CSPAN - White House Budget Director Testifies on 2026 Budget Request

All Episodes

Previous Next

Plain Text

June 7, 2025 13:04-15:04 - CSPAN

01:59:48

White House Budget Director Testifies on 2026 Budget Request

Source

Participants

Main

glenn ivey

rep/d 07:26

rosa delauro

rep/d 16:33

russ vought

39:15

steny hoyer

rep/d 09:22

Appearances

ashley hinson

rep/r 03:13

chuck edwards

rep/r 03:30

mark alford

rep/r 03:33

steve womack

rep/r 04:05

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
OMB's Central Role 00:04:27
unidentified		Democracy Unfiltered.
		We're funded by these television companies and more, including Buckeye Broadband.
		Buckeye Broadband supports C-SPAN as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy.
		The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the Trump tax and spending bill will add $2.4 trillion to the deficit and leave millions of people without health insurance.
		White House Budget Director Russell Vogt was on Capitol Hill testifying about the President's 2026 budget request and was asked about those CBO projections.
		He was also asked about cuts to various programs such as Medicaid and emergency funding for AIDS relief.
		This House Appropriations Subcommittee hearing is almost two hours.
		The Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government will come to order.
		This hearing is titled a budget hearing of the Office of Management and Budget.
		Members will have five legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material into the record.
		I now recognize myself for an opening statement.
		I'd like to thank Director Vogt for being here today.
		The Office of Management and Budget, or OMB, plays a central role in most of the decisions made in the executive branch, particularly as it relates to the federal budget.
		It's also important to remember that OMB is an office created by Congress.
		In 1921, the Congress passed the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, which created the Bureau of Budget under the Department of Treasury.
		Later in 1939, in the Reorganization Act of 39, the Bureau was relocated to the newly created Executive Office of the President.
		And in 1970, Congress approved the Bureau's renaming to the Office of Management and Budget.
		I mention this history because OMB plays a unique role both as an office created by Congress and one that has been and continues to be responsible for fulfilling the president's policies.
		In fact, over the last 100-plus days, OMB has played a central role, not just in the reconciliation negotiations or recent budget submission, but in the reshaping of the federal government.
		As of May 27th, 157 executive orders, 39 memoranda, and 62 proclamations have been signed by the President.
		OMB plays a critical role in each of these decisions.
		But as appropriators of the federal government, we need to work with OMB to ensure that funds are being used as Congress intended.
		That is why the President's budget is so important.
		This is a guide to helping Congress understand the agency priorities and how the legislative and executive branch can work together to deploy the resources necessary to execute these priorities.
		Last Friday, federal agencies, including the Executive Office of the President, sent up their budget request for fiscal year 2026.
		OMB is requesting $146.1 million for the next fiscal year, a 13.3% increase above its FY 2025 enacted level.
		I look forward to discussing OMB's FY 2026 request with you today, Director, and how we can work together to ensure agencies have the resources they need to work on our priorities for our constituents and the public at large.
		I now recognize the ranking member for his opening statement.
steny hoyer ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Chairman, Mr. Director, candidly, Director Bog, I think your agenda is a danger to our country, our Constitution, our people, and one that marginalizes the Congress and Article I to establish an imperial presidency.
Bureaucrats Under Trauma 00:04:26
steny hoyer ▲ ● ▼		That's exactly the opposite of what our founders had in mind.
		What this administration has done under your direction mirrors what you did during Trump's first term, what you wrote in your Project 2025 chapter, and what you said in a 23 speech 2023 to members of the MAGA Right.
		You had it quoted to you many times.
		As you probably know, I represent over 70,000 federal employees.
		A highly offensive statement.
		We want the bureaucrats, which is so often used as an epithet, not a descriptor, to be traumatically affected.
		When they wake up in the morning, we want them to not want to go to work because they are increasingly viewed as villains.
		We want their funding to be shut down.
		Were the thousands of doctors, scientists, and cancer researchers Doge fired from NIH villains?
		The more than 800 employees Doge dismissed from NOAA, people who take track hurricanes and protect Americans from storms, were they deep state agendas?
		What about the food inspectors, intelligence officers, national park rangers, first responders, and countless others purged by this administration?
		They're just patriotic Americans trying to serve their country.
		All received an email seeking their decision to leave the Federal Service.
		2.00 of them.
		What sort of message does that send?
		I think of a Marylander named Caitlin, who worked at the Center for Medical and Medicaid Innovation.
		After spending weeks agonizing over whether Doge would fire her, she died of suicide back in February.
		I think of another Marylander, Monique, who worked for the Social Security Administration.
		She was forced to pick up more work as many of her colleagues took the buyout or were fired by Doge.
		The stress grew and grew until, sitting at her desk in February, she died of a heart attack.
		Her friends and family are certain it was triggered by the stress she was under at work.
		No business on earth could treat employees like this and expect efficiency to improve or their enterprise to succeed.
		There is no doubt efficiency has gone down.
		Backlogs have grown at the Social Security Administration, the VA, and other agencies.
		Federal employees now have to spend hours filling out paperwork just to order basic office supplies, something that used to take minutes.
		One of the first things OMB did after Trump took office was pause all federal loans and grants that froze thousands of infrastructure projects that were already under construction across the country, an action taken with no regard or no awareness perhaps of the consequences of those actions.
		The Trump administration has traumatized Americans, not just federal employees, reduced efficiency, broken the law, and trampled on Congress's authority.
		And for what?
		We have every indication that Doge will cost taxpayers more than it's going to save.
		Director Bog, you're going to play an even larger role in these efforts now that Elon Musk is reportedly leaving.
		This committee isn't going to ask you to summarize your work in five bullet points or write essays to pass a loyalty test.
		We expect you to address the concerns of the American people.
		They have questions.
Living Legal Fiction 00:09:47
steny hoyer ▲ ● ▼		I have questions.
		We owe them answers.
		Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
unidentified		Thank you, Mr. Hoyer.
unidentified		I now recognize the ranking member of the full committee, Ranking Member DeLaurel, for her opening remarks.
rosa delauro ▲ ● ▼		Thank you.
		Thank you, Chairman Joyce, and thank you, Ranking Member Hoyer, for holding this vital hearing.
		Director Vogt, good afternoon.
		Welcome back to the House Appropriations Committee, and I thank you for appearing before us today.
		The Office of Management and Budget is perhaps the most critical agency that most people have never heard of.
		I know you know this well, Mr. Vogt, but that is no excuse to thwart and otherwise ignore the law.
		In the United States of America, if you disagree with a law, you have every right to urge that that law be changed.
		You can petition or meet with lawmakers, and you can wage a campaign in the court of public opinion.
		You can run to become a lawmaker yourself.
		What disagreement with the law does not confer is license to ignore the law, to flagrantly violate the law, and to act as though you are completely above the law.
		This administration, instead of being laser-focused on the cost of living crisis, it is actually making that cost of living crisis worse.
		And it has put billionaires in charge of the government and has filled the ranks of civil servants with political allies.
		For the sake of eliminating accountability and cutting taxes for billionaires, this administration is unlawfully impounding or stealing funds and dismantling agencies, depriving the American people of the programs and services which Congress has created, authorized, and appropriated funds for.
		You posit yourself a defender of everyday Americans and a champion for restoring an imagined version of America you consider morally and virtuously superior to the country we actually live in.
		I do not believe your actions, which are inflicting direct harm on the people you claim to support, is in any way reflective of righteous values or of America's constitutional tradition.
		You support autocracy, not restrained or limited government.
		You have shown nothing but utter disregard and disrespect for this committee, for Congress as a whole, and for the laws that we have enacted.
		When the President named you to retake this position, he said that you would, quote, return self-governance to the people, end quote.
		Yet, you have demonstrated contempt for American taxpayers by gleefully ignoring lawful requirements to provide them and their elected representatives in Congress the most basic information as to how their tax dollars are being spent.
		During your current tenure, the President has yet to submit a full budget.
		When it finally arrives, you will have led the most delayed presidential transition for any OMB in history.
		Despite your shortcomings at ONB, you fashion yourself the acting head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
		You have been very busy there, but so far your biggest achievement has been increasing at least 45 million Americans' credit card bills by hundreds of dollars annually by reinstating predatory fees.
		You have ignored requests from this Congress for information.
		You stood up the Republican leadership of this committee, several of whom are here today.
		And you have mocked the Government Accountability Office for affirming what everyone in this room understands to be true.
		You are unlawfully impounding or stealing congressionally appropriated funds.
		Director Vogt, the Constitution confers the power of the purse, the power to make appropriations in law, to the Congress.
		It is right there.
		It's Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7.
		The courts have repeatedly ruled that there is no inherent authority for the President to impound funds.
		The late Justice Antonin Scalier, not a liberal torchbearer, proudly proclaimed as much in reference to the Supreme Court's decision in Train versus City of New York.
		Justice Kavanaugh, then for the D.C. Circuit, wrote, and I quote, even the President does not have unilateral authority to refuse to spend.
		And Chief Justice Roberts, during his time at the White House Counsel's Office, stated, and I quote, no area seems more clearly the province of Congress than the power of the purse.
		Let me just go back to our founding fathers on Congress's power of the purse, to Alexander Hamilton, and I quote, where the purse is lodged in one branch and the sword in another, there can be no danger.
		You are not just on thin legal footing, Director Vogt.
		You are living in a legal and historical fiction.
		You envision a king unbound by laws who rules by decree, who accepts lavish gifts from foreign governments, who fills public offices with ultra-wealthy and political allies, and who expels opposition and crushes dissent.
		This view of presidential authority could not be more un-American and more dangerous to our constitutional order.
		You contend that there are over 200 years of historical practice to support your position.
		This is a lie and fiction.
		I have reviewed your pseudo-history, and nearly every instance you claim supports your position of a President King unbound by the American system of checks and balances is either irrelevant or an exercise of discretion explicitly granted by the Congress in law.
		Presidential impoundment power is a myth.
		You do not just have to take my word for it.
		The Constitution, the courts, Government Accountability Office, and the American history would tell us you are breaking the law.
		Through the OMB funding freeze, which touched communities nationwide, you have attempted to seize control of the government and impound funds far beyond what is permitted by law.
		And in venues across the country, the courts have broadly, unequivocally told you, quote, no, you do not have the authority.
		You cannot unfreeze unilaterally funding across the government that has been appropriated by the Congress.
		The courts are making clear that you grossly overstepped your authority.
		You have had your day in court, and the courts have rebuked you.
		They have said no, no, and no.
		None of this is surprising.
		Project 2025, which you co-authored, laid out your blueprint for concentrating absolute power, not just in the White House, but in your own hands.
		Your colleagues, secretaries, and heads of major agencies have testified before us in the last several weeks to exactly this point.
		Your office has promoted your own goals over and above the people President Trump has handpicked to run his administration.
		You have also said that you want to traumatize Federal employees, civil servants, as if inflicting trauma and creating a culture of fear and doubt will somehow make this government more efficient.
		Mr. Vogt, be honest.
		This is never about government efficiency.
		In fact, an efficient government, a government that capably serves the American people and proves good government is achievable, is what you fear the most.
		You want a government so broken, so dysfunctional, so starved of resources, so full of incompetent political lackeys and bereft of experts and professionals that its departments and agencies cannot feasibly achieve the goals and the missions to which they are lawfully directed.
		Your goal is privatization, for the biggest companies to have unchecked power for an economy that does not work for the middle class, for working and vulnerable families.
		You want the American people to have no one to turn to but to the billionaires and the corporation this administration has put in charge.
		Waste, fraud, and abuse are not the targets of this administration.
		They are your primary objectives.
	I thank you, and I thank the chair for his indulgence, and we look forward to your testimony.
	I yield back.
unidentified		I thank you, Ranking Member DeLauro, yielding back the three and a half minutes who went over.
		But that's that for your indulgence.
		Today, we welcome the testimony of the Honorable Russ Boat, Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
		Director Boat, without objection, your written testimony will be entered into the record.
		With that in mind, we'd ask you to please summarize your opening statement in five minutes.
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		Thank you, Chairman Joyce, Ranking Member Hoyer, for inviting me to testify today.
		Over the past four months, the Office of Management and Budget, or OMB, has worked tirelessly to deliver on President Trump's promise of a Federal government that works for the American people, not bureaucrats and the entrenched establishment.
		Under the previous Administration, government spending aggressively turned against our citizens who saw their tax dollars used to fund cultural Marxism, the Green New scam, foreign projects unaligned with American interests, and even our own invasion.
Unavoidable Costs in Border Security 00:06:55
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		Every agency became a tool of the left.
		Under President Trump, those days are over.
		The President's fiscal year 26 budget, in tandem with the One Big Beautiful Bill and other tools this Administration has at its disposal, will finally end the era of unchecked Federal spending, stop the weaponization of government, and turbocharge economic growth.
		The fiscal year 26 budget puts American citizens first and shifts the destructive paradigm that ruled Washington for decades, that we could only fund national security and border security if we massively funded woken weaponized bureaucracy coveted by the left.
		The President's budget reduces non-defense spending by $163 billion, 22 percent below current year levels and the lowest non-defense spending since 2017 if adjusted for inflation, all while we protect funding for national defense, homeland security, veterans, seniors, law enforcement, and infrastructure.
		Over 10 years, such restraint would generate trillions in savings necessary for delivering on the President's goal of balancing the budget.
		The budget also incorporates the historic increases for defense and border security that will be provided by the One Big Beautiful bill currently making its way through Congress.
		In combination with base appropriations, the bill is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to revolutionize our Nation's defense capabilities and protect our American sovereignty, providing the first ever trillion-dollar defense budget and the single largest investment in border security in our Nation's history.
		The bill also improves our fiscal trajectory by reducing mandatory spending, as confirmed today by CBO, by roughly $1.7 trillion, the largest mandatory spending reduction in history, ending waste for our own abuse and preserving critical programs.
		Along with the extension of President Trump's 2017 tax cuts and the new tax policies provided for additional relief to working and middle-class families and our seniors, the bill will drive massive economic growth and raise GDP, increasing wealth across the board.
		OMB's fiscal year 26 budget request as an agency is critical to supporting this comprehensive fiscal strategy.
		The full request is $155.776 for OMB.
		OMB, as you all know, is a personnel-intensive agency.
		We are only asking for 20 additional FTEs, which would bring us from 500 employees to 520 and an additional two FTEs in one of our offices funded through the ITOR account.
		I will note that OMB's request is substantially below the increase requested by the legislative branch's GAO.
		OMB's funding has remained essentially flat since fiscal year 23.
		By contrast, under GAO's request for fiscal year 26, the agency would receive an overall increase of 17 percent over three years.
		As I have said many times, the civil servants at OMB are among the most resourceful and innovative our country has to offer.
		They are not only of great value to the taxpayer, but the whole nation.
		OMB has been hard at work crafting the President's budget, implementing this Administration's fiscal goals, and accomplishing the largest deregulatory agenda in our Nation's history.
		With the President's budget, the one big beautiful bill, historic tariff revenue, and the recently transmitted $9.4 billion rescissions package, our deregulatory efforts and other key tools, this Administration is implementing a comprehensive strategy to improve the Nation's fiscal state.
		Only the Washington, D.C. that benefits from the status quo Americans know that instinctively, they elected President Donald Trump to fix it, and the task ahead of us is great.
		But this Administration, including OMB, is committed to working hand in hand with our partners in Congress, this committee, to finally deliver for the American people.
		I look forward to answering your questions.
unidentified		Thank you very much for your opening statement.
		I now would recognize myself for five minutes, but as I ask for all, we would try to make sure we stay on the five-minute timeline so everyone here has an opportunity to ask their questions and get them answered.
		And possibility that exists then to get to round two will certainly allow for at least a second round lightning of a question each.
		To get there, we have a hard stop of 410.
		Okay?
		Director Vogt.
		In the President's fiscal year 2026 budget request, OMB is requesting what you had just said, a 13.3 percent or $17.1 million increase for the fiscal year 2026.
		This increased funding would support, quote, unavoidable costs in investing in OMB's workforce, among other priorities.
		Would you explain what those unavoidable costs are and why OMB needs to restore staffing levels that were previously reduced?
		And why is OMB's need for more staff different than staffing needs in any other agency?
		Sure.
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
		I think the reality is we have held constant for many, many years at the 500 level, even though the size of government has increased.
		And so when I was in the position in the first term, I had the view that OMB should reduce its headcount.
		And the challenge that we found when we did that, when we pursued budgets that did not prioritize the analysis that OMB needs to do, you find yourselves in a situation where some of your key resource management offices are having to analyze programs and agencies that are growing exponentially larger.
		Just to give you an example, our previous resource management organization for national security had the veterans, it had all state and foreign aid, it had the entirety of the Defense Department, it had the entire intelligence community.
		And if you look at it compared to across the agency, you didn't have enough analysts to be able to do the job.
		Similarly, we are being asked to do quite amount of work with regard to the President's deregulatory initiatives.
		And that continue to be a priority through OWIRA.
		That is one of the reasons we are going to need additional FTEs when it comes to being able to staff that up, not unlike what you would see with our increases for border security or USTR with the work that the President is doing to get more rational trade deals on the books.
		So in terms of unavoidable cost, just because you have the same amount of staff doesn't mean that you don't have things like tech support and the work that is required to keep all of our systems up and running.
Establishing USDS: Decentralized Leadership 00:02:58
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		And there's a lot of expenses that goes with it.
		But I truly believe, and I think you all believe this too, because of the resources that you have given to GAO, that it is paramount to have enough analysts that can grapple with the size and scope of the Federal Government.
		And I think that pound for pound, an OMB career FTE, is one of the most important from a standpoint of being able to address that need to be able to deal with our fiscal health as a country and get cost benefit analysis and a regulatory framework that makes sense for the country.
unidentified		I want to focus on Executive Order No. 14158, issued on January 20, 25, is titled Establishing and Implementing the President's Department of Government Efficiency.
		Executive Order establishes the United States Doge Service or USDS and within the reorganized USDS, a U.S. Doge temporary organization that is authorized through the 4th of July of next year.
		Who is the administrator of the DOGE service and who is the administrator of the U.S. Doge temporary service and who do they report to?
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		The U.S. Doge Service was the former USDS, U.S. digital service that was housed within OMB.
		With that EO, it was moved out of OMB into the executive office of the President as a standalone office reporting to the Chief of Staff.
		It has been led by Steve Davis, and we are in the midst of with the last week or so of establishing the leadership on an ongoing basis.
		But I think the vision for Doge is in addition to having some of the consulting work that they have done continue in the EOP, and that is one of the reasons we have a request as part of the ITOR account, is that DOGE would go and be far more institutionalized at the actual agency.
		So many Doge employees and FTEs are at the agencies working almost as in-house consultants as a part of the agency's leadership.
		And I think the leadership of DOGE is now much more decentralized.
		It is the agency heads, and it has been for some time.
		The President has always said from day one, agency heads are in charge of their departments, and they were benefiting from the consulting that Doge was doing along the lines, and now that is much more pronounced.
unidentified		I appreciate that there are many jurisdictions involved in Doge's work, but OMB is front and center here, including in the subsequent Doge EOs responsible for reorganizing the Federal workforce, including hiring practices, EO 14170, Federal hiring, and EO 14210, the Federal workforce.
Referring to a Suggestion? 00:06:21
unidentified		And so I realize that I am about to run out of time, so you might talk about that on the second round.
		Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member Hoyer for any questions he may have.
		Mr. Director, OMB submits a request of budget.
steny hoyer ▲ ● ▼		Congress passes the budget.
steny hoyer ▲ ● ▼		Do you consider the budget that Congress passes to be a suggestion or a directive?
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		We believe it is a proposal for Congress to consider.
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		We propose, and you obviously take it as a policy proposal and send it through your appropriations process.
steny hoyer ▲ ● ▼		Question, Director, once we pass that back to you, do you take it as a suggestion or a directive?
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		It is a directive.
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		We believe it is important for the congressional appropriations process to give us the levels as consistent with the power of the purse to set levels by which we can't go above.
steny hoyer ▲ ● ▼		And therefore, you consider it a ceiling?
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		We do believe it is a ceiling.
steny hoyer ▲ ● ▼		So we send you a budget and say spend $100 on X objective.
		You can spend anywhere between $1 and $99 or $100.
		Is that accurate from your perspective?
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		No, I don't think it is accurate from my perspective.
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		I think it's much more similar to if you've asked us to perform a function and you've given us $100 million and if we can perform it for $80 million, there is given the system as to whether we are required constitutionally, we don't believe that we are, to push every last dollar out the door and lead to use it or lose it situations where we are creating waste, foreign abuse at the agencies.
steny hoyer ▲ ● ▼		And the Congress made provision for that.
		It is called a rescission.
		Is that accurate?
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		There is one tool that Congress is one of many tools that Congress has given to deal with that scenario.
steny hoyer ▲ ● ▼		The other tool is the unilateral judgment of the President of the United States and or yourself not to spend?
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		No.
		No, I was actually referring under the ICA to normal rescissions, deferrals, pocket rescues.
		There are all manner of provisions in the ICA, in addition to just the agency doing the work that it does programmatically to review whether the spending that Congress has appropriated to an agency within the consistent with the law, authorizing committees, is there and can be done consistent with the President's views as he was elected on behalf of the American people.
steny hoyer ▲ ● ▼		Thank you.
steny hoyer ▲ ● ▼		Do you believe you have traumatized the people at OMB?
unidentified		No, I don't.
steny hoyer ▲ ● ▼		So, notwithstanding that, did they also get the letter set to 2 plus million people?
		They did.
		Was a judgment made as to how many of the people at OMB were absolutely necessary to do the job you now want to expand?
unidentified		No, and in fact, no judgment was made on that.
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		So, as it pertains to the letter that you are referring to, it went out.
		I believe it went out before I was in office as the director, and I don't think we lost very few at all.
		And my hope was that we wouldn't lose anyone from the deferred.
steny hoyer ▲ ● ▼		But you lost a substantial amount throughout the government service without any understanding of how critical their work was to the task at hand.
steny hoyer ▲ ● ▼		Is that accurate?
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		Well, again, it was based on their choice.
unidentified		Is that accurate?
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		I don't think it actually is accurate because the decision was made to give the employees the chance to make that determination.
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		I don't think it was done lightly, and I think those employees thought long and hard about whether it made sense.
steny hoyer ▲ ● ▼		I agree, it wasn't done lightly.
		Obviously, it was considered blitz-krieg on the entire Federal Government.
		But nobody knew whether or not critically important people were going to take that or not.
		Isn't that accurate?
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		Well, I think it is important to reflect that we don't ask employees to be in these positions and locked into these positions.
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		There is no reason that they would have had to take that opportunity, and it is something that was not in any way compelled upon them.
steny hoyer ▲ ● ▼		Of course it wasn't compelled, but nor did you have or Mr. Musk have or his people any knowledge of who would take it and who didn't.
		And therefore it was simply across the board which could have cost, let's say everybody said yes.
		Now, probably everybody wouldn't have said yes, but that would have been a cataclysmic event for the United States.
		Do you believe this is the way people should be treated?
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		I think all employees, political and career, should be treated with respect and dignity and to have that reflected through all of our employment processes.
steny hoyer ▲ ● ▼		People just heard the law.
		The people who just left obviously don't share that view.
		They are all people who were removed involuntarily, one way or another.
		They were traumatized.
		So you accomplished your objective, which I think personally is not an objective that either any personnel manager should be very proud of.
		How many people are in the administrative leave are being paid not to work?
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		Congressman, I just would push back on your characterization.
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		It has never been my desire to traumatize individuals or workers at Federal League.
steny hoyer ▲ ● ▼		Why did you say that?
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		Because you didn't actually listen to the entirety in the context of what I said.
		I was referring specifically to bureaucracies that are weaponized against the American people.
		So do I believe that at the NIH or the OMB or VA, that across the Federal Government, NOAA, that there aren't career individuals that are doing incredible work and are great public servants.
		But the notion that we don't have weaponized bureaucracies, and we saw this in the last administration, that are aimed at parts of our own citizenship.
unidentified		The chair now recognizes Mr. Womack for any questions he may have.
steny hoyer ▲ ● ▼		My friend yield for 30 seconds.
Top-Line Numbers Matter 00:15:50
unidentified		I think the gentleman, we will have another round.
steve womack ▲ ● ▼		You can pick up on that line of questioning then, because we all have questions to ask.
		And I am going to start with this one.
		Director Vogt, good to see you again.
		We have worked on many occasions together.
		This is an appropriations hearing, and appropriations is driven by what we call top-line numbers, 302As and then 302Bs that flow down to the various subcommittees.
		But it begins with a budget.
		Where is the budget?
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		Well, it is great to see you again.
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		We believe you have the budget.
steve womack ▲ ● ▼		We have a skinny budget.
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		You have the skinny budget, the discretionary budget in full, allows you to get the appropriations process moving forward.
		Our approach with regard to the rest of what you would see in a fully comprehensive budget is that we have been focused on reconciliation.
		And so every aspect of what we have been trying to do has been to further that bill, to get it to the President's desk, and then we will come along afterwards with any supplementary information proposals, deficit pictures.
		But we thought it would, at the end of the day, confuse the Congress and confuse the American people to have two sets of proposals, two sets of numbers, and that is one of the reasons that we are focusing on reconciliation.
		Understand the job that you have had to do, and we wanted to get you material as soon as we possibly could.
		Worked with Chairman Cole as early and often as I could.
		Have not actually not come and talked with the Cardinals at every opportunity.
		We very much want to work with this committee.
steve womack ▲ ● ▼		So I think we all have a shared goal of putting the fiscal house of this nation in order.
		I certainly do, and I have been working toward that, albeit unsuccessfully, since I chaired the Joint Select Committee on Budget Process Reform, and we can come back to that if I have time.
		But the total outlays of the Federal Government in general, for those that are watching this hearing, that are going to read excerpts from this hearing, what are the total outlays of this Nation?
		$7 trillion, around $7 trillion.
		And we are going to receive income in various forms to the amount of about what?
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		$5 trillion.
steve womack ▲ ● ▼		About $5 trillion.
		A little less than $7 trillion, a little less than $5 trillion, maybe thereabouts when we look at the 25 numbers.
		But the last set of numbers we have is, I think, in 2024.
		Of that $7 trillion in outlays, how much of that is actually under the purview of this committee?
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		About a third.
steve womack ▲ ● ▼		About a third.
		So we are looking at about a 30 to 33, 34, 35 percent slice of that Federal, but the rest of it is what we call mandatory spending.
		Is that right?
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		Correct.
steve womack ▲ ● ▼		And how is mandatory spending broken down?
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		Mandatory spending is broken down on all of the programs that are set in law.
		And so they are not, with very few exceptions, that go through your committee like food stamps or Medicaid that are considered appropriated entitlements.
		The authorizers set the law, and the people who are benefiting from those laws can come to the Federal agencies and receive their benefits.
steve womack ▲ ● ▼		So only Congress can really change that through its lawmaking process, is that correct?
steve womack ▲ ● ▼		And of that roughly $5 trillion of mandatory spending thereabouts, how much of that is the net interest on the debt?
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		Net interest on the debt is about $1 trillion now.
		It has exceeded defense when we left office.
		Unfortunately, it was only $300 billion, still far too high.
		But in the last four years, we have gone from about $350 billion in annual net interest, and now we are upwards of $1 trillion.
steve womack ▲ ● ▼		It is because we have a debt of about $37-ish trillion dollars, right?
		What would like a 50 basis point move in the interest rate, and I would suspect that that is very prospectful, given the fact that we were just downgraded by the third rating agency.
		What would that do to the net interest on a $37 trillion debt if we moved like 50 basis points?
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		We are probably talking about a trillion-dollar swing there.
steve womack ▲ ● ▼		When are we going to deal with mandatory spending?
		And I am not talking about cuts.
		I am talking about sustainability, because we have all said, and we have pretty much all agreed, that we want to make sure that we honor the promises that we have made to older Americans and vulnerable Americans.
		But right now, the effort is only on the discretionary budget of the U.S. Government.
		That is about 33 percent of total spending.
		So at what point in time will we see a plan and a strategy for which we really go after and fix the largest share of the Federal spending that is the crux of the national deficit that we have today?
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		We believe that we are doing that with this bill that you have passed out of the House.
		And one of the reasons we are so excited about it is that for the first time since 1990s, we are talking about trillions of dollars with regard to mandatory savers.
		$1.7 trillion now is an enormous opportunity and first step along the lines of what you are talking about and what we have proposed in budgets before.
		So I think it is, for those who are saying, where are the Doge cuts, that is not a reconciliation thing.
		For those that are saying where are the mandatory reforms, that is in that bill, and we believe it's the first major conversation like this we've had since the 1990s.
		We will have more proposals as we go forward.
		You know, the President wants to have a balanced budget.
		Three out of our four budgets in the first term were aimed at budget, had that as a goal, and we had large mandatory savers in those budgets that were consistent with the President's promises to protect Social Security and Medicare, and we will continue to have reforms along those lines.
steve womack ▲ ● ▼		Thank you very much.
steve womack ▲ ● ▼		I yield.
unidentified		The Chair now recognizes Ms. DeLauro, ranking member of the full committee, for five minutes.
rosa delauro ▲ ● ▼		Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
		And just very quickly, we really do not have a budget.
		What you sent covers this year.
		There's not no 10-year budget.
		There really isn't any vision for the future at all of what you've sent up.
		Director Vogt, after an appropriation is enacted, the first thing that happens is before an agency can deliver the promises to the American people is OMB has to make funding available through a legally binding decision known as an apportionment.
		In essence, you are the first and sometimes biggest bureaucratic hurdle that stands between American taxpayers and the services, support, and protections they have promised in spending laws.
		And for over 100 years, apportionments were secret.
		Reiterate, these decisions were effectively laws that you and your also unelected predecessors made whenever you liked without accountability or transparency.
		I fought on a bipartisan basis, bicameral basis, alongside members of this subcommittee for four years to change that.
		We enacted simple transparency requirements because this committee and the Congress need information to effectively legislate.
		Independent watchdog organizations deserve the information to help the American public understand how your decisions affect their lives.
		Three, most importantly, the American taxpayers are entitled to see how you, your predecessors, and every OMB director, how you come, how you are spending their money.
		My question is, you do not think, Director Vogt, that Congress deserves to know how you carry out the laws that we enact.
		You do not believe that American taxpayers deserve to see how you spend their money.
		Do you?
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		No, I don't think that characterization is true.
		We do.
		It's one of the reasons we come up to the Hill and testify and we explain our decisions.
		We believe that apportionments are legally binding, but not final agency actions, and that it is part of a predecisional, deliberative process on behalf of the executive branch to be able to manage agencies and the programs they're in.
		And what we found in the last four years in which the law that you worked hard to put into place that we have constitutional concerns about is that it actually degraded the oversight responsibilities that OMB had.
		In that the people would actually change.
rosa delauro ▲ ● ▼		Excuse me, Mr. Director, because my time is running out.
		You know, in all fairness, I had this debate and discussion.
		I'm not just having it with you.
		I had a debate and discussion on this with your predecessor and others with the same argument and so forth.
		The American people, the Congress who legislate, enacts the laws, has to have the ability to understand what you're spending, how you're doing it, at what intervals, and so forth.
		And also, let me just say, this requirement, as I say, was debated for four years, including with you specifically during your prior tenure as OMB director.
		Your predecessor did comply with the law for over two years, and you followed this law for two months.
		What happened?
		Why did the website come down?
		Why do we not know what is happening?
		Why are we going back to those days of secret decisions being made by you and whomever else in terms of the spending of the dollars that we constitutionally enact here when we put these bills into law with congressionally directed resources that serve the American people?
		Tell me what happened.
		Why did you change what you were doing for two months or what your predecessor was doing over the last couple of years?
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		Well, we had constitutional concerns with the provision.
		We had a veto threat against this provision in the first term.
		If it was presented while the President was still in office, I expect you would have had a signing statement that said, not unlike our letter to the committee, not unlike the DOJ's letter to the committee, we have constitutional concerns with it.
		And it's something that degraded our ability to manage taxpayer resources and do the very rest.
rosa delauro ▲ ● ▼		With all due respect, I think the level of your honesty on your claims really shines through on this topic.
		And there probably isn't much more point in discussing it.
		But that goes at the very fact you make up constitutional issues where the constitutional, the Constitution places that power of the purse within this body and within an appropriations committee.
		Historically, it is there, but you make a decision as to what you want to do, what you think is constitution or not constitution, without any basis in fact, thereby pulling down that website that allows us to see what you are doing.
		And we have no way of knowing if you are carrying out what we have lawfully, lawfully required the executive branch to do.
		That is our responsibility, and your responsibility is to carry out what it is that we have appropriated here.
		You just can't pick and choose whatever the hell you want and going forward.
		And I yield back the balance of my time.
unidentified		Chair now recognizes Mrs. Henson for her five minutes of questions.
		Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to our ranking member for holding this hearing today.
		Director Vogt, thank you so much for coming to answer our questions.
ashley hinson ▲ ● ▼		It says a lot that you're here talking about the efficiencies that you're finding and the improvements you're making at OMB.
		This is really about taxpayer money and protecting the integrity of where those dollars go.
		And as you probably know, I've been very, very passionate about improper payments through OMB.
		We know from the numbers out of GAO that number is somewhere between $230 and $500-some billion dollars.
		I actually think it's probably higher than that, right?
		And when we look at the taxpayer money being disrespected in that way and people for years turning a blind eye to that in terms of fixing this problem.
		So I appreciate your candor and the effort by this administration to do that through the executive order from the President 14249 to protect America's bank account against waste, fraud and abuse.
		And I was proud to support this by introducing legislation here to codify the President's executive order to do exactly that, protecting American taxpayers from wasteful spending.
		One of the provisions of the order did direct OMB to work with Department of Treasury to establish pre-certification and pre-award procedures across the federal government.
		This is the breakdown in process that has led to this fraud and improper payments.
		Can you explain why those procedures were not in place before this executive order?
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		One of the things in this issue in general, and I'm sure you've been frustrated by it, is the extent to which this is all common sense and yet it never seems to happen.
		And I actually posed the question to our team this morning.
		Why did we see nothing before the Trump administration?
		And honestly, there just wasn't an interest in the previous administration.
		We are very thankful for the executive order.
		We are going to be taking our duties very, very seriously.
		We look forward to working with you on this.
		I think much of what Doge has identified is the extent to which the agencies have not been pinging the systems and the data sets that are there and can be there.
		And then we need to fight through whatever bureaucracies make an institutional argument for why whatever the grant agency is shouldn't be cross-checking it with the data that is available.
		So it will be a priority of ours, and we look forward to working with you on it.
ashley hinson ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, it certainly is a common sense thing to know where the money is going and what one hand knowing what the other hand is doing in that process.
unidentified		It's absolutely critical.
unidentified		Can you update us on the implementation?
ashley hinson ▲ ● ▼		You mentioned, you know, obviously you and I share that frustration that it wasn't in place before.
		And we do look forward to working with you, get you whatever resources you need to be able to implement this.
		Where do you stand in making some of these fundamental changes to protect?
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		We are working on government-wide guidance to agencies to implement the EO right now.
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		We are going through a policy process internally as to what that should include, and we will be back to you soon with details on that.
unidentified		Okay, looking forward to updates there.
ashley hinson ▲ ● ▼		And as we work to pass all 12 of these appropriations bills, hopefully before that September 30th deadline, can you ensure us that the days of not tracking where that money is going is over?
unidentified		You have a good eye and a good watch on it for taxes.
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		Yes, and we have got a number of statutory responsibilities also in terms of taxpayer right to know, statutes that have been passed to OMB.
		It's another response to the chairman in terms of the need for the FTEs: that often people want stuff to happen at OMB because they know it can get done, that we have tools to get the agencies to move forward.
		But therein is our need for the employees to be able to do that important work and to push through and make sure that we are living up to what you all have asked us to do.
Emphasizing OMB's Role 00:02:05
unidentified		Well, this certainly should be a bipartisan issue.
ashley hinson ▲ ● ▼		And I questioned your predecessor about this and former Secretary of the Treasury as well.
		And Secretary Besant was in here just a few weeks ago saying the same thing.
		He was incredulous that this was allowed to happen and go on.
		It should be a bipartisan issue, at least it was, I think, before President Trump started getting the credit for this.
		So we should be able to get behind policy that helps to fix this problem.
		What else are you doing at OMB to help prevent improper payments, hold agencies accountable for their spending?
		What does that process look like other than just issuing that guidance to other agencies?
unidentified		But where does the accountability come in there?
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		So one of the cultural aspects of what I've tried to emphasize at OMB is one OMB.
		And so I don't like the notion of you have a budget side of the House, a regulatory side of the House, and a management side of the House, because often everything gets stovepiped and you don't have the main interactors with the agencies that are benefiting from much of the work that you would find at the management side doing improper payments.
		So one of the things that we are doing, we had a meeting along these lines just yesterday about making sure that the people that work with the budget offices, the ones that are working regulatorily, are coming up with policies that actually help along these lines.
		So it's not just, hey, did you go through the right process and ping the right systems?
		We want there to actually people be getting credit for doing deregulatory activities that are also dealing with improper payments.
		We want there to be an emphasis on programmatically being rewarded for having the various budget offices and teams at the agencies being rewarded for this kind of activity.
		And I think that is the benefit of doing it at OMB, and I think that is what will inevitably be the success from it.
Congressional Concerns Over Budget Cuts 00:15:32
unidentified		Yeah, you have a wealth of knowledge.
		You should use it to your advantage going forward.
		Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
		I yield back.
		Thank you, the Chair.
		And I will recognize Mr. Polkin for five minutes.
		Great.
		Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Director Vogt, for being here.
		I think you said the President supports the big bill that was passed out of the House, correct?
		I think you also said the President does not support cutting Medicare?
steve womack ▲ ● ▼		Correct.
unidentified		Okay, so in the bill, there is a half a trillion dollar cut that gets triggered to Medicare.
		So I know a number of the people who voted for the bill are starting to read it now and finding there are parts they don't like.
		You might want to take a look at that provision.
		As you know, do you like having the defense?
		I didn't ask you the question, did I?
		I am asking you a question, though.
		Since we didn't have your remarks this morning, I think we got them this afternoon.
		You mentioned cultural Marxism.
		You did it in your comment.
		Could you please, in two or three sentences, define cultural Marxism?
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		Sure.
		It is a political theory that instead of dividing people on the basis of economic haves or haves-nots, that you are dividing people on the basis of race and identity.
		And it is an attempt that we have seen, unfortunately, in this country, culminating in CRT of dividing people on the race in our agencies.
unidentified		So your definition, Mr. Director, is different than the definition I am pulling up.
		First thing that pops up on here, it says cultural Marxism refers to a far-right, anti-Semitic conspiracy theory that misrepresents Western Marxism as being responsible for modern progressive movements, identity politics, and political correctness.
		That is the first definition that pops up here.
		It actually comes up a couple times on the first page on Google.
		You identify yourself as a Christian nationalist, correct?
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		Look, I am a Christian.
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		I don't think my faith should be a subject for this.
unidentified		No, I just asked you a simple question.
unidentified		Do you identify as a Christian nationalist?
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		No, my faith is one of an evangelical Christian faith.
unidentified		That is not here to debate that.
unidentified		I just saw someone.
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		You brought it up.
unidentified		Christian nationalist.
		No, I asked you if you were a Christian nationalist.
		You said you weren't, correct?
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		These are debates in the think tank world that we have about what it means to be a Christian nation.
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		It is not about what I do.
unidentified		Director, that's not the question I asked.
		I would like to talk about that.
		You support the efforts of Doge.
		You mentioned Steve Davis, and I know we talked about trying to bring the Directory of Doge in here, and that would be very helpful.
		Problem is, I just read he is also leaving with Elon Musk.
		So who is in charge of Doge?
		If the guy who is taking over after Elon Musk, who just left, he is leaving, sounds like this is a bit of a circus.
		Who is in charge of Doge?
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		The cabinet agencies that are in charge of the Doge consultants that work for them are fundamentally in control of Doge.
unidentified		Oh, that is an answer only a mother could love.
		All right.
		So you support the efforts of Doge, I understand.
		Is the Federal Government currently spending less this year than it did last year?
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		No, it is not.
unidentified		Right.
		And part of that is because you have sent us a rescission package worth $9 billion that goes after Big Bird and Cookie Monster, but you have added $200 billion to defense and Homeland Security.
		You have also, the bill that you just said the White House supports is going to add, depending who you talk to, $2.4 trillion to $5 trillion to the national debt.
		It is going to make somewhere between 11 and 16 million people lose their health care.
		I know you said on a Sunday morning show no one will lose coverage as a result of this bill.
		Is that still your standing?
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		Which one of those would you like me to take?
unidentified		The one I just asked.
		I will ask it again.
		I am sorry if I wasn't.
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		The bill does not lead to less coverage for Medicaid beneficiaries.
		It has improper payments.
		And it leads to the fact that people who are ineligible because they are illegal aliens or because they are unwilling to get Federal dollars for Medicaid, correct?
		That is not true.
		They get them in many different States, including California.
unidentified		Federal dollars?
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		Federal dollars.
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		Using providers?
unidentified		The State can provide it.
unidentified		Are there any Federal dollars?
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		Congressman.
unidentified		How many Federal dollars that you are the expert?
unidentified		How many Federal dollars go to funding illegal aliens getting Medicaid?
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		Congressman, because of the money.
unidentified		It's a question, it's a number.
		It's a question, it's a number.
		How many dollars go to illegal aliens, Federal dollars, for Medicaid?
		It is a serious question.
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		It is not actually a simple question because Congress.
unidentified		The Secretary is having a hard time with simple questions lately.
unidentified		I have to tell you, it is a simple.
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		It is close up simple.
unidentified		But you are saying that it is true.
		So we will, if you can get back to us with that amount, how does that sound?
		How much Federal dollars are going to be able to do it?
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		I am happy to get back to you about how the bill works in getting rid of the money laundering system.
unidentified		A lot of people disagree with you.
		The CBO disagrees with your analysis.
		Yale and Penn said 13.7 million people will lose health insurance.
		You also said this won't increase the debt.
		Is that correct?
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		It will not increase the debt.
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		It will lead to death.
unidentified		So there, if the Cato Institute disagrees with you, Moody's disagrees.
		The CBO disagrees.
		Senator Holly and Senator Rand and Senator Collins disagree.
		Elon Musk disagrees.
		Virtually everyone on this side of the aisle.
		So you're saying everyone is wrong, but you are the right one that this does not increase the debt?
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		I'm saying that all the watchdogs, including the Congressional Budget Office, use a skewed vision of a view of what the baseline is.
unidentified		They were less than a few percent wrong last time on your tax bill when they predicted it almost dead on.
		So you're saying this time there's significant changes and they don't know what's going on and only you do.
		Is that correct?
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		I'm suggesting, I'm stating that they use a baseline.
unidentified		You disagree with the Cato Institute?
		Yes.
		And Moody's?
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
unidentified		And Senator Hawley.
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		Senator Hawley has a view as to the Medicaid programs that we are working with to articulate why we believe that these reforms do not hurt the beneficiaries that are involved.
unidentified		I'm overtapping.
unidentified		Mr. Edwards.
chuck edwards ▲ ● ▼		Thank you, Mr. Chair.
		Mr. Vogue, thanks so much for being here, and I apologize for the badgering that you're getting.
		I would really have appreciated the opportunity to hear your thorough and complete answers, but we'll deal with that another time.
		I just have to editorialize a bit and thank you for the work that you're doing.
		I believe the reason that we hear the arguments from the other side is that you're doing exactly what the American people have demanded.
		The American people are fed up with seeing their tax dollars wasted up here in Washington, D.C. You're getting down to the core of that waste, fraud, and abuse.
		And they're angry about it.
		I can't believe how much time that they're spending to protect their right to waste American taxpayer dollars.
		I appreciate your courage to jump right into the middle of it, to defend your position, and to do what all of us were sent to do here in Washington, D.C. Thank you.
		What I see taking place is exactly what should take place.
		We have an administration now that's willing to really dig in and find out where the spending is going inside of federal agencies, making immediate changes.
		Change is uncomfortable often for people.
		I recognize that.
		But change is necessary right now.
		We all agree that we can't stay on the current spending trend.
		Let's also recognize that you're living up to your constitutional oath.
		You're making recommendations based off the things you see inside the administration that we can't see, that have been hidden from us for the last several years.
		And I interpret that you're going to be coming back to Congress saying, you made these decisions.
		We don't think that you need all this spending now, and then we're going to make a decision whether or not we should continue that.
		I don't see a constitutional issue.
		I think we're doing exactly what the American people ask us to do.
		So, that said, for years, the Congressional Budget Office has been touted as a nonpartisan agency, but there's a growing body of evidence showing that it regularly overestimates the benefits of Democratic policies while underestimating their costs.
		And it downplays the success of Republican initiatives such as President Trump's Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in 2017 while overestimating the cost.
		Coupled with the publicity, known democratic political affiliations among key CBO staff, this raises some serious questions about the agency's ability to impartially evaluate the cost of legislation.
		My first question is, how can OMB and Congress work together to ensure future budget and policy decisions are based on sound, objective data rather than politically motivated projections?
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		Thank you, Congressman.
		I think one of them is working together to properly frame the information that CBO has put out.
		I mean, I would not presume to give any advice as to how you all might govern CBO, but I would just say as to educating the public, we try to do that this afternoon very quickly about how they construct their baselines leads to a warped view on a bipartisan basis for the policies that you all are considering is a major problem.
		And both on the revenue side and on the tax side, there is often a lack of willingness to look at what might happen dynamically, not just on revenues, but even the fact that someone is not eligible for a program will be able to get additional care because they go to their private health insurance.
		I mean, that is the kind of analysis that CBO just does not do.
		And as a result, you get bad outcomes when you are having a public policy debate about it.
chuck edwards ▲ ● ▼		Thank you.
		Just a quick follow-up.
		Do you believe that the CBO's estimate of President Trump's one big, beautiful bill accurately represents the benefits that it will provide to the American people and the fiscal course correction that it will provide our nation?
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		No, I think it is fundamentally wrong.
		I stated that today it will lead to reduced deficits and debt of $1.4 trillion.
		It will reduce mandatory savings of $1.7 trillion.
		And I don't think the way they construct their baseline, not only does it give a fair shake to economic growth, but it fundamentally misreads the economic consequences of not extending current law tax relief.
		I mean, the degree to which we would have a recession or worse if the tax relief is not extended is something that they just fundamentally do not factor into their analysis.
chuck edwards ▲ ● ▼		Thank you for that clarification.
chuck edwards ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Chair, I yield.
unidentified		Thank you, Mr. Rivers.
		The Chair now recognizes Mrs. Gluzenkamp Perez for five minutes.
		Thank you, Chair.
		Thank you, Director Buck, for being here.
		I used to run, I has my own autorepair and machine shop.
		I will never forget having an OSHA inspector come to my shop and ask me if my AC machine was a welder.
		The divorce of theory from practice, respect for people who have done the work and who has the authority and the knowledge.
		My question to you is how are you adapting your staffing decisions to ensure that it is not just a Sterling resume who is in your office, but people who have done the work, respect for the trades?
		How many people do you have in your office who don't have a college degree?
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		I don't know the answer to that question.
		I come from a family of electricians, so that is my background.
		I have been very enthusiastic and excited about the policy proposals we had in the first term that I'm sure are working themselves through this one as well to ensure that we're not expecting people to have college degrees and sterling resumes that might show itself.
		But if someone can do the job, we want them at OMB as it pertains to our agency.
unidentified		One kind of theoretical question I have here is that I think Wendell Berry said that excellent worksmanship as with a breaking plow is destructive.
		Efficiency itself, it's not useful.
		It is efficiency towards what?
		It is about effectiveness.
		It is about a question of what are we trying to do here?
		What is the purpose of this bill?
		And my question to you is like all of this claims of pursuing efficiency, but the question is effectiveness.
		That is the true goal.
		How are you implementing what my community needs in these systems?
		And a lot of that, in my view, comes down to the question of procedural burden on civil servants.
		So if you are successful in your pursuits, we will soon have a much smaller field of civil servants.
		Who is going to reduce the procedural burden on those civil servants to pursue effectiveness?
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		Well, I think government efficiency is not meant to sum the totality of what you want from a Federal Government.
		I think it is meant to articulate an imbalance that we have seen in recent years and to correct for that imbalance.
		And so that's the partnership with whatever department or agency you are dealing with is they have been given responsibilities by Congress to go and perform functions on behalf of the American people.
		And the Department of Government Efficiency, and to OMB, to a large extent historically, is designed to make sure the work that they do is done in the best way possible.
		But I'm honestly, Congresswoman, I'm one of these people that encourages OMB not to ask the efficiency question first and foremost, but to ask both in serving the President or the laws that you all have given us, what is trying to be accomplished by this, and let's make sure we accomplish it and then let, and then you've earned the right to figure out how to do it most efficiently.
unidentified		Yeah, my concern is that right now it's a process of randomly scapegoating civil servants and not a pursuit of many of those people are exactly the people who could tell you what kind of bullshit paperwork they are putting up with.
unidentified		And so how to have not just a managerial class tell you what is appropriate, but actually the people who are doing the work who should be part of that process of pointing out what the unproductive proceduralism is.
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		I agree with you.
		I want to know what career staff thinks.
		It's a hallmark of my time at OMB.
		And I hate the paperwork that we often put on agencies to perform and do things that are not designed to actually lead to better outcomes.
		And so we have a deregulatory side for the agencies doing the work as it comes to GIPRA and other things on the management side.
unidentified		So I know you're, Christian, you might know the verse in Isaiah 5, verse 8 that says, woe to those who add farm to farm and house to house till they are the sole inhabitants of the land.
		This is, I think, I hope a sentiment that we share, but the presidential budget calls for a 10 percent reduction in the Federal Trade Commission's competition budget and a static budget for the Department of Justice Antitrust Division and reduction in the size of the workforce.
		So how will reducing the budget and staff of the antitrust agencies bring down the cost of living and ensure that small businesses like mine can compete on a fair level playing field without a regulatory mode or antitrust forces holding us down?
China's $2 Trillion Package 00:15:56
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		Look, we think it's a priority.
		We have given the Department of Justice and the FTC the resources that they have asked for.
		And we don't necessarily value everything by the dollar amount that it is given, but we do think it is important and it is something that our leadership there will continue to pursue.
unidentified		Thank you.
		I yield back.
		Thank you.
		Chair now recognizes Mr. Alford for his five minutes.
		Questions?
mark alford ▲ ● ▼		Well, thank you, Chair Joyce and Ranking Member Hoyer, and Mr. Delauro.
		Thank you for being here today.
		Director Vogt, thank you most of all.
		I appreciate the work you are doing to try to right the ship in America.
		And we are about to hit a reef if we don't do something with our spending.
		I do want to follow up on my colleague, Mr. Womack's questioning about the full budget.
		So you were saying we are not going to receive the full budget until after the reconciliation package is done, which at the earliest would be July 4th.
		Is that correct?
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		Correct.
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		We will be forthcoming with additional information to fill out the deficit picture and all of the additional information at that time.
mark alford ▲ ● ▼		I am new to this.
		I am new on appropriations.
		I am just kind of learning this process, but this really puts us up against the wall.
		I mean, we are having our MILCON VA markup tomorrow without a full budget.
		We have got to get all 12 of these out of committee, and we have got to get these passed on the House floor.
		We have got to get a lot done before our August end district work period.
		We don't need another CR, and we don't need a government shutdown.
		That will not be good for the President.
		It will not be good for Congress.
		It will not be good for America.
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		Let me clarify, Congress.
		You have everything you need for all of your markups.
		You do not just have high-level discretionary proposals that we were forthcoming with nearly a month ago.
		You have the full budget as it pertains to the appropriations process, and you have all of the information that is needed to be able to write those bills, particularly in the VA context where you are dealing with advanced appropriations.
		You have that material.
		Congressional budget justifications and the appendix went up last week and are continuing to flow.
		Where there is only some work that remains is on the defense side, and we are pushing DOD as fast as we can to get their remaining information up to the hill.
mark alford ▲ ● ▼		You bend, thank you for your support of the one big, beautiful bill.
		Of course, we too appreciate that.
		You have said that talking to critics, they have been relying on faulty CBO numbers for their criticism of the bill.
		Example, in 2017, the CBO was off with its projections of the TCGA by $1 trillion.
		What are the flaws in CBO scoring?
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		Well, other than the baselines that they use, which don't reflect or aren't comparable with how they treat spending.
		So, CBO assumes that spending will continue.
		All of your appropriations bills are assumed, not on an annual basis, which, of course, they are passed on, but they are assumed to continue with inflation over the life of the 10-year window.
		That is not the case with tax revenue.
		For the way that the law was written and the way that CBO operates, is that they judge an expiration date to be something that causes it to look like a new cost to taxpayers.
		That is one.
		And then, of course, they have had just historically undynamic assumptions with regard to tax policy and other policy moves therein.
mark alford ▲ ● ▼		I want to talk a little bit about the rescission package that you sent over, $9.4 billion package.
		Secretary Rubia was sitting in that seat two weeks ago before NSRP subcommittee.
		There have been 5,341 USAID awards that have been terminated, unobligated savings of $27.7 billion, yet your rescission package only includes $9.3 billion, I believe, for State and 408.
		Is that correct?
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		It is correct.
mark alford ▲ ● ▼		Are we going to see further rescission packages that will claw back this money?
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		Perhaps.
		We are very anxious to see the reception from a vote standpoint in the House and the Senate.
		We have had tremendous interactions with your committee, sitting down with the chairman, the subcommittee chairman, to make sure that the package, one of the reasons why it was took a little bit, it was constructed a long time ago, was we were having the conversations with this committee to make it so that it can be passed next week.
		If that goes well, I am less concerned about the House as I am in the Senate, and it is very important for it to pass.
		If it does, it will be worth the effort, and we will send up additional packages.
mark alford ▲ ● ▼		Last question.
		Part of the rescission package, the Global Health Program for $400 million, it says this proposal would eliminate only those programs that neither provide lifesaving treatment nor support American interests.
		Does this include PEPFAR, any money that is funding PEPFAR whatsoever?
unidentified		It does.
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		It has a cut to PEPFAR, but not to life saving treatment.
mark alford ▲ ● ▼		Let me just walk you through the- What about prevention, sir?
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		So the challenge we have in PEPFAR is that PEPFAR has been perceived as only life-saving treatment.
		But if you look, you have got $2.5 million for teaching young children how to make environmentally friendly reproductive health decisions.
		You have nearly $1 million for services for transgender people, sex workers, and their client and sexual networks in Nepal.
		You have $5.1 million to strengthen the resilience of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, and queer global movements.
		So even in an area like PEPFAR, and I did see some of the reaction from the Senate as to us including PEPFAR, we believe that it needs to be on the table.
		We can find waste, fraud, and abuse there that the American people would not support, and it's one of the reasons why it's in the package, but it will not lead to life-saving treatment being denied.
		That has been a hallmark of all President Trump's budgetary policies with regard to PEPFAR: if you are receiving care, you will continue to receive that care.
mark alford ▲ ● ▼		I am out of time.
		Thank you.
		I yield back.
unidentified		Thank you.
unidentified		Chair, now I recognize Mr. Ivey for his five minutes.
glenn ivey ▲ ● ▼		Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
		Good afternoon.
		I was shocked when I heard you say that all government employees should be treated with respect because that is absolutely not what I saw on the ground level.
		I mean, I saw people crying when they were coming out of USAID.
		I think they'd been given 15-minute intervals to retrieve their belongings.
		I talked to people who were probationary employees who had been given these mass emails that they are going to be terminated.
		They'd quit jobs and moved from other places, sold their houses to come do this work, in reasonable reliance often for the government to work for the Federal Government and desire to serve their country.
		And they were unceremoniously pushed out the door.
		And when you said, I know you want to know what career staff thinks, that was a shocker to me, too, because many of these people, when they were being forced out, were trying to call and find out what their status was, whether they were going to be able to come back to work or not, when they would be terminated, all of those things.
		And that still goes on.
		And they don't get the answers from you all.
		So I appreciate your view of what's going on, but you've got to know that it's entirely different from the standpoint of the people who are going through this.
		And I just want to focus on three quick areas where there's a potential impact.
		I mean, one thing you said that was interesting to me, you are going to ask for additional 20 positions, if I heard you correct, at OMB.
		It is a little ironic because you are slashing positions across the government and funding.
		But we had the FBI director testify here a few weeks ago, and he came in and said he has 1,100 vacancies, I think it is, and he needs 1,300 additional.
		I think we can all agree that the importance of public safety, and someone just mentioned fraud.
		Nobody ferrets it out better than the FBI.
		Yet the day after he testified here, he testified in the Senate and said, I don't need those positions after all.
		And then just one quick point on the fraud piece.
		I saw an FBI agent who runs the fraud division testify that between $500 and $700 million every year is stolen from the United States by our overseas adversaries and that they needed additional resources to track that down.
		But apparently you guys aren't going to give that to them.
		With respect to national security and the science piece of this, too, you know, the trauma quote has been read to you, and I heard your comment, you know, it was taken out of context.
		And I listened to that speech.
		I don't agree.
		I think it was consistent with what you were saying that day.
		But let's just assume for the moment that what you are saying there is really true.
		The bottom line is that the actions that you have taken since then reiterates the message that you are trying to traumatize these people and that you want to treat them like villains.
		And so what we have got going on right now on the science and tech piece that is rippling through NASA and other agencies where it is critical for us to have these science and tech folks, AI, the competition for quantum computing and the like, they think they are being forced out of these positions.
		They are starting to look to go to Europe.
		They are starting to look to go back to Korea or India or other places rather than staying here and doing the work.
		And I know from businesses in my district that they need people from overseas because we are not producing enough of them here in the United States.
		Yet we are narrowing the pipeline based on what you are doing with respect to cutting grants to help fund.
		We are narrowing the pipeline with respect to the impact you are having on the universities in science and tech.
		We are narrowing the pipeline with respect to the postdocs and other people doing the research and the government contractors who are doing much of this work too.
		So over and over again, we are squeezing that line down.
		If you look at the contrast with China, they are doing exactly the opposite.
		And they are doing exactly the opposite in the areas where we are in the most competitive areas and where we really need to win.
		We don't want China to get ahead of us militarily.
		We don't want China to get ahead of us on quantum computing and AI.
		But we are making cuts to NIST, we are making cuts to NASA, we are making cuts to the NIH.
		We are making cuts across the board on some of the most important aspects of what we need to do in the United States to maintain that lead.
		And with respect to public health, I see my time is running out here.
		I guess we can do a second round in a minute.
		But same kind of thing.
		The cuts to NIH, my father died from Alzheimer's.
		I'm a cancer survivor.
		You got to shut down clinical trials in the middle of those going forward.
		And it's not like we can just flip a switch and it comes back and starts over again.
		Some of those are going to take years to catch back up to where they were.
		And some of the people who are conducting the research are leaving the United States because they don't want to have that happen again.
		So I appreciate the goal of going after wage fraud and abuse.
		I don't think that that is what you all have really focused on here, your impact, certainly, because we can go through that in the second round.
		But you are really undermining our ability to compete and stay ahead of China on really critical areas like national security and public safety.
unidentified		Chair, now I recognize the Vice Chair of the Committee, Mr. Lilota from New York.
		Thank you, Chairman.
		Director, good to be with you today.
		You are the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
		Is that correct?
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		Correct.
unidentified		And you have previously served in that capacity in 2020 and 2021?
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		In 2019 and 2020.
unidentified		Went through January 2021?
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		I did.
unidentified		And you are the executive branch's chief financial planner and policy coordinator.
unidentified		Is that a fair description of your title?
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		I think that is fair.
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		Along with the Secretary of Treasury.
unidentified		Great.
unidentified		And in that role, how important is America's debt and deficit to you?
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		I mean, we have an enormous problem ahead of us with regard to the debt that we are facing as a country.
		It is hanging over us.
		It is causing massive interest costs each and every year to keep growing.
		And the impact that it can suddenly cause much worse situation than we have seen thus far is still always out there as a possibility.
		That is one of the reasons we have to pass this bill to be able to begin to get a handle on the spending that has been on autopilot that about $37 trillion.
unidentified		Is that about right?
		Yes.
		And the deficit is about what?
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		$2 trillion and somewhere between $1.5 and $2 trillion.
unidentified		And the debt to GDP ratio, pretty bad, right?
		Yep.
		Worse since World War II?
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		Yep.
unidentified		And what if we do nothing?
		What if Congress sits on its hands, the executive branch does nothing?
		What if we just do the status quo?
		What happens with respect to interest rates, opportunity, buying power, the dollar, opportunity for future generations?
		What happens to all that if we do nothing?
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		It will all get worse, and we will continue to have issues with credit agencies.
		And one of the reasons why Moody's was late to the party, the original credit ratings were drawing attention to the futility that this town had with the inability to ever pass anything of substance.
		And I think that has what has changed with the bill that you all are considering right now through Congress.
unidentified		And I agree with you.
		Reconciliation is a start of something that we have to do to put our country on a better track, to give more opportunity to the future generations.
		I want to switch gears just a little bit, but get back to that point in a moment.
		In your experience, scores, predictions by the CBO, JCT, how have they been, sir?
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		Not accurate.
unidentified		Thinking back to the first Trump administration and President Trump's 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, how would you rate the estimates by the CBO and JCT?
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		They did not do a good job of rating it accurately.
		And they didn't think we would ever get to 3 percent growth.
		We did.
		They were off in their revenue assumptions.
		But ultimately, that is par for the course.
		I mean, they don't think through dynamic assumptions with regard to their revenue policies.
unidentified		And about how much in revenue were they off by?
unidentified		Do you remember?
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		I don't have it at my fingertips.
unidentified		$1.5 trillion?
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		That is about right.
unidentified		Only $1.5 trillion.
unidentified		Are you familiar with CBO's work when they scored the American Rescue Plan?
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		I am, but happy to be informed more on that.
unidentified		Accurate or not accurate?
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		If you have got a question there, I am happy to answer it, but I will lead you a little bit with this question.
unidentified		They projected inflation would be around 3.3 percent in 2021 and 2.5 in 2022 and 2.3 in 2024.
		Take a guess.
		Was it higher or lower than the projections, the inflation?
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		I am sure that it served the Administration's policy objectives.
unidentified		Yeah, 4.7, 8 percent and 4.1 percent, respectively, way off, but yes, favorable to that administration.
		And now, fast forward, we have this one big, beautiful bill before us at the House Republicans.
		We passed last week, and we have received some new scores over the last day or so.
		And are you familiar with the CBO score on the growth rate they project in the One Big, Beautiful Bill?
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		It is about 2 percent.
unidentified		Yeah, 1.8.
		Do you believe that it is an accurate enough growth rate given some of the historical context between TCAJA1?
		Much of the same policies in TCAJA1 led to 2, 3, and 4 percent growth, and yet they are scoring in this 1.8?
Cuts to Agricultural Research Funding 00:03:21
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		No, I don't think they are accurate.
		I don't think it is reflective of the growth.
		I think it is much more likely, and we will get to our economic assumptions when we come later with more details from our fuller budget.
		But the budget resolution that you all passed, $2.5 trillion, I think the number there was 2.7, is much more accurate in terms of a number that should flow from the policies in the bill.
unidentified		Great.
		I would agree.
		2.6 percent is, I think, what the House Budget Committee put forth.
		I think that is a better estimate.
		Would you agree that assuming only the 1.8 percent CBO number both underestimates the positive impact of the legislation and simultaneously overestimates the negative impacts like deficit projections?
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
		But I would go further.
		I think the challenge with the CBO score is the way they construct the baseline is they are asking policymakers who care about the debt and deficits to almost take the position that you shouldn't extend the tax relief.
		And then they don't model the extent to which that would implode the economy.
		There is dynamic assumptions with regard to tax policies and economic growth, and then there should also be an area where they model the economic impacts of their own baseline policies.
unidentified		The chair now recognizes Mr. Bishop for any questions he may have.
		Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
		Welcome, Director Vault.
		Branding is very important in the characterization of the reconciliation bill.
		And there are many who are calling it one thing, but there are many others who are characterizing it as the big, ugly bill.
		I want to talk to you about your proposals relating to USDA research.
		You eliminate the Hatch Act formula grants, which go to the 1862 land-grant institutions.
		There is a 44 percent cut to Evans-Allen research grants for the 1890 land-grant institutions and a 14 percent cut to the 1890 Extension Services.
		The Smith-Lever Cooperative Extension Program is cut by 46 percent.
		Ag research has been the tool that has kept America ahead of our international competitors for decades and is right now more important than it ever was in our competition with our international competitors.
		We are falling behind other nations on ag research, so I strongly believe that research should be the last place that we should be looking at cutting.
		How do you justify these cuts other than as part of your overall budget numbers quest, if America is going to continue to be able to produce the highest quality, the safest, the most abundant, the most economic food and fiber anywhere in the world?
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		Thank you, Congressman, for the question.
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		I mean, we believe in agricultural research, and I think we believe in the research that even in areas where we are taking cuts, our desire is to make sure that we actually do research, that it is not going to some of the projects and line items that you saw Secretary Rollins put out there that she has canceled.
Efficiencies in Georgia's Medicaid Budget 00:03:33
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		And so, where we found efficiencies, we wanted to make those reflected in the fiscal year 26 budget.
		But agriculture is incredibly important.
		We have to be able to feed ourselves first and foremost.
		And one of the ways that we need to be able to do that is not just our farm support programs, but the extent to which we are thinking ahead and planning for the future and learning.
unidentified		Thank you.
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		But there is some differences.
unidentified		Thank you.
		Currently, my State, Georgia, is the most recent State to implement the Medicaid work reporting requirement.
		So far, what we have seen is a cautionary tale for other states, high administrative costs, increased bureaucratic red tape, and suppressed enrollment, even among eligible Georgians.
		In my congressional district, over 765,000 Georgians and almost 17 percent of them of the non-elderly residents are uninsured.
		However, after 18 months of implementation, less than 1 percent of our district's residents who are aged 19 to 64 were enrolled in the Georgia version of Georgia's Pathways to Coverage program.
		That is in spite of the State having spent $92 million in combined State and Federal funds on the program, most of which covered administrative expenses like technology upgrades rather than actual health care benefits.
		In other words, taxpayers are funding for-profit consultants to add on to clunky, outdated systems to process paperwork rather than covering the cost of doctor visits and prescription refills for eligible Georgians.
		If the budget reconciliation bill mandates work or other community engagement reporting requirements for lowincome, able-bodied adults across all States, how can we avoid the high cost, low coverage pitfalls evidenced by Georgia's pathways of coverage program?
		For example, how will the Federal Government ensure that taxpayer dollars are going to health care benefits rather than more bureaucratic red tape as we have seen in Georgia?
		And quickly, the second question is, most of the $92 million that was spent has been covered by the Federal Government due in part to the higher Federal match for administrative expenses like technology upgrades.
		This expense would not be necessary if not for the additional paperwork generated by the work reporting requirement.
		For 1,115 demonstration programs like the Georgia program, what steps have been taken to ensure that States are held accountable to rules regarding budget neutrality if they implement this on a nationwide basis?
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		Well, thank you for the question.
		I haven't looked at Georgia's model, and I will look into that.
		Our belief is that this will not lead to additional paperwork, but that it will build on the historic reforms that we saw in 1997 that were on a bipartisan.
unidentified		There have been studies done on it that have been published that have made it very clear.
		And, of course, obviously the people who are skeptical of that have made that clear also.
		It is out there.
		And I am surprised that you haven't been able to do it.
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		Well, I mean, as it pertains to the 1997 reforms, which now applies the concept of work to Medicaid.
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		And remember, in Medicaid, we have this issue where you have able-bodied working adults that get a higher match than the intended originally intended beneficiaries, the disabled, the elderly,
Finding Savings Pre-COVID 00:08:43
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		who basically you get $90 for every $1 of State for the able-bodied working adults, and then you have about $1.34 every one at the lower populations.
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		And that is something that is off, because what you have is States chasing the higher dollar.
unidentified		So with this work requirement, we will make sure that we have to go for the States setting up the mechanism in order to calculate that.
unidentified		It is more red tape, more paperwork, less than services and care for the people who need it.
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		We can take you in the middle.
unidentified		The Chair will now recognize Mr. Cloud for his five minutes.
		Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Director Vogt, for being here.
		As an American, before being here as a member of Congress, I just want to say thank you for finding efforts to find savings.
		I know what motivates me and a lot of people in our service here is the really demand that should be upon us to leave a better country than we find it.
		And so we find ourselves headed to $36 trillion in debt, as you just talked about.
		We are looking at what is going on in the bond markets.
		They are really concerned about our debt load.
		Talked about World War II debt loads during peacetime being a very big concern.
		Certainly mandatory spending is a big part of that.
		But then we also have understood that as government grows, freedom contracts, and so there is a need as well to make sure that we are turning a good return on investment when it comes to our discretionary funding as well.
		Could you speak to what we can do to find savings And with our discretional funding, especially considering pre-COVID levels, we are spending, what, $2 trillion more a year now every year, and then we were, what, $1.6 trillion in discretionary funding pre-COVID, or I am sorry, that is after COVID.
		And before COVID, it was $1.288 trillion in discretionary.
		That is a pretty substantial growth over just a couple of year period of time.
		And nobody pre-COVID was thinking that we had a lean, mean fighting machine of a Federal Government.
		Most people even then thought it was pretty bloated and a little lethargic and could use some tightening up.
		Could you speak to what we are doing to find savings and return a better return?
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		Sure.
		I mean, it is reflected in our budget proposal generally.
		We proposed $163 billion in non-defense cuts, the lowest level adjusted for inflation since 2000, not adjusted for inflation.
		It gets you back to your pre-COVID levels.
		And we really are trying to find programs that we believe are fundamentally wasteful or divisive.
		When you are providing $315 million for preschool grants for CRT indoctrination for four-year-olds in Minnesota, we think that money is not just wasteful, but it is actually harming the country as a whole and those individuals.
		And we looked at it from every vantage point from that standpoint.
		It is one of the reasons we talk about the cuts to woke and weaponized bureaucracy and wasteful.
		And sometimes you just can't afford something when you are $37 trillion in debt that you would otherwise be able to afford.
		And there are drivers that you have in the appropriations process that we pay for.
		And we pay for the needs that we see for veterans.
		It almost acts like a mandatory program within your jurisdiction.
		We have proposals for rental reform to block grant to the States and require a cost share with States so that we don't have people that are too soon moving off these programs into self-sufficiency.
		That is another driver that you all are facing with that is on your books.
		It is not a mandatory program, but acts like a mandatory program.
		And we are trying to account and deal with those with the proposal that we sent out.
unidentified		I was late to this hearing because I was in the Doge subcommittee hearing in which we were talking about NGOs that are we call them NGOs, but many of them have well over 50 percent of their funding coming from the Federal Government.
		One I highlighted was Endeavors, which was a big part of the apparatus, really the industry that stood up to bring illegal immigrants.
		Over 90 percent of their funding was coming from the Federal Government, and they kind of ceased to be an NGO at that point.
		Can you talk about how you are evaluating these, I would call them quasi-government entities as opposed to an NGO?
		I think it was over 35,000 of them are getting more Federal dollars than they are donations.
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		I mean, it was a major thrust throughout this process for constructing this budget.
		And we have what we call director's review, and literally we would ask on every program not just what is the level, what is the need, but how is it distributed?
		We want to make sure that if this is going to a nonprofit, the extent to which that nonprofit shares our views and is not putting forward some of the ideologies that we have fundamental issues with.
		And so I can't give you a rackup of what we found other than to in the areas that we put forward cuts, we have concerns in addition to the value proposition of those dollars.
unidentified		Thank you.
unidentified		The chair now recognizes Ms. Henson for a matter of before the.
ashley hinson ▲ ● ▼		Yes, Mr. Chairman, in light of the conversation earlier, I'd like to submit an article for the record about illegal immigrants receiving coverage on Medicaid.
		We do know federal dollars flow to states, and this is from the New York Times.
		May 14th, 2025, Governor Newsom proposes scaling back health care for undocumented immigrants in California.
unidentified		I'd like to submit this article for the record, Mr. Chairman.
		Without objection.
		We have a limited amount of time, I noticed, in which we can maybe go to a lightning round.
		I'm sure Mr. Ivey is salivating for the chance for this lightning round.
		And so we could pick your top question that you wanted to ask instead of and try to keep it to two minutes.
		That will get everybody a chance in an order to be fair to everyone here.
		Fair enough?
glenn ivey ▲ ● ▼		I will certainly defer to my elders.
unidentified		We are looking forward to another two-minute lecture.
		I will take the liberty of going first then.
		The ITOR account was established back in 2015.
		The ITOR fund is currently being used for both Doge Federal Workforce and Software Initiative.
		What is the breakdown or percentage of Doge funds that have been used for workforce issues, and what percentage of ITOR funds are being used to modernize technology?
		And further, your request for this year for ITOR, it's an increase of 145 percent.
		And I was wondering if you could tell us: is this for software modernization initiative or the 30 full-time equivalents that you've asked for sought under the budget request for ITOR specifically, or for the software initiative, or for Doge too?
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		The ITOR request in fiscal year 26 is for Doge.
		We put it in the ITOR account because we are still in movement as to where Doge resides and the fact that we have opportunities through standard USDS work to do technological work at the agencies.
		So I wouldn't call it a plug, but we are certainly reflective of the fact that there is good work to be done regardless of whether Doge is fundamentally housed in the EOP or at the agencies long term.
unidentified		Thank you.
unidentified		The chair will now recognize Mr. Hoyer for a question.
steny hoyer ▲ ● ▼		Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
steny hoyer ▲ ● ▼		I'm at 517 already.
unidentified		Yeah, my over.
steny hoyer ▲ ● ▼		Tell me when we're ready.
unidentified		You're good.
Running Deficits Risked Programs 00:15:57
steny hoyer ▲ ● ▼		I am against dynamic scoring, not because I don't believe there is a dynamic score, but because I think it is a gamble.
		And one of the reasons we've gotten to places where we are is because it's been a gamble.
		I've been here a long time, as you know.
		When Ronald Reagan's David Stockman said tax cuts going to pay for itself, Ronald Reagan increased the deficit.
		Only one man can stop spending, or one person, President of the United States, by 189 percent.
		Mick Mulvaney told us that the Bush tax cut would pay for itself.
		And Mitch Daniels also told us, excuse me, Mick Mulvaney was Trump's, that Bush's tax cut would pay for itself.
		They didn't do it.
		And we ran deficits.
		And we ran deficits.
		The only one that really had a low deficit was Bill Clinton and a balanced budget, as you probably recall.
		Now, the budget you've now said, we've had a lot of talk about Doge.
		Mr. Musk, of course, headed up Doge and was regaled as somebody who was a genius and could do everything.
		He said this, I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore.
		This massive, outrageous, pork-filled congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination.
		Shame on those who voted for it.
		You know you did wrong.
		You know it.
		So that at least one person that has been high up in this administration, who being worth $450 billion, is prepared to tell the truth.
		This bill is not going to pay for it itself.
		And we are not honest with one another.
		The discretionary part of the budget, which you talked, you said 30 percent.
		Defense, veterans, Homeland Security, take it far above that.
		So we deal with 14 or 13 percent of the budget to try to balance the budget.
		That's dishonest.
		It cannot be done if you eliminate all of non-defense, non-veteran discretionary funding.
		So David Stockman ended up with a book, said, we lied.
		I hope you won't do that.
unidentified		Chair now recognizes Mr. Womack for his lightning round question.
steve womack ▲ ● ▼		Director Vogt, you got a tough job.
		You got a tough job.
		You inherited an absolute mess, a mess that's been created over decades, not just one administration, but many.
		It's because Congress can't say no.
		But we've seen the big, beautiful bill slammed in here in this hearing today.
		I want to give you a second to tell us what's going to happen if H.R. 1 fails, if whatever comes back from the Senate fails to get to the desk of the President and signed into law, what happens at the end of this year?
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		I think we will have a recession.
		I think we will be economic storm clouds will be very dark.
		I think we will have a 60 percent tax increase on the American people.
		And just if I could answer Congressman Hoyer's question or statement, the notion that this bill I mean, we've been actually criticized unfairly on the reconciliation bill for the fact that it is all mandatory savers.
		I mean, you said we need to address the mandatory side of the House.
		There is $1.7 trillion in mandatory savers on the reconciliation bill.
		Do we need to do things on the appropriation side, the discretionary side?
		Yes, that's what we are here to talk about with rescissions and the bill that we have the budget that we have sent up to you.
		But we have to get back to what we did in 1997, where we had for the first time substantial mandatory reforms around not just cutting people and just getting people off programs, but reforms, a work requirement.
		We are using the same model that Bill Clinton signed into law, and we think it will have incredible impact on not just these programs, but giving people dignity of work.
		And we are not going to be ashamed by that, but we do need to explain ourselves to those that are being impacted by the watchdogs in this town that honestly don't have an incentive to get a bill done.
		They have chosen how they want to frame bills, and I think they're inaccurate.
steve womack ▲ ● ▼		I appreciate your response.
		Thank you so much.
		I yield.
unidentified		Thank you, Ms. Womack.
unidentified		The chair now recognizes the ranking member of the full committee, Ms. DeLaurel.
rosa delauro ▲ ● ▼		Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
		Very quickly, don't pass the $4.5 trillion tax cuts for the wealthiest people in the country and the biggest corporations.
		To my friends, the comment who is gone now about the Constitution, read the Constitution.
		And there are many Republicans who have said that they haven't read the bill, and they're troubled by what's in this big, ugly bill that you're discussing.
		Let me just talk about empowerment.
		You speak about a tradition in this country, which is a fact fiction.
		You say over 200 years, presidential empire is carrying the day for all of you.
		You think you're so captured by the lie that you founded a multi-million dollar think tank to republish the lie.
		I'm familiar with this work.
		The quality of the work is so bad.
		And let me just say, to characterize it, this is page after page going back to 1789 of what people looked at in terms of impounding or stealing funds.
		And let's tell this that even in your fake history, almost all the examples that you document demonstrate that presidents have historically only delayed or refused to spend money when it was the Congress who gave them the power to do it.
		It's Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7.
		That is operative.
		There should be no debate.
		You have impounded and stolen funds that you have no business doing.
		You don't have that authority.
		The President doesn't have that inherent authority.
		And it has been documented by the courts, which is why over 250 lawsuits that have been filed, 185-plus rulings have opposed Trump initiatives.
		You are in violation of the law.
		That is what we should be dealing with in this effort.
		Would you recommit yourself to the truth, engaging with this committee, the American people and the American people, based on the respect for history as it actually has occurred?
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		We haven't impounded any money.
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		We're under programmatic review of federal dollars across the country.
rosa delauro ▲ ● ▼		You have impounded money.
rosa delauro ▲ ● ▼		$425 billion.
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		We don't know where that number came from.
rosa delauro ▲ ● ▼		I tell you, look at the tracker.
		We're following it very closely.
		And I would just say this.
		If people don't really want to appropriate and hold on to the power of the purse, then my suggestion is find another committee to sit on.
		Our responsibility, our responsibility, is to make sure that we maintain that power of the purse and that what we say has got to be congressionally spent needs to be.
		And you do have a premise that in that bill, in the Empowerment Control Act, it gives you, allows you to come up with a rescission package.
		But what is at stake is the illegality of what you have done with impounding and stealing funds from the American public and the unbelievable consequences it will have on their lives and their families' lives.
unidentified		Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
ashley hinson ▲ ● ▼		You know, I think fundamentally there is a difference of viewpoint on this committee.
unidentified		We don't have a revenue problem.
unidentified		We have a spending problem in this country.
ashley hinson ▲ ● ▼		And some of the examples that you have showcased today, Director Vogt, you know, the PEP bar examples you gave earlier, we want to see those dollars go to programs and people who need them.
		That's the whole point of what our committee is doing here is asking those questions.
		And when I hear about the waste, that's exactly what Iowans are telling me to come here and say we don't want to spend our money on that.
unidentified		So kudos to you, to Doge, for everything you've done to uncover this.
ashley hinson ▲ ● ▼		At least $175 billion in wasteful spending already, throwing away this money on international pet projects instead of going to constituents like mine in the district.
unidentified		I think it's abominable and we shouldn't be allowing it.
ashley hinson ▲ ● ▼		The administration has discovered $300 million of SBA loans that have gone out to individuals under the age of 11, 300 million over the age of 120.
ashley hinson ▲ ● ▼		The youngest recipient of an SBA loan is a nine-month-old.
unidentified		How does that even happen?
ashley hinson ▲ ● ▼		Sounds like it's a rhetorical question, but the previous administration allowed it to happen.
unidentified		So how does it happen?
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		Well, I think one of the things that Doge brought to this was an ability to think anew about something and look at it without having had the opportunity to be in this town and be up to speed on all the acronyms, to look at it just flat out.
		What is the value proposition of what is ongoing here and what is the process by how it moves through the Federal bureaucracy?
		And they thankfully had the ability to be outraged.
		And I think that's what the American people are outraged by is the extent to which taxpayer dollars are spent on things that no one wants to defend.
		No one pushed back on the examples that I gave with regard to PEPFAR.
		No one wants to defend that.
		We may disagree as to whether that is the level of waste or whether that deserves a programmatic cut, but on a bipartisan basis, it is collectively outrageous.
		You go to any diner in the country, in every town in the country, and you present these examples, and it will be outrageous.
		And I think that is what Doge brought to us.
		Many of us have been in these salt mines for many years.
		And I think I can't explain why this town needs that dose of reality, but it unfortunately does.
		And I'm thankful that this administration is giving it.
unidentified		Keep peeling back the layers of the onion.
		I yield back.
		Hey, Ms. Henson.
		Chair now recognizes Mr. Pocan for his lightning round question.
		Two minutes, please.
		Thank you, Mr. Chair.
		And I want to thank Ms. Hidsen for putting in the record to verify what I said, which is undocumented immigrants are not eligible to enroll in Federally funded coverage, including Medicaid chip or Medicare, or to purchase coverage to the ACA marketplaces.
		And in California, indeed, it was State funds.
		So thank you, Ms. Hinson, for having my back.
		I love bipartisan cooperation.
		Project 2025, you are one of the authors.
		You are on the advisory board.
		You work for Heritage.
		You are basically January, February, and March in a Project 2025 calendar, right?
		But you were asked this weekend about it, and you said, no, the Administration isn't following Project 2025.
		So just I will go through lightning rounds.
		It's only have two minutes.
		Just tell me, coincidence or not.
		In Project 25, abolishing the Department of Education, you guys are doing that.
		Is that a coincidence?
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		The President's view.
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		Coincidence or not?
unidentified		Coincidence or not?
unidentified		That's all you have to say.
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		The President's agenda.
unidentified		Okay, I'll go through the rest.
unidentified		Any diversity, equity, and inclusion?
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		The President's agenda is not.
unidentified		Shifting FEMA costs to the States, targeting PBS of the National Public Radio, freezing Federal assistance, restricting gender-affirming care, revoking security clearances, stripping civil servants of employment protections, reinstating service members who refuse COVID-19 vaccines, banning transgender people from the military, a hiring freeze, withdrawing from the World Health Organization, sending active duty troops to the southern border, limiting refugee admissions, rescinding temporary protected status designations,
		capping indirect costs for university-based research, requiring disclosures of foreign gifts to universities, apparently not planes to presidents, asserting the President's power to remove Federal officials, and targeting NOAA.
		Were those all just coincidences that they happened to be in Project 25 and they were just in the back pocket of the President since November?
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		The President has never been more of a promises made, promises kept President than we have ever had in history.
		He has run on an agenda.
		He was very clear on that agenda.
		He is now enacting that agenda.
		And those of us who work for him work for his agenda in executing that agenda.
unidentified		Chair now recognizes Mr. Alford.
mark alford ▲ ● ▼		Point of order before my time begins.
mark alford ▲ ● ▼		Chair, how much time do we actually have in this lightning round?
unidentified		Two minutes.
unidentified		One question, two minutes.
mark alford ▲ ● ▼		Two minutes.
		Okay, thank you.
		Let's start.
		For my ag state of Missouri, Renewable Fuel Standards, Renewable Volume Obligations Rule has been at OMB since May 1.
		When will this be sent back to the EPA to release publicly, sir?
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		We are working on it.
		We know it is a priority.
		It is part of an annual process that is very, very important.
mark alford ▲ ● ▼		Second question, a follow-up on PEPFAR.
		We have talked about it a little bit.
		PEPFAR since 2003 has saved about 26 million lives, mainly in Africa.
		Aside from the crazy woke programs, which I agree should be stripped, is there any other prevention program, not treatment, but prevention program listed in this rescission package which is not of a woke nature?
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		We believe that life-saving treatment, I understand that is in fact your question, but we are scaling down the program as it pertains to the types of organizations that are providing or are the examples of the waste, fraud, and abuse.
		The prevention itself is where an analytical look needs to be done.
		And it is one of the reasons why we have emphasized in successive budgets that we are going to protect life-saving treatment, but we want to scrutinize heavily those that are bringing people into the system in the non-profit.
mark alford ▲ ● ▼		I'm not sure where I am going with this, sir.
		I mean, there is life-saving treatment after you already have HIV, but there are prevention programs that PEPFAR does, which are not of the woke nature, which can prevent someone from getting HIV.
		Are those programs going to survive?
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		It is something that our budget will be very trim on, because we believe that many of these nonprofits are not geared towards the viewpoints of the administration.
		And we are $37 trillion in debt.
		So at some point, the continent of Africa needs to absorb more of the burden of providing a pleasure.
mark alford ▲ ● ▼		In fact, I have a plan, a five-year plan, to scale down our commitment from the U.S. to put that on the backs of those in Africa and those in charities and churches.
		This was a temporary program.
		It is not to be sustained forever by American taxpayers.
		Thank you, sir.
unidentified		Chair now recognizes Mr. Ivey for his two-minute question, statement, or whatever.
glenn ivey ▲ ● ▼		All of the above, maybe?
		I don't know.
		My colleague there, you know, made me think of Bill Gates' quote.
		He just said the wealthiest man in the world is basically killing the poorest kids in the world by making these cuts.
		And you are sort of executing that.
		I appreciate the comment that was made there, but we really can't sugarcoat this.
		More people are going to die.
		And if I think I heard what you said there, prevention is going to get less funding than it currently is.
		And I think in every model, prevention is better than trying to cure it after a disease is contracted.
		But, you know, real quick on this, the merit hiring plan, which I saw one of the questions, I think it was question number three.
Questions Asked About Executive Orders 00:03:32
glenn ivey ▲ ● ▼		Identify one or two relevant executive orders or policy initiatives that are significant to you and explain how you would help implement them if hired.
		And I read that and I was like, well, I don't know that every president is going to be issuing 50 executive orders per day.
		So if it is just a commitment to do what follow one of President Trump's executive orders, I think that is totally inappropriate.
		And I think there are a lot of positions that we need to fill in the Federal Government, like some of the science and engineering jobs I mentioned a few minutes ago.
		I don't really care if they are reading the President's executive orders per se.
		I more curious, you know, I care more about them curing cancer or addressing Alzheimer's or if they are Federal agents tracking down Sinaloa cartel or identifying and tracking down the waste fraud and abuse that is actually occurring by major malfactors or the competition with our adversaries abroad.
		So I see my two minutes are running out.
		I do want to say this.
		I just noticed I saw this up here, and it matches the T-shirts in the audience.
		To the labor community out there, stay strong.
unidentified		Thank you very much.
		The Chair now recognizes Mr. Cloud for his question.
		Two minutes.
		Thank you, Chairman.
		And I appreciate you being here.
		You know, as I have looked at Doge and the work that is going on, I have been surprised really from the vitriol from the left as there is a video that has gone around of President Obama basically describing the work of Doge and putting it to Joe Biden to take charge of it.
		Of course, we didn't see any nationwide injunctions to anything that they did.
		I'm not sure if that is because they didn't do anything.
		It was ineffective.
		But now we see things coming to light that really questions we have asked and tried to get from an appropriation standpoint.
		We had asked the bureaucracy, where are these dollars really going to, and we couldn't get the answers.
		We had an administration that wouldn't work with us, and finally we have one that is not only willing to work with us but able to bring technology tools to the table to get it done.
		Appreciated what you said in light of, you know, when I go home and I talk about Medicaid and the fact that more than half the people on Medicaid are above the poverty line and what you discussed about we are incentivizing people to stay out of the workforce in order to receive Medicaid in many of these states.
		They become very much for once they understand what is going on and what the real target is that we are actually protecting this and preserving it for the disabled and not attacking that.
		It just seems well within what we need to do in order to back off the $36 trillion.
		So thank you for your work on that.
		I had one question in the little bit of time I had.
		Someone mentioned that dynamic scoring was kind of like asking the CBO to score with dynamic scoring was kind of a gamble.
		I would say submit that asking the CBO to do a score is a bit of a gamble because their accuracy has been so off.
Please Submit Questions 00:03:27
unidentified		And I would ask if the administration would support, I have a piece of legislation for the CBO to have to include interest cost in their scoring.
		And then I know Warren Davidson has one on show your work, which they don't do.
		If the administration would support that.
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		It's a good idea.
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		I'm happy to take a look at it and run it through our process to see what the President would think on it.
unidentified		Thank you.
		Thank you for that question.
		Chair recognizes the ranking member of the full committee for a moment.
		A moment.
rosa delauro ▲ ● ▼		Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
		The historical record is clear that the President doesn't have inherent power to refuse to spend funds appropriated by Congress.
		And for an accurate historical record of this fact, I ask unanimous consent to insert into the record the documentation that supports my claim about the myth of presidential empoundment power.
unidentified		Object.
unidentified		Not asking for a statement, but without objection, I take it in the record.
rosa delauro ▲ ● ▼		Thank you.
rosa delauro ▲ ● ▼		And I also might want to add to the gentleman who just spoke, 39 percent of the children in this network.
unidentified		With that, our time has concluded.
		I'd like to thank Director Vogt for having been here today.
		And, you know, I know sometimes you didn't have a chance to finish that.
		If I'd glad to give you, since you have one minute left, one minute to close out, or are you free to leave?
		It's up to you.
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		I'm all good.
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		I appreciate all of the comments, whether I disagreed with them or not, and look forward to follow-up with the committee.
unidentified		Thank you very much.
		There may be some members who would like to submit questions for the records.
		Please submit any questions for the record to the subcommittee staff within seven days.
		I please ask everyone to stay in their seats and allow the director to leave.
		And then as he gets out of the room there, then we will move.
		Thank you very much.
		With that, the subcommittee is adjourned.
		On Monday, California Congresswoman Young Kim, former USAID Administrator Mark Green and others, will discuss the importance of U.S. global leadership and international investment.
		See that live at noon Eastern on C-SPAN 2, C-SPAN Now, our free mobile video app, or online at c-span.org.
		Looking to contact your members of Congress?
		Well, C-SPAN is making it easy for you with our 2025 Congressional Directory.
		Get essential contact information for government officials all in one place.
Shipping & Handling Matters 00:00:23
unidentified		This compact, spiral-bound guide contains bio and contact information for every House and Senate member of the 119th Congress.
		Contact information on congressional committees, the President's Cabinet, federal agencies, and state governors.
		The Congressional Directory costs $32.95 plus shipping and handling, and every purchase helps support C-SPAN's non-profit operations.

Chapters

00:00:00 OMB's Central Role
00:04:12 Bureaucrats Under Trauma
00:08:23 Living Legal Fiction
00:17:56 Unavoidable Costs in Border Security
00:24:37 Establishing USDS: Decentralized Leadership
00:27:20 Referring to a Suggestion?
00:33:26 Top-Line Numbers Matter
00:49:01 Emphasizing OMB's Role
00:50:52 Congressional Concerns Over Budget Cuts
01:06:09 China's $2 Trillion Package
01:21:50 Cuts to Agricultural Research Funding
01:25:11 Efficiencies in Georgia's Medicaid Budget
01:28:45 Finding Savings Pre-COVID
01:37:13 Running Deficits Risked Programs
01:52:55 Questions Asked About Executive Orders
01:56:12 Please Submit Questions
01:59:25 Shipping & Handling Matters