment Control Act. I didn't hear you say that. So just to give you another chance, will you comply with the Empowerment Control Act?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:20:09):

Senator, President ran against the Empowerment Control Act.

Senator Van Hollen (01:20:13):

Mr. Vought. I know what the President did. He wants to change lots of things. He can submit legislation to do that, but you are going to be the head of OMB and here today at this hearing, you're refusing to commit to comply with the Empowerment Control Act. Is that right? Are you refusing to commit to complying?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:20:34):

Senator, the administration has to go through a policy process to understand the legal parameters for operating in the ICA.

Senator Van Hollen (01:20:42):

I'm going to reclaim my time. I'm sorry, I was just, it seems that complying with the current law, even if you disagree with it, would result in a clear answer. Yes, I will comply with the current law including the Empowerment Control Act. Let me turn to DOJ. All of us support greater government efficiency. I'd like to see it in many different agencies including the Pentagon, which is the one agency which has continued to fail audits. Now Elon Musk is going to head up DOJ and what I'm worried about DOJ is that it will not bring efficiency, but it will open the door to political cronyism. So my question to you is this, will Elon Musk and the other folks at DOJ, will they be required to recuse themselves from recommending changes to programs in which they are huge beneficiaries? Because I think as you know, Elon Musk has lots of interests in government actions and government contracts. So will those members have to recuse themselves from putting forth proposals in areas where they have a clear conflict of interest?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:21:57):

Senator, this administration has the highest ethical standards and anyone who's a federal employee will be going through the recusal process and the ethics process that is expected and required for all employees of the federal government.

Senator Van Hollen (01:22:09):

So they will be. Good. Now, I just want to pick up on the quote that Senator Kane, Senator Warner mentioned about traumatically inflicting trauma on federal employees. Is this an opportunity for you to retract that statement and apologize to those civil servants? Do you want to use this opportunity to do that?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:22:35):

Senator, as I've said before, I was referring specifically to weaponized bureaucracies that are aimed against the American people themselves and the president that was their boss, the person that was put in charge of them.

Senator Van Hollen (01:22:48):

I've looked at the transcript, it was much broader than that. It wasn't just focused on those individuals. I will say on schedule, and this is my last question because there are lots of concerns that this will be used to convert a merit-based civil service which we have today into one based on political cronyism. So if you were successful at going through with Schedule F and you decided to fire an individual, would they continue to have the due process rights that merit-based civil servants have?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:23:25):

Senator, Schedule F is not a tool to fire individuals. It is something that is so that the President gets people who are policy-based, confidential staffers that are still merit, are still career, they are still in the Democrat and Republican-

Senator Van Hollen (01:23:43):

Mr. Vought, I'm sorry, but my question was if you choose to fire somebody, are you firing them at will or will they have the due process rights that currently apply to merit-based civil servants to avoid having them fired for political reasons?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:23:58):

Senator Schedule F is a different classification. It is meant to ensure that the administration, the President has people who are working for him that are actually going to do the policies that he ran on, that he's articulating. We think that's an important fundamental principle and it does not mean that we have any intent to use that to fire career civil servants. I worked with, I value the work that they do. I hope that the same people there that was working for, I had one person that was there from Jimmy Carter, I actually had a person there from LBJ. I love the fact that the career individuals from OMB bring with them that expertise to be able to advise us on our policies. It is not a desire to just fire anyone that has that classification.

Senator Van Hollen (01:24:44):

I understand, but Mr. Chairman let the record show. I asked simply whether those individuals when they're fired, would have any due process rights as they currently have in the merit-based civil service. And the answer it was not. I was not given an answer.

Speaker 1 (01:25:00):

Well, as I understood it, you're not firing anybody. You're just saying if you're going to be in this job, you need to be moving the direction the President's going.

Senator Van Hollen (01:25:08):

But if you do fire somebody-

Hon. Russell Vought (01:25:10):

[inaudible 01:25:10] Senator.

Speaker 1 (01:25:10):

Yeah.

Senator Van Hollen (01:25:11):

But if you do fire someone in one of these jobs.

Speaker 1 (01:25:13):

Sure, yeah.

Senator Van Hollen (01:25:13):

Then does that person have any due process rights?

Speaker 1 (01:25:17):

I just don't think there's a right to a particular job in the government is what we're all saying.

Senator Van Hollen (01:25:20):

No, the question is a right to due process and not being fired for political reasons.

Speaker 1 (01:25:24):

Senator Murray.

Senator Moreno (01:25:26):

Thank you Chairman. Thank you Mr Vought. You have two shots. I have two interviews with me. So you have double bonus here. So you did a great job in the Homeland Security Committee, I appreciate your transparency, your answers, and I'll start where I ended in that session, which is thank you. Thank you for your willingness to serve. Thank you for your willingness to put yourself through this process and thank you for the great thought and intellect that you're going to bring to this job. Since this is a meeting where we should be questioning you and not just giving you opinions that you respond to. If it's okay, we'll give you some quick 10 questions. Is that okay?

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

Sure.

Senator Moreno (01:26:02):

So there's been a lot of comments, especially from the ranking member about betraying working Americans. So let me ask you a question. When the government forgives the debt of people who took out a loan for college debt, does that help working Americans like my technicians, my sales consultants, my receptionists, my drivers, my car wash guys who didn't go to college, does it help them when student debt is illegally forgiven?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:26:33):

It doesn't.

Senator Moreno (01:26:34):

When you have insane government spending that unleashes generationally high inflation, that makes going to Taco Bell a luxury. Does that help working class Americans?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:26:47):

It doesn't.

Senator Moreno (01:26:49):

When you spend hundreds of billions of dollars to fight endless wars in foreign countries that most Americans don't even know where they are, does that help working Americans?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:27:03):

No.

Senator Moreno (01:27:04):

When you have policies that all of them voted for, every single one of them voted for electric vehicle subsidies so that when I had a Rolls-Royce dealership, a customer could come in and lease a $515,000 Rolls-Royce Spectre, that's a fully electric Rolls-Royce and get a check for $7,500 from the US government. Does that help working class Americans?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:27:35):

No.

Senator Moreno (01:27:35):

And again, I just put on the record that every single one of my colleagues on a Democrat side voted for just such a subsidy. When you house illegals in this country, people who are not invited here like I was, like my family was. When you house them in luxury hotels at a cost of $6,000 per month per room, does that help working class Americans?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:28:00):

No.

Senator Moreno (01:28:01):

When you give healthcare to those very illegals, when Americans don't have the healthcare that they need, does that help working class Americans?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:28:10):

No.

Senator Moreno (01:28:11):

When you provide food to illegals and in some cases when they don't like the food, you give them thousand dollars prepaid credit cards. Does that help working class American citizens?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:28:24):

No, sir.

Senator Moreno (01:28:26):

When you give sex change operations to illegals, does that help working class Americans?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:28:30):

No.

Senator Moreno (01:28:31):

When you offer DEI courses and instead of being promoted based on merit and rather you have this insane move to DEI, does that help working class Americans?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:28:43):

No.

Senator Moreno (01:28:45):

And when you fly immigrants from foreign countries to the United States on private jets, does that help working-class Americans?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:28:55):

No.

Senator Moreno (01:28:56):

So last question for you. You can answer it however you'd like, Mr. Vought. Why do you think hourly wages for working-class Americans declined under the policies of Joe Biden and Democrat control of Congress and yet when President Trump was in the White House, hourly wages actually went up for the first time in a generation?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:29:22):

Well Senator, thanks for the question. I think it's because we had an administration that was doing everything it can to unleash the American economy, have cheap energy, to be able to have a regulatory sector that was not adding burdens, that was not worth it from a cost benefit perspective and to free the American people and entrepreneurs to take risk and to hire people and to increase salaries. I think you get that with the policies that the President has run on. I think we're going to see that in a very soon amount of time.

Senator Moreno (01:29:55):

So if you were to say who betrayed working-class Americans, was it Joe Biden and the Democrats or President Trump?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:30:02):

It certainly was not President Trump.

Senator Moreno (01:30:04):

Thank you.

Speaker 1 (01:30:05):

Senator Lujan

Senator Lujan (01:30:07):

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Mr. Vought, you authored sections of Project 2025, what sets forth a blueprint for dangerous plans under this new administration, you'll have an enormous responsibility at OMB and given your record, I have serious questions about whether you can be trusted to carry out the law and safeguard programs that many Americans rely on like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and many more. You also authored this 2023 budget proposal at a foundation that I believe that you helped to found over at the Center for Renewing Americans. Is that correct?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:30:52):

I did help found the Center for Renewing America and put that together.

Senator Lujan (01:30:55):

And you stand by your name?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:30:57):

Senator, I'm not here to talk about the proposals at the Center for Renewing America.

Senator Lujan (01:31:02):

Mr. Vought, my question is a simple one. You stand by your name?

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

I do stand by my name.

Senator Lujan (01:31:07):

Do you stand by your word?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:31:09):

Yes, sir.

Senator Lujan (01:31:09):

Well, I appreciate that because you signed this document. This is your signature.

Hon. Russell Vought (01:31:15):

Yes sir.

Senator Lujan (01:31:15):

Appreciate that. Mr. Vought in 2021, what was the reason for founding this center?

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

We wanted to continue the work on policies that were based on the principles of President Trump running for office in his first term and we wanted to make sure that the political class here, the agenda setting functions were not going to ignore those important America first perspectives. But again, Senator, I'm not here on behalf of the Center. I'm here on behalf of the President's policies that he ran on.

Senator Lujan (01:31:54):

Appreciate that.

Hon. Russell Vought (01:31:54):

That he's already acting on.

Senator Lujan (01:31:56):

Mr. Chairman, I'm asking [inaudible 01:31:58] consent to submit this into the record. Mr. Vought, do you know how many families receive assistance through the Low Income Energy Assistance program?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:32:07):

Not off the top of my head.

Senator Lujan (01:32:09):

Would it surprise you if it was estimated about 5.9 million families according to the National Consumer Law Center?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:32:15):

It would not.

Senator Lujan (01:32:16):

Your 2023 budget from Center for Renewing America proposed eliminating light heat funding entirely, which would force millions of Americans to see skyrocketing energy costs, especially this week as temperatures are dipping below zero across the country. I think that's important, especially those of us that represent states where many of our constituents depend on these programs when it gets cold. Mr. Vought, you authored chapter two of Project 2025 titled 'Executive Office of the President of the United States,' correct?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:32:47):

Yes, sir.

Senator Lujan (01:32:49):

Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to enter chapter two of Project 2025 into the record. [inaudible 01:32:56]. In this chapter you wrote that the Trump administration must reaffirm its commitments to " preventing drug use before it starts, providing treatment that leads to long-term recovery." Mr. Vought, do you know that Medicaid is the largest payer for substance use disorder services in the United States?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:33:12):

Yes sir.

Senator Lujan (01:33:14):

About 38% of folks in this space depend on that program. But in the budget from your group, the Center for Renewing America, you included significant cuts to Medicaid, a total of $2.3 trillion of cuts over 10 years. Now Mr. Vought on April 8th, 2024, you tweeted that "defending life is the most important thing to me." Does that sound correct?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:33:38):

Senator, on behalf of the administration. I'll be putting in place the President's views on life and abortion.

Senator Lujan (01:33:46):

Mr. Vought, do you know that roughly or do you know what roughly percentage of American babies are born with Medicaid health coverage every year?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:33:53):

I don't know.

Senator Lujan (01:33:53):

About 41%. Would that surprise you?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:33:57):

It would not.

Senator Lujan (01:33:58):

In your same budget you call to eliminate the federal matching percentage floor for states. This would eliminate crucial investments that will put the healthcare of pregnant mothers in jeopardy. Your budget says that it would cut over $650 billion from that program alone. Mr. Vought, do you know that Head Start promotes school readiness for children from birth to age five?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:34:20):

Yes.

Senator Lujan (01:34:21):

Do you know how many children were served by Head Start in FY23?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:34:24):

Not off the top of my head, Senator.

Senator Lujan (01:34:26):

Over 770,000 children. Your budget proposes a 50% funding reduction for Head Start programs. In your budget, you included a statement that said Head Start participants have worse behavior and academic outcomes than children who do not enroll in the program. End quote. Two members of this committee are Head Start graduates including myself. Does that surprise you?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:34:53):

No.

Senator Lujan (01:34:54):

That outcomes from Head Start got a couple folks to the United States Senate.

Hon. Russell Vought (01:34:58):

It does not surprise me, Senator.

Senator Lujan (01:34:59):

Would you like to apologize about that statement?

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

I wasn't referring to anybody in particular, Senator. We were looking at the program, the reforms that were a part of that proposal and that proposal is not an administration document and I'm not here to defend it.

Senator Lujan (01:35:16):

I appreciate it. Mr. Chairman, could I add to the record of document from the National Head Start Alliance that cites over 30 studies that find the advantage for Head Start kids?

Speaker 1 (01:35:26):

Absolutely.

Senator Lujan (01:35:27):

And Mr. Chairman, just one last question on Native American programs around safety. Mr. Vought, I assume that you support making American communities safer.

Hon. Russell Vought (01:35:37):

Yes, sir.

Senator Lujan (01:35:38):

Does this include Native American communities, surrounding rural, local, and border towns?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:35:43):

Yes, sir.

Senator Lujan (01:35:44):

Do you plan to defund BIA and tribal police again as you did under your first tenure in OMB?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:35:50):

Senator, we haven't begun the budget process. I'm not confirmed and won't be able to comment on what a future budget where we don't have a fiscal goal that the President has agreed to would look like at this point.

Senator Lujan (01:36:00):

You're not willing to say no today?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:36:02):

I'm not willing to comment on any programs that have not been articulated as part of a budget process that has not been done.

Senator Lujan (01:36:09):

Appreciate that. Mr. Chairman. I just hope that in this case, so we talk about border security, safety in our communities. Bipartisanally, we've worked on several of these committees to improve law and order, support for the Bureau of Indian Affairs with Native American police officers, things of that nature. This is an area where there's bipartisan support to protect these programs and I hope that we can continue to do that. I yield.

Speaker 1 (01:36:29):

Thank you very much. Senator Scott.

Senator Scott (01:36:32):

Mr. Vought, congratulations.

Hon. Russell Vought (01:36:34):

Thank you.

Senator Scott (01:36:34):

You did a great job under the first Trump administration and I know you're going to do a great job under this administration and I look forward to working with you. We've seen the bloating of the federal government under the Biden administration in the last four years. He's added eight trillion dollars to the national debt, increased our federal spending by 53% while our population growth was two. We can't 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 on plan or how to control spending or reduce our $36 trillion of debt. In the last, I mean it's just crazy where the debt is. Can you talk about this existential threat to our economy and what we're leaving to our children if we don't address it?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:37:18):

Well, we're currently leaving them a legacy of debt and higher taxes if we don't deal with the fact that as a country we're spending too much, and that's one of the reasons that we have consistently in the first term put forward budgets that would address the fiscal situation, have common sense reform, savings, get a handle on the agencies that we think are wasting taxpayer dollars and also to keep the economy growing. I mean, that's a part of what's necessary to balance the books. You've got to also have a dynamic accounting where you're bringing revenues in and that's something that's going to be very, very important for this administration.

Senator Scott (01:37:59):

I went to a drive-thru restaurant the other day and one of the ladies said to me, she said that she moved to Florida when I was governor because she thought she could get a job and she clearly did. We added 1.7 million jobs. But she said the last four years with the inflation, she's finding it very difficult to survive. She's got two little kids. So what are some of the policies that could be implemented? Not that you haven't done this yet, but what are some of the ideas that President Trump could implement to start reducing inflation?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:38:29):

Well, Senator, we're clearly going to address the spending side. The President's instituted and created DOJ in addition to OMB. He's already put out an EO to unleash American Energy and directing all the agencies to be trying to do everything they can to get permits going, to be able to get rid of regulations that are binding the pursuit of American energy. And then the deregulatory process of getting that back up and running. The President's given us a new goal. In the first term we had a two-for-one goal. Now we have 10 for one, we think we can hit that. We overshot the first goal and we fully intend to do our best to hit that goal. But those are all things that are going to be impacting the bottom line, the pocketbook of the person that moved to Florida for that precise reason.

Senator Scott (01:39:23):

You've seen some of our Senator Ron Johnson's work that he's put out how much the budget's just grown. If you look at inflation adjusted since Clinton, inflation adjusted after Obama, it's staggering how much it's grown. So what's the chance that we're going to see a significant reduction in interest rates, which are hurting people, the high interest rates under Biden. What's the chance that we're going to see inflation come under control if we don't get this budget down?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:39:51):

I think those two come together. I think you've got to tackle your budgets, your spending to be able to have a shot at taming inflation, about having interest rates that can come down. Obviously when we left office, interest rates were nowhere near where they are. The debt was, we spent $350 billion in interest payments the last year that I was there. We're now up to about $900 billion in interest payments beyond what we spent in defense. So this is the wrong trajectory that you want to be on, and we fully intend if confirmed, for me to have a role in changing that course.

Senator Scott (01:40:27):

So this is not the easiest job you had before. It's not the easiest job you're going to do again. Why do you want to do this? I mean, it's work to try to eliminate the cruel inflation and the on people's inability to buy a house because of interest rates and things like that. Why would you want to do this?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:40:45):

Well, I think that I bring a particular expertise having done the job before that I want to be able to hit the ground running. And it's very rare that you have a chance to do a job better after thinking about it for four years. And I'm very thankful that the President has given me this opportunity and hopefully I get through as a confirmed appointee.

Senator Scott (01:41:06):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Speaker 1 (01:41:08):

Thank you. Senator Padilla.

Senator Padilla (01:41:10):

Thank you Mr. Chair. Mr. Vought, thank you for being here. I can't help but notice how many times I've heard throughout the hearing today your argument that the Empowerment Control Act is unconstitutional, but the fact that the incoming general counsel at OMB and along with you in your final days of the first Trump administration, specifically requested legislative adjustments to the Empowerment Control Act. What that tells me is that you do in fact understand the constitutionality of this law as not just currently on the books but upheld by the courts.

Senator Padilla (01:42:00):

… in your testimony here today and through how you served in the first Trump administration. It also strikes me, you come across as someone who thinks they know better than Congress, better than this committee, and at times even better than the President during the first Trump administration. You testified last week that you've been thinking about returning to the OMB for the last four years, and I can only hope and pray that should you be confirmed that you would uphold the Constitution above all else. I mean, I normally think folks willing to put themselves out for a position in public service for their willingness because it's not easy.

(01:42:48)
My colleague, Senator Luján, raised some of your contributions to Project 2025 and in that project 2025, you're right that the OMB director should be, "Aggressive in wielding the tool of apportionment on behalf of the president's agenda and defend the apportionment power against attacks from Congress." It's particularly striking that there's so many members of this committee that seem eager, anxious, ready to vote for your confirmation when there's a clear disregard and disdain for Congress's appropriation authority.

(01:43:32)
Frankly, Mr. Chairman, I know you're one of the appropriators? Wish you would join us and try to drive home this point because it's setting the stage for how we will be working together over the next four years. I have to take this opportunity to echo Senator Peters who raised a specific concern during your hearing in the Homeland Security Committee last week, outlining the fact that your record is particularly concerning for disaster impacted states given your previous unlawful actions to politicize, hold and slow the distribution of disaster or even foreign aid. So my question to you is this, Mr. Vought, if confirmed, will you or will you not politicize disaster funding and deny funds provided by Congress for American families and businesses that have been devastated by natural disasters?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:44:32):

Senator, I would not politicize the dispersing of federal funds in any capacity.

Senator Padilla (01:44:37):

Well, that's great to hear because you say you're going to implement the President's agenda, and I've been paying very close to his remarks since the outset of the devastating fires in Southern California these last few weeks. I'd like to ask you, Mr. Vought, will you commit to getting congressionally appropriated funding out to Californians devastated by these fires as quickly as possible?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:45:05):

Senator, the president has always been a firm distributor of federal resources to areas that need disaster money, and I don't expect that to change and that's characterized my time at OMB. The first time around to your earlier question, I do support and will take an oath to uphold the Constitution, and that will continue if confirmed in this capacity.

Senator Padilla (01:45:31):

To comments, just again for the record, gradual pleasure to uphold the Constitution because the Constitution and the law is clear as it pertains to the Empowerment Control Act. So unlike some of your clearly understood efforts in the first term, I hope you don't go back to those bad faith practices and efforts in the second term. And you're suggesting that you're not going to politicize the disbursement of funds, you're going to get them out the door as quickly as possible. Again, I would appreciate you for living up to that commitment that you stated here today because I continue to hear comments from President Trump, from leaders and Republican leaders in Congress on both sides of the Capitol attaching disaster funding to a debt limit vote, or attaching disaster funding to some other element of the new administration's agenda, whether it's tax breaks for billionaires, whether it's some unrelated issue in Northern California as it pertains for federal land management or anything else. So thank you for your comments on the record. I look forward to holding you to them.

Hon. Russell Vought (01:46:47):

Thank you.

Senator Lindsey Graham (01:46:48):

Thank you. Senator Marshall.

Senator Marshall (01:46:49):

All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Mr. Vought. Glad to have you here. I think I want to speak today in terms of hardworking families in Kansas, the average salary back home for a hardworking Kansas is about $50,000 a year. Over the last 4 years, we've seen cumulative inflation of 20%, so that $50,000 only really could purchase about $40,000 worth of goods and services. Almost $1,000 a month hit to the average Kansan. When we think about the Trump tax cuts though, those put $1,000 a month back into the pockets of Kansans. Overall, if this Trump tax cuts goes away, it's going to cost Americans about $4.3 trillion over 10 years. Middle America is going to get hit with about 60% of that, again, $1,000 a month. If those tax cuts go away, it's going to impact hardworking Kansans to the tune of $1,000 a month. I just want you to comment just a second on how big of a priority getting these tax cuts made actually permanent would be and how it would impact our economy and those hard-working Kansans back home.

Hon. Russell Vought (01:48:10):

Senator, thank you for the question. I think it would devastate their bottom line and having to face a massive tax increase that they're not prepared for, nor should they. I think there should be, and the president has run on this an extension of the tax cuts and some of the other provisions that he's proposed on the campaign trail, and we've got to go after the spending. We've got to go after ensuring that we are producing as much American energy as we possibly can. And we've got to get beyond the regulatory burden that we've put on the American people, and I think those are all policies that you'll see if confirmed, me prioritize in this role.

Senator Marshall (01:48:53):

Let's talk a little bit about budgeting. Folks back home, they're expected to balance their checkbooks, pay off their credit card debt. Unfortunately, they're seeing their credit cards are maxed out. It is tough times, no doubt about it, but Congress seems to not care about a budget. If Congress would go to a zero-based budgeting reform working with your office, what could be the impact of that? And I mean zero-based budgeting, even grants, we make grants on our five-year terms typically, but if we would just start looking at those grants, it's the ones that are going out of the country. What impact would zero-based budgeting have getting towards a balanced budget?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:49:37):

Well, I think the concepts of zero-based budgeting is that you get a sense of what are the things that you haven't taken a look at in a long time and starting from the ground up. And it doesn't mean you're not going to fund that. Just it means that you're taking an approach to looking at each agency spend and where the big dollars are coming from. And I think every family does that in America. They look at what's the amount that they are going to bring in from a paycheck and then they look at their spending and they say, "What are the big pockets of discretionary funding that they could do without?" And that's what I think that budgeting is about, and I think it's important not to lose that level of common sense that comes from a family balancing their own books.

Senator Marshall (01:50:21):

Okay. I think just give you a little time here to just discuss inflation in general. You made the comment earlier that federal borrowing causes inflation and that's pretty intuitive to some of us, but I think you just want you to take that just a little bit and explain to again those folks back home. When the federal government is borrowing money, spending more than they have, how does that lead to inflation?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:50:48):

Well, you certainly have more money in the system that's coming from federal dollars that are providing competition and the ability to have prices go up as a result of that. Then you add the component to which who's buying much of that debt? Much of that debt is being bought by the Federal Reserve that is printing money to buy that debt and putting back into the economy.

Senator Marshall (01:51:14):

And of course that's going to impact interest rates as well. So one of the goals would be to get interest rates down. What's it going to take for interest rates to meaningfully come down, not just because of what the Fed's doing?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:51:27):

Well, it's going to require us to get a handle on our spending to begin to have deficits that are much more manageable.

Senator Marshall (01:51:34):

Thank you, Chairman. I yield back.

Senator Lindsey Graham (01:51:36):

Senator Whitehouse.

Senator Whitehouse (01:51:39):

Thank you, Chairman, and welcome to the seat recently occupied by myself. I'm delighted to see you there and look forward to working with you.

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

Me too.

Senator Whitehouse (01:51:52):

Mr. Vought, the backdrop to the conversation we're having here is indicated by this graph which shows from 1980 to 2020 how income has grown in the United States. The bottom line showing essentially the bottom 20% of income earners. And as you can see, their household income has stayed essentially flat. The 2nd line up, this lower one is how the top 1% of income earners have done. They're up 600% nearly compared to near 0% for the working people in that lowest 20%. And if you look at the topmost line, that's up more than 800%, that's the top 0.01%. What worries me as we go into this effort is that what we're trying to produce is a golden age for fat cats, billionaires, and polluters that is going to make this discrepancy worse and worse and worse. And it is in that context that I would like to ask you some questions about these executive orders. President Trump fired off 26 executive orders, I believe his first day. Are you familiar with them?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:53:36):

I'm getting familiar with them, Senator. I've been trying to stay abreast to them and read them. I haven't read through all of them, but I am aware that he has been very active, and I've been reading a number of them.

Senator Whitehouse (01:53:47):

Did you have any role in preparing any of them?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:53:51):

Senator, that's part of the deliberative process of the transition goes through and I'm not going to invade that deliberative process.

Senator Whitehouse (01:53:59):

Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Hold. Can I have a point of order here and stop the clock? I was the chairman… You can put that down now… for a Congress in which we had I think over 40 hearings and in those hearings, never once did I tell a Republican colleague what questions they could or could not ask. Those are not my business. And we had somebody out there questions I will tell you, and we certainly never had a witness tell senators what questions they could and could not ask. So I guess why can I not get an answer? Is there some new rule in this committee as to where these executive orders came from? That's perfectly to me, legitimate congressional oversight and over and over this witness has told us what questions he will answer, but the truth took was to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in response to our questions. So if there's some new limitation about what question I can answer, I would like to understand that. If not, I'd like to have the chair, and tell the witness to answer my questions.

Senator Lindsey Graham (01:55:27):

Well, as I understand it, there's no attorney-client privilege here? You're not claiming an attorney-client?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:55:37):

I'm not claiming a privilege senator.

Senator Lindsey Graham (01:55:39):

Okay. Yeah. Well, you're not part of the administration. Generally speaking, I guess the question is, did you advise on executive orders and which ones? Is that the question?

Senator Whitehouse (01:55:51):

Yeah.

Senator Lindsey Graham (01:55:52):

Can you tell us that please, if you could.

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

Senator, I was not a member of the transition. I was not a member of the President's campaign.

Senator Whitehouse (01:56:01):

Do you have knowledge of where the executive orders were drafted?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:56:06):

I don't have a comprehensive knowledge of where the executive orders were-

Senator Whitehouse (01:56:09):

Do you have any knowledge of where the executive orders were drafted? Do you know for instance, if some of them came out of language from the Center for Renewing America, or some of them came out of Project 2025 or some of them came out of the Heritage Institute or some of them came out of the American Petroleum Institute? Do you know an answer to those questions?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:56:29):

I can't imagine they came from Project 2025. The president disassociated himself repeatedly from that. But no, I can't give you a comprehensive answer with regard to where the executive orders were compiled. My assumption is that they were compiled within the transition.

Senator Whitehouse (01:56:48):

Well, we will see because I think there's every reason to believe that they came from special interests and lobbyists and we'll pursue that. Let me ask you about a letter that you wrote some time ago on Center for Renewing America letterhead to the Judicial Conference. I think it's the only letter that you ever wrote to the Judicial conference. It was dated December 18th, 2023. And it goes into a certain amount of detail about the Ethics and Government Act and about Justice Jackson's financial disclosure forms. Did you do the research for this letter into the Ethics and Government Act and into the judicial financial disclosure forms, personally?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:57:39):

Senator, our center did the research on that.

Senator Whitehouse (01:57:42):

And who in your center did the research on that?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:57:45):

Our center did the research on that. And I can't speak to who did the work specifically on it.

Senator Whitehouse (01:57:50):

You don't know?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:57:51):

No, I didn't say that, Senator. I said it's not-

Senator Whitehouse (01:57:53):

Why can't you speak to that? There's no privilege about that.

Hon. Russell Vought (01:57:56):

No, but a think tank is a public policy organization that has a decision to note who does the work on something and who doesn't do the work on it. And I stand by that letter. I haven't read it in some time. I'm happy to look at it, but I am aware that we sent it, that I signed it.

Senator Whitehouse (01:58:17):

Did Mr. Paoletta, who is here have a role in preparing this letter?

Hon. Russell Vought (01:58:20):

He's a member of the Center for Renewing America, but I'm not going to speak beyond that.

Senator Whitehouse (01:58:26):

Here we go again, Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to speak. I'm going to answer the questions. My time is up.

Hon. Russell Vought (01:58:30):

He said he stands by the letter. It's his letter. I don't care what-

Senator Whitehouse (01:58:33):

That's not the question.

Senator Lindsey Graham (01:58:33):

Yeah. Well, he just said that.

Senator Whitehouse (01:58:35):

That's not the question. My time is up.

Senator Lindsey Graham (01:58:36):

All right. Thanks. Senator Lee.

Senator Lee (01:58:39):

Thanks so much for being here, Mr. Vought and for your willingness to serve. The administrative state has been crushing at the American economy and American innovation. It's also something that operates in a manner that's fundamentally contrary to the structure and intent of the US Constitution. Article I, Sections 1 and 7 makes it clear that only Congress may enact federal law. In Article I, Section 7 in particular, it makes clear that you cannot make a federal law unless you follow the formula. And the formula involves bicameral passage of a single bill, a single item legislative text. In both houses followed by submission to the President for signature of veto or acquiescence. Unless you follow that model, you cannot under the Constitution make a federal law.

(01:59:29)
For the last 80 or 90 years, Congress's been fearing off course in that direction and tragically the courts have been at least inconsistent, or you might say largely absent in enforcing these restrictions. Nonetheless, it's important that we arrest the problem because the problem is arresting Americans in some cases very literally and not just metaphorically. It's estimated that in 2024 alone, executive branch bureaucrats in the Biden administration promulgated federal regulations that added $1.5 trillion in regulatory compliance costs just during that narrow time period. This on top of previous estimates suggesting as far back as 2016, 2017, that existing regulatory compliance costs imposed by federal regulators in Washington were somewhere in the range of around $2 trillion. So it's much higher than that now.

(02:00:32)
These laws written by unelected unaccountable bureaucrats, they can't really be fired by anyone. They certainly don't ever have to stand for election. They're not known to the American people and they promulgate nearly 100,000 pages of federal law or initial drafts that could become law every single year. A simple solution to that would involve passage of a bill called the REINS Act. The REINS Act stands for Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny would require that all federal regulations before they may be enforced as federal law, if they qualify as major rules. Imposing affirmative legal obligations on the public would have to be subjected to the By camera lism and presentment standard imposed by Article I, Section 7. Mr. Vought, what are your views on the REINS Act? And will you and the Trump administration work with Congress to enact reforms like these?

Hon. Russell Vought (02:01:27):

Thank you, Senator. It's obviously an important area for the President of ensuring that the bureaucracies can't promulgate regulations that are harming the economy, harming the American people. And it's one of those creative ideas that I think Congress should take a strong look at. And the administration certainly supports the thrust of the direction of the legislation.

Senator Lee (02:01:51):

Now, there are those who argued that a significant amount of reform to federal regulations and of the process itself could be carried out through the executive branch itself acting alone. What are your views on that and whether that would, or could adequately do the job? Isn't there a risk there that if it's performed only by the executive branch, that might bring relief to Americans as long as this president is in office but subject us to the same risk immediately after he leaves?

Hon. Russell Vought (02:02:23):

That would be the problem. And we saw that with regard to some of the proposals regarding administrative pay go. When you give the administration or whoever the OMB director is the ability to execute this outside of statute, then you've got a situation where you can minimize costs and maximize benefits and potentially, escape the process that Congress has intended.

Senator Lee (02:02:52):

I've recently reintroduced a bill in this Congress that I introduced last year. It's a bill called the America First Act. The America First Act imposes a simple principle on American law, simple principle that most Americans agree with, which is that welfare benefits provided by the federal government should be available to Americans and not to those who are not Americans, especially those who are here unlawfully. It would ensure specifically that only US citizens and lawful permanent residents could be eligible to receive benefits, honor programs like Medicaid, SNAP housing, education, some tax benefit programs, and a handful of other government benefits. These are things that impose significant costs on the American economy. They're draining resources meant to benefit Americans and not those who have come here contrary to our laws in order to receive them. Mr. Vought, would you commit to working with Congress to bring about reforms like these?

Hon. Russell Vought (02:03:58):

Absolutely, Senator. That's exactly the types of reforms that the president ran on.

Senator Lee (02:04:03):

Great. I see my time's expired. Thank you mayor very much. Thank you, Chairman.

Senator Lindsey Graham (02:04:07):

I have one more. You are okay?

Hon. Russell Vought (02:04:09):

Yeah.

Senator Lindsey Graham (02:04:09):

Senator Wyden.

Senator Wyden (02:04:10):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Vought, let me ask you about Medicaid. As you know, I'm the ranking Democrat on the finance committee. I've been perplexed by your views about Medicaid over the years because Medicaid is already an incredibly efficient payer within the healthcare system. So here we have this program, it helps with rest homes, it helps with workers, it helps with kids, it helps with disabled. The track record is it's efficient. Do you disagree with that?

Hon. Russell Vought (02:04:41):

Well, Senator, thanks for the question. I think it's the extent to which Medicaid is now-

Senator Wyden (02:04:45):

Yes or no, do you agree with the point that I'm making that Medicaid is efficient because I've read everything you've had to say about it? You're an influential figure. Your politics are different than mine, but I look at the merits of the arguments, and Medicaid is an efficient program that helps vulnerable people. And I want to know, do you think Medicaid is inefficient?

Hon. Russell Vought (02:05:08):

Well, I don't know if we're using the same definition of efficiency and I think the challenge-

Senator Wyden (02:05:12):

You use something that would suggest other than the point I'm making, because right now four-person spending grew less than Medicare and private insurance over the last few years. So this program that you want to clobber, that you want to reduce is more efficient than practically a host of other things. And I want to know what your argument is for Medicaid being inefficient, which you use to justify the cuts.

Hon. Russell Vought (02:05:40):

Well, I'm not sure I used efficiency as the reason to justify reforms to Medicaid. What I was referring to and have, particularly defending the budgets that President Trump sent up is that the populations that you mentioned are no longer just the populations of Medicaid, but now we have able-bodied working adults that get a higher match, and that has taken away from the ability to have a focus on those specific populations because you have states chasing the match instead of trying to focus on those it was intended for and weed out improper payments and waste for our abuse. And we know that there is improper payments in Medicaid to a very high degree.

Senator Wyden (02:06:23):

Well, what we know is that spending grew less in all these other programs, and that the analyses that have been done by objective people is dollar for dollar. This is an important way to help the poor. So let's start with that. And you haven't told me anything this morning that would suggest that you have a good argument that indicates you believe Medicare is inefficient because the facts suggest otherwise. And let's leave the record open. You can send me anything you want.

(02:06:50)
Let me ask you one other question because my time is short. I think the distillation of the Trump economic program is to give tax breaks to all the people at the top, and it's going to be paid for by these kinds of cuts. Cuts in efficient healthcare programs like Medicaid and hunger programs and the like. And I'd like to know, does that concern you at all that we have these values that are going to help the people right at the top, at the tippy of the top, and we're going to cut these programs like Medicaid and hunger. Are those your values? Do you think that that's something that is in line with American values? Because I think we want everybody to have a chance to get ahead.

Hon. Russell Vought (02:07:35):

Senator. I fully support the notion that we want everyone to get ahead and we would not characterize our economic program that way. We think it's important to give people tax cuts at all levels. The president wants to extend those tax cuts.

Senator Wyden (02:07:51):

But what about the vulnerable people who are going to get hurt in the process? Because no matter how you try to reframe this, this is an efficient program, Medicaid, that serves some of the most vulnerable people in America. It's a lifeline for them. And the people at the top are going to get the benefits. And I gather that you don't have a problem with that. And I think most Americans want a sense of fairness that you're not offering today.

Hon. Russell Vought (02:08:22):

Senator, I hope there's a better Medicaid program and that Medicaid is an important program for the poor, and that they get a better healthcare as a result of the reforms that align the incentives so that states are doing everything they can to have the best programs that they possibly can as opposed to expanding them unnecessarily, that hurts the federal taxpayer. And honestly, I believe hurts the people that the Medicaid program was meant for.

Senator Wyden (02:08:50):

If you have a way to show that you can make Medicaid more efficient, because right now it is clearly meeting the objective tests of using federal dollars in a smart way and do it without hurting them, and perhaps heaven forbid, you would take some of the money that's going to go to tax breaks for people at the top to do it. I'll be all ears. But right now what I see is a path to hurting many more vulnerable people and instead the money's going to go to the people at the top. And I don't think that's right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Lindsey Graham (02:09:23):

Senator Wyden, Mr. Vought, thank you. Well, done for appearing before the committee today. Your full statement will be included in the record. The hearing record will remain open until noon tomorrow for the submission of statements and questions for the record delivered to the committee clerk. Senator Merkley and I met yesterday. We had a very good meeting. Our staffs are working together the best we can. I enjoyed our meeting, and I thought we had a good hearing today. And I'll speak later about the Impoundment Act at the markup. I have concerns too, and I'll share those with you there. But thank you very much. Mr. Vought, anything? No. Hearing's adjourned. I'm sorry. Were you? I'm sorry. Sorry. I apologize.