White House Budget Hearing

Jodey Arrington (00:00):

... 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.

(00:56)
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 fear-mongering, 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, 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 plane load 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.

(03:38)
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 masterclass 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 seven to eight trillion record deficit spending.

(04:37)
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 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 looming debt crisis in mandatory spending by rooting out waste, fraud and abuse to the tune of about $1.5 trillion, constrain 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.

(07:13)
We would have been at 2.5% plus growth. We were made a mockery and 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 trillion and a half dollars to reduce the deficit. So, there is a reason that CBO in their recent report, six months into this fiscal year, shows a 10% reduction in our deficit. It's been decades since we've seen that. 10% 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.

(08:20)
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 pattycake 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 imminent threats.

(09:08)
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 interests 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, right? 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.

(09:48)
With that, I yield time to my colleague and ranking member, Mr. Brendan Boyle.

Brendan Boyle (09:54):

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.

(10:05)
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. 29%, an average of the last three polls shows 30% 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.

(11:14)
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 in every single month we've seen inflation increase and gas prices.

(12:06)
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 the 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've seen over the last month the largest increase in gas prices in my lifetime, in the lifetime of most people here.

(12:47)
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.

(13:53)
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 semi-quincentennial, but Pennsylvania is really known over the last decade in our politics is 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. He 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.

(14:52)
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're, 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.

(15:32)
And with that, I yield back.

Jodey Arrington (15:33):

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.

(15:45)
Now, I'd like to recognize Director Vought. 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.

Russell Vought (16:04):

[inaudible 00:16:04], Ranking Member Boyle, members of the committee, thank you for having me here to testify on the president's budget request for fiscal year '27. I look forward to a productive conversation on how to continue the fiscal progress we've made so far.

(16:17)
When President Trump took office, the nation was facing financial catastrophe under the failed leadership of the Biden administration and decades of status quo spending strangling our nation. Those decades produced nothing in the area of fiscal restraint. A lot of talk about the program and the problems, but utter futility about doing anything about it. That fiscal futility has ended with the return of President Trump.

(16:40)
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.

(17:03)
This bill bent...

Jodey Arrington (17:05):

Mr. Vought, just hold on for a second.

Speaker X (17:07):

[inaudible 00:17:12].

Jodey Arrington (17:14):

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.

(17:25)
Shut the door, please.

Speaker X (19:11):

[inaudible 00:19:14].

Jodey Arrington (19:28):

Mr. Vought, please resume.

Russell Vought (19:29):

This bill bent to 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-

Jodey Arrington (19:50):

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. And I don't think it's going to work that way either side. So, let's move those guys.

Brendan Boyle (20:21):

If you don't mind, 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 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.

Jodey Arrington (21:01):

Thank you. Thank you. Well-said.

Speaker X (21:01):

[inaudible 00:21:07].

Jodey Arrington (21:51):

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

Russell Vought (21:58):

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. He 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.

(22:35)
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.

(23:09)
We look forward to working with you to achieve even more progress in the next appropriations 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% cut to non-defense, compared to 2026 levels. Within this total, the budget maintains investment and border security and immigration enforcement. It delivers on the president's commitment to support law enforcement and combat violence crime with a 13% increase to the Department of Justice and honors the nation's sacred obligation to our military veterans.

(23:44)
In addition, this 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 dollars makes Americans safer, stronger, and more prosperous. The budget simultaneously builds upon the historic $1 trillion fiscal year '26 defense top line by requesting $1.5 trillion for 2027, a 42% increase as promised by President Trump last year.

(24:21)
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 sizable 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.

(25:03)
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.

Jodey Arrington (25:37):

I thank the gentlemen, Director Vought, and we'll now move to Q&A, and I will 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%, but the average was 5%. The average inflation rate during President Trump's first year, and it went down 2.7%. 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.

(26:35)
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, to speak to that from your perspective. Again, what drove those things, where we were then, where we are now, one year into this administration?

Russell Vought (27:00):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm honestly astounded that the Democrats would make an issue of inflation when they had 9% 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." In fact, we did. It was not because the 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 deflationary spiral in the midst of COVID. It was because of spending.

(28:08)
And so, this administration has come into the economic disaster, which was the Biden administration, and gotten costs lower. It has ensured that we have fiscal progress, so that the era of big spending is over. Like I've said, we have the end of fiscal futility. I look around at many of the pictures of the chairman 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're in the midst of passing and we passed the extension of the president's tax cuts. Many of those were aimed at working-class individuals. They're 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.

(29:11)
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% 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-

Jodey Arrington (29:35):

... 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 year since the president has been in the Oval Office, and certainly, during the Big Beautiful Bill debates, was that we were cutting much-needed program for vulnerable American citizens. But the nonpartisan CBO put out a missive that outlined 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.

(30:30)
Any comment on just the waste and fraud focus? And then, I'll move on to the ranking members' question.

Russell Vought (30:36):

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 the 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, cash assistance, was then added to Medicaid and to food stamps, historic reforms. And we're going to see the benefit of that with people getting back to work.

(31:12)
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.

Jodey Arrington (31:49):

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

Jodey Arrington (32:00):

I'm just in fairness, okay? So your Q&A for five minutes plus.

Brendan Boyle (32:05):

All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 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 dice. 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.

(33:01)
In addition to the over $4 trillion it adds for our national debt, it eliminates healthcare coverage for more than 15 million Americans, according to the CBO, the Kaiser Family Foundation says there'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?

Russell Vought (33:32):

Yes. With regard to the people that have [inaudible 00:33:35]

Brendan Boyle (33:35):

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

Russell Vought (33:39):

I have number of issues with regard to your comments there.

Brendan Boyle (33:43):

Wait, wait, wait, let me just-

Russell Vought (33:44):

Number one is-

Brendan Boyle (33:45):

Sorry. 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 this, even though we had one of them actually testify before us at this committee.

Russell Vought (34:03):

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 draft-

Brendan Boyle (34:17):

Okay. So they're all either illegals or defrauding the system?

Russell Vought (34:21):

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

Brendan Boyle (34:28):

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 of 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.

Russell Vought (34:59):

Are now 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 reasons-

Brendan Boyle (35:11):

Wait. So, I mean, it's right of center groups as well. Well, reclaim 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.

Russell Vought (35:25):

I am 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 firms and it's $50 billion for rural healthcare plan that you voted against.

Brendan Boyle (35:46):

All right Well, before you get to the... 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, 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?

Russell Vought (36:35):

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

Brendan Boyle (36:37):

Well, he said it. I mean, he said it.

Russell Vought (36:40):

What he's referring to-

Brendan Boyle (36:40):

So you're disagreeing with that President said?

Russell Vought (36:41):

No, I'm saying that the President meant is he's talking about fraud in these programs. He's talking about [inaudible 00:36:46]

Brendan Boyle (36:46):

He didn't mention ... Excuse me. Reclaim 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% increase, is that right?

Russell Vought (37:20):

Correct. For many paradigm shifting investments that we need this [inaudible 00:37:25]

Brendan Boyle (37:24):

A 42% increase on what was already a record high for defense. And look, I serve as part of our US 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 is the strongest military. The idea that we're going to pay for a 42% 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, 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.

Speaker 1 (38:10):

You're good. No, you're good.

Jodey Arrington (38:13):

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-

Brendan Boyle (38:51):

I mean, 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.

Jodey Arrington (38:59):

Absolutely.

Brendan Boyle (39:01):

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.

Jodey Arrington (39:10):

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 rank to the vice chairman of the committee, Lloyd Smucker for five minutes, then Lloyd Doggett, Tom McClintock, Bobby Scott.

Mr. Grothman (39:27):

Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Director, for being here with us. 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 Big Beautiful Bill, under the policies of your office and of the President compared to what they were experiencing under the Biden administration. And 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. 9% inflation, an average of 5% 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.

(40:36)
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 costs of goods. And so this started, I think, back in June, maybe you could clarify that for me. So over time, people are feeling like they're in a better position due to the policies of this administration. And I want to remind, it's April 15th. 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.

(41:49)
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% 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.

(42:49)
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 US 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 employees, 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.

(43:53)
And then 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 3% 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 or 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. 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?

Jodey Arrington (44:35):

Gentleman's time's expired brief response, and then we're going to go to Mr. Doggett's [inaudible 00:44:39]

Russell Vought (44:39):

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.

Jodey Arrington (45:16):

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

Lloyd Doggett (45:19):

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%. Mental health, 47%, new grants for cancer research, 23%. 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% cut at the National Institutes of Health?

Russell Vought (45:48):

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 lower the costs this year

Lloyd Doggett (45:59):

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

Russell Vought (46:05):

We propose to have a cut to the National Institute of Health-

Lloyd Doggett (46:09):

Thank you, sir. Reclaiming my time.

Russell Vought (46:10):

... that goes after specific programs-

Lloyd Doggett (46:12):

Yes, sir, thank you. Reclaiming my time let's talk about your-

Russell Vought (46:14):

... and institutes like the Minority Health Disparity Institute, like Fogarty Center.

Lloyd Doggett (46:16):

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman. If the gentleman will please yield, he can filibuster when he's in the Senate.

Jodey Arrington (46:22):

Gentlemen reclaims his time.

Lloyd Doggett (46:24):

What we do know as far as the truth is that there are fewer grants for new cases last year at NIH than at any time in the last 30 years. Is it your feeling in 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?

Russell Vought (46:52):

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 institute $42 trillion, which is more than it got under the COVID pandemic 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% for parkings and administrative costs and buildings that should go-

Lloyd Doggett (47:19):

Yes, sir. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman.

Jodey Arrington (47:20):

Gentleman reclaims his time.

Lloyd Doggett (47:21):

After giving last year, fewer grants that at any time in the last 30 years, you are 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 has 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%?

Russell Vought (47:50):

We have a sizable cut to National Science Foundation-

Lloyd Doggett (47:52):

Science foundation. Over half of the funding of the National Science-

Russell Vought (47:54):

... bu I will not impact our investments on artificial intelligence, quantum physics.

Lloyd Doggett (47:58):

Well, it's good to know because you may be the only person along with President Trump who believed 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?

Russell Vought (48:35):

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 blown-

Lloyd Doggett (48:49):

Yes, sir. Thank you very much. I'll accept that as you're 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.

Russell Vought (49:11):

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-

Lloyd Doggett (49:28):

Well, 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?

Russell Vought (49:56):

We flat fund childcare, which you would not get from question that you have asked.

Lloyd Doggett (49:59):

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.

Russell Vought (50:08):

It is a historically fraudulent program.

Lloyd Doggett (50:11):

Do you terminated entirely or not?

Russell Vought (50:13):

We do not have funding for LIHEAP because-

Lloyd Doggett (50:16):

Yes, sir.

Russell Vought (50:16):

... we believe in the moment where we are fighting fraud-

Lloyd Doggett (50:20):

Unfortunately, all the many things the President says he wants to cut, you have not gotten to Medicare in this budget yet.

Russell Vought (50:25):

I don't see [inaudible 00:50:26] why he funds-

Lloyd Doggett (50:26):

I guess 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, 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.

Russell Vought (50:50):

Can I address that, Mr. Chairman? Very quickly.

Jodey Arrington (50:54):

30 seconds.

Russell Vought (50:54):

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.

Lloyd Doggett (51:06):

Well, I'm sure the dead people argument applies just about as much as it did President Trump's claim that people that were 300-years-old were getting social securities, it's all phony.

Jodey Arrington (51:15):

The 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.

Tom McClintock (51:25):

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.

(52:06)
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.

Speaker 2 (52:32):

Damn.

Tom McClintock (52:32):

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 that 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.

(53:23)
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 reign in this waste?

Russell Vought (53:44):

Thank you, Congressman. This is one of the areas where we 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 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 a dollar spent is a dollar advertised, when you dig into it, you find that that's quite frankly not the case.

Tom McClintock (54:50):

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 Waltz 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?

Russell Vought (55:37):

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 identified in California. We've established 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.

Tom McClintock (56:33):

Yes, but as we learn from the Ellison audio tape, it does enrich their supporters. Yield back.

Jodey Arrington (56:42):

Mr. Bobby Scott from Virginia for five minutes.

Bobby Scott (56:45):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, you outlined the Biden administration. I want to reiterate some of the things that the ranking members said, including out of 48 months in the Biden administration, 47 of those had job growth. The only month that there was a job lost 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 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, 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.

(57:57)
If you ask those who are about to retire, whether they thought it was a good thing, I think most 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 4 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%, so I think it worked. And inflation under Trump, as the ranking members pointed out, specific policies like tariffs, inflation and the war have added to inflation.

(58:57)
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, would like to see it. Now, and the CBO estimates that 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 is your estimate of the damage done to the fiscal situation by that bill?

Russell Vought (59:45):

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

Bobby Scott (59:52):

Okay. So everybody thinks it's going to add about four 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 inherited. Does this administration plan to leave a lower deficit than the one they inherited? And if so, are tax increases part of that plan?

Russell Vought (01:00:25):

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 that we need different drafts, no success.

Bobby Scott (01:00:53):

It's a simple question. Do you plan to leave a better deficit than you inherited?

Russell Vought (01:00:55):

This is intentionally a discretionary budget proposal. We don't give you what our deficits long term are. Your intention is trying to make progress every year.

Bobby Scott (01:01:04):

Reclaiming my time. Let me ask you 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?

Russell Vought (01:01:15):

Well, as you know in this budget, we both reflect the fact that we're trying to close the Department of Education, but that substantial resources will continue to flow to communities for education. There's only a 2% 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 restructuring that we did. You voted to eliminate USAID. You voted not to have Corporation for Public Broadcasting when you voted for that omnibus bills, 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 enacts those reforms long term.

Jodey Arrington (01:02:09):

The gentleman's time has expired. You mentioned me, Mr. Scott, the jobs essentially and virtually were 100% government jobs. 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 problem so that we didn't end up 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 situation.

Lloyd Doggett (01:02:43):

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

Jodey Arrington (01:02:48):

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

Mr. Stutzman (01:02:57):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Director, thank you 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 the era of 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 and that is real money in their pockets. Eliminating the death tax, it's huge for farmers. It protects over two million families from a tax penalty for passing their farm to the next generation. The no tax on auto loan interest is huge for Indiana and the auto belt.

(01:03:48)
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 hard-earned money

Mr. Stutzman (01:04:00):

... 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% of PEPFAR funds supported actual service delivery, including medications, testing, commodities, and on. But the remaining 6% 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.

(01:04:51)
So talking about wasteful spending, 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 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.

Russell Vought (01:05:37):

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 we believe there will be trillions that come in from tariffs. We've seen that in the first year.

(01:06:27)
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 trillion staring us in deficits. We've got that down in one year to $18 trillion. I think I'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.

Mr. Stutzman (01:07:25):

Yeah. Thank you. Well, in the long run, I would love to see us move away from income taxes, especially since today's April 15th. 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 mean, coming from a manufacturing district and how they can 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 issues.

Jodey Arrington (01:08:06):

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

Scott Peters (01:08:12):

Thank you. And 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?

Russell Vought (01:08:33):

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.

Scott Peters (01:08:41):

Okay. But you can just answer the question.

Russell Vought (01:08:42):

However, we have complied with it.

Scott Peters (01:08:44):

Did you withhold congressionally appropriated funds without a rescission or deferral request submitted to Congress? That's yes, right?

Russell Vought (01:08:50):

Not in violation of the Impoundment Control Act. We've done programmatic reviews of varies programs to across the government.

Scott Peters (01:08:52):

Did you ever submit decisions? Did you ever submit rescission or deferral requests to Congress? Have you sent any?

Russell Vought (01:08:59):

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

Scott Peters (01:09:06):

To Congress?

Russell Vought (01:09:07):

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

Scott Peters (01:09:10):

Did you submit it to Congress?

Russell Vought (01:09:12):

We don't need to submit.

Scott Peters (01:09:13):

Did not.

Russell Vought (01:09:13):

Congressman, if we're just assessing a program for waste and abuse-

Scott Peters (01:09:17):

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

Russell Vought (01:09:22):

Well, we submitted rescissions bills to Congress last year.

Scott Peters (01:09:25):

Okay.

Russell Vought (01:09:26):

Two of them.

Scott Peters (01:09:26):

But not deferral notices that you were withholding.

Russell Vought (01:09:29):

They're not deferrals under the Empowerment Control Act.

Scott Peters (01:09:31):

Okay. The government accountability office has already found that the administration illegally withheld another $8 billion in NIH grants, $7 billion for funding to support K to 12 public schools nationwide, and hundreds of millions of dollars for head start programs across the country. Do you dispute GAO's findings?

Russell Vought (01:09:50):

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 me that they have a different view on that.

Scott Peters (01:10:12):

Do you have a legal opinion on that?

Russell Vought (01:10:14):

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

Scott Peters (01:10:21):

Have you got a formal legal opinion on that?

Russell Vought (01:10:22):

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 and articulate because we feel like we have the moral and legal high ground every time we make a decision.

Scott Peters (01:10:35):

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, if we add the decision from GAO of August five and July 23 on Head Start and NIH impoundment.

Jodey Arrington (01:10:53):

Without objection.

Scott Peters (01:10:57):

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 whether it's tariffs or the war 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.

(01:11:39)
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 this budget will not meet that 3% 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. It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. The other thing I'd suggest is 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.

(01:12:29)
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 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 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.

(01:13:16)
Let's not question each other's motives. I think you guys are really wrong in 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 in 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 that is 2026, folks. It is not 2023. It's not 2024. Joe Biden doesn't matter. Okay? What matters today is what's going on today? What is this budget committee's job? We are not getting to the 3% 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-

Jodey Arrington (01:13:59):

Well, the gentleman is making some fair and fine remarks and I have to us utmost respectfully.

Scott Peters (01:14:06):

Sorry, I went over.

Jodey Arrington (01:14:06):

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-

Scott Peters (01:14:24):

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

Jodey Arrington (01:14:30):

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

Chuck Edwards (01:14:34):

All right. 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 million 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 CBGD 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.

(01:15:46)
About two billion in CDBG-DR funding has already been allocated to North Carolina. We had a storm of Epic proportion, September 27th, 2024, that we estimate costs about $60 billion, and yet we've only received about two billion 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-D funding by $3.3 billion and sites, 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 billion 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?

Russell Vought (01:17:12):

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 CBDG program, we're talking about that typical formula program that goes to paying 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 or 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.

Chuck Edwards (01:18:04):

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 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?

Russell Vought (01:19:11):