we are funded by these television companies and more including wow. >> today, a fast, reliable internet connection is something nobody can live without. wow is there for our customers. now more than ever, it all starts with great internet. >> w supports c-span as a public serviceo along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. >>g up, president trump's pick to be director office of management and budget appear before the senaget committee for confirmation hearing. he was qued about his affiliation with project 2025 and his experience as the deputy white house budget director during tst trump presidency. is asked about president trump's executive that pauses some funding in the

bipartisan infrastructure law signed by president biden, known as the inflation reduction act. [indiscernible]

[indiscernible] [indiscernible]

[general chatter] >> good morning, everybody. welcome. so, we are going to have a hearing with mr. vought, right, russell? ok. i'm going to give a quick introduction. you can say anything you want. we will have five minute questioning.

the hard, be challenging, don't make a complete ass of yourself and let's get through this thing. [laughter] with that said, you are no stranger to this job. mr. vought had this job, he was deputy director, he was omb director and president trump's first term. he was born in mount vernon, new york, graduated in 1998, jd from georgetown, worked on capitol hill as a legislative assistant for chuck hagel. from 2004 through 2008, he worked as executive director. 2009 and 2010, policy director of the house republican conference.

again, he was omb director under the first trump term. you have done it once and you want to do it again and we are glad you are willing to do it again. >> thank you very much. congratulations on your new role. i look forward to working with you. welcome to the committee. senator cornyn, senator ricketts, and senator marino, welcome. this congress, the senate budget committee is going to be deeply engaged in the policies that emerge because reconciliation is going to play a central role and reconciliation begins right here in this room. we will consider trump's budget request and i must say my deepest concern about the

reconciliation bills are that they are going to betray working americans. working americans who listened to the strategies he laid out that he proposed. but certainly the actual plan does not help working people. the acting plan is to help them, how are these massive giveaways going to be paid for? well, by slashing services to working families and struggling families trying to get on their feet trying to thrive and get to the middle class.

this is a great betrayal. today, we will consider president elect's nomination of russell vote to lead the office of management and budget, which is really the place where this campaign is coordinated. we will hear very different ideas about how to take our country forward. from my friends across the aisle and from mr. vought, we will hear we need to continue to give tax giveaways, massive tax giveaways to the wealthiest americans. and we will hear about how nonpartisan expertise that makes our country run smoothly should be replaced by those with blind political loyalty. and you will hear how programs that have assisted for the environment or for unions organizing working people or public health should instead be replaced by programs that serve

big corporations and the mega-millionaire's. our side of the aisle has a different vision. that we stand up for working families, that the wealthy need to pay their fair share of our taxes, that the government should serve everyone, not just the privileged and the powerful. from my side of the aisle, you will hear about how we need to expand medicare's ability to negotiate the price of 15 expensive drugs. those drugs were laid out by president biden. i will submit this for the record, mr. chairman. those drugs include the weight loss drugs that currently serve 2.3 million people. the first 10 drugs that were negotiated cut the price some third to two thirds or more and americans are simply outraged

that we spend more to develop these drugs than any other nation, that is our taxpayer dollars, and then we get the highest price, the highest price among the developing countries instead of the best, which we deserve. this vision as laid out is the great betrayal of america's working families. and we will continue to debate that i'm sure in the course of the hearings that are ahead. i had no doubt mr. vought that you have the intellectual expertise and the experience. you were omb director before, you know all of the in's and out's, it is really a question of whether we are going to accomplish something that provides a foundation for american families to thrive or simply to increase the wealth

disparities that make this a government by and for the powerful instead of by and for the people. the washington post reported that officials said the result of your last tenure underscored the tensions that come with having a deeply ideological operative thrust into a position with complicated, often nonpartisan challenges. this turned out to be spot on. you were responsible for the fiscal year 2020 one budget issued by the trump administration and it had a close to trillion dollar cuts to health care for struggling americans. it had $300 billion in cuts to social safety programs, things like nutrition assistance, earned income tax credit and the child tax credit. $170 billion cut by increasing the cost of college loans for those who are aspiring -- i'm the first in my family to go to college, making it more

expensive so only rich families can afford to have their kids go to college. we certainly profoundly disagree. he was read out programs like the community development block grants that are used for housing all around this country. meanwhile, you proposed over $1 trillion in tax giveaways with over two thirds going to the top 10%. that is very, very troubling. and, mr. vought, you were at the center of the strategy of compounding funds. we had this conversation in 1974 and congress. we pass the budget and compound men control act so when congress says we say this should be spending this much on the program. you told me in your office you are quite comfortable assuming the law doesn't matter and you will treat the money for program as a ceiling rather than as a required amount.

well, the courts have found otherwise, but the fact that you were willing to say it is what you plan to do again should trouble every single member of the senate. and when you were at the center of the impoundment of the funds for ukraine that resulted in the impeachment of president trump in his former service, you blindly staff subordinate. that troubles me too. that something you were so involved when -- with, you say it wasn't me, i give that responsibility to somebody else that works for me. certainly your views are deep held and deeply held. you continue to advocate for them in your think tank, the center for renewing america, so we saw that.

there are other things that troubled many of us, the fact that you were for the abolition of abortion rights and don't believe in exceptions, not exceptions for rape, incest, for the life of the mother. and it is troubling that you continue to participate in the big lie that the 2020 election was rigged. this may be essential for your loyalty test the president, but

willingness to manipulate and deceive americans and that certainly bothers me. love and

support and enthusiasm for meat serving again is a major reason why i feel that going back to >> beyond my enthusiasm. it is a profound honor to be nominated a second time by president trump to serve as the director of the office of management and budget. the president has promised to the american people a federal government that works for all americans, not the interests of bureaucrats and an entrenched establishment, making his start and fulfilling that vital promised during my previous time as deputy director and director

was among the most rewarding career experiences of my career. throughout that time, i have been driven by a commitment to taxpayers and their families. growing up as the son of an electrician and schoolteacher, i saw the sacrifices my parents made to balance their budget and save for a future. they are a requirement the burden of government spending can place. they and others are the measure by which i evaluate policies and spending decisions. nearly 80% of american do not feel confident their children will lead better lives than they had. nearly double the 40% of americans who said that two decades ago. when i look at the government waste and our national debt, i fear for my daughters' future. almost half of ourdelivers the r

all americans, and i believe omb's collaborative ethos is key to achieving those outcomes, the civil servants are among the most resourceful and innovative individuals i have ever worked with. it has been my privilege to work alongside them and i look forward to leading and supporting them as director once again as we labor together to make government work. we have to use taxpayer dollars wisely because inflation, driven by irresponsible spending, taxes americans twice for the average

american household has lost roughly $2000 of purchasing power since january 2021. the forgotten men and women of this country, those who work hard every day in cities and towns across america deserve a government that empowers them to achieve their dreams. while office of management and may not be a household term, the agency's work profoundly affects their lives. if confirmed i will continue to serve at their best interest at heart, striving to ensure every decision contributes to a more prosperous future for all americans. thank you for considering my nomination. i look forward to answering your questions, and the opportunity to discuss how omb can continue to deliver on that vital mission. chair graham: thank you very much. to your family, welcome. to start with, what would happen to the economy if the 2017 tax cuts that were passed through

reconciliation by the republicans expire and go away? mr. vought: i think americans would have a major tax increase on their hands that would lead to a lot less innovation, a lot less productivity, and we would have a worsening economy and i would not want to predict how bad it would be. chair graham: so the treasury secretary nominee said it would be catastrophic. do you agree? mr. vought: yes, sir. chair graham: is it 4.5 trillion dollars in new taxes if all this goes away? mr. vought: that is the static cost of it, yes sir. chair graham: we don't want it to go away, i guess they do. on regulations, do you have a say about government regulations? mr. vought: omb runs the regulatory affairs and is going to be charged to reit set up the president's deregulatory agenda and if confirmed, that will be a major aspect of the job. chair graham: when it comes to

energy production, we pledge and try to make it easier for america to soundly and safely extract the natural resources that we own so we don't have to buy oil and gas from people who hate our guts? mr. vought: yes, sir. chair graham: do you believe that will make us safer and more energy dependent? mr. vought: it is vital from the standpoint of america's pocketbooks to rely on cheap american energy and not squander it. chair graham: part of the goal of this administration to make sure in the ai space we dominate? mr. vought: yes, it is. chair graham: will you have a role in creating regulatory environment that allows us to compete with china? mr. vought: we will and we hope to articulate to the federal agencies that guide us that the president would like with regard to artificial intelligence. chair graham: when it comes to spending time is it your goal to reduce federal spending where you can responsibly? mr. vought: yes sir. chair graham: do you believe

there is room in the budget to eliminate programs that most americans wouldn't feel the effect of? mr. vought: i do. there are plenty of areas in the federal government to tackle spending and debt. chair graham: so you promised me you would do the best you can to reduce federal spending in a responsible way? mr. vought: yes, i do. chair graham: when it comes to the president's executive order, do you know exactly how it works, does it stop when he going to israel? mr. vought: no, senator. it is 898 date review of the programs in place and it is to ensure all of those programs are consistent with the president's viewpoint and aid to israel continues to be one. chair graham: where is the most important function of the american government? mr. vought: to give the american people safe and secure and protect the rights. chair graham: are you familiar

with the amount of money we spend gdp wise on defense? what is it? mr. vought: i am aware. 3%. chair graham: and it is going down to the mid to. do you realize that is only four times in american history we've had that small of amount spent on defense? would you be open minded to be sure we can defend this nation by creating a bigger navy? mr. vought: absolutely, senator. it was a priority of the senate -- president and the omb to make sure we establish maritime supremacy in this country and it would be if confirmed. chair graham: what is the size -- do you know how much money the state and foreign operations subcommittee spends on the state >> i don't know what the allocation is. that is for the entire state department, everybody.

what percentage of the federal budget is that. try to save money. let's don't waste money. i'm a pretty hawkish guy. if you don't get involved in the world and you don't have programs in africa or china is trying to buy the whole continent, we are making a mistake. i think soft power is a critical component of defending america and our values. with that, senator merkley. . >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. on day one, president trump issued an executive order that

requires agencies to pause funds that were authorized. the inflation reduction act and the infrastructure investment for jobs act. there is a legal mechanism for changing past law that is called a rescission. it is called an impoundment. will you send a rescission message to congress? >> thanks for the question, those were pauses to ensure the funding is in place is consistent and moves in a direction along with the president ran on, in leaching sen. merkle: which strategy will you use? that is a simple question. mr. vought: there is a section in the eos that says the office

of affairs will work with the management of the budget and work for rescissions. the language of the eo's required by law and it is meant to do a programmatic delay to figure out what are the best ways -- sen. merkle: ok. thank you i will know that you are not willing to say that you will use rescissions, the legal method, rather than the illegal method. that is a big concern for all of us here, because the constitution laid out the vision that congress makes the law, not the president. so the fact that you continue to advocate for this impoundment strategy, that is completely in violation of our constitution, and i am deeply disturbed that you will not renounce that today. let's turn to work requirements. you have been a big advocate of work requirements and encourage

states to adopt waivers that would allow them to do that for medicaid. one state tried it, arkansas. it produced no increase in the hours worked, no increase in employment. it failed. why did it fail, because the way the people are able to work is when they are healthy and when they can't access health care and you cut it off, they are really trapped in poverty and trapping people in poverty is really not helpful. now that your idea failed so miserably, are you going to advocate for it again? mr. vought: senator, one of the major legislations that our side has been very proud of since the 1990's was the impact of welfare reform in the 1990's. it led to caseload reductions, people getting off of welfare, getting back into the workforce. we think that type of thinking should be applied to other federal programs and it is informed not only medicaid and other programs to encourage

people to get back into the workforce, increased labor force participation, and give people -- sen. merkle: and you believe cutting off health care encourages people to work when they need to get better health in order to work? it doesn't make any sense. it has been a failed experiment what you have answered the question and you're still an advocate of that failed approach that traps people in poverty and is quite disturbing. according to the treasury department analysis produced this month, the trump tax giveaways would give an average tax cut of 314,000 to the richest americans, the top .1%, and six dollars annually. americans come the top .1% and six dollars annually -- isn't this ass-backwards? mr. vought: the tax cuts provided tax cuts for all americans and had a sizable increase in the child tax credit, expansion of the standard deduction. it was something that benefited

all americans, and as a result led to a strong economy we hope tocate again by having an extension of those important tax cuts. sen. merkle: so you're comfortable with a cup of coffee for the bottom 10% while you for the bottom 10% while you give $314,000 to the richest americans? mr. vought: there are those taken great risk to innovate and hire additional people who are not in their tax bracket and that is part of the way that new structure economic growth. sen. merkle: my final question, at your think tank in 2023, you proposed a $3.6 trillion in tax giveaways, primarily going to the richest americans. and to make the numbers worse, you assume the giveaway would produce the magic asterisk. that is a saying, don't worry, be happy, the economy will improve because we give away the

treasury to the richest americans and more revenue will come in. it has failed every single time it has been put forward. not a single analysis has confirmed it and not from any serious analysis, from cbo, the joint committee on taxation, and yet are you still a believer? mr. vought: i am a believer in dynamic growth that when you cut taxes it actually has a dynamic impact on the economy, and we see that with revenues continuing to go up after all of the tax cuts we have seen in history, 1920's, 1960's, 1980's, both of the bush tax cuts, and the trump tax cuts. we have seen a dynamic impact on the economy. sen. merkle: your facts are wrong but we will continue the discussion, i am sure. chair graham: during the first trump term before covid, what african-american and hispanics households incomes were at the highest? mr. vought: yes. chair graham: senator grassley.

sen. grassley: i have improper payments just in health care and i would bet a lot of this information comes from whistleblowers. my question to you is about whistleblowing. do you have any role in protecting whistleblowers, encouraging whistleblowers, maybe changing the culture and a lot of agencies that treat whistleblowers like scunks at a picnic? it helps us explain not just a waste of money but also improper government action. mr. vought: senator, i think whistleblowers play an enormous role in helping us weed out waste, fraud, and abuse.

as a senate staffer and hill stafford, i benefited greatly from reading those. my role at all should be an advocate for whistleblowers in every possible way and to make sure that we value, and as a result the agency heads value the work they do. we will always be looking for opportunities along those lines. sen. grassley: would like your view you playing a role in the decision overturned the chevron doctrine, and the wolpert case and how that can help you stop our government from being overregulated, bureaucrats overreaching, using a statute that maybe can be liberally interpreted and all of that? mr. vought: it is one of those

aspects of the regulatory process in terms of deregulating, in terms of making sure that agencies are sticking to the law, that we want to make sure if confirmed we get properly set up. that would be part of the review process, not unlike cost-benefit analysis and making sure agencies are not coming up with new interpretations of what the statute should say it. we want to stick to the statute. sen. grassley: so, you will be watching that regulatory process to make sure loeper is followed? mr. vought: yes. sen. grassley: another thing that irritates me about -- by the way, these problems i am talking about not just are democrat problems, they are republican and democrat problems we have to deal with. another one would be not answering our letters. i don't know if i got a lot of

letters. when pam bondi was in my office, i gave her her stack of 158 letters that the justice department in the last four years have not answered. it was somewhat the same over obama and trump previously. we have a constitutional responsibility to make sure the executive branch faithfully execute our laws. so, we want to make sure that these letters are answered. on september 15, 2023, i sent president biden's omb director asking a simple question -- where is the implementation guidance for the open government data act? just one example. at that point, omb was five years late in issuing the guidance. the guidance was intended to make government information more

open and available. in the final days of the biden administration, they released the guidance but never responded to my request. will you commit to ensure omb provides timely and complete responses to congressional oversight? mr. vought: yes, i think it is very important. it is one of the things i asked my teams to do. i said this to all of you in our individual meetings, i want to know before it gets time to have to send a letter, which is an important part of the process. sen. grassley: should you be confirmed, you will face tasks of reining in the bloated federal government, besides crafting a responsible budget,

what actions can you take as omb director to begin rightsizing the federal government? mr. vought: if confirmed, we will go right into the process of finishing the fiscal year 2025, helping the president come to a view on how that should proceed. we will begin the process of various discussions with regards to reconciliation which are very important. then, there's the normal management of different agencies for waste, fraud and abuse. we will have to get started and get caught up based on normal process of the incoming administration. sen. grassley: thank you. chair graham: if i were you, i would answer senator grassley's letter if he ever sent one. senator murray? sen. murray: thank you. i appreciated the opportunity to meet with you last week, but i do continue to have very serious concerns regarding your nomination.

starting with your position and record. i do not believe what happened in the case of withholding security assistance to ukraine in 2018 while you were acting director was an accident or a misunderstanding. i fear it is actually a harbinger of what is to come these next four years. in fact, on his first day in office, we saw the president order, among other things, what appears to be an illegal deferral of inflation reduction act, bipartisan infrastructure law, and foreign assistance funds, as senator merkley referred to. your written response when pressed on this, that you will follow the advice of the incoming omb general counsel, someone who has called the impoundment control act a stupid law, and recently tweeted at you to impound, baby, impound is a bit rich. as i said to you at our meeting, members of congress on both

sides must know a deal is a deal and that is when we reach a bipartisan agreement on major legislation. agreements cannot happen and congress cannot function without that level of trust. and "impound, baby, impound" is not the answer i am looking for. i want to ask you today will you if confirmed as director faithfully follow the law? the impoundment control act, yes or no? mr. vought: we will faithfully uphold the law. the president ran on the notion that the impoundment control act is unconstitutional. i agree with that. in response to both questions, i would say with the president has unveiled already are not impoundments. sen. murray: has the impoundment law ever been said to be unconstitutional by a court of law? no, it has not. so, it is the law of the land. i don't care with the president

said when he was running. it is the law of the land. will you follow that law if you are confirmed? mr. vought: the president and his team will go through a review with our lawyers, if confirmed, including the department of justice, to explore the parameters of the law with regard to the impoundment control act. he has not developed a strategy that he's announced as it pertains to how he would approach it. there are pieces of legislation that have been proposed by members of this committee. sen. murray: we propose legislation all the time. if the rule of the law in a state is it is a 15 mile per hour speed limit, you cannot just say i think it is irresponsible and i will challenge it and i won't follow it. will you follow the law or not? you can say we will look at it. you might challenge it in court, but it is the law today. will you follow the law as directed? mr. vought: the reason why the

president ran on this is 200 years of presidents -- sen. murray: you are telling me why you don't agree with the law, but the law is the law, would you agree? mr. vought: what he found is we had agencies that would push out at the end of the fiscal year. sen. murray: i will take my time back for a minute and tell all of us, we work all the time on appropriations to come to an agreement. senator graham, we work on agreements and we decide we will both vote for this. how could we ever have an agreement in the future if a president, whoever he or her may be in the future has say over that, saying never mind, i will not pay for this part of it? we have to have agreements, it is the law of the land. i have to say your answer to this should be disconcerting to every single member on this committee. i have a minute left and i want to ask you another important question to me because as director of the powerful office of management and budget, your job will not be merely to execute the president's agenda,

it is also to advise the president on policy issues you made clear. i want to ask about women's health policy. you were a lead author of the antiabortion project 2025. you are also caught a few months ago saying when it comes to abortion, you "want to get to abolition." everyone should understand that abortion, abolition means zero abortions under any circumstance whatsoever. so, you have said you don't believe in exceptions for rape, for incest, or life of the mother. is that your position? mr. vought: my views are not important. i am here on behalf of the president to restore fiscal accountability. sen. murray: i am asking you a question under of because you want to be director of an office that will advise the president and we have a right to know your views. will you answer the question? mr. vought: it is consistent with the views of the president ran on repeatedly, made his views very clear on abortion with regard in the last

election. sen. murray: even in the case of rape, incest and the life of the mother? mr. vought: that is his view. i will abide by the president's view. that will be the general theme throughout his hearing. my view is you come into administration and you do with the president ran on, what the president's viewpoints are, and you take that viewpoint -- sen. murray: you don't need to say anything else. it is very clear what your stance is and people in this country should know that. chair graham: senator crapo. never mind. senator johnson. sen. johnson: thanks for being here again. i hope this is one of many appearances before this committee. when you appeared before the homeland security committee, we didn't want to spend a lot of time on spending. i want to focus on revenue. i want to talk in general.

if you take a look at federal outlays averages over the decades, in the 1960's, we spent 8.2% on average, 1970's, 21.5%. 1990's, 19.5%. 2010 to 2019, 21%. this year, we are right around 21% of gdp federal spending. what would be a goal for this administration? we talked about getting to a pre-pandemic level of spending. last five years, we've averaged $6.5 trillion. what is an appropriate percentage of gdp for federal spending? mr. vought: this is a great question. we have not set a fiscal goal yet for this administration but i think trying to get back to historical levels of outlays is one of those important first steps to begin to find out ways to be able to not set records as

a percentage of gdp. whether that is spending, outlays as a percentage of gdp or debt. we are now above levels of world war ii which we never thought we would get there outside of crises. we need to change the trajectory we are on as a country. sen. johnson: i want to work very closely with you to bring down that level of spending to a reasonable pre-pandemic level. it's absurd we are basically spending at pandemic levels. in terms of the automatic tax increase that would go into effect if we don't take action, i would think the first goal would be to return certainty that that will not happen. would you agree? mr. vought: yes, senator. sen. johnson: ok. one way of doing that, i proposed this morning at a political event, i know people talk about one big, beautiful bill. i would recommend three steps.

first, reconciliation. second would be just extend the tax cut and job act as it is. that would take any tax increase off the table because what i want to do in the third step is to simplify and rationalize the tax code and i found there's nothing simple about doing that. i think republicans all agree we want to return certainty. there's not going to be a massive tax increase. this will be one way to do it. extend it using current policy, senator crapo's idea. let's discuss that for a minute. in past budgets, we adhere to the rule that a spending policy expires. if you extend that, there is no cost. if it is tax cut that expires, you are dealing with trillions

of dollars -- by the way, i don't believe those scores. don't you think it makes a lot of sense to treat both spending and taxes the exact same way? if we pass a budget in this committee, it will be based on current policy for spending and taxes? mr. vought: i am not here to make any announcements strategically for the administration but i do think it makes sense to treat spending in the same way that you treat the tax baseline. i think that is something that should be considered, as you navigate the reconciliation process and have conversations. i think that is a very important discussion that needs to continue to move forward to give options for the president for this body. sen. johnson: i'm always speaking in terms of goals. i think it is a goal to return that certainty. let's take any automatic tax increase off the table as quickly as possible. whatever we do do -- and again i don't like the term tax simplification. whatever we do, it needs to be

permanent. let's not make the mistake of having automatic tax increases in what we do next. that will be complex, ok. there's nothing simple about tax simplification. we ought to look at tax expenditures. i had my staff put out the list of tax expenditures, about 170 of them totaling $1.7 trillion. some of these are legitimate business reductions. is this something the administration is willing to take a look at, just trying to dramatically simplify our tax system? it costs $400 billion at least to comply with them. is that something you when the treasury department and the president will work on trying to president will work on trying to simplify the tax system? mr. vought: yes.

happy to look at the list as well. chair graham: i don't know if this will be one step, two steps or three steps, but let's take a step. senator sanders. sen. sanders: thank you, mr. chairman. i look forward to working with you. we are living in a moment in american history where at a time when 60% of our people are living paycheck-to-paycheck, we have more income and wealth inequality that we've ever had. people are struggling to put food on the table. the very rich are getting much richer. we have heard from our republican colleagues in the house that they think it is a good idea to go forward to provide massive tax breaks to the billionaire class. and at the same time, help pay for that by cutting back on medicaid. i know that you are more than aware that medicaid not only provides health care to tens of millions of lower income people, but two out of three people in nursing homes in america,

elderly people are on medicaid, paid for by medicaid. you are going to be an advisor to the president if you are approved. will you tell the president that it is immoral, that it is wrong to cut medicaid, cut health care for low income americans, for children and for the elderly, and give tax breaks to the very richest people in our society? is that something we can count on you to do? mr. vought: i appreciate the question. one of the problems we have in medicaid is the extent to which instead of being a program for the poor, to the extent to which it's meant for nursing homes -- we have able-bodied, working adults on the program that are benefiting from a higher mass rate than the populations it was originally designed for.

as a result of that expanded match, you also have states chasing that match in other ways that have made it so they are not looking at improper payments -- sen. sanders: you're going into another area and that is the health care system in general. as you well know, unfortunately, the united states of america is the only major country on earth not to guarantee health care to all people as a human right. and the result of that, despite medicaid, and we can argue about that aspect of medicaid, despite the 85 million americans are uninsured or underinsured. importantly, your colleague mr. musk made this point. we are spending far more on health care than any other country per person. i wonder as an advisor to the president, will you try to determine how it is that countries around the world are able to provide care to all of

their people, and in some cases, spend 50% per capita of what we are spending? do you think the function of the american health-care system should be to make huge profits for the insurance companies and drug companies, or do you think maybe we should have a system that guarantees health care to all people of a human right? do you believe health care is a human right? mr. vought: i believe it is very important that we put the health care dollars that the taxpayers are covering for the health care system, which you just mentioned is substantial, and to make sure we have the best outcomes in those programs. i want the people who benefit from medicaid to have a great medicaid program. i look at a situation, the tragedy we had where a 12-year-old dies of a toothache because the infection was never found. sen. sanders: you're right, the health care system, in my view, is broken and dysfunctional. my question to you is simple. as advisor to the president, do you think we should join every other major country on earth and say whether you are poor, rich, young, old, health care is a

human right. we are the richest country in the history of the world. do you think we should do it every other major country on earth does? mr. vought: i think it is important to provide legitimate, evidence-based outcomes for people within the health care system, and to make sure we tailor all of the dollars that are spent -- sen. sanders: you didn't answer my question. my question -- fine. the question is a simple question. in america, should we do what every other major country does and says i don't care if you are poor, rich, old or young, health care is a human right, yes or no? mr. vought: the president ran on providing good health care outcomes. sen. sanders: you are an advisor to the president. a key advisor if you are approved. do you think health care is a human right that every american should be entitled to? mr. vought: i believe the role of the office of management budget director is to take with the president has run on, as a

policy agenda and turn that into policy, to implement that. to the extent that he has run on having lower prescription drugs, that is a priority of the of initiation. sen. sanders: thank you. the president in the past has indicated that he would maybe do what president biden did. stand up to big pharma. we are paying now in some cases 10 times more for the same exact drug that other countries are paying. are you going to advise the president to take on big pharma and do what he promised to do, and that is have americans not pay a nickel more than other countries for prescription drugs? will you advise him to do that? mr. vought: the president has not made an announcement since he's been in office but ran on this issue. a speech with regard to making sure that we were getting the same types of arrangements that the other countries were given

the amount we were investing. he also wants to do it in a careful way, so that we are not ruining the phenomena and the ministry that allows us to have lifesaving -- sen. sanders: i do understand that. we want innovation, but will you maintain what we fought very hard to do what every other country does, have medicare negotiate prescription drug prices with the industry? mr. vought: i am not here to get in front of the president on any of his policies. this has been a priority for him and i think your question reflects that. sen. sanders: thank you. chair graham: thank you, senator sanders. senator cornyn. sen. cornyn: thank you for your willingness to serve the nation again. especially you and your family. this job comes -- it's more than its fair share of abuse. but i believe this is a once in a generation opportunity to do what we need to do to get our spending in check and to make

sure that we do what you said, i think at the beginning of your testimony, which is the most important thing the federal government does -- provide for the security and safety of the american people. you remember 15 years ago, admiral mullen, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, said the biggest threat to our national security was our debt. when he said that, i thought that was an unusual thing to say, but if you think of it as a prediction, it has literally become true because now we spend more money on interest on the national debt than we do on defense. and that is a recipe for disaster and what i think is the most dangerous world we have seen since world war ii. let me take you back to the issue of inflation. we have come off a 40 year high inflation rate for the american

people which is sort of the silent tax which degrades the standard of living for all americans. how is inflation related to government spending? mr. vought: thank you. this is an important moment for our country to be able to get a handle on our debt and deficits. i believe spending is a big driver of inflation. i think you saw that under the biden administration when they put forward some of the covid packages early in his administration. all of a sudden, we had an inflation problem. i predicted it at the time. larry summers predicted at the time. we saw something that the so-called experts told us we'd never see again, which is inflation at the levels the american people could not absorb, nor should they ever be expected to. i think it is both an energy phenomena, a regulatory phenomena, and a spending component.

sen. cornyn: i think milton friedman would agree with you on the spending side. the federal government spends roughly $6.75 trillion at the present time. i know none of us can get a brain around how much money that is. we also took in last year about $4.5 trillion in revenue, so this is significant gap between what the federal government spends and what the federal government gets in terms of revenue. you think that is sustainable? mr. vought: no, sir, it is not. we have to get spending under control. what we've seen is that revenues have been hovering about where they've been historically as a percentage of gdp. as a result, the problem is primarily on the spending side. that is one of the reasons why you've seen in the first term, the president put forward substantial numbers of savings and reforms to get a handle on the spending component of the federal budget.

sen. cornyn: right now, the congress appropriates roughly 28% of the money that the federal government spends. the rest of it is on mandatory spending and spent under the tax code, as senator johnson pointed out. i don't know how we will ever balance the budget looking at 20% of what the federal government spends. that is not to say we shouldn't not look at it. but, do you agree with me that we need to look at mandatory spending programs? i understand that medicare and social security acts in bipartisan support are unlikely to be the sources of any savings on spending. but, we spent roughly $700 billion a year on mandatory spending programs that congress turns on. it does not cap. it does not have a cost-of-living index. it is just based on demand and

they grow at 6% to 8%. do you think we need to find some of the savings? mr. vought: yes. that is one of the reasons there were substantial numbers of savings and reforms, many of which get better outcomes of these programs that were consistent with the president's protection of social security and medicare that still allows to get the balance of the budget that we last set up the first term. the president's approach has been get after the bureaucracy that is largely wasting money and be able to get people back to work with things like welfare reform and other reforms that we've seen historically work to get better labor force participation and a better economy. sen. cornyn: thank you. chair graham: senator warner. sen. warner: thank you. good to see you. these hearings are important. i kind of do them as a job interview.

i have to tell you though, kind of curious about your background. a dozen years on the hill. government bureaucrat. right wing think tank. seems to me you are a total product of what maga folks call the swamp. i am not sure how that swamp expertise is going to help you i have to tell you, your words, "we want the bureaucrats to be traumatically affected because they are increasingly viewed -- we want to put them in trauma." i have to tell you, you want to be omb and help oversee this workforce and you want to put the workforce in trauma? sir, that would be management

malpractice. i appreciate the fact of what you've done in the past, your record. 2019, you helped move the blm out. 170% increase in vacancies at the blm. gao, folks that are supposed to be independent, said that move dramatically impaired its ability to serve the american people. another point. last time you said let's move part of the department of agriculture out, two bureaus, led to 40% and 60% reduction in effectiveness. - i give you credit for putting then, we get to your magnus. i give you credit for putting it down in writing. project 2025 and that handbook. sir, i do appreciate the fact one of the things you said which is you said you think it is important for the federal government to keep our nation safe.

one of the most important things i've done in this job is my work with the intelligence community. chair and vice chair now. thousands of men and women that work in the intelligence community. without a lot of fanfare. you realize, i hope, to become a cia agent takes about a year. are you aware? mr. vought: yes. sen. warner: in your project 2025 magnus, you put forward the idea that somehow breaking up the cia and moving it around the country would make our nation more safe? do you not understand, sir, that if president trump by having the intelligence community close to him, to have ability from folks from nsa, cia, the pentagon, the fbi in this region -- your idea

of somehow on this ideological jihad to break up the intelligence community's effectiveness. i would ask you, sir, can you show any evidence that somehow we would make our nation safer if you put your political litmus test and this idea of bringing trauma to the federal workforce by taking the intelligence community, which has been supported on a bipartisan basis, year-in and year-out, and somehow breaking it up and hithering on just for a political purpose? how does that make our nation safer? mr. vought: i never proposed that and the president has disassociated himself from project 2025. sen. warner: good, we will get it on record. you will commit to make sure -- i would argue you need to make a business case before you start breaking up the government. i'm all for effectiveness. will you be willing to commit

not to undermine our national intelligence community by arbitrarily trying to break them up and spread them around just because you want to blow up the federal workforce this region? mr. vought: yes. there is no policy process that the trump administration has done that is producing arbitrary results. let me speak to the question you raised with regard to my comments about the bureaucracy. it was specifically in reference to the weaponized bureaucracy we have seen. sen. warner: so, you are the arbiter of who's weaponized and who is not? i hope my colleagues -- i think you are completely irresponsible actions on so-called schedule f. we put a civil service in place but i urge you, if you become in this position, think long and hard about the men and women of the national security and the intelligence community before you go on some political jihad of trying to score points by

simply trying to break up an operation that actually functions better because of the close collaboration. your comments about the federal workforce i find disqualifying on its basis. thank you. chair graham: thank you. senator kennedy. sen. kennedy: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. vought, welcome. mr. vought: thank you. sen. kennedy: in my judgment, i don't know a single person in washington or outside washington who knows more about the federal budget than you do. i used to read your suggestions during president trump's first term. many of which congress ignored. we should not have.

i am delighted that the president picked you. i have read that since 2019, the population of america has increased 2% and are spending has increased 55%. under president biden, i wish him well, if we had discovered life on mars, he would have sent it money. is that sustainable? mr. vought: it is totally unsustainable. the problem is that you go on these trajectories that we are currently on and you don't know when you will get to the point of which you have some major, major problems as an economy and

country. we know that historically. sen. kennedy: i hope you will start with the low hanging fruit. there's a lot. when we sent out stimulus checks to save our economy, $1.6 billion went to dead people. and the checks were cashed. obviously fraud. omb is estimating in fiscal year 2023, we sent out $1.3 billion of checks to dead people which were cashed, obviously fraud. when you die in america, your name is sent to the social security administration. as you know, you become part of the master death file. senator carper and i discovered that social security would not share that information with any other department of government,

so we passed a bill saying you have to share it with treasury and other people who write checks so we stop paying dead people. duh. we got pushback, believe it or not, on the bill. we had to agree to a trial period and that period ends in 2026. will you help us make that program permanent so we can stop paying dead people? mr. vought: yes, senator. sen. kennedy: now, you served in washington for years. you're going to be called, you are going to be challenging the status quo. you're going to be called crazy. many people also called noah crazy. then, the rains came. and all the fact checkers died.

you have to persevere. now, i'm asking you -- i'm not asking you to get ahead of president trump, but if you were king for a day, tell me how you would save money in the federal budget without impacting the american people? mr. vought: thank you. i think it is the strategy we had in the first term which is to go really and take a close look at the agencies that are spending and wasting money. i believe weaponized at times against the american people. when they put a 77-year-old navy veteran in jail for 18 months for building four ponds on his ranch to be prepared for think we have to look at that and i look at the agencies that congress has a vote on every single year through the appropriations process.

i think we need to go after the mandatory programs that senator cornyn mentioned that are keeping people out of the workforce because they have become not just a social safety net, but a benefit hammock, increasingly so in the aftermath of covid as many of these policies were impacting people's decisions to go back into the workforce. i believe, and because we produce budgets along these lines, you can get sizable levels of savings and reforms that can lead to a balanced budget and get us back headed in a fiscal trajectory. not only that we would be proud of them, but we can say this will keep us from fiscal ruin. sen. kennedy: my time is expired. do you have hi wou like to add? ok. now is your shot. thank you for your time. congratulations. chair graham: good call there, young lady. apparently, we are going to mars

and i'm on reserve whether or not i want to help them. maybe we do. as to dead people, i don't want to give them checks and they should not vote either. senator kaine. >> congratulations on the nomination. i want to go back to the comment that senator warner read to you. there's 140,000 employees in virginia and you gave a speech that got a lot of attention when you said we want bureaucrats to be dramatically affected. when they wake up in the morning, we want them to not want to go to work because they are increasingly viewed as the villains. i pay attention to the way people say things because there's a million wa you can make a point. the way you choose to make a point tells you something about the person. i had an old testament reference over there, i will go to the new testament. in luke, from the fullness of the heart, the mouth speaks. we want people to be traumatized.

we want people to be traumatized. i have heard a million people in this room give speeches about we want to reduce the budget, deal with the deficit, but i have not heard anyone give a gleeful speech about traumatizing the federal workforce. you don't want federal air traffic control is going to the airport traumatized, do you? mr. vought: no. sen. kaine: you don't want the people inspecting our food, our medicine, our infant formula, you don't want them to go to work traumatized? you don't want people interdicting drugs at the border going to work traumatized? mr. vought: no. sen. kaine: and you don't want people working for you, who many would people would think they are in the way, you don't want them traumatized, do you? mr. vought: no, thank you for expanding on that. sen. kaine: i felt like i had to because i got 140,000 people and most of them have families, and they are try to do a good job. was your comment about people being traumatized just focus on the federal workforce or was it

more broadly about state employees and local government employees, too? mr. vought: it was about the weaponized bureaucracy. sen. kaine: you were talking about the federal workforce. mr. vought: i was talking about the bureaucracy that i experienced. sen. kaine: at the federal level? you are not talking about state? mr. vought: i have no experience with the state. sen. kaine: you are not talking about local employees? your mother was a public school teacher, correct? you want the federal workforce to be traumatized. mr. vought: bureaucracy. >> bureaucracy. sen. kaine: i like a lot of presidents. i'm a lincoln fan. lincoln spoke to a nation at war and he said with malice towards none and charity towards all. and you was saying that to the north and the south. he didn't say "we want you to be traumatized."

he was a bridge-builder and a unifier and that is what public servants should be. they should not gleefully be wishing trauma on people who are trying to serve their fellow man. i want to get to woke and weaponized. you were the president of the center for renewing america and the think tank produced a 2023 budget proposal called a commitment to end woke and weaponized government. do you remember that? mr. vought: yes, sir. sen. kaine: do you understand that? that is the correct title? 104 pages of details to end woke and weaponized government and it proposes deep cuts to the step program, which provides nutrition to kids. is that woke and weaponized? >> i am here on behalf of the president -- >> you just said you did that. sen. kaine: i want to know what is woke and weaponized about providing food assistance to low income kids. >> again, i am not here on behalf of my center.

sen. kaine: this is your work product. you can say it is not woke and weaponized or you can tell me why it is woke and weaponized. i don't think s.n.a.p. program benefits for kids are woken weaponized treated do you agree? mr. vought: when we refer to the federal government being weaponized, we were referring to bureaucracies. sen. kaine: so you propose to cut s.n.a.p. but you are not saying it is woken weaponized? you propose deep cuts to pell grants, that is helping kids pay for college. is that good and weaponized? mr. vought: i am not here to defend that -- sen. kaine: i get that. like a -- i can understand that. you propose deep cuts to medicaid for millions of low income families. why is that woke and weaponized. he proposed undermining health insurance. why is that woke and weaponized? eliminate tenant-based rental assistance, why is that woke and weaponized. eliminating the low energy assistance program. this was in your document about ending woke and weaponized

government. ok, let's see, we want to summarize this traumatized federal employees and i knew were to take these programs that help everyday people who are struggling and cut them because they are woke and weaponized. those are your words, not mine. "from the fullness of the heart, the mouth speaks." i yield back. chair: senator ricketts:. sen. ricketts: thank you, mr. chairman. my colleague from louisiana has already referenced federal spending, roughly in 2019 and $6.9 trillion in 2024. and $6.9 trillion in 2024. president biden's proposal was for $7 trillion. we greatly expanded federal spending, recklessly expanded it. including a number of areas that my colleague from virginia was referencing.

areas that were expended during covid and never brought back down to 2019 levels. that reckless spending has led to four-year high inflation. we talked about that as well. in your opening remarks, he remarked how americans are worse off today four years later after joe biden because of his reckless spending. contributed to this inflation. that is not the only thing that contributed to how americans are being hurt by the policies of this biden administration that just left. one of the other areas they have been hurt by his the regulation. you have mentioned some of the bureaucracies out of control. throwing a 77-year-old in prison for building bonds. if you look over the last four years, the biden administration put in over 100,000 pages of new regulation. 33 feet tall.

taller than a three-story building worth of regulations. one study said it would be adding $3300 to the cost of every american household. this kind of hidden cost that we see on american households is also one of the reasons why americans are worse off today than they were four years ago. one of the examples of hiding some of these costs was actually in the epa. with the tailpipe regulations, also known as the ev mandate. a 573-page document and there was one table on costs. one table. so, what we see from this outgoing administration is hiding the cost from the american people so that they don't understand, don't see what their government is trying to do to them. how their government is actually laying on these regulations that harm them.

that is why they feel worse off today than they did four years ago. if you are confirmed, will you commit that you will work with me to help reverse and expose the regulations and how agencies try to hide the cost, try to play around with the numbers? you may have heard the phrase there are lies and statistics. we need to make sure that when we are passing regulations that we have a full cost-benefit analysis that people understand the trade-offs we are making by having regulation. if you are confirmed, will you commit that you will work with us to make sure that we fully understand the cost of this and these agencies will not try to hide the cost of the regulations? mr. vought: absolutely. this is one of those fundamental apparatuses that we need to get back in place that we had in the first term. if confirmed, it will be one of the earliest projects i am a part of. sen. ricketts: thank you very much.

i want to switch gears a little bit because it is another example of how the bureaucracy is failing. as you know, biofuels are important to my state of nebraska. we are an agricultural state. biofuels are a way for us to be able to help the env >> in their arsenal they are wrote a nice to see jake -- and they are >> tions are priorr me and my state. in the 2026 rvo's, they were supposed to be filed november 1, 2024. now it looks like it will be december. i'm sure the businesses. we are going to be over a year behind. will you commit to working with me to help make sure that the bureaucracies are following the

law >> >> in there for a strike. >> nice to see jake back in the trenches. i had some injuries and was away from the team. he is back healthy. >> we talked to him the other day. and it is on all our valley spot, e-trade platform, social media platform. you can see. that was hard for him because is the first time he has ever been away from the game of baseball, in his life. so it took some getting used to. he didn't 11. not letting that -- loving that. it's the second hit tiger batter today. >> tells me he is really trying to make a conscious effort of

getting that ball on the inside part of the play. here is the two-seamer. he catches it on that elbow pad. looks like it caught a lot of elbow as well. >> what do we got? we are just a few days into the trump administration and already seen a huge gap between what candidate trump ran on, which was helping working men and women in this country >> he will be sore tomorrow when he wakes up. rogers talking his way to stay in the game. [applause]

>> tough to get him out when he has missed as much time as he did a year ago. he wants to play. >> yeah, just pick up a little dirt and put it on him and said let's go. staying in the action! >> austin meadows will stand in for the second time against domingo german. nettles flew to center in the first. strike one. the meadows on the off on wednesday, took riley greene, spencer torkelson and matt wisler out on his boat, just a casual day. some late fishing, but overall, just a good way to hang out with the guys. rips one down the right-field line. >> did you get the invite? >> i did not. >> i would have loved to get that invite. just to get out of the water. just do a little fishing. >> they were all real appreciative. they love that, writer.

>>. >> i do, too. i love they are hanging out together off the field. again, i truly believe in a team that loves being around each other, they play for each other, there is no question it helps build camaraderie, and it helps you play better on the field. >> you had that with your really good teams that you played on? >> 4-0 we deftly did. we had it in '06, for sure. we had a good mix of veterans and some young players. -- made it very clear he was going to do to everybody the first on the 15th -- that was when you got your checks and the checks would look different. the rookies' checks are a little smaller. [laughter] [laughter] in the veterans' a little bigger. but the thought is you've got to treat everybody the same. that is an of the things i feel like hicks does a very good job of. he treats of these guys the same and they all feel important.

>> i think he was really encouraged, when we talked about that with him, really encouraged that you have a somewhat better on in meadows, taking up the young guys. just to hang out and spend time with one another away from baseball. >> yeah, it's fun. i am glad austin knows he is taking on the responsibility of being a leader. especially right now with the w.b.c. going on. you've got big-i out. those guys will leave us as well. >> cabrera the captain of team , venezuela, austin meadows sits down after swinging in strike three. >> he can speed it up with that fastball, then he can pull the string on you with that changeup. >> jonathan schoop, he flew out to center.

first pitch swinging. a fly ball to center field. kiner-falefa takes control. the tigers pad their lead thanks to colt keith. muscles up a no doubter, launched 427 feet. 2-0 tigers. a.j. hinch joined us on the other side. ♪ in government actions and contracts. will those numbers be -- have to recuse themselves from putting forth proposals in areas where they have a clear conflict of interest? mr. vought: this administration has the highest ethical standards and anyone who's a federal employee will be going through the legal and ethics process that is expected and required for all employees. sen. van hollen: so, they will be? good. i just want to pick up on the quote that senator kaine, senator warner mentioned, about traumatically inflicting trauma on federal employees.

this is an opportunity for you to >> some of the best conversations really are off-mic. colt keith. with a home run. we welcome his manager. how is he doing because >> he is definitely staying in the game. he would have definitely just got a right inside the right-field line and gone to the clubhouse. [laughter] >> live cs stays on the bag for a fine out to start the third. >> we might be inviting him back full-time. he is playing about every other day and doing things like this. >> what is the most encouraging signs from those young guys who know they are not going to break camp with you, but they are still relishing this opportunity? >> just their comfort and their pace of play. and their understanding they are seeing guys they recognize whether it is on our team or the

other side with are they have seen them on tv -- colt keith loves baseball and loves to follow the game. now he is there seeing guys on the same field. it does the comfort of standing on your own two feet in the clubhouse with javi, and i guys he knows our bigger names that he is feeling comfortable. >> what are you seeing from manny today? looks good, that bases-loaded jam? >> that was the best ending of his spring with his intent and his tough. you never want these guys to get into this kind of trouble. but when they do, him having to exert a little bit of energy, pitch out a little bit of jam, have a little bit of stress and come out of it, it can be a really positive inning. so from the onset, it was good. his secondary assessment has been good. votto like. >> still looking at aaron hicks after falling off of his leg. you have three guys who are vying for starting roles in your rotation.

why faito after manning today a ? >> a couple of reasons. one is, it's nice to put these guys up and assumed in have them face a similar competition. it's hard, -- we have so many starting pitching options, knock on wood, compared to last season. we don't want to use that money. it's nice to see him kind of start up on the same day and do their part. running out of the next. manny is going to go three or four. societal will go two or three depending on what manning does. there is some messaging behind the guys competing to be on our team in multiple roles. it also can be very much coincidence, so, it's hard to pin down exactly why all the time. today it's fun to see these guys all pitching hard against the yankees. >> base hit by erin dix. >>. >> there is also some

competition in the outfield. with carpenter. which one of these guys -- what do each of these guys need to do to make the squad? >> it's interesting when you talk about competition with guys. a lot of times it's like baddoo versus carpenter. or kreidler versus short versus our is in the infield. a couple of injuries have opened up opportunities. but it's really more about badoo versus badoo and carpenter versus carpenter and these guys against each other. because we want the best version of them. they are different. baddoo will be more active on the basis. carpenter will hit the ball in the ballpark a little bit more and be more of a threat against right-handed pitching. it's more about bringing the best version of yourself out and seeing where you can contribute. we go a lot of different ways depending on the matchups that we see early in the season. so we told the guys, go out there and do what you can.

>> how impressed are you with parker meadows? >>, austins brother love him. he is an another error one very similar to colt keith, it's his first big-league camp. he has been in the minor leagues for a couple of years. he has gotten a lot of notoriety, specifically last year, and he has his big brother, albeit short her little brother in right field. when you contribute there way parker did on both sides of the ball, it could move your timeline up a bit to where he is an option early in the season. >> good play. even better position. we look at how many different guys are playing in different times, maton is a good example, how challenging is that for you? do you embrace that because you get an opportunity to manage

more? >> we like multi position guys. we just have to make sure they get enough reps before the game but also in game type positions. nick maton has been playing the infield all his life. so he will get a few outfield reps next week. we move them around. i may even switch these guys in the fourth inning and has nick maton play shortstop. >> a throw from rogers. it in time. aaron hicks with the stolen bags on both big bases. a.j., i know as a player, you would have liked those. >> i don't know that they are safer. i don't even notice them anymore. i think keeping the first baseman away from where that batter runner is running and obviously in and around the base, we've gotten used to them to where we don't even notice them. >> your buddy chris fetter is right next to you. the michigan native has a green

hat. how difficult is that for him? >> [laughter] >> it's a tv game. so a lot of our guys who aren't playing still come out here. it's just like wearing the irish in notre dame. >> i said that to him, he said, i feel like i am back home. you are always at home and the microphone! thanks for your time, we appreciated,. his team is up two as we head to the bottom of the third. ♪ help working-class americans? mr. vought: no. sen. moreno: so, last question for you. you can answer it however you like. why do you think hourly wages for working-class >> riley greene leads of the tigers' third. they are up 2-0. thanks to a.j. hinch for joining us.

we had an administration doing everything it can to unleash the american economy, have cheap energy, to be able to have a regulatory sector not adding burdens and not working from a cost-benefit perspective. and to free the american people and entrepreneurs to take risk and higher people and to increase salaries. and you get that with the policies that the president has run on. we will see that in a very soon amount of time. sen. moreno: icans, was it joe biden and the democrats or president trump? mr. vought: it was certainly not president trump. chair graham: senator lujan. sen. lujan: you authored sections of project 2025 ways sets forth a blueprint for dangerous plans under this new administration. you would have in a norma's responsibility at omb and even your record i have serious

questions about whether you could be trusted to carried out the safeguard programs that many americans rely on like medicare, medicaid, social security and anymore. you also authored this money he 23 budget proposal at a foundation that i believe you helped to found over at the center for renewing americans, is that correct? mr. vought: i did help found that and put that together. sen. lujan: you stand by your name? mr. vought: i am not here to talk about those proposals. sen. lujan: it is simple, do you stand by your name and word? mr. vought: i appreciate it because you signed this document and this is your signature, i appreciate that. in 2021, what was the reason for founding the center? mr. vought: we wanted to

continue the work on policies that were based on the principles of president trump running for office in his first term and to make sure that the political class here and the agenda setting functions were not going to ignore those important american first perspectives. i am not here on behalf of the center but on behalf of the policies that he ran on floor already acting on. sen. lujan: i ask unanimous consent to sale -- to submit this into the record. you know how many families received assistance within the low energy income assistance program? what it surprise you if it is the estimated 5.9 million families according to the national consumer law center? mr. vought: it would not. sen. lujan: your budget for the center of renewing america proposed eliminating funding entirely which would force millions americans to face

rising energy costs which is important this week when temperatures dip below zero especially those who represent states of constituents represent -- depend on these programs. you authored chapter two of the project when he 25 entitled executive office of the president of the united states is that correct? mr. vought: thank you. sen. lujan: i ask unanimous consent to enter chapter to a project 2025 into the record. he wrote that it must reaffirm its commencement -- its commitments "to preventing drug use before it starts and providing long-term treatment." did you know medicaid is a long -- is the biggest pair for substance abuse disorders in the united states? mr. vought: yes. sen. lujan: 38% depend on the program but in the budget from your group, the center for renewing america you had significant cuts to medicaid, a

total of $2.3 trillion of cuts over 10 years. now, on april 8 2024 you tweeted that "defending life is the most important thing to me." is that correct? mr. vought: on behalf of the administration i will be putting in place the president's views on life and abortion. sen. lujan: do you know that -- do you know what roughly percentage of american babies are born with medicaid health coverage every year? about 41%. that surprise you? mr. vought: it would not. sen. lujan: you call to eliminate the federal matching percentage floor for states that would eliminate crucial investments that would put health care of pregnant mothers in jeopardy. it would cut over $650 billion from that program alone. do you know that headstart promotes school readiness for children from birth to age five? mr. vought: yes. sen. lujan: do you know how many children were served in fy 23? mr. vought: not off the top of

my head. sen. lujan: 770,000 children. your budget proposes a 50% funding reduction for headstart programs. in your budget you included a statement that said "headstart participants have worse behavior and academic outcomes than children who do not enroll in the program." two members of this committee are headstart graduates including myself. does that surprise you? mr. vought: no. sen. lujan: that outcomes from headstart got a couple of folks to the united states senate. would you like to apologize about that statement? mr. vought: i was not referring to anybody in particular. we were looking at the program, the reforms that were part of that proposal. in that proposal is not an administration document and i am not here to defend it. sen. lujan: can i add to the record a document from the national headstart alliance that cites over 30 studies that finds the advantage for headstart kids? chair graham: absolutely.

sen. lujan: one last question. on native american programs around safety. i assume that you support making american communities safer? mr. vought: yes. sen. lujan: does this include native american communities surrounding local and rural and border towns? mr. vought: do you plan to defund tribal police again as you did under your first tenure? mr. vought: we have not begun the budget process and i will not be able to comment on what a future budget when we do not have a fiscal goal that the president would have agreed to. sen. lujan: you are not willing to say no? mr. vought: i am not willing to comment on any programs that have not been articulated as part of the budget process. sen. lujan: i just hope when we talk about border security and safety in our communities and bipartisan we have worked on several committees to improve law & order and support for the bureau of indian affairs and native american police officers.

this is area with bipartisan support to protect the programs and i hope we can continue to do that. chair graham: senator scott. sen. scott: congratulations. you did a great job under the first trump administration and i know you will do a great job under this one and i look forward to working with you. we have seen the bloating of the federal government and under the last four years he has added $8 trillion to the national debt, increased federal spending by 53% while population growth was 2%. we cannot continue down this path by spending above pre-pandemic levels and with the past four years there has not been serious discussion on how to control spending or to reduce our $36 trillion of debt. it is crazy where the debt is. can you talk about this threat to the economy and what we are leaving to our children if we do not address it? mr. vought: we are leaving them a legacy of debt and higher

taxes if we do not deal with the fact that as a country we are spending too much. that is one of the reasons we have put forward budgets that would address the fiscal situation and have common sense reforms, savings and get a handle on the agencies that we think are wasting taxpayer dollars and to keep the economy growing. that is a part of what is necessary to balance the books. you have to have dynamic accounting where you bring revenue in and that is something that is very important for this administration. sen. scott: i went to a drive-through restaurant the other day and one of the ladies said that she moved to florida when i was governor because she thought she could get a job and she clearly did. we added 1.7 million jobs and she said the last four years with inflation she is finding it difficult to survive. she has two little kids. what are the policies that could be implemented, you have not done this yet, but what are some

of the ideas that president trump could implement to reduce inflation? mr. vought: we are going to address the spending side. the president has created doge in addition to omb. he has already put out an eo to put -- to unleash american agency and then have all of the agencies to trying get permits going and to be able to get regulations that are binding. the pursuit of american energy and then the regulatory process of getting that back up and running. the president has given us a new goal. now we have a 10 for one goal and we think we can hit that. we overshot the first goal and we think that we will do our best to hit that goal. those are all things that will be impacting the bottom line and the pocketbook of the person that moved to florida for that precise reason. sen. scott: so, if we do not -- you have seen senator ron

johnson's work about how much the budget it just grown. if you look at the and placement -- the inflation adjustment since clinton and obama it is staggering. what is the chance that we will see a significant reduction in interest rates, that are hurting people. what is the chance that we will see inflation come under control if we do not get this budget down? mr. vought: they come together. you have to tackle your budget and your spending to be able to have a shot at taming inflation and about having interest rates that can come down. when we left office interest rates were nowhere near where they are. we spent $350 billion in interest payments the last year i was there an hour -- and now we are up to $900 million. this is the wrong trajectory that you want to be on and we fully intend if confirmed for me to have a role in changing that

course. sen. scott: this is not the easiest job. you had before -- you've had it before. why do you want to do this? it is work to try to eliminate the cruel inflation and the impact on people's inability to buy a house because of interest rates. why would you want to do this? mr. vought: i think i bring a particular expertise having done the job before. i want to hit the ground running. it is rare that you have a chance to do a job better after thinking about it for four years and i am very thankful that the president has given me this opportunity and hopefully i get through as a confirmed appointee. sen. scott: thank you. chair graham: senator padilla. sen. padilla: thank you for being here. i cannot help but notice how many times i have heard throughout the hearing today you r agyeman that the impoundment control act is

unconstitutional. but the fact that the incoming general counsel at omb and along with you and your final days of the first trump administration specifically requested legislative adjustments to the impoundment control act. what that tells me is that you do in fact understand the constitutionality of this law as not just currently on the books, upheld by the courts. in your testimony today, and through how you served in the first trump administration, it also strikes me that you come across as someone who thinks that they know better than congress and better than this committee. and at times, better than the president in the first trump administration. you testified last week that you have been thinking about returning to the last four years

and i can only hope and pray that should you be confirmed, that you would uphold the constitution above all else. i mean, i normally think folks willing to put themselves out for a position in public service -- i usually thank them for their willingness because it is not easy. my colleague senator lujan raised contributions to project 2025. in that, you write that the omb director should be "aggressive in building the tool on behalf of the president's agenda" and " defend against attacks from congress." it is particularly striking that there are so many members of this committee that ce -- that seem eager and anxious to vote for your confirmation when there is a clear disregard and disdain

for congress' appropriation authority. frankly, mr. chairman, you are one of the appropriators and i wish you would join us in trying to drive home this point because it will say how we are working together over the next four years. i have to take this opportunity to echo senator peters, who raised a specific concern during your hearing in the homeland security committee last week. outlining the fact that your record is concerning for disaster impacted states. given your previous -- previous unlawful actions to politicize, withhold and slow the distribution of disaster or even foreign aid. so, my question to you is this, if confirmed, will you or will you not politicize disaster funding and deny funds provided

by congress for american families and businesses that have been devastated by natural disasters? mr. vought: i would not politicize the diversity -- dispersing of federal funds. sen. padilla: that is great to hear because you said you will implement the president's agenda. i've been very -- paying close attention to his remarks since the outset of the devastating fires in southern california these last few weeks. i would like to ask you, will you commit to getting congressionally appropriated funding outs to californians devastated by these fires as quickly as possible? mr. vought: senator, the president has been a firm distributor of federal resources to areas that need disaster money. and i do not expect that to change. that has characterized my time at omb the first time around. to your earlier question i support and will take an oath to

uphold the constitution. that will continue it confirmed -- in that capacity. sen. padilla: again for the record, i am glad you are pledging to uphold the constitution because the constitution and the law is clear as it pertains to the impoundment control act. so, unlike some of your clearly understood efforts in your first term, i hope you do not go back to those bad faith practices and efforts in the second term. and you are suggesting that you will not politicize the disbursement of funds and get them out the door as quickly as possible. i would appreciate you living that -- living up to that commitment that you stated because i continue to hear comments from president trump from leaders in -- from republican leaders in congress on both sides of the capital. about attaching disaster funding to a debt limit vote or

attaching disaster funding to some other element of the administration's agenda whether it is tax breaks for billionaires or unrelated issue in northern california as it pertains to federal land management or anything else. thank you for your comments on the record and i look forward to holding you to them. chair graham: senator marshall. sen. marshall: welcome, glad to have you here. i want to speak today in terms of hard-working families in kansas. the average salary back home is about $50,000 a year. over the last four years we have seen cumulative inflation of over 20%. so that $50,000 only really could porches about $40,000 worth of goods and services. almost a $1000 a month hit to the average kansan. when we think about the trump tax cuts, those put $1000 a

month back into the pockets of kansans. overall, if this trump tax cut goes away it will cost americans $4.3 trillion over 10 years, and middle america is going to get hit with about 60% of that. again, $1000 a month. if those tax cuts goes away it will impact hard-working kansans to the tune of $1000 a month. i just want you to comment just a second on how big a priority is getting these tax cuts made permanent would be and how it would impact our economy and the hard-working kansans back home? mr. vought: i think it would devastate their bottom line and having to face a massive tax increase that they are not prepared for, nor should they. the president has run on

extension of the tax cuts. and some of the provisions we proposed on the campaign trail. we have to go after the spending this time and ensuring that we are producing as much american energy. and we have to get beyond the regulatory burden that the american people. but, but these are all policies that will be prioritized in this role. sen. marshall: let us talk about budgeting. but folks back home are expected to balance the tax -- the checkbooks and payoff the credit card debt and they are saying that the credit cards are maxed out and it is tough times. but congress seems to not care about a budget. if but -- of conference would go to a zero-based budgeting reform what would be the impact of that? even grants. we make grants on five-year

terms if we would start looking at those especially those out of the country, what impact would zero-based budgeting have for getting towards a balanced budget? mr. vought: the concept is that you get a sense of what are the things you have not looked up for a long time and just starting from the ground up. it means you will not -- it does not mean you will not fund that you take an approach to making a gesture looking at each agency and where the dollars are coming from. every family does that and what is the amount that they will bring in from the paycheck. and they look what they are spending and say what are the big pockets of discretionary funding that they can do without. and that is what i think that budgeting is about. it is important not to lose that level of common sense that comes from a family balancing their own books. sen. marshall: ok. i -- just to give you a little time to just discuss inflation

in general. you made the comment earlier that federal borrowing causes inflation. and that is intuitive to some of us. but i want you to take that and explain again to the folks back home, when the federal government is pending more than they have, how does that lead to inflation? mr. vought: you have more money in the system coming from federal dollars that are providing competition and the ability to have prices go up as a result. and then you add to which who is buying much of that debt? much of that debt is being bought by the federal reserve that is printing money to buy that debt and that goes into the economy. sen. marshall: that will impact interest rates as well. one of the goals would be to get interest rates down. what will it take for interest

rates to meaningfully come down not just because of the fed? mr. vought: it will require us to get a handle on the spending. and have deficits that are much more manageable. sen. marshall: thank you. sen. whitehouse: welcome to the seat recently occupied by myself and i am delighted to see you there and i look forward to working with you. chair graham: me too. sen. whitehouse: the backdrop to the conversation we are having is. it is indicated by this graph. which shows from 1980 until 2020 how income has grown in the united states. this is showing -- the bottom line showing essentially no income growth is the bottom 20% of income earners. as you can see their household income has stayed essentially flat.

the second lineup, this lower one, is how the top 1% of income earners have done. they are up 600% nearly compared to near 0% and if you look at the topmost line that is up more than 800%, that is the top 0.01%. what worries me as we go into this effort is what we are trying to produce is a golden age for fatcats, billionaires and polluters and it is going to make this discrepancy worse and worse, and worse. and, it is in that context that i would like to ask you some

questions about these executive orders. president trump fired off 26 executive orders, i believe. are you familiar with them? mr. vought: i am getting familiar. i have been trying to stay abreast in red session read them. i have not read through all of them. i am aware that he has been very active and i have been reading up on them. sen. whitehouse: did you have any role in preparing for them? mr. vought: that is part of the transition. and i will not invade that process. sen. whitehouse: hold on. can i have a point of order and stop the clock. i was the chairman and you can put that down now. i was the chairman for a congress in which we had i think over 40 hearings and in those hearings never once did i tell a

republican colleague what questions they could or could not ask. those are kind of not my business. and we had some pretty out there questions. and we certainly never had a witness tells senators what questions they could and could not ask. so, i guess why can i not get an answer, is there some new rule in the committee? as to where these executive orders came from? that is perfectly to me legitimate congressional oversight. and over and over this witness has told us what questions he will answer, but the oath he took was to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in response. so it was there some limitation about what question i can answer, i would like to understand that? if not i would like to have the

chair tilde witness to answer my questions. chair graham: as i understand it there is no attorney-client privilege here. you are not claiming attorney climate privilege. mr. vought: i am not claiming a privilege. chair graham: generally speaking, you know, i guess the question is did you advise on executive orders and which ones, is that the question? sen. whitehouse: yes. chair graham: can you kind of tell us that, please? mr. vought: i was not a member of the transition and not a member of the president's campaign. sen. whitehouse: do you have knowledge of where the executive orders were drafted? mr. vought: i do not have a comprehensive knowledge. sen. whitehouse: do you have any knowledge of where they were drafted? do you know if some of them came out of language for the center for renewing america or project 2025 or some of them came out of the heritage institute or out of

the american petroleum institute? do you know an answer to those questions? mr. vought: i cannot imagine they came from project 2025, the president disassociated himself repeatedly. i cannot give an answer to where the executive orders were compiled. my assumption is that they were compiled within the transition. sen. whitehouse: well, we will see because i think there is every reason to believe that they came from special interests and lobbyists and we will pursue that. let me ask you about a letter that you wrote some time ago on center for renewing america letterhead to the judicial conference, i think it is the only letter that you ever wrote to the judicial conference. it was distant -- it was dated december 18, 2023. and it goes into a certain amount of detail about the ethics and government act and about justice jackson's

financial disclosure forms. did you do the research for this letter into the ethics in government act and into the judicial financial disclosure forms personally? mr. vought: the center did the research. sen. whitehouse: and who did the research on that? mr. vought: the center did the research and i cannot speak to who did the work specifically on it. sen. whitehouse: you do not know? why can't you speak to that? there is no privilege about that? mr. vought: no, but a think tank is a public policy organization that has a decision to note who does the work on something and who does not do the work on it. i stand by that letter and i have not read it in sometime and i am happy to look at it. i am aware that we sent it and i signed it. sen. whitehouse: did mr. pella have a role? mr. vought: he is a member of the center but i will not speak beyond that. sen. whitehouse: here we go

again. i will not speak. my time is up. chair graham: he said that she says he stands by the letter. sen. whitehouse: that is not the question. my time is up. chair graham: senator lee. sen. lee: thank you for being here and for your willingness to serve. the administrative state has been crushing the american economy and american innovation, and it is also something that operates in a manner fundamentally contrary to the structure and intent of the u.s. constitution. article one sections one and seven makes it clear that only congress may enact federal law. in article one section seven in particular it makes it clear that you cannot make a federal law unless you follow the formula involving bicameral passage of a single bill, a single item, and legislative text and -- in both houses followed by submission to signature, veto or acquiescence.

less you follow that you cannot make a federal law. for the last 80 or 90 years, congress has been veering off course and tragically the courts have been at least inconsistent or you might say largely absent in enforcing these restrictions. nonetheless, it is important that we arrest the problem because the problem is arresting americans and in some cases very literately -- literally. it is estimated that in 2024 alone, the executive branch bureaucrats in the biden administration promulgated federal regulations that added $1.5 trillion in regulatory compliance costs. just during that narrow time period, on top of previous estimates suggesting as far back as 2016 or 2017 that existing regulatory compliance costs imposed by federal regulators in

washington were in the range of $2 trillion. so it is much higher than that now. these laws written by unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats who cannot really be fired by anyone and they do not have to stand for election. and they promulgate nearly 100,000 pages of law, federal law or initial drafts that could become law every single year. a simple solution to that would involve passage of a bill call the reins act, and would require that all figural -- federal regulations before they are enforced as federal law if they qualify as major rules and impose obligations on the public would have to be subjected to the bicameralism and standard imposed by article one section seven. what are your views on that act and will you and the trump administration work with congress to enact reforms like

these? mr. vought: thank you. it is obviously an important area for the president of ensuring that the bureaucracies cannot promulgate regulations that are harming the economy and the american people and it is one of those creative ideas that congress should take a strong look at and the administration certainly supports the thrust of the direction of the legislation. sen. lee: now, there are those that argue that a significant amount of reform to federal regulations and the process itself could be carried out through the executive branch itself acting alone. what are your views on that and whether it could or would adequately do the job? isn't there a risk that if it is performed to the executive branch that it might bring relief to americans as long as this president is in office, but subject us to the same risk immediately after he leaves? mr. vought: that would be the

problem and we saw that to some the proposals regarding administrative pay go. when you give the administration or whoever the omb director is the ability to execute this outside of statute, then you have a situation where you can minimize costs and maximize benefits and, potentially escape the process of the congress' intent. sen. lee: i reintroduced a bill in this congress that i introduced last year. it is a bill called the america first act. it imposes a simple principle on american law, a principle that most americans agree with which is that welfare benefits provided by the federal government should be available to americans. and, not to those who are not americans, especially those here unlawfully. it would ensure that u.s. citizens and lawful permanent residents are eligible to

receive benefits under programs like medicaid, housing education, and tax benefit programs and a handful of other government benefits. these are things that impose significant costs on the american economy. and they are draining resources meant to benefit americans and not those who have come here, contrary to our laws in order to receive them. would you commit to working with congress to bring about reforms like these? mr. vought: absolutely. that is exactly the types of reforms at the president ran on. sen. lee: my time has expired. thank you very much. chair graham: we have one more. are you ok. senator wyden. sen. wyden: let me ask you about medicaid because i'm the ranking member -- ranking democrat on the finance committee. i have been can -- perplexed about your views because medicaid is already an incredibly efficient payer

within the health care system. so here we have a program that helps with rest homes and workers and kids and disabled. the track record is that it is efficient. do you disagree? mr. vought: i think it is to the extent that medicaid is now -- sen. wyden: yes or no, do you agree with the point that i am making that medicaid is efficient. i have read everything you have had to say about it. you are an influential figure in your politics are different than mine but i look at the merits of the arguments. medicaid is an efficient program that helps vulnerable people and i want to know if you think if it is inefficient? mr. vought: i do not know if we are using the same definition. sen. wyden: you use something that would suggest other than the point i am making because right now for people -- for people spending grew less than medicare and private insurance

over the last few years. this program that you want to clobber and reduce is more efficient than practically a host of other things and i want to know what your argument is for medicaid being inefficient, which you used to justify the cuts? mr. vought: i am not sure that i used efficiency as a reason to justify reforms. what i was referring to and have particular defending the budget that president trump set up that the populations that you mentioned are no longer just the populations of medicaid. but now we have able body working adults that get a higher match. and that has taken away from the ability to have a focus on those specific populations because you have states chasing the match instead of trying to focus on those that it was intended for and weed out improper payments and abuse. we know that they are improper payments to a high degree. sen. wyden: what we know is that

spending grew less and all of these other programs and that the analyses done by objective people is that dollar for dollar this is an important way to help the poor. we will start by that. you have not told me anything that would suggest that you have a good argument that indicates that you believe medicare is an efficient. the facts suggest otherwise and let us leave the record open. let me ask you one other question because my time is short. i think the distillation of the trump economic program is to give tax breaks to all of the people at the top and it is going to be paid for by these kinds of cuts, cuts inefficient health care programs like medicaid and hunger programs and the like. i would like to know does that concern you at all that we have these values that are going to help the people right at the top, at the tippy top of the top and we will cut these programs like medicaid and hunger?

are those your values and do you think that is something that is in line with american values? because i think we want everyone to have a chance to get ahead. mr. vought: i support the notion that we want everyone to get ahead. we would not characterize our economic program that way. we think it is important to give people tax cuts at all levels. the president wants to extend those tax cuts. sen. wyden: what about the vulnerable people who will get hurt in the process because no matter you -- how you try to reframe this, this is an efficient program, medicaid, that serve some of the most vulnerable people. it is a lifeline and the people at the top excuse me, the people at the top will get the benefits. and i gather that you do not have a problem with that. and i think most americans want a sense of fairness that you are not offering. mr. vought: i hope there is a better medicaid program and that

medicaid is important for the poor and they get better health care as a result of the reforms that align the incentives so that states are doing everything they can to have the best programs that they possibly can as opposed to expanding unnecessarily which hurts the federal taxpayer. honestly, i believe it hurts the people that the medicaid program was meant for. sen. wyden: if you have a way to show that you can make medicaid more efficient, because right now it is clearly meeting the objective tests of using federal dollars in a smart way and do it without hurting them and, perhaps, heaven forbid, you would take some of the money that would go to tax breaks that people at the top to do it, i will be all ears. what i see is a path to hurting many vulnerable people and the money is going to go to the people at the top and i do not think that is right. chair graham: thank you.

thank you, well done. for appearing before the committee today your full statement will be included in the record. the hearing record will remain open until noon tomorrow for the submission of statements and questions and for the record delivered to the committee clerk, senator merkley and i met yesterday and we had a good meeting and our staffs are working together the best we can. i enjoyed our meeting and i thought we had a good hearing today. i will speak later about the impoundment act at the markup. i have concerns and i will share those with you. thank you very much. anything? if not, the hearing is adjourned. sorry, all were you, i am sorry. i apologize. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2025] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute,

which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> on thursday, president trump's nominee for director national intelligence tulsa gabbard will be on capitol hill to take questions about her nomition. she served in the army national and my reserves since 2003 e also represented hawaii in congress as a democrat and competed forhe 2020 deic presidential nomination but switched the republican party in 2024,ecomg an outspoken supporter of the trump campaign. watch nateelect tee ve at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span, c-span now, or online at c-span.org. >> c-span, democracy unfiltered.

we are 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 >> brooke rollins, president trums agriculture secretary committee that r secretary $10 billion in availableeploy economic aid to farmers. she also entered questions from ats about farm labor shortages that result from the policies and insisted the president's deportation plans would focus on migrants who committed crimes.