▶ 0:15:29Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government will come to order. This hearing is titled a budget hearing of the Office of Management and Budget. Members will have five legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material into the record. I now recognize myself for an opening statement. I'd like to thank director both for being here today. The office of management and budget or OM plays a central role in most of the decisions made in the executive branch particularly as it relates to the federal budget. It's also important to remember that OM is an office created by Congress.
▶ 0:16:00In 1921, the Congress passed the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, which created the Bureau of Budget under the Department of Treasury. Later in 1939, in the reorganization act of 39, the bureau was relocated to the newly created executive office of the president. And in 1970, Congress approved the bureau's renaming to the office of management and budget. I mentioned his history because OM plays a unique role both as an office created by Congress and one that has been and continues to be responsible for fulfilling the president's policies.
▶ 0:16:30In fact, over the last 100 plus days, OM has played a central role not just in the reconciliation negotiations or recent budget submission, but in the reshaping of the federal government. As of May 27th, 157 executive orders, 39 memoranda, and 62 proclamations had been signed by the president. OM plays a critical role in each of these decisions. But as appropriators of the federal government, we need to work with OM to ensure that funds are being used as Congress intended. That is why the president's budget is so important.
▶ 0:16:59This is a guide to helping Congress understand the agency priorities and how the legislative and executive branch can work together to deploy the resources necessary to execute these priorities. Last Friday, federal agencies, including executive office of the president, sent up their budget request for fiscal year 2026. OM is requesting 146.1 million for the next fiscal year, a 13.3% increase above its FY2025 enacted level.
▶ 0:17:25I look forward to discussing OM's FY2026 request with you today today, director, and how we can work together to ensure agencies have the resources they need to work on our priorities for our constituents and the public at large. I now recognize the ranking member for his opening statement. Chairman, Mr.
▶ 0:17:48Director, candidly, Director Boat, I think your agenda is a danger to our country, our constit constitution, our people, and one that marginalizes the Congress, and Article One to establish an imperial presidency. That's exactly the opposite of what our founders had in mind.
▶ 0:18:13What this administration has done under your direction mirrors what you did during Trump's first term. What you wrote in your project 2025 chapter and what you said in a 23 speech 2023 to members of the MAGA right. You had it quoted to you many times. As you probably know I represent over 70,000 employees. A highly offensive statement.
▶ 0:18:40We want the bureaucrats, which is so often used as an epithet, not a descriptor, to be traumatically affected. When they wake up in the morning, we want them to not want to go to work because they're increasingly viewed as villains. We want their funding to be shut down. were the thousands of doctors, scientists, and cancer researchers Doge fired from NIH villains.
▶ 0:19:10The more than 800 employees Doge dismissed from Noah, people who take track hurricanes and protect Americans from storms. Were they deep state agendas? What about the food inspectors, intelligence officers, national park rangers, first responders, and countless others purged by this administration? They're just patriotic Americans trying to serve their country.
▶ 0:19:38All received an email seeking their decision to leave the federal service. 2 plus million of them. What sort of message does that send? I think of Maryland named a Marylander named Caitlyn who worked at the Center for Medical and Medicaid Innovation. And after spending weeks agonizing over whether Doge would fire her, she died of suicide back in February. I think of another Marylander, Manique, who worked for the Social Security Administration.
▶ 0:20:09She was forced to pick up more work as many of her colleagues took the buyout or were fired by. The stress grew and grew until sitting at her desk in February, she died of a heart attack. Her friends and family are certain it was triggered by the stress she was under at work.
▶ 0:20:31No business on earth could treat employees like this and efficiency to improve or their enterprise to succeed. There is no doubt efficiency has gone down. Backlogs have grown at the Social Security Administration, the BA, and other agencies. Federal employees now have to spend hours filling out paperwork just to order basic office supplies.
▶ 0:21:00Something that used to take minutes. One of the first things OM did after Trump took office was pause all federal loans and grants. That froze thousands of infrastructure projects that were already under construction across the country. an action taken with no regard or no awareness perhaps of the con consequences of those actions.
▶ 0:21:27The Trump administration has traumatized Americans, not just federal employees, reduced efficiency, broken the law, and trampled on Congress's authority. And for what? We have every indication that Doge will cost taxpayers more than it's going to save. Director Boat, you're going to play an even larger role in these efforts now that Elon Musk is reportedly leaving.
▶ 0:21:56This committee isn't going to ask you to summarize your work in five bullet points or write essays to pass a test. We expect you to address the concerns of the American people. They have questions. I have questions. We owe them answers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Hoyer. I now recognize the ranking member of the full committee, ranking member Deloro, for her opening remarks. Thank you.
▶ 0:22:25Thank you, Chairman Joyce, and thank you, Ranking Member Hoyer, for holding this vital hearing. Director Vote, good afternoon. Uh, welcome back to the House Appropriations Committee, and thank you for appearing before us today. The Office of Management and Budget is perhaps the most critical agency that most people have never heard of. I know you know this well, Mr. Vote, but that is no excuse to thwart and otherwise ignore the law.
▶ 0:22:55In the United States of America, if you disagree with a law, you have every right to urge that that law be changed. You can petition or meet with lawmakers. And you can wage a campaign in the court of public opinion. You can run to become a lawmaker yourself.
▶ 0:23:19What disagreement with the law does not confer his license to ignore the law, to flagrantly violate the law, and to act as though you are completely above the law.
▶ 0:23:36administration instead of being laser focused on the cost of living crisis, it is actually making that cost of living crisis work worse and it has put billionaires in charge of the government and has filled the ranks of civil servants with political allies.
▶ 0:23:58For the sake of eliminating accountability and cutting taxes for billionaires, this administration is unlawfully impounding or stealing funds and dismantling agencies, depriving the American people of the programs and services which Congress has created, authorized, and appropriated funds for.
▶ 0:24:21You posit yourself a defender of everyday Americans and a champion for restoring an imagined version of America you consider morally and virtuously superior to the country we actually live in. I do not believe your actions which are inflicting direct harm on the people you claim to support is in any way reflective of righteous values or of America's constitutional tradition.
▶ 0:24:50You support autocracy, not restrained or limited government. You have shown nothing but utter disregard and disre disrespect for this committee, for Congress as a whole, and for the laws that we have enacted. When the president named you to retake this position, he said that you would quote return self-governance to the people end quote.
▶ 0:25:15Yet you have demonstrated contempt for American taxpayers by gleefully ignoring lawful requirements to provide them and their elected representatives in Congress the most basic information as to how their tax dollars are being spent. During your current tenure, the president has yet to submit a full budget.
▶ 0:25:36When it finally arrives, you will have led the most delayed presidential transition for any OM in Despite your shortcomings at ONB, you fashioned yourself the acting head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. You have been very busy there. But so far, your biggest achievement has been increasing at least 45 million Americans credit card bills by hundreds of dollars annually by reinstating fees.
▶ 0:26:06You have ignored requests from this Congress for information. You stood up the Republican leadership of this committee, several of whom are here today, and you have mocked the Government Accountability Office for affirming what everyone in this room understands to be true. You are unlawfully impounding or stealing congressionally appropriated funds.
▶ 0:26:31Director vote, the Constitution confers the power of the purse, the power to make appropriations in law to the Congress. It is right there. It's article 1, section 9, clause 7. The courts have repeatedly ruled that there is no inherent authority for the pres the president to impound funds.
▶ 0:26:50The late Justice Antinine Scalier, not a liberal torchbearer, proudly proclaimed as much in reference to the Supreme Court's decision in Train versus City of New York. Justice Kavanaaugh then for the DC Circuit wrote and I quote, "Even the president does not have unilateral authority to refuse to spend." And Chief Justice Roberts during his time at the White House Council's office stated, and I quote, "No area seems more clearly
▶ 0:27:20the province of Congress than the power of the purse." Let me just go back to our founding fathers on the Congress's power of the purse to Alexander Hamilton and I quote, "Where the purse is lodged in one branch and the sword in another, there can be no danger. You are not just on thin legal footing, director vote. You are living in a legal and historical fiction.
▶ 0:27:49You envision a king unbound by laws, who rules by decree, who accepts lavish gifts from foreign governments, who fills public offices with ultra-wealthy and political allies, and who expels opposition and crushes dissent. This view of presidential authority could not be more unamerican and more dangerous to our constitutional order. You contend that there are over 200 years of historical practice to support your position. This is a lie and fiction.
▶ 0:28:17I have reviewed your pseudo history and nearly every instance you claim supports your position of a president king unbound by the American system of checks and balances is either irrelevant or an exercise of discretion explicitly granted by the congress and law. Presidential empowerment power is a myth. You do not just have to take my word for it. The Constitution, the courts, Government Accountability Office, and the American History would tell us you are breaking the law.
▶ 0:28:45Through the OMB funding freeze, which touch communities nationwide, you have attempted to seize control of the government and impound funds far beyond what is permitted by law. And in venues across the country, the courts have broadly unequivocally told you, quote, "No, you do not have the authority. You cannot unfreeze unilaterally funding across the government that has been appropriated by the Congress. The courts are making clear that you grossly overstepped your authority.
▶ 0:29:13You have had your day in court and the courts have rebuked you. They have said no, no, and no. None of this is surprising. Project 2025, which you co-authored, laid out your blueprint for concentrating absolute power, not just in the White House, but in your own hands. Your colleagues, secretaries, and heads of major agencies have testified before us in the last several weeks to exactly this point.
▶ 0:29:38Your office has promoted your own goals over and above the people uh President Trump has handpicked to run his administration. You have also said that you want to traumatize federal employees, civil servants, as if inflicting trauma and creating a culture of fear and doubt will somehow make this government more efficient. Mr. Vote, be honest. This is never about government efficiency. In fact, an efficient government, a government that capably serves the American people and proves good government is achievable is what you fear the most.
▶ 0:30:06You want a government so broken, so dysfunctional, so starved of resources, so full of incompetent political lackies and bereft of experts and professionals that its departments and agencies cannot feasibly achieve the goals and the missions to which they are lawfully directed. Your goal is privatization for the biggest companies to have unchecked power for an economy that does not work for the middle class for working and vulnerable families.
▶ 0:30:33You want the American people to have no one to turn to but to the billionaires and the corporation this administration has put in charge. Waste, fraud, and abuse are not the targets of this administration. They are your primary objectives. I thank you. I and I u thank the chair for his indulgence and we look forward to your testimony. I yield back.
▶ 0:30:57I thank you uh ranking member Deloro u yielding back the three and a half minutes went over but that's that. Thank you for your indulgence today. We welcome the testimony of the honorable Russ vote director of the office of management and budget. Director vote without objection your written testimony will be entered into the record. With that in mind, we'd ask you to please summarize your opening statement in five minutes. Thank you, Chairman Joyce, Ranking Member Hoyer, for inviting me to testify today.
▶ 0:31:26Over the past four months, the Office of Management and Budget, or OM, has worked tirelessly to deliver on President Trump's promise of a federal government that works for the American people, not bureaucrats and the entrenched establishment. Under the previous administration, government spending aggressively turned against our citizens who saw their tax dollars used to fund cultural Marxism, the Green New Scam, foreign projects unaligned with American interests, and even our own invasion. Every agency became a tool of the left.
▶ 0:31:55Under President Trump, those days are over. The president's fiscical year 26 budget in tandem with the one big beautiful bill and other tools this administration has at its disposal will finally end the era of unchecked federal spending, stop the weaponization of government, and turbocharge economic growth.
▶ 0:32:14The fiscal year 26 budget puts American citizens first and shifts the destructive paradigm that ruled Washington for decades that we could only fund national security and border security if we massively funded woke and weaponized bureaucracy coveted by the left. The president's budget reduces non-defense spending by 163 billion, 22% below current year levels and the lowest non-defense spending since 2017 if adjusted for inflation.
▶ 0:32:42All while we protect funding for national defense, homeland security, veterans, seniors, law enforcement, and infrastructure. Over 10 years, such restraint would generate trillions in savings necessary for delivering on the president's goal of balancing the budget. The budget also incorporates the historic increases for defense and border security that will be provided by the one big beautiful bill currently making its way through Congress.
▶ 0:33:10In combination with base appropriations, the bill is a once- ina generation opportunity to revolutionize our nation's defense capabilities and protect our American sovereignty, providing the first ever trillion dollar defense budget and the single largest investment in border security in our nation's history.
▶ 0:33:28The bill also improves our fiscal trajectory by reducing mandatory spending, as confirmed today by CBO, by roughly $1.7 trillion, the largest mandatory spending reduction in history, ending waste for abuse, and preserving critical programs.
▶ 0:33:44Along with the extension of President Trump's 2017 tax cuts and the new tax policies provided for additional relief to working and middle class families and our seniors, the bill will drive massive economic growth and raise GDP, increasing wealth across the board. OM's fiscal year 26 budget request as an agency is critical to supporting this comprehensive fiscal strategy. The full request is 155.776 for OM.
▶ 0:34:14OM as you all know is a personal personnel intensive agency. We are only asking for 20 additional FTEES which would bring us from 500 employees to 520 and an additional two FTEEs in one of our offices funded through the ITOR account. I will note that OMB's request is substantially below the increase requested by the legisl legislative branches GAO. OMB's funding has remained essentially flat since fiscal year 23.
▶ 0:34:42By contrast, under GAO's request for fiscal year 26, the agency would receive an overall increase of 17% over three years. As I've said many times, the civil servants at OM are among the most resourceful and innovative our country has to offer. They are not only of great value to the taxpayer, but the whole nation. OM has been hard at work crafting the president's budget, implementing this administration's fiscal goals, and accomplishing the largest deregulatory agenda in our nation's history.
▶ 0:35:11With the president's budget, the one big beautiful bill, historic tax uh historic tariff revenue, and the recently transmitted $9.4 4 billion recisions package, our deregulatory efforts, and other key tools. This administration is implementing a comprehensive strategy to improve the nation's fiscal state. Only the Washington DC that benefits from the status quo. Americans know that instinctively they elected President Donald Trump to fix it and the task ahead of us is great.
▶ 0:35:41that this administration, including OM, is committed to working hand inand with our partners in Congress, this committee to finally deliver for the American people. I look forward to answering your questions. Thank you very much for your opening statement. Uh, and now I would recognize myself for five minutes, but as I ask for all, we try to make sure we stay on the five minute timeline so everyone here has an opportunity to ask their questions and get them answered in possibility exists then to get to round two.
▶ 0:36:10We'll certainly allow for at least a second round lightning of a question each. They get there. We have a hard stop of Okay. Director vote. In the president's fiscal year 2026 budget request, OMB is requesting that what you had just said, a 13.3 uh% or 17.1 million increase for the fiscal year 2026. This increased funding would support quote unavoidable costs in investing in OM's workforce among other priorities.
▶ 0:36:38Would you explain what those unavoidable costs are and why OM needs to restore staffing levels that were previously reduced and why is OM's need for more staff different than staffing needs in any other agency? Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think uh the reality is we've held constant for many many years at the 500 level even though the size of government has increased and so um you know when I was in the position in the first term I had the view that uh OM should reduce its headcount and and the challenge that we found when we
▶ 0:37:08when we did that when we pursued budgets that uh did not prioritize the analysis that OM needs to do and you find yourselves in a situation where some of your key resource management offices are having to an analyze uh programs and agencies that are growing exponentially larger.
▶ 0:37:27Um just to give you an example, uh our previous uh resource management organization for national security u had the veterans, it had uh all state and foreign aid, it had the entirety of the defense department, um it had the entire intelligence community. And if you look at it compared to the across the agency, you didn't have enough uh analysts to be able to do the job.
▶ 0:37:53Similarly, we're being asked to do uh quite amount of work with regard to the president's deregulatory initiatives. Um and that is we'll be continue to be a priority through AIRA. Uh that's one of the reasons we're going to need additional FTEES uh when it comes to being able to staff that up, not unlike what you would see with our increases at for border security or USR with the work that the president's doing to get more rational trade deals on the books.
▶ 0:38:20So, in terms of unavoidable cost, um it, you know, just because you have the same amount of of staff doesn't mean that you don't have um things like um tech support and and the work that's required to keep all of our systems up and running. Uh and there's a lot of of of of expenses with that goes with it.
▶ 0:38:38But I truly believe and and I think you all believe this too because of the the resources that you've given to GAO that it's it's paramount to have enough analysts that can uh grapple with the size and scope of the federal government.
▶ 0:38:52And I think that uh an OM uh career FTE is one of the the most important from a standpoint of of being able to address that that need to be able to deal with our fiscal health as a country and and get uh costbenefit analysis and a regulatory framework that makes sense for the country. I want to focus on executive order number 14158 issued on January 20th 25 is titled establishing and implementing the president's department of government efficiency.
▶ 0:39:22Executive order establishes the United States Doge Service or USDS and within the reorganized USDS a US doge temporary organization that is authorized through the 4th of July of next year. Who is the administrator of the Doge Service and who is the administrator of the US Doge temporary service and who do they report to? The US Doge service was the former USDS, US digital service that was housed within OM.
▶ 0:39:47Along with with that EO, it was moved out of OM into the executive office of the president as a standalone office reporting to the chief of staff. Uh it's been led by u Steve Davis and u we're in the midst of uh with the uh last week or so of establishing the leadership on an ongoing basis.
▶ 0:40:07But I think the vision for Doge is in addition to having some of the consulting work that they've done uh continue in the EOP and that's one of the reasons we we've have a request in as part of the ITOR account is that Doge would go and be far more institutionalized at the actual agency.
▶ 0:40:25So many Doge employees and FTEEs are are at the agencies working almost as in-house consultants u as a part of of uh the agency's leadership and I think you know the the leadership of Doge is now much more decentralized. It's it's the agency heads and it has been for some time. The president has always said from day one uh agency heads are in charge of their departments.
▶ 0:40:51um and they were were benefiting from the the consulting that Doge was doing along the lines and now that is uh much more pronounced. I appreciate that there are many jurisdictions involved in Doge work, but OM is front and center here, including in the subsequent Doge EOS responsible for reorganizing the federal workforce, including hiring practices, EO14170, federal hiring and E4210, the federal workforce, and so I realize that I'm about to run out of time. So, we might talk about that on the second round.
▶ 0:41:22Chair now recognizes uh the ranking member Hoyer for any questions he may have. Congress passes a budget. Do you consider the budget that Congress passes to be a suggestion or a directive? We believe it's a proposal for Congress to consider. We propose and you obviously take it as a as a policy proposal and go send it through your appropriations process.
▶ 0:41:49Question, director, once we pass that back to you, do you take it as a suggestion or a directive? It's a directive. We would we believe it's it's important for uh the congressional appropriations process to give us the levels uh as consistent with um the power of the purse to set levels by which we can't go above and therefore you consider it a ceiling. We do believe it is a ceiling.
▶ 0:42:16So we send you a budget and say spend $100 on X objective. You can spend anywhere between$1 and 99 or $100. Is that accurate from your perspective? No, I don't think it's accurate from my perspective. I think it's much more similar to if you've asked us to perform a function and you've given us $100 million and if we can perform it for $80 million um there is given the system as to whether um we are required constitutionally we don't believe that we are to push every last
▶ 0:42:47dollar out the door and lead to use it or lose it situations where uh we are creating waste fraud and abuse at the agencies at the Congress made provision for that. It's called a precision. Is that accurate? There is one tool that Congress is one of many tools that Congress has has given as to deal with that scenario. The other tool is the unilateral judgment of the president of the United States andor yourself not to spend. No, no, I was actually referring under the A to normal recisions, deferrals, pocket recisions.
▶ 0:43:17There's all manner of of provisions in the AA in addition to just the agency doing the work that it does programmatically to to review uh whether the spending that Congress has appropriated to an agency within the con consistent with the law authorizing committees is there and can being done consistent with the president's views as he was elected on behalf of the American people.
▶ 0:43:41Thank Uh, do you believe uh you have traumatized the people at OM? No, I don't. So, notwithstanding that, did they also get the letter set to two plus million people? They did. Uh, was a judgment made as to how many of the people at OM were absolutely necessary to do the job you now want to expand? No. And in fact, u, no judgment was made on that.
▶ 0:44:08So, as it pertains to the letter that you're referring to, it went out. I believe it went out before I was in office as the director and um I don't think we lost very few at all. And my hope was that we wouldn't lose anyone from the deferred. But you lost a substantial amount uh throughout the government service without any understanding of how critical their work was to the task at hand. Is that accurate? Well, again, it was based on their choice. Is that accurate?
▶ 0:44:37I don't think it actually is accurate because it the decision was made to give the employees the chance to make that determination. I don't think it was done lightly and I think they made those employees thought long and hard about whether it made sense. I agree it wasn't done lightly. Obviously, it was considered blitzkrieg on the entire federal government. But nobody knew whether or not critically important people were going to take that or not. Isn't that accurate?
▶ 0:45:02Well, I think it's important to reflect that we don't we don't ask employees to be in these positions and locked into these positions. There is no reason that they would have had to take those um that opportunity and um it's something that was not in any way uh compelled upon them. Of course, it wasn't compelled, but nor did you have or Mr. Muskav or his people any knowledge of who would take it and who didn't.
▶ 0:45:29And therefore it was simply across the board which could have cost let's say everybody said yes. Now probably everybody wouldn't have said yes but that would have been a cataclysmic event for the United States. Uh do you believe this is the way people should be treated? I think all employees uh political and career should be treated with respect and dignity uh and to have that reflected through all of our employment processes. people just heard.
▶ 0:45:58The people who just laughed obviously don't share that view. They're all people who were removed involuntarily one way or another. Um they were traumatized. So you accomplish your objective which I think personally is not an objective that either any personnel manager should be very proud of. How many people are in the administrative leave are being paid not to work? Congressman, I just would would uh push back on your characterization.
▶ 0:46:27Uh it's never been my my desire to traumatize individuals or in or workers at federal. Why did you say that? Because you didn't actually listen to the entirety of the in the context of what I said. I was referring specifically to bureaucracies that are weaponized against the American people. So, do I believe that at the NIH or the OM or VA uh that across the federal government, Noah, that there that there aren't career individuals that are doing incredible work and are great public servants.
▶ 0:46:57But the notion that we don't have weaponized bureaucracies, and we saw this in the last administration that are that are aimed at parts of our our our own citizens, the chair now recognizes Mr. Wack for any questions he may have. Would my friend yield for 30 seconds? I I thank the gentleman I we we'll have another round. You can u pick up on that line of questioning then because we all have questions to ask and and I'm going to start with this one.
▶ 0:47:25Um Director Vote, good to see you again. Uh we've worked uh on many occasions together. Um, this is a an appropriations hearing and appropriations uh is driven by what we call topline numbers 302A's and then 302BS that uh flow down to the various subcommittees. Um, but it begins with a budget. Where's the budget?
▶ 0:47:55Well, it's great to see you again. We we believe you have the budget. Uh, we have a skinny budget. you have you have the skinny budget, the discretionary budget in full uh allows you to get the appropriations process moving forward. Our approach with regard to the rest of what you would see in a in a fullear um comprehensive uh budget is that uh we've been focused on reconciliation.
▶ 0:48:20And so every aspect of what we've been trying to do has been to further that bill to get it to the president's desk desk and then we will come along afterwards uh with any supplementary uh information proposals, deficit pictures. Uh but we thought it would at the end of the day in confuse the Congress and confuse the American people to have two sets of proposals, two sets of numbers and and and that's one of the reasons that we are focusing on reconciliation.
▶ 0:48:48understand the job that you've had to do and we wanted to get you material as soon as we possibly could. Uh worked with Chairman Cole as early and often as I could have not actually uh not come and and and talked with the cardinals at every opportunity. Uh we very much want to work with this committee. So I think we all have a a shared goal of putting the fiscal house of this nation in order.
▶ 0:49:11I certainly do and I've been working toward that u albeit unsuccessfully since uh I chaired the the joint select committee on budget process reform and we can come back to that if I have time.
▶ 0:49:24Um, but the total outlays of the federal government in general, uh, for those that are watching this hearing, that are going to read excerpts from this hearing, what are the total outlays of this nation from 7 trillion around around 7 trillion and and we're going we're going to receive income in various forms uh to the amount of about what five trillion about five trillion a little less than seven a little less than five maybe uh thereabouts when we look at the
▶ 0:49:5425 numbers, but the the last set of numbers we have is I think uh in 2024 uh of that $7 trillion in outlays, how much of that is actually under the purview of this committee? About a third. About a third. So, we're looking at about a 30 to 33 34 35% uh slice of that of that federal, but the rest of it is what we call mandatory spending. Is that right? Correct.
▶ 0:50:23And and how is mandatory spending broken down? Uh mandatory spending is broken down on all of the programs that are are set in law. And so, you know, they they are not with very few exceptions that go through your committee like food stamps or or Medicaid that are considered appropriated entitlements. Um the authorizers set the law and the people who are benefiting from those uh laws can come to the federal agencies and receive their benefits. So only Congress can really change that through its lawmaking process. Correct. Is that correct?
▶ 0:50:53Uh and and of that roughly $5 trillion of mandatory spending thereabouts. Uh how much of that is the net interest on the debt? Uh net interest on the debt is about a trillion dollars now. It's it's exceeded defense when we left office. Unfortunately, it was only 300 billion. Still far too high. But in the last four years, we've gone from about 350 billion in in annual net interest and now we're upwards of a trillion dollars.
▶ 0:51:20It's because we have a debt of about 37ish trillion dollars, right? What what would like a 50 basis point move in the interest rate? Uh and I would suspect that that is that's very prospectful uh given the fact that we were just downgraded by the third rating agency. Uh what what would that do to the net interest on a $ 37 trillion debt if we moved like 50 basis points?
▶ 0:51:48uh we're probably talking about a trillion dollar swing there. When are we going to deal with mandatory spending? And I'm not talking about cuts. I'm talking about sustainability because we've all said and and we've pretty much all agreed that we we want to make sure that we uh you honor the promises that we've made uh to older Americans and vulnerable Americans. But right now, the the effort is only on the discretionary budget of the US government. about 33% of total spending.
▶ 0:52:18So at what point in time will we see a plan and a strategy for which we really go after and fix the the the largest share of the federal spending that is uh the the crux of the national deficit that we have today. You know we believe that we're doing that with this bill that has you have passed out of the house. And one of the reasons we're so excited about it is that for the first time since 1990s, we are talking about trillions of dollars with regard to mandatory savers.
▶ 0:52:49$1.7 trillion now uh is an enormous um opportunity and first step along the lines of what you're talking about and what we've proposed in budgets before. Um I so I think it's you know for those that are saying where are the doge cuts that's not a reconciliation thing. For those that are saying where are the mandatory reforms that is in that bill and we believe it's the first major conversation like this we've had since the 1990s. Um we will have more proposals as we go forward.
▶ 0:53:19Uh you know the president wants to have a balanced budget. uh three out of our four budgets in the first term were aimed at budget had that as a goal and we had uh large mandatory savers in those budgets that were consistent with the president's uh promises to protect social security and Medicare and we will continue to have reforms along those lines. Thank you very much. I yield. The chair now recognizes Miss Deloro, ranking member of the full committee for five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 0:53:47And just very quickly, we really do not have a budget. what you sent covers this year. There's not a a no 10-year budget. There really isn't any vision for the future at all. What you've sent up, director vote, after an appropriation is enacted, the first thing that happens is before an agency can deliver the promises to the American people is OM uh has to make funding available through a legally binding decision known as an aortionment.
▶ 0:54:13In essence, you are the first and sometimes biggest bureaucratic hurdle that stands between American taxpayers and the services, support, and protections they have promised in spending laws. And for over 100 years, aortionments were secret. Uh reiterate these decisions were effectively laws that you and your also unelected predecessors made whenever you liked without accountability or transparency. I fought on a bipartisan basis, biccameal basis alongside members of this uh subcommittee for four years to change that.
▶ 0:54:42We enacted simple transparency requirements because this committee and the Congress need information to effectively legislate. Independent watchdog organizations deserve the information to help the American public understand how your decisions affect their lives. Uh three, most importantly, the American taxpayers are entitled to see how you, your predecessors and every OM director uh how you come how you are spending their money.
▶ 0:55:09Uh my question is uh you do not think director vote that Congress deserves to know how you carry out the laws that we enact. You do not believe that American taxpayers deserve to see how you spend their money. Do you? No, I don't think that characterization is true. We do that's one of the reasons what we come up to the hill and testify uh and we explain our decisions.
▶ 0:55:31We believe that aortionments are legally binding but not final agency actions and that uh it is it is part of a preddecisional deliberative process on behalf of the executive branch to be able to manage agencies and the the programs therein.
▶ 0:55:46And what we found in the last four years in which uh the law that you worked hard to put into place that we have constitutional concerns about is that it actually degraded the oversight responsibilities that OM had in that in that we would the the people would actually change. Excuse me, Mr. Director because my time is running out, you know, in all fairs. I had this debate and discussion. I'm not just having it with you.
▶ 0:56:11I had a debate and discussion on this with your predecessor and others with the same argument and so forth. The American people, the Congress who legislate enacts the laws has to have the ability to understand what you're spending, how you're doing it, at what intervals and and so forth. And also, let me just say this requirement, as I say, was debated for four years, including with you specifically during your prior tenure as OM director.
▶ 0:56:39Your predecessor did comply with the law for over two years and you followed this law for two months. What happened? Why did the website come down? Why do we not know what is happening?
▶ 0:56:56Why are we going back to those days of secret decisions being made by you and whomever else in terms of the spending of the dollars that we constitutionally enact here when we put these bills into law with congressionally directed resources that serve the American people? Tell me what happened.
▶ 0:57:20Why did you change what you were doing for two months or what your predecessor was doing over the last couple of years? Well, we had constitutional concerns with the provision. We had a veto threat against this provision in the first term.
▶ 0:57:34uh if it was presented in while the president was still in office, I expect you would have had a signing statement that said not unlike our letter to the committee, not unlike the DOJ's letter uh to the committee, we have constitutional concerns with it and uh it's something that degraded our ability to manage taxpayer resources and do the very pass a law in with all due respect, I think the level of your honesty on your claims is really shines through on this topic and there probably much
▶ 0:58:04more point in discussing it. But that goes at the very fact you make up constitutional issues where the constitutional the constitution places that power of the purse within this body and within an appropriations committee. Historically, it is there. But you make a decision as to what you want to do, what what you think is constitution or not constitution without any basis.
▶ 0:58:32In fact, thereby pulling down that website that allows us to see what you are doing. You are and and you have we have no way of knowing if you are carrying out what we lawfully lawfully required the executive branch to do.
▶ 0:58:56That is our responsibility and your responsibility is to is I is to carry out what it is that we have appropriated here. You just can't pick and choose whatever the hell you want and going forward if you say and I yield back the balance of my time. Chair now recognizes Mrs. Henson for her five minutes of questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to our ranking member for holding this hearing today. Director vote, thank you so much for coming um to answer our questions.
▶ 0:59:23It says a lot that you're that you're here um talking about the efficiencies that you're finding and the improve improvements you're making at OM. Um this is really about taxpayer money and protecting the integrity of of where those dollars go. And uh as you probably know, I've been very very passionate about um improper payments through OM. We know um from the numbers out of GAO that number is somewhere between 230 and 500 some billion dollars. I actually think it's probably higher than that, right?
▶ 0:59:47And uh when we look at the taxpayer money being disrespected in that way and people for years turning a blind eye to that in terms of fixing this problem. So I I appreciate your cander um and the effort um by this administration to do that through the executive order from the president 14249 to protect America's bank account um against waste, fraud, and abuse. And um I was proud to support this by introducing legislation here to codify the president's executive order to do exactly that, protecting American taxpayers from wasteful spending.
▶ 1:00:15Um, one of the provisions of the order uh did direct OM to work with uh Department of Treasury to establish pre-certification and pre-awward procedures across the federal government. This is the breakdown in process um that has led to this fraud um and improper payments. Um can you explain why those procedures were not in place before this executive order? Uh one of the things in this issue in general, and I'm sure you've been frustrated by it, is the extent to which this is all common sense and yet it never seems to happen.
▶ 1:00:44And I actually posed the question to our team this morning. Uh why did we see nothing uh before the Trump administration and and and honestly there just wasn't uh it wasn't an interest in the previous administration. We're very thankful for the executive order. Uh we're going to be taking our our duties very very seriously. We look forward to working with you on this.
▶ 1:01:03Uh I think much of what Doge has identified is the extent to which uh the agencies have not been pinging the systems and the data sets that are there and can be there and then we need to fight through whatever bureaucracies u make an institutional argument for why uh the whatever the grant uh uh agency is uh shouldn't be uh cross-checking it with the data that's available.
▶ 1:01:29So it'll be a priority of ours and we look forward to working with you on Yeah, it certainly is a common sense thing to know where the money is going and what one hand knowing what the other hand is doing in that process. It's absolutely critical. Um, can you update us on the implementation? You mentioned, you know, obviously you and I share that frustration that it wasn't in place before. Um, and we do look forward to working with you, get you whatever resources you need to be able to implement this. Um, where do you stand in making some of these fundamental changes to protect? We're working on on governmentwide guidance to agencies uh to implement the EO right now.
▶ 1:01:59Uh we're going through u a policy process internally as to uh what that should include and and uh we'll be back to you soon with details on that. Okay. Looking forward to updates there. And as we work to pass all 12 of these appropriations bills hopefully before that September 30th deadline. Can you ensure us that the days of not tracking where that money is going is over? You have a a good eye and a good watch on it for taxes. Yes.
▶ 1:02:21We've got a number of statutory responsibilities uh also in terms of taxpayer right to know uh statutes that have been passed to OM. It's another response to the chairman in terms of the need for the FTEES is that often people want stuff to happen at OM because they know it can get done that we have tools to get the agencies to move forward, but therein uh is is our need for the employees to be able to do that important work and and to push through and and make sure that
▶ 1:02:51we're living up to what you all have asked us to do. Yeah. Well, this this certainly should be a bipartisan issue and I questioned your predecessor about this and and former Secretary of the Treasury as well. And Secretary Bessant was in here just a few weeks ago saying the same thing. He was incredulous that this was allowed to happen and go on. It should be a bipartisan issue. Um, at least it was, I think, before President Trump started getting the credit for this. So, we should be able to get behind policy that helps to fix this problem. What else are you doing at OM to help uh prevent improper payments, hold agencies accountable for their spending?
▶ 1:03:19you know what does that process look like other than just issuing that guidance to other agencies but what where does the accountability come in there so one of the uh cultural aspects of of what I've tried to emphasize at OM is one OM and so I don't like the notion of you have a budget side of the house a regulatory side of the house and a management side of the house because often everything gets stovepiped and you don't have um the main interactors with the agencies that are benefiting from much of the work that you would find at the management side doing
▶ 1:03:50improper payments. So, one of the things that we are doing, we had a meeting along these lines just yesterday about making sure that the the people that work with the budget offices, uh, the ones that are are are working um regulatory are are coming up with policies that actually help along these lines. So, it's not just, hey, did you go through the right process and ping the right systems?
▶ 1:04:12We want there to actually people be getting credit for doing deregulatory activities that are uh also deal dealing with improper payments. We want there to be an emphasis on uh programmatically being rewarded for uh having the the various budget offices and teams at the agencies being rewarded for this kind of activity. And I think that's the benefit of of doing it at OM and I think that's what will inev inevitably be the success from it. Yeah, you have a wealth of knowledge. You should use it to your advantage going forward. Thank you. Um, Mr.
▶ 1:04:42Chairman, I yield back. Thank you, the chair. Now recognize Mr. Pokean for five minutes. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, director vote for being here. Um, I think you said the president uh supports the big bill that was passed out of the house, correct? I think you also said the president um does not support cutting Medicare. Correct. Okay. So, in the bill, there's a half a trillion dollar cut that gets triggered to Medicare. So, I know a number of the people who voted for the bill are starting to read it now and finding there's parts they don't like. You might want to take a look at that provision. As you know, you That's okay. That's okay.
▶ 1:05:12I only have You don't want the extra five minutes. I didn't ask you the question, did I? I'm asking you a question, though. Since we didn't have your remarks this morning, I think we got them this afternoon. You mentioned cultural Marxism. You did it in your comment. Could you please in two or three sentences define cultural Marxism? Sure. It's the it's a political theory that instead of dividing people on the basis of economic halves or halves, that you're dividing pe people on the basis of race and identity.
▶ 1:05:36And it's an attempt that we've seen uh unfortunately in this country culminating in CRT of dividing people in the race and in in our in our agencies and identity. So your definition u Mr. Director is different than the definition I'm pulling up first thing that pops up on here. It says cultural Marxism refers to a far-right anti-semitic conspiracy theory that misrepresents western Marxism as being responsible for modern progressive movements identity politics and political correctness. That's first definition that pops up here.
▶ 1:06:04It actually m comes up a couple times on the first page on Google. Yeah. I uh yeah, you identify yourself as a Christian nationalist, correct? Look, I'm a Christian. I don't think my my faith should be a subject for this. No, I just asked you a simple question. Do you identify as a Christian nationalist? No, this is a my faith is about uh is is one of an evangelical Christian faith. Okay. Not here to debate that. I just I saw You brought it up. Christian nationalist. No, I asked you if you were a Christian nationalist. You said you weren't. Correct.
▶ 1:06:31These are debates in the think tank world that we have about what it means to be a Christian nation. It's not about what I that's not the question I asked. Okay. To talk about that. You support the efforts of Doge. You mentioned Steve Davis. And I know we talked about trying to bring the director of Doge in here and that would be very helpful. Problem is I just read he's also leaving uh with Elon Musk. So who's in charge of Doge? If the guy who is taking over after Elon Musk who just left and he's leaving, it sounds like this is a bit of a circus. Who who's in charge of Doge?
▶ 1:06:59the cabinet agencies that are in charge of the Doge consultants that work for them are fundamentally in control of Doge. Oh, that's an answer only a mother could love. All right. Um, so you support the efforts of Doge, I understand. Is the federal government currently spending less this year than it did last year? It No, it's not. Right. And part of that is because you've sent us a recision package worth9 billion dollars that goes after Big Bird and Cookie Monster. Uh but you've added $200 billion dollars to defense and homeland security.
▶ 1:07:29Uh you've also the bill that you just said the White House supports is going to add depending who you talk to$2.4 trillion to5 trillion dollar to the national debt. It's going to make somewhere between 11 and 16 million people lose their health care. I know you said on a Sunday morning show no one will lose coverage as a result of this bill. Is that still your standing? Uh which one of those would you like me to take? The one I just asked. I'll ask it again. I'm sorry if I wasn't. The bill does not lead to less coverage for Medicaid beneficiaries.
▶ 1:07:57It has improper payments and it leads to the fact that people who are ineligible because they're illegal aliens or because they are unwilling to do not get federal dollars for Medicaid. Correct. That's not true. They get them in in many different states including California. Federal dollars. Federal dollars using provider state can provide it. Are there any federal dollars? How many federal dollars that you're the expert? How many federal dollars go to funding illegal aliens getting Medicaid? Congressman, because of the money question, it's a number. It's a question. It's a number.
▶ 1:08:26How much how many dollars go to illegal aliens federal dollars for Medicaid? It's simple question. It is not actually a simple question because Congress secretaries have a hard time with simple questions lately. I got to tell you, um, it is a simple, but you are saying that that's true. So, we will, if you can get back to us with that amount, how's that sound? How much federal dollars? I'm happy to get back to you about how the bill works and getting rid of the moneyaundering schemes. A lot of people disagree with you. The CBO disagrees with your analysis. Yale and Penn said 13.7 million people will lose health insurance.
▶ 1:08:56You also said this won't increase the debt. Is that correct? The bill will not increase the debt. It will it will lead to deficit disagrees with you. Moody's disagrees. The CBO disagrees. Senator Holly and Senator Rand and Senator Collins disagree. Elon Musk disagrees. Virtually everyone on this side of the aisle. So you're saying everyone is wrong, but you are the right one that this does not increase the debt.
▶ 1:09:20I'm saying that all the watchd dogs, including the Congressional Budget Office, use a skewed vision of a view of what the baseline is. They were less than a few% wrong last time on your tax bill when they predicted it almost dead on. So you're saying this time there's significant changes and they don't know what's going on and only you do. Is that correct? I'm suggesting I'm stating that they use a base. You disagree at the KO Institute? Yes. And Moody's. Yes.
▶ 1:09:44And Senator Holly, Senator Holly has a view as to the med Medicaid programs that we are working with to uh articulate why we believe that these reforms do do not hurt the beneficiaries that are involved. So now recognize Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Mr. Vote. Thanks so much for being here and I apologize for the badgering that you're getting.
▶ 1:10:06I would uh really have appreciated the opportunity to hear your uh thorough and complete answers, but uh we'll we'll deal with that another time. I just have to editorialize a bit and and and thank you for the work that you're doing. I believe the reason that we hear the arguments from the other side is that you're doing exactly what the American people have demanded.
▶ 1:10:32The American people are fed up with seeing their tax dollars wasted up here in Washington DC. You're getting down to the core of that waste, fraud, and abuse. And they're angry about it. I can't believe how much time that they're spending to protect their right to waste American taxpayer dollars.
▶ 1:10:53I appreciate your courage to jump right into the middle of it, to defend your position, and to do what all of us were sent to do here in Washington, DC. Thank Thank you. Thank you. What I see taking place is exactly what should take place. We have an administration now that's willing to really dig in and find out where the spending is going inside of federal agencies. Making immediate changes.
▶ 1:11:24Change is uncomfortable often for people. I re I I recognize that. But change is necessary right now. We all agree that we can't stay on the current spending trend. Let's also recognize that you're living up to your constitutional oath.
▶ 1:11:47Uh you're making recommendations based off of things you see inside the administration that we can't see that have been hidden from us for the last several years. And I interpret that you're going to be coming back to Congress saying, "You made these decisions. We don't think you that you need all this spending now." and then we're going to make a decision whether or not we should continue that. I don't see a constitutional issue. I think we're doing exactly what the American people ask us to do.
▶ 1:12:15So, that said, for years, the Congressional Budget Office has been touted as a nonpartisan agency, but there's a growing body of evidence showing that it regularly overestimates the benefits of Democratic policies while underestimating their costs.
▶ 1:12:34and it downplays the success of Republican initiatives such as President Trump's Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in 2017 while overestimating the cost coupled with the publicity known Democratic political affiliations among key CBO staff. This raises some serious questions about the AY's ability to impartially evaluate the cost of legislation.
▶ 1:13:01My first question is how can OM and Congress work together to ensure future budget and policy decisions are based on sound objective data rather than politically motivated projections. Thank you, Congressman. I think one of them is is working together to uh properly frame the information that CBO has put out.
▶ 1:13:21I mean, I would not presume to to give any advice as to how you all might govern CBO, but I would just say as to uh educating the public, uh we tried to do that this afternoon very quickly about how u they construct their baselines leads to a warped view on a bipartisan basis for the policies that you all are considering is a major problem.
▶ 1:13:46Um and I I you know both on the revenue side and on the tax side um there's often a lack of of of willingness to look at what might happen dynamically not just on revenues but even uh the fact that u someone is not eligible for a program uh will be able to get uh additional care uh because they go to their private health insurance. I mean that's that is the kind of analysis that CBO just does not do.
▶ 1:14:15Uh, and as a result, you get bad outcomes when you when you are having a public policy debate about it. Thank you. Just a quick followup. Do you believe that the CBO's estimate of President Trump's one big beautiful bill accurately represents the benefits that it will provide to the American people and the fiscal course correction that it will provide our nation? No, I think it's fundamentally wrong. I stated that today. Uh, it will lead to reduced deficits and debt of $1.4 trillion.
▶ 1:14:44It will uh reduce uh mandatory savings of $1.7 trillion dollars. And I don't think the way they construct their baseline, not only does it give a fair shake to economic growth, but it fundamentally mis uh reads the economic consequences of not extending current law tax relief. I mean, the the the degree to which we would have a a recession or worse if the tax relief is not extended is something that they just fundamentally do not factor into their analysis.
▶ 1:15:13Thank you for that clarification, Mr. Chair. I'll yield. Thank you, Mr. Rivers. The chair now recognizes Mrs. Gluen Camp Perez for five minutes. Thank you, chair, and thank you, director, for being here. Um, uh, I used to run, my husband, my own auto repair and machine shop. I I will never forget having an ocean inspector come to my shop and ask me if my AC machine was a welder. Um, the divorce of theory from practice.
▶ 1:15:39um respect for people who have done the work and and and who who has the authority and the knowledge. Um we we my question to you is like how how are you adapting your staffing decisions to ensure that it is not just a sterling resume who is in your office but people who have done the work with respect for the trades. How many people do you have in your office who don't have a college degree? I don't know the answer to that question. and I come from a family of uh electricians.
▶ 1:16:09So that is my uh that is my background. Um I've been very enthusiastic and excited about the policy proposals we had in the first term uh that I'm sure are working themselves through this one as well to uh ensure that we're not expecting people to have college degrees uh and sterling resumes that uh might show itself. But uh if someone can do the job, we want them at OMB as it pertains to our agency.
▶ 1:16:33I one one kind of theoretical question I have here is that you know um I think Wendelberry said that excellent worksmanship as with a breaking plow is is destructive efficiency itself it's it's not useful it is efficiency towards what what it's it's about effectiveness it's about a question of like what are we trying to do here what is the purpose of this bill uh and and um and my you know my question to you is like all of this claims of pursuing efficiency Um but the
▶ 1:17:04question is effectiveness like that is the true goal of how are you implementing what my community needs um in these systems and and a lot of that in my view comes down to the question of procedural burden on civil servants. So if you're successful in your pursuits we will soon have a much smaller field of civil servants. Who is going to reduce the procedural burden on those civil servants to pursue effectiveness?
▶ 1:17:31Well, I think you know government uh efficiency is not meant to sum the totality of what you want from a federal government. I think it's meant to articulate an imbalance that we've seen in recent years and to correct for that imbalance and and so that's the partnership with whatever department or agency you're dealing with is they have been given responsibilities by Congress u to go and perform functions on behalf of the American people and the department of government efficiency to and to OM to a
▶ 1:18:01large extent historically is designed to make sure uh the work that they do is is done in the best way possible. Um, but I'm honestly, Congresswoman, I'm I'm one of these people that uh encourages OM not to ask the efficiency question first and foremost, but to to ask both in serving the president or the laws that you all have given us, what is trying to be accomplished by this?
▶ 1:18:27And let's make sure we accomplish it and then let and then and then you've earned the right to figure out how to do it most efficiently. Yeah. My concern is that right now it's a process of randomly scapegoating civil servants and and not a pursuit of many of those people are exactly the people who could tell you what kind of paperwork they're putting up with and and so how to have a not just a managerial class tell you what is appropriate but actually the people who are doing the work who are should be part of that process of pointing out what the um unproductive
▶ 1:18:58uh you know proceduralism is. Um I I agree with you. I I I I I want to know what career staff thinks. It's a hallmark of my time at OMV. Uh and I hate the paperwork that we often put on agencies to perform uh and do things that are are not designed to actually lead to better uh outcomes. And so we we we have a deregulatory side for the agencies doing the work as it comes to GIRA and other things on the management side.
▶ 1:19:28So I know I know you're a Christian. Um, you might know the verse in Isaiah 5:8 that says, "Woe to those who add farm to farm and house to house till they are the sole inhabitants of the land." Um, this is, I think, a I hope a sentiment that we share, but the presidential budget calls for a 10% reduction in the Federal Trade Commission's competition budget and a static budget for the Department of Justice antitrust division and reduction in the size of the workforce.
▶ 1:19:53So, how will reducing the budget and staff of the antitrust agencies bring down the cost of living and ensure that small businesses like mine can compete on a fair level playing field um without a regulatory mode or antitrust um forces holding us down? Look, we think it's a priority.
▶ 1:20:11uh we have given uh the Department of Justice and the FTC the resources that they've asked for and u we don't necessarily value everything by the dollar amount that has given but uh we do think it's important and it's an uh something that our our our leadership there will continue to pursue. Thank you. Yield back. Thank you. Chair now recognizes Mr. Alfred for his five minutes questions. Well, thank you Chair Joyce and Ranking Member Hoyer and Mr. Delaro. Thank you for being here today.
▶ 1:20:39Uh, Director Vote, thank you most of all. I appreciate the work you're doing to try to write the ship in America. And that's we're about to hit a a reef if we don't do something with our our spending. I I I do want to follow up on uh my colleague Mr. Wax's questioning about the full budget. So, you were saying we are not going to receive the full budget until after the reconciliation package is done, which at the earliest would be July 4th. Is that correct? Correct.
▶ 1:21:08We will be forthcoming with additional information as it to full to fill out the the deficit picture uh and all of the the uh additional information at that time. Well, I'm I'm new to this. I'm new in appropriations. I'm just kind of learning this process, but this really puts us up against the wall. I mean, we we're we're having our Milcon VA markup tomorrow uh without a full budget. Uh we've got to get all 12 of these out of committee and we've got to get these passed on the House floor.
▶ 1:21:39Uh we've got to get a lot done before our August in district work period. We don't need another CR and we don't need a government shutdown. That will not be good for the president. It will not be good for Congress. It will not be good for America. So I Let me clarify. Car, you have everything you need for all of your markups. you you do not just have highlevel discretionary proposals that we were forthcoming with nearly a month ago.
▶ 1:22:02You have the full budget as it pertains to the appropriations process and you have all of the information that is needed to be able to write those bills in particularly in the VA context where you're dealing with advanced appropriations. You have that material. Congressional budget justifications and the appendix went up uh last week and are are continuing to flow. where there is only some work that remains is on the defense side and we are pushing DoD as fast as we can to get their remaining information up to the hill.
▶ 1:22:31You've been uh thank you for your support of the one big beautiful bill. Uh of course we we do uh appreciate that. Uh you've said that um talking to critics they've been relying on faulty CBO numbers for their criticism of the bill. Uh, example in 2017 the CBO was off with its projections of the TCGA by $1 trillion. What are the flaws in CBO scoring? Well, other than the baselines that they use, which don't reflect or aren't comparable with how they treat spending.
▶ 1:23:01So, CBO assumes that spending will continue. All of your appropriations bills are assumed not on an annual basis, which of course they are they are passed on, but they are assumed to continue with inflation over the life of the 10-year window. Uh that's not the case with tax revenue for for the way that the the law was written um and the way that CBO operates is that they judge an expiration date to be something uh that causes it to look like a a new cost to taxpayers. That's one.
▶ 1:23:31And then of course they've had just um undynamic assumptions with regard to tax policy and other uh policy moves uh want to talk a little bit about the uh recision package that you sent over $9.4 billion package. Um Secretary Rubio was sitting in that seat two weeks ago before NSRP subcommittee.
▶ 1:23:53Uh there have been 5341 USCID awards that have been terminated uh unobligated savings of 27.7 billion. Yet your recision package only includes 9.3 billion I believe uh for state and foreign aid. Is that correct? It's correct. Yeah. Are we going to see further recision packages that will claw back this money? Perhaps. We are very anxious to see the reception uh from a vote standpoint in the House and the Senate.
▶ 1:24:20Uh we've had tremendous interactions with your committee uh sitting down with the chairman, the subcommittee chairman uh to make sure that the package, one of the reasons why it was uh it took a little bit. It was constructed a long time ago was we were having the conversations with this committee to make it so that that it can be passed next week. Okay. If that goes well, I'm not I'm I'm less concerned about the House as I am in the Senate. And uh it's very important for it to pass. If it does, it'll be worth the effort and we'll send up additional packages. Last question.
▶ 1:24:48Uh part of the recision package, the global health program for $400 million. Uh it says this proposal would eliminate only those programs that neither provide life-saving treatment nor support American interests. Does this include PEPAR? Any money that's funding PEPAR whatsoever? It does. It has a a cut to PEPFAR, but not to lifesa saving treatment. Let me just walk you through. What about prevention, sir? So, the challenge we have in PEPAR is that PEPFAR uh has been perceived as only life-saving treatment.
▶ 1:25:15But if you look, you've got 2.5 million for teaching young children how to make environmentally friendly reproductive health decisions. You have nearly a million dollars for services for transgender people, sex workers and their client and sexual networks in Nepal. You have $5.1 million to strengthen the resilience of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, interex, and queer global movements.
▶ 1:25:38So even in an area like PEPAR, and I did see uh some of the the reaction from the Senate as to us including PEPAR, we believe that it needs to be on the table. We can find waste, fraud, and abuse there. uh that the American people would not support and it's one of the reasons why it's in the package, but it will not lead to life-saving treatment being denied. That has been a hallmark of all President Trump's budgetary policies with regard to PEPAR is if you are receiving care, you will continue to receive that care. I'm out of time.
▶ 1:26:08Thank you. I yield back. Thank you, Chair. Now, recognize Mr. Ivy for his five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh good I was shocked when I heard you say that all government employees should be treated with respect because that is absolutely not what I saw on the ground level. I mean, I saw people crying when they were coming out of USA ID. I think they'd been given 15minute intervals to retrieve their belongings.
▶ 1:26:35I talked to people who were probationary employees who'd been uh given these mass emails that they're going to be terminated. They'd quit jobs and moved from other places, sold their houses to come do this work in reasonable reliance on often for the government to work uh for the federal government and desire to serve their country. And they were unceremoniously pushed out the door.
▶ 1:26:58And when you said, "I know, uh, you want to know what career staff thinks," that was a shocker to me, too, because many of these people when they were being forced out were trying to call and find out what their status was, whether they were going to be able to come back to work or not, when they would be terminated, all of those things. And that still goes on and they don't they don't get the answers from you all. So I, you know, I appreciate your view of what's going on, but you got to know that it's entirely different from the standpoint of the people who were going through this.
▶ 1:27:28And I I I just want to focus on three quick areas where that there's a potential impact. I mean, one thing you said that was interesting to me, um, you're going to ask for additional 20 positions, if I heard you correct, at OM. Um it's a little ironic because you're slashing positions across the government in funding. Um but we had u the FBI director testify here a few weeks ago and he came in and said he has,00 vacancies I think it is and he needs 1300 additional.
▶ 1:27:59I think we can all agree that the importance of public safety and someone just mentioned fraud. Nobody ferrets it out better than the FBI. Yet the day after he testified here, he testified in the Senate and said, "I don't need those positions after all." And I just one quick point on the fraud piece.
▶ 1:28:17I saw an FBI agent who runs the u the the um fraud division testify that between 500 and 700 uh million dollars every year is stolen from the United States by our overseas adversaries and that they needed additional resources to track that down. But apparently you guys aren't going to give that to them.
▶ 1:28:38With respect to national security, uh, and the science piece of this too, you know, the trauma quotes been read to you and I I heard your comment, you know, was taken out of context and I listened to that speech. I I don't agree. I think it was consistent with what you were saying that day. But let's just assume for the moment that what you're saying there is really true. The bottom line is that the actions that you've taken since then reiterates the message that you're trying to traumatize these people and that you want to treat them like villains.
▶ 1:29:08And so what we've got going on right now on the science and tech piece um that's rippling through NASA and other agencies where it's critical for us to have these science and tech folks, AI, the competition for quantum computing and the like. They think they're being forced out of these positions. They're starting to look to go to Europe. they're starting to look to go back to Korea or India or other places rather than staying here and doing the work.
▶ 1:29:31And I know from businesses in my district that they need people from overseas because we're not producing enough of them over here in the United States. Yet, we're narrowing the pipeline based on what you're doing with respect to cutting grants to help fund. We're narrowing the pipeline with respect to the impact you're having on the universities in science and tech. We're narrowing the pipeline with respect to the postocs and other people doing the research and the government contractors who are doing much of this work too.
▶ 1:30:01So over and over again we're squeezing that line down. If you look at the contrast with China, they're doing exactly the opposite and they're doing exactly the opposite in the areas where we're in the most uh competitive areas and where we really need to win. We don't want China to get ahead of us militarily. We don't want China to get ahead of us on quantum computing and AI, but we're making cuts to NIST. We're making cuts to NASA. We're making cuts to the NIH.
▶ 1:30:27We're making making cuts across the board on some of the most important aspects of what we need to do in the United States to maintain that lead. And with respect to public health, I see my time's running out here and I I guess we can do a second round in a minute, but same kind of thing. Uh the cuts to NIH, my father died from Alzheimer's. I'm a cancer survivor. You got to shut down clinical trials in the middle of those going forward. And it's not like we can just flip a switch and it comes back and starts over again.
▶ 1:30:58Some of those are going to take years to catch back up to where they were. And some of the people who were conducting the research are leaving the United States because they don't want to have that happen again. So I appreciate the goal of going after wage fraud and abuse. I I don't think that that's what you all have really focused on here.
▶ 1:31:16your impact certainly because we can go through that in the second round, but you're really undermining our ability to compete and stay ahead of China on really critical areas like national security and public safety. Chair, now we recognize the uh vice chair of the committee uh Mr. Loa from New York. Thank you, chairman. Uh director, good good to be with you today. You're the uh director of the office of management and budget. Is that correct? Correct. And uh you've previously served in that capacity in 2020 and 2021.
▶ 1:31:45uh in 19 in 2019 and 2020. Went through January 2021. I did. Okay. Um and you're the executive brass's chief financial planner and policy coordinator. Is that a fair description of your title? I think that's fair. Okay. Along with the secretary of treasury. Great. Uh and in that role, how important is America's debt and deficit to you? Huge.
▶ 1:32:08I mean we we we have a uh an enormous problem ahead of us uh with regard to uh the debt that we're facing as a country. Uh it's hanging over us. It's causing uh massive interest costs each and every year to keep growing and um the impact um that it can suddenly um cause much worse situation than we've seen thus far uh is still always out there as a possibility.
▶ 1:32:34It's one of the reasons we have to pass this bill to be able to begin to get a handle on the spending that has been on autopilot that we're going to get into have been calling attention to about 37 trillion. Is that about right? Yes. And the deficit is about what? Uh $2 trillion and somewhere between 1.5 and$2 trillion and the debt to GDP ratio pretty bad, right? Yep. Worst since World War II. Yep. And what if we do nothing? What if Congress sits on its hands, the executive branch does nothing? What if we just do the status quo?
▶ 1:33:04What happens with respect to interest rates, opportunity, buying power, the dollar, opportunity for future generations? What happens to all that if we do nothing? It will all get worse and we will continue to have issues with credit agencies. And one of the reasons why uh Moody's was late to the party, but the original credit ratings were were drawing attention to the futility that this town had with the inability to ever pass anything of of substance. And and I think that is what has changed uh with the bill that you all are considering right now through Congress.
▶ 1:33:33And I agree with you. Reconciliation is a start of something that we have to do to put our country on a on a better track to give more opportunity to the future generations. I want to switch gears just a little bit but get back to that point in a moment. In your experience, scores um predictions by the CBO, JCT, how have they been, sir? Uh not accurate. Um, thinking back to the first Trump administration and President Trump's 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, how would you rate the estimates by the CBO and JCT?
▶ 1:34:03Uh, they did not do a good job of of rating it uh accurately and and you know, they they didn't think we'd ever get to 3% growth. We did. Um, they were off in their revenue assumptions. Um, and but ultimately that's part for the course. I mean, they don't think through dynamic assumptions with regard to their revenue policies. And about how much in revenue are they off by? Do you remember? I don't have it at my fingertips. I think 1.5 trillion. That's about That's about right. Only 1.5 trillion. Um, are you familiar with CBO's work when they scored the American Rescue Plan?
▶ 1:34:34Uh, I am, but happy to be informed more on accurate or not accurate. Uh, if you've got a a questionnaire, I'm happy to answer, but off top of my head, I I'll lead you a little bit with this question. They they projected inflation will be around 3.3% in 2021 and 2.5 in 2022 and 2.3 in 2024. Take a guess. Was it higher or lower than the projections? The inflation I'm sure that uh it it served the the the administration's uh policy objectives.
▶ 1:35:044.78% and 4.1% respectively. Way off, but yes, favorable to that administration. And now fast forward, we have this one big beautiful bill before us that the House Republicans we passed last week and we've received some new scores over the last day or so. And are you familiar with the CBO score on the growth rate they project in the one big beautiful bill? It's about 2%. Yeah. 1.8. Um do you believe that it is an accurate enough growth rate given some of the historical context between TCJ1?
▶ 1:35:34Much of the same policies in TCJ1 led to two, three, and 4% growth. And yet they're scoring in this 1.8. No, I don't think they're accurate. I don't think it's reflective of the growth. I think it's much more likely and we'll get to our economic assumptions when we come later with more details from our fuller budget. But the budget resolution that you all passed, $2.5 trillion. U I think the number there was 2.7 is much more accurate in terms of a number that should flow from the policies in the bill. Great.
▶ 1:36:04I I would agree 2.6% is I think what the House Budget Committee put forth. Uh, I think that's a more uh a better estimate. Uh, would you agree that assuming only the 1.8% CBO number both underestimates the positive impact of the legislation and simultaneously overestimates the negative impacts like deficit projections? Yes. But I I would go further.
▶ 1:36:27I think the challenge with the CBO score is the way they construct the baseline is they are asking policy makers who care about the debt and deficits to almost take the position that you shouldn't extend the tax relief and then they don't model the extent to which that would implode the economy. Yeah. Like there's dynamics uh uh assumptions with regard to tax policies and economic growth and then there should also be an area where they model the economic impacts of their own baseline policies. The chair now recognizes Mr. Bishop for any questions you may have.
▶ 1:36:57Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, welcome, director Vault. Uh, branding is very important in the characterization of the uh, uh, the reconciliation bill. Uh, and there are many who are calling it one thing, but there are many others who are characterizing it as the big ugly bill. Uh, I want to talk to you about your proposals relating to USDA research.
▶ 1:37:24uh you eliminate uh the Hatch Act formula grants which go to the 1862 uh land grant institutions. There's a 44% cut to Evans Allen research grants for the 1890 land grant institutions and a 14% cut to the 1890 extension services. The Smith lever cooperative extension program is cut by 46%.
▶ 1:37:45A resource research uh has been the tool uh that has kept America ahead of our international competitors for decades uh and is right now more important than it ever was uh in our competition with our uh international competitors. We're falling behind other nations on a research. So I strongly believe that research should be the last place that we should be looking at cutting.
▶ 1:38:13How do you justify these cuts uh other than as part of your overall budget numbers uh uh quest uh if America is going to continue to be able to produce the highest quality, the safest, the most abundant, the most uh economic food and fiber anywhere in the world? Uh thank you Congressman for the question. I mean, we we believe in agricultural research. Um, and I think we believe in the research that even in areas where we're we're taking cuts.
▶ 1:38:43Um, our desire is to make sure that we actually do research that it's not going to uh uh some of the the projects and and and and line items that you saw Secretary Rollins uh put out there that she has canceled. And so, uh, where we found efficiencies and we wanted to make those reflected in the in the fiscal year 26 budget, but, um, you know, agriculture is incredibly important.
▶ 1:39:09Um, we have to be able to feed ourselves first and foremost, and one of the ways that we need to be able to do that is not just our our farm support programs, but the extent to which we're thinking ahead and and planning for the future and learning. But there is Thank you. I think in the eye of the beholder, there might be some differences. Thank you. Currently, uh, my state, Georgia, is the most recent state to implement the Medicaid work reporting requirement. So far, what we've seen is a cautionary tale for other states.
▶ 1:39:36Higher administrative costs, increased bureaucratic red tape, and suppressed enrollment, even among eligible Georgians. Uh, in my congressional district, over 765,000 Georgians, and almost 17% of them of the non-elderly residents are uninsured.
▶ 1:39:53However, after 18 months of implementation, uh less than 1% of our district's residents who are aged 19 to 64 were enrolled in the Georgia version of a Georgia's pathways to conver to coverage program.
▶ 1:40:11Uh that's in spite of the state having spent $92 million in combined state and federal funds on the program, most of which covered administrative expenses like technology upgrades rather than actual health care benefits. In other words, taxpayers are funding for-profit consultants to add on to clunky, outdated systems to process paperwork rather than covering the cost of doctor visits and prescription refills for eligible Georgian.
▶ 1:40:39If the budget reconciliation bill mandates work or other community engagement reporting requirements for low-income able-bodied adults across all states, how can we avoid the high cost, low coverage pitfalls evidenced by Georgia's pathways of coverage program? For example, how will the federal government ensure that taxpayer dollars are going to health care benefits rather than more bureaucratic red tape as we've seen in Georgia?
▶ 1:41:06And quickly, the second question is most of the $92 million that was spent uh has been covered by the federal government due in part to the higher federal match for administrative expenses like technology upgrades. This expense would not be necessary if not for the additional paperwork generated by the work reporting requirement for 115 demonstration programs like the Georgia program.
▶ 1:41:32what steps are being taken to ensure that states are held accountable to rules regarding budget neutrality if you if uh they implement this on the nationwide basis. Uh well, thank you for the question. I haven't looked at Georgia's model and I will look into that.
▶ 1:41:48uh our our belief is that this will not lead to additional paperwork but that it will build on the historic reforms that we saw in 1997 that were on a bipartis studies done on it that have been published that have made it very clear and of course obviously the people who are skeptical of that have made that m clear also it's it's out there and I'm I'm surprised that you haven't been well I mean as it pertains to the 1997 reforms which now applies the concept of work to Medicaid and and remember in Medicaid we have this issue
▶ 1:42:18where you have able-bodied working adults that get a higher match than the the the intended originally intended beneficiaries. The most uh the most uh the disabled, the elderly who you know you get basically you get $9 for uh nine federal dollars for every $1 of state for the able-bodied working adults and then you get correct about 1 30 uh for everyone at the lower populations.
▶ 1:42:47And there's that's that's something that's off because what you have is states chasing the higher dollar. So with this work requirement, we'll make sure that we have uh it means that more money will have to go for the states setting up the mechanism in order to uh uh to calculate that. It's more red tape, more paperwork less than than services and and care for the people who need it. We can thank you. The chair will now recognize Mr. Cloud for his five minutes. Thank you, chair.
▶ 1:43:16And thank you, Director Vote, for being here. Um, you know, uh, as an American before being here as a member of Congress, I just want to say thank you for finding efforts to find savings. I know what motivates me and a lot of people in our service here is is the really demand that should be upon us to to leave a better country than we find it. And so, we find ourselves headed to $36 trillion in debt, as you just talked about. Uh, we're looking what's going on in the bond markets. um they're really concerned about our debt load.
▶ 1:43:47Talked about World War II debt loads with it during peace time being a very big concern. Certainly mandatory spending is a big part of that. Uh but then we also, you know, have understood that government as government grows, freedom contracts. And so there's a need as well to uh make sure that we're turning a good return on investment when it comes to our discretionary uh funding as well.
▶ 1:44:14Could you speak to what we can do to find uh savings uh during uh in with our discretional funding uh especially considering like pre-COVID levels we're spending what $2 trillion more a year now uh every year and then we were what 1.6 trillion in discretionary funding precoid or I'm sorry that's after COVID and then before CO it was 1.288 288 trillion in discretionary.
▶ 1:44:43That's a pretty substantial growth over just a couple year period of time. And you know, nobody pre-COVID was thinking that we had a lean mean fighting machine of a federal government. Most people even then thought it was pretty bloated and a little lethargic and uh could use some tightening up. Um could you speak to what we're doing to find savings and return a better return on? Sure. I mean it's reflected in our budget proposal. Uh generally we proposed $163 billion in non-defense cuts.
▶ 1:45:12Uh the lowest level adjusted for inflation since 2000. Uh not adjusted for inflation. It gets you back to your pre-COVID levels. And we really are trying to find uh programs uh that we believe are fundamentally wasteful or divisive.
▶ 1:45:28Um, you know, when you're uh providing $315 million for preschool grants for CRT indoctrination for four-year-olds in Minnesota, we think that money is is not just wasteful, but it's actually uh harming the the the country as a whole and those individuals. And we looked at it from every vantage point from that standpoint.
▶ 1:45:52And it's one of the reasons we talk about the the cuts to woke and weaponized bureaucracy um and wasteful. And sometimes you just can't afford something uh when you're $37 trillion in debt that you would otherwise be able to afford. Um and you know there are drivers that you have in the appropriations process that we pay for and we pay for uh the needs that we we see in um in for veterans. uh which almost acts like a mandatory program within your within your jurisdiction.
▶ 1:46:22Um we have uh proposals for rental reform to block grant to the states and require uh a cost share with states so that we don't have people that are are are too soon moving off these programs into self-sufficiency. That's another driver that you all are facing with that is on your books that's not a mandatory program but acts like a mandatory program and we're trying to account and deal with those uh with the the the proposal that we sent up.
▶ 1:46:50I I was late to this hearing because I was in the Doge subcommittee hearing in which we were talking about NOS's that are we call them NOS's but many of them have well over 50% of their funding coming from the federal government. One I highlighted was Endeavors which was a big part of the uh apparatus really the industry that got stood up to to bring illegal immigrants.
▶ 1:47:12Over 90% of their their funding was coming from uh coming from the federal government and they kind of ceased to be an NGO at that point. Um can you talk about how you're evaluating these I would call them quasi government uh entities as opposed to an NGO? uh I think it was over 35,000 of them are getting more federal dollars than they are donations.
▶ 1:47:38I mean it was a major uh thrust throughout this process for constructing this budget. And we we have our what we call director's review and literally we would ask on every program not just what's the level, what's the need, but how is it distributed uh distributed.
▶ 1:47:54We want to make sure that if this is going to a um the extent to which that nonprofit shares our uh views and is not putting forward some of the ideologies that we have fundamental issues with. And so I can't give you a rackup of of what we found other than to uh in the areas that we put forward cuts, we have concerns uh in addition to the the value proposition of those dollars. Thank you.
▶ 1:48:24The chair now recognizes Miss Henson for matter of before the Yes, Mr. Chairman, in light of the conversation earlier, I'd like to submit um an article for the record um about uh illegal immigrants receiving coverage on Medicaid. We do know federal dollars flow to states, and this is from the New York Times, May 14th, 2025. Governor Newsome proposes scaling back health care for undocumented immigrants in California. I'd like to submit this article for the record, Mr. Chairman. objection, we have a limited amount of time.
▶ 1:48:52I notice that uh in which we can maybe go to a lightning round. I'm sure Mr. Ivy's salivating for the chance for this lightning round. Um and so um we could pick your top question that you wanted to ask instead of and try to keep it to two minutes. That will get everybody a chance in an order to be fair to everyone here. Fair enough. I will certainly defer to my elders here. So, well, we're looking forward to another two-minute lecture.
▶ 1:49:21Um, uh, I will take the liberty of going first on the ITOR account was established back in 2015. Uh, the ITOR funds currently being used for both doge federal workforce and software initiative. What is the breakdown or percentage of Doge funds that have been used for workforce issues and what percentage of ITOR funds are being used to modernize technology and further your request for this year for it? It's an increase of 145%.
▶ 1:49:49And I was wondering if you could tell us is this for software modernization initiative or the 30 full-time equivalents that you've asked for sought under the budget request for it specifically or for the software initiative or for Doge too? the the the ITOR request in fiscal year 26 is for Doge.
▶ 1:50:06Uh we put it in the ITOR account because uh we are still in movement as to where Doge resides and the fact that we have uh opportunities through standard USDS work to do technological work at the agencies. So, uh, I wouldn't call it a plug, uh, but we are certainly, uh, reflective of the fact that there's good work to be done regardless of whether, uh, Doge is fundamentally housed in the EOP or at the agency's long term.
▶ 1:50:38Thank you. The chair will now recognize Mr. Hoyer for a question. Thank you, M. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm at 517 already. Am I over? Tell me when we're ready.
▶ 1:50:59Um I am against uh dynamic scoring not because I don't believe there is a dynamic score but because I thought is it think it is a gamble and one of the reasons we've gotten to places where we are is because it's been a gamble. I've been here a long time as you know. Um when Ronald Reagan's David Stockman said tax cuts going to pay for itself, Ronald Reagan increase the deficit.
▶ 1:51:24Only one man can stop spending or one person, president of the United States, uh by 189%. Um Mick Mulaney told us that the Bush tax cut would pay for itself. Uh, and Mitch Daniels uh, also told us, excuse me, McMulan was Trump's uh, that Bush's tax cut would pay for itself. They didn't do it.
▶ 1:51:54And we ran deficits. And we ran deficits. The only one that really had a low deficit uh, was Bill Clinton and a balanced budget as you probably recall. Now, the budget you've now said, we've had a lot of talk about Doge Mr. Musk, of course, headed updo and was regailed as somebody who was a genius and could do everything. He said this, "I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore.
▶ 1:52:20This massive, outrageous, pork- fililled congressional spending bill is a abomination. Shame on those who voted for it. You know, you did wrong. You know it." So that at least one person that has been high up in this uh who being worth $450 billion is prepared to tell the truth.
▶ 1:52:48This bill is not going to pay for itself and we are not honest with one another. The discretionary part of the budget which you talked you said 30%. Defense, veterans, uh homeland security take it far above that. So we deal with 14 or 13% of the budget to try to balance the budget. That's dishonest. It cannot be done if you eliminated all of non-defense nonveteran discretionary funding.
▶ 1:53:18So David Stockman ended up with a book said we lied. I hope you won't do that. Chair now recognizes Mr. Wulmeck for his lightning round question. Director vote. You got a tough job. You got a tough job. If you inherited a an absolute mess, a mess that's been created over decades, not not just one administration, but many, it's because Congress can't say no.
▶ 1:53:45Um, but we've seen the big beautiful bill slammed in here in this hearing today. I I I want to give you a second to tell us what's going to happen if if HR1 fails, if whatever comes back from the Senate fails to get to the desk of the president and signed into law, what happens at the end of this year? I think we'll have a recession. I think we will be uh economic storm clouds will be very dark. I think we'll have a 60% tax increase on the American people.
▶ 1:54:13And just to if I could answer uh Congressman Hoyer's uh question or or statement, the the notion that this bill I we've been actually criticized unfairly for uh on on the reconciliation bill for the fact that it is all mandatory savers. I mean, you said, look, we need to address the mandatory side of the house. There's $1.7 trillion in mandatory savers on the reconciliation bill. Do we need to do things on the appropriation side, the discretionary side? Yes.
▶ 1:54:41That's what we're here to talk about with recisions and the bu the bill that we've uh the budget that we've sent up to you. But we have to get back to what we did in 1997 where we had for the first time substantial mandatory reforms around not just cutting people and just getting people off programs, but reforms a work requirement. We're using the same model that Bill Clinton signed into law.
▶ 1:55:06And we think it will have uh incredible uh impact on not just these programs, but giving people dignity of work. And uh we're not going to be ashamed by that, but we do need our explain ourselves to th those that are being impacted by the watchd dogss in this in this town that honestly don't have an incentive to get a bill done. They're they they have chosen how they want to frame bills and I think they're inaccurate. I appreciate your response. Thank you so much. I yield. Thank you, Mr. Wack.
▶ 1:55:34Chair now recognizes the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Deloro. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Very quickly, uh if you don't pass the $4.5 trillion dollar tax cuts for the wealthiest people in the uh in the country and the biggest corporations u to my friends uh who comment who is gone now uh about uh the constitution, read the constitution. Uh and there are many Republicans who have said that they haven't read the bill and they're troubled by what's in this uh big ugly bill that you're discussing.
▶ 1:56:03Let me just talk about empowerment. You you you speak about a tradition in this country which is in fact fiction. You say over 200 years presidential empowerment uh of uh h has carrying the day for all of you. You think you're so captured by the lie that you founded a multi-million dollar think tank uh to republish the lie. I'm familiar with the this work. The quality of the work is so bad.
▶ 1:56:31And let me just say and to characterize it. This is page and page after page going back to 1789 of what what people looked at in terms of impounding or stealing funds.
▶ 1:56:46And let just tell this that even in your fake history, almost all the examples that you document demonstrate that presidents have historically only delayed or refused to spend money when it was the Congress who gave them the power to do it. It's article one, section 9, clause seven. That is operative. There should be no debate.
▶ 1:57:13You have impounded and stolen funds that you have no business doing. You don't have that authority. The president doesn't have that inherent authority. And it has been documented by the courts, which is why over 250 lawsuits that have been filed, 185 plus rulings have apped Trump initiatives. You are in violation of the law. That is what we should be dealing with in in this uh this effort.
▶ 1:57:43Would you recommmit yourself to the truth engaging with this committee, the American people and the American people based on the respect for history as it actually has occurred. We haven't impounded any money. We're under programmatic review of federal dollars across You have impounded money. $425 billion. We don't know where that number came from. tell you look at the tracker. You know, we're following it very closely.
▶ 1:58:10And I would just say this, if people don't really want to appropriate and hold on to the power of the purse, then my suggestion is find another committee to sit on. Our responsibility, our responsibility is to make sure that we maintain that power of the purse and that what we say has got to be congressionally uh uh uh uh uh spent needs to be.
▶ 1:58:31And you do have a a premise that in that bill uh in the empowerment control act that gives you allows you to come up with a recision package. But what is at stake is the illegality of what you have done with impounding and stealing funds from the American public and the unbelievable consequences it will have on their lives and their famil family's lives. Congressman, there's nothing chair now Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 1:58:59Um, you know, I think fundamentally there is a difference of viewpoint on this committee. We don't have a we don't have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem in this country. And some of the examples that you have um showcased today, director vote, you know, the PEPAR um examples you gave earlier. We we want to see those dollars go to programs and people who need them. That's the whole point of our what our committee is doing here is asking those questions. And when I hear about the waste, that's exactly what Ians are telling me to come here and say we don't want to spend our money on that. So kudos to you to Doge for everything you've done to uncover this.
▶ 1:59:30At least $175 billion dollars in wasteful spending already throwing away this money on international pet projects instead of going to constituents like mine in the district. Um I think it's abominable and we shouldn't be allowing it. Um the administration has discovered $300 million of SBA loans that have gone out to individuals under the age of 11. 300 million over the age of 120. Um the youngest recipient of an SBA loan is a 9-month-old. How does that even happen? Sounds like it's a rhetorical question, but the previous administration allowed it to happen. So, how does it happen?
▶ 1:59:59Well, I think one of the things that Doge brought to this was um a ability to think a new about something and look at it without having u uh had the opportunity to be in this town and and be up to speed on all the acronyms to look at it just flat out. What's the value proposition of what's ongoing here and what's the process by how it moves through the federal bureaucracy. And um they they thankfully had the ability to be outraged.
▶ 2:00:30And I think that's what uh the American people are outraged by is the extent to which taxpayer dollars are spent on things that no one wants to defend. Um no one no one pushed back on the examples that I gave with regard to PEPAR. No one wants to defend that. Um, we may disagree as to whether the that's the level of waste or whether that deserves a programmatic cut, but on a bipartisan basis, it's collectively outrageous.
▶ 2:00:56You go to any diner in the country in every town in the country and you present these examples and it will be outrageous. And I think that's what Doge brought to us. And many of us have been uh in these salt mines for for many years. Uh, and I think I can't explain why this town uh, needs that dose of reality, but it it unfortunately does, and I'm I'm thankful to this administration is giving it. Yeah. Keep peing back the layers of the onion. I yield back. Thank you, Miss Cinson. Chair now recognized Mr. Pokean for his lightning round question.
▶ 2:01:25Two minutes, please. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I want to thank Miss Hinson for putting in the record to verify what I said, which is undocumented immigrants are not eligible to enroll in fally funded coverage, including Medicaid, CHIP, or Medicare, or to purchase coverage to the ACA marketplaces. And in California, indeed, it was state fund. So, thank you, Miss Vincent, for having my back. I love bipartisan cooperation.
▶ 2:01:46Um, Project 2025, you're one of the authors, you're on the advisory board, you work for Heritage, you're basically January, February, and March in a Project 2025 calendar, right? Uh, but you were asked this weekend about it and you said, "No, the administration isn't following project 2025." So, just I'll go through lightning rounds. It's only have two minutes. Just tell me coincidence or not. Um, in project 25 abolishing department of education, you guys are doing that. Is that a coincidence? The view coincidence or not? That's all you got to ask agenda.
▶ 2:02:15Okay, I'll go through the rest. Any diversity, equity, and inclusion? The president's agenda is shifting FEMA cost to the states PBS and the national public radio. easing federal assistance, restricting gender affirming care, revoking security clearances, stripping civil servants of employment protections, reinstating service members who refuse CO 19 vaccines, banning transgender people from the military, a hiring freeze, withdrawing from the World Health Organization, sending active duty troops to the southern border, limiting refugee admissions, rescending temporary
▶ 2:02:46protected status designations, capping indirect costs for university-based research, requiring disclosures of foreign gifts to universities, apparently not planes. Mr. Presidents, asserting the president's power to remove federal officials and targeting Noah. Were those all just coincidences that they happened to be in Project 25 and they were just in the back pocket of the president since November? The president has never been more of a promises made, promises kept president uh than we've ever had in history. He has run on an agenda.
▶ 2:03:15He was very clear on that agenda. He's now enacting that agenda. and those of us who work for him work for his agenda in executing that agenda. Chair now recognizes Mr. Alfred. Uh point of order before my time begins. Uh chair, how much time do we actually have in this lightning round? Two minutes. One question. Two minutes. Two minutes. Okay. Thank you. Let's let's start for my a state of Missouri. Renewable fuel standards renewable volume obligations rule has been at OM since May uh 1st.
▶ 2:03:44When will this be sent back to the EPA to re release publicly? Sir, we're working on it. We know it's a priority. It's part of an an annual process that's very very important. Uh second question, a follow up on PEPFAR. Uh we've talked about a little bit. PEPAR since 2003 has saved about 26 million lives mainly in Africa. Aside from the crazy woke programs, which I agree should be stripped.
▶ 2:04:07Uh are is there any other prevention program not treatment but prevention program listed in this recision package which is not of a woke nature? We believe that life-saving treatment I understand that's that is in fact your question but we are scaling down the program as it pertains to the types of organizations that are providing or are the examples of the waste fraud and abuse.
▶ 2:04:33The prevention itself is where a a a an analytical look needs to be done. And it's one of the reasons why we have emphasized in successive budgets that it's we're going to protect life-saving treatment, but we want to scrutinize heavily those that are bringing people into the system. You see where I'm going with this, sir? I mean, there's life-saving treatment after you already have HIV, but there are prevention programs that PEPAR does which are not of the woke nature which can prevent someone from getting HIV.
▶ 2:05:03Are those programs going to survive? It is something that our our budget will be very u uh trim on uh because we believe that many of these nonprofits are not geared towards the the uh viewpoints of the administration and we were $37 trillion in debt. I know. And so at some point the continent of Africa needs to absorb more of the burden of providing healthare.
▶ 2:05:28In fact, I have a plan, a 5-year plan to scale down our commitment from the US to put that on the backs of those in Africa and those in charities and churches. This was a temporary program. It's not to be sustained forever by American taxpayers. Thank you, sir. Yeah. Chair now recognizes Mr. Ivy for his twominut question, statement, or whatever. All of the above, maybe. I don't know. But I my colleague there I I you know made me think of Bill Gates's quote.
▶ 2:05:59Um he he just said um the wealthiest man in the world is um basically killing the poorest kids in the world uh by making these cuts. Um and you're you're sort of executing that. I I appreciate the comment that was made there, but we really can't sugarcoat this. More people are going to die. And if I think I heard what you said there, uh, prevention is going to get less uh, funding uh, than it currently is.
▶ 2:06:28And I I think in every model, prevention is better than trying to cure it after a disease is contracted. But um you know real quick on this um the merit hiring plan which I I saw one of the questions I think it was question number three. Identify one or two relevant executive orders or policy initiatives that are significant to you and explain how would you would help implement them if hired.
▶ 2:06:57And I I read that and I was like, well, I don't know that every president is gonna, you know, be issuing 50 executive orders per day. Um, so if if it's, you know, just a a commitment to do what following of President Trump's executive orders, I think that's totally inappropriate. Um, and I think there's a lot of positions that we need to fill in the federal government, like some of the science and engineering jobs I mentioned a few minutes ago. I don't really care if they're reading the president's executive orders per se.
▶ 2:07:28I'm more cur, you know, I care more about them curing cancer or addressing Alzheimer's or if they're federal agents tracking down Seneloa cartel or identifying and tracking down the wage, fraud, and abuse that's actually occurring by major um malfactors uh or you know the competition with with our adversaries abroad. So, I I see my two minutes are running out. I do want to say this.
▶ 2:07:53I just noticed I saw this up here and I it matches the t-shirts in the audience to the labor community out there. Stay strong. Thank you very much. Chair now recognizes Mr. Cloud for his uh question two minutes. Thank you, chairman. And uh I I appreciate you being here.
▶ 2:08:12You know, as I've looked at at Doge and the work that's going on, I've been surprised really from the vitriol from the left uh as you know, you there's a video that's gone around of President Obama basically describing the work of Doge and and putting it uh to Joe Biden to to take charge of it. Uh, of course, we didn't see any nationwide injunctions to anything that they did. I'm not sure if that's because they didn't do anything. it was ineffective.
▶ 2:08:37But uh but now we see things coming to light that really questions we've asked and tried to get from appropriation standpoint. You we had asked the bureaucracy where's these dollars really going to and we couldn't get the the answers. We had an administration that would work with us and finally we have one that's not only uh that willing to work with us but but able to bring technology tools to the table to get it done.
▶ 2:08:57um appreciated what you said in light of you know when I go home and I talk about Medicaid and the fact that more than half the people on Medicaid are above the poverty line and and what you discussed about we're incentivizing people to stay out of the workforce in order to receive Medicaid in in many of these states they they become very much for once they understand what's what's going on and what the real target is that we're actually protecting this and preserving serving it for
▶ 2:09:27the disabled uh and and not attacking that. It it's just seems well within what we need to do in order to to back off the 36 trillion. So, thank you for your work on that. I I had uh one one question in the little bit of time I had uh someone mentioned that uh dynamic scoring was kind of like asking the CBO uh it was to to score with dynamic scoring was kind of a gamble.
▶ 2:09:52I would say submit that asking the CBO to do a score is a bit of a big gamble because their accuracy has been so off and I would ask if the administration would support I have a piece of legislation for the CBO to uh have to include interest cost in their scoring and then I know Warren Davidson has one on show your work which they don't do. Uh if the administration would support that. Uh it's a good idea. Uh, I'm happy to take a look at it and run it through our our process to see what the president would think on it.
▶ 2:10:24Thank you. Thank you for that question. uh, chair recognizes uh, the ranking member of the full committee for a moment. A moment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The historical record is clear that the president doesn't have inherent power to refuse to spend funds appropriated by Congress.
▶ 2:10:42And for an accurate historical record of this fact, I ask unanimous consent to insert into the record the documentation that supports my claim about the myth of presidential empoundment power. Object. Not a uh not asking for a statement, but uh without objection, I take it in the record. Thank you. And I also might want to add to the gentleman who just spoke, 39% of the children in this nation get their more statements. Thank you. With that, our time has concluded.
▶ 2:11:12I'd like to thank director vote uh for having been here today and uh you know, I know sometimes you didn't have a chance to finish that. If I'd glad to give you since you have one minute left, one minute to close out or you're free to leave. It's up to you. I'm all good. I'm I appreciate all of the comments whether I dis agreed with them or not and look forward to followup with the committee. Thank you very much. Uh there may be some members who would like to submit questions for the records. Please submit any questions for the record to the subcommittee staff within seven days.
▶ 2:11:41I please ask everyone to stay in their seats and allow the director to leave. Uh and then uh as he gets out of the room there, then we'll we'll move. Thank you very much. With that, this subcommittee is objourned.