The President's Fiscal Year 2027 Budget Request

This hearing will come to order. I want to welcome everybody to the Budget Committee's hearing on the President's fiscal year 2027 budget request. And I would like on behalf of my colleagues to welcome our guest, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the Honorable Russell Vought, to the committee. We appreciate your time and look forward to your remarks. It's important, Director, to hear the President's vision and priorities for resourcing the people's government to provide for the common defense. It's important to hear about the President's vision and priorities for stewarding the people's treasure to promote the general welfare of the public. And it's important to hear the President's vision and priority for resourcing the government to protect and preserve our children's future and to secure the blessings of liberty for the next generation. That's why I think this is the most important committee in the United States Congress, Russ. And that's why meetings like today and discussions and debates like today, I think, are paramount for the governing of our great nation. With that, I'm just going to jump into yielding myself such time as I may desire. Okay, no notes here, just some thoughts. We've done well to have some constructive conversation and have civil tone. Today I suspect will be a little more amped up. And I'm pretty amped up myself. I hope we hear honest, constructive comments and good faith debate, but I suspect we're going to hear some spin. I anticipate we'll hear some false narratives and fearmongering conjecture and even flat out misrepresentations of the truth. That's what I expect, sadly. I hope that doesn't happen. But what I think is important, Director and colleagues and ladies and gentlemen, is that we put out what I believe is factual context to this conversation. Russ, I don't know of a President in my lifetime, maybe in history books, but in my lifetime, that has inherited such a complete and utter mess as President Trump did in January of last year. One self-inflicted disaster after another for four years of the Biden-Harris administration. Utter lawlessness, incompetence. A border that was wide open, millions of people, criminals, gangs, drugs that killed a planeload of Americans effectively every week. More people dying of the drugs coming across the border than the people dying from the Vietnam War. Again, all because of the dereliction of duty to uphold the laws of this land and a failure to do the first and most important job, which is to provide for the common defense. And the American people suffered. Our resources were drained, our safety was jeopardized, and there was no rule of law, the cornerstone of any civil society. We had feckless foreign policy. The withdrawal from Afghanistan was a dumpster fire. We didn't do anything to preempt or prevent Vladimir Putin from invading Ukraine. We were spending our time at the Pentagon teaching our troops a master class in pronouns in the era of transgenderism, and we were socializing our troops in radical ideology instead of preparing them to fight and win wars and to restrain evil. And the result was we had a much more unstable world. I think we were made a mockery by our enemies. And finally, we saw unbridled spending, about $7 to $8 trillion, record deficit spending. If you add in the additional cost of interest that went skyrocketing, it's about $12 trillion overall. We had a weaker economy, recessionary economy. We had a cost of living crisis that we haven't experienced as a nation in almost a half a century. We were paying people not to work. The failed policies and the spending that created this unaffordability crisis was that we were paying people not to work. Let's remember this. We were bailing out union pension funds without fixing it, bailing out schools that didn't open for our children. We waived work requirements for able-bodied adults in every welfare program while we allowed tens of billions of dollars to be drained from these important social programs for our citizens by illegal immigrants in this country, millions of them. The list goes on. We taxed and regulated our job creators and, again, the most regressive tax that in my lifetime was the 20-plus percent increase in prices for working families. Trump comes in, you and the team in one year secure the border, stop the flow, deport criminal aliens, broker a peace deal in the Middle East, provide the greatest investment in national defense in the history of our country, pull down the drain and the drive of our deficit and debt looming debt crisis in mandatory spending by rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse to the tune of about $1.5 trillion, constrained spending on the discretionary side, cut taxes, cut spending at historic levels, open up domestic energy production. We had lower interest, lower inflation, a growing economy, wages are up, people putting more money in their pockets before my Democrat colleagues shut the government down over a COVID-era fraud-ridden program to expand a failed underlying policy of Obamacare. That was the first shutdown before the shutdown that we're in today. We would have been at 2.5 percent plus growth. We were made a mockery, derided for putting that assumption in our big beautiful bill, but that's exactly what CBO said where we'd be over the 10-year budget window. That's a $1.5 trillion to reduce the deficit. So there is a reason that CBO in their recent report six months into this fiscal year shows a 10 percent reduction in our deficit. It's been decades since we've seen that. Ten percent reduction in our deficit because of growth, because of rooting out waste and bending the curve on mandatory spending and controlling cost and cutting wasteful and unnecessary spending on the discretionary budget. And because President Trump decided to lead on the world stage with respect to trade and give our workers, manufacturers, and farmers a head-to-head fighting chance at trade deals and the revenue helped shore up our balance sheet. So I'm pleased with what the President has done. I'm proud he's our Commander-in-Chief. I'm going to hear and think we'll hear a lot about a war of choice. Let me tell you something. It's a choice to play patty-cake and have a policy of appeasement with a jihadist, genocidal, radical terrorist regime to the point that they are knocking on the door of having a nuclear weapon. And that is what we've seen not just from our Democrat colleagues or Democrat Presidents, but for almost 50 years. So yes, we choose to defend our country's interest and protect our homeland and the American people from serious and eminent threats. And I've said before, I pray to God that whether it's a Democrat or Republican in the Oval Office, when they get those briefings, they're willing to put politics and personal interest aside and do what's right for the country. It's not easy. It won't be easy. But never is easy to do the right thing in this town, Russ. So thanks for being here. That's the context. I think this budget of yours shows directionally that we're going to continue to do that and double down on it, reduce wasteful spending, invest in our defense, and continue to promote the growth that we so desperately need. And all boats will rise on that prosperity. With that, I yield time to my colleague, Ranking Member Mr. Brendan Boyle.

Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mr. OMB Director. I didn't know how shy you were until the last 15 months when you weren't before our committee, but do appreciate you taking the time today. You know how bad this economy is when we hear Joe Biden being invoked, we hear trans people being invoked. I was waiting for Jimmy Carter to be blamed next, but apparently we didn't get quite there. Let me just do a reset and present to you a set of facts, a set of data. Right now, according to opinion polls, the approval of the economy of the American people is at its lowest level since 2008, the Great Recession. Twenty-nine percent, an average of the last three polls shows 30 percent approval. Disapproval over approval of this administration's handling of the economy, more than two to one disapproval over approval. The Michigan consumer data, consumer confidence level, the lowest level ever recorded, even lower during COVID, even lower than during the Great Recession. If you look at the job creation over the last 15 months, there's one thing missing, and that's job creation. We have been in a jobless economy over the last 15 months. Inflation, which actually, even though there's no question we had an inflation crisis not just in the United States but all throughout the world after the COVID pandemic in 2022 after the pandemic had ended. Every single month in 2024, inflation dropped over the preceding month. What happened around April of last year, Liberation Day? Inflation was liberated. You saw inflation begin to increase, and every single month we've seen inflation increase. And gas prices. Yesterday, I was in Northeast Philly where I'm from and where I live, a working-class part of the city of Philadelphia. Was in front of a gas station. The gas at that particular location was 4.11, which is slightly lower than the average nationally and in the United States of about 4.15 a gallon. Six weeks ago, that same gas station was under $3 a gallon. We have seen over the last month the largest increase in gas prices in my lifetime, in the lifetime of most people here. What's different about this economy, unlike the inflation crisis after the pandemic, unlike the Great Recession, unlike the recession of 2001, unlike the recession of 1992, the economic downturn that we're experiencing, no jobs, record inflation, gas prices through the roof, consumer confidence plummeting, all of this is directly related to the policies of the Trump administration that you carry out, Mr. Vought. None of those previous examples that I cited, none of them could be directly attributed to the policies of the President at that time. We can debate about certain things that did influence them, particularly going into the 08 recession. But with this president, the change is so abrupt. The fact inflation was dropping month over month. The fact that we had an incredible jobs economy until it was lost a year and a half ago. You know, I'm from Pennsylvania, the biggest battleground state in the nation, also the nation's birthplace, which we're making a big to-do about this year in 2026 and celebrating our semiquincentennial. But Pennsylvania is really known over the last decade in our politics as the nation's biggest battleground state. So as a result, basically every day in 2024 in the fall, we had either Donald Trump or the Democratic nominee Kamala Harris in our state. Donald Trump had, I have to say, a brilliant campaign slogan. Said your prices are too high, I will lower them, and I quote him, I will lower them on day one. Well, here we are about day 450. He hasn't lowered anything. The only thing he's lowered is his approval rating on the economy. He has lowered that. Donald Trump and this administration have failed miserably on this economy. They failed to bring prices down and in fact, they made the situation worse. With that, we have a lot of questions on this side since it's been 15 months. You're the first OMB director ever to not appear before this committee last year. I appreciate you at least today taking the time. We have a lot of questions and I certainly hope after today, if we send to you questions in writing, that you would respond finally as you've ignored all of our previous requests. It's a matter of basic respect for the Congress of the United States and for this committee. And with that, I yield back.

I thank the ranking member in the interest of time if any other member has an opening statement I ask you to submit it for the record we'll hold the record open to the end of the day to accommodate those members who may not have prepared written statements now I'd like to recognize I thank the ranking member. In the interest of time, if any other member has an opening statement, I ask you to submit it for the record. We'll hold the record open to the end of the day to accommodate those members who may not have prepared written statements. Now, I'd like to recognize Director Vought. I want to again thank him for his time, committee. Mr. Vought has received your written statements. It will be made part of the formal record. You now have five minutes for your remarks.

Ranking Member Boyle, members of the committee, thank you for having me here to testify on the president's budget request for fiscal year 2027. 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. In decades of status quo spending strangle our nation. Those decades produced nothing in the area of fiscal restraint. A lot of talk about the program and the problems, but utter futility about doing anything about it. That fiscal futility has 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 Act, 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...

Mr. Vought, just hold on for a second.

[Crosstalk.]

The chair notes a disruption in the hearing and requests that the Capitol Police restore order immediately. The committee will briefly take a recess until we restore order.

[Crosstalk.]

Mr. Vought, please resume.

This bill bent the cost curve for federal spending, achieving nearly $2 trillion in mandatory savings while securing historic investments in our nation's defense and the Department of Homeland Security without corresponding increases in objectionable non-defense spending. The president also shepherded legislation through Congress that rescinded $9 billion in wasteful and weaponized spending...

Mr. Vought, back up, start again where you left off. We're going to wait until these folks move down. I can't hear anything and we're not going to let them disrupt this hearing. As the ranking member said, we have some serious business to do. I certainly don't think that these guys condone this disruption. This is not the way this committee works, never has since I've been here. I don't think it's going to work that way either side. So let's move those guys. Just if you don't mind.

Jodey, may I, you know, in the three years and three months since Jodey's been chair and I've been ranking member, I think this is the first we've had of this. It's a very serious issue, so I understand why they're passionate. But we have actually, unlike other congressional committees that really do devolve into the, you know, partisan food fight, this committee has conducted its business with seriousness and purpose. And I hope for the next three hours we can be true to that as we have been for the last three years and three months. Thank you. Thank you, well said.

Okay, I think we're in a better spot. Speak loudly into the mic and let's proceed.

The president also shepherded legislation through Congress that rescinded $9 billion in wasteful and weaponized spending, which was the first standalone rescissions package enacted by Congress since 1992. It canceled $3 billion in excessive spending that was wrongly designated as an emergency by the Congress and executed a historic pocket rescission to eliminate $5 billion in wasteful foreign aid. Upon signing this year's appropriations bills, President Trump continued to bring discretionary spending under control. The full 2026 appropriations bills enacted the first real spending cut in over a decade to discretionary spending. It rooted out wasteful spending that the administration identified across federal agencies. The enacted bills reaffirm administration policies 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 shut down the agency after decades of mismanagement and abuse. This also included the complete elimination of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which funneled billions of taxpayer dollars into biased and woke program at NPR and PBS. We look forward to working with you to achieve even more progress in the next appropriation cycle. This budget builds on the president's vision by continuing to constrain non-defense spending and reform the federal government. The budget proposes a 10 percent cut to non-defense compared to 2026 levels. Within this total, the budget maintains investment in border security and immigration enforcement. It delivers on the president's commitment to support law enforcement and combat violent crime with a 13 percent increase to the Department of Justice and honors the nation's sacred obligation to our military veterans. In addition, the 2027 budget eliminates wasteful Green New Deal projects that are dependent on foreign supply chains, returns control of education back to American families, and roots out waste, fraud, and abuse in programs both at home and abroad, ensuring that every taxpayer dollar makes Americans safer, stronger, and more prosperous. The budget simultaneously builds upon the historic $1 trillion fiscal year 26 defense topline by requesting $1.5 trillion for 2027, a 42 percent increase as promised by President Trump last year. The 2027 budget will ensure that 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 sizeable increase and I want to explain that. 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 of status quo. For the industrial base to double or triple 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 this first year. Under President Trump's bold leadership, every tool in the executive fiscal toolbox has been used to achieve real savings and our administration will continue to do so. A historic paradigm shift in the budget process is occurring and it is producing real results for the American people. Fiscal futility is over. Now that our fiscal ship has finally turned and is facing the right direction, I look forward to working with you to continue to move it forward. We have much work to do. Together we will achieve significant savings while implementing the president's bold vision.

I thank the gentleman, Director Vought, and we'll now move to Q and A and I yield myself five minutes. So Director Vought, you heard my ranking member put forward some economic metrics to compare and contrast four years of Biden-Harris and the first year of the Trump administration. The average inflation rate, it got as high as 9 percent, but the average was 5 percent. The average inflation rate during President Trump's first year and it went down, 2.7 percent. The gas prices under Biden-Harris were $5. It also went down. We expect a bump up in that for a time being, but we expect it to go back down. But in terms of comparing and contrasting the measures of economic success and the things that would have driven the affordability crisis in this country, speak to that from your perspective. Again, what drove those things, where we were then, where we are now, one year into this administration.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am honestly astounded that the Democrats would make an issue of inflation when they had 9 percent inflation under the Biden administration. We hadn't seen anything in nearly a generation. And when we left office, you and I, Mr. Chairman, were having trouble reminding the political class, the economic class, the policy community that inflation could be a problem again. And when the Biden administration began to pass the COVID packages and the Inflation Reduction Act, of course which weren't anything but, and to spend at a level that we haven't seen in a very long time, it was me and Larry Summers, a Democrat, that were saying we are going to see inflation skyrocket, and in fact we did. It was not because of supply chains or economic shocks, it was because of spending was dramatically increased at a time where there was no need for it at that time. The important rescue measures had already occurred and ensured that we didn't have any kind of deflationary spiral in the midst of COVID. It was because of spending. And so this administration has come into the economic disaster which was the Biden administration and got costs lower, has ensured that we have fiscal progress so that the era of big spending is over. We have, like I have said, we have the end of fiscal futility. I look around at many of the pictures of the chairmen who have labored to work at getting the cost curve down, most of them unsuccessful. This particular budget committee has not. They have been successful in conjunction with the President of the United States. I hope that continues. We are in the midst of passing an extension of the President's tax cuts. Many of those were aimed at working-class individuals. They are now going through their first season of seeing what changes that will make on their bottom line, and I think that's going to lead to an explosion in affordability for the American people. This side of the aisle would have said we're not going to extend those tax cuts, and that would have led to an economic depression. The notion that you're going to raise people's taxes by 30 and 40 percent and not impact the economy is simply not true, and it's a dishonest debate to be able to say that one side didn't want to extend tax cuts and cause the inflation is somehow going to be the better steward of economic gain and growth in this country than the one that is existing in the White House right now under President Trump's effective leadership.

So we stopped the reckless spending, we bent the curve on the fraud that is sapping these entitlement programs and safety nets for those who need them the most. What you will hear and what I've heard now for as long as I've been in this position, at least over the last years since the President has been in the Oval Office and certainly during the big beautiful build debates, was that we were cutting much-needed programs for vulnerable American citizens. But the CBO, the nonpartisan CBO, put out a missive that outlined the people, the millions of people who were ineligible or illegal or who were healthy able-bodied adults refusing to work, again, that were draining the social safety nets and the tax dollar and hard-earned treasure of the American people. Any comment on just the waste and fraud focus, and then I'll move on to the Ranking Member's questions.

I mean, it was historic welfare reform that the Congress passed and the President signed into law. Just to give people a reminder historically, you had President Clinton sign into law welfare reform with a Republican Congress. Those historic reforms which led people to get off of welfare, experience the dignity of work, led to lower caseloads with one program, TANF, a cash assistance, was then added to Medicaid and food stamps. Historic reforms. And we're going to see the benefit of that with people getting back to work. Remember, this is the able-bodied population within Medicaid. This is not those that can't work. This is the able-bodied population in Medicaid that can work. And it will lead to people that were ineligible for Medicaid previously and subject to fraud no longer being on the books. There were substantial reforms made to ensure that states tighten their roles and we get back in the business of having a social safety net that we can afford and is thriving for the American people.

Thank you, Director Vought. Okay, I'm going to give my Ranking Member some extra time because I know I went over and then I'm going to be unusually disciplined on the clock. But you get some extra time just in fairness, okay? So your Q and A for five minutes plus, please.

All right, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to, there are a lot of areas I would like to get to, but between me and my colleagues, at least on this side of the dais, I think we'll get to them all. Let me start by reminding people back nine months ago what President Trump called at the time, though he wants to rebrand it and never talks about it now, his one big beautiful bill, though it has been known by many other names. That piece of legislation, despite your rhetoric about this budget committee succeeding on deficit and debt, according to the Congressional Budget Office as well as other nonpartisan groups both left of center and right of center, have said that single piece of legislation adds more to our deficit and debt than any other piece of legislation passed by Congress in American history. In addition to the over $4 trillion it adds for national debt, it eliminates healthcare coverage for more than 15 million Americans according to the CBO. The Kaiser Family Foundation says it's actually more than 17 million Americans who will lose their healthcare. Are they really all according to you, really? You're going to sit here with a straight face and say they're all illegals, they're all defrauding the system? That's actually your position?

Yes, with regard to the people that have lost their...

I mean, that's laughable. I'm sorry, I'll give you a chance to respond.

You've got a number of issues with regard to your comments there. Number one, when you...

Wait, wait, reclaiming my time. I just want to be clear. I'm citing, we acknowledge, the CBO figure. That's where I'm getting the 15 million from, and the Kaiser Family Foundation says 17 million. You're saying none of them are legitimately on the system, even though we had one of them actually testify before us at this committee?

I didn't say all of them are illegals. I said there's also the benefit of people returning to the workforce because they are able-bodied individuals or they should not have been on the system regardless because of the inability to address fraud in the aftermath of the...

Okay, so they're all either illegals or defrauding the system.

Well, we certainly, that's certainly not a provocative statement that we have fraud all over the country, is it, Mr. Ranking Member?

Why are, I imagine there are fraud in all sorts of private and public sector areas, but the idea that 15 million Americans are about to lose their healthcare, the single biggest loss to healthcare in American history mind you, not even during the Great Depression did 15 million Americans lose their healthcare coverage. The idea that all of those people who are about to lose their healthcare are defrauding the system or are illegal immigrants, that is not supported by any facts whatsoever.

They were not working and now are working and getting the benefit of a job with employer-sponsored healthcare coverage. Look, these assessments by CBO and others are often very static. It's one of the reasons...

Wait, so I mean it's right of center groups as well. It's, well, reclaiming my time, I only have a few minutes, so excuse me. But it's not just CBO. I mean right of center groups, left of center groups, nonpartisan groups. You're saying they're all wrong?

I'm saying that the budget community typically relies on static thinking, static scoring, current law baselines, and so you don't get an accurate picture of the extent to which the reforms that are being made are going to have a dynamic impact with better programs, more healthcare for instance, $50 billion...

Well, let me, before you get to the $50 billion, I only have a couple minutes, so let me actually transition to my next subject because I think I'll only have time now for this. The President recently said, I mean he was talking about the record increase in gas prices thanks to him and his war of choice in Iran, but he diverted in a spontaneous, he's speaking extemporaneously in the White House just a few days ago, he said and I quote, "The United States can't take care of daycare, that has to be up to a state." He then added, "Medicaid, Medicare, all these individual things, they can do it on a state basis, you can't do it on federal." So I'm just curious from your perspective at OMB, have you taken any actions to turn Medicare back to the states?

No, and the President doesn't want to do that with regard to these important federal programs. He's referring...

Well, he said it. I mean, he said it. So you're disagreeing with what the President said.

No, I'm saying that the President meant is he's talking about fraud in these programs. He's talking...

That's not, he didn't mention, excuse me, reclaiming my time. Nowhere, I have the full statement in front of me. Nowhere in front of me is the word fraud presented. What he was talking about, he later at a different part said, "We have to pay more for wars, and instead we can't afford Medicaid, Medicare, childcare, things like that." And looking at the budget proposal, this is why I raise it, 442 billion, correct me if I'm wrong, 442 billion increase in defense. That's what you're asking for, about a 42 percent increase, is that right?

Correct, for many paradigm-shifting investments that we need the...

A 42 percent increase on what was already a record high for defense. And look, I serve as part of our U.S. delegation to the NATO Parliament. I am no pacifist. I believe in a strong national defense. I believe the United States, I believe the world is at its best when the United States has the strongest military. The idea that we're going to pay for a 42 percent increase in this military, in this Department of Defense, and at the same time cut Medicaid, Medicare, not pay for childcare, all of these things that the American people need and in the case of Medicare have paid into, that is a reflection of priorities that are out of whack. And I see I've gone over my time. I appreciate your indulgence, so with that I yield back.

Thank you, Mr. Ranking Member. Without objection, I'd like to submit for the record this letter from CBO that confirms in fact that the one big beautiful bill and the coverage impacts that have been discussed here, that those millions of people that were mentioned were either ineligible for the program, illegal immigrants, or they were able-bodied adults who refused to work. And then I'm going to submit this, which is CBO's final analysis that confirmed the same thing. So without objection.

I mean, I don't, I'm not going to object to the submission of the letter. I do object though to your characterization of the letter. Everyone should read the letter. Absolutely. But nowhere has it been found by anybody that the 15 million Americans about to lose their healthcare are all illegal immigrants or defrauding the system.

We'll bring it up when we have the next CBO oversight hearing and we'll go through that letter in great detail along with the facts that support it. With that, I'm going to yield to the vice chairman of the committee, Lloyd Smucker, for five minutes, then Lloyd Doggett, Tom McClintock, Bobby Scott.

Reclaiming my time, my question to you is don't you propose to cut the National Institutes of Health by another 12 percent?

Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Director, for being here with us. You know, the ranking member mentioned he's from Pennsylvania. I'm from Pennsylvania as well. And I've talked to my constituents about how they feel or what they're experiencing under the policies of the one big beautiful bill, under the policies of your office and of the President, compared to what they were experiencing under the Biden administration. I can tell you that I am willing any day to put our record up against what they experienced during the Biden years. I just want to remind listeners of what happened. Nine percent inflation, an average of five percent, meant that, and wages not keeping up, meant that working families literally lost about a month's worth of the entire year of spending power. And so they really felt it when they went to the grocery store, they filled their tanks with gas. It just simply had become unaffordable for them. And what I'm really proud of under the policies that we've advanced with your help is that we are now in a period of time when wage growth is outpacing the increase in cost of goods. And so this started, I think, back in June. Maybe you could clarify that for me. But so over time, people are feeling like they're in a better position due to the policies of this administration. And I want to, I want to remind, it's April 15. People are seeing the impact of the tax bill that we had done. And so it's maybe appropriate that you're here on this day because I think we can be very proud of the assistance and the help that we've given to working families all across America. I want to remind members here that 20 million Americans took advantage of the no tax on overtime. A very important policy to folks in my district and the districts of everybody here. And I want to remind folks that Democrats voted against that policy. Millions of Americans took advantage of the no tax on tip. I can talk to a lot of them who are very grateful that they're able to keep more of their hard-earned dollars. Every Democrat here voted against that policy. We effectively eliminated taxes on 88 percent of those who are receiving Social Security. Every Democrat here voted against that policy. And in fact, we prevented what would have been the largest increase on middle-income Americans when we passed the one big beautiful bill, and every Democrat here voted against that policy. The Republican Party, through that bill and other things that we've done under this administration, is the party that is working to improve the lives of working Americans all across the country. They're feeling better because of that, and I'm very proud of the work that we've done. You know, to the questions that the ranking member had asked regarding the individuals on Medicaid or healthcare who he alleges will lose their healthcare coverage, we put in place provisions that prevented illegal immigrants from accessing taxpayer dollars. Democrats voted against that. They don't care that some of those, and I don't know the number, literally are individuals who are here illegally in the U.S. and taking hard-earned taxpayer dollars for their benefit. Democrats don't care about that. They voted against that. They don't seem to care that our policies have moved people from relying on government policies and they've entered the workforce and have probably better healthcare through their employers, which is a significant portion of their job. They don't care about that. They literally don't care about that. They voted against every one of these policies that are helping working Americans. And then, and I'm taking a lot of my time, but in regards to adding to the debt, because I know you care about the debt, I care a lot about the debt. We've talked about moving to three percent deficit to GDP within the hopefully not too distant future. We've made progress on that, and this is the point I just wanted you to address briefly. Our deficit this year, last year, was lower than the year before for the first time in a long time due to the policies of the bill that we passed. And we're having increased federal revenue. And I wonder if you would just very briefly talk about that. How could we pass a bill that literally keeps taxes low for Americans, but yet we're seeing increased federal revenue?

Gentleman's time's expired. Brief response, and then we're going to go to Mr. Doggett.

This is a phenomena that our side tends to make often, that when you continue to have good tax policy, revenues are going to go up. And revenues we expect to be higher than their historical average with the extension of the tax cuts that was done with the one big beautiful bill. We use multiple names for them. The President as recently as two days ago referred to as the one big beautiful bill. We are trying to get the word out to the American people. Congress did so much in that bill, so much that helps the American people. We want to explain that working family tax cut at every opportunity that we possibly can so that they're aware of what they're going to see in their tax returns.

I yield five minutes to my friend from Texas, Mr. Lloyd Doggett.

Thank you. Under your direction, Mr. Vought, at the National Institutes of Health last year, grants for Alzheimer's and aging research were cut almost 50 percent. Mental health, 47 percent. New grants for cancer research, 23 percent. And as I read the budget that you're here presenting today, the Trump regime's response is that medical research has not yet been cut sufficiently. Doesn't your budget propose another 12 percent cut at the National Institutes of Health?

Most of which you said is untrue. NIH was not cut at all last year. We proposed a series of reforms to lower the cost, we continue although not as much to lower the cost this year... Most of what you said is untrue. NIH was not cut at all last year. We proposed a series of reforms to lower the cost. We continue, although not as much, to lower the cost this year.

Reclaiming my time, my question to you is, don't you propose to cut the National Institutes of Health by another 12 percent?

We propose to have a cut to the National Institute of Health that goes after specific programs like the Minority Health Disparity Institute, the Fogarty Center...

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, if the gentle, if the gentleman will please yield, he can filibuster when he's in the Senate. What we do know as far as the truth is that there were fewer grants for new cases last year at NIH than at any time in the last 30 years. Is it your feeling and proposing further cuts at NIH that there are just not enough worthwhile projects out there, or that we cannot afford to invest more in doing something about Alzheimer's, cancer, Parkinson's, HIV, other dread concerns?

There are many worthy health investments out there. I think post-COVID for an institution that contributed to the pandemic itself with the funding of gain-of-function research to give that institution $42 trillion, which is more than it got under the COVID pandemic, the kind of is very generous. The kinds of things that we're trying to do with the National Institute of Health, indirect cost rates, we don't think when Bill Gates gives 10 percent for parking and administrative costs and buildings that that should go...

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, after give, reclaiming my time, after giving last year fewer grants than at any time in the last 30 years, you're proposing further cuts there. And of course, the cuts are not only to medical research, but is it correct that in your budget you would cut the National Science Foundation, which is in the past provided grants that helped on artificial intelligence, on laser eye surgery, on MRI technology, among others, that you propose to cut it by 55 percent?

We have a sizeable cut to National Science Foundation...

Yes, sir, over half of the funding.

But it will not impact our investments on artificial intelligence, quantum...

Well, that's, that's good to know because you're the, you may be the only person along with President Trump who believe that. Reading from the director of a consortium of research universities, he says your budget cuts are the equivalent of working in a company that feels like it's on the verge of bankruptcy. Another one says slow scientific progress threatening the nation's position in the world economy. And that's one of my concerns because when you eliminate these research budgets, you impact long-term economic growth. Are you aware that one international organization has recently said already the United States has fallen behind China when it comes to research?

We have no doubt in our mind that we are going to still be the leading innovator, funder of research, both private and public. Our view is that we want to make sure that there's a dollar that's actually well spent on research and not...

Yes, sir, and thank you very much. I'll accept that as your disagreeing with the international organization that says we've already fallen behind China. Do you agree that the impact of federal research dollars helps to stimulate private investment? In fact, one estimate is every federal dollar generating eight times as much in private investment on research.

Mr. Congressman, I don't think the Fogarty International Center, which is at the NIH, should spend 224,000 for a survey on how Buddhism creates HIV stigma in Thailand. That's what your hard-earned tax dollars is going to fund under the guise of research investment. I don't think 20,000 should go to evaluate...

Well, that's fine, Mr., that's fine, Mr. Vought. Thank you. It's fine that you go through and eliminate any project like that, but that doesn't justify providing the fewest number of grants for these key dread diseases in 30 years. I want to ask you about the comment that was referred to by President Trump about the fact that we can't afford daycare at the federal level. And of course, your budget provides no increase in funding for childcare, does it?

We flat fund childcare, which you would not get from your question.

Flat fund. And you also eliminate the program, do you not, that provides assistance for some people with heating and air conditioning, the LIHEAP program? You terminate that entirely.

It is a historically fraudulent program.

Do you terminate it entirely or not?

We we do not have funding for LIHEAP because we believe in the moment where we are fighting fraud...

Unfortunately, of of all the many things the President says he wants to cut, you have not gotten to Medicare in this budget yet. I guess that will be the next one. That's coming up next is Medicare because as the President said, that's a state function. Well, many of us believe it's a vital program to protect the health of our people. We don't want to see what happened to it that what happened to Medicaid already and to the Affordable Care Act happens to Medicare, and that's very much what's at stake here. I yield back.

Can I address that, Mr. Chairman?

30 seconds.

We do not believe that LIHEAP should go to incarcerated individuals and dead people. It is a notoriously fraudulent program by the same experts that the ranking member continues to cite on a number of other issues.

Well, I'm sure the dead people argument applies just about as much as it did to President Trump's claim that people that were 350 years old were getting Social Security. It's all phony.

Gentleman's time has expired. My friend from Texas, time has expired. Gave the gentleman an opportunity to answer your question or respond. Mr. Tom McClintock, you have five minutes.

Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I were the ranking member, I'd be very careful about reproaching this administration on inflation. We need to remember every dollar that you had the day that Biden and the Democrats took power was worth only 79 cents the day they left office. Compare that to Trump's first term, every dollar when he took office was still worth 92 and a half cents when he left office. And since he's returned to office, a dollar on inauguration day is still worth 97 cents today. That's still too much inflation, but it's a fraction of what we suffered because of the spending spree that the Democrats unleashed and that produced the worst inflation that Americans have suffered in 40 years. He's correct that gas prices have increased to more than $4 a gallon nationally as a result of the international supply disruption. But that's brief and temporary. If the ranking member's concerned about long-term gas prices, I invite him to come to California where the Democrats' war on fossil fuels has caused the highest gas prices in the United States. It was $6.19 a gallon yesterday in Sacramento. And that's a long-term problem caused by the very policies that his colleagues advocate nationally. Mr. Vought, I don't need to lecture you about the precarious condition of our nation's finances, and I believe the domestic reforms that you're proposing are an essential element in restoring fiscal responsibility. But I take a very different view of grants and subsidies than Mr. Doggett. In my view, grants and subsidies are the root of all fiscal evil. Specifically, grants to politically connected organizations where there's little oversight or accountability, grants to pay for local projects that benefit one community at the expense of another. If the federal government needs a good or service it can't produce itself, it ought to send out an RFP, award a contract to the lowest responsible bidder, and then hold that bidder accountable to the terms of the contract. Subsidies cost us hundreds of billions of dollars. They substitute consumer judgment with the judgment of politicians, which both reduces the quality of life of Americans and the overall prosperity of our country, and again goes to well-connected business interests. How do you see things and how does your budget rein in this waste?

Thank you, Congressman. This is one of the areas where we've really tried to tighten how federal dollars are spent, looking at NGOs that are the ones that are sending this money out the door. Many of our concerns on the foreign aid was because they were going through NGOs that don't share this administration's perspective on a host of issues. And we are very concerned with regard to nonprofits that are in receipt of these grant programs and have a counter a very different governing philosophy than this administration. So we're going to do everything we can. This is a $70 billion cut to non-defense discretionary. Many of these are at the grant programs that you're specifically talking about. When you're $39 trillion in debt, you can't begin to deal with the non-defense side if you're not willing to pull back on these grant programs that unfortunately, even if you were to assume that they are a dollar spent is a dollar advertised, when you dig into it, you find that that's quite frankly not the case.

Yeah. The Manhattan Institute's economists estimated that just in California, $180 billion has been lost to fraud just during the administration of Governor Gavin Newsom. Federal taxpayer dollars that were entrusted to him to manage. That's $180 billion, that's roughly $4,500 for every man, woman, and child living in California. We've seen whistleblower testimony of billions of dollars lost to Somali fraud in Minnesota while Governor Tim Walz went after the whistleblowers. We've heard an audio tape of Minnesota Attorney General meeting with Somali fraudsters as they assured themselves that they had each other's backs, their words. How much do you estimate is lost to fraud in these programs and what are you proposing to do about it?

Our administration cares deeply about the fraud problem that we have in this country, particularly in many blue states across the country as we've seen in Minnesota that you've identified in California. We've established a a fraud task force with the Vice President in the lead, and part of that is to remove government barriers that may be working to be able to ensure that people are prosecuted for fraud or that they don't have the resources to investigate it in these programs. We want to make sure the Department of Justice is going after fraudulent claims. We want to make sure that the agencies have that resource and we want to get after this. We believe that fraud destroys the American people's view of government quite frankly. If you're on the other side of the aisle, I think it destroys people's view of what the social safety net should be. And so it's vital on a bipartisan basis that we get after the fraud in our country, and this administration's going to do it like never before.

But as we learn from the Ellison audio tape, it does enrich their supporters. I yield back.

Mr. Bobby Scott from Virginia for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, you outlined the Biden administration. I want to reiterate some of the things that the ranking member said, including out of 48 months in the Biden administration, 47 of those had job growth. The only month that there was a job loss was the month that Trump had come in and actually was President for significant part of that month. On average monthly gain in jobs about 300,000 over over the Biden administration. And that compares to five months of job loss already run up by this administration, five months of job loss and an aggregate total that doesn't even amount to one month's average month of job growth in the Biden administration. I heard the Chairman mention bailing out pension funds. I think he's referring to the fact that in the American Rescue Plan, we saved a million people's pensions. They were losing their pensions, not wasn't their fault, but they were about to lose their pensions and we saved those pension plans and pensions in the American Rescue Plan Act, and I think that was a good thing if you ask those who were about to retire whether they thought it was a good thing, I think most would would agree. When inflation, the ranking member pointed out that we had global inflation under Biden. The American Rescue Plan Act and the other spending, I think most experts said added a little bit of marginal inflation, but the spending also included in the American Rescue Plan Act for families of four about $5,000 in stimulus checks, $6,000 in child tax credits, many received enhanced SNAP benefits and lower Obamacare premiums. And the question of whether it worked, if you looked at the end of the year, credit card delinquencies were the lowest in 30 years. Child poverty dropped 40 percent. So I think it worked. And inflation under Trump, as the ranking member's pointed out, specific policies like tariffs, inflation, and the war have added to inflation. And as far as 15 million losing their healthcare is a good thing because they might be getting jobs, all of the information that we've received from states that have imposed work requirements on Medicaid and SNAP have found virtually no increase in jobs. So if you have, Mr. Vought, any evidence that people will get jobs as a result of that other than just people losing their healthcare, we'd like to see it. Now, in the CBO estimates that that big, you said the bill had a lot of different names, big ugly bill is one of the names we like to call it. With interest, that's going to add about $4 trillion to the debt. What what is your estimate of the damage done to the fiscal situation by that bill?

It will reduce the deficit by $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years if you account for the right baseline, Congressman.

Okay. So everybody thinks it's going to add about 4 trillion to the debt and you think it's going to save money. Eisenhower was the last Republican President to leave to Democrats a lower deficit measured by a percentage of GDP, which is a normal measurement, a lower deficit than they they inherited. Do does this administration plan to leave a lower deficit than the one they inherited and if so, are tax increases part of that plan?

The fiscal situation was very steep when we inherited and what we inherited from the Biden administration. We're doing everything we possibly can. I think the things that we did this year collectively with the Congress, as I've said, is the end of fiscal futility. For 20, 30 years, and you all know that I'm a budget person, worked on the Budget Committee as a staffer for members, I know this place well. There was no success. A lot of people talked about the issue...

Well, the it was a simple question. Do you plan to leave a better do you plan to leave a better deficit than you inherited?

This is intentionally a discretionary budget proposal. We don't give you what our deficits long-term are in here intentionally trying to make progress.

Let me let me ask another let me ask another question. What does the budget assume for the future of the Department of Education, especially the Office of Civil Rights, if Congress fails to vote to abolish the department?

Well, as you know in this budget, we both reflect the fact that we are trying to close the Department of Education, but that substantial resources will continue to flow to communities for education. There's only a 2 percent reduction in this budget for that particular department. And what's interesting about the bill that thankfully you all voted for is that you voted to endorse many of the restructurings that we did. You voted to eliminate USAID. You voted not to have Corporation for Public Broadcasting when you voted for that that omnibus bill, those bills that worked its way through. And so our belief is that we make as progress on the ground with these agencies, Department of Education included, with interagency agreements to transfer work where we think that can be better done, that we're going to make the case to Congress in a way that affirms and and enacts those those reforms long-term.

Gentleman's time has expired. You mentioned me, Mr. Scott. The jobs essentially and virtually were 100 percent government jobs. Now, I could create as many government jobs as you want if we just spend a bunch of money. The second piece was the Butch Lewis Act essentially. Look, we had to do something, you're right, for these retirees. But we needed to do it and fix the structural problems so then we didn't end up where we where we were in the first place. And so my criticism is it was a bailout because there weren't policy reforms to prevent us from being back in that same situation.

Well, I'll work with you I'll work with you I'll work with you on making some policy changes to make sure it doesn't happen again.

You got it. You got it. Thank you. Yielding five minutes now to my colleague from the Hoosier State, Mr. Stutzman.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Director, thank you for for being here today. I want to touch on a couple things, but I want to give you plenty of time to give us some answers specifically to something that you said that, you know, the era of, you know, big spending is over. Hopefully that's for good, but I appreciate what this administration has done and then also tariff policies. But since it is tax day today, I do want to point out that the big beautiful bill has made a huge impact for Hoosiers. This year the average Hoosier is seeing a tax cut of $3,037. I mean, that is real money in their pocket. Eliminating the death tax, it's huge for farmers. It protects over 2 million families from a tax penalty for for passing their farm to the next generation. The auto, the no tax on auto loan interest is huge for Indiana and the auto belt. Those are all, that's just a couple of things. Of course, no tax on tips, which we talk a lot about. No tax on overtime. It is an incentive for over 80 million hourly workers to keep more of their their hard-earned money in their own pocket. And so thank you for your leadership and what you're doing on that. I do want to just point out real quick, the folks that were in here earlier that were talking about PEPFAR, only about 40 percent of PEPFAR funds supported actual service delivery, including medications, testing, commodities, and on and on, with the remaining 6 percent wasted on duplicative administrative costs, unwieldy supply chains, and layers of endless bureaucracy. In the last administration, under the Biden administration, PEPFAR funded health workers who performed over 21 abortions in Mozambique. They are promoting reproductive health education and access to birth control and other harmful programs couched under family planning in Ghana. So thank you for what you've been doing in eliminating wasteful spending. So talking about wasteful spending, you know, people at home are trying to make ends meet. And with the big beautiful bill and the cuts in spending, we're putting more money back in their pocket. But it's the policies of the past that have driven insurance costs up. It has driven utility prices up. Inflation has been a a tax on the American people and what the big beautiful bill and what you're doing with the administration is bringing those costs down. Can you talk a little bit about tariff policy broadly and how we should look at that and then also you talked of the end of big spending and where we're saving dollars for the American taxpayer?

Sure, thank you Congressman. I mean tariff policy is a part of how we believe we need to address the fiscal situation of the country along with spending reductions, along with savings and reforms. And I don't want to suggest that the work is over with regard to spending. We have a lot to do. I'm a balanced budget guy. This administration is typically always putting forward budgets that are getting to balance over some period of time. That is important work. And my point is though to draw attention to the fact that you can talk about the problem for a long time, but if you don't actually make progress in that direction, you haven't done anything. And I think that is what we've tried to really emphasize. Tariffs are a part of that fiscal picture. So, you know, we believe there will be trillions that come in from tariffs. We've seen that in the first year. We don't believe the Supreme Court's decision will impact that much at all. We had a backup plan to allow us to keep those trillions of dollars from tariffs that are contributing to our fiscal picture, somewhere in the neighborhood about 4.7 trillion of new America First tariffs that this fiscal picture is now able to assume. And as a result, along with the spending reductions in the one big beautiful bill, the trajectory from the non-defense side of what you all were able to vote on to end or hopefully soon end this fiscal year, we came into office with $32,000,000,000,000 staring us in deficits. We've got that down in one year to $18,000,000,000,000. I think we'll probably hear a theme of which is we have a lot of work to go, but we've gotten a lot of work done and we will continue to do that work as evidenced by this budget with savings and reforms wherever we can find them.

Yeah, thank you. Well, you know, in the long run, I would love to see us move away from income taxes, especially since today's April 15. You know, I know there's a lot of discussion around tariffs on our side on how they affect the American people, but I think that it balances and it levels a playing field, especially with China and competition. I come from a manufacturing district and how they can, you know, pay low labor costs, their utilities are subsidized, they can produce much cheaper because that's the way they play compared to us. And I think tariffs is a way to level the playing field with a country especially like China. So thank you again for your leadership on these.

Gentleman's time has expired. I now yield five minutes to my colleague Mr. Scott Peters from California.

Thank you. Director, thank you for being here today. The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 says that the executive cannot unilaterally withhold congressionally appropriated funds without a rescission or deferral request submitted to Congress. Director, has OMB withheld or delayed the obligation of funds appropriated by this Congress without submitting rescission or deferral notices?

We have fully complied with the Impoundment Control Act. As you probably know, we are not fans of the Impoundment Control Act. We think it's unconstitutional. The President ran against it. However, we have complied with it.

Okay, but you didn't answer the question. Did you, did you withhold congressionally appropriated funds without a rescission or deferral request submitted to Congress? That's yes, right?

Not in violation of the Impoundment Control Act. We have...

Did you ever submit rescission or deferral? Did you ever submit? Did you ever submit? Did you ever submit rescission or deferral requests to Congress? Have you submitted?

We submitted a rescissions package last year and actually two. We continue to do programmatic reviews...

To Congress?

Of programs. That is not a withholding under the Impoundment Control Act.

Did you submit it to Congress?

We don't need to submit if we're, Congressman, if we're just assessing a program for waste, fraud, and abuse.

I understand you don't think you have to, but I'm just trying to establish you did not, right? You did not, right? You did...

Well, it is, we submitted rescissions bills to Congress last year. Two of them.

Okay. But not, not deferral notices that you were withholding.

They're not deferrals under the Impoundment Control Act.

Okay. The, the Government Accountability Office has already found that the administration illegally withheld nearly $8,000,000,000 in NIH grants, $7,000,000,000 for funding to support K through 12 public schools nationwide, and hundreds of millions of dollars for Head Start programs across the country. Do you dispute GAO's findings?

Yes. GAO is typically wrong. They're very partisan. They are typically on the exact opposite of wherever the Trump administration is, unfortunately. I know you all look to them. They are a branch of the legislative body. We have a very different view with regard to the merit of their opinions and so it's not surprising to me that they have a different view on that.

Do you have a legal opinion on that?

We defend to the hilt all of our legal decisions. Most of the time with regard to GAO, we don't have to...

Have you gotten a formal legal opinion on that?

Actually, most of the time we will put out from OMB a defense in response of any of the GAO, not always, but we try to be very forward-leaning in articulate because we feel like we have the moral and legal high ground every time we make a decision.

I'm sure you feel like you have the moral and legal high ground. I get that impression. I would just ask Mr. Chairman for the record that we add without objection the decision from GAO of August 5 and July 23 on Head Start and NIH impoundment.

Without objection, so ordered.

You know, I understand that the GAO's part of the government you don't like. We don't get to decide what parts of the government we follow and we don't. We have laws that are there for a reason and I guess we should expect that you would abide by those procedures. But you know, whether it's tariffs or the wall or the way you've manipulated the budget, the administration just does not want to deal with Congress. And I have to say to my colleagues in general that we've reached a point where if something's not going well in this administration, the response is not let's do something different, the response is well Biden did it worse. It is absolutely irrelevant. Joe Biden is gone. You guys won that election. We don't dispute the results of elections. You won the election. Joe Biden's gone. Our job is today, what do we do in 2026 to make things better? And I don't, this budget will not meet that three percent target that we set without aggressive, aggressive growth assumptions, which I don't think we're going to see. But why are we talking about Joe Biden? Joe Biden's been gone for two years. Doesn't matter. Doesn't matter. The other thing I'd suggest is, you know, one of my colleagues, Mr. Smucker, said Democrats don't care about fraud. And I just want to just call that out a little bit because if Mr. Smucker and I sat down together, I think we could have a discussion about fraud. I think we do care about fraud. We want to know what's real fraud and what's not real fraud. But I ask you not to question my motives. Don't say that. I will pledge to you that I will bash your policies. I think you guys are wrong. I think you're wrong, but I don't question your motives. I think everyone in this room is a patriot that wants to do the right thing for the country. And when we make each other our enemies, the Democrats versus Republicans, this is the weakest that we can create the weakest situation we can create for this country. When we are really not thinking of ourselves as colleagues, but as enemies who don't care about stuff, I think that's really something we should stay away from. And you know, I think I'm sort of least worried about Mr. Smucker because he's a friend, I know him, but I hear this all the time. Let's not question each other's motives. I think you guys are really wrong on the policy. I don't think that what you're doing is good for kids, but it doesn't mean I don't think you care about kids. I just think you're wrong on the policy. And so maybe if we can get away from questioning each other's motives, we can start to get back to a level of collegiality that maybe we can focus on policies. But it is 2026, folks. It is not 2023. It is not 2024. Joe Biden doesn't matter. Okay? It's what matters today is what's going on today, what is this Budget Committee's job. We are not getting to the three percent target we all agreed to a few weeks ago from the gate. And I just want to say that we have a lot of work to do, but

The gentleman is making some fair and fine remarks and I have the utmost respect for him, but we're over time. I do think that Mr. Smucker's comments were intended to be on record, contrasting on record, not on motive. However that came out, I believe it was about the record, not the motive. But I appreciate your comments. Let's move

Saying we don't care about something is a personal attack.

Let's go to Chuck Edwards now for five minutes, our colleague from North Carolina.

Thank you Mr. Chair. Director Vought, thanks for being here. Before I get to my questions, I've got to make a number of the committee members here aware and I want to express my appreciation to you. A number of us had a meeting a few weeks ago and I expressed my concerns about the velocity of which funding was coming out of FEMA going to Western North Carolina. In that meeting, you invited me to the White House that very afternoon and I'm really proud and appreciative and I want the committee members that were there to know that within a number of hours, $173,000,000 was distributed to Western North Carolina. So thank you, thank you very much for that. I've got more questions than I'm going to have time, so I'm just going to jump right in. The President's budget currently reduces CDBG-DR funding by $3.3 billion. That type of funding is critical to Western North Carolina and it's my job representing Western North Carolina to make sure that we've got the resources that we need to rebuild. About $2,000,000,000 in CDBG-DR funding has already been allocated to North Carolina. We had a storm of epic proportion September 27, 2024, that we estimate cost about $60,000,000,000. And yet we've only received about $2,000,000,000 in CDBG-DR funding. Admittedly, the drawdown of that is operating somewhat slowly. But the fact that we're reducing, that the President's budget reduces the CDBG-DR funding by $3.3 billion and cites, and this is probably accurate, that that program fails to target communities in need and that it's somewhat of a slush fund. I would just appeal to you and say that any of that funding that comes to Western North Carolina right now is not being used as a slush fund. We've got $60,000,000,000 in damage to recover from and only a fraction in CDBG-DR. And so my question for you is rather than just cutting that under the pretense that that fund is failing to target communities in need, would you be open, would the President be open to talking about some ways that we can better target communities in need?

Always hope open to that kind of conversation and as you know there's some bills moving through regarding the authorization of CDBG-DR of which the disaster recovery part of it is not authorized. Always open to that kind of conversation and as you know, there's some bills moving through regarding the authorization of CDBG-DR, of which the disaster recovery part of it is not authorized. So when we talk about the CDBG program, we're talking about that typical formula program that goes to paving sidewalks in Greenwich, Connecticut, which I think is an improper use of federal taxpayer funds. When we're in $39 trillion in debt, I think we need to look very closely at those types of funding programs and to make sure that somewhere in the federal government people and communities are getting the funds that they need, but we do have issues with that program, particularly the non-disaster part. And if there's an issue with regard to North Carolina not getting its DR, I'm happy to go back and try to figure out where that is.

All right. Thank you for that. That's more conversation I think that we need to have because we have a number of businesses that have been wiped out, a number of homes, schools, local governments that have not been made whole yet. I think I think we could find a way to direct those funds and target the specific needs. One other question real quick. And this is regard to Capital Magnet Fund. Those dollars funded outside the appropriations process through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac fee revenue have been transferred to Treasury but reportedly haven't been apportioned by OMB. CDFIs are one of the most effective tools that we have for increasing affordable housing, especially in rural and hard-to-serve communities like I represent. Can you tell us, what is the status of the fiscal year 2026 apportionment for the Capital Magnet Fund and when can CDFIs expect those resources to be released so they can move forward on affordable housing projects?

Thanks, Congressman. We have released the 25-26 CDFI funds, but I will tell you this is a program that I think needs oversight from Congress. If you look at what these CDFIs were funding, many of them continue to be woke. They continue to be pushing an ideology that is very harmful. I'll just give you a sense, 4.9 for Local Initiative Support Corporation that publishes blogs condemning the level of whiteness in community development. In addition, when a CDFI does a loan, it is exempt from ability to repay requirements. So you're getting a loan on the books that is not necessarily as sound and secure as one that would come from a typical bank. So we have issues with this program. The president proposed to eliminate this program in an EO. It's why you see a reduction in our budget. We eliminate the main program and then we have a new $100 million program for what we would think of as new rural CDFIs that I think can be more targeted. So I get the question and that but that's where we're coming from.

The gentleman's time has expired.

Thank you very much. I yield.

I yield five minutes to my friend from California, Mr. Panetta.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member. Director, it's good to have you here before the Budget Committee, although I agree with the Ranking Member it shouldn't have taken this long. And unfortunately, though, that we've seen is that that delay to me is one of many examples of the broader disregard by this administration for Congress and for our system of checks and balances. Now, don't get me wrong, executive authority exists. We get that. We understand that. But it does not extend to the administration unilaterally withholding funding that's been appropriated by Congress. I'm not just saying that, the law mandates it. Impoundments occur when the administration refuses to implement federal expenditures authorized and appropriated by Congress and enacted in law. In fact, there's been 235 years of constitutional interpretation, case law, and statute which have made that clear, that once a law is enacted, the executive branch is not permitted to refuse to execute that law. An impoundment would basically replace the rule of law with the rule of one person. Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution clearly gives Congress the power of the purse that states that no money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequences of appropriations made by law. And the Constitution mandates that the president take care that the laws be faithfully executed. Now, as we heard today and as you know, in 1973, President Nixon attempted to impound billions of dollars of enacted clean water appropriations over the objection of Congress. And as you know, in Train v. City of New York, the Supreme Court unanimously disagreed with President Nixon. That decision was even relied upon as precedent in the court's 98 decision striking down President Clinton's use of a line-item veto to block certain portions of a spending bill. As you know, Nixon's attempt at impoundment was the basis for the 74 Impoundment Control Act, which banned impoundments. Yet despite that law, despite those Supreme Court rulings, and as you mentioned today, this president, this administration, and you believe that impoundment is within the president's power. Your general counsel argued that nearly all enacted laws are merely just suggestions and guidelines that give the president and the executive branch substantial discretion to follow, alter, or even disregard. Your administration basically asserts that a president has mandate to eliminate spending to balance a budget by any means necessary. The problem with that though, Director, is that the Constitution of the United States does not have a presidential mandate exception. And when it comes to impoundment, there is no language in the Constitution that makes it optional. If this administration continues to impound our appropriated spending, you are basically eliminating Congress's power of the purse. You are basically cutting off Congress in the budget process. And I think as members of this committee, that is something we should continue to push back on. But since this Congress, especially with the leadership in this Congress, has given up that power and let this happen, the courts thankfully have been the bulwark against you and your impoundments and your elimination of programs. Your attempt to lay off CFPB employees got struck down in NTEU v. Vought. The preliminary injunction was granted to stop your attempts to withhold congressionally appropriated funds from the National Endowment for Democracy. The Council for Opportunity in Education v. Department of Education, there was a preliminary injunction to stop the releasing of federal TRIO funding. In Pasito v. Trump, there was another preliminary injunction to suspend the U.S. Refugee Assistance Program. And in the City of Chicago v. DHS, the administration tried to impound FEMA's Shelter and Services Program, but that was stopped by a court. In the National Council of Nonprofits v. OMB, the administration tried to put a government-wide funding freeze and that was stopped by the courts. In the National Fair Housing Alliance v. HUD, HUD refused to release Fair Housing Initiatives Program's funding and that was stopped by the courts. Director, given these court decisions, given the Constitution of the United States, given the law of this land, do you still believe in impoundments?

200 years of presidents had the ability to set spend less money than Congress provided.

Once again, Director, do you believe in impoundments?

Of course I believe in impoundments.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. That's...

The Supreme Court has never spoken on this issue, by the way. All of what you said is largely not true and heavily nuanced.

In regards to Train v. City of New York...

No, it's not true. It was not on impoundment, it was a textural issue.

And isn't it true that Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution clearly gives Congress the power of the purse? Isn't that correct?

To set the limit to set the limit on what an appropriation should be.

And despite all this, you still believe in impoundments, correct?

We believe vitally in the Constitution's ability to to make sure that we can't spend a dollar that you haven't appropriated. That is the constitutional provision.

And once again, Director, reclaiming my time, once again, that is why I believe this Congress needs to push back. We're not seeing it with this leadership, but come November of this year, the American people are going to make sure that you understand what impoundments are about. Thank you and I yield back.

The gentleman's time has expired. I yield five minutes to my friend from Texas, Mr. Roy.

I thank the Chairman. I thank you, Director Vought, for your appearance here today. I thank you for what you've been doing for the country. And on impoundment, let me just ask you a question so the average American can understand what we're talking about. You're talking about the power of the president to reduce spending where appropriate in certain areas, but not to actually spend additional money, correct?

Absolutely correct.

So we're talking about a ceiling and Congress says we're going to spend X and the president says, you know what, maybe just maybe somebody ought to be responsibly looking at how we spend money and say that we're not going to spend every single dollar that has been put in that account. Is that roughly what we're saying?

Correct. If Congress has given us the charge and said here's X billion dollars on nursing facilities across the country and you give us a number and we can do it less than you have given us, why on earth would we not spend less? And the American people benefited this from for 200 years. And as a result in 1974, now we have a system where agencies and bureaucracies push the money out the door at the end of the fiscal year so we have big screen TVs and copy machines in every agency across the federal government trying to make sure that Congress knows that they have spent every last dollar up to that ceiling.

And in fact, has Congress given you any indication or belief that they are willing to constrain spending as a body?

Well, until this last year where we had the end of fiscal futility, the we sent hundreds of billions of dollars in cuts and reforms in the first Trump administration, all of which were ignored.

But now we've changed course to some degree. And that's what I want to talk to you about trajectory. Because trajectory matters and I think that's what you're getting at in your testimony. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but that shifting the direction in order to try to get some sort of fiscal sanity in this country. Is it true or false that the vast majority of the deficit increases out into the say even just over the 10-year budget window are coming from Medicare and Social Security?

There are structural entitlements and mandatory programs that are a big mathematical driver of the deficits that we're seeing.

But for Social Security, Medicare, we're talking 2.2 trillion to 4.4 trillion. We're talking about a significant growth in deficits as a result of those programs. Is that a fair assessment?

That's a fair assessment.

Right. My point of bringing that up is is none of that is a part of your budget for the most part, correct?

There are no mandatory reforms unless there is a tie to a discretionary proposal.

And in what we tried to accomplish in the big beautiful bill last summer, where we were able to get reforms to Medicaid, we were able to actually transform policies, get people off of welfare to work, try to stop all of the wasteful spending in the green new scam subsidies and create economic growth through tax policy, and none of that were we addressing Social Security or Medicare. Is that correct?

Nothing in this budget addresses or over the next year Social Security or Medicare.

Is it not important that what the president has been doing and what this Congress under Republican leadership has been doing to hold discretionary spending roughly flat? Is that roughly true over the last three years that we've managed to hold fiscal over the last three fiscal years discretionary spending roughly flat?

Yes, but we've actually gone beneath current law spending in both 25 and 26. We've reduced between a 17 billion and then $18 billion in spending.

In significant part because of our work to hold it flat both in the working Congress and the executive branch, but also with respect to rescissions. Is that correct?

Yes, sir.

Because of the work and the efforts of the administration to try to constrain that spending. If we're talking about a trajectory shift in this country, is holding discretionary spending flat or at a at a very low amount of growth important while we also have to go deal with those other issues driving the budget deficits?

It is absolutely critical and I would argue that's where you have to to begin because that's what Congress has a vote on every single year. And for a long time, I would argue 20 years, Congress did not really focus on the in each and every appropriations process on what they could do. We've seen a sea change in that over the last several years.

Is it not an important message for the for the country that Congress in dealing with its annual budget that it can actually control, that we show the fiscal discipline of holding that spending flat? And then to that question, we've got a budget before us that has a significant increase in defense spending for the purposes that I think the the Director has laid out. I don't need to repeat them. But that we need to defend our country as a core constitutional duty. That you've then constrained the vast majority of the other departments and agencies and funding in order to try to keep that spending relatively flat as we work out a mix of mandatory and discretionary and defense. Is that correct?

That's correct.

And the goal here is to keep that on a a low growth trajectory while we see if Congress in its infinite wisdom will ever step up to the plate to address Medicare and Social Security, knowing Social Security's scheduled to go bankrupt in 2032. Is that roughly correct?

Well, I think it's important to focus on where this Congress has focused on and as you know, the president believes that it's important to protect those two programs, Social Security and Medicare. This Congress has gone at it from the right perspective, which is going after fraud, waste and abuse, welfare reforms so that we get people back to work. I believe that is the way that we go after and get to a better fiscal situation is to have those type of reform efforts of which you were able to do with a very slim Congress.

I think I'm past my time. Just one last quick point. I would just appreciate being able to work with the Director and I know my friend the Chairman also a Texan to work I know Secretary Noem was working with us now Secretary Mullin no doubt will to achieve the $10 billion of of refund to the state of Texas and other states because of what we had to endure under the previous administration with open borders and expenditures to our budget. I assume that the Director will work with us to achieve that objective.

Happy to. We are working on that fund. We want to make sure all of the DHS funds are flowing. I will just say it's very critical that we get DHS funded. We're in this vital moment, it's precarious, where we are trying to pay all DHS employees for a period of time when that has not occurred. And I know that we're moving reconciliation to be able to pay for what the Senate Democrats have not been willing to fund. But we have to get those funds funded so that we can ensure that the allotments that you provided in the one big beautiful bill are able to go out.

I associate myself with the gentleman's comment. Appreciate the response, Mr. Vought. Now yield five minutes to Ms. Watson Coleman of New Jersey.

Thank you. So I was just trying to figure out where could I find a needle large enough to burst the bubble that you guys live in. Because you're not living in reality and you're creating a narrative and just because you say it, you think it's true. And so I've sat up here and I've listened to a whole bunch of explanations that don't in any way, shape, or form relate to reality. I got a couple of questions to ask you, sir. I'm going to start with one that's going to give you a moment to speak and then I'm going to ask you a series of yes and nos. And when I say yes or nos, I want yes or nos. What would you say right now to the mothers of the kids who've died because of your dismantling of USAID? Harvard study says there are more than 100,000 of them. Can you give me a quick response to what you would say to those mothers? Just don't talk to me about the study. Talk to me about how you what you would say to the mothers of the children who've died.

Congresswoman, with great respect, I would just contest the extent to which institutions that benefit from federal largesse put out studies that say that the world has ended, that the world has not in fact ended. We only cut USAID spending last year to the tune about $8 billion. There was far more that we could have done, Congresswoman.

Reclaiming my time. If a mother came before you who told you that her child died because she didn't have access to healthcare or medicine that usually would be available because of the kindness of the United States of America that you and this administration have eliminated, would you have anything of empathy, compassion, and humanity to say to her? Would you say to her, I am sorry, that was a mistake?

I always have empathy for individuals, including those that get improper and false information from the media that pumps this false and ignorant information out to the American people.

Thank you. You know, I am so sorry to hearing false, fraud, and abuse from any of my colleagues and even from you. Because if we wanted to eliminate abuse and fraud, we'd eliminate the President of the United States from the office right now and the rest of the sycophants in his administration that are allowing him to do so many illegal things. So let here's my yes or nos. This is about your budget and this is about your priorities. Do you think that it is more important to fight a war of choice with a country that represented no threat to us rather than supporting cuts to Economic Development Administration, to K through 12 programs, to Community Service Block Grants, to National Institute of Health, to the TSA, to the and let me speak something about the TSA. Any time you wanted to spend money to pay DHS, you could. Because this President thinks he's a king and can do what he wants to do and if he wanted to pay those DHS workers, he could have because he finds money to do everything else he wants to do. What about the money that goes to homeless assistance programs? That's $393 million. Or $60 million for fair housing. Or eliminating or cutting Job Corps to the point that it's of no help to getting people on the right direction. And even the money for Community Development Financial Institutions. Sir, do you think that those programs which address the quality of life, the opportunity of life, the healthiness of the people in this country, including their access to healthcare, is less important than fighting a freaking war across the world that never, ever, ever had to be started? Yes or no is all I want.

It's not a war of choice.

Just say yes or no.

It's not a war of choice. It's an important national security objective.

Yes or no. That's all I want from you.

It is an important national security objective that Iran not...

That is another that is another piece of the bubble that you live in. And that's another part of the information that you all share to create a narrative that has nothing to do with reality. And the people of this country are showing you location by location, state by state, county by county, and city by city that they don't believe you all anymore. And let me talk to you a little bit with my three minutes or three seconds about the cost of living. You keep talking about what you saved here and what you saved there and how you saved this one and how you are more diligent in your savings. Well, the people in this country, they don't feel it with their healthcare, they don't feel it with the gas they got to put in their cars, they don't feel it when they go to the grocery store, they don't feel it when they try to avoid evictions. They don't feel that you all have stood up to any of your promises. That this is a unfortunately monetizing, lying, corrupt administration and you represent it.

The gentlelady's time has expired.

I yield my time.

We're now going to yield five minutes to Mr. Andrew Clyde from Georgia.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Director Vought, for testifying before us today. Apologize for the abuse you've had to take from the other side. President Trump's fiscal year 2027 budget builds on last year's progress to cut wasteful spending, promote economic growth, and invest in our armed forces to advance his peace through strength agenda, which I fully support. In fiscal year 2026, congressional Republicans delivered 12 more fiscally responsible appropriation bills, avoiding a bloated omnibus while reducing overall discretionary spending by approximately a billion dollars and non-defense discretionary spending by about 18 billion. Director Vought, with your help and the hard work and hard work, we also enacted the first successful rescissions package since really 1999, cutting nearly nine billion in wasteful spending, including cutting nearly four million that was scheduled to be used to promote LGBT democracy initiatives in the Western Balkans, cutting nearly 40 million for low-emission development in West Africa, and cutting nearly 25 billion scheduled for climate resilience programs in Honduras. Think about all those millions of taxpayer dollars that have been saved by and large part due to the incredible work of you, Director Vought, and of your staff, that some of them are here, and so thank you very much for your hard work as well. Building on that progress, President Trump's FY 27 budget continues to reduce wasteful spending, right-size bloated bureaucracies, and put the federal government on a more sustainable fiscal path. It cuts non-defense spending by 72 billion, roughly 10 percent, while continuing to invest in veterans, seniors, law enforcement, and farmers. These savings are achieved by continuing President Trump's promise to rid the government of woke and wasteful spending, end weaponization of the federal government, and terminate the Green New Scam. So, Director Vought, first, with the federal debt exceeding $39 trillion, how does the rising cost of debt service threaten the long-term viability of federal health programs, veterans' benefits, and other critical benefits for seniors, farmers, and other vulnerable populations?

Thank you, Congressman, and thank you for your leadership not just within this Congress but also within the Appropriations Committee on this. When you spend $1 trillion in interest costs every year, that for the first time has exceeded the national defense of this country. That should be a great warning light that we can't afford the government that we had. And just to give you a perspective, when I last left office the first time, we were somewhere in the neighborhood about $350 billion in interest costs. And so you saw that just escalate in just four short years. So that is something we can't afford and it will eventually crowd out other priorities. And it means that, you know, I got asked about whether we could adjust our spending proposal to meet this need or that, our margin is reduced when we have interest costs at that level. And that's why it's so important to get a handle on it and I appreciate the work that this Congress has done in particular in that in that vein.

Well, we will continue trying to make us more as fiscally responsible as possible. Within the President's budget, I noticed something new, a new initiative focused on the Second Amendment. $1.4 million to a new office within the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division dedicated to protecting the Second Amendment from unlawful infringement. I say finally and thank you. We are beginning to comply with our Declaration of Independence regarding the protection of unalienable rights endowed by our Creator. And it goes on to say, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men. That means our government is supposed to secure the rights endowed by the Creator. And this finally we have an office to secure one of the most incredible rights that we have and that is the right to keep and bear arms, the Second Amendment of the United States of our United States Constitution. So my question to you is, how do we best ensure that this office is aggressive in protecting the Second Amendment and will never allow it to become an office of gun control infringing on this critical constitutional right?

Well, thanks for the question. I think part of that is to trust the team that the President has that envisioned this office and then to continue to make sure that we give progress reports to the Appropriations Committee for those of you who have a great interest in this area and to make sure that over the long haul, that culture does not become completely reversed to that which what it was set up to do.

Would it help if we codified some of that?

I think that would be a great idea. Yeah.

Okay. All right. I'll work on it. Thank you. And I yield back.

Thank the gentleman, and now yield to Ms. Balint from Vermont, five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Vought, it's good to finally see you before the House Budget Committee. Mr. Vought, you lead the Office of Management and Budget, you're one of the architects of Project 2025, and OMB is a powerful agency that's at the center of President Trump's illegal refusal to spend federal money. Mr. Vought, I want to go over your political weaponization of this agency against the American people and specifically against those states that voted primarily for Democrats. Yes or no, Mr. Vought, a federal judge found that you terminated $7.6 billion in clean energy grants based on whether the recipient lived in a blue state, yes or no? In fact, in fact, Mr. Vought, on January 12, 2026, U.S. Judge Amit Mehta said, quote, "Defendants, meaning you, Mr. Vought, freely admit that they made grant determination decisions primarily, if not exclusively, based on whether the awardee resided in a state whose citizens voted for President Trump in 2024." Mr. Vought, yes or no, federal judges said OMB's freeze of $10 billion in childcare and family assistance funding, quote, "appeared designed to punish communities that the administration agreed with." Yes or no, was that something that federal judges said about you and your leadership?

I think the judge's characterization is getting at the degree to which we are focused on states that we think are mismanaged...

Okay, that is not in fact the case. In fact, U.S. District Judge Trina Thompson found the administration broke the law and froze funds as a politically motivated move disguised as fraud prevention. So your characterization actually is false. Other courts have said that withholding congressionally approved funding is, quote, "vindictive and unlawful." Courts have found that freezing funds create, quote, "irreparable harm against the American people." And the GAO, the Government Accountability Office, the watchdog agency that investigates how federal agencies spend taxpayer dollars, has reported that you broke the law multiple times and they have said that you have refused to spend money that was dedicated for Americans. The Constitution gives Congress, Congress the power to spend money and not the President. Mr. Vought, your actions clearly show that you want to cut federal funds from anyone who didn't vote for Donald Trump. Are you trying to get revenge on states that did not vote for your boss?

No, of course not. What's interesting about the question is that Joe Biden withheld federal funding...

Oh, for goodness sake, can we please bring it back to my question? It was a yes or no question. Are you trying to get revenge against blue states because they did not support the President? Courts have said that in fact you did do that. That in fact you are being vindictive. In fact you are punishing because of political persuasions. It's not members of Congress who suffer when you do an end run around Congress. That's not what I am angry about. It's not about you taking the power away from us. It's that it's their money. It's their power. Of the people, by the people, and for the people. The House is closest to the people. So when you do an end run around Congress, you're taking Americans' power. I want to move on now to wasteful government spending, particularly the $350 billion set aside for this, yes, war of choice against Iran included in this President's budget. His budget asks for a shocking surge in Pentagon spending up to $1.5 trillion. We have never in the history of this country seen spending like this, paid for by slashing healthcare, education, and housing. Donald Trump has said, as my colleagues have said earlier, we're fighting wars here, we can't take care of daycare. Mr. Vought, yes or no, is $350 billion for the war in Iran lowering costs for Americans? Those Americans who ask us in every single town hall why they can't afford to live in this country. Is the war lowering costs for Americans?

It is certainly not defunding childcare. We fully fund childcare in this budget.

Is it lowering costs for the American people?

But doesn't that get at the premise of your question?

You can find money for illegal wars in Iran. You can find money for all the pet projects of this administration, and yet we can't find money to alleviate the costs of food and housing and gas on the home front. But according to you...

We fully funded childcare, fully funded Head Start.

Mr. Vought, Mr. Vought, with the money that is set aside in this budget, the additional funding for the war in Iran, $350 billion, we could fund the ACA tax credits for 10 years, for a decade. And I can tell you what my constituents want to know. How is it that we can continue to spend money on foreign wars and yet we cannot find a solution to the fact that people can't afford healthcare? And again, in closing, I just want to say again, it's we're not so angry because you're taking our power, we're angry because you are taking the people's power. I yield back.

Thank the gentlelady, time has expired. If the gentleman wants to...

I would just say this President has been a person who has campaigned and led for peace and against endless wars.

So is it peace through war? Is that where we are right now, peace through war?

Ms. Balint, I'm giving our witness a time to respond to your question and then I'm going to yield five minutes to Mr. Estes. So finish the response uninterrupted and then let's go to Mr. Estes.

The President has also been equally clear that he is not going to allow a nuclear Iran. He is not going to allow them to have nuclear weapons. He is not going to allow them to have missiles and a navy that impacts our national security. And so he is doing what is necessary to keep us safe while at the same trying to pursue diplomacy so that we can get out of wars and lower those costs over time.

I thank the gentleman, yield five minutes to Mr. Estes from Kansas.

Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Director Vought, for being here at the Budget Committee to talk about the administration's priority and fiscal roadmap for the coming year. And I'll just start a deviate a little bit from my original remarks in terms of saying thank you for working to make the world safer against a nuclear Iran. I mean, they've spent 47 years chanting death to America and threatening nuclear reaction against so much of the world, not just the United States. And we need to make sure that bad actors in the world are contained. You know, we're at a critical moment in our nation's history, you know, as we look forward to celebrating the 250th anniversary of America. We need to ensure that the economic foundation that we leave for the next generation is one of stability and not crushing debt for families nationwide and for hardworking people in my district. I'm encouraged to see that this budget request prioritizes cutting wasteful spending and rooting out the kind of fraud that has plagued federal spending for so long. Earlier this year, I joined a group of bipartisan members to introduce House Resolution 981, the 3 percent resolution. Our objective is simple, to reduce the federal deficit to 3 percent of the GDP or lower within five years. Currently, our deficit is double that benchmark. I'm interested as we talk through this and talking about how some of your thoughts on your fiscal 27 budget request helps to get us towards that point. Just a quick overview of my district in Kansas, the Fourth Congressional District. I mean, we're proudly known in Wichita as the air capital of the world. We currently make 35 percent of all general aviation aircraft in the United States and are home to more than 450 aerospace suppliers. Working family tax cuts has been great jet fuel to help support and grow our economy in terms of making sure that we restore immediate R&D expensing and capital expenditures to help invest in the future. When we keep taxes low for workers and provide full expensing for factories, we're ensuring that high-tech, high-paying, high-tech jobs help maintain America's gold standard for global aviation. Beyond aerospace, the tax savings have amounted to a Kansas family saving between $3,400 and $6,100 in inflation-adjusted wages over the next four years. And focusing on so many good policies and helping make sure businesses like the small businesses take advantage of the 199A deduction. You know, as we focus on how do we make sure Main Street succeeds in America, whether it's in Wichita or Newton or Winfield or so many other communities across my district. And then just in a general comment, you know, the federal government lost $162 billion in improper payments in fiscal year 2024. And we can't ask Kansans to pay more to a government that's going to lose billions of dollars. Just in talking a little bit about you've talked about so many things already, the working family tax cut contained many healthcare provisions to eliminate some of that waste, fraud, and abuse in Medicare and Obamacare, ensuring that federal subsidies for healthcare go to those who are intended. Are there further reforms that Congress should consider to help reduce fraud throughout the healthcare system?

Potentially. We're working on that right now. One of the activities of the task force that we have for fraud is not just to surge resources to make sure people are prosecuted, but to really do a review of whether agencies have enough resources to do the fraud hunting, but also are there things that make it impossible for you to get at fraud? For instance, you know, a lot of times when we ask states for their rolls, we can't get it. And so what are your tools to withhold funding under the law mandatory programs until they give you those rolls? Those are the kinds of things that we are likely to come to you after we get through this next reconciliation package as it pertains to ways to combat fraud.

Yeah, which is a good point because the Democrat governor in my state actually has not been forthright in helping the federal government make sure that there's not waste, fraud, and abuse in some of those programs for that. You know, as mentioned earlier, the U.S. debt exceeds $39 trillion and you talked earlier about the cost of serving that debt, servicing that debt, paying over the trillion dollars in interest. And are there some specific examples or other areas as healthcare programs that are maybe crowded out because we do not have the money because of the interest cost?

Well, I think the extent to which the crowd-out will occur with interest payments and servicing the debt is ultimately the crisis in front of us. I mean, we've been able to absorb those interest costs from our interest payments, but we have to we actually have to treat this as the crisis that it is. And that's one of the reasons that this administration has been so dogged to support and champion reforms to make changes to how we do things, to at times think differently about our executive tools to control spending for the last 50 years, because we have a problem and we can't just continue to point at the problem, point at the interest cost, point at the deficit and just acknowledge that it's never going to be fixed. That's just not the way the President operates with regard to wanting to be in charge of solutions on these big problems facing the country.

Yeah. Well, thank you. Thank you for your effort to cut out the bloated spending and the waste. Thank you.

Thank the gentleman and lost my list to yield to Ms. Jayapal, my classmate from the great state of Washington, for five minutes.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Mr. Vought. Despite President Trump's promise to lower prices on day one, consumer sentiment plummeted to its lowest level on record last week. Gas prices are at a record high in Seattle, diesel is now over $7, and families are feeling this every time they go to the grocery store. Meanwhile, fraud reports have only gone up and efforts to hold big corporations accountable have just disappeared. So congratulations, Mr. Vought, you and Donald Trump have managed to successfully tank the futures of millions of Americans. Now, Republicans' so-called one big beautiful bill, which I notice our colleagues have literally changed the name of because it is so unpopular, it is not beautiful to strip healthcare from millions of Americans. That bill costs $4.7 trillion and is expected to make up 20 percent of the next decade's deficit. And it's all to pay for tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans and corporations. The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy just published a report that shows that Trump's policies are a tax increase for all Americans except the wealthiest 5 percent. So for 95 percent, those policies are a tax increase. Do you know, Mr. Vought, how many of the largest corporations in America paid absolutely nothing in federal income tax in 2025?

Not off the top of my head, but our view is that the tax policy...

Well, let me just tell you, let me just tell you, Mr. Vought, reclaiming my time, let me just tell you the number of corporations, large corporations, that paid absolutely zero in federal tax was 88 at least that we know of, including Tesla, which paid zero on almost $5.7 billion of income, as well as Coinbase, Citigroup, CVS Health, and Palantir. And those companies together had over $105 billion in profits. Now, meanwhile, Mr. Vought, what's the average income tax paid by Americans?

Look, Congresswoman, this bill that you are opposed to, that you voted against, is a way...

Do you know the answer to my question? Because I get to ask the questions here.

I understand, but you're asking...

So I'm asking you what the average income tax rate is that's paid by Americans.

And I'm suggesting that you were not a part of keeping tax rates low.

Okay, so you don't know, it's 14.5 percent. So while all these corporations paid nothing, average Americans are paying 14.5 percent. Now, are you aware that thanks to stripping healthcare from Americans, the middle 60 percent of Americans will pay $900 more on average than before Trump came in and created chaos with tariffs and healthcare and tax law that benefited the wealthiest? You can just say yes or no.

This administration did not strip healthcare and in fact we provided $50 billion for rural healthcare that you voted against.

Okay. In the President's budget request, you state that, quote, "it ensures that every taxpayer dollar makes Americans safer, stronger, and more prosperous." So please answer yes or no to these questions. According to one survey, one in six, that's 17 percent, returning ACA marketplace enrollees say they are not confident that they will be able to afford their premiums this year. Does that make Americans stronger and more prosperous?

It certainly makes it more prosperous to have a healthcare system that ensures that people who...

Okay, so you're okay with all these Americans not being able to afford their healthcare premiums. Now, you're trying to eliminate the Low Income Energy Assistance Programs while Trump's illegal Iran war raises gas prices, does that make Americans stronger and more prosperous?

It's important to not have fraudulent programs...

Oh, I'm so glad you asked about fraud, because you are coming back to ask for a $1.5 trillion budget for the Department of Defense. How many consecutive audits has the Department of Defense failed as of the end of 2025?

The department is making progress towards the audit...

How many audits has the Department of Defense failed? The number is eight. And Mr. Vought, the Department of Defense is the only federal agency that has never passed an audit. And you want to talk to me about fraud? There is over at least $10 billion in confirmed fraud within the Department of Defense, but you're not going after any of that. Now, let me turn to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, since you're also the acting director there. This was an agency that was established to protect consumers from financial predation, deception, fraud, and abuse from the biggest banks, biggest corporations, and the CFPB has stepped in and really done that work under the last administration. CFPB put real money back in consumers' pockets, returned over $21 billion to consumers who were cheated or scammed by big banks, giant corporations. It ordered Wells Fargo to pay over $2 billion and Bank of America to pay $727 million to consumers who were harmed. But you have a mission to eliminate the CFPB. Why are you protecting big corporations instead of consumers, Mr. Vought?

I'm not. CFPB caused $350 billion of added costs on consumers.

Mr. Vought, you are asking to reduce the CFPB's workforce to just one-third of its 2025 level, which means that the department that oversees the banks and other financial companies that hold trillions of dollars in mortgage, auto, credit card, and student loan debt would drop from 500 employees to just 77, and the enforcement department would only have 50 workers. What do you have to say to the millions of service members, veterans, older adults, and students that are seeing costs rise and now, because of your unprecedented rollback of consumer protection staff, have nobody at the agency that is actually policing those big corporations that are scamming consumers?

The gentlelady's time has expired.

We are policing it, and in fact, we do not believe that an agency that increased the cost on the American people should not have oversight. That's why we've reined it in.

It is clear to me that you are just protecting those biggest corporations, Mr. Vought, and you should be ashamed of that. I yield back.

Okay. Thank you for coming over here. We got the great... five minutes for Mr. Grothman.

I've been asking for this for a... so glad to see you. Couple things. Thanks for going into USAID. That was a bunch of social work programs and Americans are far too broke to pay for something like that. We hope you get rid of not just waste in programs, but get rid of some whole programs altogether. You know, everybody knows I was very disappointed in the big beautiful bill that we didn't get rid of the low-income housing tax credit, which is ridiculous, there's money out there to go after. In any event, one of my disappointments, I'd ask you to comment on it, is DOGE supposedly exposed a lot of people sitting in all agencies that were not necessary. And before I voted for the last defense bill, I thought I got a commitment they were going to try to reduce the number of non-uniform personnel. We had some people in, I think it was this room yesterday, one of these rooms, and they were not reducing non-defense spending. We know anecdotal evidence all around this building that people are sometimes getting paid to do nothing in the Department of Defense. Six figures. Can we get a commitment of you to make some something in the next budget here, a definite decrease in the non-uniform defense staff and other staff that we apparently haven't gone after like DOGE suggested?

We'll certainly look at it, Congressman, and just if I could, it builds on the Congresswoman's question from before. The notion that we're not trying to find any kinds of inefficiencies at the Department of Defense is not true. Our view is that we would want to plow those in to being able to invest in procurement and research. And so we are doing that, we have been doing that, the Secretary of Defense and the Deputy Secretary has been doing it, but as it pertains to your specific idea, we will put a fine point on that and take that back as a suggestion.

I don't think you're doing it enough. I mean, as I understand it, when Trump took over we had 770, we've knocked it back down to 690, and now it might be bouncing back up. And it's not a matter of looking hard. I mean, this is just I think way too many and I'm not going to vote anymore unless we have that. You haven't completed an audit. I've been around here for 11 years. I can't believe I'm here for 11 years. I remember when Tom Price was the chairman instead of Jodey, and he was demanding that the Department of Defense complete an audit. That was 11 years ago. They still haven't done it. There is so much arrogance in that agency, I keep holding my nose because defense is the most important thing, and they just say we don't have to do an audit, we're so damn important, we don't care what Congress thinks. I hope that they dial up this audit and have have their guys work around the clock, complete an audit by July 31st, or before we eventually have to pass this stuff. I will point out as far as you need to spend more on procurement, I'm a big fan of John Boehner, who was the speaker when I was here, and one of his goals until a foolish Freedom Caucus kicked him out was to get rid of the unnecessary things that were being procured just because they provided jobs in powerful Congressmen's districts. Do you think... and they admitted it yesterday, the people at that table, they admitted it, that we are spending money because, you know, factories are in people's districts or we have unnecessary bases because they're in people's district. Can we count on the administration to crack the whip over there and try to cut some of that spending?

Well, let me just take a stab at that, Congressman. What I would say is that we believe it's important, like there's only so much time in the day, and this administration is doing everything we can to fix many of the long-standing problems with defense procurement that have led to wasteful outcomes. And so we're doing that work. Now, there may be byproducts, for instance, funding that is spent in someone's district, but I guarantee you we've never made that argument as our primary argument. We make the case about what the country needs from a national security standpoint, and we will note that it has an economic impact here in this country, but we are making these investments because they are vital for us to be able to protect the country not just now, but into the future.

Okay. Like I said, the guys who were in here yesterday, they implied that both those things are true. And I've heard it ahead anecdotally from other people on the Armed Services Committee. So I will make a couple other points. I think a lot of corporations who don't pay taxes don't pay taxes because they're pass-through corporations to individuals, so that's not the same thing as not paying taxes. And I think when they talk about jobs going up and down, in so far as we remove people in this country who are here illegally and they are no longer working in this country, that's a positive. And I hope when you guys look at don't get all panicky because employment rate did not go up. I think we could increase the number of people working if we cracked down on unemployment fraud. That'd be a good way to do it, but in so far as there's not much unemployment because we're kicking people out of the country who came here illegally, that's a good thing, we shouldn't apologize for it. Thank you much, you're great.

Thank the gentleman from Wisconsin. Now yield five minutes to Ms. Judy Chu from California.

Director Vought, I represent the cities of Altadena and Pasadena in Southern California that are still living through the aftermath of the Eaton fire that destroyed 6,000 homes last January. For tens of thousands of my constituents, the experience looked like this. It was the early hours of the morning and they were sleeping peacefully in their homes. Suddenly they were awoken by loud sirens and the smell of smoke as flames surrounded their properties. Their lives flashed before their eyes. They frantically gathered their loved ones, their pets and escaped with simply the clothes on their backs. Nineteen of my constituents could not make it out in time and they tragically lost their lives. The trauma that everybody witnessed was harrowing and unspeakable. They saw the places that they called home for decades, the lives they built, all of their most treasured belongings engulfed in flames. But here we are today over one year after the Eaton and Palisades fires and more than 70 percent of survivors have not yet returned home. Families are depleting their savings, delaying life-saving medical care and many are homeless. Of the 6,000 homes that burned, only half have yet to start the rebuilding process at all. This is a crisis and my constituents need assistance now. Luckily, there's a straightforward solution to stopping this suffering, and that is finally granting Governor Newsom's federal disaster supplemental funding request to provide an influx of capital and resources to my constituents. And that request includes CDBG-DR, CDBG disaster recovery or DR, which is essential to my constituents' ability to rebuild their homes and lives. But every single day that this funding is delayed, recovery becomes more expensive and painful for survivors in my district and across the this country. So Director Vought, I'd like to hear what your plan is to ensure that natural disaster survivors receive this federal disaster supplemental funding, whether it's the wildfires in California, the hurricanes in North Carolina or the floods in Texas. For every major disaster of this scale in recent history, the federal government has intervened to help survivors. When can my constituents expect this relief?

A couple of points, Congresswoman. The federal government is intervening. FEMA is funding the cleanup and disaster work in your district. And one of the things that we're fighting right quite frankly is the degree to which the state and locality are impacting the ability of permitting for businesses and homes to build back. FEMA is the front-line funder for disasters. It's not alternative supplementals. Supplementals are what's on top of a FEMA program that right now is in dire straits because the fact that the Democrats will not fund DHS.

So let me, Director Vought, actually there has been supplemental disaster funding for every major disaster in this country, whether it's a red state or a blue state. And in fact, the permitting process is proceeding forward. Let me just say though on FEMA, it is the federal government's responsibility to provide both immediate and long-term assistance to survivors, and what you're talking about are the immediate assistance to the survivors. Natural disasters know no political affiliation, and neither should the federal government's response. Yet I'm deeply concerned about recent reporting indicating that your administration has rejected disaster aid requests from Democratic-led states at a rate higher than any time in FEMA's history. Republican-led states saw 89 percent of their requests approved, while Democratic-led states saw a mere 23 percent of their requests approved. And that's, there's never been such a sharp partisan disparity in the approval of federal disaster funds since FEMA was created in 1979. And actually it's a staggering disconnect from Trump's first term where he approved 93 percent of the requests from Democratic states and 89 percent from Republican states. So Director Vought, yes or no, will you commit to taking immediate steps to reverse this unconscionable pattern?

No administration has looked more carefully at FEMA dollars and how they're being spent. One of the challenges that we face, as I will repeat, we need Democrats to come alongside and continue to help us fund the FEMA disaster relief fund. When you vote against DHS spending and vote against a bill that the Democratic appropriators had blessed...

So let me just, Director Vought, I have another point which is the best way to prepare communities is through BRIC funding, the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities grant program. That's why I was alarmed when the administration canceled billions of dollars of BRIC funding, but a federal judge ordered that this funding be restored. I urge you to comply with the federal judge's order to restore this program.

We agree with you on the BRIC funding. It was not meant to be canceled and it will go out the door.

Let the record reflect we have agreement with a Democrat and Mr. Vought. So ma'am, maybe we should just gavel out right here, but we got too many folks that want to participate in this discussion, like my good friend from North Texas, I mean Oklahoma, Josh Brecheen. You have five minutes, sir.

I thank the chairman from Southern Oklahoma for allowing me this time. Director, many of us know what a great fit you are for the White House, and I mean that sincerely in terms of you have a tough job and you are bilingual. You speak fiscanese. Your adherence to fiscal discipline is something that you can relate to a lot of us that know that it's in your heart. So with that said, I think it's going to require the sizeable ask on the defense side, something I'd said to one of the people that works under you yesterday, it's going to require sizeable reforms to be able to thread the needle. And some of those reforms you guys are talking about, I love the task force that you set up. You're talking about the fraud division, correct?

Mhm.

Yeah. And so with the fraud division, you alluded to that's more than just fraud itself. That could mean looking at how can we in a reconciliation, which would match the mandatory side of some of the request, how can we in a reconciliation look for ways to ensure there's compliance with federal law? And it's not just SNAP. We know there's 21 states that have refused to surrender to the USDA information about Social Security numbers, making sure that they are legal recipients, and that's tied up in court. And so I'm assuming that's a part of this, the SNAP element. But I think this also is something that needs to be looked at in terms of transportation and the CDL issues that have been making the news. Again, it's something the White House has been really picking up on. I held a hearing as a subcommittee chair. We think there's 20,000 commercial driver's license holders that are on the roads today. We know between California and New York, the worst actors who are violating FMCSA, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration guidelines, they're issuing these driver's license and they're changing some things, but that does not get these people off the road. I have a Class A CDL, believe it or not, I actually can drive a semi-truck. And mine's a 10-year license. And so the duration of some of these and the inability to get these people off the roads not only is a safety hazard, but the states, as these people are being picked up, as they go through different weigh stations in different states and we find out that it's fraudulent, are you all looking at a means of withholding trust fund moneys? FMCSA, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, earmarks, bike paths. I'm wondering if this is something that could bird out. It's something that Secretary Duffy I hope is having some assistance on because it's a real issue. So I want to yield for a moment to see if you've had any thoughts on that.

Definitely happy to consider it with Secretary Duffy in the months ahead. I mean the trust funds are, these are mandatory funds, so the ability to withhold until you get some kind of activity from the state level in the fraud rolls example is much more challenging. But that's why you need to come before Congress and ask for mandatory reforms that give more authority to do this kind of thing. So we're happy to take a look at it with you and for me to get smart on that particular issue.

I think it'd be great. I think it's something that's very much on the minds of people. There's been fatalities all across the country. You can take an 80,000-pound vehicle and turn it into a ticking time bomb, especially if you have a HAZMAT authorization with hazardous chemicals in the trailer. Also, I had a conversation with someone in the last week reminding me of a time, and I'm sure it still goes on, on the defense operations where there are countries that are benefiting because of our installations. And those installations are providing security for those countries, and payment that could be made for support of operations that used to come from these countries. I think Saudi Arabia is one of these countries years ago that did this. Where are we looking at in terms of the defense spending on, I think it very much aligns with what President Trump's talked about, is if we're providing you security, there ought to be some payment. Is that something that the fraud division is looking at? Not that that's fraud, but it's another area of finding funds. Again, sizeable ask from Congress for sizeable reforms. Is that something that you all maybe be looking at?

So I wouldn't want to suggest that the fraud task force has become kind of as such an expansive institution that it's working at the same level Office of Management and Budget or previously DOGE. I mean we're always in the looking for good ideas, good reforms that have congressional interest and we're happy to engage in that. I would say that there's an enthusiasm within the administration to find what we don't know about and what has not been identified unless you're on the ground level. And I think that's what the fraud task force is meant to do is if we have an enterprising individual like Nick Shirley going around and finding things, we should have as much energy and a lot more at the federal government level to not only find it but also to hold people accountable.

I yield.

Thank the gentleman and now yield. Well, let me if I might, Mr. Chairman, with unanimous ask for unanimous consent to enter into the record the three cases that Ms. Balint at her question time referenced. Thank the gentleman from Oklahoma and yield five minutes to my friend from the great state of Texas, Ms. Escobar.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ranking Member. I am very grateful that we are finally having this hearing, Mr. Vought. Many of us have done a deep dive in your Project 2025, and much of what was in there is obviously being executed now. But I think it's important to note that the American people are really unhappy with the direction that we're moving in, our economy is moving in. In fact, I just saw a Fox News poll that shows a record 64 percent of voters disapprove of President Trump's handling of taxes. And that's up 11 percent since last year. Project 2025, as we all know, defunds programs that save lives and help Americans, hardworking Americans, while enriching billionaires. But I want to begin with a very easy yes or no question, Mr. Vought. Do you agree that the federal government has a fiduciary responsibility to be good stewards of the American taxpayer's dollar?

Yes.

Okay. I, and you and I agree with that. And so I want to, given that it's tax day, I want to focus a little bit on the IRS. And the Budget Lab has a great report that I'd like unanimous consent to enter into the record.

Without objection.

Thank you, Chairman. And it's entitled "A Weakened IRS Has Substantial Consequences." So spending on the IRS has decreased obviously in this administration. And the, what perplexes me is that the IRS actually has a return on investment. When we invest in the IRS, we're able to invest in fighting tax fraud and we're able to bring in revenue. The IRS reductions from funding and layoffs have resulted that are a result of Project 2025 and the one big so-called one big beautiful bill have resulted in about $861 billion in decreased revenue. The layoffs from DOGE have likely resulted in almost $600 billion reduction in revenue. And if DHS gets access to IRS data, that will cost an additional $300 billion in revenue. And we know that the programs that hardworking Americans depend on need revenue. And so I need to ask you, Mr. Vought, what is the logic behind defunding an agency that actually has a return on investment?

The logic is that the Biden administration had increased the IRS to such a degree that it was intrusive on small businesses and people across the country. And I don't want to live in a country in which the IRS is auditing every American in the country because they've filed a tax return.

So, so you are okay with tax fraud?

Certainly not. But I don't assume that the American people are doing tax fraud when they file their taxes.

Okay, well you and I agree on that. We all file our taxes, we pay heavily into the tax system, but billionaires getting massive tax breaks, really that's where we are seeing instances of fraud, but they are being let off the hook. I just don't understand why we would eliminate employees who are helping us find fraud and recoup our investment.

We're just trying to get back to historic levels of the IRS, and in fact, we actually increased taxpayer service.

You know, Mr. Vought, I will tell you as a member of Congress, one of the biggest complaints I get from constituents is they can't talk to a person at the IRS anymore and the wait times are incredible. So I prefer a system that actually works and that is a return on the investment. And I will tell you, what is alarming about the budget are the cuts to housing, the cuts to education, the cuts to healthcare. Can you answer, can you let us know, there are reports that the defense appropriations supplemental will cost about $100 billion. What are you all asking for in order to fund the war in Iran? How much will you be asking?

We're not ready to come to you with a request. We're still working on it. We're working through to figure out what's needed in this fiscal year versus next fiscal year.

Do you have a ballpark? Will it be more than $50 billion?

I don't have a ballpark for you today.

Okay. Well, I appreciate that. I know the American public is eager to know how much this war is costing them, especially at the expense of programs that make their lives easier. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Thank the gentlelady and now yield five minutes to Mr. McDowell from North Carolina.

Well, thank you, Chairman, and Director, thank you for being here today as part of the regular budget process. I think it's fitting that this hearing falls on Tax Day. And it also happens to be my oldest daughter's third birthday, and so happy birthday, Mary Margaret. And when I explain to her why I have to go to Washington, D.C. to work, I have to do it in a way that makes sense to a three-year-old. And because of my colleagues' either inability to understand what the one big beautiful bill act actually did or their refusal to acknowledge what it did, I want to explain it like I explained it to her. Because her birthday is on Tax Day, which is a real blessing as a fiscal conservative to be able to talk to her about that. So what I told her this week, "Daddy, why do you have to go to Washington?" "Well, I have to go to Washington to make sure that when you get your birthday money and the government comes and takes 25 percent of it, if it weren't for Daddy and his Republican friends, the government would have taken 30 percent." And so they want to say that this is a bill for billionaires, they're just wrong. And I don't know if it's that they don't understand the bill or that they just refuse to acknowledge what it actually does. But Director, let me ask you a couple questions about the overall economy. The inflation rate in June of 2022 was 9.2 percent. And that marked a 40-year high. Who was the president at that point?

Joe Biden.

And mortgage rates, they hit nearly 8 percent in 2023. That's the highest level since the year 2000. Was President Trump the president then?

No.

Economists across the ideological spectrum agree that the so-called American Rescue Plan heavily contributed to inflation. Who was the president that signed that into law?

Joe Biden.

And who controlled Congress?

The Democrats.

I'm not saying that their motives are impure, but I am saying they just don't understand the policy. Director, do you consider the Obamacare marketplace to be affordable for working people in my district?

It's not affordable enough. We want to make sure that we are driving down those costs for sure.

And you know, it is named after President Obama, but is he a Republican or a Democrat?

He's a Democrat.

They continue to tell us that this is all our fault, the reason that healthcare is expensive is all our fault. They're wrong again. I don't know if it's their refusal to acknowledge the truth or that they're just simply not tethered to reality. But I just for the life of me can't understand why they continue to say that this is somehow Republicans' fault. On immigration, how costly is the current Democrat shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security for the American taxpayer?

It's very dire. And I would just say that this is something that the Secretary and I are monitoring very closely. Obviously, we had a record shutdown with regard to the Department of Homeland Security. The Democrats did not fund TSA, did not fund border security. And so we are having to go through extraordinary measures right now to make sure DHS literally can keep together. Like we don't want people on sick-outs, we don't want people quitting and finding other jobs. And I am very worried, people are getting paid right now for a short period of time, but I am very worried if we don't fund DHS, we're going to have a real crisis on our hands.

So it is estimated that under the Biden administration that an unprecedented 2.86 million aliens were granted parole during his administration. Did this qualify them for taxpayer benefits?

Yes.

And I guess my follow-up to that would be, you know, my colleagues, they've continued to cry outrage about USAID money. I tend to think that my constituents would disagree with where that money was going. And so I think that it's good that the President's budget doesn't include a lot of those things. But can you just yes or no, does the President's budget include $11 million for producing the Middle Eastern version of Sesame Street?

No.

That's good. Does it include 10.3 million for supporting male circumcision programs in Mozambique?

No.

That's also very good. Does it include $2.5 million for supporting green energy businesses in Vietnam?

No.

Does it include $2 million for supporting gender-affirming healthcare and LGBTQ advocacy in Guatemala?

No.

Does it include $99,000 for supporting increased production of yogurt in Uganda?

No.

That's probably smart considering our national debt. Does it include $84,000 for supporting spa and wellness entrepreneurs in Nigeria?

No.

That's good. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to highlight that the President's budget compared to what former administrations have spent on, I mean, we're out of control here with the spending. I yield back.

I thank the gentleman and now yield... Well, let me... If I might, Mr. Chairman, with unanimous ask for unanimous consent to enter into the record the three cases that Ms. Balint at her question time referenced. I would like to submit all three of those cases into the record. Without objection, so ordered. Now yield to my friend from the Commonwealth of Kentucky, Mr. McGarvey, for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I've said for a long time that the budget is our ultimate policy document. You can talk about what you value, but the budget is literally when you put your money where your mouth is. And I'm shocked by Trump's budget proposal. By its sheer cruelty. By its fiscal irresponsibility. And you can do the magic math, but the actual math is that there is $4.5 trillion in revenue cuts, the money we take in, but only $1.1 trillion in spending cuts. That gives you $3.4 trillion right off the bat in an increase to the debt and deficit of this country. But if you add in the increased debt servicing that is estimated by the Congressional Budget Office to go up to $4.7 trillion in debt. But take away the cruelty and the irresponsibility, I think right now what I'm so offended by is the indifference to how American families are struggling right now in Donald Trump's economy. Yesterday, just yesterday, your Department of Labor released its monthly price tracking report. Energy prices, according to your numbers, are up nearly 11 percent last month. Gas went up over 21 percent. Home energy went up over 30 percent. We've talked about some of these cuts. Right now, against this backdrop, there are six million Americans, including 150,000 Kentuckians, who rely on the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program to heat and cool their homes during the hottest and coldest months of the year. You admitted earlier to zeroing out that program, but you said it was because of fraud. Do you believe that the 150,000 Kentuckians, the seniors who rely on this program to heat their homes in the winter, are all committing fraud?

I believe that there have been numerous government studies and nonprofit studies that have said this is a fraudulent...

I'm going to reclaim my time here because what you told me is you said just a second ago, "I don't assume the American people engage in tax fraud," but I guess you assume every senior in Kentucky is engaging fraud because they want to have a cool home in the summer and a warm home in the winter. But it's not just energy prices that are up. Everything at the grocery store is more expensive. Come to the Kroger on Bardstown Road with me in Louisville, Kentucky, you'll see it for yourself. And the Iran war is only going to make that worse because of the shocks to fertilizer and fuel costs. A lot of our neighbors, they rely on a little bit of extra help, especially when they can't afford their groceries. Look at the wildly successful nutrition program for women, infants, and children known as WIC. It helps pregnant, breastfeeding, and postpartum women feed themselves and their kids when they need it most. After Republicans enacted the deepest cuts in our country's history to food benefits, and more and more families are struggling right now due to the President's policy, your budget cuts breastfeeding moms' fruit and vegetable benefit from $54 to $13 a month. Is that correct?

We fully fund the WIC program.

No you don't. Here it is right here on page 164 in the second column of your budget. I'm talking right now, if you want to talk you can run for Congress. On page 165 in the first column, it cuts it. It cuts it from $54 to $13 a month. And it looks like you're not stopping there, you're coming for the roof over people's heads too. Look at HUD's Continuum of Care program that keeps 950 Kentuckians in stable long-term housing. That includes 886 people with disabilities. It includes 383 survivors of domestic violence. More than half of those housed in Kentucky right now are families with kids. This budget zeroes out that program, doesn't it?

You know what's interesting about your comment is when you have a record shutdown in history...

Yes it does. I'll just... I reclaim my time, reclaim my time, Mr. Chairman. Right now, it does. It's right here on Table 1-3, it zeroes it out in your budget. I could go on and on in listing the moral crimes in this budget, but I only have five minutes. This budget cuts the SBA program for minority and women-owned business. It cuts health and safety programs for coal miners. It cuts funding for daycare for working parents across the board. It slashes the parts of government that help working people and replaces them with more war and more ICE abuses. Even with all of these cuts, just like your budget did last year when it cuts a trillion from healthcare to pay for tax cuts for the rich, it still manages to blow up the debt and the deficit by trillions. But the budget isn't just a policy document, it's a moral document. Like you, Director Vought, I'm a Christian. I won't question your faith. I won't question the President's faith despite what he did depicting himself as Jesus and his attacks on the Pope. But I grew up in a family where we read Matthew 25. A couple of Sundays ago on March 22nd, my twins were confirmed in our Presbyterian church and they chose to be baptized. We're a Matthew 25 church. Matthew 25:31, the parable of the sheep and the goats. It says, "When I was thirsty you gave me drink, when I was hungry you fed me, when I was without clothes you clothed me, when I was a stranger you welcomed me, when I was in prison you visited me." And of course it ends with, "For the least of these you did for me as well." This budget sees the hungry, it sees the homeless, it sees the vulnerable, and it turns away. That is not what we should be doing. And it's why I cannot support it. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

I thank the gentleman and now yield five minutes to my friend from the Palmetto State, Mr. Ralph Norman.

Thanks so much, Chairman. Director Vought, thank you for coming here. Appreciate the job you continue to do for this great country. Can I yield you 30 or 45 seconds to respond? He really wouldn't let you talk. Would you like to respond to any of that?

Sure, there was a lot of inaccuracies with regard to the funding levels in the various programs that he mentioned. But I would just say to those that are looking at Matthew, you can't fund the least of these if you are sending too much of your hard-earned dollars to the federal government and your state and local government. And so if you're going to be in a position where families and communities can actually look around and meet needs and be leaning forward to meet needs, they need to have margin in their life. And I agree, we want to make sure that people have, we're driving down affordable policies wherever we possibly can. But I reject the characterization of the Congressman with regard to this budget. This budget is in fact what he says he would like in a budget in terms of one that presents is what you stand for and what your morals would have you stand for.

Were you a question by one of my fellow Congressmen from California about FEMA and how funds weren't available? Should funds be available to a state where they didn't have water in their fire hydrants? Should funds be available for regulations that are not letting the housing go back up as largely as a result of Newsom and his policies which the people have put up with unbelievably? So and when you talk about budgets, the USAID budget which y'all did a great job, DOGE did a great job identifying waste, fraud, and abuse. Pre-Trump $47 billion. Under you as OMB Director $34 billion. That's a $13 billion cut. Let me tell you some of the things that when you were being questioned about hungry children and whatnot that you know that you were cutting programs. Would a in the USAID would a $550 million bribery scandal help children and those in need?

No, and it wouldn't surprise me.

Would a would $2 million for sex changes in Guatemala help starving children and families in South Carolina and the country?

No, sir.

Would $47,000 for a transgender opera in Colombia would that qualify to help children if you really cared about children?

No.

So really what you what you have successfully done and this President has done is highlight the waste, fraud, and abuse that is rampant. My Democrat friends aren't willing to even look at anything, just like with the FEMA funds. North Carolina suffered under what the $700 they got which under under Biden he ignored them. Yet in California they're asking for the moon when they're using they're not using common sense not to mention the cuts in the fire department and police department and whatnot. What are your goals with the $300 billion mandatory spending for defense in 27 and reconciliation package?

We want to continue the paradigm shift that this Congress started with ensuring that we when we need to have additional resources for defense aren't held hostage by the appropriations process to ensure that that's another dollar for every of non-defense spending. So yes, we're going to have to increase in the main appropriations base level for defense and we do that, we go up to $1.1 trillion. But a part of how we will secure this has to be knowing that we have reconciliation available. And I think that is something that for the first time and we don't talk a lot about it, this Congress has changed the way we can spend money through the reconciliation process to avoid the pitfalls that really caused two decades of not being able to accomplish anything. And I think you should be commended for that.

And you know we shouldn't forget about the tremendous costs that you're having to deal with with the deportation of criminals and illegals of the 15 to 20 million illegals that came into this country. How much would you estimate? Your former head of OMB he made the comment during a hearing in budget that he thought that the illegal immigration was a net gain for the country. What what amount of dollars are going to get these the criminals out and try to abide by the Constitution?

You know, I would say it's probably hundreds of billions of dollars. It's certainly not a net gain to have illegal immigration. I know that CBO will have a different view as it pertains to that. I think the discrepancy is often about the extent to which you think people who are coming in are going to be on our benefit systems of which we see constant and repeated evidence of that. And that's one of the, you know, byproducts. I think first and foremost it's safety and security of the American people having communities that aren't aren't under the threat of illegal immigration, but there's certainly a cost to taxpayer of of being under the Biden regime.

Well we appreciate the job you're doing and thank you for being available to all of us. I yield back.

I thank the gentleman from South Carolina and yield five minutes to my friend Mr. Amo from Rhode Island.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman for holding this much needed oversight hearing. Director, I'm sure you know you've got a lot of nicknames, things like Grim Reaper, but I'm not here to call you names. I am here to call you out on the pain that you have inflicted on Rhode Islanders and Americans who are fed up. And I want to get to the point so I'll keep things simple, I've got a few yes or no questions. Should Americans have access to medical care, yes or no?

Yes.

Well, that's great that we're in agreement because if you cared about the sick, you wouldn't be forcing states to make impossible decisions about who will feel the pain of Trump and Republicans' cruel healthcare cuts from that big ugly law. So bad that you keep renaming it. You've rebranded it about three times now. Kids with disabilities, cancer patients, seniors, who do you think should feel the pain? You have forced Rhode Island to make impossible decisions about who should suffer. You want us to believe that we can't afford to help my sick constituents. But you claim it's smart budgeting to request $1.5 trillion in defense funding for a department that already has more money than they know what to do with to fight illegal wars. I've got another question for you. Should hungry children be fed, yes or no?

Yes, and they are.

Look, I would believe you if your shutdown strategy didn't put 144,000 Rhode Islanders at risk of going hungry.

Our our shutdown strategy?

Yes, your shutdown.

Really?

Yes, because sir...

Who who's the one who voted against those bills?

Sir, you have had a position where you have seen shutdowns as ways to break federal workers, as ways to hurt the American people. I'm reclaiming my time. I'm reclaiming my time, sir. Was $6,000 a day too generous for you? Look, from Woonsocket to Providence in the first congressional district of Rhode Island, I visited food banks and I've seen the struggle to keep up with rising demand from hungry Rhode Islanders and that's thanks to your cruelty. Look, I have seen your actions and I want you to take time with this particular question because you brought up it being our shutdown. Do you think a lot of good comes from government shutdowns, yes or no?

No.

Well, do you disagree with President Trump then? Because that's a quote from President Trump. You don't care about the 1.4 million Americans who missed a paycheck during Trump's shutdown last year. You want public servants, as you've said, to be viewed as villains. From air traffic controllers to naval officers to VA employees, I heard constituents harmed by your shutdown. There is nothing good about that. And it's damaging to real people, sir.

You caused it. You voted for it.

Look, you were the you were the person that with all of your votes... Mr. Vought, just like you did with DOGE, you think that good things come from breaking people. You have said it's fine to break things and pick up the pieces later. I didn't make up these words, those are your words. That has no regard to Rhode Islanders who are still trying to put their lives together, people around this country who are still trying to put their lives together. If you don't know your own words, how can you show up here to speak? Look, as I I'm going to wrap up because I don't want to afford you more time to tell more lies to the American people. You don't get to override Congress because you disagree with how funds are spent. You don't get to force government shutdowns to break people. Your decisions have done nothing but hurt my constituents. They don't need Washington bureaucrats like you making funding decisions that upend their lives. And you've said a lot of things today, I've watched some of your participation from my office, I saw some of it here. And your actions reveal the truth despite your words. When given the choice you have chosen cruelty and chaos over billionaires over and over and over again. Billionaires, cruelty, chaos. You attacked healthcare. You put food for hungry kids at risk. You ignored Congress. You jacked up prices. The American people are fed up, read every poll. And you embrace shutdowns that hurt working people. So at its core, sir, I don't think you value the American people. Your disregard for their lives is creating a great amount of pain. And as you're hearing from our side, our constituents are paying the price. Yet you put forward a budget that grows but cuts again at the things that help the American people. I hope you have time to reflect on that and the pain that you are inflicting on constituents around this country. I yield back.

The gentleman yields. I will yield myself five minutes, but I will yield you some time. There was a lot there, we'd like you to be able to do some time to respond to anything in particular that the accusations don't jibe with my experience with you in any way, shape, or form.

It's a fascinating juxtaposition of this side that they voted for a shutdown, they voted not to fund all of these federal agencies. When WIC was about to run out of money, it wasn't these individuals that were voting to fund it, it was in fact the President of the United States that encouraged us to find a place that wasn't the normal appropriation to fund WIC. That's because of what they voted and they're going to come here and lecture the Republican side and me in particular and say that somehow we were not funding the federal government as intended by the normal appropriations process and as negotiated by many of the appropriations Democrats. I mean, we're in a DHS shutdown because the Democrats walked away from the table when there was a DHS bill that was negotiated on a bipartisan basis.

Thank you. I appreciate that. I and I can't emphasize enough the biggest the biggest issue for every person, no matter what area, what industry you work in, whatever you wherever you are in our country, debt-to-GDP ratio that continues to climb. I don't know of anybody in in the world of Washington politics and policy that is working to reduce our deficits more than the new Director and I've had many conversations with you about it and I can't tell you how much I appreciate your willingness to do a very, very difficult thing. Because if we can no longer cover our deficits with, you know, treasuries and all that world, guess what? These programs that we're all arguing are so important, they're the first to go. And so we need to be able to reduce our deficits year over year and I don't know of anybody that's been more focused on that than you. So I think it's very, very disingenuous. Mr. Vought, just want to want to open briefly my remarks and I'll keep to time but I want to thank you and the and President Trump for your proposed investment towards restoring and maintaining the Great Salt Lake. This is this may sound like it's a large price tag, this investment is is monumental but I want to ensure my colleagues that the investment now in this will save taxpayers down the road from future calamity. The Great Salt Lake isn't just a namesake of Utah's capital city, it's an environmental and economic anchor for the whole Great Basin region, affecting air quality, snowpack, and thousands of jobs across the West. I look forward to working with you and the President to ensure that the lake can be a mainstay for the Intermountain West and of course in good shape for the Winter Olympics' return to US to the US and to Utah in 2034. So thank you for your work on that. I want to hit on a piece on health, I'll offer a question to you, but the budget request rightly points out that the NIH has broken the trust of the American people with wasteful spending and dangerous ideologies that undermine public health. I think it's worth noting that the only institute that received an increase in this request is the National Cancer Institute, which among other things provides funding for the Huntsman Cancer Institute's great work in Utah. Several other institutions back home are recipients of awards and grants from NIH, including Utah State University and the University of Utah, which together received nearly $50 million in NIH funds last year for various research programs. Can you walk me through your process for identifying wasteful programs and how your team identified and chose to scale reductions, but like I mentioned, still investing in important areas that you never get credit for and you only get to talk about any of the cuts but you're actually reshaping it.

Thank you, Congressman. First and foremost, we want to be surgical at the National Institutes of Health. We want to be able to address the indirect cost rate. When Bill Gates and other individuals in the private marketplace are giving 10 percent for indirect cost rates, which is buildings, administrative parking lots, when they're funding salaries at 60 percent in the case of Yale, that should be a bipartisan problem. That is not going to research. And so we have said if Bill Gates is doing 10 percent, our policy is going to be 15 percent. And we get about $4.5 billion in savings to the NIH of which we apply. When you see that cut, that's what you're looking at. We also have reductions to parts of the NIH that we think are most problematic: the Fogarty Center, the National Institute of Minority Health Disparity. Those are some of the areas which we think are most problematic. And we're again, for a long time NIH knew no oversight and knew no one stepping forward to ask questions about how its business was occurring. And I think we saw what happens when an agency gets that kind of freedom from any kind of oversight. It results in what occurred during the COVID pandemic. We want to continue to challenge Congress to look at finding surgical reductions where appropriate at NIH.

Thank you so much. I'll just briefly mention, we'll discuss offline, one of my most important responsibilities in Congress is representing Hill Air Force Base, which serves as the fighter jet center for excellence for all F-16, F-22, F-35 maintenance. Thank you for your budget request. We've got a lot of focus on depots. We do a lot of good depot work across the country and we want to make sure that maintains a strong focus. So thank you for that. I won't delve into a conversation about it and will yield my time. And we'll now recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr. Tonko, for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Director Vought, I'm glad that you are finally here to testify before this committee. A budget is a statement of our priorities. Throughout your tenure at OMB, you've made the Trump administration's priorities clear: terrorizing federal employees, ripping healthcare away from millions of Americans, we see many of those in the halls of Congress today lobbying, and illegally withholding money allocated by Congress. This is indeed unacceptable. The American people deserve better from you and from the budget. I'm extremely concerned by this year's budget treatment of behavioral health infrastructure and resources. Let me begin with a focus on SAMHSA, a small but mighty agency whose impact is felt in every community. SAMHSA's mission is to lead efforts to promote mental health, prevent substance misuse, and provide treatments and support to foster recovery while ensuring access and better outcomes for all. It serves those of us who are most in need. It is not an exaggeration to say that SAMHSA's public servants prevent overdoses and suicides, thereby saving lives. This budget and the recent actions of the Trump administration are betraying the Americans who rely on SAMHSA for behavioral health treatment and support. So Director Vought, under this budget, as part of an HHS reorganization, would SAMHSA be relegated under the so-called Administration for a Healthy America, AHA? Is that yes or no?

We engaged in a number of reorganizations. I'd have to check as to where it's residing, but we endorse the mission of SAMHSA in terms of substance abuse prevention and mental health. We have a block grant in which we adequately...

I'll reclaim my time because I don't have much time here to ask questions. But if you could get back to us whether that's yes or no. Your budget document is certainly indicating that it would be restructured under AHA. The whole reason Congress created SAMHSA as an agency that reports directly to the HHS Secretary was to ensure that behavioral health was prioritized despite the long-standing stigma surrounding it. Instead, AHA would take us back to the time when behavioral health is buried beneath bureaucracy and deprioritized. In January, the Trump administration abruptly canceled $2 billion of mental health and addiction grants at SAMHSA. I was proud to lead the groundswell of opposition. Within hours, we gained bipartisan signatures, over 100, opposing these cuts and delivered them over to the administration. And their announced reversal was a victory for anyone who cares about addressing mental health and addiction. So again, yes or no, Director Vought, did you sign off on the cancellation of more than $2 billion with that effort at SAMHSA with their grants?

I can't recall the extent to which what you're referring to. I mean, we are constantly dealing with an interagency review on how we're making funding. Sometimes things get leaked to the press before they're final, and I don't know what you're referring to.

This was not leaked to the press. Grant award recipients were notified. They called our office and several other offices on the Hill on both sides of the political fence in both houses. So a yes or no back to the committee would be appreciated. These cuts should never have been considered in the first place. And I sincerely hope there are no further attempts to ignore direction from Congress and deny people access to these critical life-saving services. I'd like to focus on another area where the administration has failed to deliver for the American people. In 2024, the President claimed that Americans would see their energy bills cut in half during the first year of his administration. Director Vought, do you know what your home energy bills looked like over the last month? And if so, were they cut in half over the past year?

Look, I'm not going to get into what my home energy bills are. I would think that the American people know that this administration is doing everything we can to lower energy prices. And we're going to continue to do that. Our party, Congressman, is the party that actually wants energy and not to have renewable energy subsidies that lead to extremely high energy bills in blue states.

Let me reclaim my time because I was looking for...

And the Congressman, we're talking about 7 percent energy or 7 percent. That's the kind of thing that comes from bad energy policies in the states.

Well, I disagree with you. I mean, there was a way to provide for the cleanest, most efficient, and cheapest power in the grid, in the pool, so we failed to do that. My constituents are painfully aware of their energy costs and, in fact, many of them have seen their bills go up under this administration. They're not alone. The average American paid $123 more in electricity costs in 2025 compared to 2024. And that trend is expected to get worse in the years ahead. And as the President wages an illegal war with Iran, the average price of a gallon of gasoline has increased by over a dollar in just six weeks. That's more pain at the pump on top of rising electric and heating bills. Meanwhile, your budget proposed the elimination of $4 billion worth of funding for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, or LIHEAP, that puts more than six million households at risk. The budget says LIHEAP dollars aren't needed because lower energy cost prices are on the way. Well, we've heard that before from this President, and all the evidence points to this being yet another broken promise waiting to happen. Americans are already struggling because of the reckless and illegal actions of this administration. This budget will only make those struggles worse. So I look forward to getting back to us with the answers to my question.

The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Indiana, Ms. Houchin.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Director Vought, for being here today. Thank you for your patience with this committee. It's always great to see another Senator Dan Coats alumnus. As I've reviewed the President's budget request, it's obvious that the Trump administration has decided the American people have finally had enough. Under the Biden administration, the budget included a laundry list of liberal priorities that put Americans last. Now we have an administration that's leading the effort to reorient the federal government back to its core mission to protect the United States and put America first. One of the responsibilities that we have is following that each dollar we borrow and we take from future generations is tracked. And the dollars we've decided to spend must be vetted to ensure every taxpayer dollar is invested responsibly. And under the leadership of President Trump with you at the helm of OMB, it's clear you understand that. A critical part of evaluating whether these investments are spent wisely is that we are eliminating inefficiencies and waste that siphon money for the causes that they're intended to serve. Under the Biden administration, the Pentagon's Inspector General identified markups as high as 8,000 percent for simple soap dispensers, rigged bids, falsified invoices, and wire fraud schemes. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, this administration has made it clear from day one that they're going to do things differently. So my first question and my only question really, and then I'd like to give you an opportunity just to respond to the baseless claims that have been made from the Democrats here today. But the President's budget specifically noted the establishment of a new National Fraud Division. Can you talk about how this will build on the success of the Working Families Tax Cuts Act to prevent taxpayer dollars from being wasted, and then feel free to respond to any of the baseless claims that have been made here today?

Thank you, Congresswoman. We are trying to scale resources to fight fraud wherever we possibly can. And the National Fraud Task Force sits within the executive branch, but we also need to pull resources from the agencies to do the actual work. Some of the agencies had... Dr. Oz in particular will give you kind of horrifying stories about the extent to which fraud was really amped up under the Biden administration because they did not fund enough investigators. I think we were probably in the single digits for Medicaid fraud, which is totally unsustainable. And you wonder why we see it in our federal programs. It's not just hunting for fraud, it's also looking at policies. Biden in his administration, President Biden in his administration, changed the childcare program, which we fully fund, changed the childcare program so that it was not connected to individuals but was going towards entities unrelated to whether they were caring for children. And then we wonder why we see what we see in Minnesota. So we are looking for all of those kind of policies. We're going to be very surgical where we ask for investments. This is an example of one. But this administration is very, very committed to going after fraud because we think it shreds the fabric of the expectation that the American people have with their government.

Well, thank you for your attention to that. It's very important as we're spending money that we're borrowing from the future that we are trying to do that as responsibly as possible and also spending the the curve of our future deficit spending in the right direction. You guys are certainly attentive to that and to our concerns with that. I appreciate you very much. Is there anything else you'd like to add in response to any of the claims that were made today?

No, thank you though.

Thank you so much. I yield back.

Thank you, Ms. Houchin. Now recognize Ms. Kaptur for five minutes.

Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Well, Director Vought, you've had quite a day here. I welcome you before this committee, a serious committee. And I would just communicate that I believe that the billionaires in our country are doing extremely well. They're thriving. And you get to meet a lot more of them than I do. I don't represent them really. I represent a different part of America and I'm deeply concerned about the rising prices of everything on the people that I represent, the American people, the working class. President Trump's tariffs have really added to the troubles that they face. And the price of everything has gone up. Gas is bad. I mean, it's over $4 a gallon now. Diesel's worse. And I come from a major distribution center in the heartland of America. Beef is, hamburgers, $8 a pound. Our food banks have never had as many people come in. I'm just telling you that. Energy and water bills in Toledo, Ohio have doubled in our region of the country. And the new farm bill, which is vital to eight of the counties I represent, it comes bumping along and bumping along and never goes forward. And then the President gave $40 billion to Argentina, which put a dagger through the heart of the cattlemen I represent. And the ethanol 15, what's the big deal about that? You're a powerful person. You can make a difference. You know they do E60 down in Brazil. I'm for E30, but I can't even get it up to E15. Our farmers are in a very precarious situation. And with what's going on with health insurance, sir, I can't predict the future. I expect many of our rural hospitals, one has already gone out of business. It's really happening. I see you've spent a lot of time in Washington at think tanks and so forth. I'd invite you out to our region. I think you have friends at Hillsdale College. You could visit them and then come down to my area. I want to show you what's going on. I believe we have a generational challenge. History won't regard us well. They'll view us as very short-sighted in this generation. Our debt is going up, $40 trillion. You and I understand what GDP is. We're in a bad situation as a country and the debt, I checked the numbers last year, I think we paid 280 billion, 280 billion to foreign holders of our debt. And I start thinking 280 billion, I could take a billion of that and give it to the mayor of the largest city I represent to reduce the city's bonded indebtedness, which is over $2 billion because of where we live and what we had to do to purify the water. But it's upside down. Now, the first Trump administration, you were a very important person in that one too from 2016 to 2020. And under that administration, the first administration, you added 6.7 trillion to the U.S. debt, that was 33 percent increase. So I judge you by your works. And that was the pandemic started during those years, but again, we added debt. I have this chart here, I urge you to take it back to OMB, tell me where I'm wrong. If you look at history, going back 40 years, there were wars, ask yourself who was President when those wars were started. Eight trillion not paid for. Now we got another one. We got another one going. Trump tax cuts in the first term, two trillion. Bush two tax cuts. Under the Republican Presidents, yes, they have cut taxes, but the debt grew. It didn't grow the economy fast enough to offset the debt that was generated. If you look at the pandemic spending, okay, there was four trillion there. We had the Great Recession. But really, the tax cuts going back to the Reagan presidency, the Bush two presidency, the Bush one presidency, if you look at that, the tax cuts were never paid for. So we can't reach a solution unless we're honest with ourselves. I get tired of the political badminton here. We really have a serious problem. And the greater indebtedness and the ratio of GDP to the accumulated debt of the country is frightening. You'll probably laugh at this, but what I want you to do, I want you to go to the Department of Treasury and I want you to help me sell U.S. savings bonds to every postal office in this country. I want grandmas and godmothers like me to be able to give a bond to our those that will follow us. I can't do that. I have to go to the internet and then they mail it. That's not a gift. So anyway, I did have one question, Mr. Chairman. Do you have to take an oath to the Constitution before you assume your position at OMB? It goes so anyway, I did have one question Mr. Chairman, do you have to take an oath to the Constitution before you assume your position at OMB?

Yes.

Gentlelady's time has expired.

And I'd urge you to look at Article I, Section 9. I have many questions I will submit to the record on U.S. Department of Defense out of vote of Congress.

Would the witness like to respond?

I just want to commend the Congresswoman for focusing on debt. Very rarely do you hear someone on that side of the aisle who talks about the $39 trillion in debt. The only thing I would say, and I will take a copy back to OMB of that pie chart. The pie chart doesn't include anything with regard to the trillions of dollars that we're spending as a federal government. So it has all of these things, many of all of which occurred, but it has nothing that reflects the fact that we spend trillions of dollars in government on that. So how would that not be a part of the 39.4 trillion? That would be my initial instinct with response, but I'm happy to take a look at it and I appreciate your concern with the debt.

All right, let's be honest with one another here. And Mr. Chairman, this does include that. That is the residual.

Gentlelady's time has expired. Thank you. Thank you, Director Vought, for appearing today. I know it's been a long day for you, you've put in a lot of time. Please be advised that members may submit written questions to be answered later in writing. Those questions and your answers will be made part of the formal hearing record. Any member who wishes to submit questions for the record may do so within seven days. With that, committee stands adjourned.