Nominations of Russell T. Vought and Craig E. Leen, Senate hearing transcript (June 2, 2020), GovInfo CHRG-116shrg40720, PDF
Summary
This is the printed (PDF) edition of the transcript of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs hearing of June 2, 2020 on Russell T. Vought's nomination as Director of the Office of Management and Budget and Craig E. Leen's nomination as Inspector General of the Office of Personnel Management. Senator Peters said SBA had refused to cooperate with GAO's review of the Paycheck Protection Program and asked Vought, as Acting Director, to commit that federal agencies would cooperate with GAO requests. The printed hearing includes Vought's biographical information, an Office of Government Ethics letter and responses to pre-hearing questions.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Full text
S. Hrg. 116–474
NOMINATIONS OF HON. RUSSELL T. VOUGHT
AND CRAIG E. LEEN
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
HOMELAND SECURITY AND
GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
NOMINATION OF HON. RUSSELL T. VOUGHT TO BE DIRECTOR,
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET AND CRAIG E. LEEN TO BE
INSPECTOR GENERAL, OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
JUNE 2, 2020
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
(
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
40–720 PDF WASHINGTON : 2021
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin, Chairman
ROB PORTMAN, Ohio GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
RAND PAUL, Kentucky THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire
MITT ROMNEY, Utah KAMALA D. HARRIS, California
RICK SCOTT, Florida KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona
MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming JACKY ROSEN, Nevada
JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri
GABRIELLE D’ADAMO SINGER, Staff Director
PATRICK J. BAILEY, Chief Counsel for Governmental Affairs
ANDREW J. TIMM, Professional Staff Member
DAVID M. WEINBERG, Minority Staff Director
ZACHARY I. SCHRAM, Minority Chief Counsel
LAURA W. KILBRIDE, Chief Clerk
THOMAS J. SPINO, Hearing Clerk
(II)
CONTENTS
Opening statements: Page
Senator Johnson ............................................................................................... 1
Senator Peters .................................................................................................. 3
Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 11
Senator Hawley ................................................................................................ 13
Senator Scott ..................................................................................................... 16
Senator Rosen ................................................................................................... 18
Senator Hassan ................................................................................................. 20
Senator Portman .............................................................................................. 23
Senator Lankford .............................................................................................. 26
Senator Romney ................................................................................................ 28
Senator Sinema ................................................................................................ 30
Prepared statements:
Senator Johnson ............................................................................................... 37
Senator Peters .................................................................................................. 39
Senator Scott ..................................................................................................... 41
WITNESSES
TUESDAY, JUNE 2, 2020
Hon. Russell T. Vought to be Director, Office of Management and Budget
Testimony .......................................................................................................... 4
Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 42
Biographical and professional information ..................................................... 44
Letter from the Office of Government Ethics ................................................. 67
Responses to pre-hearing questions ................................................................ 70
Responses to post-hearing questions .............................................................. 120
Letter of Support .............................................................................................. 180
Craig E. Leen to be Inspector General, Office of Personnel Management
Testimony .......................................................................................................... 6
Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 182
Biographical and professional information ..................................................... 185
Letter from the Office of Government Ethics ................................................. 212
Responses to pre-hearing questions ................................................................ 215
Responses to post-hearing questions .............................................................. 242
(III)
NOMINATIONS OF RUSSELL T. VOUGHT AND
CRAIG E. LEEN
TUESDAY, JUNE 2, 2020
U.S. SENATE,
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:32 p.m., via video
conference, Hon. Ron Johnson, Chairman of the Committee, pre-
siding.
Present: Senators Johnson, Portman, Lankford, Romney, Scott,
Hawley, Peters, Carper, Hassan, Sinema, and Rosen.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JOHNSON
Chairman JOHNSON. The hearing will come to order. Today we
are considering the nomination of Mr. Russell Vought to be the Di-
rector of Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Mr. Craig Leen
to be Inspector General (IG) of the Office of Personnel Management
(OPM).
I would ask consent that my written statement be entered into
the record.1
I will keep my opening remarks pretty short.
The Office of Management and Budget has a broad mission to as-
sist the President in the development and execution of his or her
policies and programs. While OMB is perhaps the best known for
its role in overseeing the coordination, production, and administra-
tion of the President’s annual budget, the Office is also responsible
for coordinating the President’s legislative agenda, regulatory and
information policy, and management of the Executive Branch. The
OMB Director is a member of the President’s Cabinet and oversees
a staff of close to 500 employees.
We certainly want to welcome Mr. Vought. Thank you for your
current service and appreciate your willingness to serve in a con-
firm capacity.
The Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the Office of Personnel
Management audits and investigates waste, fraud, and abuse.
OPM issues policy guidance and regulations governing the Federal
civil workforce and manages the health and retirement benefits of-
fered to the millions of current and former employees and their
families. As it continues to struggle to recover from the cata-
strophic 2015 cybersecurity breach, OPM is undergoing a radical
reorganization. The National Background Investigations Bureau
1 The prepared statement of Senator Johnson appears in the Appendix on page 37.
(1)
2
(NBIB), which accounted for over one-third of OPM’s employees,
was transferred to the Department of Defense (DOD) late last year,
and there are serious questions about whether OPM is still fit to
serve a workforce so fundamentally different from when it was es-
tablished in 1979.
Those are obviously the job descriptions of positions that we are
to be talking to nominees about. I want to again thank Mr. Leen
and thank Mr. Vought for your willingness to serve.
Before I turn it over to Senator Peters, I do want to just com-
ment a little bit in terms of what this Committee has done in terms
of hearings on coronavirus disease (COVID) as well as what we are
going to be doing in the future.
Back on February 12, we held a hearing, ‘‘Are We Prepared? Pro-
tecting the U.S. from Global Pandemics,’’ and we had former Cen-
ters for Disease Control (CDC) Director Dr. Julie Gerberding;
former Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Scott
Gottlieb; former Director of Medical and Biodefense Preparedness
of the National Security Council (NSC), Dr. Borio; and others.
That, by the way, was the roundtable where, certainly, I learned
for the first time the vulnerability of our supply chain as it relates
to pharmaceutical drugs. Setting up future hearings, I will talk
about that a little bit later.
On March 5, ‘‘The Federal Interagency Response to the
Coronavirus and Preparing for Future Global Pandemics,’’ we had
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Acting Secretary Ken
Cuccinelli and the Department of Health and Human Service
(HHS) Assistant Secretary for Preparedness, Dr. Kadlec. I thought
that was a pretty darn interesting hearing.
Then on May 6, I think the week we returned, we held our first
WebEx internet hearing, ‘‘How New Information Should Drive Pol-
icy.’’ We had six, a combination of PhD, medical doctors, really kind
of laying out some of the considerations of the shutdown and how
we really ought to be coping with COVID.
Coming up now, June 9, we are going to hold a hearing evalu-
ating the Federal Government’s procurement and distribution
strategies in response to the COVID–19 pandemic.
Again, on June 9, we will have the Federal Emergency Manage-
ment Agency (FEMA) Administrator Peter Gaynor; HHS Assistant
Secretary for Health Brett Giroir; Joint Chief of Staff, Vice Director
for Logistics, Admiral John Polowczyk.
Then on June 16, ‘‘CBP Oversight: Examining the Evolving Chal-
lenges Facing the Agency.’’ We will have Acting Commissioner
Mark Morgan, and we are in the process of crafting two hearings,
one on the medical supply chain, including pharmaceuticals, and
then the strategic national supply chain as well.
Really through the last couple of months while on extended re-
cess because of COVID, the staff has been working tirelessly devel-
oping the foundational base work and baseline information we need
to hold these oversight hearings on COVID, on the medical supply
chain, on the financial strategic stockpile, so looking forward to
those hearings and hope all of our Members can be in attendance
for those as well.
With that, I will turn it over to Senator Peters.
3
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETERS1
Senator PETERS. Thank you, Chairman Johnson, and thank you
to all of our nominees for being here today and for your willingness
to serve.
Today we are considering the nominees for two very different po-
sitions, both critical, to ensuring that the Federal Government is
effectively serving the American people. They are both very chal-
lenging roles, certainly, under any circumstances, but as our coun-
try faces an unprecedented public health and economic crisis, we
need a Federal Government that works strategically and effec-
tively. And that puts the American people first.
States, businesses, workers, and families are looking to the Fed-
eral Government for guidance, resources, and leadership as we
work toward safely reopening our economy.
Mr. Vought, you have served as the Acting Director of the Office
of Management and Budget for the past year and a half, and in
this role, you have helped shape spending and policy decisions gov-
ernmentwide. You currently play a central role in overseeing how
agencies across government are implementing the $2.2 trillion re-
lief package in the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security
(CARES) Act.
That responsibility includes swiftly getting economic relief to
those most in need while ensuring that taxpayer dollars are pro-
tected from waste, fraud, and abuse.
Chairman Johnson and I worked to include bipartisan oversight
and accountability provisions in that legislation, and I am dis-
appointed by the administration’s failure to cooperate with that
oversight.
Mr. Leen, if confirmed, you will have a key oversight role. As the
Inspector General for the Office of Personnel Management, you will
be the agency’s independent watchdog, charged with rooting out
fraud, waste, and abuse.
To be successful, you must be relentlessly independent. You must
follow the facts wherever they may lead, and you must not allow
political pressure to interfere with your work. As you know, that
is not going to be easy.
Over the past 2 months, the President has removed two Senate-
confirmed Inspectors General and replaced a number of Acting In-
spectors General with political appointees. These actions threaten
the integrity and independence of oversight across the enter Fed-
eral Government enterprise.
I encourage you both to look to Congress and to this Committee
as a partner. While we may not always agree on specific measures
or policies, we all want to protect the health and safety of the
American people, and we all want to reopen the economy safely.
Mr. Vought, I appreciate the commitments you have made to
work with Congress and cooperate with oversight efforts, and I
hope that those commitments actually are demonstrated in action.
Mr. Leen, if confirmed, I hope you will also see this Committee
as a resource, especially if you encounter challenges in carrying out
your important oversight work.
1 The prepared statement of Senator Peters appear in the Appendix on page 39.
4
Thank you again, both of you, for being here, and thank you for
testimony.
Thank you once again, Mr. Chairman, for the hearing today.
Chairman JOHNSON. Thanks, Senator Peters.
It is the tradition of this Committee to swear in witnesses. So if
you will both raise your right hand and then answer one at a time.
Do you swear that the testimony you will give before this Com-
mittee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth, so help you, God?
Mr. Vought.
Mr. VOUGHT. I do.
Chairman JOHNSON. Mr. Leen.
Mr. LEEN. I do.
Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you.
We will start with Mr. Vought. Mr. Russ Vought is the Acting
Director of the Office of Management and Budget, a position he has
held since January 2019. In February 2018, Mr. Vought was con-
firmed by the Senate as Deputy Director of OMB. Prior to his serv-
ice at OMB, he worked as a congressional staff for several Mem-
bers of Congress, including Representative Jeb Hensarling and
Senators Chuck Hagel, Phil Gramm, and Dan Coats, and eventu-
ally became the Policy Director for the House Republican Con-
ference.
Mr. Vought received his juris doctor from George Washington
University Law School and his bachelor or arts from Wheaton Col-
lege.
Mr. Vought.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE RUSSELL VOUGHT1 TO BE
DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
Mr. VOUGHT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the
Ranking Member and the Members of the Committee for the honor
of appearing before you today.
I also want to thank my family—my wife, Mary, and my daugh-
ters, Ella and Porter—for the unconditional support they have
given me not only through this confirmation process but through-
out my tenure at OMB.
I am honored that the President has nominated me to serve as
Director of OMB following in the footsteps of some very distin-
guished public servants. Working at OMB has long been an aspira-
tion. I came to OMB at the very beginning of this administration.
I have had the privilege of helping to lead this agency, first as Dep-
uty Director and for the last year and a half as Acting Director. I
know the caliber of the men and women who work there. I know
the importance of their mission. I know the awesome responsibility
of the work that OMB does.
My mantra at OMB throughout my years in leadership here has
been ‘‘One OMB’’ in order to create a culture, not of silos, but of
collaborators so that the best expertise can be heard. I have had
management positions in my career, but none so equally chal-
lenging and rewarding as the management of this agency. The
portfolios of the various components of this agency are so diverse,
1 The prepared statement of Mr. Vought appears in the Appendix on page 42.
5
and each one of them have a critical nature fundamental to the
functions of our government.
The men and women I work with at OMB thrive on information
gathering and problem solving. They are innovative and smart and,
frankly, tenacious. They do their best work when they work to-
gether, bridging gaps between their management and their budget
and their regulatory functions to find holistic answers to com-
plicated challenges.
There are roughly 500 full-time employees at this agency, but I
have seen them do remarkable things. It is a privilege to work with
them and to lead them for the last 31⁄2 years.
I have spent my entire career caring about taxpayers and their
families. I have fought to save them money and ensure that their
tax dollars are well spent.
I come from a blue-collar family, the son of an electrician and a
public school teacher. I know what they went through to balance
their budget and save for the future. My parents worked long, hard
hours to put me through school. They worked long, hard hours to
pay for the government in their lives. I have often wondered what
else they would have been free to build and give without such a
high burden.
My parents represent the forgotten men and women of this coun-
try. They always were the yardstick by which I tested government
spending, and I am grateful to work for an administration that has
made the eyes and hearts of the forgotten man the lens from which
we see policy.
These men and women live and work in every city and every
town in every State in this great country. I believe in their dreams,
and I believe that our government ought to let them pursue those
dreams. The very phrase ‘‘Office of Management and Budget’’ may
not be part of their lexicon, but I know that the work of OMB has
the ability to impact them in immeasurable ways.
If the Senate confirms me to be the Director, know that I will
be serving for their betterment.
Thank you for considering my nomination. I am happy to answer
your questions.
Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Vought.
The next nominee is Craig Leen. Mr. Leen is the Director of Of-
fice of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) of the De-
partment of Labor (DOL). Prior to Federal Government service, Mr.
Leen served as the City Attorney for Coral Gables, Florida, for 61⁄2
years. Before that, he was the Assistant County Attorney in
Miami-Dade County and the Chief of the Federal Litigation Sec-
tion.
If confirmed, Mr. Leen would be only the second Senate-con-
firmed nominee to hold the position of Inspector General of the Of-
fice of Personnel Management since 1990.
Mr. Leen received his juris doctor from Columbia University and
his bachelor of arts from Georgetown University. Mr. Leen.
6
TESTIMONY OF CRAIG E. LEEN1 TO BE INSPECTOR GENERAL,
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
Mr. LEEN. Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Peters, mem-
bers of the Committee, it is a true honor to appear before you as
the nominee for Inspector General of the U.S. Office of Personnel
Management. I thank the President for nominating me and this
Committee for considering me. If confirmed, I will serve with integ-
rity, independence, and a commitment to transparency and truth
in government.
I would like to say a few words about myself. I am married to
my college sweetheart. We live in Georgetown, only a 15-minute
walk from where we first met. My wife, Dr. Ana Maria Muniz-
Leen, is a double board-certified psychiatrist. She works at our
alma mater providing psychiatric services to Georgetown students.
We have two children we are very proud of, Alex and Pierce. Our
daughter Alex is 15 years old. She has profound autism and a sub-
stantial intellectual disability. She loves the outdoors, music, and
Disney movies. I have struggled and fought for accommodations for
her for over a decade. These experiences led me to become a strong
advocate for individuals with disabilities. This has been a signifi-
cant focus of my public work, including at OFCCP, and it would
certainly continue if I become OPM IG.
Our son, Pierce, is 9 years old. He is a walking miracle. He was
not supposed to live past 19 weeks in utero, but through an amaz-
ing procedure called the ‘‘amniopatch’’ and a couple remarkable
doctors, he is here today. He was diagnosed on the autism spec-
trum when he was almost 2 years old. He benefited significantly
from early therapies and is now succeeding in a typical class in
third grade. He intends to be a historian. Pierce is Alex’s best
friend and often her voice.
I would also like to thank my parents and my siblings, who I
know are watching as well.
In my career, I have worked in both the public and private sec-
tors. Immediately prior to OFCCP, I served in apolitical, non-
partisan roles for 121⁄2 years, first as a Miami-Dade Assistant
County Attorney and then as Coral Gables City Attorney, as you
mentioned, Mr. Chairman.
As City Attorney, I answered to the City Commission, serving as
chief legal officer and chief ethics officer, including overseeing code
enforcement prosecutions and police legal and conducting internal
reviews and issuing legal opinions. I was a leading proponent of
transparency and ethics in government, and I published over 400
City Attorney opinions that you can still read, if you would like,
on the city’s website.
Both Coral Gables and Miami-Dade County commended me
through proclamations when I completed my service as City Attor-
ney, even declaring Craig E. Leen Days in both the county and city,
which I have on my wall.
I came to Washington to make a positive mark on the Federal
level at OFCCP, one of the primary Civil Rights enforcement agen-
cies in the United States. I have given my heart and soul to this
work. OFCCP had its most successful year in history in fiscal year
1 The prepared statement of Mr. Leen appears in the Appendix on page 182.
7
(FY) 2019, with over $40 million in recoveries to workers, almost
double any other year. The agency had a record year for compliance
assistance to businesses and initiated a major new disability inclu-
sion enforcement initiative.
OFCCP’s bread and butter is neutrally scheduled audits along
with complaint investigations. We have been enhancing the econ-
omy and efficiency of this work, and we have had excellent results.
I also issued a major transparency directive at OFCCP. Trans-
parency has been a hallmark of my tenure.
This has been great preparation for being an Inspector General.
If confirmed, I would focus on the following immediate priorities:
closing open IG recommendations and establishing a public dash-
board to track progress; addressing improper payments and seek-
ing to eliminate them; evaluating OPM’s guidance related to the
pandemic, learning from what went well and what could be im-
proved; increasing the amount of evaluations done by the OPM IG’s
office; and ensuring equal employment opportunity for all protected
classes, including ensuring inclusion and accommodations of indi-
viduals with disabilities.
I would like to say more on two of these priorities. The OPM In-
spector General’s office has over 300 open recommendations going
back many years. This is a common issue for IGs. So many open
recommendations erodes public trust in government. I would make
closing them a focus from day one.
Also, I have been OFCCP Director. I have seen that a number
of best practices that we ask Federal contractors to follow are not
followed by the Federal Government. I would address this in my
oversight role as Inspector General, helping ensure the civil service
system is based on merit and merit alone. In these difficult times
and at all times, it is critical that Civil Rights and equal employ-
ment opportunity be a major focus.
I have enjoyed meeting many Senators and staff members of this
Committee through this process. Thank you for considering me
today.
Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Leen. It is inspiring, really,
to see how you have taken your own personal family experience
and turn it into public service. We truly appreciate that.
There are three questions the Committee asks of every nominee
for the record. I will ask for each question that Mr. Vought answer
first and then Mr. Leen, and then I will reserve the balance of my
questions for the very end out of respect for my colleagues’ time.
So question No. 1, is there anything you are aware of in your
background that might present a conflict of interest with the duties
of the office to which you have been nominated?
Mr. Vought.
Mr. VOUGHT. No.
Chairman JOHNSON. Mr. Leen.
Mr. LEEN. No.
Chairman JOHNSON. No. 2, do you know of anything personal or
otherwise that would in any way prevent you from fully and honor-
ably discharging the responsibilities of the office to which you have
been nominated?
Mr. Vought.
Mr. VOUGHT. No.
8
Chairman JOHNSON. Mr. Leen.
Mr. LEEN. No.
Chairman JOHNSON. And, finally, do you agree without reserva-
tion to comply with any request or summons to appear and testify
before any duly constituted committee of Congress if you are con-
firmed?
Mr. Vought.
Mr. VOUGHT. Yes.
Chairman JOHNSON. Mr. Leen.
Mr. LEEN. Yes.
Chairman JOHNSON. OK, great.
Senator Peters.
Senator PETERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My first question is to both Mr. Vought and Mr. Leen. Let me
start with a question for the two of you. Will you both commit to
fully and promptly respond to any oversight request from this Com-
mittee, including from the Ranking Member and other minority
Members of the Committee?
Mr. Vought.
Mr. VOUGHT. Yes. We are going to continue to work with the
Committee and all the Committee Members to make sure we can
be as responsive as we possibly can.
Senator PETERS. Thank you.
Mr. Leen.
Mr. LEEN. Yes, certainly.
Senator PETERS. Mr. Vought, I have been deeply concerned to
hear that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has been
unable to receive the information that they need to do some of their
critical oversight work on the Federal Government’s coronavirus re-
sponse and spending. So I just have a few yes or no questions for
you. If you want to elaborate, that would fine as well, but, Mr.
Vought, yes or no, will you make a public commitment, and as Act-
ing Director and if confirmed, you will fully and promptly cooperate
with all GAO requests for meetings and information?
Mr. VOUGHT. I will certainly work with GAO closely. It is our
practice to do that.
We have just responded to an information request from GAO,
and we have a great deal of respect for the work that they do. And
I will continue to work and try to respond as quickly as we possibly
can.
Senator PETERS. So, again, yes or no, which would be related to
what you just said. As Acting Director and if confirmed, you will
commit to have OMB provide GAO the full and complete response
to several outstanding information requests? There are several.
You mentioned one in particular, but the several requests that the
GAO made to OMB, if you could do that within the next few weeks,
especially those related to the coronavirus response?
Mr. VOUGHT. I certainly view the last week’s response as the
first of many and will be working to prioritize those and get back
to GAO. Yes.
Senator PETERS. I requested that the GAO review Small Busi-
ness Administration (SBA’s) Paycheck Protection Program (PPP),
but it is my understanding that the GAO has been unable to fully
conduct its review because the SBA has refused to cooperate. As
9
Acting Director and if confirmed as Director, do you commit to en-
sure that all Federal agencies fully and promptly cooperate with
GAO requests? Clearly, they cannot do their job if agencies are not
cooperating.
Mr. VOUGHT. I will certainly commit to looking into it, Senator,
inquiring with other agencies on that front, and it is our practice
from an intergovernmental standpoint that agencies respond to be
able to ensure that the public has the transparency, that this Com-
mittee has the transparency to be able to do its oversight work.
Senator PETERS. Mr. Vought, since the start of the COVID–19
outbreak, we have seen a disproportionate impact this virus has
had on our communities of color across the country, and certainly,
we have seen it firsthand in my home State of Michigan as well.
I know you are aware of these disparities, and we had an oppor-
tunity to talk about them on Friday together. I would like you to
say for the record here, what specific steps have you taken as Act-
ing OMB Director to try to address this issue?
Mr. VOUGHT. Thank you for the question, Senator. It is some-
thing that the task force has been very aware of as soon as we
began to see some of the disparities and the impact for those indi-
viduals, those communities, and as a result, the task force made
it a priority to be able to speak into that need and to be able to
provide information where appropriate.
I think you had asked for some further concreteness, and it is a
lens that we continue to look for, particularly as we are in the proc-
ess of dispensing these funds and figuring out, often filling in the
gap where there was a statutory lack of how to construct these pro-
grams for opportunities. I do not have specifics to report on other
than this has been a priority, and it will continue to be a priority.
Senator PETERS. If it is a priority, why do you not have more spe-
cifics?
Mr. VOUGHT. There is a need to both get resources out the door
as quickly as we possibly can and to construct these programs
where there is not statutory specification. We are going continue to
do that, and we will keep the Committee up to date with all the
information as we go forward.
Senator PETERS. So you will be able to give us more specifics?
Because you have the commitment to me and to all the other Mem-
bers of the Committee that this is a priority for you, and if it is
a priority for you, that means you will be able to come back to this
Committee and give us specific action that you were involved in?
Mr. VOUGHT. Yes, sir. It is a priority of the administration and
I am happy to report back on the administration’s policy priorities.
Senator PETERS. Mr. Vought, I have urged the administration to
reopen the enrollment period for the Affordable Care Act (ACA) be-
cause so many people are clearly losing their jobs now, but they
still need access to health care, especially during a pandemic. Ac-
cess to health care is critical, particularly in the communities of
color that we have just been talking about, where underlying
health conditions are a major part of why so many people are los-
ing their lives when affected by this virus.
So my question is pretty straightforward. Why is the administra-
tion restricting access to health care coverage during a public
health crisis when people need it more than ever?
10
Mr. VOUGHT. We do not think we are, Senator. In fact, there is
an open enrollment provision that allows for anyone that has lost
their job or had a change in life experience to be able to access the
exchange.
The President signed into law, legislation that would increase
the Federal Government’s share of the Medicaid program by 6 per-
cent, to be able to cover more individuals on Medicaid.
So, again, this is something that we believe that in the various
four packages, we have either taken action or we have done work
administratively specifically on the matter that you have raised.
Senator PETERS. Why would you not just open up an enrollment
for the Affordable Care Act just generally? People have applied——
Mr. VOUGHT. Again, we think it——
Senator PETERS [continuing]. And do not have access to insur-
ance. They are thinking, ‘‘I will apply. We are in a pandemic. I bet-
ter make sure my family is protected.’’ They could do it later in the
year, but why not allow that to happen right now when they need
it?
Mr. VOUGHT. We want to make sure that we do not have any dis-
incentives for employers that might drop coverage and put people
on the exchange. We want to make sure that it is truly there for
those who have had a specific change in their job experience and
their life experience to have that be reserved for them.
Senator PETERS. Mr. Vought, in Michigan, polyfluoroalky sub-
stances (PFAS) contamination continues to be a very serious public
health concern. We talked about that on our call as well, and I
fought for provisions requiring the administration to stop the use
of PFAS in firefighting foams and issue drinking water standards
that will protect public health. Will you commit to strongly sup-
porting efforts to phaseout the Department of Defense’s use of
fluorinated foams?
Mr. VOUGHT. As you know, Senator—and we talked about it last
week—the issue of the PFAS has been a priority of this administra-
tion. It continues to be a priority for many agencies, including the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). We will continue at OMB
to efficiently get done rules that come from agencies and to ensure
that we do everything we possibly can to protect the communities
where PFAS has, unfortunately, risen up as an issue.
Senator PETERS. Your commitment to say you will move these as
expeditiously as possible and as efficiently—maybe you said ‘‘effi-
ciently’’ as possible was the actual word that you used. Can I then
have your commitment to expedite the review of the EPA’s drink-
ing water standard for PFAS after it is submitted?
Mr. VOUGHT. Yes, I cannot make any commitment to how long
that will take, but it will be a priority. And we will move as quickly
as we possibly can.
As you know, we were able to clear a recent PFAS regulatory ini-
tiative within 8 days because as an administration, we had to en-
sure that the interagency process had resolved all of the issues,
and we were able to move forward. So I do commit to trying as fast
as I possibly can to make sure that happens expeditiously.
Senator PETERS. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator Peters.
11
I just want to remind all Members that the little clock is in the
lower corner of the screen.
Our next questioner is Senator Carper.
[Pause.]
Is Senator Carper there?
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER
Senator CARPER. Yes, just on my voice.
Chairman JOHNSON. OK. There you go.
Senator CARPER. All right. Hello, everybody, and to our nomi-
nees, welcome, good to see you.
I may have missed some of the earlier questions from our Chair
and the Ranking Member. So if I repeat what was asked, I ask you
just to bear with me and just give the same answer that you gave
before.
Mr. Vought, as you know, OMB plays a key management and co-
ordination role for Federal agencies to administer programs. This
administration has largely deferred responsibility of the
coronavirus responses to the States. OMB’s role in critical issues
related to responses such as procuring needed supplies for key in-
dustries and ensuring worker safety in and outside of government
and overseeing agency response is unclear. What role has OMB
had in assisting and overseeing agencies’ abilities to procure key
supplies such as personal protective equipment (PPE)?
Mr. VOUGHT. Thank you for that question, Senator Carper.
I have sat on the task force, and so I have been very aware of
the conversations and where OMB could be useful. Much of the
work that you have asked regarding has been done at FEMA work-
ing in conjunction with the frontline agencies like HHS, and so the
work of the agencies has been primarily the ones giving the States
the resources that they need. And we have also been working with
Federal agencies to put out guidance as it pertains to the Federal
workforce and as well as on the regulatory front to work with agen-
cies as they are trying to move regulatory initiatives through that
would have an impact on the response or recovery on the
coronavirus effort.
So all three of the major siloes within OMB have been very ac-
tive, but the primary immediate frontline response for coronavirus
has been at FEMA, working with the task force at large.
Senator CARPER. All right. A follow-up question, what role has
OMB had with regards to ensuring essential worker safety, both
inside and outside of government?
Mr. VOUGHT. We put forward guidance on two fronts, Senator.
We put out guidance at the beginning of the crisis to be able to en-
sure that agencies were moving to maximum and then to manda-
tory telework.
Then as we are moving and reopening, we have put forward
guidance to help give a grid to agency heads, and we really believe
that agency heads need to have the discretion to be able to make
many of these decisions because their workforce is so diversified.
The number of localities that they work in is so diversified, but we
have tried to make sure that they have a grid that follows the
phases of the Governors in which their offices are located and to
ensure that they do not open up if they do not have the necessary
12
PPE or other resources to be able to keep their workers safe. And
we want to make sure that they have the flexibility to do that.
So one of the reasons we have not provided more of a directive
across Federal Government is because this is a 50-State issue that
needs to be thought through in conjunction with the public health
officials on the ground.
Senator CARPER. I believe when I joined the hearing, I heard
Senator Peters asking about responsiveness to the questions and
information sought.
Let me just ask this question. You may have been asked this be-
fore, but I want to ask it again. One of the major jobs that we have
on this Committee is oversight. Our job of oversight, as you know,
of our Federal Government, and we take that responsibility seri-
ously.
I never ask questions for information that, frankly, is just for fun
because I think it is a given that we need the information to work
it out.
Let me ask, will you commit to provide material responses to
what was requested of you in the Committee’s prehearing question-
naire?
Mr. VOUGHT. Yes. I do commit to working and doing everything
I can to be responsive to the Committee.
There are going to be times when we do not feel like we can pro-
vide certain information as part of the deliberative process, but you
have my commitment that I will always try to get the Committee
what it needs to be able to do its oversight and to work in as trans-
parent a fashion as I possibly can.
Senator CARPER. Thank you.
Normally, I would open with a short statement, but I am going
to just close with a short statement. My time expired.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for bringing this together for this hear-
ing today.
As you know, our Nation is facing multiple national emergencies,
the likes of which we have almost maybe never seen in our life-
time, my lifetime, and I have been around for a long time. Ameri-
cans are suffering with the level of intolerance and violence. This
Committee occupies a unique role as the chief oversight committee
of the Senate.
Further, this Committee has come together on previous emer-
gencies such as after 9/11, which I witnessed personally, to work
in a bipartisan way to develop solutions and work to address those
issues.
While I am committed to seeing Mr. Vought and Mr. Leen, Mr.
Leen is here with us today, we have a responsibility as well to be
responsive to our constituents and we work together to develop so-
lutions to the multiple crises I mentioned.
Let me ask one question, if I can, of Mr. Leen. Mr. Leen, if there
is just one point you would like to make with those of us on this
Committee, what thing about your service would you like to do as
well, what would it be? I like to say the main thing, make the main
thing, the main thing. What will be the main thing for your serv-
ice, if confirmed?
Mr. LEEN. What would be the main thing for me to focus on as
IG?
13
Senator CARPER. Yes. I have a friend who used to say, gave me
advice when I was elected Governor. He said, ‘‘Just remember this,
Governor. Keep the main thing, the main thing,’’ and that is the
focus of what is most important, pretty well the most important.
Mr. LEEN. The main thing to me is fulfilling the public trust that
is given to me and doing that to the full extent I can. So when you
ask would I be responsive to Congress, I would be, and my job is
to be transparent and to point out recommendations and to see
those recommendations are done.
Senator CARPER. Last, if you are confirmed, how do you plan to
maintain the independence and objectivity of the Office of Per-
sonnel Management as Inspector General?
Mr. LEEN. From day one, the moment I get there, I will talk to
my staff at the Inspector General’s office and let them know that
we are obviously independent. I will send a message to all of OPM,
letting them know I am independent and that I have an open-door
policy. And I would ask the OPM Director or Acting Director to
send a message to all staff at OPM indicating my independence
and that they should provide me access to all information.
Senator CARPER. And beyond that?
Mr. LEEN. I think that to me is an excellent start, and every day
I will have to show that I can do that. But I can. I have done that
in my career. I did that at Coral Gables. I have done that at
OFCCP even in a political post. I have always been an honest
broker and given my honest opinion.
Senator CARPER. Keep it up. Thanks so much.
Chairman JOHNSON. Thanks, Senator Carper.
Again, I will remind everybody you have that clock in that lower
corner of your screen there.
I saw Senator Scott on briefly, but I do not see him now. So un-
less I hear from him like quick, we will go to Senator Hawley.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HAWLEY
Senator HAWLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Vought, let me start by asking you about the administra-
tion’s deregulatory agenda, if I could. I know this has been a major
focus for the President, and I know that there have been additional
deregulatory members taken as part of the coronavirus pandemic
response. So let me just ask you maybe to start with that. Tell us
about what steps in response to the current health crisis have been
taken on the regulatory front, and then I am going to ask you
about what of those you see being made permanent to the overall
State of the deregulatory effort.
Mr. VOUGHT. Sure. Thank you, Senator.
I think this administration has had an outpouring of creativity
as it pertains to trying to deregulate and use enforcement discre-
tion. There has been 600 different actions that this administration
has done to respond to the coronavirus shock that we have seen,
everything from ensuring that if the manufacturer wants to be able
to produce a similarly made ventilator or to be able to allow dis-
tillers to create hand sanitizer or ensuring that a restaurant that
has a takeout delivery system does not have quite the same nutri-
tion labels. These are all things that we have been able to either
14
temporarily waive or to be able to use the enforcement discretion
on.
The President signed an Executive Order that I am sure you
have seen that would ask all agency heads to look through those
lists and identify what they can turn into permanent regulatory ac-
tivity. He was very clear when he signed that and when he was
talking about it at the Cabinet meeting to ensure that he did not
have anything specific in mind, and he was not saying that agen-
cies do not need to make sure that they continue to abide by the
statutes and take care of things like public safety and all of the
things that they are required to do by enforcing their laws.
So I do not want to get ahead of that reporting function, but we
do look forward to what the agencies bring back to us.
In terms of the overall deregulatory efforts, it is going very well.
We have had about seven and a half of deregulatory rules for every
one. The President committed to the American people to do two for
one. So we continue to move forward in that area, and I think this
has been an opportunity to find things that we might not have seen
before as potential areas of deregulatory initiatives had we not
gone through this unfortunate crisis.
Senator HAWLEY. Thank you for that.
What is the timeline, just by the way, on the Executive Order
(EO), the report back that the President has asked for? When are
you expecting those recommendations, those reports to come back?
Mr. VOUGHT. I am expecting them soon. I can get back to you
with a specific deadline, but I know from talking to my colleagues,
they are working on this very quickly. Many of them were excited
to have that direction from the President, and they will be coming.
I do not expect them to wait on a deadline to be able to get back
to us.
Senator HAWLEY. Very good. I look forward to following up with
you about that.
Speaking of Executive Orders, the President last October issued
two significant orders reforming the treatment of agency guidance.
I wonder if you could explain a little bit about why these Executive
Orders were necessary and what reforms they instituted when it
comes to the guidance question.
Mr. VOUGHT. Sure. And, honestly, a lot of the idea and thinking
behind those important EOs came from some of the legislative
work that started at this Committee.
But we put forward two Executive Orders. One was designed to
get guidance out of the dark, to require them to be—for agencies
to put on a public searchable website, any of the guidance that they
are going to continue to rely on. And the point of that is to make
sure that people have certitude and certainty with regard to the
guidance that agencies are relying on.
Guidance often does not go through the normal process. We have
asserted that it should have, but often there is a culture that would
require it not to go through notice and comment and the cost-ben-
efit analysis process. So we very much want to make sure that
when agencies are using guidance as a reason to regulate, that that
goes through the same procedures as a normal rulemaking would.
With regard to enforcement, again, we want to make sure we are
getting our arms wrapped around the administrative state. We do
15
not ever want to hear about examples in the future of someone
building four ponds on their property in an attempt to fight a fu-
ture wildfire and find out that they were at cross-waves with the
EPA and then spend years of their last few years of life—and I am
thinking of Joe Robertson, the Navy veteran, who spent a year and
a half of his last 3 years in a prison because he built those four
ponds. We want to ensure that people have information and they
know what agencies are relying on and that they have an ability
to challenge these decisions and to be treated with respect from
that standpoint. That is what the enforcement EO is all about.
Senator HAWLEY. It has been about 6 months since those two
were signed. Do you have any indication—the orders, that is. Do
you have any indication yet about how effective or not they have
been?
Mr. VOUGHT. We think we are on the road to ingraining that cul-
ture in with the agencies. The first deadline was for the websites
to be up, and the vast majority of agencies have complied.
The EO allowed us also to extend the deadlines where we felt it
was necessary, and there has been a couple of instances, namely
the Department of HHS, where the sheer number of mix of agen-
cies and guidance that they need to continue to work through gets
reflected on the website, but everyone is moving full bore ahead.
Senator HAWLEY. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Vought. Thank you
for your testimony today. I look forward to supporting your nomi-
nation.
Mr. Leen, just a very few seconds that I have remaining there
as I glance at the clock, let me just ask you. In your written testi-
mony, you noted that over 300 open OIG recommendations would
be the primary focus for your work as IG.
I want to talk about the incident in 2015 when OPM was the tar-
get of what has been described by Federal officials as maybe the
largest breach of government data in United States history at the
hands of Chinese hackers who compromised—I think it was 21.5
million records.
My understanding is OPM still has several open OIG rec-
ommendations regarding data protection and privacy that have not
been implemented. So can you tell me, if you are confirmed, will
the protection of Americans’ personal data rank at the top of your
list in terms of prioritizing open OIG recommendations?
Mr. LEEN. Definitely. The data breach was a catastrophe, and it
is something that cannot happen again.
Many of the open recommendations go to information technology
(IT) issues and security issues. They will be a top priority for me.
Senator HAWLEY. Very good. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman JOHNSON. Thanks, Senator Hawley.
It will next be Senator Scott and then Senator Rosen. Senator
Scott.
16
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SCOTT1
Senator SCOTT. OK. Thank you, Chairman, for having this Com-
mittee hearing today.
Mr. Vought, thank you very much. I have enjoyed working with
you since I have been up here, and I know you are very focused
on how do we watch taxpayer dollars. Thank you for focusing on
how you are going to work with Inspector Generals to make sure
our dollars are spent well.
So now our Federal debt is going to be, what, $25, $26 trillion
by the end of the year? I think for the first time, it is going to be
more than 100 percent of our gross domestic product (GDP), I
think, since, what, World War II? So I personally believe this is
dangerous and unsustainable.
What steps do you think you can take or we should be doing that
is going to help address this?
Mr. VOUGHT. I appreciate the question, Senator. It is a passion
of mine, and I do share your concern about where we are.
I do not think anyone would argue that this has not been a once-
in-a-generation shock to the economy from a public health stand-
point and the economy, and this administration is proud of the ef-
forts that we have done to respond. And we will continue to do
that, if necessary.
But that should not keep us as a country from coming together
and being able to pursue reforms where we can agree. This admin-
istration has put forward more spending reforms than any Presi-
dent in history, and we have not had congressional support yet.
And we hope that will come at some point.
We have put forward a budget resolution that contains many of
those reforms, and we will continue to be working with Congress
to see those turn into law in the future.
Then we want to make sure we implement the law as best we
possibly can to make sure that anything that taxpayers have been
able to provide to meet the crisis where it is, is done in as a fiscally
responsible manner as possible. There is always conversations to
start and policy processes to continue as we try to reach alignment
with Congress, and I am happy to work with you in the future as
we have since I have been the Acting Director.
Senator SCOTT. Yes. Well, again, thank you for what you have
been doing.
In fiscal year 2018, the GAO’s governmentwide estimate of im-
proper payments was $152 billion, and then in fiscal 2019, it rose
to $175 billion in improper payments. So, if confirmed, what are
you going to do to try to figure out how to get that down? It would
be nice if it was zero, of course, but what would you do to reduce
that?
Mr. VOUGHT. It would, and I think the fact that it has gone up
is a reflection that spending has gone up.
But Congress has given us some recent tools with the Payment
Integrity Improvement Act. So we are hard at work to be able to
implement that law and some of the new tools allowing States to
use the Do Not Pay Center at Treasury. We continue to look for
other reforms that give us more of a statutory authority to use the
1 The prepared statement of Senator Scott appears in the Appendix on page 41.
17
Social Security death file to be able to track that with other data-
bases.
We are trying to change the culture in many agencies, that in-
stead of giving them more paperwork to fill out, it gives them more
of an encouragement to find out what is the root cause of where
some of these improper payments are coming from.
So it is certainly something that I will commit to, to be a priority,
because it has been in all of the budgets that we have proposed,
but we want to be able to have a declining rate in the years ahead.
Senator SCOTT. Thank you.
I recently introduced the Agency Accountability Act, which cre-
ates a commission to regularly review Federal agencies for wasteful
spending and inefficiencies. There is currently no process for Con-
gress to review Federal agencies in this way, and I am very inter-
ested in seeing what savings the Federal Government could find if
we examined in the most efficient way, these agencies to operate.
So do you have any suggestions of areas in the Federal Govern-
ment that you feel that we have ignored, that we might be able to
find efficiencies and reduce spending?
Mr. VOUGHT. Thanks for the question, Senator.
Our budget is chock-full, but let me give you one in particular.
We have 85 different cultural student exchange programs at the
Department of State. This has roughly doubled just in the last 20
years, and yet as many people that have benefited from coming to
this country—and we do want people to continue to come to this
country and see our culture and our society and build those ties—
only 1 percent of them have been using these 85 different pro-
grams.
Congress spends about $607 million in these 85 programs, and
it is one of the reasons that we have called for not only elimination,
but a reduction in that area. So that would be one place that I
would start.
But I think within every agency, there are opportunities to find
waste, fraud, and abuse, and I hope that you would consider us as
a partner in that.
Senator SCOTT. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Vought.
Mr. Leen, I am glad you are from the great State of Florida.
Thank you for the work you have done so far.
What do you think is going to be your biggest impact on being
able to save money?
Mr. LEEN. Part of it is what you just talked about, which is im-
proper payments. The OPM IG’s office has been very successful
saving taxpayers a couple billion dollars over the last few years.
I think investing in IG’s offices, particularly in the law enforce-
ment and audit component, is something that is key to reducing
wasteful spending.
In addition, I do think that the IG’s office at OPM should be
doing more evaluations of how the Federal civil service works to
make sure that we are getting economies and efficiencies. We have
only been doing about one a year at the OPM IG, and I think that
considering it is the Federal civil service, you are talking about 3
million, approximately, workers in the United States. It seems to
me that we should be focusing more on that and the way that that
is done and ensuring that there is economy and efficiency there
18
and we are always hiring people based on merit. I feel that part
of the role of the IG is to ensure that occurs.
Senator SCOTT. So you would like trying to hold people account-
able and watch how money is being spent? Because being a busi-
ness guy, no one ever came to my office as Governor and said
spend less money. They always wanted to spend more money. So
how are you going to handle all that pressure?
Mr. LEEN. I do. I do like that. I would use you as an example
when you were Governor of Florida. I remember that you did that
with the—I was the City Attorney, and you vetoed excessive spend-
ing. And you were always looking at the pocket book.
I would do that as IG. I would make sure that money is being
spent correctly, and if it is not, I would make noise. I would issue
that recommendation. I would inform Congress.
Senator SCOTT. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Rosen.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROSEN
Senator ROSEN. Thank you. I want to say welcome to our nomi-
nees. Welcome, and thank you for your willingness to serve.
Mr. Vought, I would like to direct my first question to you. A
couple of weeks ago, the President sent out a tweet claiming that
if my home State of Nevada—and I am going to quote here—
‘‘thinks that they can send out illegal vote-by-mail ballot,’’ unquote,
then he, the President, thinks that he—and I will quote again—
‘‘can hold up funds to the State,’’ unquote. The President directed
the tweet to you, Mr. Vought. At the end, he tagged you via
@RussVought45.
So because I have limited time and a few questions, I would just
ask if you would please answer yes or no.
Did you discuss this tweet with the President before it went out,
sir?
Mr. VOUGHT. Senator, I do not make it a practice to talk about
my conversations with the President, suffice it to say he wanted me
to be aware of his tweet, and so he chose that as the mechanism
for letting me know.
But the President has also indicated that we have not made
that—he has not made a decision to move in that direction, and
OMB has not done anything on that front to begin to withhold
funding as it pertains to those two States.
Senator ROSEN. Thank you.
Do you know what the President meant when he said he could
hold up funds to Nevada?
Mr. VOUGHT. Again, I am not going to get into any kind of delib-
erations that we might have, but in general——
Senator ROSEN. You do not know what he meant by that? We do
not have any direction there?
Mr. VOUGHT. I cannot give you any direction. It pertains to the
ability to look at a program by program, consistent with the law,
and to identify what flexibilities are there. But, again, we have not
done that, and the President has not——
Senator ROSEN. So I know——
Mr. VOUGHT [continuing]. Consistent to move in that direction.
19
Senator ROSEN. So have you had any discussion with the Presi-
dent? You had no discussion with him at all as to what funds he
was referring to?
Mr. VOUGHT. Senator, I am not going to get into the conversa-
tions that I have with the President or our deliberations at the
White House.
Senator ROSEN. So you will not say that you have ever advised
the President, then, as to what funds he could hold up in retalia-
tion for a policy he might not agree with in my State?
Mr. VOUGHT. Senator, again, I think I have been forthcoming
with sharing that we have not moved forward in any effort to make
an assessment about what discretionary authorities we would have,
but I cannot get into the conversations that I have with the Presi-
dent of the United States.
Senator ROSEN. Mr. Vought, I just want to be clear that I believe
it is never right for the President to threaten to unlawfully with-
hold critical funds from States, but it is particularly troubling to
us now in the midst of a global pandemic and the economic crisis
that has killed over 100,000 Americans and has led to my State,
the State of Nevada, having the highest unemployment in the Na-
tion.
States across the country are spending billions of dollars to help
their residents in this time of need, and at the same time, our over-
all tax revenue has taken a major hit. This tweet has created such
anxiety in our State and for people up and down, like I said, Ne-
vada and across the country, people who depend on Federal fund-
ing right now, small business owners, our unemployed workers, our
rural hospitals, domestic violence service providers, so many oth-
ers.
So I just want to say I urge you, if confirmed, to ensure that the
law is followed and that OMB is not used as a tool to hash out po-
litical disagreements.
But I am going to move on to two final questions on this topic.
As Acting Director of OMB, do you believe that funding should be
withheld from my State as a result of instituting a wholly legal
vote-by-mail policy, and if so, what funding do you think my home
State of Nevada should be denied?
Mr. VOUGHT. It is not my role to have an opinion on that, Sen-
ator.
I would say that I do not have an opinion as it pertains to what
funds would be eligible because we have not done the review,
which is what I had said earlier.
But I would say as a response to the very end of your last ques-
tion that OMB is dogged in accomplishing the President’s objec-
tives consistent with the law.
Senator ROSEN. Let me stop you because I have limited time. I
just want to ask you this final question on this topic. If the Presi-
dent asked you to withhold funding, will you comply with his order,
or will you follow the law?
Mr. VOUGHT. Again, we are always at OMB trying to accomplish
the President’s objectives consistent with the law and the belief
we——
Senator ROSEN. So you will not follow the law? You will follow
the President’s order, regardless of the law?
20
Mr. VOUGHT. Consistent with the law is what I said, Senator.
Senator ROSEN. Consistent with the law. Thank you.
I would like now in the few minutes I have remaining to talk a
little bit about Yucca Mountain, another very important subject to
the State of Nevada.
For more than 30 years, we have been fighting against a mis-
guided effort to dump all the Nation’s nuclear waste at the Yucca
Mountain site in Nevada, despite the fact that we have never con-
sented to storing other States’ waste in our State. So instead of
wasting more taxpayer money on this project, we should find alter-
native uses for the site, creative uses, without threatening the
health and safety of Nevadans.
That is why last year, I introduced the Jobs Not Waste Act,
which would prohibit the Secretary of Energy from taking any ac-
tion related to the licensing, planning, development, or construction
of a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain until two things
happen. One, the Director of OMB, which would be you if con-
firmed, submits a study to Congress on the economic viability and
the job-creating benefits of alternative uses of the Yucca Mountain
site; and two, that Congress would hold a hearing on these eco-
nomic benefits and alternative uses.
And so what I would like to ask you is this. As you have noted,
unlike several past budget requests, the President’s fiscal year
2020 budget did not request funding for Yucca Mountain. Can you
commit that if confirmed, your future budget proposals will also not
request funding to store the Nation’s nuclear waste at Yucca Moun-
tain?
Mr. VOUGHT. Thank you for the question and for noticing that
the President did not request funding for Yucca Mountain in part
because one of the reasons is that the State for so long has opposed
it.
Look, I am happy to ensure that the President’s positions are re-
flected in the budget and take a look at your bill, but I think the
President agrees with you. And we are going to ensure that future
budgets continue to reflect where his head is at.
Senator ROSEN. Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Hassan.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HASSAN
Senator HASSAN. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Ranking Member
Peters, for having this hearing today, and to Mr. Vought and Mr.
Leen, thank you for being here, and thank you for your interest in
service.
Mr. Vought, I want to start with a couple questions to you. As
the coronavirus pandemic unfolded across the United States, the
President released his fiscal year 2021 budget request that called
for a $9.5 billion cut to the Department of Health and Human
Services, including massive cuts to the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
He later amended the budget request for CDC and pandemic re-
sponse, but you are still requesting billions of dollars in cuts to the
Department of Health and Human Services for fiscal year 2021.
And you are still requesting less money for the National Institute
of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), the agency headed by
21
Dr. Fauci, the agency that is taking the lead in responding to
COVID–19.
In the middle of this pandemic, how can you possibly justify cut-
ting spending from Dr. Fauci’s agency and cutting billions of dol-
lars in Federal health spending in the next fiscal year, which starts
just 4 months from now?
Mr. VOUGHT. Thank you for the question, Senator, and for noting
that we both in our budget and in our budget amendment in-
creased funding for the CDC’s fight against infectious diseases.
We had originally had a 3 percent increase. We amended our
budget, because resource needs change, to have a 15 percent in-
crease. CDC under the amended budget would have an increase of
8 percent.
In that amendment, we had an increase as well for NIAID within
NIH.
In terms of overall from HHS’s perspective, they are about a
$100 billion agency, and we believe that even places like NIH—and
I support and the President supports basic health research—that
it is important for all agencies to be able to look and find out where
they can do things more efficiently. We have found that even at
CDC, there are things on the occupational health side, various
studies that have been done that we do not think are as much of
a priority, given their important work to fight infectious diseases,
and that is the conversation we wanted to have with the Hill.
Senator HASSAN. Mr. Vought, thank you for the answer, but let
me just be really clear. It is one thing to watch a careful cost-effi-
ciency kind of review of an agency. I would suggest to you that in
the middle of a pandemic, where most people think that the Execu-
tive Branch’s efforts have been stretched, to say the least, and inef-
fective and wanting in some areas, the thought of underfunding the
agency at this critical time instead of looking at what the needs are
to meet this moment is inappropriate and reflects poor judgment.
Let us move on to another issue. As we discussed spending prior-
ities and the government’s role in responding to a public health cri-
sis, I want to emphasis how important it is for agencies to commit
resources to improving the quality of Federal information tech-
nology. These improvements will allow the government to more ef-
ficiently and effectively deliver on its mission, maintain a robust
cybersecurity posture, and prepare for and respond to unexpected
circumstances.
Recently, we have seen how the Federal response to COVID–19
was hampered by aging IT systems across the government, wheth-
er it was the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) struggling to disburse
millions of economic relief payments or SBA’s E–Tran website
crashing as it tried to roll out the Payroll Protection Program.
Do you agree that the Federal Government’s aging technology
slowed its response to COVID–19 and delayed critical aid in serv-
ices from getting to the American people?
Mr. VOUGHT. I would just say that I agree that the aging infor-
mation technology is a problem for all of government. It had its im-
plications with regard to this response in recovery. We have seen
it personally because there is a small portion of OMB that is called
the U.S. Digital Service that works hand in hand with agencies to
provide technical assistance, and they have been deployed with
22
States to help out on the user interface (UI) front and with various
agencies throughout this.
Your concern continues to be our concern, and we want to make
sure we work together to make sure that when we spend $80, $90
billion per year for IT maintenance and improvement that when we
are in the midst of a crisis and when we are in a steady State that
we have every opportunity to have the American people get the
service that they deserve.
Senator HASSAN. Can you elaborate and fairly briefly, please, on
what steps you will take, if confirmed, to prioritize Federal IT mod-
ernization investments and help agencies achieve their moderniza-
tion goals? Because in my experience, this is one of the things that
gets pushed to the side. Again, when broad cuts are made without
being thoughtful about them, this is the type of thing that gets de-
layed and delayed. So what specific steps can you take?
Mr. VOUGHT. Sure, and I would just say—and I will try to do it
briefly—when we have constructed budgets on behalf of the Presi-
dent, we have never shorted IT when an agency has come forward
and said this is important from that standpoint.
We have also prioritized the Technology Modernization Fund be-
cause we think it is a vital way to move around some of the legacy
issues that we have, but Office of the Federal Chief Information Of-
ficer (OFCIO), one of the office’s at OMB, will continue to make a
push to move beyond these old systems and move things toward
digitally and cloud-based services. And you have my commitment
to work on that.
Senator HASSAN. Well, thank you for that.
I am going to turn now to a couple of questions for Mr. Leen. Mr.
Leen, in recent weeks, President Trump has removed several In-
spectors General and Acting Inspect General for doing their jobs,
the jobs that they were assigned under Federal law, giving honest
assessments about failures in Federal agencies and among Federal
officials.
This comes at a time when at least 100,000 Americans have died
from the COVID–19 pandemic. Millions have lost their jobs, and
Congress has dedicated trillions of dollars to recovery. Taxpayers
are depending on all of us to make sure that it is acting appro-
priately, and Inspectors General are vital to accountability. But
given the President’s recent actions, I am skeptical that he is nomi-
nating independent individuals to these roles.
You have stated that when necessary, you are willing to speak
truth to power. Do you stand by this statement even now as In-
spectors General across the government are being targeted for their
findings?
Mr. LEEN. I do commit to that, speaking truth to power. That is
something I have done my entire career.
Senator HASSAN. If you are confirmed, how do you plan to navi-
gate the tension between performing your duties and an adminis-
tration that is trying to block oversight?
Mr. LEEN. I am not going to necessarily accept that premise. I
have been nominated, and I believe that I am being asked to be
an Inspector General, to do my work. It is really between the Presi-
dent and Congress about Inspectors General as a matter of policy.
23
What I can promise you is that I am—the main thing is you can-
not be worried about keeping your job. You just have to go into it,
do your work, and if I lose my job because any President decides
to remove me with the 30 days notice under the IG Act, then I will
get another job. But the main thing is to keep my reputation and
to do my work well, and I will. I commit to you.
Senator HASSAN. Thank you, and I see that I am out of time, Mr.
Chair.
I would look forward to further discussion with you, Mr. Leen,
about why you do not accept the premise, but I will leave that to
another day.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Chairman JOHNSON. Thanks, Senator Hassan.
Senator Portman.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PORTMAN
Senator PORTMAN. Thank you for having this hearing, Chairman
Johnson.
Russell, welcome to the Committee. Congratulations on your
nomination. I am glad that you will now be nominated for the job,
and as a former OMB Director, I am glad that we are going to be
moving from Acting soon, I hope, to a confirmed position. You have
done a good job, in my view, in your Acting role and in your prior
roles, and so I am happy to be supportive.
I do have some questions for you today. The first one is just
about oversight of the COVID–19 funding. We have not had the op-
portunity as a Congress to do the kind of oversight that I wish we
had and certainly not that you would normally do on four pieces
of legislation, now totaling $3 trillion.
But in the legislation called the CARES Act, we actually did pro-
vide some measure of oversight. One thing we asked is that we
need to know whether the CARES assistance is helping to preserve
or create jobs, and I think that is important. We required that peo-
ple who receive $150,000 or more report how many jobs they are
creating or preserving. I am quoting now from the statute: ‘‘Each
covered participant shall submit to the agency a report that con-
tains a detailed list of all projects or activities for which funds were
expended, obligated, and including the estimated number of jobs
created or retained by the project or activity.’’
OMB recently received—or released some guidance that in my
view seems to contradict what the legislation clearly says. I just
wanted your comment on that. It says that the OMB anticipates
that in most instances, centrally available economic data will pro-
vide sufficient information, quarterly reports without the need for
recipients of relief funds to report the estimated number of jobs
clearly retained.
So you are Acting Director now, I hope soon to be Director. I do
not see how that guidance comports with the law, and I do not see
why, again, in the context of spending nearly $3 trillion, we do not
have more rather than less oversight. At least the oversight that
is provided in the statute ought to be followed.
Can you talk about that?
24
Mr. VOUGHT. Sure. And I do appreciate your comments and your
question, Senator. It is high praise coming from you, a former Di-
rector, to have you reflect on my time at OMB that way.
As it pertains to more transparency versus less, OMB wants to
be the partners of Congress with regard to that. That portion of
M–20–21, which was our management guidance, was an attempt to
be able to communicate to agencies the balance that we believe we
saw reflected in the law between the oversight and transparency
requirements that you all enacted or you all voted for along with
the speed at which you all wanted us to be able to get this funding
out the door to those who would benefit from it. So it was not an
attempt to ignore the law as it was an attempt to figure out what
is the best way to ascertain whether a particular program is actu-
ally leading to jobs and our attempt to do it and not have too much
paperwork built up on behalf of agencies and the recipients.
But we are happy to continue the conversation with Congress as
it pertains to its view of how that provision was written.
Senator PORTMAN. Yes. We would like to have that conversation.
I mean, the fact that you say we can rely on macroeconomic data,
the question is, What is the correlation between that and what we
have done? So the macroeconomic data may indicate that there is
an improvement or not, but without going through the process of
getting the data from recipients, it is very hard to know what effect
our actual expenditures had.
So I would hope that you would reconsider that and you work
with us on that.
Senator Carper and I are about to introduce some legislation
that came out of our Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
(PSI). It has to do with China. It has to do with the China talent
program stealing our technology, innovations, internet protocol
(IP). It has to do with Federal funding because this is taxpayer
money going to NIH or National Science Foundation (NSF) or De-
partment of Energy (DOE) or elsewhere and then being given out
to research universities. China finds promising research through
its programs. It effectively takes that research and sometimes the
researchers back to China, often commercializing this research long
before we do. So it is something that everybody, I think, views as
a problem.
One of the ways we, I think, can hit it off is to have the Office
of Management and Budget be more involved in coordinating be-
tween these Federal agencies like NIH, NSF, and Department of
Energy.
We establish a new council. I think you are aware of this because
your folks were very helpful in providing us technical information
to be able to put this together properly and technical advice as to
how it could work going forward. The Federal Research Security
Council is the name of it.
Can you tell me, one, what your familiarity is with that and
whether you are familiar with it or not? We would love to work
with you going forward, should we be able to enact this legislation
to make sure it is effective, which would mean working with the
Office of Science and Technology Policy. They have already begun
establishing some standards, but really requiring these agencies to
have transparency between themselves, to share information, to let
25
grant-writing, grant-giving agencies know who some of the prob-
lematic recipients are, so that there is shared information. Can you
speak to that, Russell?
Mr. VOUGHT. Sure. And I am aware of the bill, and that we have
been participating and trying to give you all technical assistance.
Without speaking on behalf of the administration, I would just
say that this has been a theme, a priority in general about ways
that we can tackle this problem, and so many of the ideas are
things that I think OMB would be well situated to help out with.
We would perform this function with regard to the supply chain
council, and I think that this is—our all-of-government perch al-
lows us to play an important role here. So I am happy to continue
to work with you all as you move forward in the legislative process
and it gets to the President’s desk.
Senator PORTMAN. Great. Our hope is that this can be even a
nonpartisan exercise. It has been so far, and I think everyone is
shocked by what is happening. It is one of five reforms in the bill
and I think a very important one. So we thank you for that and
thank you for helping us on the technical assistance to get us to
this point.
There is another organization that OMB houses, and that is the
Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council (FPISC). This
came out of legislation back in 2015, part of the highway bill, and
it has been terrifically successful, particularly recently, saved a bil-
lion dollars, as you probably know, improving the permitting proc-
ess. They have reduced permitting timelines by about a year and
a half for covered projects, which is amazing. So of the very few
projects that have gotten into the system that are able to be cov-
ered, they saved over a billion dollars, which just shows how much
we can do with more efficient green lighting of projects through
permitting.
First, are you aware of the permitting council? Have you been in-
volved with it? Do you envision it continuing to work as it is cur-
rently operating, if you are familiar with it? And do you have any
suggestions about how we can make it work better, more trans-
parency, more accountability, and getting more projects involved?
Mr. VOUGHT. Certainly, Senator, I am aware of it and the impor-
tant work that it has been doing to reduce permitting timeframes.
This has been a priority of the President. Much of the work that
they are doing is involved around the issue of trying to get as much
as we possibly can to having one Federal decision. I think they are
doing important work.
I do not have any immediate suggestions on how to improve on
it, but I am happy to take your views with any follow-up to provide
transparency if there is a need there and to make sure that it is
bolstered, and it is important work.
Senator PORTMAN. Great. Russ, thanks very much, and again,
good luck to you. We have a lot to work on going forward.
Mr. VOUGHT. Same here. Thank you, Senator.
Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator Portman.
I feel bad that I missed Senator Lankford the last time around,
but, Senator Lankford.
26
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LANKFORD
Senator LANKFORD. The redhead is always hard to see. I just
kind of blend in. I get that full well, so no problem on that.
Let me ask a couple of questions on this. Mr. Leen, let me start
with you on this. Thanks for stepping out to do this. We have need-
ed someone in this position for 4 years now, and I am grateful that
you are stepping up and willing to be able to take this on.
You and I have visited before already in my office to be able to
talk through a lot of these background issues. Tell me your
thoughts on the retirements for Federal retirees and what your
thoughts are on trying to be able to help this process because this
has been a painful process for Federal retirees to be able to get into
the system for a while.
Mr. LEEN. Yes.
Senator LANKFORD. So do you have additional thoughts going
into this?
Mr. LEEN. Yes. And as I mentioned to you, this will be a priority
for me. It is just too much of a gap in time for so many people to
be able to get those retirement benefits that they have earned.
The same issue came up in Coral Gables, to some extent, regard-
ing retirement, I think, I mentioned to you, and I oversaw a review
of our auditor and issued a report. And we fixed that problem that
came up there. My job as OPM IG would be to do the same, to
bring attention to that specific issue, which should be fixable—it
should be fixable—and do recommendations focused on that and
then bring attention to it. I would make that a top priority.
Senator LANKFORD. Terrific.
Mr. LEEN. I believe we owe it to our Federal workforce.
Senator LANKFORD. Terrific. Glad to hear that because that has
been something that has been hanging out there for years and
years and years. Digitizing those records, getting a consistent path
from every agency to be able to get all the information in, espe-
cially if someone works for two or three agencies, their retirement
takes painfully long to be able to start. So I appreciate your focus
on that.
Same thing, we have had a lot of recommendations from the
Chief Human Capital Officers Council (CHCOCs) over the years on
hiring authorities, management authorities. They seem to be float-
ed, but I do not have a set of recommendations that I can get from
an IG. Is that an area you would want to be able to look at on how
we are doing hiring authorities, what is working, what is not work-
ing, what hiring authorities are seldom, if ever, used? We have 120
different authorities and just a lot of clutter out there in the proc-
ess, and we need to be able to have some consistent pathways.
So I am not looking for the answer at this point, but your com-
mitment to be able to look for how we can get to the answer.
Mr. LEEN. Senator, I really want to look at that. I want to look
at Schedule A, veterans’ preference, hiring of disabled veterans,
and that is just three of them. There are so many, and you are
right. It should be made more efficient, and we should be using
them correctly. It should not be ad hoc, depending on the agency
and the proclivities of a particular agency. There should be general
policies.
Senator LANKFORD. OK.
27
Mr. LEEN. I agree with you, and I would focus on it.
Senator LANKFORD. I look forward to working with you on that
one. Senator Sinema and I, that is something that we have talked
about often on both of those issues. You will find in our Sub-
committee, some willingness to be able to engage on that. I want
to try to get that resolved. I look forward to your recommendations.
For Mr. Vought, it is good to see you again. Thanks for all the
work that you have already done. You have been very responsive
to our office, and I appreciate that. We have asked hard questions.
We have asked, at times, for information and details and numbers.
Your team has been responsive to be able to get us answers back,
and I appreciate that in the way that you are working through
some things.
Let me ask you a couple of things, specifically on guidance areas.
This is an area that has been a long standing problem that if you
are new at a business and you want to say what guidance is out
there from a particular oversight agency, there is no place to go.
Basically, the Federal Government says to every person in every
company, ‘‘Go figure out on your own where the guidance is lo-
cated.’’
You have been leading a structure to try to get some kind of list-
ing of guidance out there from every agency. I want to know how
that is going and what is the process. What do you expect to do
with that in the future?
Mr. VOUGHT. Thank you, Senator, and appreciate the kind
words.
We are making progress on that. To that particular concern, any-
one who creates a business wants to know what an agency has said
as it pertains to speaking authoritatively would be able to go to
that agency and see a searchable public website.
Most of the agencies have already complied. The EO that the
President signed last year gave the ability for OMB to grant exten-
sions, which we have in some examples, particularly HHS that has
such a monumental job to get their arms wrapped around all the
guidance that they want to be reflected on that website.
And then the other aspect of that EO was the agencies would put
together an actual rule about how they would attempt to consider
and move through, guidance through the regulatory process, and
we are making progress on that front.
We want to make sure that if guidance is being used in place of
rulemaking that it go through the cost-benefit analysis and gives
the same level of scrutiny and the American people the ability to
notice and provide comment to that regulatory document that im-
pacts their life.
So we appreciate your leadership, this Committee’s leadership on
providing bills that kind of articulate this direction, and we wel-
come the ongoing partnership on it.
Senator LANKFORD. Yes. There is a bill that we have worked on
a while, and your team has given some technical assistance in that,
the Taxpayers Right-to-Know. That bill passed unanimously
through the House. It has now cleared the Republican side, and so
I am not sure which one of the Democrats at this point is holding
up the bill that even Speaker Pelosi was for. It is currently being
28
tied up on the Democratic side. We are trying to be able to get that
resolved.
One of the No. 1 issues for GAO for years has been that it takes
them a very long time to be able to compile information. That
should be readily available.
The first time that that gets started, I know it will be a burden
to get it started, but once it started from every agency, it would be
extremely helpful to GAO, the American people, and certainly to
Congress to be able to know what each agency does, full-time
equivalent (FTEs), what the programs are, what the costs on those
things are, which we do not know at this point. My suspicion is it
even takes your team a long time to be able to compile that. Cer-
tainly, that is dark to us. So I appreciate your team’s help on try-
ing to get the Taxpayers Right-to-Know done and to be able to get
it right in the process.
Let me ask you another question, though, about Corps of Engi-
neers. You and I have spoken specifically because this has been a
longstanding issue. The Corps of Engineers will say they make rec-
ommendations to OMB that goes into a black box. Members of Con-
gress, myself included, would talk to the Corps and would say,
‘‘OK. What are your top priorities?’’ They will say, ‘‘This particular
project in your State is a life safety issue. It is a top priority for
us,’’ and then when it all pops out as far as administration pro-
posals, it is not on the list.
That black box of how decisions are made for Corps of Engineers’
projects around the country as it gets into the OMB part has been
hard to be able to get our arms around. It is not a partisan issue.
It is just an issue of how decisions are made.
I would like to be able to work with you and your team in the
days ahead and the Corps of Engineers to try to figure out how to
make this a more transparent process. Are you open to that?
Mr. VOUGHT. Certainly open to it. In the area of reformed Army
Corps, I would love to work with you. Often what is involved there
is reflecting the President’s views on these important decisions as
well and making sure the Corps itself has that reflected in their
plans, but certainly want to be as transparent in this as possible.
And we believe that OMB is actually a part of the process that
makes it go more smooth and that helps provide information to
Congress in a transparent manner.
Senator LANKFORD. Yes. Look forward to that. Thanks again for
your willingness to be able to serve on it. Thanks.
Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator Lankford. Senator Rom-
ney.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROMNEY
Senator ROMNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Peters. My questions also are going to be directed mostly to Mr.
Vought.
I appreciate your service already and your willingness to take
this further.
I think there is wide bipartisan agreement that during the eco-
nomic crisis and the health crisis that we are undergoing that we
have to provide the funding necessary to help families that need re-
lief and try and keep businesses operating so that we are able to
29
have a recovery. So even though a lot of us that are spending
hawks and debt hawks are concerned about all the debt, we recog-
nize that now is the time—if there ever is a time, now is the time
to be borrowing.
But I guess the question is as we think about the next
phase—and whether or not there is going to be another rescue
package, I do not know, but if there were to be another rescue
package, do you or does the administration think it would be im-
portant to include in that rescue package some provision for deal-
ing with the structural debt problem, the structural deficit problem
that we have?
And by that, I will just note that I have spoken with a number
of individuals, including a former Secretary of the Treasury, who
said, ‘‘Look, the world markets that buy our debt will understand
borrowing during the COVID crisis, but they do not understand an
extra trillion dollars a year in excessive borrowing during good
times.’’
So is this a time? Would it make sense to include some provision,
some process to ultimately deal with our structural imbalance?
Mr. VOUGHT. Senator, thank you for that question, and I think
you know that I am someone that is very concerned about spending
and debt deficits, and this President has as well been concerned
about that with the budgets that he has put forward.
It often goes unnoticed that the budgets that he has put forward
have had more spending reforms than any President in history, in-
cluding on the mandatory side to reforms, welfare reform, direct
pricing reform, and so we believe that there is an opportunity in
the future to be able to identify some of these things, work with
Congress, and to be able to enact them. And we would welcome
that, and we would welcome any ideas that Congress has to include
in the next package if it is deemed necessary, if we have imple-
mented the first four bills, and there is a bipartisan consensus to
move forward. I think this administration and the President would
certainly consider anything that Congress has in mind to be able
to think ahead down the road as it pertains to spending and defi-
cits, so to consider some of the reforms that we have put in his
budgets.
Senator ROMNEY. Each time the President’s budget comes out, he
identifies places to economize. In many cases, these things make a
lot of sense.
The final piece of legislation we are presented typically includes
a whole list of things we wish were not there, programs we wish
were eliminated. There is always a list of laughable spending, pri-
orities that someone has stuffed in there. We all scratch our head
and say, ‘‘Why is this?’’
So one of the questions a new Senator like myself has, ‘‘Why are
these strange, excessive, and unnecessary expenditures still being
made?’’ and at the same time, ‘‘Why are some important reforms
not being included?’’
And I guess I would ask you, What is wrong with the process,
and is there a way that you or the administration can become more
involved in the process of creating the final budget, not just your
proposal budget, but the final piece of legislation that gets passed?
What are we missing? What is wrong with our process that we can-
30
not deal with the excesses, we cannot deal with the silliness of
some spending programs, we cannot get some reforms done? Is it
a failure of the administration to interact with Congress? Is it the
failure of the Congress to work across party lines? What has made
it so difficult for us to finally get a handle on the excesses and on
the things that we should not be spending on, and how do we
change that? Is there some way we can improve?
Mr. VOUGHT. A couple ideas, and I think one of the things we
have seen that we have tried to do is to get involved earlier and
more often. The President has the same view. He dislikes when
bills get to his desk that are so big, and we have not had an oppor-
tunity or enough of an opportunity to participate in the process.
That is one of the reasons why he was so opposed to ever doing an
omnibus bill again.
So we have tried to send up letters to work with the Appropria-
tions Committee and other committees much earlier in the process
so that there is a more robust view about what we actually find
problematic and what we do not.
I also wish Congress was doing budgets and passing those. I
think that is a very important part of the legislative process that,
unfortunately, has fallen by the wayside, because I think it helps
to have a debate in the world’s most deliberative bodies about what
we can afford, what we cannot, and what you find wasteful in addi-
tion to what we have found wasteful. In those dynamics, our budg-
ets can often be an idea generating documents for amendments and
debate points.
We are not here to argue that the system is working. In fact, we
want to be part of the conversation about how to improve it and
make sure that we are not jamming the country at the end of fiscal
years.
I appreciate much of the hard work that has been done by this
Committee and various authors on the issue of continuing resolu-
tions (CR). That is a very important legislative initiative, but I
think there is a lot of things that we could be working on to im-
prove the process, Senator.
Senator ROMNEY. Thank you. I will let you go here, but I just
note that with regards to these relief packages associated with
COVID that Secretary Mnuchin has been able to insert himself in
relationships with both the House and the Senate that has helped
guide, in some respects, the structure of the package. I wonder
whether it is not possible for OMB and the administration to play
a much more active role in the process, the appropriations process,
the budget-creating process so that we end up with some of the re-
forms that the administration is looking for.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back to you.
Chairman JOHNSON. Thanks, Senator Romney. You definitely
asked the $64 question: Why are things so screwed up, and what
can we do to unscrew it, I guess? So I appreciate that.
Next, Senator Sinema.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SINEMA
Senator SINEMA. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate the nominees who have joined us today, and I look
forward to our discussion.
31
My question today will focus on Mr. Vought, and I will have a
couple questions for Mr. Leen that I will submit for the record.
Federal spending is a critical topic as our Nation grapples with
how best to respond and recover from the virus. It is important
that we make wise decisions on how best to apply Federal re-
sources to issues ranging from acquiring personal protective equip-
ment; to support for our State, Tribal, and local government part-
ners; to how best to manage the PPE program.
So, in Arizona, we need the Federal Government to be an effec-
tive partner in these initiatives. Over the past several months, the
United States has been under significant stress. We have seen over
100,000 tragic deaths in our country, which has led to an economic
downturn that impacts every family across the Nation.
So my question for you, Mr. Vought, is based on your observa-
tions and as the chief official responsible for managing Federal
spending and ensuring agencies effectively implement the adminis-
tration’s priorities and initiatives, what parts of the Federal Gov-
ernment need improvement to be more effective and efficient dur-
ing times of crisis such as this?
Mr. VOUGHT. Senator, I appreciate the question. I do not want
to lay blame anywhere in responding, but I do think we can always
get better in how we work as agencies within the interagency to
remove barriers to get things done, to move faster.
I think one of this administration’s success points has been the
Vice President’s task force that has allowed someone like me who
has a role to play with regard to the glue amongst all the inter-
agency process to be able to help remove barriers and work on
those issues.
So I think that it is incredibly difficult when you have different
agencies with different statutes with different stakeholders to get
them all moving in the right direction, to be able to identify bar-
riers that need to be pulled down, regulatory or otherwise, and that
is one of the reasons we were so proud about the 600 different reg-
ulatory initiatives that we have taken during the coronavirus re-
sponse and recovery and hope to continue that. And one of the rea-
sons why the President does an EO is so that he gets the pulse of
the administration moving in this direction, but happy to continue
to work with you in how it is being distributed at the State level.
Senator SINEMA. Thank you for your response.
I just want to be clear. I want to make sure that I understand
correctly. You have not observed any part of the Federal Govern-
ment that needs improvement as it relates to the coronavirus?
Mr. VOUGHT. No, I would not say that. When I respond that way,
where we have been at our best as an administration is when the
agencies have been all getting in a room and moving forward and
identifying burdens, and I have many successes on that front in
terms of how we have scaled the production of ventilators, to the
production of testing, to ensuring that States have the PPE that
they need. And I think we can always do things better, but nothing
immediately comes to mind as something that has been broken.
Senator SINEMA. OK. Thank you for clarifying.
So I think celebrating victories of what we have been able to do
well is certainly a good thing to do at a later time, but now as
Americans are still dying and as we are facing a potential resur-
32
gence of the virus in the fall, in some States like mine, the virus
is still moving around very strongly. I just wanted to be clear that
nothing comes to mind about what the Federal Government needs
to do better to be more effective or efficient during a time of crisis
such as the one we are in. You cannot think of any area where we
could do better?
Mr. VOUGHT. Again, from my vantage point, Senator, I have seen
an administration and task force that is working as expeditiously
as we possibly can to meet challenges as they arise.
I remember early on in the process, what it would be for a State
like New York, and we were seeing numbers that were just astro-
nomical, and this administration worked the problem. And we have
ensured that no one did not have a ventilator who needed one, and
I think that given where we were, it is an example of how we have
worked problems in the moment and tried to think as much as we
possibly can until the next problem comes our way. Nothing comes
to mind that is structural that could have been done better.
When this is all over, we will try to find and identify areas that
we can get better and work with Congress for identifying things
that you have seen and have you speak into the process, but we
are still in the midst of trying to combat this effectively from a
public health standpoint and ensure that we get the economy re-
covering as fast as possible.
Senator SINEMA. Thank you.
So I want to follow up with a very specific question, then. As you
are probably aware, a $3 million contract was awarded to a com-
pany established by a former senior official in the White House. He
had no prior Federal contracting experience. It turns out that the
company he created provided a large number of substandard KN95
respirator masks to the Indian Health Service (IHS), and these
were all directed to the Navajo Nation. As you are, I am sure,
aware, the Navajo Nation now has the most severe outbreak in the
country, even worse than the State of New York.
So do you believe that the Federal response to the outbreak on
the Navajo Nation and the obligation to provide working PPE was
both effective and efficiently met?
Mr. VOUGHT. Again, I do not know the specifics of that particular
scenario. I did see the news article with regard to it. I would refer
you to the agency that presumably had made that decision.
But, again, I think there are things like that that we can do bet-
ter. I do not think that is an indication of a structural issue in any
way about our response in the recovery.
Senator SINEMA. OK. That is an area where I think we could
probably have further discussion. It sounds like there could be a
structural problem with failing to adequately vet vendors and per-
haps awarding contracts to vendors who do not have a proven track
record, especially in a case as dire as that on the Navajo Nation
where, again, we are seeing the per capita infection and death
rates to be the highest in the entire Nation.
I see that my time is expiring. So, Chairman Johnson, I will sub-
mit the rest of my questions for the record. I do have some more
concerns around telehealth services, and again, I will submit those
for the record. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman JOHNSON. OK. Thank you, Senator Sinema.
33
As usual, I think our Committee Members have asked some
great questions. We have covered a lot of topics, and I would have
to say the nominees, I think, have done an extraordinary job of an-
swering with a great deal of confidence and knowledge. So I want
to thank you for that.
I will close this thing out with just two questions, one apiece.
Mr. Leen, as I stated in my opening comments, OPM is under-
going a significant restructuring. As it has an Inspector General’s
office there, that is going to be something that I think you are
going to be dealing with and grappling with and doing inspections
and investigations on.
Can you just kind of talk a little bit about how you plan to han-
dle that situation?
Mr. LEEN. Yes, certainly. OPM obviously is facing a lot of chal-
lenges at this time, and of course, I believe you are referring also
to the potential merger with the General Services Administration
(GSA), which I know is on hold at this moment while a report is
being done.
I do believe—and my view is consistent with what OPM IG is
presently doing—that the IG’s office has a significant role in over-
seeing—if there were to be a merger, overseeing that merger to
protect the core equities of OPM, including the human resource
(HR) function, Federal Employees Benefits Program (FEHB), re-
tirement, the charitable giving. There are so many different things
that OPM does, and you do not want that to be lost within the
larger, much larger structure of GSA.
So there is definitely a role to play for the OPM IG, and I plan
to play it.
Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Leen.
Mr. Vought, I want to join Senator Peters in his questioning and
request for more information on PPP. We may have different ques-
tions.
I share the concern about the number of businesses that obtained
PPP loans because there is no effective demonstration of need. As
a result, PPP loans went to, I mean, many businesses that really
did not need them.
Again, the criteria was simply it becomes an economic uncer-
tainty if you felt you needed a loan for the ongoing operations of
your business, step up to the plate and try to be first in line. So
I am not accusing any businesses of any kind of fraudulent activity.
They did what they thought was best in very uncertain times, but
now I think we need to make sure that any additional money we
spend is not allocated or disbursed to businesses that really do not
need it.
We do not have an unlimited checking account here, and we cer-
tainly need to direct future assistance to help open up the economy
to only those businesses that are viable and really do need the sup-
port. So I will join Senator Peters in trying to develop as much in-
formation on PPP.
But we spoke earlier. I was just trying to get a handle on how
much of the $2.9 trillion in the first, we will say, three and a half
phases, but four phases of financial relief, how much was actually
spent. My own staff has been able to detail, working with agencies,
about $1.12 trillion of the 2.9.
34
We are really going to need a very detailed accounting of where
the money is spent. To the extent that money has not gone out,
what is the roadblock? By the way, if it is not needed, that is good
that we have not spent it, but maybe we need to reconsider what
has not been spent, remedy some of the problems. As I mentioned,
in PPP, there is really no control over people who do not need it.
What can you tell us in terms of OMB’s role of how much infor-
mation you can provide us, whether you are kind of looking at
doing the same type of analyses? So that we might need to redirect
and repurpose part of that $2.9 trillion as opposed to talking about
a phase four, which is really phase five.
Mr. VOUGHT. Sure. I appreciate that question. I know that you
have been asking for that information. It is a priority for me to get
that information to you.
Right now, I am trying to make sure that we get the May infor-
mation as to how much has gone out in the month of May before
we would be able to provide a presentation. So that is something
that we are in the midst of trying to complete for you, and I do be-
lieve it is vital for us as we head into any consideration of the next
piece of legislation.
The figures that you are using are not dissimilar to the ones that
we are seeing based on the end of May as it pertains to what has
been legally obligated. Sometimes that does not necessarily reflect
the fact that UI is going to be spent out over the next year when
you are given 52 weeks of benefits or whether Treasury is only
having to obligate for the credit subsidy amount to some of the
loans. So I think there is a story to tell with regard to each of these
programs, but we are hearing you loud and clear, Senator. And we
are going to get you the information that you have requested.
Chairman JOHNSON. I appreciate that. The House already passed
a $3 trillion spending package. Again, we probably have not
spent—certainly less than half of what we have already appro-
priated. We really need to carefully take a look at that. So we will
be looking to OMB plus, I think, the agencies as well.
Again, I am not being critical. We had to do something massive.
We had to do something fast. We all knew this was going to be far
from perfect, but now is the time to take at least some measure of
pause here and really analyze what we have done and how we can
do it better. So, again, we really appreciate your cooperation on
that.
I will close out the hearing by just saying the nominees have
made financial disclosures.
Senator PETERS. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Peters, sure.
Senator PETERS. I have just one last question, if I may. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Vought, something we spoke about before, I would just like
to reiterate with you today and get your response, and that is the
FEMA cost share. As you know, States have been hit in a major
way. Michigan is certainly an example of that but other States
across the country. What the administration can do is increase the
FEMA cost share to basically 100 percent, so States do not have
to put up their portion.
35
I know you were concerned about a precedent that that set, but
we are certainly—and something that is unprecedented, and you
can certainly make a distinction when you are dealing with a hur-
ricane that is basically blowing across the entire country that is
being hit by natural disaster or a flood or a wildfire, that helping
States who are impacted in a significant and dramatic way would
make sense for FEMA to pick up 100 percent of the cost.
So where is the administration on that, particularly in this un-
precedented time? If you could respond to that question, I would
appreciate it.
Mr. VOUGHT. Sure. Thank you, Senator, for that.
We are in the same place that we were when we talked last. We
are aware of the request. The President is aware of it. The admin-
istration has not decided to grant any request yet for 100 percent
cost share. We are considering issues like precedent issuing—con-
sidering issues where it is always helpful to have the States to
have a little bit of a share in the cost. It helps them to be an impor-
tant vetter about what is needed and what is not at the local. You
do not want them to not have the important resources that are nec-
essary, but we do want them to be partners in ensuring that the
Federal Government is not on the hook for something that is inap-
propriate.
But it is part of the administration’s list of things that we will
continue to work through, and we have not made an announce-
ment—or the President has not made a decision on that.
Senator PETERS. Is there a timeline?
Mr. VOUGHT. We are working through it. There is no timeline at
this point right now, but we recognize the requests that have come
in and how passionately you and other members of the delegations
have spoken on, into the process on it.
Senator PETERS. Very good.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman JOHNSON. Sure. Thanks, Senator Peters.
This really is the perfect example of why we need information
and data. I have seen various estimates in terms of the projected
loss revenue and then plus COVID costs; in other words, the budg-
etary impact of States. Some are being no more than $350 billion
into fiscal 2021. I think we have already authorized something like
$240 billion-some for the States. In many cases, we do not quite
know how that is all being spent.
So I am not saying those are hard-and-fast numbers. What I am
saying is that we need the data, which was kind of the point in
raising this issue with Mr. Vought as well. So I guess it is just the
accountant in me. I really want some information before we start
making some of these big decisions.
But with that, the nominees have made financial disclosures and
provided responses to biographical and prehearing questions1 sub-
mitted by the Committee. Without objection, this information will
be made part of the hearing record,2 with the exception of the fi-
nancial data, which are on file and available for public inspection
in the Committee offices.
1 The information of Mr. Vought appears in the Appendix on page 44.
2 The information of Mr. Leen appears in the Appendix on page 185.
36
The hearing record will remain open until 5 p.m., tomorrow,
June 3, for the submission of statements and questions for the
record.
This hearing is adjourned. [Whereupon, at 4:19 p.m., the Com-
mittee was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
(37)
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
Æ
File and source
- File
- CHRG-116shrg40720.pdf
- Size
- 20,589,795 bytes
- SHA-256
- 71684696e74164080eee4341ab3cf2d7334f7d74fe7e117eb7eed3df89ee3409
- Our copy
- CHRG-116shrg40720.pdf
- Original
- www.govinfo.gov