Senate Budget Committee Holds Confirmation Hearing For Deputy OMB Director Nominee Hal Duncan

[0:00] Today, our nominee, Mr. Duncan, congratulations. Welcome to the committee. And I'll make a brief [0:07] opening statement. Oh, I thought he was already here. Yeah, they told me. There he is. Magically [0:12] appears, as he always does, on time, under budget. Anyway, if it's okay to start now, is it all right? [0:24] I'm here. I made it. You did make it. Let it be known that in Louisiana time, this is early. [0:31] Yeah. Anyway, Mr. Duncan was nominated by President Trump to be the Deputy Director of the OMB, [0:42] as previously held by Dan Bishop, who is now a U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of North [0:46] Carolina. He currently serves at OMB, Mr. Duncan, as Associate Director for Legislative Affairs and [0:52] Executive Associate Director. He was delegated the duties of OMB Deputy Director not long ago. [0:59] Mr. Duncan's previous jobs include Legislative Director for Congressman Chip Roy, working in [1:08] Senator Toomey's office, and at the National Senatorial Committee, so you understand it all [1:14] on our side. Hal Duncan grew up in Texas and graduated from the University of Virginia, which [1:20] is quite a journey. He currently lives in Washington, D.C. with his wife, Amy, and son, Patrick. Welcome [1:26] to them. From my point of view, you understand the agency. You've been over there for a while. [1:33] You're acting in the role that you've been nominated for. I've had a good meeting with you. [1:41] You're young and enthusiastic and smart, just like everybody on this committee, so I think [1:47] you'll do very well. Senator Merkley. [1:53] Thank you very much, Chairman Garand. And thank you, Mr. Duncan, for joining us today, and I [1:57] appreciate your dropping by to talk yesterday. Today, we consider your nomination to be Deputy [2:03] Director of OMB, and it's a position of immense responsibility. The Deputy Director serves as a [2:09] number two, and its chief operating officer, overseeing day-to-day operations, as well as helping to [2:15] manage budget information and regulatory oversight and policy implementation across the executive [2:21] branch. That is a vast, vast portfolio. It's a Senate-confirmed position since 1974, and our [2:28] 22 previous Deputy Directors have brought decades of budget, management, or legislative experience [2:33] to this role. I'm concerned, Mr. Duncan, that your resume is a bit thin, so I'll look forward [2:39] to your comments about your experience today. Less than two years as Associate Director of [2:45] OMB's Office of Legislative Affairs, two years as Legislative Director as a member of the House, [2:50] before a member of the House, and working on the Hill less than two years in the Republican [2:56] Senate Campaign Committee. Over the next year, OMB is requesting a budget of 179 million, 645 employees, [3:03] so that's a vast, well, set of personnel and responsibilities in comparison to some of your [3:12] previous roles. It's a complex agency, hundreds of employees, highly technical issues, many fields [3:19] of expertise. Furthermore, in your current role as Associate Director of OMB's Office of Legislative [3:26] Affairs, OMB has essentially stonewalled Congress and this committee, not responding to a single [3:34] letter that I have sent. And I don't, it may be different, maybe that's only on this side of the aisle [3:40] and not the other side of the aisle, but that would be a concern as well, because really, the executive [3:46] branch needs to work with both sides of the aisle. So, a question I would pose, if as Legislative [3:55] Director, one of the simplest tasks, which is making sure that letters from Congress are responded [4:02] to, if you have not been able to succeed in that role, why should we feel you're prepared for this [4:09] much more complex role? I look forward to your response to that. Since President Trump and Russell [4:20] Vogt have returned to office, they've repeatedly violated the Constitution's separation of power, [4:26] usurping Congress's power to declare war through President Trump's war of choice, usurping Congress's [4:33] power to tax through President's tariffs, which the Supreme Court ruled were unconstitutional, [4:39] usurping Congress's power of the purse, starting programs that are unauthorized, ending programs [4:43] that are authorized and funded. On seven separate occasions, GAO has found that OMB violated the basic [5:00] separation of powers of our Constitution. I'd like to know whether you have studied this and whether [5:06] you're prepared to make sure that the Constitution is defended in OMB's actions. Also, there has been [5:13] the firing of thousands of federal workers who are there to execute the vision laid out by Congress. [5:21] We do have a Constitution where Congress lays out the vision, and Congress lays out the funding and the [5:25] authorization, but if the people are fired, then that vision is not executed. So, concerned about that. It'd be different if [5:33] legislation had been passed saying, downsize this significantly, or do not spend these funds, or reduce the funds. [5:41] One of the agencies that was very dramatic was the dismantling of USAID. We talked about this yesterday, [5:49] and you noted to me that the responsibilities had simply been transferred to the Department of State. [5:54] I did not find that to be a full, incredible answer, since, essentially, yes, there was a transfer, but in the process, [6:01] its responsibilities and portfolio were dramatically decreased, leading our various departments or schools of public health [6:11] to estimate that about 500,000 children have died as a result of the sudden shutdown of programs for malaria, [6:20] HIV, AIDS, tuberculosis, nutrition, and dysentery. That's a huge consequential action for the executive [6:28] to take an action, dismantle a program that's authorized and funded by Congress, resulting in the death of hundreds of thousands of children. [6:37] If the president doesn't want that program, he needs to ask us not to fund it, not to authorize it, not to shut it down on its own. [6:45] I'd like to know your opinion about whether, in the future, you will oppose shutting down programs [6:50] when Congress has funded them and authorized them. [6:54] And I'm concerned about the budget proposal put forward by OMB, [6:59] because it does nothing to help families struggling with affordability. [7:03] Nothing on gas prices, nothing on grocery prices, no plan to address or save Social Security, [7:09] which will start running out of money in just five to six years, [7:14] no plan to help farmers affected by the high diesel prices and the fertilizer prices, [7:19] no meaningful revenue proposals to help reduce the deficit, [7:23] in fact, no plan to pay for the war in Iran. [7:28] Throughout all of this, you have been at OMB, which raises concerns. [7:32] Will you be simply a rubber stamp, [7:34] or will you fight to defend the Constitution [7:38] and the balance of powers laid out in our Constitution? [7:42] I look forward to your thoughts. Thank you. [7:45] Please rise. Raise your right hand. [7:50] You solemnly swear the testimony before this committee will be the truth, [7:53] the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so have you got it. [7:56] I do. [7:56] Well, thank you. I'll start off, and I think we've got a pretty good list here. [8:06] Promise me you're going to answer letters. [8:10] Yes, sir. [8:12] Oh, that's right. Yeah. Forgot. [8:15] Clearly, I'm not going to listen to it, but go ahead. [8:23] Go ahead. [8:26] Thank you, Chairman Graham, Ranking Member Merkley, [8:30] and members of this esteemed committee for holding this hearing. [8:32] I am humbled and honored by the opportunity [8:35] to come before you as President Trump's nominee [8:37] for Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget. [8:41] I want to begin by thanking my wonderful wife, Amy, [8:43] and my delightfully rambunctious son, Patrick, for joining me today, [8:46] and here's to hoping that Patrick is not escorted out by Capitol Police [8:49] at some point in this hearing. [8:52] I would not be in this position without their love and support. [8:57] I also want to thank my mom, dad, and brother [8:59] for traveling from Texas to support me, [9:01] as well as my in-laws who traveled from Richmond, Virginia, to be here. [9:05] I hope this hearing will help answer the question [9:07] my family often poses to me. [9:09] So what exactly do you do? [9:12] Of course, I also want to thank Director Vote. [9:14] It has been the honor of a lifetime serving alongside Director Vote [9:17] at OMB for the past year and a half [9:19] as we work to put an end to fiscal futility [9:22] and deliver on the bold agenda set forth by President Trump. [9:26] Former Deputy Director Dan Bishop testified before this committee [9:29] that Director Vote was the man to get management [9:31] of the federal government back on track. [9:34] That, of course, has proven correct 10 times over. [9:37] If confirmed, I look forward to serving as Director Vote's deputy [9:40] and continuing our work to support the president [9:42] and protect the American taxpayer. [9:45] While relatively unknown and small in size, [9:48] OMB's mission is broad and its reach is wide. [9:51] OMB crafts the president's budget, [9:53] manages the federal government, [9:55] reforms regulations, [9:56] and coordinates policies across agencies. [9:59] I believe this work is best characterized [10:01] by the quiet competence the agency exhibits [10:03] in support of the president [10:04] and thereby the American people. [10:08] OMB's career staff are among the best and brightest [10:10] in the federal government [10:11] and it has been a pleasure to work with them [10:13] and learn from them as Associate Director [10:15] for Legislative Affairs [10:16] and Executive Associate Director. [10:19] I joined OMB in January 2025 [10:21] with the goal of working with Congress [10:23] to address out-of-control spending [10:25] and implement President Trump's plan [10:27] to usher in a new golden age for America. [10:30] I've been particularly proud [10:31] to work with members and staff of this committee [10:33] to develop and pass two budget reconciliation bills [10:36] that directly reflect that goal, [10:39] the Working Families Tax Cuts Act [10:40] and the Secure America Act. [10:42] The Working Families Tax Cuts Act cut taxes [10:45] for American families and businesses [10:47] while achieving $2 trillion in mandatory savings [10:50] and securing generational investments [10:52] in defense and homeland security. [10:55] The Secure America Act built on that success [10:57] by providing sustained funding [10:59] for the brave men and women of ICE and Border Patrol [11:01] who work every day to secure our border [11:03] and keep our community safe. [11:05] I was also proud to work with this body [11:07] to pass the first standalone rescissions package [11:09] since 1992, which cut $9 billion [11:12] in wasteful and weaponized spending. [11:15] Building on that success, [11:16] we worked together to complete [11:17] the fiscal year 2026 appropriations process [11:20] in a fiscally responsible manner. [11:22] We have made historic progress [11:23] in riding our fiscal ship over the past 18 months, [11:26] but there is more to be done. [11:29] I believe we owe it to American families [11:30] to be relentless in our pursuit [11:32] of a federal government [11:32] that spends taxpayer dollars wisely, [11:35] delivers services efficiently, [11:37] and reduces regulatory burdens. [11:40] If confirmed, that pursuit will drive me [11:42] as Deputy Director, [11:43] and I commit to maintaining [11:44] a strong relationship with Congress [11:46] to ensure our impacts are enduring. [11:48] Thank you for considering my nomination. [11:51] I look forward to your questions [11:52] and the opportunity to discuss [11:54] how OMB can continue to deliver [11:55] on its vital mission. [11:57] Well, thank you. [11:58] Well done. [11:58] So when your family asks you what you do, [12:02] what do you tell them? [12:03] So, currently, as you know, [12:08] I serve as Associate Director [12:10] for Legislative Affairs. [12:11] In that capacity, [12:12] I work directly with Congress [12:14] to advance the administration's [12:17] spending priorities. [12:18] I think some of the things [12:20] that I mentioned in my testimony are- [12:21] They ask you, [12:22] what would you do in your new job? [12:23] What would you tell them? [12:24] That's a great question. [12:25] I think a lot of it is a continuation [12:27] of what I've been doing [12:28] as Executive Associate Director. [12:30] I view that as a more internal-facing role [12:32] in which I represent OMB [12:34] and meetings with agencies, [12:36] coordinating with my counterparts [12:38] across the different agencies [12:40] and within the Executive Office [12:41] of the President, [12:42] and fundamentally managing- [12:43] supporting the management of OMB, [12:45] its career and political staff [12:47] writ large across all of its branches. [12:50] And how long have you been doing [12:51] this job you're in now? [12:53] I have been with the administration [12:56] since the first week [12:57] of President Trump's nomination. [12:58] So I believe since January 2020- [13:00] January 24th, 2025. [13:02] How long have you been acting direct, [13:04] Deputy? [13:05] The job you're in now, [13:06] how long have you had that? [13:08] Appreciate the question. [13:09] I don't remember off the top of my head [13:10] when I was delegated the duties. [13:12] I believe it was late last- [13:14] It was sometime late last year. [13:15] Okay, for a while. [13:16] Yes, sir. [13:16] You feel comfortable doing the job? [13:18] Absolutely. [13:19] Comfortable and very excited [13:20] by the opportunity, if confirmed. [13:22] Okay. [13:23] If we write letters to you, [13:24] will you answer them? [13:25] Yes, sir. [13:26] Good. [13:28] Let's talk about the budget real quickly. [13:30] The budget's kind of an outline [13:32] that the President submits to Congress [13:35] and kind of a view of what we should be doing [13:40] as a nation. [13:42] Do you support the President's [13:43] defense budget request? [13:45] Senator, absolutely. [13:46] I think the threats that we've seen [13:47] in this world necessitate [13:49] that level of defense spending. [13:51] So you think it's justified, right? [13:52] Absolutely. [13:53] Okay. [13:54] During the Biden years, [13:57] they submitted budgets, too. [14:00] Very few of them were approved as submitted. [14:04] What's the biggest difference between you, [14:10] this OMB, and Biden, in terms of budget? [14:14] Absolutely. [14:15] I think we've seen the successes of the past. [14:20] Fiscal year 2026, [14:21] we were able to secure [14:23] a defense top line [14:25] of $1 trillion [14:26] by using both the mandatory [14:29] and discretionary strategy. [14:31] The President has recently recommitted [14:34] to that strategy [14:35] as recently as last week, [14:36] calling for Congress [14:37] to pass $350 billion worth [14:39] of mandatory spending [14:40] for our defense. [14:42] So I believe we use the strategies [14:44] that we have proven work [14:46] over the past year [14:47] and continue to move forward [14:49] to deliver to provide [14:50] for the defense of the American people. [14:52] If we can't pass a supplemental [14:54] through the appropriations process [14:56] dealing with defense [14:57] and other matters, [14:58] our Democratic friends [14:59] will want some things, too. [15:02] Do you believe a third reconciliation bill [15:05] focusing on defense and fraud [15:07] would be justified? [15:08] Yes, sir. [15:08] Absolutely. [15:09] Are you ready to work [15:10] with this committee [15:11] to craft that reconciliation bill [15:14] if necessary? [15:14] Yes, sir. [15:15] Absolutely. [15:15] We've done two together [15:16] and I'm looking forward to a third. [15:18] So what areas would you focus on [15:21] other than defense? [15:22] In the area of fraud, [15:23] do you have sort of a vision [15:24] of what we could do [15:25] in reconciliation to combat fraud? [15:27] Well, I think in terms of fraud, [15:30] supporting the work [15:31] of the fraud task force [15:32] is certainly critical. [15:33] I've been honored [15:33] to be OMB's designee [15:35] to the fraud task force [15:36] and have been able to see [15:37] how the vice president [15:39] and his team [15:39] have used the task force [15:41] to coordinate amongst the agencies [15:43] to root out waste and fraud [15:45] to a degree we've not seen [15:46] in recent memory. [15:48] So fundamentally, [15:49] supporting the fraud task force, [15:51] ensuring that they have the tools [15:52] they need to target fraud [15:54] and root it out, [15:56] I think, are two of the most important things [15:57] we could do [15:57] in a reconciliation package. [15:59] Thank you. [16:00] Senator Merklin. [16:02] Oh, thank you. [16:03] Thank you very much, [16:04] Mr. Chairman. [16:04] So in your prepared remarks, [16:09] you noted I'm committed [16:10] to maintaining [16:11] a strong relationship [16:12] with Congress. [16:14] So I noted [16:15] in my introductory comments [16:18] that none of the letters [16:20] that I've sent, [16:21] and I have here [16:22] all six letters to OMB, [16:25] none of them [16:25] have been responded to. [16:27] Yet you just committed [16:28] to Mr. Graham's, [16:30] Chairman Graham, [16:31] that you're going [16:31] to respond to letters. [16:34] If you couldn't make that happen [16:35] as the legislative liaison [16:39] when it's a pretty straightforward, [16:42] simple task, [16:45] why would there be [16:46] such a change [16:46] in your new position? [16:51] Well, Senator, [16:51] first of all, [16:52] I appreciate the question [16:53] and thank you for meeting [16:53] with me last night. [16:55] As mentioned in our meeting last night, [16:57] some of the letters [16:57] that we discussed [16:58] would have asked [17:01] for the disclosure [17:01] of pre-decisional [17:02] and deliberative information, [17:04] also information [17:04] directly related [17:05] to ongoing court actions. [17:08] But that being said, [17:09] we are committed [17:10] to improving our letter process. [17:11] We've been in the process [17:12] of implementing [17:14] a new process [17:16] to speed up [17:18] response timelines [17:19] to letters. [17:20] So we're looking forward [17:21] to that [17:22] and hope to work [17:23] with you on that as well. [17:24] Okay. [17:25] Well, I just consider [17:26] zero out of six [17:27] a pretty bad batting average. [17:29] And as we discussed yesterday, [17:31] certainly even when [17:32] there's future uncertainty [17:34] regarding lawsuits [17:35] or future actions, [17:38] it doesn't mean [17:38] you can't respond. [17:39] It means you can respond [17:40] and say, [17:41] here are the restraints, [17:42] here are the restrictions. [17:43] And so I strongly encourage [17:45] a very different approach [17:47] to communicating [17:47] with Congress. [17:50] I wanted to turn [17:52] to basically [17:56] this question [17:58] of when you became [18:00] the acting director, [18:02] deputy director. [18:07] The exact timeline. [18:09] Senator... [18:09] You mentioned last night, [18:11] November or December [18:11] of last year. [18:12] It was about November [18:13] of December. [18:13] I actually wasn't able [18:14] to go to the office [18:15] this morning [18:16] post our meeting yesterday. [18:18] So I'm happy to follow up [18:20] as the exact timeline [18:20] that I was delegated the duties. [18:22] And I can do that in QFRs [18:24] or right after this hearing. [18:25] So it was [18:27] only five months [18:28] after basically November [18:31] that we learned [18:32] that you had adopted [18:34] or been delegated [18:36] these responsibilities. [18:37] As head of legislative affairs, [18:40] wouldn't that have been relevant [18:41] to fill in Congress [18:42] that this was your new role? [18:45] Senator, I appreciate the question. [18:47] Obviously, we were working [18:48] on a nomination timeline [18:50] as well. [18:51] I was delegated the duties [18:53] in Dan Bishop's absent, [18:56] which effectively [18:57] has been filling in for him [18:59] and his duties [19:00] in that time period. [19:01] But I certainly understand [19:02] the point. [19:04] But my nomination [19:05] went up in April. [19:07] And I look forward [19:08] to working with you [19:09] on OMB-related topics [19:11] if confirmed. [19:13] Do you believe [19:13] the 2020 election [19:14] was rigged? [19:17] I believe that Joe Biden [19:19] was certified [19:19] as the winner [19:20] of the 2020 election. [19:21] He was certified, yes. [19:24] But do you believe [19:25] the election outcome [19:25] was rigged? [19:26] Senator, I appreciate [19:27] the question. [19:27] As mentioned, [19:28] I believe that Joe Biden [19:29] was certified [19:29] as the winner [19:30] of the 2020 election. [19:32] Duly noted [19:33] that you're not responding [19:34] to the question. [19:35] You're familiar [19:36] with the Impoundment [19:37] Control Act. [19:39] Yes, Senator, I am. [19:40] And there is [19:41] essentially [19:43] a constitutional [19:45] understanding [19:46] that has been [19:47] reinforced [19:47] by the Supreme Court [19:48] twice [19:49] that the power [19:50] of the purse [19:50] cannot be delegated [19:52] to the president. [19:54] No matter how much [19:55] the president wants [19:55] to cancel programs [19:57] that are authorized [19:57] and funded [19:58] or start programs [19:59] that aren't funded, [20:00] doesn't get to decide that. [20:02] And yet, [20:03] what we're seeing [20:04] is programs getting [20:04] canceled, [20:05] like I mentioned, [20:07] the idea. [20:07] Will you defend [20:09] the separation of powers [20:10] and throw up [20:11] a cautionary yellow flag [20:13] and express some concerns [20:15] if the strategy [20:16] of OMB [20:17] is to cancel [20:18] an authorized [20:18] and funded program? [20:21] Well, Senator, [20:21] I certainly appreciate [20:22] the question. [20:23] I firmly commit [20:25] to upholding [20:25] the Constitution. [20:26] As you know, [20:28] the president ran [20:29] on restoring [20:29] the Impoundment Authority. [20:30] It's an authority [20:31] that presidents [20:32] had exercised [20:32] for over 200 years. [20:35] And we have, [20:36] that being said, [20:37] we have been [20:37] in full compliance [20:38] with the Impoundment [20:38] Control Act to date. [20:39] But fundamentally, [20:41] this question [20:42] has been litigated [20:43] multiple times [20:44] before this committee [20:44] and look forward [20:46] to continuing [20:47] to work with you on it. [20:49] So, I, [20:50] really, [20:51] that wasn't an answer [20:52] to the question. [20:53] The administration [20:54] has shut down programs [20:55] that are authorized [20:56] and funded. [20:57] If there's another proposal [20:58] to shut down a program [20:59] that's authorized [20:59] and funded, [21:00] will you raise, [21:01] not that, [21:02] I'm not asking about [21:03] whether you'll publicly [21:04] oppose it, [21:05] you're going to be working [21:05] for the director. [21:06] Will you strive [21:08] to make sure [21:09] that there's a yellow flag [21:10] put up and said, [21:11] you know, [21:11] this may be violating [21:12] the separation of powers? [21:15] Appreciate the question. [21:17] Senator, [21:17] I would commit to [21:18] abiding by the Constitution [21:20] and the laws on the books. [21:22] Okay, let me turn to, [21:23] I'm over my time, [21:25] so you're spared. [21:27] Any additional questions? [21:29] Thank you. [21:30] Senator Grassley. [21:32] I thank whoever [21:33] gave me their slot. [21:34] Thank you very much. [21:36] I think that [21:39] President Trump [21:40] is doing [21:41] a real good job [21:42] of bringing [21:43] the regulatory state, [21:45] reining it in. [21:48] At the start [21:49] of his term, [21:50] President Trump [21:51] set a benchmark [21:53] of slashing [21:53] 10 existing regulations [21:55] for every new regulation [21:57] issued. [21:59] I understand [22:00] the administration [22:01] far exceeded that [22:02] with maybe [22:03] a ratio [22:04] of 1 to 29, [22:06] 129, [22:09] how accurate [22:10] is that number? [22:13] And what has this meant [22:14] in terms of [22:15] time and dollars [22:17] saved by the private sector? [22:19] And can that be measured [22:21] with some certainty? [22:25] Senator, absolutely. [22:26] And appreciate the question. [22:28] So the number [22:30] that you referenced, [22:31] the 129 to 1, [22:32] obviously you're [22:33] extremely proud of. [22:34] It does include [22:35] things like guidance documents [22:36] that have the effect [22:38] of regulations [22:38] in there, [22:39] but we are far exceeding [22:40] the 10 to 1 ratio. [22:42] We have exceeded [22:44] over a trillion dollars [22:46] worth of savings [22:47] to the economy [22:48] via the deregulatory agenda. [22:51] The repeal [22:52] of the endangerment [22:53] finding alone [22:54] saved the economy [22:56] an estimated [22:57] $1.3 trillion. [22:59] We're excited [23:00] to put out [23:00] our next unified agenda [23:02] related to [23:04] our regulatory agenda [23:05] for this coming year. [23:07] And with that, [23:08] we'll have [23:08] additional information [23:10] that we'll be able [23:10] to share [23:11] related to the fiscal [23:12] impacts [23:12] of our deregulatory policies. [23:15] Yeah. [23:16] On my next question, [23:18] just keep in the back [23:19] of your mind [23:19] the reason I'm asking [23:20] about wind energy [23:21] is I authored [23:22] that legislation [23:24] in 1992. [23:26] One of the stated [23:27] objectives [23:28] of the administration [23:29] deregulatory agenda [23:31] is to eliminate [23:31] obstacles [23:32] to energy production. [23:34] As a supporter [23:35] of all the above [23:36] energy strategies, [23:37] I'm concerned [23:39] that this commitment [23:40] isn't being applied [23:41] consistently [23:42] to all forms [23:44] of energy. [23:45] In Iowa, [23:46] several wind energy [23:47] projects [23:48] are currently halted. [23:49] This is due [23:50] to some revaluation [23:52] of wind energy [23:53] mitigation [23:54] agreement process [23:55] performed [23:56] by the Department [23:57] of Defense. [23:58] My staff [24:00] has been in contact [24:01] with DOD [24:02] and I understand [24:04] that there's an effort [24:05] to identify projects [24:07] of low national security [24:09] concerns [24:10] for approval. [24:13] What is OMB's role [24:15] in this process [24:16] and will you commit [24:19] to working with me [24:20] to mitigate [24:20] bureaucratic red tape [24:22] standing in the way [24:23] of Iowa wind projects? [24:25] By the way, [24:25] we get 60% [24:26] of our electricity [24:27] in Iowa [24:28] from wind. [24:29] Well, Senator, [24:30] I appreciate the question. [24:31] I'm not directly familiar [24:32] with the matter at hand. [24:34] I'm happy to take [24:35] that back to our team [24:36] but certainly committed [24:37] to working with you on it. [24:39] Well, if you'll do that, [24:40] I'll appreciate it. [24:42] So I hope my staff [24:44] heard that [24:44] and they'll get in touch [24:45] with you pretty darn soon. [24:48] As far to the family, [24:51] Working Families Tax Cut Act, [24:53] Congress extended [24:54] and modified [24:55] the Clean Fuels Tax Credit [24:57] with an idea [24:58] with an eye towards [25:00] making it work better [25:01] for farmers. [25:03] Seeing this law [25:04] implemented properly [25:05] and in a timely fashion [25:07] is a top priority of mine. [25:09] In April, [25:11] OMB, [25:14] USDA submitted [25:16] to your agency [25:17] a biofuels feedstock rule [25:19] related to accurately [25:22] calculating this credit. [25:24] This rule is necessary [25:25] to ensure farmers [25:26] can fully participate [25:28] in the program. [25:30] When can farmers [25:31] expect OMB [25:33] to complete [25:34] this review process? [25:36] And before you answer that, [25:38] I just think [25:39] over the weekend [25:39] this process [25:40] may have been smoothed [25:41] out a little bit [25:42] by finally [25:43] the Department of Energy [25:45] reaching some agreements [25:47] that were necessary [25:49] before you would get the rule. [25:52] Senator, [25:53] I appreciate the question. [25:54] We're closely tracking [25:55] the 45Z rule [25:56] which as you mentioned [25:57] is currently [25:57] in the 12866 process [25:59] at OIRA. [26:00] Understand the priority [26:01] to your constituents [26:02] about getting this rule out. [26:04] I believe we're making progress [26:05] and hopefully we'll have [26:06] an update for you [26:07] on that soon. [26:09] Okay, thank you. [26:10] Thank you, Senator Johnson. [26:11] Thank you. [26:12] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [26:15] Mr. Duncan, [26:16] you're up for a very important job [26:18] running the nerve center [26:19] of the federal government. [26:20] It is really, [26:21] really critical [26:22] that you can be [26:24] dependent upon [26:25] to follow the law [26:26] and to speak up [26:26] when you believe [26:27] others are not. [26:28] Can we count on you [26:30] to do that? [26:31] Senator, [26:32] I appreciate the question. [26:33] I will commit to following [26:34] the law [26:34] and upholding the Constitution. [26:35] So to that end [26:36] and following up a bit [26:37] on what Senator Merkley [26:38] was asking you, [26:39] can you assure all of us [26:41] that OMB will not attempt [26:43] to do another end run [26:44] around Congress [26:45] with an illegal pocket rescission [26:48] this September? [26:50] Senator, [26:50] I appreciate the question. [26:51] As it relates [26:52] to the pocket rescissions, [26:54] pocket rescissions [26:55] have been executed [26:56] by previous administrations, [26:57] notably the Ford administration [26:58] following the passage [26:59] of the Empowerment Control Act. [27:01] I can't commit [27:02] to any of the fiscal tools [27:03] the administration [27:04] may or may not use [27:05] in the future, [27:06] but certainly look forward [27:08] to working with you. [27:09] Well, I'm glad [27:10] you want to work with me, [27:11] but pocket rescission [27:11] is a critical issue [27:12] and I am concerned [27:14] about the answer [27:15] that you just gave. [27:16] But let me move on. [27:18] OMB recently proposed [27:20] a rule to overhaul [27:21] the federal grantmaking system [27:22] that allows you [27:24] to terminate grants [27:25] based on some vague, [27:27] quote, [27:28] administration values [27:29] or priorities. [27:30] That really sounds to me [27:31] like you all are trying [27:33] to turn the entire [27:34] federal government [27:34] to this one big slush fund [27:36] to reward those [27:37] aligned with the administration [27:39] and punish everyone else. [27:41] One of the provisions [27:42] in that actually prohibits [27:43] funding any activities [27:45] that promote, quote, [27:46] anti-American values. [27:47] Now, under this administration, [27:49] that could mean [27:50] practically anything [27:51] and I just want to make sure [27:53] we're on the same page here. [27:55] So let me ask you, [27:56] if this proposed rule [27:58] went into effect, [27:59] what limits would be placed [28:01] on the administration's ability [28:02] to award grants [28:04] to its political allies [28:05] or deny funding [28:07] to anyone else? [28:09] Well, Senator, [28:09] I appreciate the question. [28:11] Obviously, the rule [28:12] is currently in the proposed phase. [28:14] It'll close for comment, [28:15] I believe, on July 13th. [28:17] The rule is fundamentally [28:17] about accountability. [28:18] In ensuring that we are able [28:20] to have good oversight [28:23] over the grant process [28:24] and that it is in alignment [28:25] with the administration's agenda. [28:29] But as it relates to the rule, [28:31] we will certainly follow [28:32] the statutes [28:33] that govern underlying programs [28:34] and are committed [28:37] to ensuring that [28:38] federal taxpayer dollars [28:39] are awarded in the way [28:40] that is responsible. [28:42] Well, I was looking [28:43] for a concrete answer. [28:45] Is there any language in it [28:46] that I didn't say any, [28:47] but I'll ask you, [28:48] places limits on cronyism? [28:52] Senator, we would move forward [28:55] with the rule [28:55] and move forward [28:56] with the agencies [28:56] in a manner that is consistent [28:58] with applicable law. [28:59] Well, the way I read it, [29:00] the reality is [29:01] that a political appointee [29:03] like you could terminate [29:04] a cancer research grant [29:05] or a hospital grant [29:07] solely because of the president's whim [29:09] or personal vendetta. [29:11] And to me, [29:11] that is really unacceptable. [29:12] We all know [29:14] how this administration [29:15] would abuse this. [29:16] I really hope [29:17] all of our colleagues [29:18] will join us [29:19] to stop this [29:20] and they should remember [29:21] what goes around [29:22] comes around. [29:23] But I think that is a very [29:24] concerning proposed rule [29:26] and allows some, [29:28] allows OMB [29:30] to make political decisions [29:31] that they should not be making. [29:33] So I think we should all [29:34] be worried about that. [29:35] Just wanted to bring it [29:36] to everybody's attention. [29:36] Let me ask about another issue. [29:40] Last week, [29:40] we learned that [29:41] the Social Security Trust Fund [29:43] will run out of money [29:44] in just six years, [29:45] three months sooner [29:45] than previously estimated. [29:48] When he was pressed on this, [29:49] Speaker Johnson [29:50] insisted that entitlements [29:52] should be, quote, [29:52] adjusted. [29:53] Well, I've been around [29:54] long enough to know [29:55] that adjustment means cuts. [29:57] You have worked for Republicans [29:58] like Chip Roy [29:59] who support benefit reductions. [30:02] Elon Musk, [30:02] who had free reign [30:03] over the federal government, [30:04] has called Social Security [30:06] a, quote, [30:07] Ponzi scheme. [30:08] So it's kind of no surprise [30:10] that Trump's latest budget request [30:11] did not include [30:12] any solvency proposal [30:14] for Social Security. [30:16] Why doesn't OMB [30:17] view Social Security solvency [30:19] as an important enough issue [30:20] to include in a budget request? [30:22] Senator, I appreciate the question. [30:25] And as the director testified [30:26] as on a similar question [30:27] when he was up here, [30:28] President Trump has been [30:30] immensely clear [30:31] on his support [30:32] for protecting Social Security [30:34] and Medicare. [30:34] And that will continue [30:35] to be the North Star [30:37] for this administration [30:37] moving forward. [30:38] But nothing in the budget request. [30:40] And for all of our knowledge, [30:41] for decades, [30:42] presidents have presented [30:43] a full budget, [30:44] including projections [30:46] and proposals [30:47] for mandatory programs [30:48] like Social Security. [30:49] So this administration [30:51] simply is failing [30:52] to do its most important work. [30:54] I got to guess [30:54] because they don't care. [30:56] You know, [30:57] Democrats have introduced [30:58] a number of proposals [31:00] to address the solvency crisis [31:02] without cutting benefits. [31:03] We haven't seen anything [31:04] from this administration. [31:06] Doing nothing [31:06] means that seniors [31:08] are going to see [31:08] a 22% cut [31:10] in their Social Security benefits [31:12] in 2032. [31:13] That's about $10,000 [31:15] a year per couple. [31:16] So we expect [31:18] this administration [31:19] to do in the budget [31:20] what previous presidents [31:22] have done [31:22] and present us [31:23] a proposal. [31:24] Thank you, Mr. Chair. [31:25] Senator Johnson. [31:26] Hey, Mr. Chairman. [31:27] Mr. Duncan, [31:28] congratulations [31:28] on your nomination. [31:31] You know, [31:31] there's an awful lot [31:31] of bipartisan whistling [31:32] by the graveyard here [31:33] and I think we're hearing it [31:34] from the other side right now. [31:36] Let's just get a couple facts [31:37] before I get some questions. [31:39] 2019, before the pandemic, [31:40] we spent $4.4 trillion. [31:42] This year, [31:43] we will spend [31:43] well over $7 trillion. [31:46] That's almost a 70% increase [31:47] over what we spent in 2019, correct? [31:51] Senator, that's correct. [31:52] I have seen [31:54] the low estimate [31:55] in terms of fraud [31:56] out of that $7 trillion, [31:57] about $250 billion a year [31:59] we had in front of [32:00] a subcommittee [32:01] CEO of LexisNexis, [32:03] I didn't realize [32:04] he did research on this, [32:05] said it's about [32:05] $1 trillion a year. [32:07] I know Secretary Besson [32:08] claims it's [32:09] somewhere around $500 billion. [32:10] So there's a range. [32:11] $250 billion [32:12] to $1 trillion a year [32:13] in fraud. [32:15] And we're concerned [32:16] about the executive [32:18] actually managing [32:18] the budget [32:19] and trying to [32:20] stop that fraud. [32:21] I was interested in Dr. Oz [32:22] pointing out the fact [32:24] that a third [32:25] of hospice centers [32:27] are in Los Angeles. [32:30] And so when you stop [32:31] funding, [32:31] 400 of them, [32:33] not one complained. [32:36] Not one. [32:37] 400 fraudulent [32:38] hospice centers. [32:39] How many billions [32:41] of dollars is going [32:42] out to fraud? [32:42] So, you're fully aware [32:44] and I appreciate [32:44] the work you did [32:46] to help me [32:46] get a little bit [32:48] more funding for OMB. [32:49] I was interested [32:50] to Senator Merkley [32:51] point out [32:51] your budget [32:52] is about $175 million [32:54] a year [32:55] divided by $7.5 trillion. [32:58] That's about [32:59] .0025%. [33:02] I would say [33:03] most major corporations [33:04] spend a whole lot more [33:05] on their controller [33:06] department [33:07] to try and manage [33:08] the financial situation [33:10] of the business. [33:11] I think we should be [33:11] doing a whole lot [33:12] more managing [33:13] of the federal budget. [33:15] So that's why [33:15] and I appreciate [33:17] you working with me [33:18] to get $100 million. [33:19] Sounds like a lot [33:20] but it's a drop [33:21] in the bucket [33:21] to try and focus [33:23] on the management side. [33:24] So I just want [33:24] to give you an opportunity [33:25] what you've been working [33:27] on on the management side. [33:29] The line-by-line [33:29] evaluation of the budget, [33:31] the program-by-program. [33:32] Again, [33:33] it's not easy to do. [33:34] You know, [33:35] the AI we're trying [33:35] to establish [33:37] so we can find [33:39] the information [33:40] where you've got [33:40] 400 fraudulent [33:41] hospice centers in L.A. [33:43] But I'll give you the floor. [33:44] Absolutely. [33:45] Appreciate the question, [33:46] Senator, [33:47] and appreciate you [33:47] working with us [33:48] so hard on this. [33:49] It's been a great relationship [33:50] that we've had. [33:51] And really quick [33:51] on the fraud point, [33:53] I think that's why [33:53] the fraud task force [33:54] is so important [33:55] is there are estimates [33:57] of fraud [33:58] but we really don't know. [33:59] We really don't have [34:00] a solid number [34:01] and there's so many [34:02] limitations [34:02] that we keep uncovering [34:04] as the task force [34:05] is going out [34:05] and investigating this. [34:06] Let me just quick interject too. [34:09] Trying to prosecute [34:10] and recover [34:11] is almost impossible. [34:13] I think the latest [34:14] Department of Justice [34:15] figures they're prosecuting [34:16] something like $4.7 billion [34:18] versus almost [34:21] maybe $1,000 billion. [34:23] So you have to prevent it [34:25] on the front side [34:26] like Dr. Oz did, correct? [34:28] Again, [34:29] the president's chief executive [34:30] faithfully execute the laws [34:31] and part of that [34:32] is to make sure [34:32] we don't have [34:33] the waste, fraud, and abuse. [34:35] Absolutely, Senator. [34:36] It's so important [34:36] that we put these controls [34:37] on the front end [34:38] which is why I think [34:39] some of the actions [34:40] that we're taking [34:41] in 2 CFR [34:42] is really important. [34:43] Under the 2 CFR [34:44] uniform guidance regulations [34:46] for grant making [34:47] every agency [34:48] will be required [34:49] to be using [34:49] the do not pay [34:50] lists [34:52] before they send out [34:53] funding. [34:54] If IGs catch fraud [34:56] they would be required [34:57] to send the instance [34:58] of that fraud [34:59] to the U.S. attorney [35:00] for the District of Columbia [35:01] within 10 days. [35:02] So we think a lot [35:04] of these controls [35:05] in addition to the [35:06] accountability [35:07] of having one of the [35:09] president's political [35:10] personnel serving [35:11] as kind of the last check [35:12] on a grant [35:13] before it goes out [35:14] will certainly help [35:15] us manage the federal [35:17] budget [35:17] and ensure that we're [35:18] stopping fraud [35:18] on the front end [35:19] because it's so hard [35:20] to combat on the back end. [35:21] Wouldn't it be nice [35:22] if our colleagues [35:22] on the other side [35:23] of the aisle [35:23] would be concerned [35:24] about that $250 billion [35:26] to a trillion dollars [35:27] of fraud [35:27] and actually work [35:29] with the administration [35:29] to encourage [35:32] for example [35:32] their governors [35:33] to provide the information [35:35] to the federal government [35:36] so we can stop it [35:38] before it's ever spent. [35:39] Can you talk a little bit [35:40] about the frustration [35:41] this administration [35:42] is having [35:42] in terms of getting [35:43] the data they need [35:44] to analyze [35:45] to prevent fraud [35:46] from going out the door [35:48] in the first place? [35:49] Senator, I think [35:49] that's a great question. [35:50] I think in the snap [35:51] program we've seen [35:52] many states being unwilling [35:54] to provide information [35:55] to USDA. [35:56] Certain states [35:57] have been willingly [35:58] providing information [35:59] to ensure that [36:00] there are proper controls [36:02] in the snap program [36:03] as that funding [36:04] is going out [36:05] but we've seen [36:05] many states refuse [36:07] to do it. [36:07] Now obviously [36:08] we think this is [36:09] a bipartisan issue [36:10] we think that we can [36:10] bring everyone [36:11] to the table on this [36:12] and we would hope [36:12] that people would do [36:13] so moving forward [36:14] to have permanent [36:15] enduring reforms [36:16] because I don't believe [36:17] that anyone here [36:18] wants to see fraud [36:19] in federal government. [36:20] And of course [36:20] that's my goal [36:21] of using that $100 million [36:22] to establish a permanent [36:23] AI program [36:24] and a structure [36:25] and programs [36:26] within OMB [36:27] to properly manage this [36:29] and again prevent [36:29] the money from going out [36:30] where you can never [36:32] recover it. [36:33] But thank you Mr. Duncan. [36:34] Congratulations. [36:36] Mr. Chair, Mr. Duncan, [36:37] I applaud you [36:38] for your judgment. [36:39] Just like me [36:40] you grew up [36:41] in another state [36:41] and married a Virginian. [36:43] So we have that connection. [36:46] Was the 2024 [36:46] presidential election rigged? [36:50] Senator, President Trump [36:51] won the 2024 [36:52] presidential election? [36:53] Yeah, folks [36:53] how about that? [36:54] So he was asked twice [36:56] was the 2020 [36:58] presidential election rigged [37:00] and he said [37:00] President Biden [37:01] was certified [37:02] to be the winner. [37:03] He wouldn't answer [37:03] the question. [37:04] Saying President Biden [37:05] was certified [37:06] as the winner [37:07] of that election [37:07] is like saying [37:08] today is Tuesday, June 16. [37:11] I mean, it's obviously [37:12] it's a fact. [37:13] But he wouldn't acknowledge [37:14] that President Biden [37:16] won that race. [37:17] Now, there's only one [37:19] of two reasons, Mr. Duncan. [37:20] You have either fallen [37:23] victim to the conspiracy [37:25] mindset that says [37:26] that that election [37:27] was rigged [37:28] and if you're [37:28] a conspiracy theorist [37:30] you shouldn't be let [37:30] anywhere near the position [37:32] you've been nominated for. [37:34] Or, you know, [37:35] President Biden won [37:36] the election [37:36] but you're afraid [37:38] of making an insecure [37:39] president mad [37:40] by acknowledging [37:41] that fact. [37:42] You answered so easily [37:43] when I asked you [37:44] the question [37:44] about 2024. [37:45] You didn't fight. [37:46] You didn't evade. [37:47] You didn't obscure. [37:48] You didn't try to end run. [37:49] You said President Trump [37:51] won the election [37:51] which he did. [37:52] He won the popular vote. [37:53] He won the electoral college. [37:55] The answer was just as simple [37:57] about 2020. [37:58] The fact that you were unable [37:59] to give the simple answer [38:01] about 2020 [38:02] raises real serious questions. [38:04] Let me ask you this. [38:05] In your current position [38:07] I believe you're [38:08] a legislative affairs director [38:09] for USAID [38:10] which its programs [38:13] to the extent [38:14] they're being delivered at all [38:15] are sort of being delivered [38:16] through state and others [38:17] but OMB has sort of [38:18] managing the wind down [38:20] of the operation. [38:21] We are currently [38:22] in the midst [38:23] of a severe global health crisis. [38:26] We've got an Ebola outbreak [38:27] in Africa [38:28] that's accelerating rapidly [38:29] and that some experts [38:30] have warned [38:31] could be extremely dangerous. [38:33] We're seeing screw worm [38:34] return to the United States [38:36] after decades of work [38:37] to eradicate it. [38:38] We've got measles outbreaks [38:40] in communities [38:41] that haven't had major [38:42] measles issues [38:43] since the vaccine [38:44] became available. [38:46] We've had 111 cases [38:48] in Virginia [38:48] so far this year [38:49] and we only had 25 last year. [38:52] Meanwhile, [38:53] what's the administration [38:54] been doing [38:55] to prepare for these types [38:56] of global health issues? [38:58] We withdrew [38:59] from the World Health Organization [39:01] undermining our ability [39:02] to coordinate [39:02] with other nation [39:03] on responses. [39:04] After withdrawing [39:05] it was interesting [39:06] Secretary Rubio said [39:07] WHO didn't do a good job [39:09] of picking up Ebola. [39:10] Thanks Sherlock. [39:11] The U.S. backs out of the WHO. [39:13] We quit funding it. [39:14] We quit participating. [39:15] The organization [39:16] isn't as effective [39:18] in picking up [39:19] a disease [39:19] that could harm Americans. [39:21] We've canceled [39:22] hundreds of millions [39:23] in HHS mRNA vaccine funding [39:25] and we're trying [39:26] to cancel billions more [39:28] in CDC grants [39:29] related to pandemic. [39:31] We've illegally shuttered [39:33] USAID, [39:34] one of the agencies [39:35] that's responsible [39:36] for the progress [39:37] we had made [39:38] in combating screw worm. [39:39] Not to mention [39:40] one of the agencies [39:41] key to addressing [39:42] Ebola outbreaks. [39:44] The Trump administration [39:45] has pushed out experts [39:46] across the government [39:47] not just at USAID. [39:49] Employees at the Department [39:50] of Agriculture's [39:51] Animal and Plant [39:52] Health Inspection Service [39:54] are down a quarter. [39:55] CDC is down a quarter. [39:57] Many specific offices [39:58] at HHS have lost tons [40:00] of employees. [40:01] They haven't told us [40:02] how many yet. [40:03] And today, today, [40:06] the OMB is still [40:08] withholding $2 billion [40:09] in congressionally [40:12] passed global health [40:13] funding from last year, [40:15] FY25. [40:17] The administration [40:17] only started to release [40:19] some of these monies [40:20] way late [40:21] after the Ebola outbreak [40:23] got bad. [40:25] Now, to my colleagues, [40:26] last week [40:27] in an appropriations hearing, [40:29] Secretary Rubio testified [40:31] that he's ready [40:32] to utilize this $2 billion [40:34] from FY25 [40:36] to deal with global health [40:39] issues, [40:39] but he's waiting [40:41] for the OMB [40:42] to release the money, [40:45] release the money [40:46] from FY25 [40:48] when we're dealing [40:49] with Ebola, [40:50] screwworm, [40:51] measles, [40:52] hantavirus. [40:53] Is the OMB [40:54] going to release [40:55] this money, [40:56] or are you going to wait [40:56] for more health crises [40:57] to emerge? [40:59] Well, Senator, [40:59] I certainly appreciate [41:00] the question. [41:01] I believe you referenced [41:02] to this, [41:03] but we have already [41:04] notified via state, [41:05] who is managing these [41:06] programs [41:06] and who is requesting funds [41:08] off of the congressional [41:09] notification that you're [41:10] referring to. [41:12] We've already notified [41:13] up to Congress [41:13] that $100 million [41:14] of the global health [41:15] security funding [41:16] involved in that CN [41:18] is going to combat Ebola. [41:21] We have also apportioned [41:23] an additional $500 million [41:24] on top of that [41:25] from that CN [41:26] to go towards Ebola as well. [41:29] Apportioned, [41:29] is that the same as released, [41:31] or is that internally [41:32] we think we might one day [41:34] make these monies available? [41:36] So, from the OMB perspective, [41:38] that would be releasing. [41:40] And when will that money [41:41] be released? [41:42] I would have to defer [41:43] to the State Department. [41:44] They would submit [41:45] a congressional notification [41:46] on these funds. [41:47] Okay, but I just, again, [41:49] to remind my colleagues, [41:50] Secretary Rubio said [41:51] he wants to use this $2 billion [41:54] from FY25 [41:56] to combat these global crises, [41:59] and he's waiting on OMB [42:01] to release it. [42:02] So, my time is up, [42:03] but I'm just going to say, [42:05] should you be confirmed, [42:06] but even before there's [42:07] any vote on confirmation, [42:09] in the midst of these crises, [42:10] OMB should release the money [42:12] that Congress allocated [42:13] over a year ago [42:15] to deal with precisely [42:16] these kinds of health emergencies. [42:18] I yield back, Mr. Chair. [42:22] Mr. Duncan, [42:23] every now and then, [42:27] I see an article [42:28] that says something like [42:31] a government, [42:35] federal government, [42:36] spends $25 million [42:39] to study [42:41] whether a man can breastfeed, [42:45] or the federal government [42:47] spends $50 million [42:51] to try to teach [42:53] a neighborhood squirrel to code. [42:59] And I think, [43:01] how did that stuff get in there? [43:03] I said on the Appropriations Committee, [43:05] we're supposed to put together a budget. [43:07] Sometimes we do. [43:08] This year, we probably won't [43:10] because my friend [43:12] and colleague, [43:14] Senator Schumer, [43:16] wants to shut down government [43:18] to create chaos, [43:22] to try to get [43:23] the Graham Plattner wing [43:24] of his party to love him. [43:27] But I digress. [43:29] That stuff's not in the budget [43:31] when we vote on a budget. [43:36] Where does it come from? [43:40] Well, Senator, [43:40] I appreciate the question, [43:41] and you've been a champion [43:42] on these issues, [43:43] and I would note your work [43:44] on the rescissions process, [43:45] highlighting some of these [43:46] outrageous spinning [43:48] we've seen in the past. [43:49] So, I think this is why [43:51] our updates to 2 CFR, [43:53] which governs grant-making [43:55] across the federal enterprise [43:57] is so critical. [43:58] Yeah, tell the American people [44:00] what that is. [44:01] Absolutely. [44:02] Appreciate the opportunity. [44:02] Like you're talking to a 10th grader. [44:04] Appreciate the opportunity, too. [44:06] So, fundamentally, [44:07] some of the most important things [44:10] are to ensure [44:10] that grants are not going [44:12] to divisive DEI ideologies. [44:14] They're not going to support [44:15] illegal immigration. [44:16] They're not going to support [44:18] radical gender ideologies. [44:19] Those are pretty fundamental. [44:20] And stupid stuff, right? [44:22] And stupid stuff, generally. [44:24] Yes, sir. [44:24] I think the arbiter of ensuring [44:26] that things do not go to stupid stuff, [44:29] as you put it, [44:30] is ultimately a political appointee. [44:32] One of the president's people [44:33] that is associated with the administration, [44:35] appointed by the president, [44:36] comes in and does a final issuance review [44:39] before grant dollars go out. [44:41] That's fundamentally about accountability. [44:43] It's not intended to usurp peer review [44:46] or anything like that. [44:47] It's about making sure that someone... [44:49] Let me stop you for a second, Mr. Duncan, [44:50] because we're going to run out of time. [44:53] Congress never sees [44:54] this kind of spending porn, does it? [44:56] Until after the fact. [44:59] Is that correct? [44:59] Senator, that's correct. [45:00] It's not in our budget. [45:01] Is that correct? [45:02] Senator, that is correct. [45:03] But somebody in the administrative state [45:06] decides that they ought to spend [45:09] $25 million to study [45:11] whether a man can breastfeed, right? [45:15] Yes, sir. [45:16] Now, that's what I mean by stupid stuff. [45:19] Do you consider that stupid stuff? [45:21] Absolutely, yes, sir. [45:22] And what you're going to do at OMB [45:24] is try to stop the stupid stuff. [45:26] Try to find out who made that grant [45:28] and say, no, no, no, no, no. [45:30] We're not going to spend money on this. [45:33] And by the way, if you do it again, [45:35] you're fired. [45:37] Is that right? [45:37] That's what you guys are going to do? [45:39] Yes, sir. [45:40] It's about time. [45:40] Thank you. [45:41] All right, let me ask you one other question. [45:48] When moms and dads lie down to sleep at night [45:50] and can't right now at this point in time, [45:53] what's the first thing they're worried about? [45:58] I would imagine it would be [45:59] the ability to support their families. [46:03] Yes. [46:05] Cost of living. [46:09] Part of that's inflation. [46:15] Look, I don't... [46:17] I mean, I remember inflation is very sticky. [46:19] I remember when it started, it got up 9%. [46:22] You know, President Trump didn't father this child, [46:26] but he's got to raise it. [46:29] Cost of living. [46:30] Thank you for being straightforward. [46:32] Now, have you ever gone to a... [46:34] Let me preface this by saying, [46:37] I've got two doctors, brothers who are doctors, [46:40] so I love health care providers. [46:41] But have you ever gone to a health care provider [46:43] and then you get a bill saying, [46:46] you owe us $1,400, [46:48] and you go, what the hell? [46:51] Has that ever happened to you? [46:52] Yes, sir. [46:53] It actually has. [46:53] It's happened to a lot of Americans [46:55] because the way many of our hospital... [47:00] our health care providers bill [47:01] makes no sense. [47:05] And so they turn it over to a collection agency [47:08] and the collection agency says, [47:10] look, we might... [47:11] You pay this $1,400. [47:13] We can't explain... [47:15] We won't explain to you how it got here. [47:17] If we did, we'd have to drown you in the Pacific. [47:21] But if you don't pay it, [47:22] we're going to turn it into your... [47:24] The credit rating agencies and ruin your credit. [47:26] Now, why don't... [47:29] If we want to help the American people, [47:33] why don't we, at least for a period of time, [47:35] say health care debt [47:38] is not going to be reported to the rating agencies? [47:43] It's not... [47:44] We're not saying you don't have to pay it. [47:45] We're not saying it's not due. [47:47] We're not saying you can't be sued. [47:51] But this debt's being reported to rating agencies [47:54] when people can't pay it [47:56] and then their credit gets ruined [47:58] and it makes it even harder for them to live. [48:02] That's a swell idea, isn't it? [48:03] Senator, I think the administration [48:06] has been very committed to price transparency [48:08] and ensuring that... [48:09] Yeah, but what about that idea? [48:10] I'm happy to take that back [48:12] and determine the administration's position on that matter. [48:15] How about it advocating for it? [48:17] I'm happy to work with you on this matter, absolutely. [48:20] Okay. [48:20] I'm sorry I went way over. [48:22] I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. [48:25] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [48:27] First, I'd like to state [48:28] that I'm a little fascinated [48:30] by Senator Kennedy's media feed. [48:33] My what? [48:33] Your social media feed, sir. [48:35] Oh. [48:35] But I digress. [48:40] I appreciate you being here [48:44] to answer questions [48:45] as we consider your nomination. [48:47] Let me begin with a question [48:49] relative to OMB's May 2026 proposed rule [48:54] to implement a sweeping overhaul [48:56] of the uniform guidance governing federal grants [49:00] and financial assistance. [49:01] It would actually substantially expand agencies' authority [49:05] to suspend or terminate awards, [49:08] elevate the role of political appointees [49:10] in grant decisions, [49:12] and centralize government-wide grant-making rules [49:15] through the OMB. [49:19] Now, the proposal, as I'm sure you've heard, [49:21] has generated significant concern [49:23] among states, amongst local governments, [49:26] amongst universities, nonprofit organizations, [49:28] and other recipients of federal funds. [49:31] Now, many of us here in Congress [49:33] are extremely concerned [49:35] about the true objective of this rulemaking, [49:38] which would be to provide cover [49:40] for the politically motivated actions [49:42] of this administration [49:43] to counsel thousands of grants [49:45] deemed to not be aligned [49:48] with the president's partisan political agenda, [49:52] actions that have been repeatedly found [49:54] by the courts to be illegal and unconstitutional. [50:00] These changes are meant to make it easier [50:02] for the administration to override [50:03] funding decisions made by Congress. [50:07] Colleagues, Congress is the separate [50:09] and co-equal branch of government, [50:11] and the rule would inject political considerations [50:14] into the administration of federal grants. [50:18] So my question is pretty simple. [50:21] If confirmed, will you commit that the OMB [50:23] will not use the uniform guidance [50:25] or any future revisions to it [50:28] as a vehicle to circumvent [50:30] congressional spending decisions [50:32] or to impose policy conditions [50:35] that Congress itself did not enact? [50:39] Senator, certainly appreciate the question. [50:41] Fundamentally, the updates to 2CFR [50:43] are about accountability, [50:45] ensuring that someone that is accountable [50:46] directly to the president [50:47] is ultimately signing off [50:49] on these final decisions [50:51] in our trillion-dollar grant-making enterprise. [50:54] The law, the CFR, [50:57] the updated to the Code of Federal Regulations [50:59] will be done in a manner [51:00] that's consistent with applicable laws, [51:02] but this is a method by which [51:05] the administration is proposing [51:07] to get its arms around the enterprise [51:10] that we've seen abused in the past. [51:11] So, colleagues, for the record, [51:13] that's an articulate, diplomatic way [51:16] of saying, yes, it's whatever the president wants. [51:18] That's the objective here. [51:19] That's your answer. [51:22] And I'll advise my colleagues [51:24] that if this rule changes, [51:26] it's not a change just for the balance [51:28] of this administration. [51:29] It's a permanent change. [51:32] And at some point, [51:34] there will be a Democratic majority [51:35] and there will be a Democratic president [51:37] in the White House [51:38] with this rule change [51:40] if that's the road you go down. [51:43] My second area of question [51:45] is relative to CDFI funding. [51:47] As bipartisan members of Congress [51:50] have communicated to agency leadership [51:51] over the last year, [51:53] CDFIs play a vital role [51:55] in delivering capital [51:56] and financial services [51:57] to communities and businesses [51:59] that lack access [52:00] to traditional lending. [52:03] OMB's purposeful delay [52:05] of these funds [52:05] has created significant uncertainty [52:07] for the organizations [52:09] that serve as a lifeline [52:11] and frankly do a critical job [52:13] in boosting our economy. [52:16] After over a year [52:18] of withholding these funds [52:20] and many calls from Congress, [52:21] again, both sides of the aisle, [52:23] OMB just recently released [52:25] the fiscal year 25 CDFI fund awards. [52:30] However, Director Vogt [52:32] in his response [52:33] to this committee's questions [52:34] on the proposed cuts [52:36] of the program [52:36] for fiscal year 27 [52:38] continue to make unsubstantiated claims [52:41] of widespread abuse. [52:43] I've heard you say it [52:44] in this hearing, [52:46] you're concerned about abuse, [52:47] you're concerned about abuse. [52:49] If there's unsubstantiated claims [52:51] of abuse, [52:51] you're making it up [52:52] and using it as a pretext [52:53] to hold much needed funding [52:56] and clearly increasingly [52:57] on a partisan basis. [52:59] So I'll try to ask you again, [53:01] clearly, [53:01] will you commit [53:02] to ending OMB's interference [53:05] with the fiscal year 25 [53:07] CDFI funding, [53:09] notice of funding availability, [53:10] as well as the 26 apportionment [53:14] and ensure the timely obligation [53:17] and disbursement of future funds [53:19] as intended by Congress? [53:21] Yes or no? [53:22] Senator, I appreciate the question. [53:24] As you mentioned, [53:25] OMB was conducting [53:26] a programmatic review [53:27] of the 25, 26 CDFI funds. [53:30] Those funds have since been apportioned [53:32] and NOFOs are moving out [53:33] on them right now. [53:34] So I commit to ensuring [53:36] that the funds [53:36] are spent in a responsible manner [53:38] and we will obviously [53:39] be taking those steps [53:41] to ensure that there aren't abuse [53:43] in the funds [53:43] and we'll release them [53:45] once those safeguards [53:47] are in place. [53:48] As you know, [53:48] time is money. [53:49] So when there's delays [53:50] in this funding, [53:51] it undermines the economic benefit [53:54] of these programs. [53:56] And if there was a long track record [53:58] of abuse, [54:00] you can make the argument [54:01] for additional review. [54:04] But when they're unsubstantiated, [54:06] it's uncalled for [54:07] and damaging to the American economy. [54:09] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [54:12] Thank you, Chairman. [54:13] Mr. Duncan, thank you for being here. [54:15] So in my lifetime, [54:16] here's what's happened to the cost. [54:19] When I went to college, [54:20] it cost $200 to go to junior college [54:22] for a whole semester [54:23] and $255 to go [54:26] to a whole semester of university [54:27] and you could take [54:28] as many hours as you wanted. [54:31] You could buy a home [54:31] in the suburbs for $21,000, [54:34] a three-bed and one-bath [54:35] in a safe, nice suburb. [54:38] You could buy a brand-new car [54:39] for $1,600. [54:40] You could buy annual health care [54:43] for a family of four [54:44] for $700. [54:45] So you look today, [54:47] $25,000 plus [54:50] for a family of four [54:51] for health care. [54:53] You can't hardly find a new car [54:54] for less than $20,000. [54:56] You can't buy, [55:00] you know, [55:00] there's an article said [55:02] that 242 homes, [55:04] or I think something like [55:05] 242 cities in this country [55:06] started homes [55:07] around a million bucks. [55:09] So do you think governments [55:10] had any role [55:11] in causing all this inflation? [55:14] Senator, [55:15] appreciate the question [55:16] and absolutely think [55:17] government has had a role [55:18] and that's why [55:19] the administration's [55:20] deregulatory [55:21] and spending agenda [55:22] is so critical [55:22] to getting these costs down, [55:25] undoing the burdens [55:26] placed on the American people [55:28] by the previous administration [55:29] and continue to try [55:30] to drive costs down. [55:31] So if, [55:34] so what, [55:35] so we now have, [55:36] we'll get, [55:37] we'll hit $40 trillion [55:38] to the debt this year. [55:40] So $40 trillion [55:41] to the debt, [55:42] $20 trillion a year [55:43] of interest expense. [55:44] We are running [55:45] $2 trillion deficits. [55:46] So if that doesn't change [55:48] and we don't get [55:48] to a balanced budget [55:49] and start paying down the debt, [55:50] do you think interest rates [55:51] are going to just, [55:52] you know, [55:52] just like that go down [55:54] way back down again? [55:56] I think we certainly [55:57] need to continue [55:58] to address deficit spending. [56:00] I think we set forward [56:02] a framework on how to do it [56:03] this past year [56:05] through rescissions, [56:06] keeping the discretionary [56:08] appropriations [56:08] in a fiscally responsible manner [56:10] and also delivering [56:11] on the mandatory savings [56:12] that we did [56:13] in the Working Families Tax Cuts Act. [56:16] So we need to continue [56:17] to move forward that model. [56:18] I think to the chairman's point [56:20] and to Senator Johnson's point, [56:22] attacking the fraud [56:23] is really important [56:24] and getting our arms [56:27] around the spending [56:28] and continuing [56:28] to bring down costs [56:30] so we don't have [56:31] the debt burden [56:32] and interest rate problems [56:33] that you're referring to. [56:35] So our country, [56:36] all of us, [56:38] in our military [56:38] is completely dependent [56:39] on Chinese drugs, right? [56:43] The, we don't, [56:46] almost all the ingredients [56:47] in general drugs [56:47] are made in China. [56:49] There's studies [56:49] out of the University of Indiana [56:51] that tells us [56:51] how unhealthy [56:52] these drugs are. [56:55] And they've held back, [56:56] Chinese government's [56:57] held back rare earth minerals. [56:59] They could hold back [57:00] pharmaceuticals easily, right? [57:02] So do you think [57:03] it's important for us [57:04] to start building [57:05] a domestic supply chain [57:06] for pharmaceutical drugs [57:08] and also not, [57:11] the other thing that's happening [57:12] is that the Buy American Act [57:16] and the Berry Amendment [57:16] are supposed to guard against, [57:18] you know, [57:19] all this, you know, [57:20] Chinese drugs, [57:21] but there's unbelievable waivers [57:23] given all the time [57:24] because we don't have [57:25] enough supply here. [57:26] Is there anything [57:27] that you think [57:27] the OMB can be doing [57:28] to fix that? [57:30] Senator, [57:30] I appreciate the question. [57:32] Fundamentally, [57:32] I think dedicating [57:33] more resources [57:34] to reshoring [57:35] advanced drug manufacturing [57:37] is fundamental. [57:38] We did that [57:38] in our FY27 budget proposal. [57:41] Also, [57:42] and I believe [57:43] you've been involved [57:43] in some of these efforts, [57:44] our Office of Federal [57:45] Procurement Policy [57:46] as well as our Made in America [57:48] Office [57:48] are working together [57:49] to ensure [57:50] that we are taking policies [57:52] administratively [57:53] to promote [57:54] domestic drug manufacturing. [57:56] I think a really critical [57:56] way of doing that [57:57] on ascending demand signals [57:59] through the federal [57:59] procurement process, [58:01] which we've done [58:02] on a number of items. [58:03] So, absolutely committed [58:04] to doing that. [58:05] It's a priority [58:05] for the administration [58:06] and look forward [58:07] to continuing [58:08] to work with you on it. [58:08] Kevin Rhodes has done [58:09] a great job. [58:10] Absolutely. [58:11] So, [58:12] President Trump [58:12] and OMB have done [58:13] a great job. [58:15] You know, [58:15] we've worked to cut taxes, [58:18] identify and eliminate [58:19] fraudulent payments. [58:20] What would you like Congress [58:22] to do to help OMB [58:23] do a better job [58:24] doing, [58:26] you know, [58:26] fulfilling the agenda [58:27] that Trump got elected on? [58:29] Well, [58:29] Senator, [58:29] absolutely appreciate [58:30] the question. [58:31] I think, [58:32] as mentioned, [58:33] kind of building upon [58:34] the successes [58:34] that we saw last year [58:36] is really critical. [58:37] We really laid out [58:38] a playbook [58:39] to how to keep spending [58:40] under control [58:41] while funding key priorities. [58:43] So, I think continuing [58:43] to build on that. [58:45] And frankly, [58:46] I think continuing [58:46] to bring stuff [58:48] to OMB saying, [58:49] hey, [58:50] will you take a look at this? [58:51] There are multiple times [58:52] when we get information [58:53] from the Congress [58:54] highlighting an issue [58:56] for us [58:56] that we had not known. [58:57] I think there's a conception [58:58] that we know everything [59:00] all the time. [59:00] We know a lot of things. [59:01] We're resource constrained. [59:03] So, we certainly rely [59:04] on our colleagues [59:06] in Congress [59:06] to flag things for us. [59:07] So, I think just making sure [59:09] we have that collaborative effort [59:10] to make sure [59:12] that we're delivering [59:13] on reducing spending [59:14] and reducing regulatory burdens [59:16] is how we kind of continue [59:17] to move forward. [59:17] Thanks. [59:18] You're going to do a great job. [59:19] Thank you, Senator. [59:20] Thanks for all your hard work [59:21] and all your prior jobs. [59:22] Thank you, Senator. [59:23] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [59:26] Thank you, Mr. Duncan, [59:27] for being here. [59:28] Do you think that being [59:29] Deputy Director of OMB [59:31] requires somebody [59:32] of good character? [59:34] Senator, I appreciate [59:35] the question. [59:35] I do. [59:37] Do you have a Nazi tattoo [59:38] on your body? [59:40] Senator, I do not have [59:41] any tattoos. [59:41] Especially not a Nazi tattoo. [59:43] That would make you [59:43] ineligible to be [59:44] the Democrat nominee [59:45] in Maine, [59:46] but I'm glad [59:47] that this will absolutely [59:48] allow you to be [59:49] the Deputy Director [59:50] here at OMB. [59:51] Since the last budget [59:53] committee hearing, [59:53] Mr. Chairman, [59:54] we heard a lot [59:54] about the stock market [59:55] and a lot about oil prices. [59:57] Nothing to do [59:58] with your nomination, [59:59] but I just thought [59:59] for the record, [1:00:00] just point out, [1:00:02] Mr. Chairman, [1:00:02] we have a record stock market. [1:00:04] We have gas prices [1:00:05] that are plummeting. [1:00:07] It is making Democrats [1:00:08] very, very sad. [1:00:09] But the reality is [1:00:11] President Trump's policies [1:00:12] are working. [1:00:13] So are you happy about that? [1:00:15] Do you think this is good [1:00:15] that we have record stock market [1:00:16] and gas prices are dropping? [1:00:18] Senator, absolutely. [1:00:19] And I think this gets back [1:00:19] to Senator Kennedy's [1:00:21] question as well. [1:00:22] Obviously, it's critical [1:00:23] for the administration. [1:00:24] We wake up every morning [1:00:25] to try to get prices down. [1:00:27] So I think with the signing [1:00:28] of the MOU [1:00:29] and seeing the oil prices [1:00:31] come down, [1:00:32] we're going to see [1:00:32] that prices continue to fall [1:00:35] and the stock market [1:00:36] continue to rocket. [1:00:37] Yeah, and then the added benefit [1:00:38] of actually having a path [1:00:40] to peace in the Middle East. [1:00:41] I just thought I'd point that out [1:00:41] because at the last budget hearing, [1:00:43] we heard a lot about it. [1:00:44] There was a lot. [1:00:45] You wouldn't believe [1:00:45] how many of my colleagues [1:00:47] turned into stock market [1:00:49] prognosticators. [1:00:51] Do you think the government [1:00:52] of the United States of America [1:00:53] at the federal level [1:00:54] is working better, [1:00:55] the same as, [1:00:57] or worse than it was [1:00:58] under the Biden administration [1:00:59] in terms of efficiency? [1:01:01] Forget politics. [1:01:01] I'm just saying the efficiency, [1:01:03] the blocking and tackling [1:01:04] of being able to get [1:01:05] your tax-free funds, [1:01:06] being able to deal [1:01:07] with the federal government [1:01:08] in terms of what you need. [1:01:09] Is it better, worse, [1:01:09] or the same? [1:01:10] Senator, I think it's [1:01:11] functioning much better [1:01:12] than it was under [1:01:13] the previous administration. [1:01:14] So much better. [1:01:15] And obviously, [1:01:17] the number of federal [1:01:18] employees matters, correct? [1:01:19] I mean, typically, [1:01:20] you need humans [1:01:21] on the other side [1:01:22] of that phone call [1:01:22] or email. [1:01:23] What's the level [1:01:24] of federal employment today [1:01:26] versus where it was [1:01:27] two years ago? [1:01:28] Senator, I believe [1:01:30] that we've seen a reduction [1:01:31] of about 300,000 [1:01:33] federal employees [1:01:33] since this administration [1:01:35] took office. [1:01:36] How many? [1:01:38] 300,000. [1:01:39] It's 300,000 less [1:01:40] federal workers? [1:01:41] Yes, sir. [1:01:42] And the government's [1:01:42] working much better? [1:01:43] Yes, sir. [1:01:44] How is that possible? [1:01:44] The administration [1:01:46] has been able [1:01:47] to identify efficiencies [1:01:48] and remove bureaucracies [1:01:51] that previously limited [1:01:52] the efficient delivery [1:01:54] of services. [1:01:55] How does that affect [1:01:56] the taxpayer? [1:01:57] So does somebody [1:01:57] who lives in Chillicothe, [1:01:59] Ohio, how does that [1:02:00] affect them? [1:02:01] Well, fundamentally, [1:02:02] it affects them [1:02:03] by ensuring that [1:02:04] they're getting their [1:02:05] services more quickly, [1:02:06] whether it's tax returns [1:02:07] or what have you. [1:02:08] But obviously, [1:02:09] reducing headcount [1:02:10] and seeing those individuals [1:02:12] go and work [1:02:12] in the private sector [1:02:13] also reduces [1:02:14] the federal fiscal burden [1:02:17] carried with funding [1:02:18] those employees as well. [1:02:20] Because you would agree [1:02:20] that the federal government [1:02:21] shouldn't be a works program [1:02:22] for otherwise unqualified [1:02:24] people, correct? [1:02:25] Senator, absolutely. [1:02:26] Right. [1:02:26] So we've been able [1:02:27] to eliminate 300,000 people [1:02:30] from the federal workforce [1:02:31] and yet operate [1:02:32] our federal government [1:02:33] more efficiently, [1:02:34] which means we can lower [1:02:35] the tax burden [1:02:36] on American citizens. [1:02:37] That makes an amazing [1:02:38] accomplishment. [1:02:39] I turn on CNN [1:02:40] every single morning. [1:02:42] This morning, [1:02:42] I didn't see the oil chart [1:02:43] or the stock market chart [1:02:44] that magically had disappeared. [1:02:47] But I have not seen this story. [1:02:48] Why do you think it is [1:02:48] that the media doesn't cover [1:02:49] the fact that we have [1:02:50] 300,000 plus [1:02:53] less federal employees [1:02:54] and yet operating the government [1:02:56] more efficiently? [1:02:56] Tax refunds are going out quicker. [1:02:58] The government's more responsive. [1:03:00] Does that seem like a disconnect? [1:03:02] I think it absolutely [1:03:03] seems like a disconnect. [1:03:04] Okay, perfect. [1:03:05] Next question I have for you, [1:03:06] and you talked about this [1:03:07] with Senator Scott. [1:03:10] We have, obviously, [1:03:10] the Buy America Act. [1:03:11] I'd like to also give a plug [1:03:13] to Kevin Rhodes. [1:03:13] He's doing a great job. [1:03:16] Obviously, you know that [1:03:17] the nitro glove manufacturing [1:03:19] epicenter of the entire universe [1:03:21] is in Ohio. [1:03:22] And how quickly do you think [1:03:24] we can get these procurement [1:03:26] orders done so that [1:03:27] the former paper mill [1:03:29] in Chillicothe, Ohio, [1:03:31] which got shut down [1:03:31] by a private equity fund [1:03:34] that was best buddies [1:03:35] with the Bidens, [1:03:36] and we've now got that [1:03:37] into a nitro glove manufacturing [1:03:39] facility that's going to start [1:03:41] thriving. [1:03:41] When can they expect [1:03:42] to get orders [1:03:43] so that we stop [1:03:44] having Chinese nitrile gloves [1:03:46] flooding the U.S. market? [1:03:48] No, Senator, [1:03:48] absolutely appreciate the question, [1:03:49] and I've really appreciated [1:03:50] working with you on this issue. [1:03:52] So, as you may or may not know, [1:03:54] we started moving out [1:03:55] on a new contract [1:03:57] to sort of consolidate [1:03:58] nitrile glove procurement [1:04:00] within the federal government [1:04:01] for all agencies [1:04:02] to ensure we are buying [1:04:03] American nitrile gloves. [1:04:05] So that contract began executing [1:04:07] at the beginning of this month. [1:04:08] It started with a few agencies, [1:04:10] and it's going to roll out [1:04:11] and expand to a larger swath. [1:04:13] So I think we will start [1:04:14] seeing the buying power [1:04:16] and demand signal [1:04:16] really expand here [1:04:18] over the next few weeks. [1:04:19] And that's a huge contrast [1:04:21] to what Biden was doing, [1:04:22] which is just flooding the zone, [1:04:24] giving these companies [1:04:25] tens of millions of dollars, [1:04:27] and they actually didn't produce [1:04:29] a single solitary glove. [1:04:30] What we're doing instead [1:04:31] is giving them demand signals [1:04:33] so that they can build [1:04:34] their business and grow it. [1:04:35] So it's an amazing accomplishment. [1:04:37] I would be remiss [1:04:38] if I didn't end [1:04:39] by congratulating you [1:04:40] on being nominated [1:04:41] by the president [1:04:42] of the United States. [1:04:43] I think if we could clone you [1:04:45] and duplicate you [1:04:46] all over the government, [1:04:47] the government would run [1:04:48] even more efficiently. [1:04:49] Maybe we could take off [1:04:49] another 300,000 permanent [1:04:51] government employees. [1:04:52] It's people like you [1:04:53] that are called to service [1:04:54] to work in the federal government. [1:04:56] It's gratifying to see [1:04:58] somebody of your skills, [1:04:59] your character, go in there. [1:05:01] I know you're going to do [1:05:02] an amazing job. [1:05:02] I look forward to voting [1:05:03] to confirm you. [1:05:04] I appreciate that, Senator. [1:05:07] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:05:09] Mr. Duncan, [1:05:10] just listening to your responses [1:05:11] to Senator Moreno, [1:05:12] I can tell you that the people [1:05:14] who are waiting in long lines [1:05:17] at Social Security regional offices [1:05:20] don't think things have gotten [1:05:23] more efficient. [1:05:24] You're aware of the fact [1:05:25] that the IRS has warned [1:05:26] that this year's tax season [1:05:28] was at risk due to staffing shortages. [1:05:30] Are you aware of that fact? [1:05:32] Senator, obviously, [1:05:33] we're trying to... [1:05:34] I'm just asking you [1:05:35] if you're aware of that fact, [1:05:36] that they warned [1:05:36] that this year's tax season [1:05:38] efficiency was at risk [1:05:40] because of staffing shortages. [1:05:42] Are you not aware of that? [1:05:43] Senator, I'm not aware [1:05:43] of the exact item [1:05:44] you're referring to. [1:05:45] I'm happy to take a look at it [1:05:46] if it's in front of you. [1:05:47] But obviously, [1:05:48] everything that we are doing [1:05:49] is toward a commitment [1:05:50] for efficiency [1:05:51] for the American people. [1:05:52] Well, in fact, [1:05:53] you've had to rehire people [1:05:54] who were fired at the IRS. [1:05:56] That doesn't sound [1:05:57] like it's more efficient to me. [1:05:59] The same is true at FEMA. [1:06:01] FEMA reinstated fire disaster [1:06:03] response personnel [1:06:05] ahead of the hurricane season [1:06:06] because they were unprepared. [1:06:08] Were you aware of that fact? [1:06:11] Senator, I'm not aware [1:06:12] of this specific thing. [1:06:13] That would be a FEMA-related item [1:06:15] that I've been... [1:06:15] A lot of this, of course, [1:06:16] feeds up through the OMB. [1:06:18] The same is true [1:06:19] of the National Weather Service. [1:06:20] GSA cited staffing shortages [1:06:22] on mission-critical needs. [1:06:25] Were you aware of that? [1:06:26] I'd have to defer [1:06:27] to the National Weather Service. [1:06:28] In fact, by early this year, [1:06:29] an estimated 25,000 federal employees [1:06:32] have been rehired [1:06:33] after being initially terminated. [1:06:37] Do you know how much [1:06:38] that's cost the taxpayer, [1:06:40] rehiring the same people [1:06:41] who were in the job before? [1:06:43] Senator, I don't have an estimate [1:06:44] in front of me, [1:06:45] but we're always working [1:06:46] to optimize staffing levels. [1:06:47] Well, I have an estimate [1:06:48] from the Partnership for Public Service. [1:06:50] They're a nonpartisan entity. [1:06:51] They say just that process [1:06:53] of having to go through [1:06:54] rehiring the same people [1:06:55] that were fired [1:06:56] cost the taxpayer $12 million. [1:06:58] That doesn't sound [1:07:00] more efficient to me. [1:07:02] Mr. Duncan, [1:07:03] your boss at OMB, [1:07:06] Director Vogt, [1:07:07] has said, quote, [1:07:09] when civil servants wake up [1:07:11] in the morning, [1:07:12] we want them to not want [1:07:13] to go to work [1:07:14] because they are increasingly [1:07:16] viewed as the villains. [1:07:18] He went on to say, [1:07:19] and I quote, [1:07:19] we want to put them in trauma, [1:07:22] unquote. [1:07:23] Do you see merit-based [1:07:25] civil servants as the villains? [1:07:27] Senator, first, [1:07:31] Director Vogt has addressed [1:07:32] that quote multiple times [1:07:33] in this committee. [1:07:33] I'm asking you [1:07:34] what you believe. [1:07:35] Do you believe [1:07:36] civil servants are the villains? [1:07:38] As I mentioned [1:07:39] in my testimony, [1:07:39] I think the OMB civil servants [1:07:41] who are the ones [1:07:41] I work most closely with [1:07:43] as well as Director Vogt, [1:07:45] who has a wonderful relationship [1:07:46] with those civil servants [1:07:47] who are among the best [1:07:47] and brightest [1:07:48] in the federal government. [1:07:49] Excellent. [1:07:50] So you don't want [1:07:50] to put them in trauma, do you? [1:07:52] Senator, [1:07:53] that quote you're referring [1:07:54] to, Director Vogt, [1:07:55] is addressed [1:07:55] as related to certain [1:07:57] bureaucracies [1:07:58] in the federal government. [1:07:59] It's just a question [1:08:00] for you, [1:08:01] not for Mr. Vogt. [1:08:02] Do you want to put [1:08:03] federal employees in trauma? [1:08:05] Yes or no? [1:08:06] Senator, [1:08:07] you're directly referring to- [1:08:08] I'm asking what your view is. [1:08:10] Do you think it's a good idea [1:08:11] to put federal employees [1:08:13] in trauma? [1:08:13] I work very well [1:08:14] with the civil servants [1:08:15] at OMB. [1:08:16] The quote that you're referring [1:08:17] to was a reference [1:08:19] to weaponized bureaucracies. [1:08:20] Mr. Duncan, [1:08:21] I'm asking you right now [1:08:22] what your view is. [1:08:23] Do you want to put [1:08:24] federal employees [1:08:25] into trauma? [1:08:25] Yes or no? [1:08:26] Senator, [1:08:26] like I said, [1:08:27] I completely support [1:08:28] the civil servants [1:08:29] that work at OMB, [1:08:30] and that quote [1:08:31] that you're referring to [1:08:32] has been taken out of context [1:08:33] and it's been addressed [1:08:34] by the director up here. [1:08:35] So it's interesting [1:08:36] you don't want to provide [1:08:37] a direct answer. [1:08:38] So listen, [1:08:39] Senator Murray and others [1:08:40] have raised concerns [1:08:42] about this new proposal [1:08:43] to completely politicize [1:08:46] the grant-making process, [1:08:49] the update to uniform [1:08:50] guidance. [1:08:51] I hope people can understand [1:08:53] that coming from an administration [1:08:55] that wants to create a slush fund [1:08:59] to use taxpayer dollars [1:09:01] to make payouts to individuals [1:09:04] convicted of assaulting Capitol [1:09:05] Police on January 6th, [1:09:07] the idea of further politicizing [1:09:09] the grant process [1:09:10] is really, really alarming. [1:09:14] And I know this is in process. [1:09:16] I want to talk to you [1:09:17] about another political effort [1:09:18] going on to make sure [1:09:19] that you want to replace [1:09:21] about 8,000 merit-based civil servants [1:09:23] with political appointees. [1:09:26] You want to make 8,000 positions at will. [1:09:29] And I was just looking through [1:09:30] the OMB list here, [1:09:33] people who would now be made at will. [1:09:36] One of those senior policy analysts' positions [1:09:39] of physical scientists. [1:09:41] Why do you want to make that [1:09:43] into a political position? [1:09:46] Senator, I appreciate the question. [1:09:47] And I think both the updates [1:09:49] to 2CFR and the scheduled policy career [1:09:52] are about one thing, [1:09:53] and that's accountability. [1:09:55] So as it relates to the individuals [1:09:57] placed in scheduled policy career, [1:09:59] it's fundamentally about ensuring [1:10:01] that they're delivering on the job. [1:10:02] So if a physical scientist [1:10:04] is providing actual assessment [1:10:07] to folks at OMB [1:10:09] and the political folks there [1:10:12] don't like their assessment, [1:10:14] that person will now be able to be fired. [1:10:15] Isn't that right? [1:10:16] Senator, that is not at all [1:10:17] what the goal of the... [1:10:19] Isn't that right, though? [1:10:20] You will make them at will [1:10:22] as opposed to having [1:10:23] any merit-based protections. [1:10:25] Isn't that what you're going to do? [1:10:26] Senator, the goal of the proposal [1:10:28] is to ensure that the individuals implicated [1:10:31] are delivering the highest level of services [1:10:33] for the American people. [1:10:35] Yep. [1:10:36] I see under senior policy analysis [1:10:37] you've got a toxicologist, [1:10:39] you've got a physical scientist. [1:10:41] I would just say to our colleagues, [1:10:43] you're going down a very dangerous road here [1:10:45] by taking these positions [1:10:47] that have been merit-based career positions [1:10:50] and turning them into political positions [1:10:54] subject to politicization [1:10:57] in these positions. [1:10:59] It is a very bad idea [1:11:01] and I hope you will reconsider. [1:11:03] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:11:04] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:11:07] Thanks, Mr. Duncan, [1:11:08] for being with us today [1:11:10] and for your willingness to serve the country. [1:11:13] I want to talk to you briefly first [1:11:15] about the proposed uniform guidance reforms. [1:11:20] These are reforms [1:11:21] that are intended to save the taxpayer money [1:11:25] to make government operate more effectively, [1:11:28] more efficiently, [1:11:29] and keep the government focused [1:11:32] on what it's supposed to be doing [1:11:34] rather than opening the door [1:11:36] to waste, fraud, abuse, and other problems, [1:11:39] including some violations of federal law. [1:11:43] From your perspective, [1:11:45] how would these proposed uniform guidance reforms [1:11:48] help improve the federal government's ability [1:11:51] to accomplish these goals? [1:11:52] To safeguard taxpayer funds [1:11:54] while simultaneously holding responsible [1:11:56] any grantees that fail to comply [1:12:00] with these requirements? [1:12:03] Absolutely, and I appreciate the question, Senator. [1:12:07] So, 2CFR updates are, as I mentioned, [1:12:10] all about accountability. [1:12:11] It's ensuring that some of these outrageous spending [1:12:14] that we have seen in the past [1:12:16] is not going out the door [1:12:18] by adding an additional layer of accountability [1:12:20] by having a political appointee, [1:12:22] someone that is directly responsible [1:12:24] to the president [1:12:24] and directly accountable to the president, [1:12:26] saying, hey, this is a good use of these funds, [1:12:29] we believe this, [1:12:30] or asking some additional questions [1:12:31] before it goes out, [1:12:32] or saying no. [1:12:33] I think some additional items in there [1:12:36] that we're really excited about, [1:12:37] ensuring that DEI practices [1:12:39] are not being funded by grants, [1:12:41] ensuring that illegal immigration [1:12:43] is not being funded by grants. [1:12:44] We certainly saw that [1:12:45] in the last administration, [1:12:46] ensuring that radical gender ideologies [1:12:51] aren't being funded by grants, [1:12:52] and putting additional controls [1:12:55] to ensure fraud is not committed, [1:12:57] and if it's identified, [1:12:58] is sent to a prosecuting authority. [1:13:00] Finally, I think one thing [1:13:01] that we're really excited about as well [1:13:02] is an e-verify requirement [1:13:05] for grant recipients. [1:13:06] We think it's fundamental [1:13:07] that someone that is receiving [1:13:08] taxpayer dollars from the federal government [1:13:11] through grants [1:13:13] is hiring folks [1:13:15] that are authorized to work here. [1:13:17] So that does that [1:13:17] for both the prime recipient [1:13:19] and the sub-recipients. [1:13:21] And in addition to other things [1:13:23] that we're doing in the guidance, [1:13:24] we think this will really help us [1:13:25] wrap our arms around [1:13:27] the trillion-dollar grant enterprise. [1:13:29] By the way, [1:13:29] speaking of political appointees, [1:13:31] a minute ago, [1:13:31] you were asked questions [1:13:32] in a way that suggested [1:13:33] that political appointees [1:13:35] are somehow bad, [1:13:36] that it's a bad thing. [1:13:38] The process is set up [1:13:40] to be political, is it not? [1:13:42] And political, [1:13:43] the word itself refers to [1:13:45] sort of of the people, [1:13:46] by the people, [1:13:47] for the people, [1:13:47] doesn't it? [1:13:48] Absolutely, Senator. [1:13:49] The political appointees [1:13:51] are the ones directly accountable [1:13:52] to the president [1:13:53] who Article 2 of the Constitution [1:13:54] vests the executive authority [1:13:56] through the election by the people. [1:13:57] So we elect a president, [1:13:59] and then the suggestion being [1:14:02] that to have a political appointee [1:14:04] is somehow problematic, [1:14:06] and yet the alternative [1:14:08] is basically the deep state, [1:14:11] the sort of permanent [1:14:12] career civil servant class, [1:14:14] people who are more or less [1:14:16] insulated from the political process. [1:14:18] So when they rail against [1:14:20] political appointees, [1:14:22] they're really railing [1:14:23] against accountability [1:14:25] to the voter [1:14:26] because the president [1:14:27] is elected by the people [1:14:28] and is expected to do the job [1:14:30] the people hired [1:14:31] the president to do. [1:14:33] Now, in the end, [1:14:37] I suspect that these reforms, [1:14:38] when implemented, [1:14:39] will be very helpful. [1:14:41] On a different topic, [1:14:43] I've introduced [1:14:45] in the last Congress [1:14:46] and again in this Congress, [1:14:48] some reforms [1:14:49] under the title [1:14:49] of the America First Act. [1:14:51] The America First Act [1:14:52] aims to make sure [1:14:54] that we turn off [1:14:55] at least one of the sources [1:14:58] of attraction, [1:15:01] one of the things [1:15:02] that bring people here illegally [1:15:04] and keep them here illegally. [1:15:06] They would ensure [1:15:07] that only U.S. citizens [1:15:08] and also lawful [1:15:11] permanent residents [1:15:12] can participate [1:15:13] in a whole host [1:15:14] of federal benefits [1:15:16] that are designed [1:15:17] to help Americans, [1:15:19] certainly not illegal aliens, [1:15:21] including Medicaid, [1:15:22] SNAP, housing benefits, [1:15:24] education benefits, [1:15:25] and a handful [1:15:26] of other programs. [1:15:28] So I guess, Mr. Duncan, [1:15:30] my question for you [1:15:31] is should the opportunity [1:15:32] arise, [1:15:34] as I hope [1:15:34] it does [1:15:36] for us to do [1:15:37] another round [1:15:37] of reconciliation [1:15:38] this year. [1:15:40] Will you commit [1:15:41] to working [1:15:41] with Republicans [1:15:42] in Congress [1:15:43] to help us enact [1:15:45] these new restrictions? [1:15:47] Senator, absolutely, [1:15:48] and I think we made [1:15:49] a down payment [1:15:50] on some of those restrictions [1:15:51] in the Working Families [1:15:54] Tax Cut Act, [1:15:56] making sure [1:15:56] that these services [1:15:57] intended for the American people [1:15:59] and American citizens [1:16:00] are in fact [1:16:01] going to American citizens. [1:16:03] These things are paid for [1:16:05] by the American people. [1:16:08] They were benefits created [1:16:09] for the American people. [1:16:11] And when we ease up [1:16:13] on restrictions on those, [1:16:14] when we make it too easy [1:16:15] for those who are not citizens, [1:16:19] particularly those [1:16:19] who came here illegally [1:16:21] or remained here illegally, [1:16:23] we encourage more of that [1:16:26] same thing to happen. [1:16:27] and that in turn [1:16:28] makes it far more difficult [1:16:29] for us to provide [1:16:30] these benefits [1:16:31] to those for whom [1:16:33] they were created, [1:16:34] namely American citizens. [1:16:36] Thank you very much, [1:16:37] Mr. Duncan. [1:16:38] Thank you, [1:16:39] Mr. Chairman. [1:16:39] Yes, Mr. Merck, [1:16:40] who has a few follow-up questions. [1:16:42] Mr. Merck. [1:16:43] So, Mr. Duncan, [1:16:44] you mentioned [1:16:45] that Ford, [1:16:47] President Ford, [1:16:47] in 1975 [1:16:48] had done a pocket rescission. [1:16:50] Are you aware [1:16:51] of other pocket rescissions [1:16:52] up to the current administration? [1:16:56] Senator, no, [1:16:57] not off the top of my head. [1:16:58] Okay, well, [1:16:59] the reason why [1:17:00] is because [1:17:01] after that Ford decision occurred, [1:17:04] you had several [1:17:05] Supreme Court decisions. [1:17:07] One of them [1:17:08] made it very clear [1:17:10] that in general, [1:17:12] any sort of impoundment [1:17:14] is unacceptable [1:17:15] and rescission is done [1:17:18] without Congress [1:17:18] as a form of impoundment. [1:17:20] And then you had [1:17:21] a 1983 decision [1:17:22] that said [1:17:23] both houses [1:17:25] have to vote [1:17:26] affirmatively [1:17:27] on a rescission. [1:17:28] That's actually [1:17:28] in the 1974 act. [1:17:30] So it reaffirmed [1:17:31] what the act said [1:17:32] that a rescission [1:17:33] had to be done. [1:17:34] And then [1:17:35] Clinton versus New York [1:17:36] ruled out [1:17:37] the line item veto, [1:17:39] which is essentially [1:17:40] a rescission, [1:17:41] pocket rescission, [1:17:41] is kind of like [1:17:42] a line item veto. [1:17:43] That's why [1:17:44] it's never happened [1:17:44] since Ford. [1:17:46] So I just wanted [1:17:47] to note [1:17:48] that that foundation [1:17:51] in law, [1:17:53] the Ford example [1:17:53] doesn't at all [1:17:55] address legitimacy [1:17:56] or illegitimacy. [1:17:58] The law still says [1:17:59] any rescission [1:18:00] must be done [1:18:01] and signed [1:18:02] by both houses [1:18:04] of Congress [1:18:04] or must be passed [1:18:06] by both houses [1:18:06] of Congress. [1:18:08] Second, [1:18:08] I was very concerned [1:18:09] that the budget [1:18:10] submitted for this [1:18:11] last year [1:18:12] did not have [1:18:12] any deficit [1:18:13] and debt projections. [1:18:15] The law [1:18:16] actually requires [1:18:17] the budget [1:18:18] that the president [1:18:18] submits [1:18:19] to have deficit [1:18:19] and debt information. [1:18:22] Will you push [1:18:24] to make sure [1:18:24] deficit and debt [1:18:25] information [1:18:25] is in the next [1:18:26] submission to Congress? [1:18:28] Senator, [1:18:28] I appreciate the question. [1:18:30] And as Director Vogt [1:18:31] testified [1:18:32] when he was up here [1:18:33] discussing the budget, [1:18:36] our budget for FY27 [1:18:37] was a discretionary budget. [1:18:38] We wanted to help [1:18:39] kick off [1:18:40] the 27th. [1:18:40] No, I understand. [1:18:41] But the law requires [1:18:42] deficit and debt. [1:18:43] Will you work [1:18:43] to follow the law [1:18:44] in the next submission [1:18:45] to Congress? [1:18:46] Senator, [1:18:46] certainly will work [1:18:47] to follow the law. [1:18:48] I want to note [1:18:49] that we will release [1:18:50] additional projections [1:18:52] of that sort [1:18:53] like we did last year [1:18:54] in the mid-session review [1:18:55] which will come this summer. [1:18:56] I want to note [1:18:57] that when Vogt did testify [1:18:58] he said he didn't follow [1:18:59] the law [1:19:00] because he didn't want [1:19:01] to confuse the American public. [1:19:03] Two problems with that. [1:19:04] First of all, [1:19:05] that says the American public [1:19:06] are idiots. [1:19:07] They're not idiots. [1:19:07] They follow deficit and debt [1:19:08] very closely. [1:19:09] This is a big problem [1:19:10] for the United States [1:19:11] of America. [1:19:13] And second of all, [1:19:14] he is not authorized [1:19:15] to break the law. [1:19:16] And if you're working [1:19:17] for him as a deputy, [1:19:18] I hope you'll raise [1:19:19] a yellow flag [1:19:19] if he seeks [1:19:20] to break the law again [1:19:22] by not putting deficit [1:19:23] and debt into. [1:19:25] I raised another issue [1:19:26] was the shutdown [1:19:27] of programs [1:19:28] that are authorized [1:19:29] and funded. [1:19:30] And right now, [1:19:31] there's a program [1:19:31] called the Ocean Observatories [1:19:33] Initiative [1:19:34] that has 900 sensors [1:19:36] in the ocean. [1:19:37] And the administration [1:19:38] announced [1:19:39] that it is going [1:19:39] to take out [1:19:41] four of the five [1:19:42] arrays of these ocean [1:19:44] sensors [1:19:44] which measure [1:19:45] current direction, [1:19:47] temperature, [1:19:49] photoplankton, [1:19:50] acidity, [1:19:52] salinity, [1:19:53] and so forth, [1:19:54] which are pretty much [1:19:56] important information [1:19:57] about the oceans. [1:19:58] Congress has not asked [1:19:59] these sensors [1:20:00] to be taken out. [1:20:01] They've not asked [1:20:02] this program [1:20:02] to be shut down. [1:20:04] And there is a law [1:20:06] on the books [1:20:07] that says [1:20:09] that to undo [1:20:13] a program [1:20:14] that's over 2.5 million [1:20:16] in the Commerce, Justice, [1:20:18] and Science, [1:20:19] funded through [1:20:19] the Commerce, Justice, [1:20:21] and Science, [1:20:22] there has to be, [1:20:23] even if it's just [1:20:24] being decommissioning it, [1:20:26] it has to have [1:20:27] a 30-day notice [1:20:28] to Congress. [1:20:29] Are you familiar [1:20:30] with whether [1:20:31] any such 30-day notice [1:20:32] was given? [1:20:34] Senator, [1:20:35] I'm not familiar [1:20:35] with the program [1:20:36] in question. [1:20:37] I would have to defer [1:20:38] to the Department [1:20:39] of Commerce on that. [1:20:40] And I would really [1:20:41] quick note [1:20:41] that Director Vogt, [1:20:43] when he was up here [1:20:44] testifying on not [1:20:45] including mandatory, [1:20:47] what he said [1:20:47] was in context [1:20:48] of another reconciliation [1:20:50] bill coming down [1:20:51] the pike. [1:20:52] So I just wanted [1:20:52] to contest [1:20:53] the characterization [1:20:54] of how it was framed [1:20:56] in terms of [1:20:57] what he was discussing [1:20:58] when he put forward [1:20:58] that assertion [1:21:00] about just putting [1:21:01] a mandatory budget forward. [1:21:02] You mean the assertion [1:21:02] about not confusing [1:21:04] the public, [1:21:04] that assertion? [1:21:05] Yes, sir. [1:21:06] Well, I don't think [1:21:07] there's any... [1:21:09] Okay. [1:21:10] I understand [1:21:12] why you would want [1:21:13] to defend the director. [1:21:15] I did not find [1:21:16] wanting to not confuse [1:21:18] the country [1:21:19] as a legitimate reason [1:21:20] to hide the deficit [1:21:21] and debt numbers. [1:21:23] The really hope [1:21:26] that because both Democrats [1:21:28] and Republicans [1:21:29] have weighed in [1:21:30] and said, [1:21:31] don't dismantle [1:21:32] this ocean array. [1:21:33] It's authorized, [1:21:34] it's funded, [1:21:35] and the law requires [1:21:36] notice to Congress. [1:21:37] And it just... [1:21:39] It is... [1:21:42] But from every scientist [1:21:43] we can talk to, [1:21:44] I mean, sheer stupidity [1:21:45] to pull out an array [1:21:47] that costs hundreds [1:21:48] of millions. [1:21:48] It's information [1:21:49] has been used [1:21:50] in over 500 studies. [1:21:51] It's an example [1:21:52] of what I'm talking about [1:21:53] of the administration [1:21:54] trying to respect [1:21:56] the separation of powers. [1:21:58] If Congress says to you, [1:22:00] take it out, fine. [1:22:02] They do that by law. [1:22:03] But when it's authorized [1:22:05] and funded [1:22:05] and the administration [1:22:06] just says, [1:22:06] well, we don't like [1:22:07] this program, [1:22:08] so we'll rip it out, [1:22:11] that's not okay. [1:22:12] My final point. [1:22:13] I just want to emphasize [1:22:14] that the actions [1:22:16] that have been taken [1:22:17] in which grants [1:22:18] are awarded preferentially [1:22:20] to states [1:22:21] that have either state [1:22:22] leadership [1:22:22] or federal elected leadership [1:22:24] that is red rather than blue, [1:22:26] that's unacceptable. [1:22:27] Will you pledge [1:22:29] to keep the sense [1:22:31] of not having grants [1:22:32] allocations, [1:22:34] I guess, [1:22:35] contaminated [1:22:35] by partisan [1:22:37] undertakings [1:22:39] or influences? [1:22:42] Senator, [1:22:42] certainly commit [1:22:43] to ensuring [1:22:44] that grants [1:22:44] are spent [1:22:45] in accordance [1:22:45] with the law [1:22:46] but fundamentally [1:22:48] in accordance [1:22:48] with the president's [1:22:49] priorities as well. [1:22:51] Okay, [1:22:51] but that didn't answer [1:22:52] my question. [1:22:53] So will you commit [1:22:53] to keeping partisan [1:22:54] influence [1:22:55] out of the award [1:22:56] of grant programs? [1:22:58] Senator, [1:22:59] obviously, [1:22:59] the American people [1:23:00] elected the president [1:23:02] as we discussed [1:23:02] last night. [1:23:04] He's given discretion [1:23:05] within the boundaries [1:23:06] of statutes [1:23:08] to award grants [1:23:12] based off [1:23:12] of his policy views. [1:23:14] So we'll certainly [1:23:15] commit to abiding [1:23:16] by the law [1:23:16] and effectuating [1:23:18] the president's agenda. [1:23:19] So I have to wrap [1:23:21] this up. [1:23:22] But yes, [1:23:22] you do. [1:23:23] Thank you, [1:23:41] Senator Merkley. [1:23:43] I do hope [1:23:44] that you will [1:23:44] enact the president's [1:23:46] priority regardless [1:23:47] of the state [1:23:48] and you have a chance [1:23:50] to enact budgets [1:23:52] and grants [1:23:52] based on the priorities [1:23:54] of this president [1:23:54] and I hope [1:23:56] he will take advantage [1:23:57] of that [1:23:57] as other presidents have. [1:23:59] That's what elections [1:24:00] are all about, [1:24:00] Senator Merkley. [1:24:01] So, [1:24:02] I want to thank [1:24:04] Mr. Duncan [1:24:04] for appearing [1:24:05] before the committee. [1:24:06] The hearing record [1:24:07] will remain open [1:24:08] until noon tomorrow [1:24:09] for the submission [1:24:10] of statements [1:24:11] and questions [1:24:12] and questions [1:24:12] for the record [1:24:12] to the committee clerk. [1:24:15] Well done, [1:24:16] Mr. Duncan. [1:24:17] The hearing is adjourned. [1:24:19] We did it.