Oversight Hearing - Office of Management and Budget

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 welcome back Director Vogt and thank him for being here today. The Office of Management, Budget, or OMB plays a central role in most of the decisions made in the executive branch, particularly as it relates to the federal budget. It's also important to remind our audience again that OMB is an office In nineteen twenty-one, Congress passed the Budget and Accounting Act of nineteen twenty-one, which created the Bureau budget under the Department of Treasury. Later in nineteen thirty-nine, in the Reorganization Act of nineteen thirty-nine, the Bureau was relocated to the newly created executive office of the president. And in nineteen seventy, Congress approved the Bureau's renaming to the Office of Management and Budget. I restate this history because OMB plays a unique role both as an office created by Congress and one that has been and continues to be responsible for fulfilling the President's policies. Over the course of the second Trump administration, OMB continues to play a central role in the continued reshaping of the federal government. As of June twentieth, two hundred and sixty-five executive orders, fifty-nine memoranda, and a hundred and fifty-three proclamations have been signed by the President. OMB plays a critical role in each one of these decisions. However, we need to work together to ensure that federal funds are being used as Congress intended. even if the administration doesn't agree with the intent of certain programs. This is why the President's budget remains so important. It is a guide to help Congress understand agency priorities and how the legislative and executive branch can work together to deploy the resources necessary to execute on those priorities. For fiscal year twenty twenty-seven, OMB is requesting a f- one hundred and forty-six point one million dollar, a thirteen point three increase above its FY enacted twenty-six uh enacted level. I look forward to discussing OMB's FY twenty-seven request for director vote, and how we can work together to ensure that agencies have the resources they need to work on priorities for our constituents and the public writ large. I now recognize the ranking member for his opening statement.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Uh, appreciate uh your calling this hearing. Uh, and you referenced how overwhelming is the relationship between the OMB and the policies being pursued by the government. Uh frankly, I think we could have used days of hearings given the extraordinarily broad impact that the OMB has had on the operations of government. I wish though as well that we had a chance to have this budget hearing before we did the budget. Um, Mister Vogt i- is in essence the administration's chief financial officer and chief operating officer. Process matters and that bill would have emerged stronger from this subcommittee had we been able to hear from the director and question him on OMB's priorities ahead of that marker. Nevertheless, I expect many of us will be asking pointed questions today about the management of federal resources from an expensive war of choice to vanity, projects, the White House grounds and around DC. OMB is one of the most powerful and least known offices in our government. It is in many ways the nerve center of presidential power. Under director Vought, in my opinion, it has become a hub for making irrelevant the constitutional limits of the executive branch's power. And it's become in his own words a source source of trauma for our nation's dedicated and hardworking civil servants. I hope today's hearing will be a reminder to director Vought that every administration is accountable to Congress, which is the subject of the Constitution's first article in which it represents the people. It also includes American scientists, researchers who rely on federal grants, which are now at risk because of director votes plan to impose a political litmus test over a nonpartisan, peer-reviewed historic process. And it includes the millions of Americans whose health health lives and likelihoods are adversely impacted by cuts to federal programs and agencies that director votes seeks to impose, unilaterally and without congressional approval, and in many cases contrary to congressional intent and direction. I'm talking about impoundments, which are illegal, and direct constitutional challenges to Congress of the United States. And I'm referring also to pocket rescissions. Mr. Chairman, this oversight hearing may be the most important one held this year in the House. It has sadly become rare in this committee to hold hearings with the leaders of the executive branch agencies directly. Today, we have a de facto leader of the unitary executive theory. And while the president's focus on being uh uh has been on printing money with his face on it and insuring him and his friends make money through no-bid contracts, Director Vogt has been relentlessly focused on uh enacting his own ideological program. President Trump said in September twenty four that he had, quote, " nothing to do with Project Twenty Twenty Five". But force is the architect of that program of which the president disclaimed any knowledge. Director Vogt has discernedly said he believes America is in a post-constitutional moment. I'm not sure what that means. Uh, not surprising, given his apparent disdain for the Constitution, that he, like all public servants, have sworn an oath to support and defend. Director Vogt, I can assure you that our Constitution is alive and well, and that this committee and Congress will hopefully hold you accountable and the government accountable, the executive department accountable. uh using the oversight tools it places in our hands so we have a lot to cover today and i hope uh as i said at the beginning that we will have sufficient time to do so um because we have differences of opinion serious disagreements unlike justice scalia that said the executive department uh clearly did not have impoundment theory I think Mr. Director, Mister Chairman, is the principal proponent of the opposite conclusion. So we could take a lot of time on what uh the consequences of that philosophy are a and uh the consequences to the American people of the exercise of that philosophy. With that, I will yield back the balance of my time.

Thank you, Ranking Member Hoyer. Today we welcome the testimony of uh Honorable Russ Vogt, Director of the Office of Management and Budget. Director Vogt, without objection, your full written testimony will be entered into the record. With that in mind, we'd ask you to summarize your opening statement in five minutes, please.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, Chairman Joyce, Ranking Member Hoyer, members of the subcommittee. Thank you for having me here today to testify in the President's budget request for fiscal year twenty twenty seven. I look forward to a productive conversation on how to continue the fiscal progress we've made so far. when president trump took office the nation was facing financial catastrophe under the failed leadership of the biden administration and decades of status quo spending strangling our nation those decades produced nothing in the area of fiscal restraint a lot of talk about the program but utter futility about doing anything about it that futile futility ended with the return of president trump in just one year the trump administration and congress have made historic progress on righting our fiscal ship the speed and scope of which have not been seen in washington for many years the president drove enactment of the working families tax cut which is a once in a generation legislation to end fiscal futility invest in critical priorities, and cut taxes for working americans this bill bent the cost curve for federal spending achieving nearly two trillion dollars in mandatory savings while securing historic investments in our nation's defense and department of homeland security without corresponding increases in objectionable non-defense spending the president also shepherded legislation through the congress that rescinded nine billion dollars in wasteful and weaponized spending which was the first stand-alone rescissions package enacted by congress since nineteen ninety two we built on the rescissions package in the full year twenty twenty-six appropriations bills together which enacted the first real cut to spending in over a decade and rooted out wasteful spending that the administration identified across the enacted bills reaffirm administration policy to eliminate ineffective federal agencies that do not serve a useful purpose for example the bills eliminated all programming for usaid as the administration works to fully shutdown the agency after decades of mismanagement and abuse the bills also included the complete elimination of the corporation for public broadcasting which funneled billions of taxpayer dollars into biased woke programming at npr and pbs we look forward to working with you to achieve even more progress in the fiscal year twenty twenty-seven appropriation cycle in addition to working with you on the administration's recent supplemental funding request the twenty-seven budget builds on the president's vision by continuing to restrain non-defense spending and reform the federal government the budget proposes a ten percent cut to non-defense levels within this total the budget maintains investments in border security immigration enforcement deliverance on the president's commitment to support law enforcement in combat violent crime with a thirteen percent increase to the department of justice and honors the nation's sacred obligation to military veterans in addition the twenty twenty seven budget eliminates wasteful green new deal projects that are dependent on foreign supply chains returns control of education back to american families and roots waste out fraud and abuse in programs both at home and abroad the budget simultaneously builds upon the historic one trillion defense top line from fiscal year twenty six by requesting one point five trillion for twenty twenty seven a forty two percent increase as promised by president trump last year the twenty seven budget will insure the united states continues to maintain the world's most powerful and capable military as we grapple with an increasingly dangerous world it is a sizable increase and that i want to explain it is meant for significant paradigm shifting investments for instance the president and his department of war are exhibiting tremendous leadership to build ships planes drones munitions and satellites faster without the backlog status quo for the industrial base to double and triple capabilities and build more facilities not just add shifts it requires multi-year agreements to purchase into the future that cost has to be booked in the first year omb plays a unique role in supporting and implementing the administration's fiscal strategy and has been hard at work crafting the president's budget and accomplishing the largest deregulatory agenda in the nation's history omb's fiscal year twenty seven funding request for itself is a hundred and fifty more a hundred fifty four point one million which is level requested from what we requested last year omb is a personnel intensive agency and i want to note that the twenty seven requests cannot support additional or even maintain staffing at the twenty six levels accordingly omb is not asking for additional fte's in fact we are assuming a lower fte level to be absorbed in the base twenty five fte's down to four hundred seventy omb based on our request omb is gonna have to leverage funding from the working family's tax cut to insure that its staffing levels are necessary and remain the same to perform its critical mission and implementing key administration priorities. Now that our fiscal ship has finally turned its face in the right direction i look forward to working with you to continue to move forward and i'm happy to answer any questions.

thank you director vote um now recognize the ranking member uh of the full committee who is asked if she'd be able to make an opening statement

thank you much very very much mr. chairman i apologize to you and to the rest of the committee and to our guests this morning there are many many meetings going on uh so i i i appreciate your the opportunity to provide an opening statement i wanna say thank you to chairman joyce to ranking member Hoyer um and I wanna welcome director Vogt uh lot of ground to cover and uh you and I agree on very little but I'm glad that you are here to fulfill your constitutional responsibility to respond to congress's oversight authorities quite honestly even if it's only after all twelve bills have been passed by this committee um in your position as director of the office of management and budget You have asserted unprecedented control over taxpayer funding, a power of the purse that belongs to Congress under the Constitution. It is Article one, section nine, clause seven. No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law. You have worked openly to undermine this essential authority guaranteed to the Congress and render it under the control of the executive branch. Uh, I view it as an affront to the separation of powers. and the very purpose of this committee. You have stepped well beyond the bounds of the ordinary push and pull between the White House and Congress that characterizes every administration, Democratic or Republican. You have withheld funding that Congress passed on a bipartisan basi- basis and that presidents of both parties, including the current president, have signed into law. You have shuttered entire federal agencies, to the deaths of some of the most vulnerable women and children across the globe in the process and you have done all these things under the guise of shrinking the government yet you have also spent billions and billions of dollars beyond what is legally allowed you have hijacked billions from investments to maintain US military superiority in the future and you have taken over four hundred million dollars in taxpayer funding from the secret service to pay for the president's ballroom project You are currently withholding nineteen billion dollars to shutter, an agency Congress has not agreed to shutter. And as I wrote to you last March, you have unlawfully spent over nine billion dollars in taxpayer funding. That was never legally appropriated, exposing dozens of your administration colleagues to criminal liability. The lack of accountability you have shown to the American people must be addressed. But today I want to highlight one recent item that should concern people of every political persuasion. in every corner of this country. At the end of May, OMB released a proposed rule in an attempt to subject all federal funding to a political litmus test. The proposal instructs political appointees in the Trump administration to deny or terminate virtually any grant at any time for any reason or no reason at all at the beginning, middle and end of the federal funding process. Under your proposed rule, a recipient must quote demonstrably advance the president's policy priorities, end quote, not the country's and not the law's. There is no telling on any given day what the president's priorities may be. He routinely announces a policy in the morning, only to reverse it in the afternoon. His habit is to govern by whim and fiat. This proposal seeks to establish yourself as the chief interpreter and final arbiter of what does or does not conform to this ill-fated, ill-defined standard. Your proposal would sideline the independent non-partisan experts who ordinarily make grant funding decisions as part of a peer review process, based on evidence and science in favor of political tests imposed by you. Instead of awarding research funding based on the likelihood of success, it will be conditioned on political compliance. Rather than scrutinizing the data, applicants will have their social media scrutinized. You are creating an environment in which promising cr- cancer treatments will lose grant funding because the university that houses the lab has the word diversity in its mission statement. You are inviting the possibility that years of work on a revolutionary Alzheimer's drug will be cut short and abandoned because the head researcher spoke at a conference hosted by a group that disagrees with the Trump administration on vaccine policy. It is cancel culture for cancer research. weaponization of bureaucracy. The harm this will do if allowed to take effect is unfathomable. Do not take my word for it. Experts in psychiatry, immunobiology and neuroscience at Yale University have expressed profound alarm at the impact this proposal will have. I am submitting for the record letters that I received from these doctors and researchers detailing the catastrophic effects of this proposal would lead to. May I submit the the documents because i will wrap up

sure

uh very quickly lastly i wanna touch on the supplemental

i think it's more for you to be responsible with you wanna get out of that

ok i i i appreciate that but i would like the record to have it um um uh oh uh there is lot we're very much eager to hear your answers today director vote to the questions and if i might um my entire statement be read into the record i apologize for being late it is not for lack of diligence but because of the schedule that we have here so i appreciate it i thank the very chairman for that much appreciate it thank you

now we'll start around the questions i will begin the answer will be five minutes or questions if people see fit to have five minutes of monologue so be it But uh at at the end of five minutes, you uh, we move on to the next person. I recognize myself. Director Vogt, last week you sent a supplemental request to Congress requesting eighty seven point six billion in additional funding for fiscal year twenty twenty six With respect to this committee, thirty six million was requested from the Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence and six hundred million was requested for GSA, half for elevator related capital projects and half for the district's heating and transmission decoupling program among other things. Um, my question for the, on behalf of the committee is, how was this request developed? How did OMB determine its supplemental priorities vis-a-vis its FY twenty-seven budget request and what changed between May and now that triggered these requests?

Thank you, Mister Chairman, and thank you for inviting me to testify. Um, we ran a process with the supplemental to try to assess the def- defense needs, in particular, uh, that we had with Operation Epic Fury. uh we also sent out a request uh for needs not unlike what we would do for an anomalies with a cr request to to determine what are the most uh dire needs obviously needs came back with the state department with regard to buildings that may need to be repaired from activity activities overseas but also in terms of uh coast guard needs because they're absorbing um activities where the dow would normally have perform those activities or in the case of gsa kind of a a an acute need with uh the elevators uh that uh was was was needed based on kind of kind of a typical inability to get that much money coming from congress so that one might have been come might have put forward in the normal appropriations process for our budget cycle uh but we wanted to use this as an opportunity and again we have not said this is this is um just defense we we wanted to make sure that any needs that we see uh we are bringing to you um as legitimate and as OMB seal of approval and i appreciate your testimony mister chairman the role that OMB provides for this committee in particular so that you know when we send something up we believe it is it's been pressure tested uh accordingly

well thank you and i appreciate that but yeah uh i notice that uh and we've had hearings on it that there's a tremendous backlog of maintenance in all the facilities uh unfortunate we all need to get to With that in mind, for fiscal year twenty twenty-seven budget request, OMB is requesting a thirteen point three percent or seventeen point one million dollar increase. This increased funding would support quote " unavoidable costs in investing in OMB's workforce among other priorities". Would you explain what those unavoidable costs are and why OMB needs additional funding only to cut staffing levels? And how do you reconcile the statement?

Well, we need OMB's budget to grow and it's largely been flatlined for a number of years. If you look at GAO's budget, they have about nine hundred million dollars to our hundred and fifty million dollars um they have uh three thousand staff that perform the activities that you all feel is vital we have in the neighborhood of five hundred FTEs that largely hasn't grown even though the federal government has expanded in size and you know if you just look at some of the portfolios that people have they're they're astronomical um we have tried to change that uh but we need more FTEs to do that uh ob three the the one big beautiful bill will help us uh with additional ftes we're gonna unfortunately draw down on that to maintain steady state levels and that's my main concern uh mr. chairman is that my hope is that the base level will grow accordingly uh this year and into the future but to answer your question specifically we have rent costs because we are uh in the midst of a move and we have to pay rent temporarily in both places max is a computer system that the whole federal government uses and it constantly needs um to be invested in almost as an it system uh and then the the security that is uh unfortunately a new phenomena for o and b in terms of some of the the security threats that uh i have faced uh we are now building that in uh to uh account for that cost because i certainly do not want it to take away from the already uh uh smaller uh uh appropriation that omb has historically had as a small agency

and i think you'll find this uh committee on a bipartisan basis has been very um cognizant of security issues and tried to make uh all those areas under our jurisdiction whole so they can provide the necessary security for yourself and for the employees and the people who visit this uh twenty seven budget justification cites several new responsibilities that omb will assume assume through recently issued executive orders This includes EO f- one four two one five titled " Ensuring accountability for all agencies", uh " Protecting America's bank against fraud, waste and abuse", and f- fourteen twenty seven five, uh " Restoring common sense to federal procurement", and EO fourteen thirty three two " Improving oversight of federal grant making". Uh, I notice that I'm gonna about run out of time and in order to be fair to everyone, I will now uh notice my ranking member, Mister Hoyer, for his five minutes.

well i would have been interested in the answer to that question

exactly are you gonna let me or

mr. director um the hundred million dollars we've got in the in the reconciliation bill the first reconciliation bill uh what's the status of that hundred million dollars

we are attempting to hire ftes in certain key areas one of them to answer the chairman's question would be fraud prevention uh one of them is to be able to have a a lot of oversight of the spending we're asking you with regard to defense that would be one of those portfolios that we feel like we have nowhere near the number of FTEs to be able to provide accountability for uh and we are trying to invest in tools that would allow us to use technology to do

what

om only these work better

how much of that hundred uh million dollars has been obligated

uh not very few has been obligated

what how how much

i'd have to get back to you but it would be in the millions

less than ten

i would think so

yeah so that um you are asking for additional money and you made the point uh which i think is a valid point in terms of ability to do the job that we require you to do um but when you make a comparison the gao the gao has oversight over the two million people who work for the federal government uh and uh you have control over almost all of those two million in terms of getting information uh studies reports so that i think it is a it is a not a fair analogy to make that gao has more authority uh and scope than uh you have available to you but in any event let me go to debt and deficit uh this administration and uh my republican colleagues say the debt is a very serious matter you're aware of of course the fact that the first reconciliation bill uh in over ten years has been a judge to cost either between four point one trillion dollars or four point seven trillion dollars uh depending upon whether you use static or dynamic scoring ironically, these dynamic scoring that i think do you support dynamic scoring

of course

yes uh it costs more under dynamic scoring uh by about uh eight hundred uh million billion dollars um who's gonna how we gonna bring that down what's your plan in light of the fact that we have now just spent and you're asking for a supplemental of sixty billion dollars on a cost that was not uh uh in incurred except by the choice of this administration and so many other costs they are incurring uh how are we going to uh pay those bills

cars will reject the the

such a fine

budget baseline uh assessment that you just gave to the one big beautiful bill uh if you use a proper baseline which assumes current law revenue current policy revenue coming into the federal government uh it would have saved one point five trillion dollars as you update the the ten year window so i look at the one big beautiful bill and i look at it and i say this was the end of fiscal futility and i worked in this uh in the house of representatives i spent many years developing budgets for members of congress i know this place well there's many people uh including yourself who cared about the deficit and and levels of debt and many ideas and plans were put forward this is the first time we've actually had success on the mandatory side and success in the discretionary side i think the appropriations process that you all just completed with the exception of the two shutdowns which we can talk about but the appropriations bills that you passed into law and the appropriations bills that i'm seeing and and and monitoring as they're moving are for the first time taking some of the suggestions from the president's budget request and i i commend this committee on that

let me let me stop you not because i wanna stop you but because i have fifty eight seconds uh left clearly not a enough time but i would suggest to you the two largest uh deficits that we've had we're in twenty twenty and twenty one fiscal year twenty one under the trump administration now we had the pandemic so one has to uh take but the next highest is what we're gonna experience today one point nine trillion dollars do you agree that that's the projected deficit for this fiscal year

uh cbo and others are making projected deficit we have not included that in our budget resolution we're gonna uh put it to

wouldn't it be useful for the omb director to know what the projected deficit gonna be in terms of the obligations that the taxpayer of america uh and and by the way our grandchildren not ourselves

well the challenge is that we're uh we're certainly committed and have to uh eliminating the deficit and to be able to get back on uh trajectory towards balance

in my last five sections when do you project that to happen under the recon two reconciliation bills that have passed so far

well the fact that we've been in reconciliation bills and are using that has has caused us to send up discretionary only budgets uh because we do not want to confuse the country with regards to proposals that uh would be proposed but not for ride on one of these on these reconciliation bills uh so we have a lot of ideas uh but we and we certainly want to get a budget to you as soon as we possibly could so uh our budget does not include those tables uh but the mid-session review uh we'll have those types of uh numbers in them later this summer

uh thank you uh ranking member where the chair now recognizes the distinguished uh chair of the homeland security subcommittee, uh Mister Amity for any questions he may have.

Thank you Mister Chairman, and the only reason I have that title is because you quit the job and headed for greener pastures, but that notwithstanding, thank you for being here this morning Mister Director. Um does OMB recognize Congress's full oversight authority over funds provided through reconciliation?

Well, as in terms of in Congress, absolutely, yes.

OK, thank you. Um, can you provide, uh, obviously with that introduction, we've struggled getting information that has to do with, um, the previous folks' subject matters clear in in terms of homeland. Um, can y- can your office provide an accounting in terms of what we bought for airplanes for ICE and Border Patrol, what we bought for airplanes coast guard um in the first uh in the first in the past twelve months and to the extent that those uh and also what we spent for detention facilities planned around whatever the plan was around the nation to the extent of identifying how many aircraft in whatever category for those three agencies customs border patrol ice and coast guard how many were purchased how many are still part of the mission and for anything that was that was not part of the mission now how they planned how what the plan is for hey turns out we don't need this seven thirty seven this gulf stream five thousand um and the detention facilities and here's what our plan is and and then the theme is simple how are we protecting tax payer dollars if we reassess those needs whatever just so we can kinda close the book on those sorts of things is that something your office has the ability to do

yes i'm happy to work with you i'll follow up with you after this hearing and try to drill down on what you're not getting from us

perfect i appreciate that um last thing is um CISA we had a hearing uh last week uh and uh with with the homeland security secretary CISA has been through ups and downs from the the end of the biden administration to present The mission, I I don't think we need to talk about the mission, but in last week's hearing, after cutting eleven hundred employees through various uh whatever mechanisms, the secretary of homeland security says, " We need six hundred folks back." Can you can you kinda help me with because the administration's budget request was more um lean times, if you will. And so it's like, how are we how are we mixing that up into cause you know better than anybody you don't just flip a light switch on and you got six hundred folks over in CISA now according to the secretary what's the plan for getting CISA fully operational and i understand the political things about elections and the jen easterly years and all that other source stuff what we're talking about now how do we make sure that we have a robust effective uh cost effective CISA force because i don't think anybody thinks we have it now but if i'm wrong tune me up

um thank you for that question it is does take time to to increase staff uh that's one of the things we're learning as we try to increase o and b staff with the the same money from the one big beautiful bill what i would say is uh i haven't gotten a formal request from the secretary uh as it pertains to CISA FTEs um he was not here when we developed this budget uh so if he feels the need to have uh additional resources uh we will work that through internally um and at the appropriate time come up and brief you um i do think that he is in the process still of getting his arms wrapped around uh the department um and this is probably one of those things particularly uh in uh this the cyber world has you now have a year and a half of a new administration we saw this agency had major concerns with it in in in our four years outside of government Um, and with new management, I I think it's um, it's now an agency or could be an agency of that plays a very valuable uh part for DHS's, uh, portfolio.

Great. I look forward to uh robust communications and uh thank you for your testimony. I yield back, Mister Chairman.

Thank you, Mister Hamaday. I would second that, that CISSA needs all the help it can get as soon as possible. And would recognize Mister Pocan for any questions for five minutes.

email.

great thank you mister chairman and thank you director vote for being with us i think you know many of us disagree with the first time in two hundred and fifty years history of the country the unified executive theory so let me drill in one area to ask do you concur that multiple studies have shown that people both adults and children across the globe have died because of cuts to programs like usaid

i did i do not concur with the validity of those studies they are based on projecting

do you agree that people have died across the globe because of our cuts

fake methodology i believe these studies that people are banting about are based on

my question is do you believe people have died because of the cuts to usaid it's simple yes or no

i do not believe that the administration's ability

you don't believe anyone has died

let me finish the question

no no it's a yes or no director it's really simple do you think people died or not

it isn't because our cuts our cuts are aimed at weaponization of foreign aid in other countries

alright you're not gonna answer it i would claim my time i thought you're gonna be a little more helpful director vote but that's fine um so this is boston studies lancet studies others have said hundreds of thousands to millions of kids and adults will die because of this uh one of your co-conspirators elon musk recently has been going nuts trying to claim no one's died uh and he has to name names so let me mention a few people uh who have died because of these cuts uh rovina naboy in kenya her little daughter jane uh died of starvation in a refugee camp because we cut back on their food and the food rations she got sick and died. Uganda, Balama, Nigeria, USAID funded. Uh, program, baby's a special nutrition uh, nutrient dense paste, uh, to avoid malnutrition. She had twins, six months old. The program ended abruptly because of cuts to USAID. Two weeks later, one of the twins died. I've got a bunch more. Are you familiar with any of these stories?

Thirteen point four million for civic engagement.

Are you familiar with any of these stories?

It's not a. Thirty eight point six million.

There's no number involved in that answer, director vote.

You're citing the extent.

Are you familiar with any? of these stories i just gave you two examples are you familiar it's a yes or no

i am i am familiar

don't dance you're not a tap dancer are you familiar with the stories it's really that simple

i am familiar with the press that you are citing the reports that you are also referring to are fake methodologies

alright

i i i i take my time back you're clearly not gonna answer questions today i thought you came to answer questions you're not so uh will you commit to reach out if i submit some of these names of people who have allegedly died due to cuts will you personally reach out to find out if they have since you're saying no one's died

i will personally uh read all correspondence that congress gives me and do everything i can to be responsive to them

yeah and could you reach out to them to actually verify whether or not someone's died because of a cut to usaid

we're we're monitoring all of these studies to see if there's validity but there is nothing about those studies that has caused us to to think differently about ending third four point six million to build climate resilience

so morally that's sorry i i

and Honduras

i take my time back please morally isn't it wrong to facilitate the death of children

isn't it morally wrong to to to contribute to civic engagement in Zimbabwe

that's a question coming back with look you're not confucius or you know whatever you think you are answering the question with a question i said is it morally wrong to facilitate the killing of children

you're you're basing it on a you're basing it on a premise that is false i'm not the answer to that question

simple question ok i take my time back you wrote in a twenty twenty one article in newsweek one about christian nationalism that our rights and duties are understood to come from god. isaiah fifty eight seven commands quote " share your food with the hungry and provide the poor wanderer with shelter." are you saying god was misquoted or wrong

i'm sorry what does that have to do with the the the question with regard to our administration

well it's morally wrong to facilitate the death of children i think

we're not doing that we're not doing that thomas

everyone like i've that's why i'm asking you to reach out to folks but what i'm saying is if that is a quote from the bible and i know you are a christian nationalist by by declaration by articles

you continue this for the second year in a row that you've used that slander for for me and other

it's not slander you think that's slander you

you and other christians involved in public service

do you think calling someone a christian nationalist is a slander you wrote an article uh is there anything actually wrong with christian nationalism and now you're saying it's a slander that's really odd i don't it's the second time this is the second year in a row

you're using this but you use it as a pejorative and it's the second year you've done it in a row

would you agree that it is wrong morally ethically or by your own admission biblical standards is it wrong to facilitate the death of children that's a really exact

we're not doing that we have adequate foreign aid for this project

you're not answering the question listen to the question please is it morally ethically or biblically wrong to facilitate the death of children don't take anything else in context is it wrong

this administration is not doing that

you cannot answer a question i mean i'll

i believe he answered the question he just don't like the answer so please do not

no he hasn't no mister chairman you can ask your own questions and get your own answers but if he's not gonna give an answer

then move on.

everyone else could figure out, " no I don't have to move on, I can ask the question and if this guy is gonna one say Christian nationalism is an insult, you might have some friends to answer that one for." But to say this sort of stuff and not answer questions directly it is morally ethically and biblically wrong to facilitate the death of children for you know that.

We're five minutes in route, now recognize the chairmen recognize Miss Hinson.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, um good morning uh director Vogt, thank you for taking the time to come testify and answer our questions today and um, I wanna give you just a moment to you were citing some numbers there um uh in your answers to my colleague across the aisle and um I think you were about to refer to some some very wasteful spending that um we have worked to curtail um a huge part of what uh your mission has been at OMB would you like to um to give some of those um statistics please to the committee can hear and taxpayers can hear what their money was going to fund overseas that was an incredible waste.

Thank you Congressman and I think it's important to also differentiate the fact that this administration continues to fund foreign aid just at the department of state so all of the types of things that uh people across the globe are relying on as an aspect of humanitarianism or soft power those are now being funded at state we did have cuts to uh usaid to deal with the extent to which the agency was weaponized against quite frankly those countries and our own taxpayers let me just give you an example twenty four point six million to build climate resilience in honduras thirty eight point six million to build low emissions development in west africa six hundred thousand for listening tours on local development in timor-leste twelve million for telling the usaid story in bosnia herzegovina thirteen point four million for civic engagement in zimbabwe i can go on and on that's why we passed the rescissions package last year which included a number of these reductions and it's why our foreign aid is now serving uh with with the the best of intentions the policy objectives of congress and the president of the united states

well thank you uh for your clarity on that and i think everybody agrees that every dollar spent abroad should be advancing american interest in the right way and i think we can argue that some of those expenditures were not uh doing that so thank you for clarifying that um i wanna ask you today about um cdfis because i think when when we look at uh these specialized lenders that help to to make sure that some folks can access capital we understand they're um absolutely vital in revitalizing and growing our economies especially in states like Iowa. We have the first time homebuyer down payment assistance programs to payday alternative loans. Um, the Treasury Secretary has announced that he, of course, supports CDFIs, um, said that their role in underserved communities is very important. Um, and I do agree when used responsibly, these funds certainly are a significant opportunity to help build our communities. Um, I am very appreciative, OMB did, um, apportion the fiscal year twenty-five funds back in April. Glad to see those, uh, also released by Treasury this week. Can you share a little bit more about how um OMB is working directly with Treasury and other agencies to support a more cohesive process, uh to ensure those funds are dispersed in a timely manner as Congress intended?

Thank you Congressman. We uh put out uh the NOFOs this week. Uh we are implementing uh the spending as you have uh put forward in the appropriations process. We have concerns with the program. We've put forward uh proposals that are similar but different. um i have concerns from my perch at cfpb uh where i'm in charge of people's ability to repay and they cdfi individuals get an exemption from ability to repay so when you you look at the kind of market uh and and uh uh tensions and uh and cracks in the market that could come from that i have concerns and then if you look at some of the cdfi's that the biden administration were funding and i'll just give you an example of of four point nine million for local initiatives, support corporation that publishes blogs condemning the level of whiteness in community development. That's the kind of thing that we want to put an end to. It's why it's taken us a little while to get the no foes out and the apportionment done. Um, but I know we understand Congress, uh, largely supports this program. Uh, we're trying to do our best to make sure it's spent well as best we possibly can.

Yeah, and I appreciate that specific example. If there are any others like that, that you could, uh, give our office so that we can go back to the folks who are trying to access programs and say here's what we're actually trying to get rid of so that more of those dollars are available um to you, that would be helpful. Um looking ahead to um fiscal year twenty-six funding apportionment, and we're obviously working through fiscal year twenty-seven right now, uh do you have ideas for the committee or congress to consider to help insure uh funds that may have been delayed, maybe for reasons like you referenced but other reasons as well are actually getting uh through the agencies with O O and B moving forward.

No, I mean we got the the the it's a two year chunk So, twenty-five and twenty-six, and their next task is the twenty-six and twenty-seven amount, and we'll get those out expeditiously.

Alright. Thank you. Um, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you very much, Miss Hinson. Chair now recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Mister Bishop, for any questions in the air.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, and uh welcome uh attorney vote. Um, as you may or may not know, I uh have a great deal of interest in agriculture. Uh, it's the number one industry in Georgia. course it uh contributes mightily to the united states economy uh but it's reported at the time operating under several executive orders uh the department of government efficiency was active in attempting to cease many of the government operations and activities uh and to separate many of the federal employees uh us uh employees left usda through the deferred resign deferred resignation program I think uh the Office of Inspector General reported that APHIS lost twenty-five percent of its workforce and the Ag Research Service lost about twenty-three percent of its workforce between uh January of twenty-five and June of twenty-five. Uh how many of these staff worked on the New World Screwworm surveillance research and other such activities that were intended to prevent the parasite from re-entering the United States? uh if you just take a note of that uh also um following the deferred resignation program in twenty twenty five uh APHIS advertised seventy-three open positions and tell me how many of those open positions were for the new world screw screw worm surveillance monitoring research preparedness and then after the uh administration dismantled uh USAID um usad uh administered projects that funded the animal disease monitoring projects uh including those that sought to monitor the new world screw worm in central america um in the fy twenty-six budget APHIS requested additional funds to prevent the spread of new world screw worm uh did the fy twenty-six budget request include the funding for the screw worm monitoring and surveillance that was previously funded in usaid uh and i'd like to ask if whether or not omb has used its authorities to assist the international coordination efforts to prevent the spread of new worm uh new world screw worm in north america uh there's a food and agriculture organization of the united nations which announced uh on june nineteenth uh a coordinated research project Do you intend to allow the United States uh to participate and engage with that? Uh how have the policies and the proposed new rules uh affected research projects on New World Screw Worm mitigation? Uh all of this I'm raising because uh the New World Screw Worm is drastically impacting uh adversely impacting our farmers our cattle producers and the price of uh of food. and uh i'd like to know whether or not uh the big beautiful bill all of the cuts uh that were done with doge uh and the proposals that we are now uh face with uh what is that doing for the american people

thank you congressman we couldn't agree more in terms of it being a highest priority uh to deal uh with the screw worm uh to take steps we if you you know if you were to monitor the things that i'm working on at least daily one of those is that uh making sure we have the resources to combat it and making sure we were doing it early in the administration um i can follow up with regard to fte levels at APHIS i don't know those off the top of my head uh but we don't believe that this is issue that is under resource we believe that uh usda has everything it needs to both create a long-term capability here and also find as many shots on goal to be able to deal with this in real time for farmers

the bottom line is as a result of the loss of the ARS people that were working on the screw worm issue uh working to make sure that they didn't come north from Mexico and Central America uh immediately uh after these uh resignations and the loss of all of the expertise uh we saw this creep and this inc drastic increase in the screw worm coming into the United States and uh farmers are really really concerned about that now.

We agree that there is a a a an issue that the federal government needs to respond to and we believe that we are doing so robustly with a properly resourced effort, led by uh Secretary Rollins.

But you did take a state step backwards when you curtailed that in the beginning of the administration.

Well, I I wouldn't agree with that. I'm happy to respond to that um uh with uh questions for the record and and follow-up with regard to FTEs. uh people retire we have to fill those uh those those jobs uh and many of the people that uh uh we were taking steps to reduce uh there was um a a a backlog of of individuals that weren't necessarily onboard with the administration in performing the policy agenda of this administration

i'm specifically talking about school board

mr. bishop unfortunately we have to move on sir chair now recognizes the ranking member or a or vice uh, chair of this committee, uh, Mister Lolo Oter from New York.

Thank you, Chairman, thank you for your leadership, uh, Mister Lolo, thank you for being here today, sir. Uh, the twenty twenty four election was a choice election that was particularly significant to our nation's trajectory. Uh, for a long time many folks felt like they were being taken for granted, spoken to during campaign season, and forgotten the rest of the year. They felt betrayed by the people and parties who had long claimed to stand with them, only to watch those same voices turn their backs when it came to fight for jobs, wages and working conditions. They were welders and carpenters, they were plumbers, linemen, electricians and masons. They were the men and women who lace up their boots early in the morning, pack a lunch, go to work and put in a put in a full day. And they're the backbone of this country in my opinion. They're the reason our economy functions and they're the reason that our infrastructure stands tall. And to put it simply, the twenty twenty four election was a mandate from the American people to show up and fight for the American worker and American jobs. And General Director, would you agree with that?

Yes, sir.

And as you know, many of these American workers are part of the federal workforce. And some of these federal workers are members of the Association of Federal Government Employees, AFGE, whose leadership helped this administration, and more importantly, the country, end the Democrats' multiple shutdowns, the longest shutdowns in US history. I know that I was thankful, Director, that AFGE weighed in to oppose the Democrat-led shutdown. Um, Director, what was the AFG's leadership, was the AFG's leadership helpful to ending the shutdown?

Yes, it was. Thank you.

You had a few conversations with the leadership. How'd those conversations go?

Uh, I did not have, uh, conversations with the union leadership, but I know members of our team did and, uh, we appreciated their support in that.

Yeah. Um, switching gears slightly. Director, are you familiar with the, uh, GAO's June seventeenth report on the federal workforce reductions?

No, I have not seen it.

Um, it talks about a six percent, uh, cut to the federal civilian workforce. Uh, you're familiar with that, director?

Yes, I'm s- I'm aware of the steps that we've taken to reduce the workforce.

Okay. Yep, and no reasonable person should counter your assertion that our debt and deficit situation needs to be addressed. I hope that reasonable minds on both sides of the aisle can sometime come to an agreement on that. But I wanna talk about specifically uh staffing levels. I know the GAO has now reported that staffing at twenty-two major agencies, uh measured by employees and pay status, declined by more than eleven percent. between December twenty twenty four and January of twenty twenty six. I recognize those are different measures and time frames, but GAO's own data shows reductions on a substantially larger scale than the six percent contemplated uh in the budget. So my question, director, is did OMB anticipate workforce reductions of this scale across major agencies?

Uh, Congressman, I have to take a look at that study, I have and I will do so after this hearing, and I'm I'm happy to to follow up. Um, we we responded to the level of FFT_s that the agency sent us of where they were and where they thought that they would be, uh, heading into the new fiscal year. And so that's how we built the budget. Uh, we had

Yeah, let let me ask you about one particular, uh, example. The World's Traits Under Health program, are you familiar with that?

Yes, Congressman.

Established in twenty eleven to provide health care to individuals with nine eleven related illnesses from uh fell from ninety-three employees to eighty-four employees, despite having an authorization of a hundred and twenty employees. At the same time of that massive reduction that was well short of that one twenty number, there were delays reported in claims to processing, treatment authorizations and enrollment appeals. Uh, for a program serving nine eleven first responders and survivors, what should have OMB's early warning indications have been that those staffing levels were dar- dropping to dangerously low levels that would impede their ability to delivering on this important mission?

Well, if we had known about it, we would make sure that they have every adequate resource that they need to perform that that that function. And I will take it back and we will see where we are on that. Uh, OMB does not have this uh all encompassing view of what is happening across the entire federal government. We are a nerve center, I would I would agree with that. Uh, but we do not have the ability to know uh everything that is happening in the agencies. And that's one of the reasons I work so hard uh to stay in contact with members of Congress so that I can learn from what you all are seeing what the agencies are seeing. um and we can we can move to space where we need to

uh i would i guess i would say this speed is important the debt and deficit situation are dire we do need to act what i would assert director is that when moving fast and you need to move fast in a lot of these issues when moving fast that you anticipate some of the issues that will be caused by moving fast and i'll say one thing with the twenty five seconds i have remaining there is right now being contemplating moving the uh army corps of engineers new york district office to new jersey It's the New York District Office. It it services areas of both New York and New Jersey, but it should remain in New York. And I hope that we don't fall into the same issue of just in the name of saving money, which we should save money, to vastly impede the mission in this case of the Army Corps' New York office.

I'll take it back, Congressman.

Thanks.

For sure.

I yield.

Right on. It's five minutes.

As you told me, sir.

Yeah. The chair now recognizes the lady from Washington. Miss Glussen-Campres for for finally.

Thank you, Mister Chair, and thank you, Director Vogt, for being here today. Um, I wanna dig a little bit deeper into the proposed ruled overhaul grants procedure. Have you or anyone else at OMB directed agencies to follow the not yet finalized regulation prior to be it it being finalized via rulemaking?

No, this stems from an executive order that the President signed last year. The President's executive order had directed his agency officials to begin to have

supervision at the policy official level this regulation is catching up with that executive order to make sure it's actually reflected in that in in the actual mechanics of grant making um have you or anyone else at omb directed agencies to um uh i i saw an updated notice from the national science foundation from last week that included guidance to align with the proposed revision into cfr two hundred have you suggested that agencies begin implementing this guidance before um the rule was finalized

we are certainly working with agencies agencies like i just said are looking at the executive order and trying to align with the executive order uh that said we are out for comment on our proposed rule we're probably uh record numbers of comments have come in we're gonna assess each one of those comments and make any changes that we need to

is the omb building an ai tool to flag grants that are misaligned with the administration's agenda

uh we are definitely working on uh technology including ai to be able to have a a wider angle lens about what is going on uh with the federal government but uh it's not it it would be something that agencies would use in conjunction with us and it certainly not to to take the place of agency officials who would be making this this determination

have you awarded a contract uh for the development or the operations of such a system

i don't think we have no

um why do you think that an ai system which is itself neither accountable to congress, nor necessarily audible, um, is an appropriate mechanism for making policy.

Well, the the congressman from from Maryland told me to read every GAO report, of which I would like to have the time to be able to read for that. I would like to have a tool that uh collates and assesses everything in every GAO report in a way that I can actually make decisions based. That would just be one example. Similarly, there's a lot of information out there on USA SPIN, that i would like to have the benefit for examiners to know who are already stretched thin with regard to their portfolio that would be an example

um how would you how would a future o and b director be able to insure that such a system works for their priorities too or congress for that matter

uh every administration would would align their policy objectives which would be different from administration to administration to ensure that the grant making uh and how the agencies are spending taxpayer dollars are aligned with the president's agenda as he got elected on behalf of the entirety of the american people

what happens when a grant is flagged as being inconsistent with administration priorities

no grant has been flagged as inconsistent based on the tools that you've articulated but we are trying to make sure that we're not funding some of this nonsense that i have articulated and we work with agencies to do that that's policy official to policy official um and we we work collaboratively with our agency partners

Um, what about grants that have been explicitly funded by Congress? Is it your understanding that OMB or an agency could cancel such grants unilaterally?

Not with regard to earmarks, uh, yeah we we sometimes you have an earmark to a specific person or a specific organization, uh, and that would probably be at the top of the list that is that is uh that needs to be funded but that is not uh something that uh is impacted by these these grant uh making.

Um, do you anticipate that States, Cities or Congress has any in cases where o and b decided that a grant was inconsistent with your priorities and do you believe the proposal provides due process

well yeah i do i do you you keep referring to this as as o and b making these determinations again this is agency officials that would be making these determinations based on the instructions given to them in the executive order

um uh congress appropriated a hundred million from hr one to o and b last year um have you spent any of that hundred million on moving career o and b personal to the cfpp building at seventeen hundred g street and do you

Uh, we have not spent any money from the hundred million for the move.

How many CF how many OMB staff currently have their salaries paid out of funding originally appropriated for USAID or CFPB?

Uh, none.

Um, can can you provide a fund an overview of the funding streams used to pay OMB staff salaries since the beginning of the administration?

It's all of OMB's salaries have been paid for by, uh, the OMB appropriation. The only qualification. thank you

Thank you very much. Uh, the chair now recognizes the chair of the uh, Transportation, Housing and Urban Development subcommittee of this, Upper Ages Committee, Mister Womack, for his five minutes.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, and uh, former chairman of this subcommittee as well. Uh, Director Vo, thank you again for being here and thank you for your service.

Thank you.

Uh, as you know, as was just indicated, I chair the subcommittee on Transportation and Housing and Urban Development. So, I'm gonna go back to the sup for just a minute. uh because you referenced that earlier in response to another question and uh your words you said those items were pressure tested correct

yes congressman

what does pressure tested mean

well lot of times agencies have ideas for what they would like to spend on and uh you look at them and they uh don't have the level of rigor and analysis that's you would expect of us when we request Uh, funds from Congress. That that would be what I was saying.

Would it include a sense of urgency?

Yes.

Uh, that it's a supplemental request,

Yes.

wasn't covered previously, but this is an emerging issue. For example, a lot of that money, most of that money, two thirds of that money was Pentagon spending in response to Epic Fury uh, replenishing some of these accounts. So, that is a sense of urgency, is it not?

Yes, Congressman.

OK, so, eh, there are two, not to be terribly parochial uh, with TIHUD, but there were two items in that supplemental that affect my subcommittee and I want to ask you about both of them. Um, one is a, one of them was the uh department's uh brand new air traffic control BNAC's initiative, which by the way, I strongly support the president's goal of updating our air traffic control system. And I commend secretary Duffy and administrator Bedford for the progress that they've made. But in this supplemental request, uh in somewhat uh contradiction of what we did in the one big beautiful bill, um, you we you would provide the FAA administrator with complete and total discretion to reallocate how that twelve and a half billion dollars is spent provided uh for the Bean Acts initiative now I appreciate the benefits that additional funding could provide but I'd like to know how um uh I'd like for you to tell me how the um Bean Acts initiative this ability for the administrator and the secretary to control all that twelve and a half billion dollars outside these appropriators is um uh you know how how that would benefit the bean acts initiative

there are two

can you help me with that

yeah you bet there there are two tensions within uh the air traffic control modernization number one is we're gonna have to come back to you for additional funds beyond what was in one big beautiful bill um we understood that there was a little bit of skepticism with our ability to spend the money that you gave us with one big beautiful bill And Secretary Duffy is going at breakneck speed to be able to allocate those and get those on contract.

But it was the intent of Congress to put those in in buckets of within the various jurisdictions of the FAA.

Sure. And we're here to ask for this. We're not saying that we have the ability to just transfer the funds. We're saying uh with with regard to one particular interface, we don't have the money that right now that Secretary Duffy can get going on it. Um, and we want the ability to do that and to have a little flexibility to do that before we come ask for funds so we don't wanna be in a situation where uh we're coming up and asking for uh additional billions of dollars and you're like i haven't spent you haven't spent the money that we gave you we haven't spent it we are spending it but we haven't spent it in the one key area of which you have not given us resources

ok the the other one was penn station billion dollars sense of urgency

well we define urgency congressman with regard to the that we our scarcest resource is time and so this administration wants to take on some of these big infrastructure initiatives this would be one of them obviously we're working on a highway bill with congress right now uh but if you know i'm sure you've been there if you've seen kind of penn station compared to like the moynihan building the moynihan building is just incredible uh we want the penn station to be on that on that level of modernization and we don't have a lot of time to do it so we To the extent that we have a resource need, we wanna be up here in front of you.

Uh, my last question is uh regarding uh project labor agreements. I applaud the Trump administration's efforts to cut spending where appropriate, and we have a responsibility to insure taxpayer dollars are stewarded in such a way that they go further for the American people. However, in my opinion PLAs diminish competition and increase the cost of federally funded construction uh projects. In a memo last June you clarified that the Trump administration supports the use of PLAs when those agreements are practical and cost-effective. So, in the We probably gonna have to take this for record, uh, but I'll go ahead and finish the question and then give you an opportunity, uh, to respond, uh, uh, to the committee in in writing on this question, and that is what specific analysis or economic calculations are used in the evaluation of these PLAs uh that uh found their genesis back during the Biden administration. And with that, Mister Chairman, I'll yield I'll yield back my time.

Thank you, sir, and the chair now recognizes Mister Ivey for five minutes of questions.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. Um, HR one, I'll I call it the big ugly bill, uh was signed about a year ago and a hundred and fifty billion of the mandatory it contained about a hundred and fifty billion in mandatory defense spending correct

yes

ok um my understanding is this they you still haven't spent or a hundred billion of that still has not been spent is that is that correct

we are aggressively getting the money out the door uh this year uh and working with do w on that but what we have not spent all of the money with regard to one big beautiful bill

ok but it's a hundred billion that it hasn't that's a yes that it hasn't been spent yet

i wouldn't wanna say i can respond specifically what the level is But suffice it to say, we're working to get all of the money out the door in the fiscal year that we are in. We're talking about uh needs that are were were were not accounted for in that bill.

OK. Fair enough. And then the and the President's budget request in April um for defense spending, that was one point one trillion? Is that

It was one point five trillion dollars for defense,

OK.

one point one allocated to the preparations process, and three hundred and fifty billion dollars to reconciliation.

And two hundred and fifty billion. Uh, more for dispen- defense spending than had been there last year. Is that correct?

We would have gone from one trillion to one point five trillion dollars.

Alright.

Forty two percent increase.

And then the sixty seven point one. Uh, supplemental. Um, I think someone asked you earlier about that. Um, and we got a letter from you that contained, that had a I think about four pages, a spreadsheet that sorta laid out what the purpose of the request was um and this is from a letter that you sent us on june twenty fourth you recall that

uh i happy to take a look at it i sent a lot of letters

ok well i uh i this is the one you sent um and this one contain the the the explanation i guess for the sixty seven point one billion i'd note that it's one long sentence and one some of the explanations here are one point two billion for administration priorities um which doesn't give a lot of detail and when you were testifying earlier you said that you got information about these types of requests from from your departments are you have you provided details that support this amount of funds to the congress um in support of this request

uh yes and we will provide as much information as this committee uh requires to to work with you on that matter i know dow will be a partner in that uh in answering any questions that you have with regard to the need.

what are the administration priorities i think that's a one point two billion dollar piece of the request.

i'd have to look at what you're referring to but the main thrust of this is to pay for operation epic fury needs and to also begin to to to to buy down some of the request for that that we've asked you at the end of fiscal year twenty six and to start twenty seven for instance munitions i mentioned in in in my in in uh my my testimony we wanna be able to have multi-year procurements that allow us to pay here and now for a a

well we well munitions is a separate category in the

a facility to be put on-line

in the in the spreadsheet that you provide as munitions was a separate category i'm just trying to make sure i understand what that is because it's it's a significant amount of money i think you would agree on that

and again i'm happy to look at anything we also wanna be very uh circumspect when in an open setting i'm like well what we might be referring to

well we definitely would like to know what what we we we'd also like to know in advance of you know when these things come up for votes as to what the money specifically would go to

we're gonna make sure you have everything you need before any vote

i mean we've already marked up what twelve bills

not on on a not on a not on a supplemental you're referring to the supplemental appropriations product

ok uh well i think overall the process would work better with respect to us making appropriations determinations if we had these these estimates and this information in advance of the markups but i'd i appreciate where you are and i i understood it better the first year because you were just coming in but but for year two i think it's it's it's problematic for us and it's not just with respect to omb it's from the departments across the board but um but let me just ask you this cause i'm running out of time last week at the one of the appropriations markups there was a discussion i know you're using the phrase department of war uh instead of department of defense um but uh we were we were told that the cbo said it's gonna cost a hundred and twenty five million to change the name from department of defense to department of war do you do you agree with that estimate

we haven't done our own estimate at omb on on the cost but it's uh something that i think makes common sense it's it's what the department was called for most of our nation's history

uh i'm focused on the amount the the the the nomenclature

uh the national defense authorization that's moving through rename it

the the the nomenclature concerns me less from an appropriations committee standpoint than the fact that we're gonna spend a hundred and twenty five million dollars or so you're not challenging the number but um

i said we haven't look we haven't taken our own decision

i i know and but uh that's a lot of money and we spent a lot of time hearing that a lot of the needs we'd like to fund we didn't have the money to fund so with that i yield back

the chair recognizes mister cloud

uh thank you chairman it you know what was uh much to do in in this committee asking the question whether it's morally uh right or not to facilitate the death of children. I find this rich coming from uh people who supported administration that forced taxpayers to fund for the largest human trafficking operation in human history. Uh still today we we are at a loss to where two to three hundred thousand of the kids who came across our border are, uh as we're trying to find them. I visited the facilities where over half the women who had come across had been sexually assaulted. on the journey i've being from south texas visited the ranches and seen the rape trees uh where cartels had uh done horrific things to women and celebrated it um and and for one i'm thankful to see that we have an administration who's putting dollars back to where they should be um it was also pointed out usaid uh had we cut fundings to that and and in the way that washington d. c. measures success by how much dollars we send out as opposed to whether they're accomplishing what they're supposed to accomplish um it's been said in all these studies as you mentioned based on false science whether or not uh people are being uh killed because of that. the latest data coming out is actually showing that remarkably mortality rates in south africa are going down following this uh and and a and a lot of these stories are do you suppose that sometimes it's it's possible that we actually save money by spending less money or save lives by spending less money

uh i do and i would also say that this administration the state department is working with these countries to have these agreements that ensure that the money is being really well spent and goes to better care directly to people in need and not necessarily through ngo's that don't share uh uh uh something other than a divisive world view

yeah a lot of things what we've seen uh and certainly this was true last administration not uniquely to the last administration but dollars would go out the door we'd have really no idea what they were going to we're finding out as we've been looking into this and some of the technology tools that that you have brought to the table and and others uh working with the administration like a lot of these billions of dollars has been going to bad actors working against us uh our our purposes our agendas uh even foreign entities foreign states that uh i i know in the last what few weeks of the administration eighty billion dollars went out the door i think forty billion in loans in just two days which was like ten times more than or more than ten years worth of uh that had gone out previous um you are working on a proposed rule that would place a lot more safeguards on the taxpayers dollar going out the door some of which i appreciate some of it seems so simple to business owners that talk about like let's not send dollars to dead people um you know uh and and other things could you speak to some of the safeguards that you're

well definitely one of the most uh

you know

uh press worthy of the reforms that we've we've had that has uh gotten the attention of of uh the other side is the extent to which we have cancellation uh uh provisions in these grants and people say oh you guys just kind of uh you know do that in a heartbeat no we're not gonna do that but if we find that nih is giving money to the wuhan institute from tony fauci and nia to the wuhan institute and we need to cancel that grant in the middle of a pandemic that it contributed to with its gain of function research we need to have the ability to turn the grant off that is a that is probably the best example of why we need to include these types of provisions is because when we find something that's problematic uh that our our our our policy officials would not have caught we need to be able to turn it off and it is not something that will be anti-science in any way it will be still on the basis of peer review science and work that is done on a comprehensive and well thought out basis by our agencies

uh there's been a a move to kind of tout uh the career bureaucrat working in our administration no doubt there are some who are here doing their best to do the lord's work and serve the people well but at the same time there's this messaging idea and it was actually stated here in this committee like uh that you know maybe we should follow their agenda as opposed to the president's agenda uh the constitution is very clear that all executive authorities invested in the president and and that they should be doing the president's will so i applaud your efforts uh to insure that the administration's being tight one thing i did wanna touch on i think we're gonna run out of time but there's about uh i think fourteen billion dollars that we passed in ob- three that was supposed to go to states who helped fund border security uh if we can get an update on where that's at uh you know we we thought by now that might have gone out the the door uh

we put both no foes out recently uh i had very good conversations with many of your uh uh delegation mates and as well as your governor those no foes are out um and we will be looking forward to assessing the requests that come in from texas and others Thank you.

Thank you, Mister Claude. And uh the chair would now recognize, and and I would have normally recognized her immediately after Mister Hoyer, but at her own request she, as being a team player, wanted to go to the back of the line, uh the distinguished lady from Connecticut, our ranking member, Miss Delor.

Thank you so much uh Mister Chairman. Um uh Director, I I mentioned the proposed rule to overhaul grant making in my opening, which seeks to virtually uh subject virtually all federal funding to the whims of the president's policy priorities uh it substitutes the current standard of evidence in science in favor of political tests based on ideology uh i've talked to a number of groups um and and many of the groups have asked for and i think they may have requested more time uh to be able to read it's a four hundred and twelve page document uh um and so that they can participate in the public comment period can you commit to granting a forty five day extension of the comment period

no but i will say this uh the number of comments that is that are coming in that we have to respond to is gonna take us some time

the answer is no the the the the answer is no um i think one of the striking aspects of the proposal um uh is attempts to put the omb director at the center of all decision making here

not true

uh and why are you a better judge of an nih clinical trial than a panel of medical doctors and researchers Um, how will you ensure the grants will be based on merit and individuals and communities served by the federal grants will receive the highest level of service possible um uh uh I I don't uh is there a listing um i if you could get to us, um the agency's priorities, the president's priorities, what is the set of criteria you are using to judge these grants? what precludes you from changing the criteria in the middle of a grant period because i as i understand it um you you you can um not only can political appointees take control of grant awards um active grants can be terminated at any time for any reason um uh uh and i i went through some of them uh these efforts but you can cancel it at at at at any moment is there a set of criteria that we could have that demonstrates to us why these uh these uh grants are being cancelled

congress you're you're misconstruing the proposal to seem to make it seem as if it is omb centric omb will not be making these determinations uh we don't have a formal review in reviewing every nofo uh that is not something that uh we intend to take on these are the policy officials at the agency of which the president has put these cabinet secretaries in office.

Well, but uh uh let me just reclaim claim my time, but the fact of the matter is is we understand it and this is uh the probably the most consequential change in the rule, senior political appointees rather than career scientists and program officers would now be required to conduct a quote " pre-issuance review" of every discretionary grant before it is awarded. These appointees are explicitly forbidden from deferring to peer reviewers or routinely ratifying their recommendations. This is in the four hundred and and twelve page document, and maybe you think that people weren't going to read it. Uh, so, uh, and then there is no longer peer review, peer review is no longer binding. Um, a a political appointee can simply override the scientific community's judgment with finding, uh, with no finding of cause. That is what is uh uh a part of this of this rule which is it it dismantles what we established after world war two for the national institutes of health for the ns uh for the national science foundation uh for department of energy for nasa it really reverses how we have awarded grants in the future uh uh you're shaking your head no but that in fact which is uh which is what the fact of what you are trying to do with the uh political lens and someone's politically political ideology i have one more question for you have you released all appropriately um uh appropriated funding to each uh intended agency um uh through the apportionment process

uh we're working through the apportionment process

so you

uh expeditiously uh we i can't say we've done every single one of them but if you have one that you're

well if no but i'm just saying it it is your responsibility to get the money out of the door in a timely uh fashion and if you can't do this we need to take a look at it cause congress provides the authority for this

and and and again congressman this would be for a full year per uh uh for the full year portion that everyone has the abortionists that they need right

how much funding has been available how much funding has been made available uh how much funding have you made unavailable to agencies as of today if you can't answer that i now i would like an answer to that

happy to but again there's no concerted effort not to abortion funding for the agency

it's not going out in a timely way i can uh just go through

hard because we're trying to assess what is being spent on

right no i i get it will you commit to us here today that you will carry out our spending laws as congress intended through appropriations and reconciliations as they were enacted or not

obviously we will take uh and make sure that we are spending money where you intend us to spend money at the same time i'm not gonna take any tool

no that is where no the answer to that then is no you are not gonna

i'm not gonna take a i'm not gonna take a tool off the table

you you are not going to spend the money that congress in a bipartisan way enacts.

Didn't you say that?

Yes, you did.

No, I didn't.

I yield my time back.

Thank you, Mister Chair. Uh, Director Vogt, thanks for being with us this afternoon. Thanks for your service. I know that uh you're in a very precarious situation uh administering all the money that is appropriated by congress. i can only imagine the complications uh i take it uh somewhat personal and offensive that you were treated so disrespectfully earlier in our conversation uh regarding usaid i think that we all can agree that every loss of an innocent life is a tragedy uh and the the reason i take this so personal is i serve as vice chair of the nsrp Appropriations Subcommittee, and I know how hard that uh Mario Desbalart and myself and the rest of the team has worked to help insure the efficient spending of our taxpayers' dollars. But I think it's misleading to suggest that a US policy change can be judged by isolated claims while ignoring the millions of lives that American spares have saved through decades of humanitarian aid. The goal is to ensure that aid is effective, accountable, and reaches those that really need it. And I'd like to give you just a few seconds if there's anything you'd like to add to that conversation when you were so rudely cut off.

No, thank you, Congressman, I would just say affirm the administration's uh s- agreement with what you just said. Um, we have requested foreign aid at the State Department. Um, the president cares greatly about continuing to fund areas where we can be effective, um, and to - to make sure it's done on an efficient basis, and to actually make sure we get to real care for real individuals.

Thank, thank you for that. I'd like to shift gears just a little bit to uh Western North Carolina. Uh, you know we were hit by Hurricane Helene on uh September twenty seventh, two thousand twenty four. And we've had somewhat of a mixed bag. of uh dollars coming out of the federal government to western north carolina uh they seem to have really picked up the momentum has picked up and many of the uh projects uh for us to rebuild have been funded at a far quicker rate in the last few months uh can you give me any perspective on is something different are you doing something different is mark wayne mullen doing something different have we just gotten better what's what's taken place there and what lessons have you and uh congress learned to deal with the next natural disaster

thank you congressman and i'll it's a team effort but i i will say that i as you know we've worked personally to drill down very very deep in in several layers of bureaucracy to make sure money is going out the door uh you were an incredible advocate for your district in that way um and we're doing that across the board in some part that's that's kind of what you know dealing with bureaucracy is i think the secretary is doing a great job uh we in general needed to get the the dhs funding out the door much more regularly brick uh the program would be an example of one uh in my last uh last hearing in which um i i i talked with uh congressman about uh we wanna get that money out the door and i think the current team is doing that

thank you and i'd like for this committee to know that uh director vote appeared before another committee that I was attending uh several weeks ago, and when I mentioned the problems that we were having, uh Director Vogt invited me to his office that very afternoon. And as a result, we saw millions of dollars coming into Western North Carolina. So I'd I'd I thank you for that. My last question is this. According to my research, the federal government now has about two hundred and ninety-two thousand less employees than it did when President Trump took office. And most of us conservatives are really happy with that. Our goal in coming to Washington DC was to see less government. Can you speak, is that an accident, is it something very intentional, and uh where where's the the the the the floor there? How how much more do you think that we might be able to save if we really sharpen our pencil?

well i would leave that to the agency officials that are seeing their programs and their ftes we got some great feedback from your colleague uh that are assessing where they need to go deeper and where they need to go higher and and that is a balance that uh they each one of them are gonna be kind of their expert on it for for my part o and b i'm trying to increase uh to a higher level based on the fact that when you ask us for dereg deregulatory initiatives we need more in people to be able to do that we need more people to be able to drill down into bureaucracy and get the money flowing as intended by congress so um i think it will be agency by agency and i wouldn't wanna give kind of a broad view of that other than to say that the the agency officials are constantly thinking through what their adequate fte level should be

i'll i'll summarize by saying thank you for the reduction and thank you for your service mr. gerrard you're welcome

very kind thank you uh realizing that you know that was so much fun the first round here uh there are some questions here that like i asked you a question

ok

and i'd like to hear your answer for the record uh we're three minutes does that work for folks if you have questions that were unanswered ok

um mr. chairman in light of the fact you're answering uh uh uh you may impose that but the answer is i do not agree

alright um And while I appreciate you uh, my wife just texted me that our daughter is uh, her water broken and she's getting ready to leave for the hospital on her first grandchild. So, three minutes works for me, sir, cuz I'm gonna be out of here this afternoon. Um, I would re-ask the question, but you're right, man, I just wanna know how will centralizing all those functions from the executive orders translate into efficiencies across federal government, and how will taxpayers benefit from the consolidation of all that power through the executive orders that we talked about before.

what i would say is every time you see an executive order there's a responsibility there for office of management budget to be able to perform government-wide function and the level of things that we've been asked to do has therefore increased and so uh we're trying to use each one of those as an opportunity to get better at what we do um and the work before us is certainly immense but we're excited to do it

Uh, OMB received one hundred million dollars from the Working Families Tax Cut Act, also known as the Big Beautiful Bill, for the purpose of finding budget and accounting efficiencies in the executive branch. Would you walk us through that, how money was spent, what efficiencies you've identified, and how the, what committee, how the committee can expand, expect to be informed of those results?

Uh, it is uh almost entirely based on additional FTEs, we wanna take uh on on the fte level up to around six seventy five in terms of our footprint uh up from where we are uh right now and around five hundred employees um we believe we need those employees um my hope is that we can work as a a to give you enough information so that overtime this subcommittee can fund omb so that there is not a gap we have to use that money within a three year period uh we haven't spent that money yet cause we're not gonna obligate or portion to um the need until we are ready to actually hire people and i will tell you it is not quick to be able to hire the fte's but uh it is one of my highest priorities to be able to scale to that um and and and that what you are getting with that is the omb uh and the career staff these are career staff largely that will be able to provide uh the important civil servant work that they uh that you've come to know and appreciate from omb and so that's what we're trying to do with that number.

i appreciate that and and i have fifty some seconds left here. uh i noticed in for the recent uh budget that doge was pretty much eliminated is there something that you're going to present or is there somewhere we can find what exactly doge accomplish as far as reductions in uh dollars spent um people at agencies or whatever so there's gonna be some documentation of what took place

well we have no plans to do kind of a closing doge report um we're always happy to

mmm

uh give you our assessment of of of that work i think it made some uh really important strides uh you all passed many of the reductions that that doge found just to the normal appropriations process when you ended the year uh so much lower than the year before uh we did some of that in the rescissions package and so many of their uh the fruits of their of their labor are sprinkled all across uh the government but i'm always happy to work with you on what you feel like you need

very kind uh now recognize the ranking member mister heuer for his three minutes

thank you very much mr. chairman um are you aware of the fact that labor healthy doge did twenty one thousand dollars in reductions through the number of three or four options that were available and they're now in the process of hiring twelve thousand back

i don't know what you're referring to specifically but i'm happy to look into it

well that was the testimony of secretary kennedy uh so the chainsaw apparently went little too deep uh what uh analysis was done prior to uh doge's activity to identify uh the objectives of their cutting

uh you'd have to ask doge in many of the work that they did

doge will come up here apparently

well all i will say is that everything that we have put forward at omb which incorporate many of the suggestions which i kind of view doge as a consultant to the agency officials uh we have backed that up with all of the analysis and you know doge also represented in a new administration coming on and making great aggressive strides to lower the footprint

uh ok uh the chairman's eliminating just three minutes so we can't do much substance here um are you aware of the fact that uh uh irs has been enforcement has been cut some uh um by your proposal uh twenty eight percent and by the congress's uh action in the house by nineteen percent in enforcement and that we've gone from nine percent looking for fraud in irs filed uh returns of people over a million dollars, which are the more complex returns, uh, to six tenths of a percent. Do you think that's a very efficient way to assure, A, people do not cheat, and B, that we collect the some seven hundred billion dollars that almost every IRS commissioner, Republican and Democrat have determined, uh, are due and owing but not paid.

One of our objections to the Biden administration was their scaling of the IRS with almost a viewpoint that they would leave no audit left behind and i don't think that's the american that people would want that

they said six tenths of a percent it was at nine percent that is leaving ninety one percent of the returns over a million dollars not audited that's a big incentive for people not to worry about doing it correctly

we have invested in the irs we're trying to make sure that the experience that irs in terms of the taxpayer services is is something that would be historically better uh and we're making great strides at that i know that uh secretary besant is very active in that

secretary besant uh uh hasn't testified to this committee this year so i'm not sure what he's uh uh about well we're trying to invite him up now that the budget's done um you are saying you need more people every irs commissioner i have over the last forty five years has said they need more people in enforcement neither party in my opinion we put a eighty billion or give or take in the ira uh to try to both from a technology standpoint and from an enforcement standpoint make sure people are paying that which is uh uh uh required by law to be paid no new taxes required by law present law Let me say something because the the time is very brief. Uh, the largest increase in the debt uh in my service in the Congress was under Ronald Reagan. Um, as as a percentage, the debt was nine hundred and eighty-five billion dollars when I came to Congress, the total national debt. Uh, every director who has told me we're gonna get rid of fraud, waste, and abuse, the debt has gone up. republicans and democrats uh mitch daniels said the same thing you have said today when he was after the bush tax cut the debt has gone up are you saying you believe that the debt is going to be reduced as a percentage of our g d p as a result of your uh big bad bill or

here's what i'll say

other fiscal legislation or expenditures like uh fixing pools uh tearing down the east winding of the white house

here's what i'll say congressman we're the only administration since nineteen ninety seven to have any tangible victory and to put the an end to fiscal futility that has reigned for two decades and three decades

that was the the budget um balance

thank you we recognize miss Stinson thank you

thank you mr. chairman um we have talked a lot about fraud very important uh topic of conversation um not to be overlooked though i think is the blatant disregard by some bureaucrats for improper payments. Um, I know President Trump shares this goal. Myself, members of Congress have recognized wasting of taxpayer dollars needs to stop, and we're expressing a need for some systems in place to make sure that those hard-earned dollars are not being misused. Um, the President's executive order, obviously, fourteen two forty-nine to protect America's bank account. And then I introduced HR twenty-five ninety-seven, the Protecting American Taxpayers from Wasteful Spending Act which would codify said executive order. date us on the implementation of that executive order and what is uh happening to protect america's bank account against waste fraud and abuse

thank you congresswoman in the spirit of uh congressman edwards uh question uh we are doing a lot of work behind the scenes bureaucracy to bureaucracy agency to agency to get those agencies to use the do not pay system and to kind of cut through paperwork that takes forever just get them in to be able to use the system and get that cultural uh muscle memory working and if uh we don't think we need uh uh new authorities to do though but we always welcome them where you feel like you can expedite things for us.

OK. Uh Congress obviously continuing to support the reining of reining in of those improper payments, and encouraging the administration to do so. Um we had House Resolution thirteen thirty five um which would uh really lay out some meaningful policy uh reforms to improve fiscal responsibility including

Well, we've we've stood up an entire task force at the leadership of Vice President Vance,

Mm-hmm.

uh, that is building a number of the Doge efforts like defend the spend at HHS to assess, do we even know what

what percentage of the expenditures do you think

well

going out improper payments are actually fraudulent

you know i wouldn't wanna say what a percentage i don't i don't wanna make a guess on that but the i think they're substantial and i think the extent to which we don't focus on them and we think it's a small problem uh is is why we never make actually make progress in this area and so i am very grateful that uh we are focusing on it and there is such an active interest here in congress on it

thank you uh i yield back mr. chairman

thank uh mister pokan would be next

thank you mister chairman

it's a good plan

so how much has doge cost us what did we spend on staffing of doge

i don't think doge cost us much at all in terms of the net savings

what did it cost us not that that's not an answer so if i say what's your favorite color and you tell me thirteen thousand that's an answer and it's not that i disagree with the answer it's a non answer so do you know how much doge cost us

i don't believe doge cost us anything they saved us

do you know how much we spent on staffing of doge

uh off the top of my head no i do not know what we spent on the the very few doge staffers that there were many of these people were volunteering

ok yeah gotcha um when the staffing question uh we were told by secretary kennedy that there had twenty one thousand people were fired they had to bring back twelve thousand which seems like a complete mess do you know how many people overall were let go uh under in the last year and a half and how many had to be brought back

no not off the top of my head

ok if you could give us that information i'd appreciate it um do you know how much we spent on the war in iran so far

uh we've spent about thirty billion dollars

thirty billion dollars so i'm gonna hold you to that cause people are saying it's more like a hundred billion dollars

well i'm just telling you what i've heard from the department of war and the analysis that they've given us

ok but i'm just gonna remember today june thirtieth twenty twenty six you're saying as of today thirty billion dollars is what we spent

that's the number that i have

no i appreciate that um pepfar there still has not been about seven hundred million dollars released and we're down to a few months before end of september will that money be released by the department of state

we will spend all the pepfar that we uh that has been appropriated uh sometimes there are different fiscal years that you might be referring to um and these pepfar is spent over many many years

right but i think there's seven hundred million left doesn't that sound right

at where at usaid or at state

at state state

we will make sure the pepfar spending uh goes out the door

thank you appreciate that finally i think there's three point two billion dollars that came from funds earmarked by congress for global health and development programs that was signed uh that there is an unobligated it's not obligated by september that money will expire can no longer be spent is that gonna be spent that money it's not gonna be done as a pocket rescission

i'm not gonna take any tool off the table but we have no plans to do a rescission at point and we will make sure uh that we are getting the money out the door expeditiously

ok but do you predict that money will be spent before the end of september

uh i don't wanna make any predictions other than to say that our current plan is to get the money out the door uh on a on a normal basis

yeah just so you know i mean when we approve funds in a bipartisan way we expect that the money gets out and i understand you've had delays and you want more staffing but you've only spent about ten percent of the additional money you got in the big beautiful bill we need to make sure that when congress approves funds in a bipartisan way it gets expended

we agree with the need to get money out the door consistent with our review of whether it's being well spent and not taking any tools that we may use at the president's fiscal management tools off the table thank you thank you

Thank you Mr. Boulkin we now recognize Mister Bishop for his three minutes.

Thank you very much uh uh Mister Bout um it's apparent to the members of the committee as well as to the general public that uh you as Budget Director and President Trump feel that you have the authority to pause and sometimes outright disregard appropriations that are directed by Congress. Uh, and of course, as we all know, the Constitution explicitly states that Congress alone sets the terms for appropriating funds um but uh if for example we give you the bit of the doubt that you're somehow under the impression that uh the omb s actions over the last eighteen months to withhold funds across a broad spectrum of programs is legal uh can you let us know what kind of language we need to use in our appropriations bills that you and omb would consider to be unambiguous enough uh in directing the executive branch to disperse appropriating funds without delay without additional restrictions that undermine the intent of Congress and without political considerations, uh like retaliation. Uh, or do you believe it's possible for us to put language in the appropriations, bills that are uh direct enough that uh would uh prohibit you uh from uh impounding and impeding the intention of Congress in appropriations.

I'm not gonna engage in a hypothetical, but it's an interesting question Congressman in the sense that many of the things you say or the questions that we get in terms of whether we're getting money out the door quickly is in fact us reviewing to see whether it's done efficiently or not and to insure that agencies aren't aren't aren't doing deficiencies that there's a spend plan in place which was literally why we were set up in the first place and so uh i would just i would just offer that as one of the reasons as you're you're you're responding to what you think is data that we're not spending fast enough it is also it's often because we are trying to spend it well

no but when you put a pause when you put a pause and uh uh not spend it at all um when we clearly and it's clearly uh intended by congress for it to be spent uh what kind of language do we need to put uh can you

well i think we have a we have a a difference

what would you respond to

well we would have a difference of opinion with regard to the president's ability uh to pursue executive tools to limit spending we've i've been up here before to talk about it uh we used many of those tools last year i don't think this is about writing the bills differently but i will say this congressman we're working with the committee to to pass these appropriations bills i think we had one of the most successful appropriations bills in uh seasons in process in history last year subject to the two shutdowns that occurred

you believe that there are three equal branches of government that uh

of course of course absolutely

But the unitary um

Thank you.

uh executive theory is not doesn't take precedence over the other two branches, I take it.

We believe there are three equal branches, and we are always looking back to how the founders intended our constitutional structure to operate and function.

Thank you uh, Mister Bishop, Chair now recognizes Mrs. Guzen-Camp-Perez for three minutes.

Thank you, Mister Chair, and thank you again. Um, one of the concerns that I've heard in specific about the changes to grant making rules um is the prohibition on funds for conferences there is a there are there are excellent conferences in skilled trades competitions that is inherently a conference um people still glow with pride that they were successful in winning their state skills usa champion in auto tech or roofing whatever it is and so um how do you view this proposed rules impact on the ability to host and hold skills competition and how to find the best balance and the brightest trades people and really bolster our skilled trades.

Well, I would just say with regard to some of the excess uh activities that numbers of individuals uh who are benefitting from grants, there's one thing that's not in this, it's because you all barred us from doing it. There's nothing regarding indirect cost rates in this regulation. But indirect cost rates, indirect costs are the kind of things that we're trying to restrict as much as we possibly can, and I think it's analogous to your question. Bill Gates only pays ten percent for indirect cost. we pay up to fifty to sixty percent for indirect costs for things like parking buildings and administrative costs and while uh there maybe examples where you know uh something might be useful or important we think the trend in that direction is not something that we want the grant programs to be funding we want them to be funding actual research and investment

um and and that is a durable investment our investment in these kids who have correct pride in their skills and competition and so i just ask for consideration of this as you're moving through evaluating grants. Um, another concern I've heard from CTE teachers and students about the proposed elimination of fixed amount awards and sub-awards um and an- and the impact on increasing the administrative cost and burden. I know so many great programs who are like, we are not touching federal grants because we cannot handle the administrative burden. Meanwhile, the people who are have grant writers and have slick handouts like they they they can do that, they can overcome that administrative burden. And so I'm asking how you're thinking about balancing the scale of administrative burden on rural and smaller organizations um and how to effectively tailor um rather than eliminate but tailor um their ability to participate in in these federal tax um programs um because they really can provide as much or a greater uh you know dollar uh cost effectiveness

uh i would say that we want the we don't want there to be a a great administrative burden and that's what the comment phase is four and if comments come in that we can learn more about how this would be implemented we're gonna definitely take a look at those

it's just really hard for my smaller organization to be like oh i'm gotta go through this portal and make this comment in all this time and so asking for you to consider how to bring in people who have been a part of this um from a smaller organization from rural communities um into the filmmaking

well i will make this offer if you want me to meet with someone from your district that's a small organization i will happy to meet with them

thank you thank you very much appreciate that i'll be right back

Thank you very much. Uh, chair now recognizes mister Ivey for three minutes of questions.

Thank you and congratulations, mister chair. Um, I I wanted to follow up on the Doge comment, um, that you made, I I've got a report here from the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations um, that's entitled " The Twenty-one Point Seven Billion Dollar Blunder, Analyzing the Waste Generated by Doge". Are are you familiar with this report?

No, I haven't seen it.

OK. um it breaks it down by category and it runs through the cost for example of and i i think there was a stretch where people got paid not to come to work uh and i remember there was a scenario where uh probationary employees were laid off i think that would went to the courts i think o and b made the decision to lay off the probationary employees court said you can't do that it has to go through the departments and then it went back to you but in any event the the probationary piece waste generated by involuntary administrative leave and severance pay programs. They calculated six point O six billion. Are you familiar with those kinds of

I haven't read the report. I'm happy to read the report. In general, many of the times that these kind of artificial uh moment in time cost estimates with regard to the federal workforce are not uh accounting for the long-term savings of what uh a lower footprint for those agencies would look like. For instance, RIFs. RRIFs have upfront costs. Uh, this is widely known. Uh, but they lead to uh, long-term savings in a in a in a in a smaller footprint. And so my gut is my guess is what's going on in that report.

Uh, agreed, but but you would. And you take a look and you can you can follow back up with us, but you'd also agree that there have been scenarios where departments have laid off I'm looking at a hundred and ten thousand people, uh, and brought back sixty thousand or you know, we've had other scenarios where departments laid off a certain number then quickly bring a number back um that's that would be part of the long-term calculation you're talking about as well right

i would describe it as a dynamic fluid process so you have agency of heads uh that are trying to assess that they have what they need for the core functions that they do

it's a dynamic waste of money though if you lay off people and then bring them back especially in the short term the the nuclear regulatory commission laid off the staff i think it was on a friday realized that you know you just can't grab somebody off the street to run that and they brought them all back on Monday those are not that's not just dynamic that's a mistake and that's funding that peop- that the taxpayers wasted on an effort that was rushed through I think part of the concern with respect to Doge and um I think most my colleagues would agree cuttings you know employees that that aren't needed is fine but it's clear that what Doge did was they put, they advocated cutting a lot of people, a lot of federal government employees who were doing great work, they didn't know what they were talking about when they advocated for those cuts, then they quickly realized that they had to bring people back. And that really devastated the individuals' lives who were caught up in that scenario. I, my time's expired, I yield back.

Now like And and like the wedding feast at Canaan will now save the best for last, and recognize the ranking member of the full committee, Mister Loro. wrap this up.

OK. Thank you very much, Mister Chairman, I I think you've made clear directly that um that you are not gonna really carry out um the um spending laws as Congress intended um and uh that really is very very troubling. Um look we've already seen OMB uh uh implementing political review of grants, it's led to massive delays at NSF, the NIH uh NIH has had about a thirty four percent decrease in new awards. in twenty twenty six compared to what they've done um in in in the past. And we understand that the decrease is due to new layers of political review at the NIH, at HHS, OMB as well as the Office of Extramural Research, directives limiting the number of funding opportunities that are allowed. Um uh there there been cases where uh people are still awaiting approval and political appointees have really denied uh the the uh the award going forward uh the same problem is occurring across the government interior homeland what is the government wide problem uh what can you do to address it where is the hold up

yeah yeah

um and quite frankly how would requiring a political appointee to approve every single grant improve government efficiency

carly so one of the things i heard constantly when we were considering the rescissions package last year of which you all opposed but one of the things i heard was uh why wouldn't you just um eliminate just the small things that you have concerns with and not actually take the number down lower and the way that we do that the way that we provide good oversight of the federal dollars is to be able to assess and review how the agencies intend to spend the money and that takes time you don't do that

well

in the middle of a thirty day period after you pass the appropriation

well with with all due respect mister director my heavens we seen spend plans that has been one of the biggest one of the big problems this committee hasn't even seen spend plans uh that we're supposed to uh uh uh you know get uh and so uh that there's a point is and and and this rule that is really in the process of comment which you won't extend the timing on um uh has it is really specific about who is going to review the the the uh uh grants not on merit uh but they're gonna go through a political lens um and there is all kinds of restrictions on these grant awards that is reverting a process as i said earlier that has been established after the second world war uh and as i can

can i give you analogy an analogy is that when i do the budget for the president do you think i don't rely on the career staff do you think i'm

well look i i

it has a it has a

a political responsibility for the line items with all due respect i got five seconds left five seconds left it is about political appointees making the decision not people based the evidence and not based on and particularly in health and science not based on the science of of of of of the award that's happened everywhere i can quote you uh i i can talk to you talk off-line about the what's been denied at yale university that has to do with hiv suppression Tourette's etcetera don't tell me that these are they do not meet

I know

the government's priorities or the president's priorities this is not to to deal with Tourette's syndrome to deal with OCD is not about somebody wasting money this is science it's reviewed as it has been over seventy five years when these awards have been made and you are all in the business of reversing that and putting all of these grants to a political lens and someone's political ideology it's wrong and we're not gonna let it happen i yield back

would you care to answer

i would just say that there was an election the president was put in charge of the executive branch

the constitution the constitution says that the appropriations process

he has oversight he has oversight over federal funding

has is the power of the purse you are ignoring that you flout the constitution every single day and you have been doing it for the last year and a half and we again not gonna continue to allow that to happen no president has a right to uh just violate the united states constitution and no member of this committee does that but the administration is doing it regularly

with that our time is concluded i'd like to thank director boehme for being here today there may be some members who would like to submit more questions for the record Please submit any questions for the record to the subcommittee staff within seven days. This subcommittee stands adjourned.