Hearing to Examine Multiple Federal Nominations

Go.

The hearing will come to order. Today the committee meets to consider eleven nominations. We'll begin today with our first panel of nominees. Hal Duncan to be the Director uh Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget. Brian Kavanaugh to be the Undersecretary of Management at the Department of Homeland Security. david cummings to be the administrator of the transportation security administration cameron hamilton to be the administrator for the federal emergency management agency and charles baldus to be the special counsel to the office of special counsel the witnesses' written statements have been submitted for the record and i ask you in adam's consent to submit letters of support received for the nominees in the interest of time i will forego any opening remarks Senator Peters.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, welcome, uh, to the, uh, nominees, and certainly, uh, thank you for your, uh, willingness, uh, to serve and, uh, congratulations, uh, on your nominations. Uh, we have a, uh, record-setting eleven nominees before the committee today, each, uh, for roles that impact people, uh, as well as communities, uh, across our nation. Uh, I am, uh, very disappointed, uh, with this process, uh, that has been unnecessarily rushed. An overcrowded lineup today severely limits our ability to have transparency for the American public. Members of this committee should have the opportunity to hear from and thoroughly question each nominee in front of the American people. The chairman is not even bothering to let the nominees make public opening statements. And members of the committee have not received their written testimony. Even more troubling, the chairman has disregarded this committee's long-standing basic requirement for nominees appearing before us. Two of the nominees, Mister Brodsky and Mister Ballas, do n- have not completed financial disclosures and ethics agreements certified by the Office of Government Ethics. Two nominees, Mister Ballas and Mister Hamilton, have not completed FBI background investigations, always the minimum requirement for this committee. The FBI review can provide a more complete picture of the nominee's picture, or of a background in integrity. And the ethics review certification process is essential for providing transparency into nominee's financial interest as well as potential conflicts of interest. This is even more critical when nominees, like some of us here today, have significant financial holdings. To my knowledge it is completely unprecedented for this committee to proceed to a hearing before these very fundamental vetting steps are complete. It has always been that way, always should be that way, and the American people expect it to be that way. And I recognize that timing uh is out of the nominee's control. However, it does a disservice to these nominees as well as to members of each and every one of this committee. Unfortunately, it seems like these nominees are being treated as basically just a box. checking, exercise, rather than a core constitutional duty. I take our responsibility to thoroughly evaluate each nominee's qualifications seriously. And I have supported and opposed nominees based on what I have learned through this committee process. I know that my committee colleagues on both sides of the aisle also wanna thoroughly consider each nominee before us. But when the process is this haphazard, and rushed, it certainly looks like this committee's Republican majority is simply rubber stamping the President. The Constitution is very clear of our oversight responsibilities to Congress. And it's very clear that this checks and balance system doesn't work if the Congress simply is a rubber stamp for the President. And that's what we're seeing here today. Somebody who's shirking basic constitutional responsibilities, people who claim that they protect the Constitution and yet they'll watch it get trampled here today. Today we're considering nominees for ten different agencies, any one of which could warrant its own hearing. Hearings for nominees is even more critical, as this committee has been ignoring its obligation to conduct public oversight of administration officials, after they are confirmed. Since the start of this Congress we have had only two oversight hearings, where administration officials appeared as witnesses. We have abandoned abandon our duty to conduct oversight of our homeland security apparatus by skipping annual hearings that were conducted by this committee for decades, for decades, including the annual threats hearing or hearing on the DHS budget request. We are considering two nominees to the Postal Service Board of Governors today, and I hope to hear detailed explanations of how they plan to uphold the Postal Service's independence and public service mission If confirmed. I'm also concerned that the president has failed to consult with the Senate minority and nominate any any Democratic members of the board. Instead, he has nominated four members of one party. The board is designated by statute to be bipartisan in nature, and lopsided political representation undermines public confidence in the board's ability to serve the public above above partisan views. We are also considering nominees for several agencies that Congress is charged with providing independent oversight of the executive branch. The Marriage Systems Protection Board and the Office of Special Counsel are both critical to protecting whistleblowers and ensuring the federal workforce is free from political coercion. The Federal Labor Relations Authority ensures federal workers' collective bargaining rights are upheld. The DOJ Inspector General leads efforts to combat waste. fraud and abuse across the Department of Justice. As this administration continues to attack and dismantle independent oversight bodies, and erode protections for our non-partisan public servants, it's more important than ever that we have principled independent leaders in these critical roles. Similarly, this administration has resisted and undermined all forms of transparency and accountability, taking unprecedented steps to keep information and records hidden from Congress and the American public, even more troubling our actions to rewrite history through a partisan political lens. The National Archives protects our national records and ensures that the American people have a complete and an accurate account of our shared history as the American people. And I hope to hear an unwavering commitment to transparency in leading NARA in a nonpartisan manner from President Wilson. Professor Wilson, excuse me. Mister Duncan, the Office of Management and Budget has been the center of many of these administrative-wide efforts to evade transparency, oversight, and accountability. Throughout the nomination process you have emphasized your view that OMB's chief person uh purpose is to serve the president and his agenda. Since returning to office, this president has made clear that he does not respect Congress's congressional role, as a co-equal branch of government. So far, many of my colleagues are OK with that. They don't believe they're a co-equal branch of government. They believe that they're a rubber stamp. I get that. But flouting spending laws, ignoring oversight, and manipulating all aspects of government for personal and political gain. Today we will have an you will have an opportunity to explain your involvement and views on OMB's actions. To the nominees to serve at the Department of Homeland Security, including FEMA and TSA. Unfortunately, because of the way this chairman has stacked this hearing and made transparency and accountable next to impossible, I may not have time to ask questions of each and every one of you today. But I'd like to thank you all for your engagement through this process, and I appreciate that each of you have expressed a willingness to examine and re-evaluate some of the decisions made by the department's prior leadership. Mister Cavanaugh, I particularly appreciated your commitment to reviewing the severe staffing cuts at DHS.

Uh, comments, uh, you know, are well received and listened to, but it is a fact that we will only vote on these nominees after all of their uh reports are complete after all of their fbi backgrounds are complete and i would say the comments are rather rich coming from people who uh shut down ice and border patrol and wouldn't fund one dollar for it so you know we can have different opinions here but i would certainly think that it's irresponsible to have no border security and not to pay them it's the practice of this committee to swear in witnesses will the nominees please stand and raise your right hand do you swear that the testimony you will give before this committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? So help you God. It's a standard practice of this committee for the chairman to ask the nominees the following question. Do you agree, without reservation, to comply with any request or summons to appear and testify before any duly constituted committee of Congress? If you are confirmed, let's do it one at a time. Mister Duncan. do you agree to

yes uh subject to the advice of council

mr. cavanaugh

yes

mr. cummins

yes subject to advice of council

mr. hamilton

yes subject to the advice of council

mr. balis

yes subject to the advice of council

we'll now proceed to questions which each member will give in five minutes i'll reserve my time and at this time recognize senator johnson

no no opening statements ok Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, Mr. Duncan, we we uh had your hearing yesterday in the budget committee. And I I just thought it was uh, is the right word? Uh, certainly hypocritical of the the comments from the other side questioning how grant money might be a portion to, oh I don't know, things that President Trump uh actually ran on. You know, the the the his causes, like like President Biden and President Obama didn't do the exact same thing. uh so so i know they they made a big to do about uh changes in in uh the the code of federal registers uh something that you're really concentrating on to to eliminate the waste fraud waste and fraud that we've been seeing uh the stats i used yesterday was at a minimum two hundred and fifty billion dollars per year in gao up to a trillion dollars according to lexus nexus i mean and and it's impossible to prosecute that and recover those funds you have to prevent them from going out to the front-end. So can you, first of all, just address the the accusations of partisan allocation of grant money. Um, elections matter, and obviously you're gonna provide grant money to the the the issues that uh a duly elected president are go are going to want to support. But then also just talk about what we need to do to uh rein in fraud and prevent money ever going out the door.

Well, Senator, I certainly appreciate the question, um, and I would note as it relates to the um uh adherence to administrations in the disbursement of grant money i was kind of struck by some of the comments because during the rescissions process um there were folks that were saying hey don't rescind this money just spend it on things uh that the administration agrees with it might have been spent on things that you didn't agree with in the past why don't you just spend it on um uh administration priorities now so i thought that was something that struck me during that process but as it relates to two cfr uh part two hundred in the updates it's fundamentally about getting our arms around the grant enterprise which is at a trillion dollars a year ensuring that we have accountability as it relates to the fraud uh aspects of it we wanna mandate the use of the do not pay system so if you're on a list that is an individual that is not able to receive federal financial assistance we require the agencies to check that list if you're someone that is on the death master file um or something like that, we wanna ensure that we're stopping that on the front-end, because to your point, if we don't stop fraud on the front-end, it becomes much more difficult, uh, on the back-end. We also wanna ensure that these grants aren't going out in a way, um, that advances divisive DEI ideologies, uh, woke gender ideologies, illegal immigration, as we saw in the past administration, um, and want to ensure that there are additional steps to ensure accountability, so the folks that the president points and puts in power when he is elected by the American people are able to review grant issuance decisions.

the the example i used uh yesterday was uh doctor ross apparently uh through information systems again we're trying to set up an ai system in in omb um to scan the data to look for potential fraud but he identified that a third of all hospice centers in america are located in los angeles i mean that is just an astonishing fact which of course there's an you start drilling into that going, how can this be possible? Uh, apparently through those investigations they they determined that they were not gonna fund four hundred of these hospice centers. They cut off funding, and I'd kinda like you to describe that that process. But having cut off funding, not one of the four hundred centers complained. Which speaks volumes, right? I mean, if you were a legitimate hospice center, you'd be relying on that funding and you'd be screaming, you know, bloody murder, say we need that funds. Not one of four hundred. So it just gives you a sense of just the the pervasiveness or fraud within so many of these programs. But just just talk about the process of of what we have to do to prevent money going out.

Um, thank you, Senator. In order to prevent money from going out, you need to be m- make sure you have the data to understand um who these funds should be going to. Uh, in a lot of cases we aren't provided with that data and we have limited decision-making space. Um, we also need to, uh, ensure that, like I said, files like the Do-net-Pay system are being checked, that we have endpoint verification. In many instances, when something goes to the states and is block-granted to the states, that's kind of the end of the line for federal government oversight. At that point, the states are the ones that are distributing the money. And to your point, it's become incredibly difficult to get it on the back-end. The Fraud Task Force and the work that it's doing, um, has been kind of two-fold in the sense that they're trying to stand up

So, j- just real quickly, can you also talk about the resistance you're getting, this administration's getting from governors of states that

Mm-hmm.

refuse to provide the information that you need to prevent the fraud?

Absolutely, Senator, and we've seen this, uh, in the SNAP program particularly. Um, states, some states have been more than willing to provide their Snap data to the, uh, to the administration so we can verify, um, compliance with the program's terms. Others have not. Others have filed lawsuits against us. That is a microcosm of a problem that exists across the board. And that's certainly a, uh, a place where we need additional tools from Congress to be able to ins- insure compliance and insure the federal taxpayer dollars are being spent wisely, um, and in a manner that's fiscally responsible.

I appreciate your efforts. Thanks.

i think this this brings up a point that is probably we talk about oversight maybe one of the most important points we'll get to we have lots and lots of programs where the state signs people up for it and the federal government pays for it there's no oversight because then the state resists the oversight but we're letting the state sign people up so everybody and their brother might be signed up for food stamps able bodied people people working people not eligible but we can't review cause california will resist or new york will resist This is probably the biggest oversight problem we face in all of the payment programs we have in our country. Senator Peters.

Uh, Mister Hamilton, um, under President Trump's second administration, nearly ninety percent of Republican states' uh disaster assistance requests have been approved. That compares to only twenty-three percent of Democratic states' Request. Since the establishment of FEMA, no, and let me highlight, no other president has created such a disparity in states that receive federal disaster aid. Denying over seventy-five percent of requests from states that are led by representatives of another party is uncomfortable. We have a chart here, I'll just show you the chart here, which is pretty stark data. Pretty stark data. From Trump, stand up please. Aye. Republican states, boom, a collapse in Democratic states. Given this stark data, what other conclusions can one draw other than the president is using federal disaster assistance to punish states that elect Democrats? So my question for you, sir, is does disaster survivor in a blue state deserve less support than a survivor in a red state?

Senator, thank you for your question. What I can tell you is I care deeply for survivors, and I believe the president does as well. Um, I believe all survivors who have faced high consequence events deserve the proper care, support and resources of the United States government brought to bear.

So how do you explain this uh discrepancy here?

Well, Senator, I certainly appreciate your concern, what I can tell you is that if confirmed, my focus will be to ensure that FEMA is objective, is fair and reasonable, follows the law, and is consistent in the approach to be

Well.

uh how we adjudicate and process claims and requests for disasters

well i'm gonna cut back to that but uh you know i would just wanna say you know i seem to recall my colleagues on the other side of the aisle here were absolutely incensed by several instances during president biden's tenure where fema representatives skipped houses with trump signs uh i called that out as well i thought that was unaccountable i'm on the record condemning that my republican colleagues were condemning that and now that the federal government is deciding not to skip a few homes But entire states, I would hope my colleagues would join me with that outrage that they had when a few houses were skipped. I hope that comes, I hope we hear that today. But it's concerning to your point about doing something different, which I hope that's the case. But you were involved in this process for five months last year and are now back at DHS now, but you still can't answer questions about what happened while you were there, why this huge cliff of democratic states being denied disaster assistance survivors being denied disaster assistance so i'm not satisfied uh with that answer uh i don't trust that that's what you're gonna do cause it didn't seem like you did it when you were there before or were not involved in it or don't uh now talk about it uh and i i certainly hope that we uh get further explanations of how you're gonna go forward uh and uh certainly uh uh mr. duncan as well i'll be asking for uh information regarding this uh written mr. duncan uh as we discussed yesterday OMB is refusing to cooperate with at least fourteen GAO audits, including ten audits re- required by law, required by law, you're ignoring them, and four audits that I requested as the main ranking member of HISGAC. As I hope you know, GAO is is Congress's independent, nonpartisan watchdog. Now, I know that drives this administration crazy to have a watchdog, especially if they're independent. They're used to people standing around them, just rubber-snapping whatever they do. But these are independent watchdogs. And their work has literally saved billions in taxpayer money from fraud and for abuse. And you're ignoring those. What would be as ignoring them? Will you commit without reservation to full cooperation with every GAO audit?

Senator, I appreciate the question and I appreciated the opportunity to meet with you and your team yesterday. Um, we have received that list of audits, uh, that your team flagged for us last night. i sent it to our team um this morning first thing uh and asked them to review we're gonna have a conversation about those specific um audits right after this hearing um as it relates to uh inquiries we get from gao i would note that gao has seven times the number of employees that omb does um at one point we had fifty open inquiries uh from gao mid last year we tried to respond to gao inquiries in a responsible time while we're able while uh still maintaining our ability to carry out our duties um in support of the administration. Um, I certainly commit to being apprised of every GAO request in discussing next steps with counsel um and understand the importance of the responses to the audits that, uh, you flagged for me uh yesterday, um and the responses there as well.

Well, I I hope you will be. I appreciate that you will do that. I look forward to your your quick response. Uh, I appreciate you mentioning the resources GAO has. They have it for a reason, because they actually save billions of dollars. And as I recall, Congress has given OMB one hundred million dollars, uh, in the big, beautiful bill. So there are plenty of resources in your department. And if you could dedicate some of those to independent oversight, it'd actually save billions of dollars in taxpayer money. I would certainly welcome that. We hope to see that if you're confirmed.

Senator Morano.

Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, uh, there was some concerns about, uh, the five of you not having your background checks and FBI pieces. So maybe we can do a little vetting here this morning. if you guys don't mind. Uh, so maybe we can, uh, assuage some concerns that people may have legitimately about your backgrounds. So starting with you, mister Duncan, if you guys just say yes or no quickly, uh, do any of you have a Nazi tattoo?

Senator, as I mentioned yesterday, I do not have any tattoos, especially not a Nazi tattoo.

It's capital?

Senator, I do not have any tattoos of that nature.

How many?

Do not have any tattoos, Senator.

Every other

No.

one.

No.

Have any of you ever said that women deserved to be raped? and uh should take accountability for it being intoxicated senator absolutely not

no

no

senator i've had family members uh sexually assaulted in very egregious ways so absolutely not

uh how about uh that uh black people don't tip well would that be in your background

senator absolutely not

no senator

no sir

absolutely not

no Have any of you fantasized about raping men who broke into your homes?

Senator, absolutely not.

No, Senator. No, sir. No.

No.

Have any of you fantasized about masturbating in public bathrooms?

Senator, absolutely not.

No, Senator. No, sir. No, sir.

No.

Well, I'm glad that you, uh, uh, clarified that for us. I mean, you wouldn't be qualified to be the Democrat nominee for Senate in Maine. But certainly, uh, glad that we got those questions out of the way. And, Mister Hamilton, I ask you one last one, that the, uh, Democrat nominee for Senate, Maine, that's been endorsed by, uh, Demo- uh, Senate Democrats. What do you think about the, the idea that he called, uh, people who got killed in Afghanistan losers to somebody who served? How does that make you feel as somebody who is in the military?

Uh, well, thank you for the question, Senator. As a combat veteran, former Navy SEAL, I've served with some amazing men and women overseas, some of the most uh incredible americans i take that with grave personal offense um i've lost friends who've been buried in that soil i've had great americans that i've worked with that i've had to save their lives for uh i think it's a reprehensible statement that strikes at the very heart and nature of american character

and if any of the people here that we're looking to confirm for these positions had any of these things in their background would you uh fault us for not voting for those people and disqualifying them right away mister mister hamilton from just your position

I would not support an individual with statements such as that, if I can speak on a personal matter, Senator.

Perfect. I appreciate it. Mister Cummings, you're looking to uh take over the uh TSA. We're sitting here in June. TSA has been shut down by the Democrats three times just as Congress alone. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the Democrats are plotting again not to cooperate with appropriations and shut down the government again in September. Tell me how difficult it is uh to you to be in that job knowing that your workers may once again not receive a paycheck not because they didn't do the good job not because they didn't show up for work because of pure raw unadulterated politics how difficult does that make your job

thank you for the question uh mister senator it is um clear that going without pay for months is not something that any american should have to put up with uh least of which the ones that are protecting our skies and our transportation systems and so i think i would hope that um this congress uh keeps that in mind and for future uh appropriations and spending bills that um if if we should care about the essential workers we should care about those that are protecting our borders those that are protecting our our airports, our transportation systems, um, and quite frankly, their morale that I've encountered is quite low right now, and it's something that I'm gonna have to put as my number one priority, uh, in my first day on the job. And for the

We should do our job and fund the government.

Yes, we should.

Right. And, Mister Hamilton, do you think it's impor- how important do you think it is for us to pass Senator Johnson's shutdown Fairness Act? That would say, in the inevitability that the Democrats decide that it's politically wise for them to shut down the government, that government employees would continue to get paid so that they don't get used as pawns.

I would say, Senator, that it's reasonable for us to pass legislation to ensure that all the federal executive actions can be achieved properly and are properly funded.

And real quickly, uh, Mister Kavanaugh. Uh, there's, uh, about sixty five billion dollars owed to the US government by Chinese solar panel companies that lost a lawsuit. They owe that money to, uh, the Customs and Border Patrol Department for terrorists that they did not pay. Uh, do I have uh your commitment that you'll go after them, chase them down and hunt them down for every last cent?

Senator, you absolutely have my commitment to do that. And as if if confirmed, I look forward to taking advantage of several several developments in technology to close loopholes that countries have been using.

Thank you.

Senator Hassan.

Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair, uh, and Senator Marino. I'd look forward to your review of Senator Lankford's and my end government shutdown bill that has strong bipartisan support. Um I wanna thank the witnesses for being here today. I normally ask all nominees uh this question and I'm gonna ask it for the record so we don't spend time with your answers this morning but the question will be if the president orders you to violate the law whether you're gonna follow the law, or follow the president's directive. Um and now I'll move on to my first question, which is to Mister Hamilton. Um I'm gonna follow up on the line that uh Senator Peters was asking you uh because I too am concerned that the report came out earlier this year uh that FEMA under the Trump administration had approved eighty-nine percent of disaster funding applications submitted by Republican led states but only twenty-three percent from Democratic led states. As you and I discussed in our meeting, and I appreciated that meeting, this is unacceptable. The idea that Americans who need help in the wake of a tornado or a flood or a hurricane should be treated differently, based upon politics is shameful, it is un-American. So, Mister Hamilton, do you agree that politics and partisan considerations should play no part in approving disaster assistance?

I do, ma'am.

Thank you. Um, if you recommend that disaster assistance should be approved, and the president disagrees based upon his political or personal considerations, what would you do?

Well, thank you for the question, ma'am. I think that every disaster has to be adjudicated and evaluated on their own merits. So we would take the consideration of the public assistance, individual assistance team, formulate what we believe to be an appropriate course of action, and strong recommendations to the president. Uh, my goal will be to make that process, if confirmed, as clear and objective as possible.

Right, but what would you do if he, if he says, look, it's led by a democratic, uh, governor, so I'm just not gonna your your recommendation, I get it, but I I wanna punish the Democrats, so they're not getting it. What would you do?

Well, that's a very, um, odd hypothetical. I don't believe the President would do that, but I will tell you that my oath of office requires that I follow and obey the law.

Well, I do believe, given the evidence that we're seeing right now, that the President would do it, because that's the only explanation for that kind of gap between the awards of disaster assistance. We have a President who does some outrageous things. Um, and to Senator Marino's earlier uh uh questions, including um making incredibly derogatory comments about veterans and Senator John McCain. Um, so we have a president who uh daily gives us examples of breaking the law. And you all are going to have to think about what you will do uh when he uh reverses your decision completely based on politics, which as I said would be immoral and un-American. Uh, I appreciate your commitment to following your oath of office. but I hope you will give this serious thought. Now to Mister Kavanaugh. Uh Secretary Noem put Corey Lewandowski in charge of the day-to-day operations of the Department of Homeland Security. Mister Lewandowski then reportedly abused his position to personally profit from blatant corruption. During the presidential transition, Mister Lewandowski reportedly demanded bribes in exchange for DHS contracts. At DHS he handed out no-bid contracts to his cronies, and fired employees who stood in his way. So, Mister Kavanaugh, as Under Secretary for Management, you'd be the top contracting official at DHS. Will you commit to conducting a review of DHS contracts that might have been approved by Mister Lewandowski for potential self-dealing and pay-to-play schemes?

Senator, thank you for the question. Uh, I'd like to start by saying, uh, Secretary Mullen, after being confirmed, has already began that process, and if confirmed, I commit to following up and providing additional support into the process of reviewing all contracts.

OK, including uh the contracts that might have been approved by Mister Lewandowski for potential self-dealing and corrupt pay-to-play schemes.

Right.

OK. Um And um Secretary Mull- will you personally also oversee that process?

As the Under Secretary for Management, uh, yes, the delegation would be down to that role.

OK. Um, and will you commit to giving Congress the information it needs to conduct its own investigation into Mister Lewandowski's corruption, such as rooting sheets and other documents that show Mister Lewandowski's role in DHS contracts?

Senator, I I commit to being open and transparent and accountable with the oversight committees, and look forward to that relationship.

Right. Thank you very much. Um, Mister Duncan. In Jan- uh, oh, I'm seeing that I'm almost out of time, Mister Chair. So, um, I will, uh, ask this question, uh, for the record. Thank you.

Senator Scott.

Thank you, Chairman. Um Thank each of you. Congratulations. I think you've been here. Congratulations on your nominations. So, Mister Hamilton, FEMA's a pretty big deal for Florida, right? Uh, we've uh, when I was governor we had four major uh hurricanes, and FEMA was an unbelievable partner. uh in our state um the tell me how you how you would handle this so right or wrong i never understood it it never made any sense to me but um the federal government would pay seventy five percent of things like shelter and and um debris pickup and things like that um so the um and then so on debris pickup here's what happened so a county would have a contract for seven dollars eight dollars uh eight dollars and fifty cents a square foot our cubic yard. And then um, um, so we then the federal government just out of graciousness, they would pay seventy five percent of it, the state would pay twelve and a half percent, and the county would pay twelve and a half percent. So I got all these calls as soon as major storm happened, said you know I need to turn that, you need to turn that over to the corps of engineers. Because if you turn it over to the corps of engineers, they do, they supposedly do it way better. Right? So I always assumed when I got those call there's money involved, right? well here's what happens as soon as they turn it over to the courts ninety percent by the feds for whatever reason then i paid five at the state the county's paid five good deal right for the state not a great deal for the federal government what's better is guess guess what the contract was with the corps what's your guess

um i i i couldn't guess senator

seventy two bucks same as a seventy two seventy two dollars a cubic yard so um uh and then and so and guess what it's the same companies And if these, if these companies would decide they didn't wanna, if I wouldn't turn over the cord and they wouldn't, they'd just say, " Oh, I'm not gonna pick it up." Then if, then they'd say, " Oh, I want twenty bucks." Then the government, like that, they'd say, " Okay, we'll pay seventy-five percent of that." Does that make any sense to you?

No, I think, Senator, you've identified some unique challenges that will have to be resolved within FEMA. Um, there are, the Corps of Engineers is a, uh, they are, they utilize contract vehicles through the Department of War. uh through the economy act they allow and leverage other federal government agencies to take advantage of their contracting capability. It's fairly ubiquitous throughout the United States government. What I will say is there's definitely concerns about trying to find ways to reduce the administrative cost of some of these projects. And I think that we uh my role if confirmed will be to ensure that states have enough information possible to understand the programs better and to encourage cost reasonableness. Um fair, reasonable, and justifiable have to be the measurements through which we all contract activity. So, um, if confirmed, my, my focus will be to ensure that our procurement processes and everything that FEMA does to facilitate payments and reimbursements are fair, are within market rates, and are reasonable, so that the American people feel that not only they're getting the best bang for their buck, but that we're also being wise and diligent with taxpayer dollars as good stewards.

So why is the federal government paying seventy-five percent of a lot of this, a lot of this? why what's what's the what's the argument

so much of that is written within the stafford act and other legislative actions that have occurred that stipulate the balance between federal and state investment states then commute some of that investment down to the local level uh this is the unique paradigm that is always uh in fluctuation within various disasters uh the hurricanes that we saw with helena milton there was a hundred percent cost share that the federal government pays for the entirety of the disaster that is a discretion that the president may have at times or a ninety percent cost share in the event that that the devastation is more particularly egregious and cataclysmic, uh, that clearly transcends a state's ability to respond. Now, these are balances that have to be struck, and this is ultimately a decision space, as in law, for the Commander-in-Chief. My job is, if confirmed, will be to represent to him all the objective facts and to ensure that as we liquidate and expense dollars in accordance with his decision, that we do so with reasonableness and that we're wise with those dollars to go further. My focus is to help as many disaster survivors as possible, which means we have to be responsible with how we use those funds.

So if the state and the county, um, have less and less skin in the game, do you think they're gonna watch the money?

I'll be transparent with you, Senator. I think many states and local officials have had incentives to drive up costs. I think this is also a unique challenge within disaster management response. Now, yes, they're entitled to support, we uh as uh as the agency have confirmed we would need to strike a new balance to encourage cost reasonableness and cost savings. Um so yes there are direct incentives for states to escalate costs because they bring home more resources and infrastructure. We have quite a bit of deferred maintenance. This is always an issue with FEMA grants, where states will then request that reimbursements be made to cover other disaster related um you know uh devastation that wasn't directly connected to the one which was requested. It's never an easy battle. My goal will to be, is to be transparent and to partner with states, so that we can ensure that those dollars go further, and that we can ensure that states are also being responsible with us. I think the president very clearly cares to ensure that states have their own skin in the game as well, so that they're paying their portion of it. The Stafford Act and the second paragraph stipulates state responsibilities to respond to disasters, federal responsibility then to come in and support those efforts. thank you

uh senator scott i think you've hit the nail in the head on oversight i think to have true oversight if you had a fifty fifty split and we stuck by it i'm guessing there'd be less uh disasters declared

and why do we give why do you know what uh senator haslam brought up this idea that you know a president could pick and choose you know whether he's a republican or democrat president so and then somebody can wave and get a hundred percent this is crazy i mean we're running two trillion dollar deficits no this i don't get why we have no incentive there's so little incentive for the local government to watch the money

uh senator hassan you wanna say anything since you were referred to

i i as a former as a as a former governor who has worked closely with my local communities especially one right now which has been devastated for the third time in two or three years by heavy rains um i think they watch their dollars very closely at least in my state thank you

do you do debris he must not do debris pickup like i have to do

he the the same

i i i i'm happy to work with you on reforming disaster relief but i don't think this is the time or the place

but the the same principle of the fifty fifty split goes to things like medicaid do you think we would be taking care of the poorest and the neediest if the split were fifty fifty or if the federal government pays ninety percent so all these things make a big difference we let the states make these decisions but then the federal government pays picks up the check so you can't have the people determining the cost separated from the people paying or you get a disastrous two trillion dollar deficit

uh m- mister mister chair just uh there are parameters and rules that states

sure

have to follow if they're gonna get that ninety percent reimbursement and their oversight uh could be improved if we improve our government processes to be sure uh but i think uh the assumption that our deficit right now is a result of that as opposed to the result of tax cuts to billionaires is pretty rich thank you

yeah i think it uh it's a great discussion and a debate because the thing is is when you don't pay for it there's not a a financial disincentive to add more people so what happened since the federal government pays ninety percent of medicaid now healthier richer people are on medicaid than used to be the people that were added were had higher incomes and were healthier and more able-bodied than we had previously because the states do have to be more judicious when they're paying a higher percentage of what medicaid costs

uh and i'll just note it's something around sixteen thousand dollars is the limit for a single adult at my to get Medicaid expansion. That's not a high earner. Thank you.

Senator Slotkin.

Um, thank you for being here. Um, thank you uh to couple of you who I met in my office um yesterday and for taking the time. Um, w- obviously you've heard a lot um uh, Mister Hamilton, about concerns about politicization um and uh, you know, I think the the thing that um you heard from my colleague from Michigan was it's just hard to to rationalize um just the the how many disasters have been approved for aid in republican states versus democratic states and in michigan we're a swing state we're a purple state um and i i i think um particularly the ice storm that we had a year and a half ago um has really felt like we've had to use um an an incredible amount of of influence and power, both Democrats and Republicans working together in our delegation to get um reimbursement. And um I I think, you know, the total damage from that storm was four hundred and forty million dollars. And if we don't, you know, get help, then the average rate payer, you know, because we had electric co-ops go down, is gonna be charged an extra forty five hundred dollars per household. So it is pretty existential for people in my state. Um, I know you're you're someone who's worked in and around FEMA for a long time, um, but it, I just wanna double tap the idea that we c- we can't have stats coming out of your office, when and if you get confirmed, that demonstrate that you get more of a payout if you're in a Republican state and a faster payout if you're in a Republican state. And I, I, that should go without saying, um, and Republicans would be screaming bloody murder if the stats were reversed. and if it was easier to get money if you were a democratic state under a democratic president. Let's please keep disasters apolitical. Um, I I wanna ask, uh, to Mister Duncan. You've had an interesting couple of days up here on the Hill, made some news, gone viral a couple of times, um, and, uh, I just feel like, um, this idea that to get a federal grant, um, you i- i- the rules have been rewritten so that you can reject any organization that represents quote " anti-American values", um and anyone who quote " damages the reputation of the government". So, you're gonna be in an important position of power. You want the big job. You answer the big questions. Um, if a university that was receiving federal dollars, uh for a research grant, into cancer, but they allowed a protest, a peaceful protest of the Iran war, um on their campus, would that be quote " damaging to the reputation of the government"?