About this transcript: This is a full AI-generated transcript of Trump's budget chief Vought testifies on priorities in oversight hearing from PBS NewsHour, published June 30, 2026. The transcript contains 19,133 words with timestamps and was generated using Whisper AI.
"And you referenced how overwhelming is the relationship between the OMB and the policies being pursued by the government. Frankly, I think we could have used days of hearings given the extraordinarily broad impact that the OMB has had on the operations of government. I wish, though, as well, that..."
[0:00] And you referenced how overwhelming is the relationship between the OMB and the policies being pursued by the government.
[0:13] Frankly, I think we could have used days of hearings given the extraordinarily broad impact that the OMB has had on the operations of government.
[0:23] I wish, though, as well, that we had a chance to have this budget hearing before we did the budget.
[0:29] Mr. Vogt is, in essence, the administration's chief financial officer and chief operating officer.
[0:36] The process matters, and that bill would have emerged stronger from this subcommittee had we been able to hear from the director and question him on OMB's priorities ahead of that, Marco.
[0:47] Nevertheless, I expect many of us will be asking pointed questions today about the management of federal resources from an expensive war of choice to vanity projects at the White House grounds and around D.C.
[1:00] OMB is one of the most powerful and least known offices in our government.
[1:07] It is, in many ways, the nerve center of presidential power.
[1:11] Under Director Vogt, in my opinion, it has become a hub for making irrelevant the constitutional limits of the executive branch's power.
[1:21] It has become, in his own words, a soft source of trauma for our nation's dedicated and hardworking civil service.
[1:28] I hope today's hearing will be a reminder to Director Vogt that every administration is accountable to Congress, which is the subject of the Constitution's first article and which represents the people.
[1:42] It also includes American scientists, researchers, who rely on federal grants, which are now at risk because of Director Vogt's plan to impose a political litmus test over a nonpartisan, peer-reviewed historic process.
[1:58] And it includes the millions of Americans whose health, lives, and likelihoods are adversely impacted by cuts to federal programs and agencies that Director Vogt seeks to impose unilaterally and without congressional approval, and in many cases contrary to congressional intent and direction.
[2:18] I'm talking about impoundments, which are illegal and direct constitutional challenges to Congress of the United States, and I'm referring also to pocket rescissions.
[2:31] Mr. Chairman, this oversight hearing may be the most important one held this year in the House.
[2:37] It has, sadly, become rare in this committee to hold hearings with the leaders of the executive branch agencies directly.
[2:45] Today, we have a de facto leader of the unitary executive theory.
[2:49] And while the President's focus has been on printing money with his face on it and ensuring him and his friends make money through no-bid contracts, Director Vogt has been relentlessly focused on enacting his own ideological program.
[3:07] President Trump said in September 24 that he had, quote, nothing to do with Project 2025.
[3:14] Before us is the architect of that program of which the President disclaimed any knowledge.
[3:25] Director Vogt has discernmently said he believes America is in a post-constitutional moment.
[3:32] I'm not sure what that means.
[3:35] Not surprising, given his apparent disdain for the Constitution, that he, like all public servants, have sworn an oath to support and defend.
[3:43] Director Vogt, I can assure you that our Constitution is alive and well and that this committee and Congress will hopefully hold you accountable and the government accountable, the executive department accountable, using the oversight tools it places in our hands.
[4:02] So we have a lot to cover today.
[4:05] And I hope, as I said at the beginning, that we will have sufficient time to do so because we have differences of opinion, serious disagreements.
[4:19] Unlike Justice Scalia that said the executive department clearly did not have impoundment theory, I think the director, Mr. Chairman, is the principal proponent of the opposite conclusion.
[4:34] So we could take a lot of time on what the consequences of that philosophy are and the consequences to the American people of the exercise of that philosophy.
[4:49] With that, I will yield back the balance of my time.
[4:54] Thank you, Ranking Member Hoyer.
[4:56] Today, we welcome the testimony of Honorable Russ Vogt, Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
[5:01] Director Vogt, without objection, your full written testimony will be entered into the record.
[5:05] With that in mind, we ask you to summarize your opening statement in five minutes, please.
[5:09] Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[5:10] Chairman Joyce, Ranking Member Hoyer, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for having me here today to testify in the President's budget request for fiscal year 2027.
[5:19] I look forward to a productive conversation on how to continue the fiscal progress we've made so far.
[5:25] When President Trump took office, the nation was facing financial catastrophe under the failed leadership of the Biden administration and decades of status quo spending strangling our nation.
[5:35] Those decades produced nothing in the area of fiscal restraint.
[5:39] A lot of talk about the program, but utter futility about doing anything about it.
[5:43] That fiscal futility ended with the return of President Trump.
[5:47] In just one year, the Trump administration and Congress have made historic progress on riding our fiscal ship, the speed and scope of which have not been seen in Washington for many years.
[5:58] The President drove enactment of the Working Families Tax Cut, which is a once-in-a-generation legislation to end fiscal futility, invest in critical priorities, and cut taxes for working Americans.
[6:09] This bill bent the cost curve for federal spending, achieving nearly $2 trillion in mandatory savings, while securing historic investments in our nation's defense and Department of Homeland Security, without corresponding increases in objectionable non-defense spending.
[6:26] The President also shepherded legislation through the Congress that rescinded $9 billion in wasteful and weaponized spending, which was the first standalone rescissions package enacted by Congress since 1992.
[6:38] We built on the rescissions package in the full-year 2026 appropriations bills together, which enacted the first real cut to spending in over a decade and rooted out wasteful spending that the administration identified across federal agencies.
[6:51] The enacted bills reaffirmed administration policy to eliminate ineffective federal agencies that do not serve a useful purpose.
[7:00] For example, the bills eliminated all programming for USAID as the administration works to fully shut down the agency after decades of mismanagement and abuse.
[7:10] The bills also included the complete elimination of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which funneled billions of taxpayer dollars into biased, woke programming at NPR and PBS.
[7:20] We look forward to working with you to achieve even more progress in the fiscal year 2027 appropriation cycle, in addition to working with you on the administration's recent supplemental funding request.
[7:32] The 27 budget builds on the President's vision by continuing to strain non-defense spending and reform the federal government.
[7:39] The budget proposes a 10% cut to non-defense levels.
[7:42] Within this total, the budget maintains investments in border security, immigration enforcement, deliveries on the President's commitment to support law enforcement and combat violent crime, with a 13% increase to the Department of Justice, and honors the nation's sacred obligation to military veterans.
[7:59] In addition, the 2027 budget eliminates wasteful Green New Deal projects that are dependent on foreign supply chains, returns control of education back to American families, and routes waste out fraud and abuse in programs both at home and abroad.
[8:15] The budget simultaneously builds upon the historic $1 trillion defense top line from fiscal year 26 by requesting $1.5 trillion for 2027, a 42% increase as promised by President Trump last year.
[8:30] The 27 budget will ensure the United States continues to maintain the world's most powerful and capable military as we grapple with an increasingly dangerous world.
[8:39] It is a sizable increase, and that I want to explain.
[8:43] It is meant for significant paradigm-shifting investments.
[8:47] For instance, the President and his Department of War are exhibiting tremendous leadership to build ships, planes, drones, munitions, and satellites faster without the backlog status quo.
[8:58] For the industrial base to double and triple capabilities and build more facilities, not just add ships, it requires multi-year agreements to purchase into the future.
[9:09] That cost has to be booked in the first year.
[9:12] OMB plays a unique role in supporting and implementing the administration's fiscal strategy and has been hard at work crafting the President's budget and accomplishing the largest deregulatory agenda in the nation's history.
[9:23] OMB's fiscal year 27 funding request for itself is $154.1 million, which is level requested from what we requested last year.
[9:37] OMB is a personnel-intensive agency, and I want to note that the 27 requests cannot support additional or even maintain staffing at the 26 levels.
[9:46] Accordingly, OMB is not asking for additional FTEs.
[9:50] In fact, we are assuming a lower FTE level to be absorbed in the base, 25 FTEs down to 470 OMB based on our request.
[10:01] OMB is going to have to leverage funding from the working families tax cut to ensure that its staffing levels are necessary and remain the same to perform its critical mission in implementing key administration priorities.
[10:12] Now that our fiscal ship has finally turned to face in the right direction, I look forward to working with you to continue to move forward, and I'm happy to answer any questions.
[10:26] Thank you, Director Boat.
[10:27] I'll recognize the ranking member of the full committee who has asked if she'd be able to make an opening statement.
[10:50] Thank you very, very much, Mr. Chairman.
[10:52] I apologize to you and to the rest of the committee and to our guests this morning.
[10:57] There are many, many meetings going on, so I appreciate the opportunity to provide an opening statement.
[11:07] I want to say a thank you to Chairman Joyce, to Ranking Member Hoyer, and I want to welcome Director Boat.
[11:14] A lot of ground to cover, and you and I agree on very little, but I'm glad that you are here to fulfill your constitutional responsibility to respond to Congress's oversight authorities.
[11:27] Quite honestly, even if it's only after all 12 bills have been passed by this committee.
[11:34] In your position as Director of the Office of Management and Budget, you have asserted unprecedented control over taxpayer funding,
[11:41] a power of the purse that belongs to Congress under the Constitution.
[11:46] It is Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7.
[11:49] No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law.
[11:55] You have worked openly to undermine this essential authority guaranteed to the Congress
[12:00] and rendered it under the control of the executive branch.
[12:04] I view it as an affront to the separation of powers and the very purpose of this committee.
[12:08] You have stepped well beyond the bounds of the ordinary push and pull between the White House and Congress
[12:14] that characterizes every administration, Democratic or Republican.
[12:20] You have withheld funding that Congress passed on a bipartisan basis
[12:24] and that presidents of both parties, including the current president, have signed into law.
[12:30] You have shuttered entire federal agencies,
[12:33] contributing to the deaths of some of the most vulnerable women and children across the globe in the process.
[12:39] And you have done all these things under the guise of shrinking the government,
[12:43] yet you have also spent billions and billions of dollars beyond what is legally allowed.
[12:48] You have hijacked billions from investments to maintain U.S. military superiority in the future,
[12:54] and you have taken over $400 million in taxpayer funding from the Secret Service
[13:00] to pay for the president's ballroom project.
[13:02] You are currently withholding $19 billion to shutter an agency Congress has not agreed to shutter.
[13:08] And as I wrote to you last March, you have unlawfully spent over $9 billion in taxpayer funding
[13:15] that was never legally appropriated, exposing dozens of your administration colleagues to criminal liability.
[13:22] The lack of accountability you have shown to the American people must be addressed.
[13:26] But today I want to highlight one recent item that should concern people of every political persuasion
[13:31] in every corner of this country.
[13:33] At the end of May, OMB released a proposed rule in an attempt to subject all federal funding to a political litmus test.
[13:41] The proposal instructs political appointees in the Trump administration to deny or terminate virtually any grant at any time
[13:50] for any reason or no reason at all at the beginning, middle, and end of the federal funding process.
[13:58] Under your proposed rule, a recipient must, quote,
[14:01] demonstrably advance the president's policy priorities, end quote,
[14:06] not the country's and not the laws.
[14:08] There is no telling on any given day what the president's priorities may be.
[14:13] He routinely announces a policy in the morning, only to reverse it in the afternoon.
[14:18] His habit is to govern by whim and fiat.
[14:20] This proposal seeks to establish yourself as the chief interpreter and final arbiter of what does
[14:26] or does not conform to this ill-fated, ill-defined standard.
[14:31] Your proposal would sideline the independent, non-partisan experts who ordinarily make grant funding decisions
[14:37] as part of a peer review process based on evidence and science in favor of political tests imposed by you.
[14:45] Instead of awarding research funding based on the likelihood of success, it will be conditioned on political compliance.
[14:53] Rather than scrutinizing the data, applicants will have their social media scrutinized.
[14:59] You are creating an environment in which promising cancer treatments will lose grant funding
[15:04] because the university that houses the lab has the word diversity in its mission statement.
[15:10] You are inviting the possibility that years of work on a revolutionary Alzheimer's drug
[15:15] will be cut short and abandoned because the head researcher spoke at a conference hosted by a group
[15:20] that disagrees with the Trump administration on vaccine policy.
[15:24] It is cancel culture for cancer research, weaponization of bureaucracy.
[15:30] The harm this will do if allowed to take effect is unfathomable.
[15:34] Do not take my word for it.
[15:35] Experts in psychiatry, immunobiology, and neuroscience at Yale University have expressed profound alarm
[15:42] at the impact this proposal will have.
[15:45] I am submitting for the record letters that I received from these doctors and researchers
[15:49] detailing the catastrophic effects of this proposal would lead to.
[15:53] May I submit the documents?
[15:55] I will wrap up very quickly.
[15:58] Lastly, I want to touch on the supplemental.
[16:05] Okay, I appreciate that, but I would like the record to have it.
[16:09] Oh, there is a lot.
[16:13] We're very much eager to hear your answers today.
[16:16] Director, vote to the questions.
[16:18] And if I might, my entire statement be read into the record.
[16:25] I apologize for being late.
[16:27] It is not for lack of diligence, but because of the schedule that we have here.
[16:32] So I appreciate it.
[16:34] I thank the very chairman for that.
[16:36] Much appreciated.
[16:37] Thank you.
[16:42] And now we'll start around the questions.
[16:44] I will begin.
[16:45] The answer will be five minutes or questions.
[16:48] If people see fit to have five minutes of monologue, so be it.
[16:52] But at the end of five minutes, we move on to the next person.
[16:56] I recognize myself.
[16:57] Director, vote.
[16:59] Last week, you sent a supplemental request to Congress requesting $87.6 billion in additional funding
[17:04] for fiscal year 2026.
[17:06] With respect to this committee, $36 million was requested from the Office of Terrorism and Financial
[17:11] Intelligence, and $600 million was requested for GSA, half for elevator-related capital projects,
[17:16] and half for the district's heating and transmission decoupling program, among other things.
[17:21] My question on behalf of the committee is, how was this request developed?
[17:26] How did OMB determine its supplemental priorities vis-à-vis its FY27 budget request?
[17:31] And what changed between May and now that triggered these requests?
[17:34] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for inviting me to testify.
[17:39] We ran a process with the supplemental to try to assess the defense needs in particular
[17:45] that we had with Operation Epic Fury.
[17:49] We also sent out a request for needs, not unlike what we would do for anomalies with a CR request
[17:56] to determine what are the most dire needs.
[17:59] Obviously, needs came back with the State Department with regard to buildings that may need to be repaired
[18:03] from activities overseas, but also in terms of Coast Guard needs, because they are absorbing activities
[18:12] where the DOW would normally have performed those activities.
[18:16] Or in the case of GSA, kind of an acute need with the elevators that was needed based on kind of a typical
[18:25] inability to get that much money coming from Congress.
[18:29] So that one might have been come, might have put forward in the normal appropriations process
[18:34] or our budget cycle, but we wanted to use this as an opportunity.
[18:38] And again, we have not said this is, this is just defense.
[18:42] We, we wanted to make sure that any needs that we see, we are bringing to you as legitimate.
[18:49] And it has OMB seal of approval.
[18:51] And I appreciate your testimony, Mr. Chairman, the role that OMB provides for this committee in particular,
[18:56] so that, you know, when we send something up, we believe it is, it's been pressure tested accordingly.
[19:01] Well, thank you.
[19:03] And I appreciate that, but I noticed that, and we've had hearings on it,
[19:08] that there's a tremendous backlog of maintenance in all the facilities, unfortunately,
[19:12] that we all need to get to.
[19:13] But with that in mind, for fiscal year 2027 budget request, OMB is requesting a 13.3% or $17.1 million increase.
[19:21] This increased funding would support, quote, unavoidable costs investing in OMB's workforce, among other priorities.
[19:27] Would you explain what those unavoidable costs are and why OMB needs additional funding only to cut staffing levels?
[19:33] And how do you reconcile the statement?
[19:35] Well, we need OMB's budget to grow, and it's largely been flatlined for a number of years.
[19:40] If you look at GAO's budget, they have about $900 million to our $150 million.
[19:46] They have 3,000 staff that perform the activities that you all feel is vital.
[19:52] We have in the neighborhood of 500 FTEs that largely hasn't grown, even though the federal government has expanded in size.
[20:00] And, you know, if you just look at some of the portfolios that people have, they're astronomical.
[20:05] We have tried to change that, but we need more FTEs to do that.
[20:10] OB-3, the one big, beautiful bill, will help us with additional FTEs.
[20:16] We're going to, unfortunately, draw down on that to maintain steady state levels, and that's my main concern, Mr. Chairman, is that my hope is that the base level will grow accordingly this year and into the future.
[20:28] But to answer your question, specifically, we have rent costs because we are in the midst of a move, and we have to pay rent temporarily in both places.
[20:38] Max is a computer system that the whole federal government uses, and it constantly needs to be invested in, almost as an IT system.
[20:46] And then the security that is, unfortunately, a new phenomena for OMB in terms of some of the security threats that I have faced.
[20:55] We are now building that in to account for that cost because I certainly do not want it to take away from the already smaller appropriation that OMB has historically had as a small agency.
[21:10] And I think you will find this committee on a bipartisan basis has been very cognizant of security issues and tried to make all those areas under our jurisdiction whole so they can provide the necessary security for yourself and for the employees and the people who visit
[21:25] The 27 budget justification cites several new responsibilities that OMB will assume through recently issued executive orders.
[21:34] This includes EO 14215, titled Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies, Protecting America's Bank Against Fraud, Waste, and Abuse, and 14275, Restoring Common Sense to Federal Procurement, and EO 1432, Improving Oversight of Federal Grant Making.
[21:53] I notice that I'm going to about run out of time.
[21:56] And in order to be fair to everyone, I will now notice my ranking member, Mr. Hoyer, for his five minutes.
[22:03] Well, I would have been interested in the answer to that question.
[22:12] Mr. Director, the $100 million you've got in the reconciliation bill, the first reconciliation bill, what's the status of that $100 million?
[22:23] We are attempting to hire FTEs in certain key areas. One of them, to answer the chairman's question, would be fraud prevention. One of them is to be able to have a lot of oversight of the spending. We're asking you with regard to defense. That would be one of those portfolios that we feel like we have nowhere near the number of FTEs to be able to provide accountability for. And we are trying to invest in tools that would allow us to use technology to do OMB's work better.
[22:49] How much of that $100 million has been obligated?
[22:54] Very few has been obligated.
[22:57] How much?
[22:58] I'd have to get back to you, but it would be in the millions.
[23:00] Less than 10?
[23:03] I would think so.
[23:04] Yeah. So that you are asking for additional money. And you made the point, which I think is a ballot point in terms of ability to do the job that we require you to do. But when you make a comparison to GAO, GAO has oversight over the 2 million people who work for the federal government. And you have control over almost all of those 2 million in terms of getting information.
[23:38] Uh, studies reports. So that I think it is a, is a, not a fair analogy to make that GAO has more authority, uh, and scope than, uh, you have available to you.
[23:50] But in any event, let me go to debt and deficit. This administration and my Republican colleagues say the debt is a very serious matter. You're aware of course, the fact that the first reconciliation bill, uh, over 10 years has been a judge to cost either between $4.1 trillion or $4.7 trillion, uh, depending upon whether you use static or dynamic scoring. Ironically, the dynamic scoring that I think, do you support dynamic scoring?
[24:21] Of course. Yes. Uh, it costs more under dynamic scoring, uh, by about, uh, $800 million, billion dollars. Uh, who's going to, how are we going to bring that down? What's your plan? In light of the fact that we have now just spent, and you're asking for a supplement of $60 billion on a cost that was not, uh, uh, incurred, except by choice of this administration. And so many other costs they're incurring. Uh,
[24:54] how are we going to, uh, how are we going to, uh, pay those bills?
[24:56] Congressman, we reject the, the budget baseline, uh, assessment that you just gave to the one big beautiful bill. Uh, if you use a proper baseline, which assumes current law revenue, current policy revenue coming into the federal government, uh, it would have saved $1.5 trillion as you update the, the 10 year window.
[25:17] Uh, so I look at the one big beautiful bill and I look at it and I say, this was the end of fiscal futility. And I worked in this, uh, in the House of Representatives. I spent many years developing budgets for members of Congress. I know this place well. There was many people, uh, including yourself who cared about the deficit and, and levels of debt.
[25:35] And many ideas and plans were put forward. This is the first time we've actually had success on the mandatory side and success in the discretionary side.
[25:46] I think the appropriations process that you all just completed with the exception of the two shutdowns, which we can talk about, but the appropriations bills that you passed into law and the appropriations bills that I am seeing and, and, and monitoring as they're moving are for the first time taking some of the suggestions from the president's budget request.
[26:04] And I, I commend the committee on that.
[26:06] Let me, let me stop you not because I want to stop you, but because I have 58 seconds left, clearly not enough time, but I would suggest to you the two largest, uh, deficits that we've had were in 2020 and 21 fiscal year 21 on the Trump administration.
[26:23] Now we had the pandemic, so one has to take, but the next highest is what we're going to experience today.
[26:31] $1.9 trillion. Do you agree that that's the projected deficit for this fiscal year?
[26:37] Uh, CBO and others are making projected deficit. We have not included that in our budget resolution. We are going to, uh,
[26:43] Wouldn't it be useful for the OMB director to know what the projected deficit is going to be in terms of the obligations that the taxpayer of America?
[26:51] Well, the challenge by the way, our grandchildren, not ourselves.
[26:55] Uh, we're certainly committed and have to, uh, eliminating the deficit and to be able to get back on, uh, uh, trajectory towards balance.
[27:03] And my last five seconds, when do you project that to happen under the recon, two reconciliation bills that have passed so far?
[27:10] Well, the fact that we've been in reconciliation bills and are using that has, has caused us to send up discretionary only budgets.
[27:17] Uh, because we do not want to confuse the country with regard to proposals that, uh, would be proposed, but not for a ride on one of these, on these reconciliation bills.
[27:27] Uh, so we have a lot of ideas, uh, but we, and we certainly want to get a budget to you as soon as we possibly could.
[27:34] So, uh, our budget does not include those tables.
[27:37] Uh, but the mid-session review, uh, will have those types of, uh, numbers in them later this summer.
[27:44] Uh, thank you, uh, ranking member Hoyer.
[27:46] The chair now recognizes the distinguished, uh, chair of the Homeland Security subcommittee, uh, Mr. Amity, for any questions he may have.
[27:55] Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[27:56] And the only reason I have that title is because you quit the job and headed for greener pastures.
[28:01] But that notwithstanding, thank you for being here this morning, Mr. Director.
[28:06] Um, does OMB recognize Congress's full oversight authority over funds provided through reconciliation?
[28:12] Well, in terms of Congress, absolutely, yes.
[28:16] Okay.
[28:17] Thank you.
[28:18] Um, can you provide, uh, obviously with that introduction, we've struggled getting information that has to do with, um, the previous folks.
[28:29] Subject matters clear in, in terms of Homeland.
[28:34] Um, can, can your office provide an accounting in terms of what we bought for airplanes for ice and border patrol?
[28:42] What we bought for airplanes for coast guard?
[28:44] Um, in the first, uh, in the first, in the past 12 months.
[28:50] And to the extent that those, uh, and also what we spent for detention facilities planned around whatever the plan was around the nation to the extent of identifying how many aircraft in whatever category for those three agencies,
[29:07] Customs Border Patrol, ICE and Coast Guard, how many were purchased, how many are still part of the mission?
[29:14] And for anything that was, that was not part of the mission now, how they planned, what the plan is for, hey, it turns out we don't need this 737, this Gulf Stream 5000, um, and the detention facilities.
[29:29] And here's what our plan is, and then the theme is simple.
[29:33] How are we protecting taxpayer dollars if we reassess those needs?
[29:37] Whatever.
[29:38] Just so we can kind of close the book on those sorts of things.
[29:41] Is that something your office has the ability to do?
[29:43] Yes.
[29:44] I'm happy to work with you.
[29:45] I'll follow up with you after this hearing and try to drill down on what you're not getting from us.
[29:50] Perfect.
[29:51] I appreciate that.
[29:52] Um, last thing is, um, CISA.
[29:55] We had a hearing, uh, last week, uh, and, uh, with, with the Homeland Security Secretary.
[30:02] CISA's been through ups and downs from the end of the Biden administration to present.
[30:09] The mission, I don't think we need to talk about the mission, but in last week's hearing, after cutting 1,100 employees through various, uh, whatever mechanisms,
[30:20] the Secretary of Homeland Security says, we need 600 folks back.
[30:23] Can you, can you kind of help me with, because the administration's budget request was more, um, lean times, if you will.
[30:36] And so it's like, how are we, how are we mixing that up in terms, because you know better than anybody, you don't just flip a light switch on and you got 600 folks over in CISA now, according to the Secretary.
[30:49] What's the plan for getting CISA fully operational?
[30:52] And, and I understand the political things about elections and the Jen Easterly years and all that other sort of stuff.
[30:58] What we're talking about now, how do we make sure that we have a robust, effective, uh, cost effective CISA force?
[31:06] Because I don't think anybody thinks we have it now.
[31:08] But if I'm wrong, tune me up.
[31:10] Uh, thank you for that question.
[31:12] It is, does take time to, to increase staff.
[31:15] Uh, that's one of the things we're learning as we try to increase OMB staff with the, the same money from the One Big Beautiful bill.
[31:20] What I would say is, uh, I haven't gotten a formal request from the Secretary, uh, as it pertains to CISA FTEs.
[31:28] Um, he was not here when we developed this budget.
[31:31] Uh, so if he feels the need to have, uh, additional resources, uh, we will work that through internally.
[31:38] Um, and at the appropriate time, come up and brief you.
[31:41] Um, I do think that he's in the process still of getting his arms wrapped around, uh, the department.
[31:47] Uh, and this is probably one of those things, particularly, uh, in, uh, the, the cyber world has, you now have a year and a half of a new administration.
[31:57] We saw this agency, had major concerns with it in, in, in our four years outside of government.
[32:02] Um, and with new management, I, I think it's, um, it's now an agency or could be an agency of, that plays a very valuable, uh, part for DHS's, uh, portfolio.
[32:13] Great. I look forward to, uh, robust communications and, uh, thank you for your testimony.
[32:19] I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
[32:21] Thank you, Mr. Hamaday.
[32:22] I would second that.
[32:23] That CISA needs all the help we can get as soon as possible.
[32:26] And would recognize Mr. Pocan for any questions for five minutes that he may have.
[32:31] Great.
[32:32] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Director Vogt, for being with us.
[32:35] I think, you know, many of us disagree with the first time in 250 years history of the country, the unified executive theory.
[32:42] So let me drill into one area to ask.
[32:44] Do you concur that multiple studies have shown that people, both adults and children, across the globe have died because of cuts to programs like USAID?
[32:53] I do, I do not concur with the validity of those studies.
[32:57] They are based on projecting.
[32:58] Do you agree that people have died across the globe because of our cuts?
[33:02] I believe these studies that people are banting about.
[33:04] My question is, do you believe people have died because of the cuts to USAID?
[33:07] It's simple, yes or no.
[33:09] I do not believe that the administration's ability.
[33:11] You don't believe anyone's died.
[33:12] Let me finish the question.
[33:13] No, no, it's a yes or no.
[33:14] It is.
[33:15] It's really simple.
[33:16] Do you think people died or not?
[33:17] Our cuts are aimed at.
[33:18] All right, you're not going to answer it.
[33:19] I would claim my time.
[33:20] I thought you were going to be a little more helpful, Director Vogt, but that's fine.
[33:24] So this is Boston studies, Lancet studies, others have said hundreds of thousands to millions of kids and adults will die because of this.
[33:33] One of your co-conspirators, Elon Musk, recently has been going nuts trying to claim no one's died.
[33:38] And he has to name names.
[33:40] So let me mention a few people who've died because of these cuts.
[33:45] Rovina Naboy in Kenya, her little daughter Jane, died of starvation in a refugee camp because we cut back on their food.
[33:53] And the food rations, she got sick and died.
[33:56] Uganda, Balama, Nigeria, USAID funded program.
[34:00] Babies, a special nutrition, nutrient dense paste to avoid malnutrition.
[34:06] She had twins six months old.
[34:08] The program ended abruptly because of cuts to USAID.
[34:11] Two weeks later, one of the twins died.
[34:13] I've got a bunch more.
[34:14] Are you familiar with any of these stories?
[34:16] 13.4 million for civic.
[34:17] Are you familiar with any of these stories?
[34:20] There's no number involved in that answer.
[34:22] You're citing.
[34:23] Are you familiar with any of these stories?
[34:26] I just gave you two examples.
[34:27] Are you familiar?
[34:28] It's a yes or no.
[34:29] I am familiar.
[34:30] Don't dance.
[34:31] You're not a tap dancer.
[34:32] Are you familiar with the stories?
[34:33] It's really that simple.
[34:34] I am familiar with the press that you are citing.
[34:36] The reports that you are also referring to are fake methodologies.
[34:40] I take my tie back.
[34:41] You're clearly not going to answer questions today.
[34:43] I thought you came to answer questions.
[34:45] You're not.
[34:46] So, will you commit to reach out if I submit some of these names of people who have allegedly
[34:53] died due to cuts?
[34:54] Will you personally reach out to find out if they have since you're saying no one's died?
[34:58] I will personally read all correspondence that Congress gives me and do everything I can
[35:02] to be responsive to them.
[35:03] Yeah.
[35:04] And could you reach out to them to actually verify whether or not someone's died because
[35:08] of a cut to USAID?
[35:09] We are monitoring all of these studies to see if there's validity.
[35:13] But there is nothing about those studies that has caused us to think differently about ending
[35:18] So, morally.
[35:19] That's all right.
[35:20] To build climate resilience in Honduras.
[35:22] Take my time back, please.
[35:23] Morally, isn't it wrong to facilitate the death of children?
[35:26] Isn't it morally wrong to contribute to civic engagement in Zimbabwe?
[35:30] Look, you're not Confucius or, you know, whatever you think you are answering the question
[35:35] with a question.
[35:36] I said, is it morally wrong to facilitate the killing of children?
[35:39] Simple question.
[35:40] You're basing it on a premise that is false.
[35:43] I'm not going to answer that question.
[35:44] Take my time back.
[35:45] You wrote in a 2021 article in Newsweek about Christian nationalism that our rights and duties
[35:50] are understood to come from God.
[35:52] Isaiah 58, 7 commands, quote, share your food with the hungry and provide the poor wanderer
[35:58] with shelter.
[35:59] Are you saying God was misquoted or wrong?
[36:03] I'm sorry.
[36:04] What does that have to do with the question with regard to our administration?
[36:07] It's morally wrong to facilitate the death of children.
[36:10] We're not doing that.
[36:12] We're not doing that.
[36:13] That's why I'm asking you to reach out to folks.
[36:15] But what I'm saying is if that is a quote from the Bible, and I know you are a Christian
[36:19] nationalist by declaration, by articles.
[36:21] You continue this the second year in a row that you've used that slander for me and other-
[36:25] It's not slander.
[36:26] You think that's slander?
[36:27] You and other Christians involved in public service.
[36:28] Do you think calling someone a Christian nationalist is a slander?
[36:30] You wrote an article, is there anything actually wrong with Christian nationalism, and now you're
[36:34] saying it's a slander?
[36:35] You use it as a pejorative, and it's the second year you've done it.
[36:38] Would you agree that it is wrong morally, ethically, or by your own admission, biblical standards?
[36:46] Is it wrong to facilitate the death of children?
[36:49] We're not doing that.
[36:50] We have adequate foreign aid for this.
[36:52] You're not answering the question.
[36:54] Listen to the question, please.
[36:56] Is it morally, ethically, or biblically wrong to facilitate the death of children?
[37:02] Don't take anything else in context.
[37:04] Is it wrong?
[37:05] This administration is not doing that.
[37:07] You cannot answer a question.
[37:09] I mean-
[37:10] I believe he answered a question, you just don't like the answer.
[37:12] No, he hasn't.
[37:13] No, Mr. Chairman, you can ask your own questions and get your own answers, but if he's not going
[37:16] to give an answer-
[37:17] Then move on.
[37:18] Everyone else can figure out.
[37:19] No, I don't have to move on.
[37:20] I can ask the question, and if this guy is going to, one, say Christian nationalism is an insult,
[37:25] you might have some friends to answer that one for, but to say the sort of stuff and not
[37:29] answer questions directly, it is morally, ethically, and biblically wrong to facilitate
[37:34] the death of children-
[37:35] Five minutes are up.
[37:36] Not recognized.
[37:37] The chair not recognized Ms. Henson.
[37:38] Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[37:39] Good morning, Director Vogt.
[37:40] Thank you for taking the time to come testify and answer our questions today.
[37:44] And I want to give you just a moment to- you were citing some numbers there in your answers
[37:50] to my colleague across the aisle, and I think you were about to refer to some very wasteful
[37:54] spending that we have worked to curtail, a huge part of what your mission has been at OMB.
[38:00] Would you like to give some of those statistics, please, so the committee can hear and taxpayers
[38:05] can hear what their money was going to fund overseas that was an incredible waste?
[38:09] Thank you, Congressman.
[38:10] And I think it's important to also differentiate the fact that this administration continues to
[38:15] fund foreign aid just at the Department of State.
[38:17] So all of the types of things that people across the globe are relying on as an aspect of
[38:23] humanitarianism or soft power, those are now being funded at state.
[38:27] We did have cuts at USAID to deal with the extent to which the agency was weaponized against,
[38:33] quite frankly, those countries and our own taxpayers.
[38:36] And let me just give you an example.
[38:38] $34.6 million to build climate resilience in Honduras.
[38:41] $38.6 million to build low emissions development in West Africa.
[38:45] $600,000 for listening tours on local development in Timor-Leste.
[38:50] $12 million for telling the USAID story in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
[38:55] $13.4 million for civic engagement in Zimbabwe.
[38:58] I can go on and on.
[38:59] That's why we passed the rescission package last year, which included a number of these reductions.
[39:05] And it's why our foreign aid is now serving with the best of intentions, the policy objectives
[39:11] of Congress and the President of the United States.
[39:13] Well, thank you for your clarity on that.
[39:15] And I think everybody agrees that every dollar spent abroad should be advancing American interests
[39:19] in the right way.
[39:20] And I think we can argue that some of those expenditures were not doing that.
[39:24] So thank you for clarifying that.
[39:26] I want to ask you today about CDFIs because I think when we look at these specialized lenders
[39:31] that help to make sure that some folks can access capital, we understand they're absolutely vital
[39:36] in revitalizing and growing our economies, especially in states like Iowa.
[39:40] We have the first-time homebuyer down payment assistance programs to payday alternative loans.
[39:45] The Treasury Secretary has announced that he, of course, supports CDFIs, said that their role
[39:49] in underserved communities is very important.
[39:52] And I do agree when used responsibly, these funds certainly are a significant opportunity
[39:57] to help build our communities.
[39:59] I am very appreciative.
[40:00] OMB did apportion the fiscal year 25 funds back in April.
[40:04] Glad to see those also released by Treasury this week.
[40:07] Can you share a little bit more about how OMB is working directly with Treasury and other agencies
[40:12] to support a more cohesive process to ensure those funds are dispersed in a timely manner,
[40:17] as Congress intended?
[40:18] Thank you, Congressman.
[40:19] We put out the NOFOs this week.
[40:23] We are implementing the spending, as you have put forward in the appropriations process.
[40:28] We have concerns with the program.
[40:30] We put forward proposals that are similar but different.
[40:35] I have concerns from my perch at CFPB, where I'm in charge of people's ability to repay.
[40:41] CDFI individuals get an exemption from ability to repay.
[40:46] So when you look at the kind of market and tensions and cracks in the market that could come from that,
[40:54] I have concerns.
[40:55] And then if you look at some of the CDFIs that the Biden administration were funding,
[41:00] and I'll just give you an example of $4.9 million for local initiatives,
[41:05] support corporation that publishes blogs condemning the level of whiteness and community development.
[41:10] That's the kind of thing that we want to put an end to.
[41:13] It's why it's taken us a little while to get the NOFOs out and the apportionment done.
[41:17] But we understand Congress largely supports this program.
[41:21] We're trying to do our best to make sure it's spent well as best we possibly can.
[41:26] Yeah, and I appreciate that specific example.
[41:28] If there are any others like that that you could give our office so that we can go back to the folks
[41:32] who are trying to access the programs and say, here's what we're actually trying to get rid of
[41:35] so that more of those dollars are available to you, that would be helpful.
[41:39] Looking ahead to fiscal year 26 funding apportionment,
[41:42] and we're obviously working through fiscal year 27 right now,
[41:45] do you have ideas for the committee or Congress to consider to help ensure funds that may have been delayed,
[41:50] maybe for reasons like you referenced, but other reasons as well,
[41:53] are actually getting through the agencies with OMB moving forward?
[41:56] No.
[41:57] I mean, we got the, it's a two-year chunk, so 25 and 26,
[42:01] and our next task is the 26 and 27 amount, and we'll get those out expeditiously.
[42:05] All right.
[42:06] Thank you.
[42:07] I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
[42:08] Thank you very much, Ms. Henson.
[42:10] Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Bishop, for any questions.
[42:13] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome, Attorney Gault.
[42:20] As you may or may not know, I have a great deal of interest in agriculture.
[42:27] It's the number one industry in Georgia, and of course, it contributes mightily to the United States economy.
[42:34] But as reported at the time, operating under several executive orders,
[42:40] the Department of Government Efficiency was active in attempting to cease many of the government operations and activities,
[42:47] and to separate many of the federal employees.
[42:53] Employees left USDA through the deferred resignation program.
[42:58] I think the Office of Expected General reported that APHIS lost 25% of its workforce,
[43:06] and the Ag Research Service lost about 23% of its workforce between January of 25 and June of 25.
[43:14] How many of these staff worked on the New World Screwworm surveillance research
[43:20] and other such activities that were intended to prevent the parasite from reentering the United States?
[43:27] If you'd just take a note of that.
[43:30] Also, following the deferred resignation program in 2025, APHIS advertised 73 open positions.
[43:41] Tell me how many of those open positions were for the New World Screwworm surveillance monitoring research preparedness.
[43:49] Then after the administration dismantled USAID,
[43:55] USAD administered projects that funded the animal disease monitoring projects,
[44:02] including those that sought to monitor the New World Screwworm in Central America.
[44:07] In the FY26 budget, APHIS requested additional funds to prevent the spread of New World Screwworm.
[44:18] Did the FY26 budget requests include the funding for the screwworm monitoring and surveillance that was previously funded in USAID?
[44:28] And I'd like to ask if whether or not OMB has used its authorities to assist the international coordination efforts to prevent the spread of New World Screwworm in North America.
[44:42] There's a Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, which announced on June 19,
[44:49] tend to allow the United States to participate and engage with that.
[44:55] How have the policies and the proposed new rules affected research projects on New World Screwworm mitigation?
[45:03] All of this I'm raising because the New World Screwworm is drastically impacting,
[45:11] adversely impacting our farmers, our cattle producers and the price of food.
[45:18] And I'd like to know whether or not the Big Beautiful Bill,
[45:26] all of the cuts that were done with those and the proposals that we are now faced with,
[45:33] what is that doing for the American people?
[45:37] Thank you, Congressman.
[45:38] We couldn't agree more in terms of it being a highest priority to deal with the screwworm,
[45:45] to take steps.
[45:46] If you were to monitor the things that I'm working on at least daily,
[45:51] one of those is that, making sure we have the resources to combat it
[45:55] and making sure we were doing it early in the administration.
[45:58] I can follow up with regard to FTE levels at APHIS.
[46:01] I don't know if those are off the top of my head,
[46:03] but we don't believe that this is an issue that is under-resourced.
[46:06] We believe that USDA has everything it needs to both create a long-term capability here
[46:11] and also find as many shots on goal to be able to deal with this in real time for farmers.
[46:17] The bottom line is, as a result of the loss of the ARS people that were working on the screwworm issue,
[46:24] working to make sure that they didn't come north from Mexico and Central America,
[46:31] immediately after these resignations and the loss of all of the expertise,
[46:37] we saw this creep and this drastic increase in the screwworm coming into the United States.
[46:44] And our farmers are really, really concerned about that now.
[46:47] We agree that there is an issue that the federal government needs to respond to,
[46:54] and we believe that we are doing so robustly with a properly resourced effort led by Secretary Rollins.
[47:00] But you did take a step backwards when you curtailed that in the beginning of the administration.
[47:06] Well, I wouldn't agree with that. I'm happy to respond to that with questions for the record
[47:11] and follow-up with regard to FTEs. People retire. We have to fill those jobs.
[47:17] And many of the people that we were taking steps to reduce, there was a backlog of individuals
[47:27] that weren't necessarily on board with the administration in performing the policy agenda of this administration.
[47:32] I'm specifically talking about the schoolroom.
[47:35] Mr. Bishop, unfortunately, we'll have to move on, sir.
[47:39] The chair now recognizes the ranking member or vice chair of this committee,
[47:44] Mr. Loloda from New York.
[47:46] Thank you, Chairman. Thank you for your leadership.
[47:47] Mr. Roll, thank you for being here today, sir.
[47:49] The 2024 election was a choice election that was particularly significant to our nation's trajectory.
[47:55] For a long time, many folks felt like they were being taken for granted, spoken to during campaign season,
[48:01] and forgotten the rest of the year. They felt betrayed by the people and parties who had long claimed to stand with them,
[48:07] only to watch those same voices turn their backs when it came to fight for jobs, wages, and working conditions.
[48:13] They were welders and carpenters. They were plumbers, linemen, electricians, and masons.
[48:18] They were the men and women who lace up their boots early in the morning, pack a lunch, go to work, and put in a full day.
[48:24] And they're the backbone of this country, in my opinion.
[48:27] They're the reason our economy functions, and they're the reason that our infrastructure stands tall.
[48:31] And to put it simply, the 2024 election was a mandate from the American people to show up and fight for the American worker and American jobs.
[48:39] In general, Director, would you agree with that?
[48:41] Yes, sir.
[48:42] And as you know, many of these American workers are part of the federal workforce.
[48:45] And some of these federal workers are members of the Association of Federal Government Employees, AFGE, whose leadership helped this administration,
[48:53] and more importantly, the country, end the Democrats' multiple shutdowns, the longest shutdowns in U.S. history.
[49:01] I know that I was thankful, Director, that AFGE weighed in to oppose the Democrat-led shutdown.
[49:06] Director, what was the AFGE's leadership? Was the AFGE's leadership helpful to ending the shutdown?
[49:11] Yes, it was. Thank you.
[49:13] You had a few conversations with the leadership. How did those conversations go?
[49:16] I did not have conversations with the union leadership, but I know members of our team did, and we appreciated their support in that.
[49:23] Yeah. Switching gears slightly.
[49:25] Director, are you familiar with the GAO's June 17th report on the federal workforce reductions?
[49:31] No, I have not seen it.
[49:33] It talks about a 6% cut to the federal civilian workforce.
[49:38] Are you familiar with that, Director?
[49:40] Yes. I'm aware of the steps that we've taken to reduce the workforce.
[49:43] Yep. And no reasonable person should counter your assertion that our debt and deficit situation needs to be addressed.
[49:50] I hope that reasonable minds on both sides of the aisle can sometime come to an agreement on that.
[49:55] But I want to talk about specifically staffing levels.
[49:58] And the GAO has now reported that staffing at 22 major agencies measured by employees and pay status declined by more than 11% between December 2024 and January of 2026.
[50:11] I recognize those are different measures and timeframes.
[50:14] But GAO's own data shows reductions on a substantially larger scale than the 6% contemplated in the budget.
[50:21] So my question, Director, is did OMB anticipate workforce reductions of this scale across major agencies?
[50:27] Congressman, I have to take a look at that study.
[50:29] I have and I will do so after this hearing.
[50:32] And I'm happy to follow up.
[50:34] We responded to the level of FTEs that the agencies sent us of where they were and where they thought that they would be heading into the new fiscal year.
[50:43] And so that's how we built the budget.
[50:45] Let me ask you about one particular example.
[50:48] The world's traits in our health program, are you familiar with that?
[50:50] Yes.
[50:51] Established in 2011 to provide health care to individuals with 9-11 related illnesses fell from 93 employees to 84 employees despite having an authorization of 120 employees.
[51:04] At the same time of that massive reduction that was well short of that 120 number, there were delays reported in claims of processing, treatment authorizations, and enrollment appeals.
[51:14] For a program serving 9-11 first responders and survivors, what should OMB's early warning indications have been that those staffing levels were dropping to dangerously low levels that would impede their ability to delivering on this important mission?
[51:29] Well, if we had known about it, we would make sure that they have every adequate resource that they need to perform that function.
[51:36] And I will take it back and we will see where we are on that.
[51:39] OMB does not have this all-encompassing view of what is happening across the entire federal government.
[51:45] We are a nerve center.
[51:46] I would agree with that.
[51:48] But we do not have the ability to know everything that is happening in the agencies.
[51:53] And that's one of the reasons I work so hard to stay in contact with members of Congress so that I can learn from what you all are seeing, what the agencies are seeing, and we can move to space where we need to.
[52:04] I guess I would say this. Speed is important. The debt and deficit situation are dire. We do need to act.
[52:10] What I would assert, Director, is that when moving fast, and you need to move fast on a lot of these issues, when moving fast that you anticipate some of the issues that will be caused by moving fast.
[52:19] And I'll say one thing with the 25 seconds I have remaining. There is right now being contemplating moving the Army Corps of Engineers New York District Office to New Jersey.
[52:30] It's the New York District Office. It services areas of both New York and New Jersey, but it should remain in New York.
[52:37] And I hope that we don't fall into the same issue of just in the name of saving money, which we should save money to vastly impede the mission, in this case, of the Army Corps' New York office.
[52:47] I'll take it back, Congressman. Thanks. I yield.
[52:50] Right on. It's five minutes. As you told me, sir.
[52:55] The chair now recognizes the lady from Washington, Ms. Gusenkamp-Perez, for five minutes.
[53:00] Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Director Vogt, for being here today.
[53:04] I want to dig a little bit deeper into the proposed ruled overhaul grants procedure.
[53:08] Have you or anyone else at OMB directed agencies to follow the not yet finalized regulation prior to it being finalized via rulemaking?
[53:18] No. This stems from an executive order that the President signed last year.
[53:22] The President's executive order had directed his agency officials to begin to have supervision at the policy official level.
[53:30] This regulation is catching up with that executive order to make sure it's actually reflected in the actual mechanics of grant making.
[53:39] Have you or anyone else at OMB directed agencies to – I saw an updated notice from the National Science Foundation from last week that included guidance to align with the proposed revision in 2 CFR 200.
[53:52] Have you suggested that agencies begin implementing this guidance before the rule was finalized?
[53:59] We are certainly working with agencies.
[54:02] Agencies, like I just said, are looking at the executive order and trying to align with the executive order.
[54:07] That said, we are out for comment on our proposed rule.
[54:11] We are probably – record numbers of comments have come in.
[54:15] We're going to assess each one of those comments and make any changes that we need to.
[54:18] Is the OMB building an AI tool to flag grants that are misaligned with the administration's agenda?
[54:24] We are definitely working on technology, including AI, to be able to have a wider angle lens about what is going on with the federal government.
[54:33] But it's not – it would be something that agencies would use in conjunction with us.
[54:38] And it's certainly not to take the place of agency officials who would be making this determination.
[54:43] Have you awarded a contract for the development or the operations of such a system?
[54:48] I don't think we have, no.
[54:50] Why do you think that an AI system, which is itself neither accountable to Congress nor necessarily auditable, is an appropriate mechanism for making policy?
[54:59] Well, the congressman from Maryland told me to read every GAO report, of which I would like to have the time to be able to read for that.
[55:07] I would like to have a tool that collates and assesses everything in every GAO report in a way that I can actually make decisions based.
[55:15] That would just be one example.
[55:17] Similarly, there's a lot of information out there on USA spending that I would like to have the benefit for examiners to know who are already stretched thin with regard to their portfolio.
[55:27] That would be an example.
[55:29] How would you – how would a future OMB director be able to ensure that such a system works for their priorities, too, or Congress, for that matter?
[55:36] Every administration would – would align their policy objectives, which would be different from administration to administration, to ensure that the grant making and how the agencies are spending taxpayer dollars are aligned with the president's agenda as he got elected on behalf of the entirety of the American people.
[55:57] What happens when a grant is flagged as being inconsistent with administration priorities?
[56:02] No grant has been flagged as inconsistent based on the tools that you've articulated.
[56:06] But we are trying to make sure that we're not funding some of this nonsense that I've articulated, and we work with agencies to do that.
[56:14] That's policy official to policy official, and we work collaboratively with our agency partners.
[56:21] What about grants that have been explicitly funded by Congress?
[56:24] Is it your understanding that OMB or an agency could cancel such grants unilaterally?
[56:29] Not with regard to earmarks.
[56:31] We – we – sometimes you have an earmark to a specific person or a specific organization, and that would probably be at the top of the list that is – that is – that needs to be funded.
[56:42] But that is not something that is impacted by these – these grant making.
[56:47] Do you anticipate that states, cities, or Congress has any recourse in cases where OMB decided that a grant was inconsistent with your priorities?
[56:54] And do you believe the proposal provides due process?
[56:57] Well, you – yeah, I do.
[56:58] I do.
[56:59] You keep referring to this as OMB making these determinations.
[57:02] Again, this is agency officials that would be making these determinations based on the instructions given to them in the executive order.
[57:08] Congress appropriated $100 million from H.R.1 to OMB last year.
[57:13] Have you spent any of that $100 million on moving career OMB personnel to the CFPB building at 1700 G Street, and do you plan to?
[57:21] We have not spent any money from the $100 million for the move.
[57:24] How many CF – how many OMB staff currently have their salaries paid out of funding originally appropriated for USAID or CFPB?
[57:31] None.
[57:32] Can – can you provide a – an overview of the funding streams used to pay OMB staff salaries since the beginning of the administration?
[57:41] It's – all of OMB salaries have been paid for by the OMB appropriation.
[57:48] The only qualification I would have to say is that there are people like me who are doing work for CFPB, of which I'm not getting a paycheck.
[57:55] My general counsel is another one who is – Mark Payletta, who is the deputy director at CFPB, not getting a paycheck at CFPB.
[58:02] And so if the question is what are the relationship between OMB and CFPB, we're not changing funding back and forth with regard to FTEs.
[58:14] Thank you.
[58:15] Thank you very much.
[58:16] The chair now recognizes the chair of the Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development Subcommittee of this appropriations committee, Mr. Womack for his five minutes.
[58:26] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and former chairman of this subcommittee as well.
[58:31] Director Vo, thank you again for being here and thank you for your service.
[58:34] Thank you.
[58:35] As you know, as was just indicated, I chair the Subcommittee on Transportation and Housing and Urban Development.
[58:40] So I want to go back to the SUP for just a minute because you referenced that earlier in response to another question.
[58:46] And your words, you said those items were pressure tested, correct?
[58:53] Yes, Congressman.
[58:54] What does pressure tested mean?
[58:56] Well, a lot of times agencies have ideas for what they would like to spend on.
[59:01] And you look at them and they don't have the level of rigor and analysis that you would expect of us when we request funds from Congress.
[59:12] That would be –
[59:13] Would it include a sense of urgency?
[59:15] Yes.
[59:16] That it's a supplemental request?
[59:17] Yes.
[59:18] Wasn't covered previously, but this is an emerging issue?
[59:20] For example, a lot of that money, most of that money, two-thirds of that money was Pentagon spending in response to Epic Fury replenishing some of these accounts.
[59:31] So that is a sense of urgency, is it not?
[59:33] Yes, Congressman.
[59:34] Okay.
[59:35] So there are two, not to be terribly parochial with T-HUD, but there were two items in that supplemental that affect my subcommittee.
[59:42] And I want to ask you about both of them.
[59:45] One of them was the department's brand-new air traffic control BNACS initiative, which, by the way, I strongly support the President's goal of updating our air traffic control system.
[59:57] And I commend Secretary Duffy and Administrator Bedford for the progress that they've made.
[1:00:02] But in this supplemental request, in somewhat contradiction of what we did in the one big, beautiful bill, you would provide the FAA Administrator with complete and total discretion to reallocate how that $12.5 billion is spent provided for the BNACS initiative.
[1:00:22] Now, I appreciate the benefits that additional funding could provide, but I'd like to know how, I'd like for you to tell me how the BNACS initiative, this ability for the Administrator and the Secretary to control all that $12.5 billion outside the scope of these appropriators is, you know, how that would benefit the BNACS initiative.
[1:00:46] Can you help me with that?
[1:00:47] Yeah, you bet.
[1:00:48] There are two tensions within the air traffic control modernization.
[1:00:52] Number one is we are going to have to come back to you for additional funds beyond what was in one big, beautiful bill.
[1:00:58] We understood that there was a little bit of skepticism with our ability to spend the money that you gave us with one big, beautiful bill.
[1:01:05] And Secretary Duffy is going at breakneck speed to be able to allocate those and get those on contract.
[1:01:11] But it was the intent of Congress to put those in buckets within the various jurisdictions of the FAA.
[1:01:18] Sure.
[1:01:19] And we're here to ask for this.
[1:01:20] We're not saying that we have the ability to just transfer the funds.
[1:01:23] We're saying with regard to one particular interface, we don't have the money that right now that Secretary Duffy can get going on it.
[1:01:32] And we want the ability to do that and have a little more flexibility to do that before we come ask for funds.
[1:01:39] So we don't want to be in a situation where we're coming up and asking for additional billions of dollars.
[1:01:45] And you're like, I haven't spent you haven't spent the money that we gave you.
[1:01:48] We haven't spent it.
[1:01:49] We are spending it.
[1:01:50] But we haven't spent it in the one key area of which you have not given us resources.
[1:01:54] Okay.
[1:01:55] The other one was Penn Station.
[1:01:59] Billion dollars.
[1:02:01] Sense of urgency?
[1:02:02] Well, we define urgency, Congressman, with regard to the fact that our scarcest resource is time.
[1:02:08] And so this administration wants to take on some of these big infrastructure initiatives.
[1:02:13] This would be one of them.
[1:02:14] And obviously we're working on a highway bill with Congress right now.
[1:02:17] But I'm sure you've been there.
[1:02:20] If you've seen kind of Penn Station compared to like the Moynihan building, the Moynihan building is just incredible.
[1:02:26] We want Penn Station to be on that level of modernization.
[1:02:31] And we don't have a lot of time to do it.
[1:02:33] So we, to the extent that we have a resource need, we want to be up here in front of you.
[1:02:37] My last question is regarding project labor agreements.
[1:02:43] I applaud the Trump administration's efforts to cut spending where appropriate.
[1:02:47] And we have a responsibility to ensure taxpayer dollars are stewarded in such a way that they go further for the American people.
[1:02:54] However, in my opinion, PLAs diminish competition and increase the cost of federally funded construction projects.
[1:03:01] In a memo last June, you clarified that the Trump administration supports the use of PLAs when those agreements are practical and cost effective.
[1:03:09] So in the, we're probably going to have to take this for record, but I'll go ahead and finish the question and then give you an opportunity to respond to the committee in writing on this question.
[1:03:22] And that is, what specific analysis or economic calculations are used in the evaluation of these PLAs that found their genesis back during the Biden administration?
[1:03:34] And with that, Mr. Chairman, I'll yield back my time.
[1:03:36] Thank you, sir.
[1:03:40] And the chair now recognizes Mr. Ivey for five minutes of questions.
[1:03:44] Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[1:03:48] HR1, I call it the big ugly bill, was signed about a year ago.
[1:03:53] And $150 billion of the mandatory, it contained about $150 billion in mandatory defense spending, correct?
[1:04:00] Yes.
[1:04:01] Okay.
[1:04:02] My understanding is that you still haven't spent, or $100 billion of that still has not been spent.
[1:04:08] Is that correct?
[1:04:09] We are aggressively getting the money out the door this year and working with DOW on that.
[1:04:15] But we have not spent all of the money with regard to one big beautiful bill.
[1:04:19] Okay, but it's $100 billion that hasn't, that's a yes, that it hasn't been spent yet?
[1:04:23] I wouldn't want to say, I can respond specifically what the level is, but suffice it to say we're working to get all of the money out the door in the fiscal year that we are in.
[1:04:31] We're talking about needs that we're not accounted for in that bill.
[1:04:36] Fair enough.
[1:04:37] And the President's budget request in April for defense spending, that was $1.1 trillion?
[1:04:46] It was $1.5 trillion for defense, $1.1 allocated to the appropriations process, and $350 billion for reconciliation.
[1:04:56] And $250 billion more for defense spending, and had been there last year, is that correct?
[1:05:04] We would have gone from $1 trillion to $1.5 trillion.
[1:05:07] All right.
[1:05:08] 42% increase.
[1:05:09] And then the $67.1 supplemental.
[1:05:13] Now, I think someone asked you earlier about that, and we got a letter from you that contained, that had, I think about four pages, a spreadsheet that sort of laid out what the purpose of the request was.
[1:05:29] And this is from a letter that you sent us on June 24th.
[1:05:32] Do you recall that?
[1:05:33] I'm happy to take a look at it.
[1:05:36] I sent a lot of letters.
[1:05:38] Well, this is the one you sent, and this one contained the explanation, I guess, for the $67.1 billion.
[1:05:47] I'd note that it's one long sentence, and some of the explanations here are $1.2 billion for administration priorities, which doesn't give a lot of detail.
[1:05:58] And when you were testifying earlier, you said that you got information about these types of requests from your departments.
[1:06:05] Have you provided details that support this amount of funds to the Congress in support of this request?
[1:06:13] Yes, and we will provide as much information as this committee requires to work with you on that matter.
[1:06:21] I know DOW will be a partner in that, in answering any questions that you have with regard to the need.
[1:06:26] What are the administration priorities?
[1:06:29] I think that's a $1.2 billion piece of the request.
[1:06:32] I'd have to look at what you're referring to, but the main thrust of this is to pay for Operation Epic Fury needs and to also begin to buy down some of the requests that we've asked you at the end of fiscal year 26 and to start 27.
[1:06:47] For instance, munitions.
[1:06:49] I mentioned in my testimony.
[1:06:53] We want to be able to have multi-year procurements that allow us to pay here and now.
[1:06:58] Munitions is a separate category.
[1:07:00] A facility to be put online.
[1:07:02] In the spreadsheet that you provide as munitions was a separate category.
[1:07:05] I'm just trying to make sure I understand what that is, because it's a significant amount of money.
[1:07:10] I think you would agree.
[1:07:11] And again, I'm happy to look at anything.
[1:07:12] We also want to be very-
[1:07:13] Well, we definitely would like to know.
[1:07:14] In an open setting, I'm like, well, what we might-
[1:07:17] We'd also like to know in advance of, you know, when these things come up for votes as to what the money specifically would go to.
[1:07:23] We're going to make sure you have everything you need before any vote.
[1:07:25] I mean, we've already marked up, what, 12 bills?
[1:07:30] Not on a supplemental.
[1:07:31] You're referring to the supplemental appropriations process.
[1:07:33] Well, I think overall the process would work better with respect to us making appropriations determinations if we had these estimates and this information in advance of the markups.
[1:07:44] But I appreciate where you are.
[1:07:46] And I understood it better the first year because you were just coming in.
[1:07:50] But for year two, I think it's problematic for us.
[1:07:54] And it's not just with respect to OMB.
[1:07:55] It's from the departments across the board.
[1:07:58] But let me just ask you this because I'm running out of time.
[1:08:02] Last week at one of the appropriations markups, there was a discussion.
[1:08:07] I know you're using the phrase Department of War instead of Department of Defense.
[1:08:12] But we were told that the CBO said it's going to cost $125 million to change the name from Department of Defense to Department of War.
[1:08:20] Do you agree with that estimate?
[1:08:22] We haven't done our own estimate at OMB on the cost, but it's something that I think makes common sense.
[1:08:28] It's what the department was called for most of our nation's history.
[1:08:31] I'm focused on the amount.
[1:08:33] The national defense authorization that's moving through, renamed it.
[1:08:36] The nomenclature concerns me less from an appropriations committee standpoint than the fact that we're going to spend $125 million or so.
[1:08:45] You're not challenging the number, but.
[1:08:47] I said we haven't, we haven't taken our own assessment.
[1:08:50] But that's a lot of money.
[1:08:52] And we spent a lot of time hearing that a lot of the needs that we'd like to fund, we didn't have the money to fund.
[1:08:59] So with that, I yield back.
[1:09:00] The chair recognizes Mr. Cloud.
[1:09:02] Thank you, Chairman.
[1:09:05] You know, a lot was much to do in this committee asking the question whether it's morally right or not to facilitate the death of children.
[1:09:17] I find this rich coming from people who supported the administration that forced taxpayers to fund for the largest human trafficking operation in human history.
[1:09:27] Still today, we are at a loss to where two to three hundred thousand of the kids who came across our border are as we're trying to find them.
[1:09:36] I visited the facilities where over half the women who had come across had been sexually assaulted on the journey.
[1:09:42] I've been from South Texas, visited the ranches and seen the rape trees where cartels had done horrific things to women and celebrated it.
[1:09:53] And and for one, I'm thankful to see that we have an administration who's putting dollars back to where they should be.
[1:10:01] It was also pointed out USAID had we cut fundings to that.
[1:10:09] And in the way that Washington, D.C. measures success by how much dollars we send out as opposed to whether they're accomplishing what they're supposed to accomplish.
[1:10:19] It's been said in all these studies, as you mentioned, based on false science, whether or not people are being killed because of that.
[1:10:28] The latest data coming out is actually showing that remarkably mortality rates in South Africa are going down following this.
[1:10:34] And a lot of these stories are.
[1:10:39] Do you suppose that sometimes it's possible that we actually save money by spending less money or save lives by spending less money?
[1:10:46] I do. And I would also say that this administration, the State Department, is working with these countries to have these agreements that ensure that the money is being really well spent
[1:10:57] and goes to better care directly to people in need and not necessarily through NGOs that don't share something other than a divisive worldview.
[1:11:08] A lot of times what we've seen and certainly this was true to the last administration, not uniquely to the last administration,
[1:11:14] but dollars would go out the door.
[1:11:16] We'd have really no idea what they were going to.
[1:11:18] We're finding out as we've been looking into this and some of the technology tools that you have brought to the table
[1:11:24] and others working with the administration, like a lot of these billions of dollars have been going to bad actors working against us,
[1:11:31] our purposes, our agendas, even foreign entities, foreign states that I know in the last few weeks of the administration,
[1:11:40] $80 billion went out the door, I think $40 billion in loans in just two days, which was like 10 times more than or more than 10 years' worth that had gone out previous.
[1:11:53] You are working on a proposed rule that would place a lot more safeguards on the taxpayer's dollar going out the door,
[1:12:00] some of which I appreciate. Some of it seems so simple to business owners that talk about, like, let's not send dollars to dead people, you know, and other things.
[1:12:09] Could you speak to some of the safeguards that you're…
[1:12:11] Well, definitely. One of the most press worthy of the reforms that we've had that has gotten the attention of the other side is the extent to which we have cancellation provisions in these grants.
[1:12:27] And people say, oh, are you going to just kind of, you know, do that in a heartbeat? No, we're not going to do that.
[1:12:33] But if we find that NIH is giving money to the Wuhan Institute from Tony Fauci and NIA to the Wuhan Institute,
[1:12:42] and we need to cancel that grant in the middle of a pandemic that it contributed to with its gain-of-function research,
[1:12:48] we need to have the ability to turn the grant off. That is probably the best example of why we need to include these types of provisions,
[1:12:56] is because when we find something that's problematic that our policy officials would not have caught,
[1:13:04] we need to be able to turn it off. And it is not something that will be anti-science in any way.
[1:13:08] It will be still on the basis of peer review science and work that is done on a comprehensive and well-thought-out basis by our agencies.
[1:13:16] Now, there's been a move to kind of tout the career bureaucrat working in our administration.
[1:13:24] No doubt there are some who are here doing their best to do the Lord's work and serve the people well.
[1:13:30] But at the same time, there's this messaging idea, and it was actually stated here in this committee,
[1:13:35] like that, you know, maybe we should follow their agenda as opposed to the president's agenda.
[1:13:43] The Constitution is very clear that all executive authorities invested in the president
[1:13:47] and that they should be doing the president's will. So I applaud your efforts to ensure that the administration is being tied.
[1:13:54] One thing I did want to touch on, I think we're going to run out of time, but there's about, I think, $14 billion that we passed in OB-3
[1:14:00] that was supposed to go to states who helped fund border security.
[1:14:04] If we can get an update on where that's at, you know, we thought by now that might have gone out the door.
[1:14:10] We put both NOFOs out recently. I had very good conversations with many of your delegation mates.
[1:14:17] And as well as your governor, those NOFOs are out, and we will be looking forward to assessing the requests that come in from Texas and others.
[1:14:24] Thank you.
[1:14:25] Thank you, Mr. Cloud. And the chair would now recognize, and I would have normally recognized her immediately after Mr. Hoyer.
[1:14:33] But at her own request, she has been a team player, wanted to go to the back of the line.
[1:14:38] The distinguished lady from Connecticut, our ranking member, Ms. Delore.
[1:14:43] Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
[1:14:45] Director, I mentioned the proposed rule to overhaul grant making in my opening, which seeks to virtually subject virtually all federal funding to the whims of the president's policy priorities.
[1:14:57] It substitutes the current standard of evidence and science in favor of political tests based on ideology.
[1:15:04] I've talked to a number of groups, and many of the groups have asked for, and I think they may have requested more time to be able to read.
[1:15:13] It's a 412-page document so that they can participate in the public comment period.
[1:15:19] Can you commit to granting a 45-day extension of the comment period?
[1:15:23] No, but I will say this. The number of comments that are coming in that we have to respond to is going to take us some time.
[1:15:31] The answer is no. I think one of the striking aspects of the proposal is attempts to put the OMB director at the center of all decision making here.
[1:15:42] Not true.
[1:15:43] And why are you a better judge of an NIH clinical trial than a panel of medical doctors and researchers?
[1:15:48] How will you ensure the grants will be based on merit and individuals and communities served by the federal grants will receive the highest level of service possible?
[1:16:00] I don't, is there a listing, if you could get to us, the agency's priorities, the president's priorities, what is the set of criteria you are using to judge these grants?
[1:16:17] What precludes you from changing the criteria in the middle of a grant period?
[1:16:23] Because I, as I understand it, you can, not only can political appointees take control of grant awards, active grants can be terminated at any time for any reason.
[1:16:36] And I, I went through some of them, these efforts, but you can cancel it at, at, at any moment.
[1:16:43] Is there a set of criteria that we could have that demonstrates to us why these, these grants are being canceled?
[1:16:53] Congress, you're, you're misconstruing the proposal to seem, to make it seem as if it is OMB-centric.
[1:16:59] OMB will not be making these determinations.
[1:17:02] We don't have a formal review in reviewing every NOFO.
[1:17:06] That is not something that we intend to take on.
[1:17:09] These are the policy officials at the agency of which the president has put these cabinet secretaries into office.
[1:17:15] Let me just reclaim, claim my time.
[1:17:17] But the fact of the matter is, is understand it.
[1:17:20] And this is the, probably the most consequential change in the rule.
[1:17:24] Senior political appointees, rather than career scientists and program officers, would now be required to conduct a, quote, pre-issuance review of every discretionary grant before it is awarded.
[1:17:38] These appointees are explicitly forbidden from deferring to peer reviewers or routinely ratifying their recommendations.
[1:17:47] This is in the 412 page document.
[1:17:50] And maybe you think that people weren't going to read it.
[1:17:53] So, and then there is no longer peer review, peer review is no longer binding.
[1:17:59] A political appointee can simply override the scientific community's judgment with finding, with no finding of cause.
[1:18:09] That is what is a part of this rule, which is, it dismantles what we established after World War II for the National Institutes of Health, for the NS, for the National Science Foundation, for Department of Energy, for NASA,
[1:18:28] NASA, it really reverses how we have awarded grants in the future.
[1:18:33] Are you shaking your head no?
[1:18:35] But that in fact, which is, which is what the fact of what you are trying to do with a political lens and someone's politically, political ideology.
[1:18:46] I have one more question for you.
[1:18:48] Have you released all appropriately, appropriated funding to each intended agency through the apportionment process?
[1:18:57] We were working through the apportionment process expeditiously.
[1:19:02] I can't say we've done every single one of them, but if you have one that you're particularly interested in.
[1:19:07] No, but I'm just saying it is your responsibility to get the money out of the door in a timely fashion.
[1:19:12] And if you can't do this, we need to take a look because Congress provides the authority for this.
[1:19:16] And again, Congressman, this would be a full year apportionment.
[1:19:19] Everyone has the apportionments that they need right now.
[1:19:21] How much funding has been made available?
[1:19:23] How much funding have you made unavailable to agencies as of today?
[1:19:27] If you can't answer that, now I would like an answer to that.
[1:19:30] Happy to, but again, there's no concerted effort not to apportion funding for the agency.
[1:19:34] It's not going out in a timely way. I can just go through.
[1:19:37] Because we're trying to assess what it's being spent on.
[1:19:39] Right. No, I get it.
[1:19:40] Will you commit to us here today that you will carry out our spending laws as Congress intended through appropriations and reconciliations as they were enacted or not?
[1:19:54] Obviously, we will take and make sure that we're spending money where you intend us to spend money at the same time.
[1:20:02] I'm not going to take any tools.
[1:20:03] No, the answer to that then is no.
[1:20:05] I'm not going to take a tool off the table.
[1:20:07] You are not going to spend the money that Congress in a bipartisan way enacts.
[1:20:12] Did you say that?
[1:20:13] Yes, you did.
[1:20:14] I yield my time back.
[1:20:15] Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[1:20:19] Director Vogt, thanks for being with us this afternoon.
[1:20:23] Thanks for your service.
[1:20:24] I know that you're in a very precarious situation administering all the money that is appropriated by Congress.
[1:20:35] I can only imagine complications.
[1:20:38] I take it somewhat personal and offensive that you were treated so disrespectfully earlier in our conversation regarding USAID.
[1:20:51] I think that we all can agree that every loss of an innocent life is a tragedy.
[1:20:58] And the reason I take this so personal is I serve as vice chair of the NSRP appropriations subcommittee.
[1:21:06] And I know how hard that Mario Desbellart and myself and the rest of the team has worked to help ensure the efficient spending of our taxpayers' dollars.
[1:21:20] But I think it's misleading to suggest that a U.S. policy change can be judged by isolated claims while ignoring the millions of lives that American taxpayers have saved through decades of humanitarian aid.
[1:21:35] The goal is to ensure that aid is effective, accountable and reaches those that really need it.
[1:21:43] And I'd like to give you just a few seconds if there's anything you'd like to add to that conversation when you were so rudely cut off.
[1:21:50] No, thank you, Congressman.
[1:21:51] I would just say affirm the administration's agreement with what you've just said.
[1:21:56] We have requested foreign aid at the State Department.
[1:22:00] The President cares greatly about continuing to fund areas where we can be effective and to make sure it's done on an efficient basis.
[1:22:09] And to actually make sure we get to real care for real individuals.
[1:22:13] Thank you for that.
[1:22:15] I'd like to shift gears just a little bit to Western North Carolina.
[1:22:20] You know we were hit by Hurricane Helene on September 27, 2024.
[1:22:25] And we've had somewhat of a mixed bag of dollars coming out of the federal government to Western North Carolina.
[1:22:35] They seem to have really picked up.
[1:22:38] The momentum has picked up.
[1:22:40] And many of the projects for us to rebuild have been funded at a far quicker rate in the last few months.
[1:22:49] Can you give me any perspective on is something different?
[1:22:52] Are you doing something different?
[1:22:54] Is Mark Wayne Mullen doing something different?
[1:22:56] Have we just gotten better?
[1:22:58] What's taking place there and what lessons have you and Congress learned to deal with the next natural disaster?
[1:23:06] Thank you, Congressman.
[1:23:07] And it's a team effort.
[1:23:08] But I will say that I, as you know, we've worked personally to drill down very deep in several layers of bureaucracy to make sure money is going out the door.
[1:23:19] You were an incredible advocate for your district in that way.
[1:23:22] And we're doing that across the board.
[1:23:24] In some part, that's kind of what, you know, dealing with bureaucracy is.
[1:23:28] I think the secretary is doing a great job.
[1:23:30] We, in general, needed to get the DHS funding out the door much more regularly.
[1:23:35] BRIC, the program, would be an example of one.
[1:23:38] In my last hearing, which I talked with a congressman about, we want to get that money out the door.
[1:23:47] And I think the current team is doing that.
[1:23:50] Thank you.
[1:23:51] And I'd like for this committee to know that Director Vogt appeared before another committee that I was attending several weeks ago.
[1:24:00] And when I mentioned the problems that we were having, Director Vogt invited me to his office that very afternoon.
[1:24:08] And as a result, we saw millions of dollars coming into Western North Carolina.
[1:24:12] So I thank you for that.
[1:24:14] My last question is this.
[1:24:16] According to my research, the federal government now has about 292,000 less employees than it did when President Trump took office.
[1:24:30] And most of us conservatives are really happy with that.
[1:24:34] Our goal in coming to Washington, D.C. was to see less government.
[1:24:38] Can you speak, is that an accident?
[1:24:41] Is it something very intentional?
[1:24:44] And where's the floor there?
[1:24:49] How much more do you think that we might be able to save if we really sharpen our pencil?
[1:24:55] Well, I would leave that to the agency officials that are seeing their programs and their FTEs.
[1:25:01] We got some great feedback from your colleague that are assessing where they need to go deeper and where they need to go higher.
[1:25:07] And that is a balance that they, each one of them, are going to be kind of their expert on it.
[1:25:13] For my part of OMB, I'm trying to increase to a higher level based on the fact that when you asked us for dereg, deregulatory initiatives, we need more people to be able to do that.
[1:25:24] We need more people to be able to drill down into bureaucracy and get the money flowing as intended by Congress.
[1:25:30] So, I think it will be agency by agency.
[1:25:34] And I wouldn't want to give kind of a broad view of that other than to say that the agency officials are constantly thinking through what their adequate FTE level should be.
[1:25:43] I'll summarize by saying thank you for the reduction.
[1:25:46] And thank you for your service, Mr. Chair, all your luck.
[1:25:49] Very kind.
[1:25:50] Thank you.
[1:25:52] Realizing that, you know, that was so much fun in the first round here, there are some questions here that, like, I asked you a question.
[1:25:59] And I'd like to hear your answer for the record.
[1:26:02] We're going to go with three minutes.
[1:26:04] Does that work for folks?
[1:26:05] If you have questions that were unanswered?
[1:26:07] Okay.
[1:26:08] Mr. Chairman, when you're lying to the fact that you're answering, you may impose that.
[1:26:14] I do not agree.
[1:26:15] All right.
[1:26:18] And while I appreciate you, my wife just texted me that our daughter is, her water broken, and she's getting ready to leave for the hospital on her first grandchild.
[1:26:30] So three minutes works for me, sir, because I'm going to be out of here this afternoon.
[1:26:36] I would re-ask the question, but you're right, man.
[1:26:39] I just want to know how will centralizing all those functions from the executive orders translate into efficiencies across federal government?
[1:26:45] And how will taxpayers benefit from the consolidation of all that power through the executive orders that we talked about before?
[1:26:51] What I would say is every time you see an executive order, there's a responsibility there for Office of Management and Budget to be able to perform government-wide function.
[1:27:00] And the level of things that we've been asked to do has, therefore, increased.
[1:27:04] And so we are trying to use each one of those as an opportunity to get better at what we do.
[1:27:10] And the work before us is certainly immense, but we're excited to do it.
[1:27:14] O&B received $100 million from the Working Families Tax Cut Act, also known as the Big Beautiful Bill.
[1:27:26] The purpose of finding budget and accounting efficiencies in the executive branch.
[1:27:29] Would you walk us through that how money was spent, what efficiencies you've identified,
[1:27:33] and how the committee can expect to be informed of those results?
[1:27:38] It is almost entirely based on additional FTEs.
[1:27:43] We want to take OMB FTE level up to around 675 in terms of our footprint up from where we are right now,
[1:27:53] around 500 employees.
[1:27:56] We believe we need those employees.
[1:27:59] My hope is that we can work to give you enough information so that over time this subcommittee can fund OMB
[1:28:07] so that there is not a gap.
[1:28:09] We have to use that money within a three-year period.
[1:28:11] We haven't spent that money yet because we're not going to obligate or portion to the need
[1:28:17] until we are ready to actually hire people.
[1:28:20] And I will tell you, it is not quick to be able to hire the FTEs,
[1:28:24] but it is one of my highest priorities to be able to scale to that.
[1:28:28] And what you are getting with that is the OMB and the career staff,
[1:28:34] these are career staff largely, that will be able to provide the important civil servant work
[1:28:40] that you've come to know and appreciate from OMB.
[1:28:43] And so that's what we're trying to do with that number.
[1:28:45] I appreciate that.
[1:28:47] And I have 50-some seconds left here.
[1:28:50] I noticed in the recent budget that DOGE was pretty much eliminated.
[1:28:57] Is there something that you're going to present or is there somewhere we can find what exactly DOGE accomplished as far as reductions in
[1:29:05] dollars spent, people at agencies or whatever?
[1:29:11] Is there going to be some documentation of what took place?
[1:29:13] I mean, we have no plans to do kind of a closing DOGE report.
[1:29:16] We're always happy to give you our assessment of that work.
[1:29:21] I think it made some really important strides.
[1:29:24] You all passed many of the reductions that DOGE found just through the normal appropriations process
[1:29:30] when you ended the year so much lower than the year before.
[1:29:34] We did some of that in the rescissions package.
[1:29:37] And so many of the fruits of their labor are sprinkled all across the government.
[1:29:43] But I'm always happy to work with you on what you feel like you need.
[1:29:45] Very kind.
[1:29:46] I now recognize the ranking member, Mr. Hoyer, for his three minutes.
[1:29:50] Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[1:29:54] Are you aware of the fact that Labor Healthy DOGE did $21,000 in reductions through the number of three or four options that were available?
[1:30:03] And they're now in the process of hiring $12,000 back?
[1:30:06] I don't know what you're referring to specifically, but I'm happy to look into it.
[1:30:10] Well, that was the testimony of Secretary Kennedy.
[1:30:13] So the chainsaw apparently went a little too deep.
[1:30:18] What analysis was done prior to DOGE's activity to identify the objectives of their cutting?
[1:30:30] You'd have to ask DOGE in many of the-
[1:30:33] DOGE won't come up here, apparently.
[1:30:35] Well, all I will say is that everything that we have put forward at OMB, which incorporate many of the suggestions,
[1:30:41] which I kind of view DOGE as a consultant to the agency officials, we have backed that up with all of the analysis.
[1:30:47] And DOGE also represented a new administration coming on and making great aggressive strides to lower the footprint.
[1:30:55] The chairman's limiting just three minutes, so we can't do much substance here.
[1:31:00] Are you aware of the fact that IRS has been, enforcement has been cut some, by your proposal, 28%,
[1:31:11] and by the Congress's action in the House, by 19% in enforcement?
[1:31:18] And that we've gone from 9% looking for fraud in IRS-filed returns of people over a million dollars,
[1:31:29] which are the more complex returns, to six-tenths of a percent?
[1:31:34] Do you think that's a very efficient way to assure A, people do not cheat, and B, that we collect the some $700 billion
[1:31:43] that almost every IRS commissioner, Republican and Democrat, have determined are due and owing but not paid?
[1:31:50] One of our objections to the Biden administration was their scaling of the IRS with almost a viewpoint
[1:31:56] that they would leave no audit left behind, and I don't think that's the American that people would want that.
[1:32:00] I said six-tenths of a percent. It was at 9%. That is leaving 91% of the returns over a million dollars not audited.
[1:32:09] That's a big, high incentive for people not to worry about doing it correctly.
[1:32:14] We have invested in the IRS. We're trying to make sure that the experience that IRS,
[1:32:19] in terms of the taxpayer services, is something that would be historically better,
[1:32:25] and we're making great strides at that. I know that Secretary Besson is very active in that.
[1:32:30] Secretary Besson hasn't testified to this committee this year, so I'm not sure what he's about.
[1:32:41] We're trying to invite him up now that the budget's done.
[1:32:45] You are saying you need more people.
[1:32:49] Every IRS commissioner I've talked to over the last 45 years has said they need more people in enforcement.
[1:32:59] Neither party, in my opinion. We put $80 billion, or give or take, in the IRA to try to, both from a technology standpoint and from an enforcement standpoint,
[1:33:10] make sure people are paying that which is required by law to be paid. No new taxes required by a present law.
[1:33:20] Let me say something, because the time is very brief. The largest increase in the debt in my service in the Congress was under Ronald Reagan, as a percentage.
[1:33:34] The debt was $985 billion when I came to Congress. Total national debt.
[1:33:41] Every director who has told me we're going to get rid of fraud, waste, and abuse, the debt has gone up. Republicans and Democrats.
[1:33:51] Mitch Daniels said the same thing you have said today when he was after the Bush tax cut. The debt has gone up.
[1:34:01] Are you saying you believe that the debt is going to be reduced as a percentage of our GDP?
[1:34:08] Here's what I'll say. As a result of your big bad bill or other fiscal legislation or expenditures like fixing pools, tearing down the East Winding of the White House?
[1:34:19] Here's what I'll say, Congressman. We're the only administration since 1997 to have any tangible victory and to put an end to fiscal futility that has reigned for two decades.
[1:34:29] That was the budget balance.
[1:34:31] We recognize the public in Congress. Thank you.
[1:34:34] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have talked a lot about fraud, a very important topic of conversation.
[1:34:40] Not to be overlooked, though, I think is the blatant disregard by some bureaucrats for improper payments.
[1:34:46] I know President Trump shares this goal. Myself, members of Congress have recognized wasting of taxpayer dollars needs to stop,
[1:34:53] and we're expressing a need for some systems in place to make sure that those hard-earned dollars are not being misused.
[1:34:58] The president's executive order, obviously, 14-249 to protect America's bank account.
[1:35:03] And then I introduced H.R. 2597, the Protecting American Taxpayers from Wasteful Spending Act, which would codify said executive order.
[1:35:12] Can you update us on the implementation of that executive order and what is happening to protect America's bank account against waste, fraud, and abuse?
[1:35:19] Thank you, Congresswoman. In the spirit of Congressman Edwards' question, we are doing a lot of work behind the scenes,
[1:35:26] bureaucracy to bureaucracy, agency to agency, to get those agencies to use the Do Not Pay system and to kind of cut through paperwork that takes forever,
[1:35:36] just get them in to be able to use the system and get that cultural muscle memory working.
[1:35:44] And we don't think we need new authorities to do, though, but we always welcome them where you feel like you can expedite things for us.
[1:35:52] Congress, obviously, continuing to support the reining in of those improper payments and encouraging the administration to do so.
[1:36:00] We had House Resolution 1335, which would really lay out some meaningful policy reforms to improve fiscal responsibility,
[1:36:08] including program eligibility and spending activities that should actually be verified before those payments go out.
[1:36:14] Can you share with us some of the additional practices that you've implemented, short of, obviously, the interagency workings that you're referencing there,
[1:36:20] but to ensure that the efficiency and accuracy in dispersing that funding is responsible and transparent?
[1:36:26] Well, we've stood up an entire task force at the leadership of Vice President Vance that is building on a number of the Doge efforts,
[1:36:33] like Defend the Spend at HHS to assess do we even know what we're spending on and to make sure on the back end and on the front end we're eliminating improper payments.
[1:36:44] We're going very hard from an enforcement perspective with regard to fraud.
[1:36:50] It's something the President talks about constantly in setting a vision for his fiscal team as to types of things that he wants us to focus on,
[1:37:00] and we'd love to continue to work with you on it.
[1:37:02] What percentage of the expenditures do you think going out improper payments are actually fraudulent?
[1:37:07] You know, I wouldn't want to say what a percentage. I don't want to make a guess on that.
[1:37:11] But I think they're substantial. And I think the extent to which we don't focus on them and we think it's a small problem is why we never actually make progress in this area.
[1:37:23] And so I'm very grateful that we are focusing on it and there is such an active interest here in Congress on it.
[1:37:29] Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
[1:37:31] Thank you. Mr. Pocan would be next.
[1:37:37] Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[1:37:40] So how much does Doge cost us? What do we spend on staffing of Doge?
[1:37:46] I don't think Doge cost us much at all in terms of the net savings.
[1:37:49] What did it cost us? That's not an answer.
[1:37:51] So if I say what's your favorite color and you tell me $13,000, that's an answer.
[1:37:55] And it's not that I disagree with the answer. It's a non-answer.
[1:37:57] So do you know how much Doge cost us?
[1:38:00] I don't believe Doge cost us anything. They saved us.
[1:38:03] Do you know how much we spent on staffing of Doge?
[1:38:06] Off the top of my head, no, I do not know what we spent on the very few Doge staffers that there were.
[1:38:12] Many of these people were volunteering.
[1:38:14] Gotcha. When the staffing question, we were told by Secretary Kennedy that there had 21,000 people were fired.
[1:38:23] They had to bring back 12,000, which seems like a complete mess.
[1:38:27] Do you know how many people overall were let go under in the last year and a half?
[1:38:32] And how many had to be brought back?
[1:38:34] No, not off the top of my head.
[1:38:35] Okay. If you could get us that information, I'd appreciate it.
[1:38:38] Do you know how much we spent on the war in Iran so far?
[1:38:41] We spent about $30 billion.
[1:38:44] $30 billion?
[1:38:45] So I'm going to hold you to that because people are saying it's more like $100 billion.
[1:38:49] Well, I'm just telling you what I've heard from the Department of War and the analysis that they've given us.
[1:38:55] Okay.
[1:38:56] I'm just going to remember today, June 30th, 2026, you're saying as of today, $30 billion is what we spent.
[1:39:03] That's the number that I have.
[1:39:05] No, I appreciate that.
[1:39:07] PEPFAR, there still has not been about $700 million released, and we're down to a few months before end of September.
[1:39:14] Will that money be released by the Department of State?
[1:39:16] We will spend all the PEPFAR that has been appropriated.
[1:39:20] Sometimes there are different fiscal years that you might be referring to, and these PEPFAR has spent over many, many years.
[1:39:27] Right, but I think there's $700 million left. Doesn't that sound right?
[1:39:30] Where at? USAID or at State?
[1:39:33] We will make sure that PEPFAR spending goes out the door.
[1:39:36] Thank you. Appreciate that.
[1:39:37] Finally, I think there's $3.2 billion that came from funds earmarked by Congress for global health and development programs that was signed, that is unobligated.
[1:39:47] If it's not obligated by September, that money will expire, can no longer be spent.
[1:39:52] Is that going to be spent, that money? It's not going to be done as a pocket rescission?
[1:39:55] I'm not going to take any tool off the table, but we have no plans to do a rescission at this point.
[1:39:59] And we will make sure that we are getting the money out the door expeditiously.
[1:40:04] Okay, but do you predict that money will be spent before the end of September?
[1:40:07] I don't want to make any predictions other than to say that our current plans to get the money out the door on a normal basis.
[1:40:13] Just so you know, when we approve funds in a bipartisan way, we expect that the money gets out.
[1:40:17] And I understand you've had delays and you want more staffing, but you've only spent about 10% of the additional money you got in the big, beautiful bill.
[1:40:23] So we need to make sure that when Congress approves funds in a bipartisan way, it gets expended.
[1:40:30] We agree with the need to get money out the door, consistent with our review of whether it's being well spent,
[1:40:36] and not taking any tools that we may use of the President's fiscal management tools off the table.
[1:40:40] Thank you.
[1:40:41] Thank you, Mr. Bokan. We now recognize Mr. Bishop for his three minutes.
[1:40:45] Thank you very much, Mr. Vaught.
[1:40:49] It's apparent to the members of the committee as well as to the general public that you as budget director and President Trump feel that you have the authority to pause and sometimes outright disregard appropriations that are directed by Congress.
[1:41:08] And of course, as we all know, the Constitution explicitly states that Congress alone sets the terms for appropriating funds.
[1:41:17] But if, for example, we give you the minute of the doubt that you're somehow under the impression that the OMB's actions over the last 18 months to withhold funds across a broad spectrum of programs is legal,
[1:41:34] can you let us know what kind of language we need to use in our appropriations bills that you and OMB would consider to be unambiguous enough in directing the executive branch to disperse appropriating funds without delay,
[1:41:51] without additional restrictions that undermine the intent of Congress and without political considerations like retaliation?
[1:42:00] Or do you believe it's possible for us to put language in the appropriations bills that are direct enough that would prohibit you from impounding and impeding the intention of Congress in our appropriations?
[1:42:16] I'm not going to engage in a hypothetical, but it's an interesting question, Congressman, in the sense that many of the things that you say are the questions that we get in terms of whether we're getting money out the door quickly
[1:42:28] is, in fact, us reviewing to see whether it's done efficiently or not and to ensure that agencies aren't doing deficiencies,
[1:42:36] that there's a spend plan in place, which was literally why we were set up in the first place.
[1:42:41] And so I would just offer that as one of the reasons as you're responding to what you think is data that we're not spending fast enough.
[1:42:50] It is also, it's often because we're trying to spend well.
[1:42:53] But when you put a pause, when you put a pause and not spend it at all, when we clearly, and it's clearly intended by Congress for it to be spent,
[1:43:06] what kind of language do we need to put?
[1:43:09] Well, I think we have a, we have a.
[1:43:11] What would you respond to?
[1:43:12] Well, we would have a difference of opinion with regard to the president's ability to pursue executive tools to limit spending.
[1:43:21] We've, I've been up here before to talk about it.
[1:43:23] We used many of those tools last year.
[1:43:26] I don't think this is about writing the bills differently, but I will say this, Congressman,
[1:43:31] we're working with the committee to, to pass these appropriations bills.
[1:43:35] I think we had one of the most successful appropriations bills in seasons and process in history last year,
[1:43:41] subject to the two shutdowns that occurred.
[1:43:43] You believe that there are three equal branches of government that.
[1:43:45] Of course, of course, absolutely.
[1:43:47] But the unitary executive theory is not, doesn't take precedence over the other two branches, I take it.
[1:43:57] We believe there are three equal branches and we are always looking back to how the founders intended our constitutional structure to operate and function.
[1:44:05] Thank you, Mr. Bishop.
[1:44:06] Chair now recognizes Mrs. Glusenkamp-Perez for three minutes.
[1:44:11] Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you again.
[1:44:14] One of the concerns that I've heard and specific about the changes to grant making rules is the prohibition on funds for conferences.
[1:44:23] There's a, there are, there are excellent conferences in skilled trades competitions.
[1:44:28] That is inherently a conference.
[1:44:30] People still glow with pride that they were successful in winning their state's SkillsUSA champion in auto tech,
[1:44:35] or roofing, or whatever it is.
[1:44:37] And so, how do you view this proposed rules impact on the ability to host and hold skills competition,
[1:44:44] and how to find the best balance and the brightest trades people and really bolster our skilled trades?
[1:44:48] Well, I would just say with regard to some of the excess activities that numbers of individuals who are benefiting from grants,
[1:44:56] there's one thing that's not in this because you all barred us from doing it.
[1:44:59] There's nothing regarding indirect cost rates in this regulation.
[1:45:03] But indirect cost rates, indirect costs are the kind of things that we're trying to restrict as much as we possibly can.
[1:45:09] And I think it's analogous to your question.
[1:45:11] Bill Gates only pays 10% for indirect costs.
[1:45:14] We pay up to 50 to 60% for indirect costs for things like parking buildings and administrative costs.
[1:45:20] And while there may be examples where, you know, something might be useful and important,
[1:45:26] we think the trend in that direction is not something that we want the grant programs to be funding.
[1:45:31] We want them to be funding actual research and investment.
[1:45:33] And that is a durable investment.
[1:45:37] Our investment in these kids who have correct pride in their skills and competition.
[1:45:41] And so, I just ask for consideration of this as you're moving through evaluating grants.
[1:45:45] Another concern I've heard from CTE teachers and students about the proposed elimination of fixed amount awards and sub-awards,
[1:45:52] and the impact on increasing the administrative cost and burden.
[1:45:55] I know so many great programs who are like, we are not touching federal grants because we cannot handle the administrative burden.
[1:46:00] Meanwhile, the people who are grant writers and have slick handouts, like, they can do that.
[1:46:06] They can overcome that administrative burden.
[1:46:08] And so, I'm asking how you're thinking about balancing the scale of administrative burden on rural and smaller organizations,
[1:46:14] and how to effectively tailor, rather than eliminate, but tailor their ability to participate in these federal tax programs,
[1:46:25] because they really can provide as much or a greater, you know, dollar cost effectiveness.
[1:46:33] I would say that we don't want there to be a great administrative burden, and that's what the comment phase is for.
[1:46:40] And if comments come in that we can learn more about how this would be implemented,
[1:46:44] we're going to definitely take a look at those.
[1:46:46] It's just really hard for my smaller organizations to be like,
[1:46:48] oh, I'm going to go through this portal and make this comment and all this time.
[1:46:51] And so, asking for you to consider how to bring in people who have been a part of this,
[1:46:55] from a smaller organization, from rural communities, into .
[1:46:59] Well, I will make this offer.
[1:47:00] If you want me to meet with someone from your district that's a small organization,
[1:47:03] I will be happy to be with them.
[1:47:04] Thank you very much.
[1:47:05] I appreciate that.
[1:47:06] I'll yield back.
[1:47:08] Thank you very much.
[1:47:09] If you're not recognized as Mr. Ivey for three minutes of questions.
[1:47:12] Thank you, and congratulations, Mr. Chair.
[1:47:17] I wanted to follow up on the DOGE comment that you made.
[1:47:21] I've got a report here from the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
[1:47:27] that's entitled, The $21.7 Billion Blunder, Analyzing the Waste Generated by DOGE.
[1:47:33] Are you familiar with this report?
[1:47:35] No, I haven't.
[1:47:36] Okay.
[1:47:37] It breaks it down by category, and it runs through the cost, for example.
[1:47:42] And I think there was a stretch where people got paid not to come to work,
[1:47:47] and I remember there was a scenario where probationary employees were laid off.
[1:47:52] I think that went to the courts.
[1:47:54] I think OMB made the decision to lay off the probationary employees.
[1:47:58] The courts said you can't do that.
[1:47:59] It has to go through the departments, and then it went back to you.
[1:48:03] But in any event, the probationary piece,
[1:48:06] waste generated by involuntary administrative leave and severance pay programs,
[1:48:10] they calculated $6.06 billion.
[1:48:13] Are you familiar with those?
[1:48:15] I haven't read the report.
[1:48:16] I'm happy to read the report.
[1:48:17] In general, many of the times that these kind of artificial moment in time cost estimates
[1:48:24] with regard to the federal workforce are not accounting for the long-term savings
[1:48:29] of what a lower footprint for those agencies would look like.
[1:48:34] For instance, RIFs.
[1:48:35] RIFs have upfront costs.
[1:48:37] This is widely known.
[1:48:39] But they lead to long-term savings in a smaller footprint.
[1:48:44] And so my guess is what's going on in that report.
[1:48:48] And you take a look, and you can follow back up with us.
[1:48:51] But you'd also agree that there have been scenarios where departments have laid off.
[1:48:54] I'm looking at 110,000 people and brought back 60,000.
[1:48:59] Or, you know, we've had other scenarios where departments have laid off a certain number,
[1:49:03] then quickly bring a number back.
[1:49:06] That would be part of the long-term calculation you're talking about as well, right?
[1:49:10] I would describe it as a dynamic fluid process.
[1:49:12] So you have agency heads that are trying to assess that they have what they need for the core functions that they do.
[1:49:20] It's a dynamic waste of money, though.
[1:49:22] If you lay off people and then bring them back, especially in the short term,
[1:49:26] the Nuclear Regulatory Commission laid off the staff, I think it was on a Friday,
[1:49:31] they realized that, you know, you just can't grab somebody off the street to run that.
[1:49:35] And they brought them all back on Monday.
[1:49:37] Those are not, that's not just dynamic.
[1:49:40] That's a mistake.
[1:49:41] And that's funding that the taxpayers wasted on an effort that was rushed through.
[1:49:47] I think part of the concern with respect to Doge, and I think most of my colleagues would agree,
[1:49:52] cutting, you know, employees that aren't needed is fine.
[1:49:56] But it's clear that what Doge did was they put, they advocated cutting a lot of people,
[1:50:03] a lot of federal government employees who were doing great work.
[1:50:06] They didn't know what they were talking about when they advocated for those cuts.
[1:50:10] Then they quickly realized that they had to bring people back.
[1:50:13] And that really devastated the individual's lives who were caught up in that scenario.
[1:50:18] My time's expired. I yield back.
[1:50:20] And like the wedding feast at Canaan will now save the best for last
[1:50:23] and recognize the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Loro, to wrap this up.
[1:50:29] Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[1:50:30] I think you've made clear, Director, that you are not going to really carry out the spending laws as Congress intended.
[1:50:41] And that really is very, very troubling.
[1:50:44] Look, we've already seen OMB implementing political review of grants.
[1:50:49] It's led to massive delays at NSF, the NIH.
[1:50:53] NIH has had about a 34% decrease in new awards in 2026 compared to what they've done in the past.
[1:51:02] And we understand that the decrease is due to new layers of political review at the NIH, at HHS, OMB,
[1:51:09] as well as the Office of Extramural Research.
[1:51:11] Directives limiting the number of funding opportunities that are allowed.
[1:51:15] There have been cases where people are still awaiting approval,
[1:51:23] and political appointees have really denied the award going forward.
[1:51:29] The same problem is occurring across the government, interior, homeland.
[1:51:34] What is a government-wide problem?
[1:51:36] What can you do to address it?
[1:51:38] Where is the holdup?
[1:51:40] And quite frankly, how would requiring a political appointee to approve every single grant improve government efficiency?
[1:51:47] Congressman, one of the things I heard constantly when we were considering the rescissions package last year,
[1:51:52] of which you all opposed, but one of the things I heard was,
[1:51:56] why wouldn't you just eliminate just the small things that you have concerns with,
[1:52:02] and not actually take the number down lower?
[1:52:05] And the way that we do that, the way that we provide good oversight of federal dollars,
[1:52:11] is to be able to assess and review how the agencies intend to spend the money.
[1:52:17] And that takes time.
[1:52:18] You don't do that in the middle of a 30-day period after you pass the appropriation.
[1:52:22] With all due respect, Mr. Director, my heavens, we haven't seen spend plans.
[1:52:26] That has been one of the biggest, one of the big problems.
[1:52:28] This committee hasn't even seen spend plans that we're supposed to, you know, get.
[1:52:35] And so, there's a point, and this rule that is really in the process of comment,
[1:52:42] which you won't extend the timing on, is really specific about who is going to review the grants,
[1:52:53] not on merit, but they're going to go through a political lens.
[1:52:59] And there's all kinds of restrictions on these grant awards.
[1:53:03] That is reverting a process, as I said earlier,
[1:53:06] that has been established after the Second World War.
[1:53:10] Can I give you an analogy?
[1:53:12] An analogy is that when I do the budget for the president,
[1:53:17] do you think I don't rely on the career staff?
[1:53:20] Do you think I'm...
[1:53:21] Well, look...
[1:53:22] It has a political responsibility for the line items.
[1:53:24] With all due respect, I've got five seconds left.
[1:53:26] Five seconds left.
[1:53:28] It is about political appointees making the decision, not people based on the evidence,
[1:53:35] and particularly in health and science, not based on the science of the award.
[1:53:42] That's happened everywhere.
[1:53:44] I can quote you...
[1:53:45] I can talk to you offline about what's been denied at Yale University,
[1:53:51] that has to do with HIV suppression, Tourette's, et cetera.
[1:53:55] Don't tell me that these are...
[1:53:58] They do not meet the government's priorities or the president's priorities.
[1:54:02] To deal with Tourette's syndrome, to deal with OCD, is not about somebody wasting money.
[1:54:11] This is science.
[1:54:12] It's reviewed as it has been over 75 years when these awards have been made.
[1:54:17] And you are all in the business of reversing that and putting all of these grants through a political lens
[1:54:23] and someone's political ideology.
[1:54:25] It's wrong and we're not going to let it happen.
[1:54:27] I yield back.
[1:54:28] Would you care to answer?
[1:54:31] I would just say that there was an election.
[1:54:34] The president was put in charge of the executive branch.
[1:54:37] The Constitution, the Constitution says that the appropriations process is the power of the purse.
[1:54:45] You are ignoring that.
[1:54:47] You flout the Constitution every single day.
[1:54:50] And you have been doing it for the last year and a half.
[1:54:53] And we, again, not going to continue to allow that to happen.
[1:54:57] No president has a right to just violate the United States Constitution.
[1:55:03] And no member of this committee does that.
[1:55:05] But the administration is doing it regularly.
[1:55:08] With that, our time is concluded.
[1:55:10] I'd like to thank Director Boat for being here today.
[1:55:12] There may be some members who'd like to submit more questions for the record.
[1:55:15] Please submit any questions for the record to the subcommittee staff.
[1:55:18] Within seven days, this subcommittee stands adjourned.
[1:55:21] Back in 1985, when I think when we really got this airport going, all the environmental studies were done to try to determine what