[Senate Hearing 117-382]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 117-382
NOMINATION OF SHALANDA D. YOUNG AND JASON S. MILLER
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
NOMINATION OF SHALANDA D. YOUNG TO BE DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET AND JASON S. MILLER TO
BE DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR MANAGEMENT, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
__________
MARCH 4, 2021
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
44-784PDF WASHINGTON : 2022
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
GARY C. PETERS, Michigan, Chairman
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona RAND PAUL, Kentucky
JACKY ROSEN, Nevada JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma
ALEX PADILLA, California MITT ROMNEY, Utah
JON OSSOFF, Georgia RICK SCOTT, Florida
JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri
David M. Weinberg, Staff Director
Zachary I. Schram, Chief Counsel
Claudine J. Brenner, Counsel
Yogin J. Kothari, Professional Staff Member
Pamela Thiessen, Minority Staff Director
Andrew Dockham, Minority Chief Counsel and Deputy Staff Director
Amanda H. Neely, Minority Director of Governmental Affairs and General
Counsel
Andrew J. Timm, Minority Professional Staff Member
Laura W. Kilbride, Chief Clerk
Thomas J. Spino, Hearing Clerk
C O N T E N T S
------
Opening statements:
Page
Senator Peters............................................... 1
Senator Portman.............................................. 2
Senator Hassan............................................... 16
Senator Paul................................................. 18
Senator Romney............................................... 21
Senator Rosen................................................ 23
Senator Padilla.............................................. 26
Senator Johnson.............................................. 28
Senator Carper............................................... 30
Senator Lankford............................................. 34
Senator Hawley............................................... 37
Senator Ossoff............................................... 39
Prepared statements:
Senator Peters............................................... 43
Senator Portman.............................................. 44
WITNESSES
Thursday, March 4, 2021
Hon. Patrick Leahy, a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont..... 4
Hon. Bill Cassidy, a U.S. Senator from the State of Louisiana.... 5
Hon. Haley Stevens, a U.S. Representative in Congress from the
State of Michigan.............................................. 6
Shalanda D. Young to be Deputy Director, Office of Management and
Budget
Testimony.................................................... 8
Prepared statement........................................... 46
Biographical and professional information.................... 48
Letter from U.S. Office of Government Ethics................. 67
Responses to pre-hearing questions........................... 70
Responses to post-hearing questions.......................... 98
Jason S. Miller to be Deputy Director for Management, Office of
Management and Budget
Testimony.................................................... 9
Prepared statement........................................... 112
Biographical and professional information.................... 114
Letter from U.S. Office of Government Ethics................. 134
Responses to pre-hearing questions........................... 139
Responses to post-hearing questions.......................... 171
APPENDIX
Senator Paul pictures............................................ 180
NOMINATION OF SHALANDA D. YOUNG AND JASON S. MILLER
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 4, 2021
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:15 a.m., via
video conference and in room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office
Building, Hon. Gary Peters, Chairman of the Committee,
presiding.
Present: Senators Peters, Carper, Hassan, Sinema, Rosen,
Padilla, Ossoff, Portman, Johnson, Paul, Lankford, Romney,
Scott, and Hawley.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN PETERS\1\
Chairman Peters. The Committee will come to order. Today we
are considering the nominations of Ms. Shalanda Young to be the
Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
and Mr. Jason Miller to be OMB's Deputy Director for
Management. I certainly welcome both of you, and I know you
have your family with you, and I look forward to having you
introduce them shortly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Senator Peters appear in the Appendix
on page 43.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I want to first off congratulate you on your nominations
and thank you for your willingness to serve our nation in these
very critical roles. Our country is facing a historic public
health and economic challenge, and over the past year the
coronavirus pandemic has taken more than 510,000 American
lives. It has also devastated communities, families, and
businesses in Michigan as well as all across our country.
If confirmed, not only will you both play a key role in
shaping and implementing the American Rescue Plan (ARP), a
comprehensive relief package that will provide critical aid to
Michiganders and Americans across the Nation, but also
developing President Biden's budget and policy agenda across
the government. In your respective roles, you will be
responsible for evaluating and coordinating policy decisions to
help the country recover from the pandemic, from getting
vaccines in the arms of people as quickly and equitably as
possible, to reopening our schools and our economy swiftly and
safely.
You will also have to help address the long-term challenges
that we face, including bolstering our nation's cybersecurity
infrastructure; advancing science-based public health; worker
safety and environmental protections; as well as strengthening
our Federal workforce. You will also be responsible for
ensuring that Federal agencies are addressing and prioritizing
the needs of communities of color and other underserved and
vulnerable populations. As part of OMB leadership, it will be
your duty to ensure that the Federal Government is working
efficiently and in a transparent manner to deliver for the
American people.
I certainly believe that both of you bring that kind of
experience and expertise and dedication to public service that
is needed to help steer the country through this unprecedented
time. I expect OMB will work closely with this Committee as we
take on the difficult task ahead of us, and I look forward to
hearing about the serious challenges we are facing today and
how we can work together to tackle them.
Thank you both again for your willingness to serve and for
being here with us today, and with that I will turn it over to
Ranking Member Portman.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PORTMAN\1\
Senator Portman. Thank you, Chairman Peters. I am glad to
join you at the hearing today and welcome to the witnesses. I
look forward to hearing from you. I have enjoyed our
conversations we have had by telephone, and it is good to have
you here in person, and I look forward to having you introduce
your family members who are with you.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Senator Portman appears in the
Appendix on page 44.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As you all know, I think this agency is absolutely critical
to our government and probably the least-known but one of the
most important agencies of government. It is the Office of
Management and Budget, so the purview is almost boundless,
management of every agency, every department, every program--
not direct management but the oversight of it--and that
responsibility would fall on you as the two deputies, should
you be confirmed. Of course, the budget side--incredibly
important.
But OMB also looks at every regulation. OMB also looks at
every policy. It looks at every statement that comes out of the
White House, and has to approve it, so it is a huge
responsibility, and I am glad you are willing to step up and
take it on.
As Deputy Director of the Office, and then as the Deputy
for Management, respectively, it is important that you both
have a background in your respective roles--budgeting,
management--but also an understanding of all those policy
issues, regulations, and actions that OMB reviews and
coordinates across the agencies. Even more important to me is
the ability to work with folks within the administration, the
agencies, and with Congress.
Chairman Peters just talked about the coronavirus disease
2019 (COVID-19) packages. I hope we do not see a repeat of
that, because that is not working with Congress. It is working
with one side of Congress, and both of you have backgrounds
where you have worked on a bipartisan basis, Ms. Young, in
particular, on the Appropriations Committee. That is how you
operate. I have spoken to some of the cardinals who were
previously in charge, who were Republicans, who worked with
you, and some who, as ranking members, worked with you, and
they said you did work with them, and that is very important.
On COVID, five times we have done that in the last year, and
unfortunately this latest time the administration chose to go a
different route. I think it is a mistake for the country. I
certainly think it is a mistake for trying to build some
bipartisanship going forward on other issues that OMB will be
very involved with, like infrastructure.
I hope you are going to be a voice within the
administration to say that you are willing and able to work
with both sides and find that middle ground and get things
done.
On the crises that we face, COVID-19 is at the top of the
list, but it has spawned other crises, including an epidemic
crisis underneath the pandemic, with regard to substance abuse
and overdoses. We now believe we are in a year where we are
going to have the highest overdose death rate in the history of
our country, which is such a heartbreaking reality we were
making good progress until the pandemic.
We also know that our children's education and development
has been set back, thanks to this coronavirus pandemic, and
that is a long-term issues we have to address. I spoke to some
folks this week who tell me that they are educators, that they
believe the students that they are in charge of teaching and
developing have lost a year. That is a big deal. Of course,
there are emotional scars that go along with that. There is a
mental health crisis in addition to the opioid and drug
addiction crisis, more generally, higher suicide rates along
with the record number of overdose deaths. So there is lots to
do post-COVID-19 to sort of knit this society back together.
Finally I will say I hope you will be willing to focus on
fraud in these programs that we have set up. It, to me, is
unbelievable that we are not doing more, particularly to
address the fraud in the unemployment insurance system as we
pump hundreds of billions of dollars of Federal money and we
find out that there are organized international, in some cases,
foreign criminal organizations that are taking advantage of
hard-earned taxpayer money to steal from our taxpayers and to
fraudulently take Federal funds. But it is true with a lot of
these programs. We have heard, with regard to every one of
these big programs, that there is significant fraud. That will
be something that we look forward to talking to you about today
and getting you engaged with, should you be confirmed.
I will say part of that is that there are innocent
Americans out there, including our constituents, Chairman
Peters and myself, who are bearing the brunt of this fraud
because people are stealing their identity and then getting
checks illegally, and then the government is coming back on the
constituent, who knew nothing about it. And we are hopeful that
we can pass an amendment to the COVID bill to address that in
the next 24 hours, but it is even worse than it might appear,
because of its impact on so many people.
The cyberattacks we have seen recently, this massive
SolarWinds attack is unprecedented. We look forward to your
comments on that. Cybersecurity is one of the five high-risk
areas that has actually gotten worse since 2019, based on a
hearing we had in this room 2 days ago, so clearly we are
moving in the wrong direction in terms of securing our Federal
networks. I know Chairman Peters and I want to work closely
with OMB in that regard, because OMB has a huge role to play,
particularly with regard to the agencies and making sure they
are meeting the requirements.
I am hopeful we can work together to address these
challenges, to rebuild the economy as we come out of COVID-19,
which is likely to happen. Despite all the issues I talked
about, the economy is beginning to grow already, and I think
that is the good news, and I think it will continue as the
vaccines become more widely available in ways that will help us
to move forward.
If confirmed, the two of you will play an important part in
all of these efforts, and so Ms. Young and Mr. Miller, I look
forward to hearing your thoughts today on these important
issues and other critical ones that would face OMB, should you
be confirmed.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Peters. Thank you, Ranking Member Portman.
Today we have some help recognizing our nominees, from some
of our Senate and in-house colleagues. So next I would like to
recognize Senator Leahy, who has a video introducing Ms. Young.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE PATRICK LEAHY, A UNITED STATES
SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT
Senator Leahy. I am very happy to be here today to
introduce Shalanda Young. She is President Biden's nominee to
be Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
Now, for the Members of this Committee who also sit on the
Appropriations Committee, Shalanda is a familiar face. She has
worked on the House Appropriations Committee for nearly 16
years. She has been the House Appropriations Staff Director
since 2017.
Actually, it is in that capacity I had the pleasure to
really get to know her well, and I can tell you, without
reservation, I can think of no one better suited to be Deputy
Director of OMB than Shalanda. Her deep understanding of the
often arcane Federal budget process, her years of experience on
the Appropriations Committee, her tenacity, her dedication to
public service, her honesty will serve the agency and the
American people.
Shalanda began her career in public service in 2001, at the
National Institutes of Health (NIH). She came first to work on
Capitol Hill as a detailee with the House Appropriation
Committee in 2005. She really made a good impression because
she returned in 2007.
She worked her way up in the committee over the years. Her
work in developing the budget and conducted oversight of key
agencies has given her critical insights into the operation of
some of our nation's most important agencies, including, of
course, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Department
of Interior (DOI), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the
General Service Administration (GSA). She even served as a
Staff Director for the legislative branch Subcommittee
overseeing the budget for Congress.
Then she became Staff Director of the House Appropriations
Committee in 2017. Coincidentally, that was the same year I
became Vice Chairman of the Appropriations Committee. Since
that time she has helped the House navigate some of the most
difficult issues before the chamber. She has a reputation as a
tough, fair negotiator. That is high praise on Capitol Hill,
and I can attest to the truth of these statements. I have seen
these skills first-hand.
Let me tell you a story. Shalanda was a critical figure in
helping to end the government shutdown in January 2019. Now I
remember the evening we cut the final deal to end the 35-day
government shutdown, the longest shutdown in U.S. history.
Chairman Shelby, Chairwoman Lowey, Ranking Member Kay Granger,
and I, along with only a very few but highly trusted staff,
went to my office in the Capitol. We continued talks that
started earlier that day. We wanted to get away from being
watched by everybody, the lobbyists, the press, away from the
cameras. We wanted to see if we could reach a deal.
Fortunately, Shalanda was with us. As we worked into the
night on these difficult issues, her knowledge of a vast range
of Federal programs, her understanding of the political
process, and her determination to get the country we love back
on track helped us reach a deal.
We shook hands on it that night, and we went out, the four
of us--two Republicans, two Democrats--and we announced it to
the press. If you look closely at pictures of that moment,
Shalanda is there in the background. Hopefully she is as proud
of that moment as I am.
It was a difficult time for our Nation, but through
determination and hard work we reached a solution, and that is
what Shalanda is best at. She knows how to work across the
aisle to get a deal done. Her relationships with both Democrats
and Republicans in the House and the Senate will serve her
well.
I have heard it said that Office of Management and Budget
is one of the most powerful government agencies, that most
Americans have never heard of. It is true. It wields incredible
influence over not just the Federal budget but over policies
that affect people's lives. We need people like Shalanda Young
to help steer the agency in these important decisions. She is
wonderful.
Chairman Peters. Next I would like to recognize Senator
Cassidy, who is joining us virtually. Senator Cassidy, welcome
to the Committee.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE BILL CASSIDY, A UNITED STATES
SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA
Senator Cassidy. Thank you, Chairman Peters, and thank you,
Mr. Portman, and thank you, all the Members of the Committee.
As Senator Leahy just said, this position is one of the
most important decisions that no one ever hears of. Among the
qualifications to be a political appointee in this position
includes a willingness to look beyond partisanship and to
really accept the intent of Congress when passing a law in
order to meet the needs of the American people and to respect
the role of Congress. So this willingness to do so is a
prerequisite to be approved for this position.
With this in mind, I have the distinct pleasure of
introducing Shalanda Young to be the Deputy Director of the
Office of Management and Budget. The reason I have this
privilege is that Ms. Young was born in Clinton, Louisiana, and
grew up in Clinton and in Baton Rouge. Her parents, Loyce and
Ronald Smith, her grandmother, and other family still live in
Louisiana.
Ms. Young graduated from Loyola University in New Orleans
and Tulane University. She is now, as was just said, a Staff
Director for the House Appropriations Committee, and in this
role has worked with both Democrats and Republicans to achieve
the goals of our country.
Now recalling what I said earlier, that this position
requires someone with a history of looking beyond partisanship,
I was so pleased to receive this message today from a former
Republican House Appropriations staffer. I am quoting from the
message. ``I hear you are introducing Shalanda Young today. She
is amazing, smart, and such a pro. She can explain difficult
concepts and has the gravitas required to speak truth to power
and cut deals. Plus, she is very pleasant and funny. A great
lady. Thanks so much for supporting her. She understands what
is needed to do this job. As a long-time congressional aid, she
has cultivated relationships with lawmakers in both parties.''
Now it is not just fellow staff members that speak so
highly of Ms. Young. I note there is a list of strong
bipartisan Senate support. Last week, my Republican colleague
from Alabama, Senator Shelby, said, ``She is smart, she knows
the process inside out, and she is an honest broker who has
demonstrated the ability to work with both sides to get things
done.''
Senator Sanders, who is about as far away from Senator
Shelby as you can get in terms of the political spectrum,
speaking to her experience, says, ``She has done an excellent
job in working with Democrats and Republicans.''
My Democratic colleague, Chair Leahy, just spoke, and he
said, ``That is what Shalanda is best at. She knows how to work
across the aisle and get the deal done.'' And my Republican
colleague from South Carolina, Senator Graham, said,
``Everybody that deals with you on our side has nothing but
good things to say.''
These days, wide bipartisan support is rare, but when
Senators Graham, Leahy, Sanders, and Shelby agree, either we
are in some sort of weird space-time continuum or the nominee
is exceptionally capable. Because she is from Louisiana, I know
it is the latter. She is exceptionally capable.
There are unique challenges ahead of us as we recover from
the pandemic. Ms. Young is a qualified individual with a
distinguished career in public service. I look forward to the
Committee and the Senate approving her nomination. Thank you.
Chairman Peters. Thank you, Senator Cassidy. Next I am
pleased to welcome my friend and a colleague from Michigan,
Congresswoman Haley Stevens, who will introduce Mr. Miller
today.
OPENING STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE HALEY STEVENS, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Ms. Stevens. I am Congresswoman Haley Stevens, proudly
representing Michigan's 11th District. Chairman Peters, Ranking
Member Portman, and distinguished Members of the Committee, it
is my great honor and privilege to introduce to you my former
colleague and dear friend, Jason S. Miller, as you consider him
to fill the important role of Deputy Director for Management at
the Office of Management and Budget in the White House.
My friendship and collaboration with Jason goes back to our
days working together in the administration of President Barack
Obama, where he served as Deputy Assistant to the President and
Deputy Director of the National Economic Council (NEC). As
Jason often likes to remind me, I was the very first face he
saw when he walked into government on his first day.
In the roles where Jason served, he continuously found new
ways to help government work for people. As his biography will
tell you, he played critical roles, if it was from working to
help Puerto Rico address its crisis to helping develop the
SelectUSA, the first-ever Federal effort to bring job-creating
investment to the United States from around the world, and he
also helped to launch Manufacturing USA, a network of public-
private partnerships, manufacturing institutes aimed at
securing the future of manufacturing in the United States.
His biography will also show his strong record of
management expertise, from his multiple graduate degrees, time
with The Boston Consulting Group and Marakon Association,
executive roles in the Obama Administration, and his most
recent leadership position as the Chief Executive Officer (CEO)
of the Greater Washington Partnership.
What his biography will not tell you is that many of his
achievements have had long-lasting impacts that make government
function better for taxpayers. The Manufacturing USA
institutes, for instance, that he helped to launch, have
proliferated into a network of 14 public-private partnerships
that sprang into action at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic,
when Members of Congress and community leaders were fielding
calls from hospitals, nursing homes, and businesses who were
desperate for personal protective equipment (PPE) due to the
supply chain disruption, when they were eager for ventilators
and other life-saving materials. Since that time, Manufacturing
USA institutes have served as critical connectors for
innovative manufacturers and industry partners who rose to meet
our national need for those who have been helped with those
supplies. It was Jason's vision of a multi-connected consortia
of university partners, small businesses, large businesses, and
the Federal Government through interagency effort, coming
together to solve problems. Boy, did they ever, in one of our
greatest moments of need.
Certainly, beyond his far-reaching capabilities, Jason is
above all a dedicated servant to the ideals of our country. The
ideal of service, being something greater than oneself, that is
meant to be the fabric of how he will serve in this role and
how he will continue to make the United States of America
proud.
I urge you to consider his confirmation as Deputy Director
for Management at the Office of Management and Budget, and I
thank you greatly for your time.
Chairman Peters. It is the practice of this Committee to
swear in witnesses, so if both of you would stand and raise
your right hand.
Do you swear the testimony you will give before this
Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth, so help you, God?
Ms. Young. I do.
Mr. Miller. I do.
Chairman Peters. You may be seated.
Ms. Young, you may now proceed with your opening remarks.
TESTIMONY OF SHALANDA D. YOUNG,\1\ NOMINATED TO BE DEPUTY
DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
Ms. Young. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Peters,
Ranking Member Portman, and Members of the Committee, thank you
for the opportunity to testify today as President Biden's
nominee for the Deputy Director of the Office of Management and
Budget.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Young appears in the Appendix on
page 46.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I want to thank Chairman Leahy and my home State Senator,
Senator Cassidy, for introducing me to the Committee today. One
of the joys of being Staff Director of the Appropriations
Committee has been seeing the amazing relationships and results
that have come from Chairman Leahy, former Chairman Shelby,
Ranking Member Granger, and my former boss, Chairwoman Lowey.
I still vividly remember those four meeting, as you heard
Chairman Leahy talk about the same meeting, a meeting to avert
another government shutdown back in February 2019. Even in
those tense moments, Senator Leahy still took the time to show
me pictures of his beloved family before announcing to the
press that a compromise had been reached. I will be forever
grateful for the kindness Senator Leahy has shown, even in the
most stressful environments.
And Senator Cassidy, it has been a delight to get to know
you during this process. There have not been many people I
could discuss Baton Rouge high schools with, since I moved to
DC, and I certainly appreciate the Louisiana hospitality you
and your staff have shown.
I am accompanied today by my partner, William Durham. My
parents, who were here earlier this week, and my grandmother
are watching from Louisiana. I want to thank William, my
family, and friends for their unwavering support over the
years.
Members of this distinguished Committee, I come before you
today as someone who grew up in rural America. I spent most of
my youth in Clinton, Louisiana. Back then, Clinton had a
population of around 2,000. Like a lot of rural America, it has
lost 20 to 30 percent of its population. It is where my
maternal great-grandparents lived, got married, and had my
grandmother in 1928. Somehow even then, in the segregated
South, my great-grandparents sent their child, my grandmother,
to college. I am grateful they prioritized education, a
commitment that has stayed in my family for generations. All
families deserve to see their children have that same
opportunity to pursue their potential.
Another former boss of mine, Chairman Obey, used to say a
budget is your values. I share that belief, and firmly believe
the Federal budget can and should make the promise of this
country real for all families in all communities.
I have spent the last 4 years as both the Minority and
Majority Staff Director of the House Appropriations Committee.
I care deeply about the institution of Congress and have been
very proud to serve in a position that required compromise to
ensure the American people had not only a functioning
government, but one that invested in their future.
My work on the Appropriations Committee taught me that both
sides can compromise without compromising their values, even
when that means no one gets everything they want. I will
forever be indebted to this institution and, if confirmed, I
look forward to using my experience in these halls to ensure
both branches operate with mutual respect and work toward
solutions that will improve the lives of those we serve.
I am not naive about the challenges we face. Last year, I
worked on the first COVID-19 supplemental that Congress passed
in March 2020. We were using models of past supplementals for
Ebola and Zika because the full scale of the pandemic was still
unclear. With COVID-19 deaths surpassing 500,000, our focus
must remain on beating the virus, delivering immediate relief
to millions of struggling Americans, and ensuring that we
emerge from these crises even stronger than we were before. If
confirmed, I look forward to engaging with Members of Congress
from both parties on this and other important work.
Chairman Peters, Ranking Member Portman, and other Members,
thank you for allowing me to be here today to testify, and I
look forward to your questions.
Chairman Peters. Thank you, Ms. Young, for those opening
comments.
Mr. Miller, you may proceed with your opening comments.
TESTIMONY OF JASON S. MILLER,\1\ NOMINATED TO BE DEPUTY
DIRECTOR FOR MANAGEMENT, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Chairman Peters, Ranking Member
Portman, and Members of the Committee. Thank you for your
service and for the opportunity to be here today in front of
you. Thank you to Congresswoman Haley Stevens, my good friend,
for that incredibly kind introduction. Haley is right--she is
the very first face that I saw when I began my prior public
service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Miller appears in the Appendix on
page 112.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am humbled to be President Biden's nominee for the Deputy
Director of Management for the Office of Management and Budget.
Serving the American people is a privilege. Having the
opportunity to serve in a role with such broad responsibilities
to ensure our Federal Government is delivering every single day
for the American people would be an honor.
I am accompanied today by my wife, Katy Platt Miller.
Undoubtedly, I would not be here without her support and
wisdom. I want to thank her and my family for their willingness
to allow me to serve, and the sacrifices that they are willing
to make if I am confirmed.
I also want to thank my parents, Peggy and David Miller,
who taught me the importance of integrity, hard work, and
kindness, and my three children that could not be here today,
Annabelle, Theo, and Cora, who always keep me on my toes.
Public service is my way to give back to a country that has
given me and my family so much. My grandfather, after whom I am
named, left Eastern Europe in 1913, escaping anti-Semitism and
all that came with it, for a better life, settling with his
parents and seven siblings in Flint, Michigan. My other
grandfather served our country in World War II, a Jew put in
charge of the care of German prisoners of war. Upon returning,
through the GI Bill he completed college, going into business
in Chicago and starting a family with my grandmother. Today
would have been my grandmother's 92nd birthday. She passed in
December, and I carry her love and fondness for good food with
me today. These are American stories, creating a better life
and a better world for our children, something that each of us
should have the opportunity to pursue.
The challenges we face today as a country are substantial.
It is in times like these when Americans expect their
government to deliver, to beat back the pandemic, to provide
critical relief, to create the conditions for recovery, to
protect our security, and to position our country to lead.
The Office of Management and Budget sits at the heart of
the Executive Branch, responsible for ensuring Federal agencies
are doing just that, delivering on the President's priorities
and the laws enacted by the Congress.
In my experience, successful delivery is built on three
pillars: ambitious goals built around clear priorities, a
system for measurement and accountability, and a talented,
energized, and dedicated team.
The role of the Deputy Director for Management is to ensure
those pillars are in place, that the support functions to
enable agency missions are up to the task, that we are building
a high-performance government, and that we have the very best
of the American people serving their fellow citizens.
In my prior time in Federal Government, I had the
opportunity to work closely with the talented career staff at
OMB, and if confirmed, I am thrilled to have the opportunity to
do so again. Our committed Federal workers are an asset to our
country, and addressing our challenges will require
strengthening and energizing our Federal workforce and
inspiring even more Americans to serve.
I began my career in management consulting, working with
large corporations to build smart strategies, create
organizations to deliver on those strategies, and put in place
the measures to manage and monitor strong performance. I spent
nearly 7 years in public service at the White House, tackling a
wide range of economic policy issues at the highest levels of
government. Since then, I led an organization, which I helped
to build from the ground up, working on the most challenging
economic issues at the State and local levels here in this
region.
The common thread across those experiences in the private,
public and non-profit sectors is that I get stuff done. It is
what drives me, it is what I believe is needed right now, and,
if confirmed, I would be honored to wake up every day and get
stuff done for the American people.
Thank you for inviting me before this Committee, and I look
forward to your questions.
Chairman Peters. Thank you, Mr. Miller.
Before we get started there are three questions that this
Committee asks of every nominee for the record, so let me just
ask both of you, and I will start with Ms. Young and then, Mr.
Miller, if you would answer these questions and respond
quickly. A yes or no is appreciated as well.
First, is there anything you are aware of in your
background that might present a conflict of interest with the
duties of the office for which you have been nominated?
Ms. Young. No, sir.
Mr. Miller. No, sir.
Chairman Peters. Second, do you know of anything, personal
or otherwise, that would in any way prevent you from fully and
honorably discharging the responsibilities of the office to
which you have been nominated?
Ms. Young. No, sir.
Mr. Miller. No, sir.
Chairman Peters. Last, do you agree, without reservation,
to comply with any request or summons to appear and testify
before any duly constituted committee of Congress, if you are
confirmed?
Ms. Young. Yes, sir.
Mr. Miller. Yes, sir.
Chairman Peters. Great. Thank you.
Michiganders, as well as people all across the country are
still facing significant challenges as a result of the
pandemic, and President Biden has certainly made it clear that
the pandemic response needs a whole-of-government approach and
that we need to take bold action to recover. If confirmed, you
both will play a central role in coordinating the Federal
Government's pandemic response efforts.
So this question is to both of you. How do you envision OMB
helping to lead and coordinate the administration's pandemic
response efforts, and, if confirmed, are there one or two
priorities in that area that you want to talk about? We would
certainly love to hear.
Ms. Young, if you could start.
Ms. Young. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the question.
Clearly there is nothing more pressing in front of our country,
and I hope it is a once-in-a-generation challenge for this
country, both health pandemic, affecting the health of
Americans, and also one that is leading us, unfortunately, into
economic crisis. So certainly I believe OMB will be at the
center of development of legislative proposals, funding and
policy, to help the administration work with Congress to
respond to the health effects and the economics of the
pandemic. I certainly think OMB will be central to that effort.
I have worked on all of the legislation last year as Staff
Director of the Appropriations Committee. I am very proud of
the work that Congress did, as Senator Portman pointed out, in
a bipartisan manner. But it is hard to claim success when
500,000 Americans have lost their lives. I certainly see more
work to be done.
I know I am not confirmed but I understand the work of
small business program, Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), for
example, that is one area where some administrative cleanup and
action to make sure that funding is getting to the smallest of
the smalls. I think there is more work to be done there, and I
certainly hope that I am confirmed and can help ensure that aid
is getting to the right mom-and-pop businesses, because they
are the backbone of our economy.
Mr. Chairman, I think I touched on most of it. I certainly
want to continue to work on that, and we also, after this
package, hopefully the Senate comes to conclusion on this week,
we will have to continue to monitor and make sure we get
vaccines to everyone and work with Congress if we need another
package. We have to crush the virus to have a quick economic
recovery.
Chairman Peters. Thank you. Mr. Miller?
Mr. Miller. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Peters, and I
appreciate the question.
First and foremost, I agree with Ms. Young. Issue No. 1 in
front of us is tackling the pandemic, beating back the
pandemic, and providing economic relief to Americans, both to
address the current struggles and to create a foundation for
recovery. If confirmed, in my role as Deputy Director for
Management, one key first priority is making sure that we are
operating effectively, efficiently, minimizing waste, and
delivering relief, delivering on getting vaccines to people,
with shots in their arms fast, consistent with the laws enacted
by the Congress.
The second piece that I think is important and critical at
this time is ensuring that all Federal agencies are delivering
on their critical missions, even while they are learning to
operate in new and different ways in order to keep Federal
workers safe, to keep Americans safe in the delivery of those
services.
So both OMB's central role in tackling the overall issue
and making sure that the entirety of the Federal Government is
operating effectively and safely is absolutely critical, and I
would look forward to the opportunity, if confirmed, to work
with this Committee to make sure we are doing just that.
Chairman Peters. Thank you. Both of you have mentioned the
need for us to get vaccines out as quickly as possible and get
it into as many arms as possible, and clearly that is the best
way for us to get to the other side of this pandemic.
Ms. Young, you and I had an opportunity to talk earlier
about that, and particularly my concern, which I know you fully
share, is the need to make sure that underserved communities
and communities of color have the response in the national
crisis or localized crisis that in the past they may not have
received. Clearly we need to make sure the vaccine distribution
is going and fully available to communities of color and other
vulnerable communities, and rural communities.
What role do you see playing in that effort?
Ms. Young. Senator, as pointed out in this hearing several
times, I think OMB has wide berth in being able to work with
the agencies, and certainly with the Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS). I would certainly be interested in being
a part of the solution, I think. I watched my own family--I
have a 92-year-old grandmother--have to search for a vaccine.
She should be at the front of the line. It should not be
difficult to find that.
I certainly know each of the States faces their own
challenges. I think there is more of a role for the Federal
Government to ensure that there are some baselines being met
across the States to ensure vulnerable populations are taken
care of. And just simple placement of where you put vaccine
distribution can make a huge difference. I certainly look
forward to working with you on this very important issue.
Chairman Peters. Thank you. Earlier this week, the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report,
requested by Senator Carper, me, and Senator Johnson, showing
that the previous administration made very little progress in
addressing polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) contamination
across our country. These are basically toxic-forever
chemicals.
Ms. Young, given OMB's role in reviewing science-based
public health and environmental protections and supporting the
Federal Government's efforts to address PFAS contamination, how
will you ensure that Federal agencies make real progress to
protecting our drinking water and expediting the cleanup of
these sites?
Ms. Young. Senator, during my confirmation process I have
not been at the administration part of decisions. My
understanding is EPA and OMB are working expeditiously,
especially on the hazardous label for something I think we all
recognize, in a bipartisan manner, is a hazardous chemical that
has been used in many ways but also by our Federal Government,
by the Department of Defense (DOD) a lot for firefighting.
There are lots of communities who now, I think rightfully, look
to their Federal Government and ask, ``What are you going to do
to help clean this up?''
I do believe OMB also has a role in ensuring that we have
enough Federal resources to help those communities, where the
Federal Government has used those chemicals.
Chairman Peters. Thank you. The last real quick question
that can be answered yes or no by each of you. If confirmed, do
you commit to ensuring swift OMB review of agency actions to
address the PFAS crisis. Ms. Young?
Ms. Young. Yes, sir.
Chairman Peters. Mr. Miller?
Mr. Miller. Yes, sir.
Chairman Peters. Great. Good to hear from both of you.
Thank you again.
Ranking Member Portman.
Senator Portman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and again, thank
you both for being here and your testimony so far this morning.
We talked about COVID-19 a minute ago, and I just have to
interject here. I believe we need new legislation on COVID-19,
but I think it needs to be far more targeted than what we have
before us. As an example, the $1.9 trillion is more money than
we spend in annual appropriations bill, on the discretionary
spending side. Is that true, Ms. Young? How much do we spend
every year in Congress----
Ms. Young. About 1.4.
Senator Portman. About 1.4 The 1.9 alone is more than we
spend in an entire year on discretionary spending. The question
is, where is that money? Some of it is going to good purposes.
I think the health care side is really important, the vaccine
distribution and development. Some of it is going to areas
that, frankly, have a lot of money right now, because less than
half, we are told, of what was just appropriated at the end of
the year has actually gone out, which was $900 billion.
I guess my question to you is, will you work with us in the
future to make these things more targeted, to be sure taxpayer
money is well used? With regard to the economy, Mr. Miller, you
said you thought we needed new legislation to create a
foundation for our future economic growth. Do you not believe
the economy is growing now? In January, we had a 10 percent
increase in income, in household income. The Congressional
Budget Office (CBO), which is a nonpartisan group up here,
tells us that the economy is growing, and they believe by
halfway through this year, we will be back to where we were
pre-pandemic, in terms of our gross domestic product (GDP).
I guess a couple of questions. One, will you work with us
on a more targeted approach, and will you work with us on
ensuring we have economic growth? By the way, CBO says that
will happen without any new stimulus. A new report out today
saying only 20 percent of the money that was in the stimulus
checks last time actually got spent. The rest of it was mostly
saved.
I wonder if you have any thoughts on that, both of you, for
going forward, how do we work together better?
Ms. Young. Senator Portman, thank you for that question.
You have my commitment to work with you on a whole litany of
things, and certainly on any future need for stimulus in the
economy. I think we can only solve this together, so you
certainly have my commitment to working on that. I think you
have seen some evidence of a willingness by this
administration. I have not been a part of it. I have not seen
the final Senate package, but I think if reports are true there
has been a willingness to look at some more targeting of those
funds.
So you certainly have my commitment, and I think the
administration, as we speak, is working with Senators to ensure
that there is targeted relief to the American people.
Senator Portman. Thank you. Mr. Miller?
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Senator, Ranking Member Portman.
Thank you for the question, and I concur with Ms. Young on my
commitment to work with you, Members of this Committee. First,
on the overall current situation that we are in 10 million
Americans are out of work. Measures like weekly unemployment
insurance claims are still historically high, so I think we
face deep economic challenges. But you are correct that the GDP
numbers, the GDP growth rates, have been high.
The issues even prior to the pandemic were deep-seated, and
I think we need to take appropriate investment looking forward,
once we make sure we have a strong foundation in place
regarding our recovery. Irrespective, if confirmed in my role
as Deputy Director for Management, I would welcome the
opportunity to work with you and Members of the Committee to
make sure that we are operating the programs that have been
enacted by the Congress efficiently and effectively, including
addressing concerns that have been raised in past programs or
new programs.
Senator Portman. Including going after fraud? Would you
make a commitment to that today?
Mr. Miller. Yes. Yes, sir.
Senator Portman. As we talked about earlier.
I was pleased to see President Biden sign an Executive
Order (EO) with the intent of striking the Buy America Act, and
in some ways it actually mirrors our bipartisan BuyAmerican.gov
bill. In other ways, the Executive Order actually weakens the
domestic content requirements, specifically by replacing
existing component test with a new value-added test that
actually reduces the procurement of U.S. content.
Will you commit to correcting this problem and to protect
the integrity of the Buy America Act.
Mr. Miller. Ranking Member Portman, thank you for the
question. I commend you for your work and leadership on this
issue. I think it is critical that our procurement policies are
enacting strong domestic preference requirements. As I
understand it, the intent of the Executive Order is to do just
that and make sure that procurement is increasing the amount of
domestic economic activity, and you have my commitment to work
with you to ensure that it does just that.
Senator Portman. I hope you will work with Senator Murphy
and me on our legislation, which codifies some of what was just
done but actually, I think, does a better job of protecting
American workers.
Ms. Young and Mr. Miller, last year Senator Carper and I
introduced a bill called the Safeguarding American Innovation
Act as a result of two investigations by this Committee
regarding Confucius Institutes, in one case, and Thousand
Talents Program, China's Thousand Talents Program in the other
case. The legislation would help stop foreign governments,
particularly China, from stealing American technology. This is
usually taxpayer-funded research and intellectual property.
A critical part of the legislation would establish a
Federal Research Security Council at OMB to close the gap we
identified in coordination and information sharing among the
various Federal agencies that provide most of the funding for
that research.
Would you commit to supporting the Safeguarding America
Innovation Act?
Ms. Young. Senator Portman, I am more than familiar with
the goals. I have not seen every detail of the act, but I am
committed to working with you on that legislation to make sure
the goals of it are implemented. It makes common sense to make
sure our research is protected, and you certainly have my
commitment to work with you on that.
Senator Portman. Great. We will get you the legislation and
we would love to have your help. Mr. Miller?
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Ranking Member Portman. I agree, it
is a key issue in making sure that our research enterprise, our
academic institutions are protected, and would welcome the
opportunity to work with you on that issue.
Senator Portman. OK. On permitting reform, we talked about
this in our conversations and I appreciate your support,
generally, for the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act
(FAST-41) bill I co-sponsored in 2015, a bipartisan bill that
establishes Federal Permitting Improvement Council, by the way,
which has saved well over $1 billion in terms of permitting,
and many years of permitting for major projects.
We, specifically, gave OMB a big role. It was a fight,
frankly, with the Obama Administration, and they conceded at
the end and gave you, if you are to be confirmed, at OMB, the
coordinating rule as putting together the council and
coordinating these large projects that would be covered. I
appreciated our conversations again, and I want to ensure that
we can work together to lift the sunset that is otherwise going
to happen on FAST-41.
I want to ask you now, in this forum, will you commit to
working with me to pass a sunset removal for FAST-41 that
retains the current law as written?
Ms. Young. It is hard to argue with success, and the act
has had a lot of success, so I would certainly commit to
working with you on the sunset removal.
Senator Portman. Thank you. Mr. Miller?
Mr. Miller. I would absolutely commit to working with you
on it. Reported benefits of the Permitting Council thus far are
substantial, and I think it is worth considering infrastructure
investment, increased infrastructure investment is absolutely
imperative that Federal permitting is working and working
efficiently.
Senator Portman. Great. My time has expired. I have so many
more questions for you, but I have a sense that we will
probably have an opportunity to have that conversation over the
next couple of years. So thank you for your answers today and
for your commitment to service.
Chairman Peters. Thank you, Ranking Member. The chair
recognizes Senator Hassan for her questions.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HASSAN
Senator Hassan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and Ranking
Member Portman. Thank you to both of our nominees this morning,
and thank you and your families for your willingness to serve.
We greatly appreciate it.
I want to start with a question to Ms. Young. A few weeks
ago, I asked Ms. Tanden to commit to completing the Federal
Program Inventory. Having this inventory will improve
transparency and help eliminate wasteful spending by allowing
policymakers and the public to access information about Federal
costs and programs.
If confirmed, will you also commit to completing the
inventory and working with me to eliminate programs that are
duplicative, wasteful, or no longer necessary?
Ms. Young. You absolutely have my commitment.
Senator Hassan. Thank you. Now a question to both of you. I
just want to discuss Federal information technology (IT)
systems. Information technology supports all Federal
operations, from accessing health care to combating terrorism,
so we need those who craft policies, as you both would do, if
confirmed, to recognize how IT shapes program outcomes, drives
costs, and delivers a level of service that the American people
expect in the 21st century.
If confirmed, will you ensure that agencies analyze the
impacts that their information technology systems may have on
programs costs and the ability of the agency to meet program
goals? Ms. Young?
Ms. Young. Senator, I would add another topic, improper
payments and fraud. I think data is central to that and some of
the lackluster information technology systems helps ensure that
we cannot fix that problem. So you certainly have my commitment
to working on those issues.
Senator Hassan. Thank you. Mr. Miller?
Mr. Miller. Senator Hassan, thank you for the question. I
absolutely commit to working with you on this topic. I think as
we step back it is safe to say that we are not getting adequate
return on investment (ROI) today on our IT investments, as a
Federal Government. We have made progress, as I understand it,
but there is a lot more to do. There is clearly the element
around cybersecurity, where modernizing our IT systems would
improve our overall cyber posture, and there is investment
within the American Rescue Plan to support of that, but I hope
that is an issue that we can work together on to further those
goals.
Senator Hassan. Thank you. I appreciate that, and I am
going to follow up a little bit more on the whole issue of
legacy IT, with you, Ms. Young, and then with you, Mr. Miller.
So to Ms. Young, last year the Federal Government spent $90
billion on IT systems. About one-third of those funds, $29
billion, was spent on maintaining legacy systems. As I
discussed with Comptroller General Dodaro earlier this week,
legacy systems can create compounding technical debt, leading
to increased costs and security vulnerabilities and preventing
the Federal Government from meeting the customer service
expectations of the American people.
The Office of Management and Budget plays a critical role
in eliminating antiquated systems and technical debt, and
holding agencies accountable for sticking to their
modernization plans, and you both just talked about different
ways that our being behind here has impacted our current
systems.
So to you, Ms. Young, if confirmed, will you commit to
modernizing legacy IT systems to improve services for citizens
and save taxpayer dollars?
Ms. Young. I commit to that. I also, from my current seat
on the Appropriations Committee, it is going to take resources.
We have dealt with budget caps over the last 10 years, and when
your choice is between programs that impact families and IT
systems, sometimes IT systems have not won out.
Senator Hassan. Right. Let me get to that, because one of
the major challenges here in eliminating legacy systems and
replacement them with cost-effective modern systems is the 1-
year budget and appropriations cycle, which cannot always
accommodate the time it takes for agencies to plan and execute
system upgrades.
So how are you going to work with agencies and Congress
appropriators to ensure that the agencies have the flexibility
that they need to commit to modernization efforts?
Senator Hassan. Senator, the group of bipartisan members on
the House and Senate side I think envision the Technology
Modernization Fund (TMF) to help solve some of those problems.
So have a centralized place. You may not get everything the
first year, but have funding in one place so GSA, with OMB's
assistance, can look across those agencies and do some forward
planning and not just on an annual basis, which I do agree with
you is probably not the best way to budget for technology
investments.
Senator Hassan. Thank you. I appreciate that answer. I look
forward to working with you on it.
Mr. Miller, a big driver of costs associated with legacy IT
systems is the need for specialized programmers rather than the
more generalized IT and security personnel that can adapt
systems as they evolve. This issue speaks to the Federal
Government workforce challenges more broadly, namely that we
are failing to hire and retain a highly skilled workforce to
meet agency missions.
How will you address the critical need to hire and retain a
skilled and diverse workforce, especially when it comes to
Federal IT?
Mr. Miller. Senator Hassan, thank you for that important
question. Not only inside the Federal Government but also many
contractors have to maintain skills solely for the operation of
Federal IT systems, as you know well. Technical talent, both in
IT and other places, is going to be a critical element of how
we think about the Federal workforce. One aspect of that needs
to be inspiring more Americans to serve. The public service
aspect has brought may technologists into the U.S. Government
through U.S. Digital Service (USDS) and other places where we
can bring people in and rotate them across agencies to tackle
these. But it is a bigger issue than just that, and we need to
work with the Chief Information Officers (CIOs), make sure we
have strong CIOs and agencies, and we are addressing the need
and being flexible and creative. I would look forward to the
opportunity to work with you on that.
Senator Hassan. Thank you very much. Thank you both for
your answers, for your work, and for your willingness to serve.
I yield the rest of my time.
Chairman Peters. Thank you, Senator Hassan. The chair
recognizes Senator Paul for your questions.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PAUL
Senator Paul. Ms. Young, we face a $27 trillion deficit. We
are borrowing a little over $2 million every minute. That means
we will borrow $50 million, in the next 25 minutes. It is
extraordinary where we are.
You have been vocal in your support for earmarks, and we
have not done earmarks around for a while, when the Republicans
were in charge. I think maybe it is important that we review
where some of these earmarks have been going in the past.
Most people remember the Bridge to Nowhere. This was a $400
million on a bridge and road to nowhere. It served about 50
people in Alaska. It was lampooned for years. There was also
$350 million we spent on an A-3 rocket test stand in a
Senator's home State. It was completed in 2014, 4 years after
the program it was designed to be used for was shuttered.
Earmarks do not have a great history in our country.
We spent $1 million on a former residence of Thomas Stone,
a marginal historical figure who argued for reconciliation with
the British, before signing the Declaration of Independence.
The house was bought in exchange for a Maryland Congressman's
vote on a National Parks bill. This is what would happen in the
past. If they wanted you to vote for something, they say,
``Well, was your grandmother prominent in her community? We
will do grandmother's museum for you.'' That literally was
happening under earmarks.
A million dollars was spent on exhibits and films for the
Woodstock Museum. Now some of these things got put in, and then
someone finally had some sense and took them back out. This one
never got built, fortunately. Fifty million dollars on a 4.5-
acre indoor tropical rainforest in Iowa, that was never built,
but was stuck in by a Senator and then fortunately was removed.
This is sort of the history of earmarks. They are sort of the
worst of what government represents. I am troubled that this is
something you voice support for.
There is $22 million put in a secret DOD program to
investigate unidentified flying object (UFO) sightings. This
was one of Senator Reed's passions. I do not think we have to
go further into discussion of whether or not that is a good use
of taxpayer money. Fifty thousand dollars to the Detroit
Institute of Bagels--there is one we really think we need to
spend some money on. Ninety thousand dollars to create audio
tours of the National Cowgirl Museum and Hall of Fame. Five
hundred thousand dollars to the Teapot Hall of Fame, which
closed before construction was completed. Five hundred thousand
dollars to travel for high school exchange programs between
Philadelphia and the Virgin Islands.
The history of earmarks is not one of our you know, putting
our best foot forward. I worry that you would go to OMB and
this is a philosophy that you would bring there, because you
have publicly advocated for these.
In the most recent bill, we have $140 million for
Congressman Pelosi's tunnel in her district. We have $1.5
million in it for Senator Schumer, for a bridge in his State. I
think that we really need to look long and hard at this.
At the peak of earmarking, in 2006, Members of Congress
added nearly 10,000 pet projects, costing the taxpayer nearly
$29 billion. During a 10-year period, the earmarks rose, in
1996, from about 1,000 to 14,000. I think we finally had one
transportation bill that had 6,000 earmarks on one
transportation bill, and there literally was stuff named after
people's grandmothers or somebody prominent in their district.
They would say, ``Oh, we will do a museum for them.''
Studies estimated that for every dollar companies spent
lobbying, they bought $28 in earmarks. At one point, 60 percent
of the House Armed Services Committee members were channeling
earmarks to campaign contributors. When they did a reform and
they said you had to attach your name to the earmark you put
on, to sort of shame people into this, they found that of the
81 House and Senate appropriators, who made up 15 percent of
Congress, they were responsible for 51 percent of the earmarks
and 61 percent of the money spent.
So I guess considering where we are on the debt, I would
like to think why you think it would be a good idea to go back
to earmarks.
Ms. Young. Senator, thank you for the question and the
opportunity to talk about this issue. The first commentary I
have is the Constitution is very clear about who gets to
appropriate, and it is Congress, out of the three equal
branches. It will be your decision, congressional decision,
House and Senate, on how you spend Federal dollars. If
confirmed, I think it would be my role, at OMB, to implement
what you have passed.
I certainly appreciate any past comments I may have made. I
am a staffer so doubt I have made many public comments, as you
have staff. Our bosses tend to make comments. But I believe
there is going to be a lively debate about how you choose, as
the Constitution dictates, and I certainly hope to be
confirmed, and on matters of the budget, if technical
assistance is needed, if confirmed at OMB, we will be happy to
provide that. But it is Congress' role to spend dollars.
Senator Paul. You are right, and Congress will make the
decision, not you. Do you favor earmarks? Do you think they are
a good idea?
Ms. Young. Senator, I certainly think the word ``earmarks''
has taken on one definition. I think we earmark now. How do you
fund the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) or highway
projects without earmarking? They are in a place, and they cost
money. So there are some Federal programs that are earmarked,
by the very definition of being directed, being in someone's
district or State.
Senator Paul. But I guess the difference is this. So, for
example, when Robert Byrd was here he paved about every inch of
West Virginia because he had the power to do it and he had been
here forever. I have a bridge that has needed to be fixed, and
had to have repairs, and we had people lined up for 10 miles on
either side of it, but I do not think it would be right for me
to fix this one bridge in there ahead of others. I think what
would be appropriate is we lay out the rules on which bridges
should be fixed.
So you are right. Congress has an obligation. We should not
just send it to the President, who could then earmark it, which
would be a mistake. We should say bridges that have the most
traffic, are the oldest, have had the most repairs, we should
set the rules for then the Department of Transportation, and
then ultimately you would think the decision would be made by
engineers. But that is not the history of earmarks. The history
of earmarks is the longer you have been here, the more stuff
you get, and it is true on both sides of the aisle, Republican
and Democrat. The longer you are here, the more stuff you get
under the earmark regime, and there has been a little bit less
of that.
But I think it is a real mistake to advocate for earmarks
and to be blase about it, because I think our country really is
suffering under a great burden of debt, and OMB has some
oversight in that. So being in favor of earmarks, to me, is not
a good thing.
Ms. Young. Thank you, Senator.
Chairman Peters. Thank you, Senator. Senator Romney, you
are recognized for your questions.
Senator Carper. Mr. Chairman, Tom Carper here. Do you know
where I am in the queue, please?
Chairman Peters. Senator Carper, we have Senator Romney.
There are others that are going to be coming that are ahead of
Senator Romney that are not here yet, but after him you are
one, two, three, four on the list after Senator Romney, but
there are one, two, three that may arrive that are ahead of
Senator Romney, so maybe a few. We will let you know when we
are getting close.
Senator Carper. Mr. Chairman, I checked in early. Something
is wrong with your list. I would just ask that somebody check
it, OK? Thank you.
Chairman Peters. My clerk says that you were not checked
in.
Senator Carper. Not true. I will talk to the clerk later.
Chairman Peters. Yes. We will be back to you offline,
Senator Carper.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROMNEY
Senator Romney. These Democrats go at each other tooth and
nail. It is amazing.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I recall during the years of the
last administration, particularly before the COVID crisis
occurred, that there was a period of great, robust economic
growth, and despite that we were generating nearly $1 trillion
a year in deficits, which, of course, added to the debt. I get
a text message every morning that tells me what the debt is
today, and actually yesterday it went over $28 trillion in
national debt.
There was a member of the last administration--maybe I am
paraphrasing--but basically he said, ``Debt is good.'' When
asked, ``Hey, are you concerned about all this debt, and the
trillion-dollar deficits?'' he said, ``No, debt is good.'' Do
you believe debt is good at the level we have and at the level
we keep adding to it, even during good years?
Ms. Young. Senator, I would use a different word, not
``good'' but ``OK.'' I think it is manageable. I would never
say debt is good, but I think it is OK with interest rates
being as low as they are, and the tools the Fed has. I think we
remain, thankfully, in a good place to continue to combat the
pandemic the way we have.
Senator Romney. Yes. I am not talking about the pandemic
necessarily. I am talking about the annual deficits we run of
roughly $1 trillion. The challenge is, yes, interest rates are
low now, but if interest rates go up and we still have the
debt, we have to pay the interest. So last year we spent $390
billion in interest. If interest rates go back to their normal
level we will spend $1 trillion a year in interest, which would
overwhelm our Federal budget.
I am concerned, in the COVID relief plan, that the
President--by the way, I fully support helping people that need
help, helping States and businesses that need help. I am
concerned that in the current plan there is a lot of excess
that is just going to add to the debt without creating a
benefit to our economy or helping people that are in need.
I am concerned, for instance, that under the plan many
States that had no revenue loss or no deficit as a result of
COVID and no unreimbursed COVID expenses, that they nonetheless
are going to get billions and billions of dollars. I see that
as a problem. Do you feel that is a problem as well?
Ms. Young. Senator, I have always looked at it--and I
worked on the coronavirus relief fund. We did $160 billion in
bipartisan Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security
(CARES) bill. That money ran out in December. I have always
looked at that fund is not just a revenue loss fund but one
that is meant to, and designed to provide fiscal relief. So
those States who are doing increased vaccine distribution, that
have increased costs, this fund is also to ensure that they
provide needed services.
I have looked beyond revenue loss as one of the----
Senator Romney. Of course. So what I am saying is, if a
State had no net revenue loss--we had 21 States that revenue
has gone up every year, even during the pandemic, 21, revenues
have gone up, and we have reimbursed all their excess COVID
expenses, and we have raised the Federal Medical Assistance
Percentages (FMAP), so we provided greater support for their
Medicaid. So these are States that are in fine financial shape.
California, for instance, I understand their budget surplus
this year is roughly $20 billion, and yet under the President's
plan we anticipate giving California another $27 billion. That
does not make sense to me. Does this make sense to you?
Ms. Young. Yes, sir, if you consider the regular budget did
not account for pandemic. So if we want States to step in and
do a lot of these COVID relief activities----
Senator Romney. But all the COVID relief activities were
reimbursed through the CARES Act, and anything not reimbursed
is appropriately to be reimbursed. So I am saying, if the
Federal Government agrees to provide all the funding necessary
to reimburse COVID expenses that a State has, and it fills
their budget gap from loss of revenue, I do not see a reason to
give even more money to that State. I hope you will look at. I
think it is----
Ms. Young. I am happy to, sir, and, we have certainly
talked about bipartisanship. This is one. Certainly some of the
Governors and locals of both parties have given us data that
says they are not just in need because of revenue loss but
because of the extra requirements for their citizens.
Senator Romney. I can assure you, as a former Governor, if
the Federal Government is going to be handing out billions of
dollars, I am going to have my hand out to get as much as I
can. But these are dollars that are going to be paid for by our
kids and our grandkids, that are being loaned to us by the
Chinese, among others. We have to be really careful of what we
send out. What is being proposed, in the President's plan, is
really not in line with what the actual results are that are
being seen by States, because States are continuing to receive
revenue. They receive revenue from income tax, from property
taxes, at the local level, of course. And so States are not
seeing the kind of pain that some States are. The States that
feel pain, got to help them. The States that do not feel pain,
we should not be sending them billions of dollars that we are
borrowing for our kids to have to pay back.
On a different topic, on our trust funds, we have a lot of
trust funds in trouble, as you know. The Highway Trust Fund
(HTF) runs out of money this year. Medicare's hospital
insurance trust fund runs out in 2024. Social Security
disability trust fund, 2026. Social security retirement fund in
2031.
In December, 71 Senators voted for an amendment to the
budget resolution on the importance of extending the solvency
of these trust funds, one by one. They specifically called for
creating individual, bipartisan, bicameral subcommittees to
look at each one of those trust funds and find a bipartisan
solution to get each one of those on a solvent basis. Is this
effort one that you are willing to support and work with as we
proceed?
Ms. Young. Senator, I think that is the only way we are
going to find solutions is through a bipartisan one, where
Congress works together and the administration works in
partnerships. So you absolutely have my commitment to support
such an effort.
Senator Romney. Thank you.
Mr. Miller, what consulting firm did you work with?
Mr. Miller. The Boston Consulting Group.
Senator Romney. Oh, The Boston Consulting Group. I worked
there once too. Very fine group. Smart people. I hope you bring
some of that skill and capability to the new assignment you
have.
Can you tell me precisely what are the responsibilities in
the assignment you would receive? What are the key deliverables
that you have in the assignment that you are looking to be
confirmed to?
Mr. Miller. Senator Romney, thank you for the question. As
I understand it, the Deputy Director for Management, which was
created in 1990 by the Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Act, both
to look at Federal financial management at a time when it was
quite poor across agencies, as well as look at a broad set of
general management functions, is to play the central OMB role
of ensuring that (1) agencies are delivering on their missions
through clear and consistent policy and guidance on execution
performance; (2) we have the right policies in place, working
with the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) on the Federal
workforce, that we are looking at our technology systems, both
from a cybersecurity standpoint and from a delivery standpoint,
and that our procurement policy is consistent with both mission
of the agencies as well as the broad set of policy goals, such
as supporting small and disadvantages businesses, strengthening
the American workforce through domestic preference
requirements, and more broadly, serving as one of the leaders
of OMB overall, to support all of OMB's broad missions.
Senator Romney. I look forward to hearing a report on your
success in carrying out those responsibilities. I also solicit
your involvement in our effort to rein in the excesses in
government, and particularly for us to tame the debt. As a guy
who was once in the world of leveraged buyouts, I understand
the value of debt and how you can use debt effectively. But I
am concerned that the amount of debt we are adding to the
country, even during good times, puts us in peril down the
road.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your time.
Senator Padilla [presiding]. Next we have Senator Rosen,
joining virtually.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROSEN
Senator Rosen. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to
thank both witnesses for being nominees, for being here today,
for your willingness to serve our country, and I really
appreciate it.
I want to talk a little bit about nuclear testing, because
in 1982, Congress passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, which
was amended later to select a national and permanent geologic
repository in Nevada for the nation's nuclear waste. However,
because of funding shortfalls and, needless to say, strong
local opposition, there thankfully still is no nuclear
repository at Yucca Mountain. It is a fight that my colleagues,
the Nevada congressional delegation and I, have had year after
year.
So this Committee just had a hearing earlier this week on
reducing fraud, waste, and mismanagement across the Federal
Government and to push to revive the failed Yucca Mountain
project. It is a prime example of potential government waste.
My Jobs Not Waste Act would provide the Secretary of Energy
from taking any action related to the licensing, planning,
development or construction of a nuclear waste repository at
Yucca Mountain until two things happen. No. 1, the Director of
OMB submits a study to Congress on the economic viability and
job-creating benefits of alternative uses of the Yucca Mountain
site, and two, Congress holds a hearing on the economic
benefits of an alternative use of Yucca Mountain site.
So OMB, you drive Executive Branch policies and priorities,
so naturally your office is going to have a large role in this,
in reviewing these in the future. So, Ms. Young, I would like
you to respond to a couple of questions. If confirmed, will you
pledge to not fund licensing, construction, or nuclear waste
storage at the Yucca Mountain site, consistent with recent
pledges made by Energy Secretary Granholm and consistent with
President Biden's commitments?
Ms. Young. Senator Rosen, one, I certainly, from my current
role on the Appropriations Committee, appreciate that we will
be guided by congressional budgets that come, so certainly I
commit to you to working on this issue. I understand the
intense--I do not want to get this wrong, but I have worked
with your colleagues in the House on this, and I understand the
local issues that come with this. But you certainly have my
commitment that we need to take a look at this very important
issue and probably take a pause, but we also will be guided by
what Congress sends us back in the budget.
Senator Rosen. But building on that, will you commit to
working with and the Nevada delegation to explore alternatives
for the Yucca Mountain site? I have a lot of ideas on how we
can actually use is, for national safety and security, as
opposed to a nuclear repository.
Ms. Young. You have my commitment to work with you on that
issue and on the issue writ large of nuclear waste. It is very
clear that it is going to take an approach that OMB, and I,
hope to be a part of, working with you and your colleagues and
the rest of Congress to find a comprehensive solution to
nuclear waste. So you have my commitment on looking at
alternative uses and also on the issue nuclear waste writ
large.
Senator Rosen. Thank you. I would like to actually talk a
little bit about rural Nevada, because, Ms. Young, you wrote so
movingly in your testimony about growing up in Clinton,
Louisiana, a rural town of about 2,000 people, when you lived
there.
So my home State of Nevada has many vibrant rural
communities, frontier communities. We are the most mountainous
State in the Lower 48. But they are facing challenges as a
result of COVID-19. I would love to get your perspective on how
we can help lift up and empower rural America. So how was that
growing up in rural America? How has it shaped your perspective
in government and how does it relate to your investment in our
rural communities?
Ms. Young. Senator, it is very difficult when growing up in
a small town to explain to those, I live in Washington, DC.
now, but it is very difficult to really comprehend unless you
grew up there how difficult it is, given the lack of access to
even, cultural institutions, sometimes you have to travel for
education. I was born two towns over, a hospital. So it is hard
to quantify sometimes how difficult it is to get a leg up
coming from rural communities.
I think one thing we heard a lot of this year from the
coronavirus perspective is, we just talked about State and
local funding, is we gave, in the CARES Act, funding to States
and large metropolitan areas, 500,000 or more. There was an
outcry from mayors of smaller towns, that they did not see
those resources trickle down. I certainly appreciate the effort
Congress is taking now to make sure smaller areas are
beneficiaries of these direct payments, because they have costs
without a lot of tax base.
Senator Rosen. Yes, I think you are right, and I really
want to discuss the critical rural health care issues, just
like you mentioned. We want to ensure that there is a clear and
equitable process for our graduate medical education slots to
be distributed in the areas that need them the most and address
those provider shortages, particularly in our rural areas. So
how do you think OMB can help us with that?
Ms. Young. Senator, I am happy to work with you and your
office on specific concerns. Those are ones, again, unless you
have grown up there it is hard to imagine not having access to
adequate care, sometimes no care, and having to travel, in
cases of emergency. I know residencies and graduate medical
education can fill some of those holes, so I will happily
commit to you to working on this issue with HHS, and certainly
OMB as a coordinating role on most things, we will certainly
work with you on that.
Senator Rosen. Thank you. I know my time is about to expire
so you can respond to my question on the record in writing. But
I really want to talk about how we prioritize modernizing our
IT systems. We have seen during COVID, whether it is
unemployment or so many other of our IT systems that are the
platforms for what we need to do. They are not nimble enough,
they are not robust enough, and I would love to have that
conversation with you about IT modernization. But my time has
expired so we will have to save that conversation.
Ms. Young. I would love to continue talking to you about
it, Senator.
Senator Rosen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Padilla. Next in the queue is Senator Scott. I do
not see Senator Scott in the hearing room. He will be joining
virtually. Senator Scott, going once, going twice. We will come
back to him when he joins.
Senator Hawley would be next, also not in the hearing room.
Are we virtual, Senator Hawley? Going once, going twice, we
will come back to him.
Then it comes to me, followed by Senator Johnson, who is
waiting, and Lankford after that.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PADILLA
So a couple of items I wanted to touch on with both of you.
In prior hearings, to your counterpart nominees, I have had a
chance to ask questions generally about equity, and using the
budget together with policy to advance equity. We have touched
on what it means in the COVID context, in the climate change
and environmental justice context, in the context of housing
and homelessness and others.
The question I actually wanted to prioritize for today is
one that speaks more toward management and leadership. We know
that after years of persistent attacks on Federal employees--
and public employees, more broadly--during the last
administration, we face significant challenges in the
recruitment and retention of a talented Federal workforce, and
especially a diverse, talented Federal workforce.
The Federal Government seems to be falling behind in the
hiring of the workforce for tomorrow. A year ago, only 7.3
percent of the Federal workforce was under the age of 30,
compared to 23 percent in the private sector. Add to that the
recognition, both by number and percentage of Federal
employees, particularly at the senior levels, upper management
and leadership, that are eligible to retire in the next decade.
It begs to question, are we prepared to do the proper
succession planning, to maintain that continuity of leadership
throughout Federal Government, and coupled with that, the need
to promote diversity. It seems to remain an obstacle across the
Federal workforce. People of color are overrepresented in
entry-level positions but severely underrepresented in senior-
level and career Senior Executive Service (SES) positions.
Federal agencies must take meaningful, proactive steps to
recruit the workforce of the future while promoting diversity,
equity, and inclusion.
So a question for both you, Ms. Young, and for Mr. Miller.
What can we do? What ideas and commitments can you commit to,
to leverage the funding process, to improve the recruiting of a
young, diverse cohort of professionals, and also what can we do
to further strengthen the morale of our current workforce to
help on the retention side of things? Mr. Miller.
Mr. Miller. Senator Padilla, thank you for the question and
I commend you for focusing on this issue. Successful
organizations require talented, diverse, highly engaged teams.
The data shows that repeatedly. When we look at the Federal
Government, as you noted at the end of your comments, the
engagement levels, the morale levels are not where they should
be. The opportunity to serve our country is a privilege, and
the Federal workforce is filled with dedicated, talented
individuals, and we need to empower them to fully do their
jobs.
First I think, you noted this, but we do need to broaden
the sources of recruitment into the Federal Government,
including by inspiring more people to serve. This includes a
focus on diversity and inclusion. It also includes a focus on
technical talent. We need to look at any bottlenecks in the
system to bring people in, and it is something that in my role,
if confirmed as Deputy Director for Management, I would be
willing to work with you, and am excited to work with you and
Members of this Committee on, work closely with OPM, with the
Chief Human Capital Officers (CHCO) council, across Federal
agencies, to make sure we are empowering, lifting up, engaging
with, and skilling our Federal workforce for our needs today
and tomorrow.
Senator Padilla. Ms. Young.
Ms. Young. I would like to add, one, I agree with
everything Jason has stated. From my experience, I started at
the government as a Presidential management fellow. I was lucky
to find a brochure in a Dean's office in New Orleans. It turns
out if you were on the East Coast and in school you knew all
about this program; not so much from other parts of the
country. I think we have to do a better job of where we recruit
around the country. I think people will travel. They will serve
their country. They just do not know a lot of opportunities
exist.
I think we can go to community colleges. We need to expand
where we go look for talent and do a better job. We certainly
need to do it in these areas we are having trouble recruiting,
in the technology place. Not everything is about money, and I
think people are motivated to serve their government, but we
certainly cannot create hurdles. I have experienced it, where
you go look for a job on USAJobs and it is not the easiest to
do.
I think we need to, as Jason said, remove hurdles from
serving, in addition to improving our recruitment processes.
Senator Padilla. Thank you both for that. With the less
than 2 minutes I have left I wanted to tee up another question
and allow for both of you to respond to a dynamic that was
raised earlier in the hearing, and that is the wisdom or
strategy behind supporting States at this time when some seem
to be hurting more than others by the COVID-19 pandemic, from
an economic impact standpoint, and some States experiencing, in
my view, a false surplus.
I can speak to California, my home State, but I imagine
others that made significant cuts in the 2019-2020 fiscal year
(FY), at the outset of the pandemic, and adopting 2020-2021
fiscal year budgets that were, frankly, doomsday budgets, not
knowing the depths of the reception. Some States have been
buoyed by incredible performance in the stock market, right,
Wall Street record highs, Dow Jones (DJI) record highs, while
at the same time I see record lines at food banks and COVID
testing sites.
So can you just speak to some of the dynamics that you
would take into consideration as we act on the wisdom of
supporting States at this difficult time?
Ms. Young. Thank you, Senator. You are absolutely right.
There are some States who saw this coming, took some drastic
steps, but we certainly cannot use those baselines. There has
to be an explanation why there are certain people being overly
left behind in this pandemic. State budgets have to balance. I
appreciate the difficulties. Where the Federal Government, I
think, can serve a role here, is to ensure that basic State
functions can be brought up, and there are some populations
that require more services during the pandemic, or we are going
to have more of a wealth gap in this country.
So more investments are needed. I would look at the
homeless, the needs of the homeless. I do not think anyone can
argue that we were doing too much or enough to fix the homeless
situation. Maybe we should use the COVID pandemic to do better.
And we saw that population was at more risk. We did not have a
great handle before the pandemic. So there are some areas,
especially with communities who were already behind in the
pandemic, we need to ensure that State services not only stay
the same but we do better.
Senator Padilla. Thank you, Ms. Young. Mr. Miller, I see
you eager to jump in. In the interest of time, let me just say
that it will be an ongoing conversation. In closing, let me
just acknowledge that some of the cuts, drastic actions taken
by States, included deep cuts to the social safety net, No. 1,
but also to State employees, both staffing levels as well as
salaries. So that is not lost on me, and to the extent that we
can help restore those baseline services I think that would
serve us well.
Next is Senator Johnson.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHNSON
Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess I would
just make a quick comment before I hop into my planned
questions, is that we certainly have not done a very good job
targeting what relief we have already authorized, the $4
trillion. I really do not know how much of that is still left
unspent. We are hearing somewhere around $1 trillion. So we
have not done a very good job targeting it.
First of all, thank you for your previous service in
government. Thank you for your willingness to serve in this
capacity. Do either of you dispute some of the economic figures
I am reading about, that per capita real disposable income is
up 5.5 percent in 2020, the total savings is up $1.6 trillion,
that the bottom 20 percentile of wage-earners, the bottom 20
percent, on average, received $45,000 in some kind of transfer
payment from somewhere around 100 different transfer programs
as well as tax credits? Do either of you dispute those numbers?
Ms. Young. Mr. Miller.
Mr. Miller. I do not dispute them. I am not familiar with
the specifics.
Senator Johnson. OK. So again, I know people are in need. I
think what we should be doing is taking a look at targeting
what we have already authorized. When you have literally got
somewhere around $1 trillion not yet spent, something that is
not even obligated, before we go rush off and try and pass
another $1.9 trillion, adding to our $28 trillion in debt, it
just seems more prudent to kind of take a look back at what
worked, what did not work so well, and target it to those who
truly need it.
Let me just ask, one of the efforts of this Committee,
twice we passed something called the Guidance Out of Darkness
(GOOD) Act. I was very disappointed to see that President
Biden, in one of his first Executive Orders, suspended that.
Now, I am hoping you both understand what that is, but let me
quickly describe. All it asks agencies to do is when they issue
guidance on top of rules, regulations, and laws, the guidance
that actually affects the business community and people's
lives, that they publish what that guidance is. If they rescind
the guidance, they take it off their website. Why in the world
would the Biden administration rescind such a common-sense,
good government transparency effort? Ms. Young.
Ms. Young. Senator Johnson, you, I am sure, understand I
have not been at the agency and a part of the administration,
but you have my commitment to work with you and your staff to
figure--I mean, clearly, transparency has to be--that is a
central government tenet for people to trust its government. I
am happy to look into what the decision was behind that and
work with you and your staff on some of the particulars and any
concerns the administration had when making that decision.
Senator Johnson. OK. I appreciate that. I think we
literally passed it out of this Committee, under my
chairmanship, twice, I think unanimous bipartisan support. I
could be wrong on that, but again, we passed it twice, with
strong bipartisan support. Mr. Miller, will you also make the
same commitment to look into this and hopefully encourage the
Biden administration to publish guidance documents, just basic
guidance?
Mr. Miller. I share Ms. Young's commitment, and the general
principle of guidance being transparent and readily accessible
is the right one.
Senator Johnson. OK. I really wanted to come down here, but
just get commitment from OMB to provide Congress information. I
really thought the Trump administration was pretty transparent,
and certainly provided this Senator, and I think Congress in
general, because there were reports they issued. For example,
the details on what was spent of the $4 trillion that we had
already authorized.
One example of that is as we were considering the fourth
COVID relief package, before the August recess, because of the
information OMB provided, I was able to provide my colleagues
with the fact that, at that point in time there was $1.2
trillion that was unspent, and much of that was unobligated. So
that certainly changed the debate within our conference.
In the end, the result was within the Republican targeted
bill, $350 billion of that--I think it was about $600 billion
targeted bill--was repurposed from the previous bills, which to
me makes sense. We all knew we had to do something fast, we had
to do something massive. We knew it was going to be far from
perfect.
And so, again, that is just good governance, you do
oversight, you take a look back and go, ``OK, well, that did
not work out the way we planned. Let's target it better.''
In the most recent package that actually passed in
December, the $900 billion--again, because of that information
we had from OMB, $600 billion of the $900 billion package that
passed was repurposed. In other words, do not let that money
sit out there unspent, and probably be poorly spent because it
is not properly targeted. Let's repurpose it. Let's do a better
job.
So now here we sit, about ready to go on the floor of the
Senate and barely debate, a $1.9 trillion bill. By the way, I
was on the Senate floor yesterday. There are a number of
analogies to highly what $1 trillion is. My wife has one in
terms of time. If I give you a dollar every second it takes
11.7 days, 11.6 days to give you $1 million. It takes almost 32
years to give you $1 billion. It takes 32,000 years to give you
$1 trillion. But I think the even better one is the volume one.
A dollar bill is 4.3 thousandths-of-an-inch thick. If you stack
$1.9 trillion on top of each other, it is over 130,000 miles.
That is more than halfway to the moon. That is what we are
talking about passing with a couple of days of debate.
So one of the problems I have in providing relevant and
effective amendments is I do not know how much of the $4
trillion is unspent and unobligated to be able to craft my
amendments effectively, to hopefully do a better job. I would
hope that in this deliberative process that I am going to force
on the Senate--vote-a-rama is supposed to be unlimited debate,
unlimited amendments--I am going to hold us to that unlimited
amendment pledge, so we can carefully consider just about every
line item of this $1.9 trillion spending behemoth. But it would
be very helpful if the Biden administration's OMB would provide
Congress, all of us, exactly how much has been spent, what is
unspent, and what is unobligated.
I will just quick ask both of you--and I am running out of
time--if you are confirmed to these positions, will you utilize
your position at OMB to be transparent and provide Congress
with this type of information that we are going to need moving?
Because I have a feeling this is not going to be the last time
we are considering some massive spending bill.
Ms. Young. I have been in your seat where we have not
gotten the information we needed to make critical decisions on
the Appropriations Committee, so you certainly have my
commitment to providing that type of information to both sides
of the aisle.
Senator Johnson. Mr. Miller.
Mr. Miller. You also have my commitment, Senator, to
provide transparent, timely information.
Senator Johnson. So just in close, I have been using an
example of 1993. There was a supplemental appropriation bill,
about $1.95 billion, introduced by the Clinton Administration.
The Senate deliberated, debated that for 12 days. What we are
considering right now is 100 times larger than that. But
because of that deliberative process, they whittled that $19.5
billion package--again, we are talking about $1,900 billion,
they whittled that down to $4 billion, and then it passed
unanimously, because it was a bipartisan effort.
I hope that is going to be the result of a more
deliberative process over the course of hopefully many days.
Again, we took 12 days to debate $19.5 billion, finally
whittled it down to $4 billion. That would be, from my
standpoint, a far more acceptable result than just blowing this
thing out here in a couple of days.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Peters [presiding]. Thank you, Senator. We have a
number of members that are in process of getting here. It is a
busy day. People are running back and forth. Senator Carper, I
see you are checked in. If you are available we can recognize
you for your questions, Senator Carper.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER
Senator Carper. Can you hear me?
Chairman Peters. Yes, Senator Carper, I can hear you. I
cannot see you right now.
Senator Carper. Can you see me now?
Chairman Peters. We can hear you, if you want to go ahead.
There you are. Senator Carper, welcome.
Senator Carper. My apologizes to the group. Gary, can you
see me? Mr. Chairman, can you hear me?
Chairman Peters. I can hear you and we can see you. You
have the floor.
Senator Carper. Thanks so much. Welcome to our nominees. We
are delighted that you are before us, and thank you for your
willingness to serve. Thank you for the time that you spent
with me earlier this week and with my staff.
I think since June of last year, GAO has published about 5
or 6 reports examining the implementation of the CARES Act, a
number of the programs there, and providing recommendation to a
bunch of Federal agencies to try to improve their response
efforts. As of January, about a month ago, the end of January,
I am told that 27 out of GAO's 31 recommendations remain
unimplemented. Let me say that again. At the end of this past
January, like barely a month ago, 27 of GAO's 31
recommendations remain unimplemented.
In its January report, GAO commented that it was ``deeply
troubled''--that is the quote, ``deeply troubled''--``by the
lack of sufficient Federal action on critical gaps identified
and by lack of clear plans to address these gaps.'' That is a
quote from GAO in their January report.
Ms. Young and Mr. Miller, you will each recall that when my
staff and I talked with you, we talked about how do we develop
some synergy with respect to spending taxpayer dollars more
wisely. We have GAO out there to try to make sure that we are
not wasting money. They produce the GAO high-risk list every 2
years at the beginning of the Congress. They just unveiled the
latest high-risk list. We have actually made some progress in
some of those aspects. But it is very substantial.
But if we somehow have a situation where GAO is doing their
job trying to make sure we are spending money wisely, and we
have OMB doing the same kind of thing, in different ways but in
a complementary way, we have the inspectors general (IGs) of
every agency, whose job is to help ferret out waste, among
other things. We have this Committee, which we serve on, doing
oversight and a bunch of things. If we would all be pulling
together we could actually make some progress. Given the growth
in our Federal deficit and the coming further growth in that
deficit in the days ahead, we need all the synergy we can get.
So my question. Ms. Young, Mr. Miller, can you each take a
moment to discuss the role OMB plays ensuring agencies work
with GAO to implement some of the recommendations that I just
alluded to, and how important is it for OMB to lead by example
here, and what actions would you take to improve response
efforts within the various agencies?
I am going to ask, if you could, Ms. Young, would you go
first and just lead us off, please.
Ms. Young. Senator Carper, thank you so much. It was a
pleasure speaking with you about this issue and others.
Senator Carper. I was pleased to learn your middle name is
Forever.
Ms. Young. I was going to thank you for not revealing my
middle name to the Senate. [Laughter.]
I think OMB can serve a critical role in issuing guidance
to agencies to ensure that they understand responding to GAO
recommendations. GAO offers an opportunity for agencies to
dispute things and provide their set of facts, if they disagree
with recommendations, and they should do that. But where there
are legitimate things that the agency freely admits needs to be
improved I also think Congress serves a central role, and this
Committee being central, and I certainly remember my time on
the Appropriations Committee having GAO come up first in a
panel and having agencies come up second, and seeing where the
truth was in the middle, to make sure these agencies were being
responsive.
On the other side, I think OMB can be brought to bear, No.
1, as you mentioned, leading by example, providing information
to GAO and also, again, issuing guidance and setting
expectations. And when GAO has those issues, I know they talk
to the committees, like this one. OMB should also be a place
that helps GAO break those logjams with agencies when they are
not getting information.
Senator Carper. All right. Thank you for that response. Mr.
Miller, could you respond, and I am going to ask you to be
brief and crisp, because I have one more question. Go ahead,
Mr. Miller, please.
Mr. Miller. Absolutely. Senator Carper, thank you for that
question. I know the Comptroller General was in front of this
Committee a couple of days ago, talking about the 2021 high-
risk list. As I understand it, past practice from some
individuals who served as Deputy Director for Management, was
to work closely with the Comptroller General on each of the
items on the high-risk list, convening agency leaders to make
sure there was ongoing progress against them.
There are two in particular that pertain to OMB--
cybersecurity and strategic human capital management--and I
would expect that if confirmed I would work with GAO, with OMB,
and with agencies to make sure that we are making progress
against that.
Senator Carper. That is great. Thanks so much. In our
conversation a couple of days ago, I mentioned that, I think
under both Democratic and Republican administrations in the
past, there used to be--and you may have just alluded to this--
but there used to be regular meetings with folks from the
administration and the relevant agencies, with GAO and agency
leaders, to review high-risk areas and to monitor progress in
investment program vulnerabilities. And over the past several
years these regular meetings have stopped occurring, involving
OMB, involving GAO, and some of the agencies.
I would just ask of both of you, do you intend to restore
this practice of regular meetings with GAO and agencies? Ms.
Young.
Ms. Young. Yes, Senator. I had a hard time hearing, there
was a loud buzz, but you have my commitment.
Senator Carper. Thank you. Mr. Miller.
Mr. Miller. Absolutely. I think that is a critical role for
OMB and GAO to play together.
Senator Carper. Thank you. There used to be a guy named
Willie Sutton, who was a bank robber back in the Great
Depression. He robbed a lot of banks and he finally got
captured and caught and put in jail and brought to trial. He
was before the judge, back in those days, and the judge said to
him, ``Mr. Sutton, why do you rob banks?'' Mr. Sutton replied
famously, ``That is where the money is.''
In terms of where we are wasting a lot of money in the
Federal Government spending, mis-spending, is with respect to
improper payments. We just adopted bipartisan support in the
last Congress, I think with the support of the Ranking Member,
the Chair of the Committees, and others, legislation to
actually get serious with respect to improper payments.
Why is that important? I think they totaled $1.7 trillion,
governmentwide, in fiscal year 2003 to 2019, $1.7 trillion.
That is almost the size of this package that we are about to
consider on the floor, on the pandemic.
I understand that OMB has begun the implementation of what
we passed a year or so ago, the Payment Integrity Information
Act (PIIA), a law that we felt changed, as I mentioned, which
is incentive to help track down improper payments.
Here is my question, and it is an easy one. Ms. Young, Mr.
Miller, would you each describe, just very briefly, your
approach to the issues of improper payments? As Deputy Director
and Deputy Director for Management, how would you lead
governmentwide efforts to address payment integrity issues and
curb improper payments? Thank you so much. Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Young.
Ms. Young. Thank you, Senator. I know we are out of time
but I talked about this earlier. I think one issue OMB can help
in is improving our data sources, when it comes to improper
payments. Some of the issues, I know fraud is huge but also if
we do not have systems that track correctly we are never going
to fix this issue.
Senator Carper. Thanks. Mr. Miller, please?
Mr. Miller. Senator Carper, I commend you and the Committee
for your work on this issue. As I understand it, the OMB team
is working on guidance, as you noted, regarding improper
payments, to implement the Payment Integrity and Improvement
Act, and if confirmed, I would look forward to the opportunity
to work with you and the Committee on making sure that the
execution is consistent with the intent of the law that was
passed.
Senator Carper. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, as you know, my
wife, Martha, complains sometimes to me about spending too much
time focused on the U.S. Postal Service (USPS). She says, ``Why
are you always talking about the Postal Service?'' and I say,
``It is important.'' And she keeps asking me what I want on my
tombstone when I die, and I say, ``Honey, I do not plan on
dying any time soon.'' She says, ``Well, what do you want?''
and I told her the other day, I said, ``How about Return to
Sender?'' And given the focus I have had on improper payments,
if that does not work out, I want it to say he was death on
improper payments. When we are talking about $1.7 trillion
between 2003 and today, we need to get serious about it, deadly
serious.
Chairman Peters. Thank you, Senator. Senator Lankford, you
are recognized for your questions.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LANKFORD
Senator Lankford. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Thanks to both
of you.
Senator Carper. Happy birthday, Senator Lankford. Happy
birthday, Senator Lankford.
Senator Lankford. Thank you. Thanks to both of you for
going through the process on this. It is not a fun process to
be able to go through but thanks for doing it.
Ms. Young, I have to tell you, you have a great reputation
among the staff that is here on the Appropriations staff, so
thanks for the dedication and the work.
I have about 50 questions that I want to try to run through
on this, that we will run out of time on, I am sure. Yesterday,
sitting in that same seat was Gene Dodaro from GAO, who you
know well. We were talking about multiple things but one of
them was a bill that we worked on, on a bipartisan basis, for
years, called the Taxpayer's Right to Know. His statement on
that bill, that I have worked on for a decade, literally, to
get passed, it brings a lot of information out so the public
can see how we manage things. What is in each agency? What is a
program?
Gene Dodaro has been a big advocate for that from GAO,
saying we need that. In fact, last year he said this was the
top priority for GAO to be able to help them in their work. His
statement yesterday was this is all going to matter on the
implementation from OMB.
Are you familiar with the Taxpayer's Right to Know, and are
you committing to be able to actually implement that bill so we
will actually get the information we need?
Ms. Young. I commit to implementing and working with you. I
know you have been a leader here, so thank you for that.
Senator Lankford. Yes, thank you for that very much.
Senator Hassan and I have worked on trying to get to a solution
on government shutdowns. You have mentioned that several times,
what a pain that is and how awful that is for every agency, for
every government office, for every Federal family member that
is out there. It is a terrible process.
So there have been lots of solutions out there of how do we
end government shutdowns. There has not been on that has stuck.
So she and I worked together, starting 2 years ago, to try to
get a bipartisan solution for how do we solve this that we can
all agree to, and then we built quite a coalition on that.
The basics of it is that when we get to the end of the
fiscal year, if we do not have the appropriation bills done we
would have an automatic continuing resolution (CR), but none of
us can travel. OMB would be locked in. They could not travel.
We could not travel. Our staff could not travel. We are all
locked in together and we are in a quorum call every day until
we get our work done. It focused on getting the appropriation
bills done. That is they. When the appropriation bills are
done, we can move on to other things. When we are not done, we
are stuck doing those. But it protects Federal workers, it
protects all of our agencies, so we do not have the chaos of a
government shutdown.
Would you be willing to support something like that,
implement that, help us to be able to think through how we can
get that done?
Ms. Young. I mean, I am usually locked in place in times
like this, so I am happy----
Senator Lankford. You are already there?
Ms. Young [continuing]. Yes, I am happy to be locked in
with you. Look, something has to give, and I am committed, and
if you would like to invite me to any of these discussions I
certainly have lots of ideas and would love to work with you on
this.
Senator Lankford. Great, because we have to solve this, and
Senator Hassan and I have worked on this a long time. This is
not a partisan solution. It is a problem that is out there. We
have to be able to resolve it. It is an embarrassment for us,
as a Nation, on the world stage.
OMB has been traditionally black box when we start dealing
with things like decisions on USACE priorities. Corps of
Engineers will set a list of priorities, here are the things
that need to be done, here are the highest risk. They will give
those to OMB. No matter who is President, they disappear, and
the list seems to get shuffled at some point between Corps of
Engineers and OMB and the actual public. As Senator Paul has
talked about before, that is why earmarks get pressed so much
because everyone gets so frustrated, because when we set what
are the priorities and let's make sure we are doing Federal
priorities, then those are not actually done, based on the
administration's priorities rather than the actual Federal
priorities, it is a problem.
Can you help us open the black box of decisionmaking in OMB
and to be able to say when we set Federal priorities and they
are set by the rules, those actually come out as the projects
that are actually done?
Ms. Young. I have never heard more complaints from
bipartisan members than what happens OMB with the Army Corps
list. So you have my commitment working on that, and I know
Army Corps provides that information and something happens,
that I do not have insight into as well.
Senator Lankford. So it is a black box to you as well, on
the outside.
Ms. Young. It has. I have been sitting on this side and we
provide the funding, we have it earmarked, something has not
been on the level. That information just changes by the time it
gets to OMB.
Senator Lankford. So the hope is that once you get into the
machine you help us open the machine rather than saying it was
good idea to keep it closed.
Ms. Young. Or people I consider friends will never speak to
me again. So I think transparency is necessary.
Senator Lankford. We will hold you to that in the days
ahead.
One of the challenges that we have as well is on
reprogramming funds. This has come up several times in the
COVID bill. Currently, Congress is debating at some point we
are supposed to get text. We have not seen the text yet and do
not know when the text is coming. But we understand there is a
$1.9 trillion bill coming.
We have had a challenging trying to get things like
vaccinations and testing amounts, what is still left over from
the previous times, because we understand there are tens of
billions of dollars about to be requested for more when it
looks like there is still tens of billions of dollars left over
from previous bills, just on vaccines, testing, distribution,
all of those things. But we cannot get accurate numbers on it.
My question is really twofold. How do we get accurate
numbers rapidly for what has actually been spent, not just
allocated, and the second portion of it is, what is your
opinion about reprogramming funds, because there is some
concern that what this bill really is, is an opportunity to
give tens of billions of dollars to the administration and they
can say, oops, we are already paid up but thank you for those
tens of billions of dollars, we are going to reprogram it for
something very different in that amount.
Ms. Young. One, you have my commitment, and I made it
earlier to Senator Johnson, you should have that kind of
information. You need it to do your job. So, if confirmed, you
have my commitment that you will have that, because we should
know what we are spending, and Congress needs that information.
On reprogramming, we have to follow the law. I know you
know, as an appropriator, we have underlying transfer authority
in reprogramming in the regular appropriations bills. I doubt
most of that authority applies to a reconciliation bill. So we
are going to have to read that closely, and I think we will be
bound by those limitations in the law. We cannot do anything
the transfer authority does not explicitly say we can do and
come back to Congress and let you know what we have done.
Senator Lankford. Great. We will walk through that in the
days ahead on this.
Telework is an area that Senator Sinema and I have worked
on a lot. There are lots of agencies that, if you went back 2
years ago and you asked them how many employees could telework,
they would tell you 12 percent, until this year when 85 percent
was actually teleworking. We have learned a lot in this year.
The question that we are asking, and that I asking you
specifically about, is about remote work and telework. Telework
assumes you are going to come into the office at times. We have
not teleworked in a year. We have remote worked, where they
have not come into the office at all, and a lot of agencies
have learned we can do that.
So my question is, there is a benefit for the spouses of
active-duty military that get transferred all over the country
all the time, Federal workers that work in remote areas, that
their spouse has a difficult time getting a job. For those
individuals, and multitudes of thousands and more, to work in
the Federal workforce and to be remote workers--they are not
expected to ever come in but they can work for agencies, no
matter where they get transferred to, with their spouse or with
their families--would you commit to working with Senator Sinema
and I to talk more about remote work as a possibility, and
writing into the job listing itself that this job could be done
by remote, so someone locally could get it or someone anywhere
could get this same job, as a United States citizen?
Ms. Young. Senator, I certainly hope we use these lessons
from COVID to make systemic changes, and that being one of
them. My entire staff on the Appropriations Committee wrote
five bills from home, and I think they did a great job doing
it. So we have proven it works.
Senator Lankford. It can be done. Thank you all.
Ms. Young. Thank you.
Senator Lankford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Peters. Thank you, Senator Lankford. Senator
Hawley, you are recognized for your questions.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HAWLEY
Senator Hawley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you both
for being here. Congratulations on your nominations.
Mr. Miller, let me start with you. I put this question to
Neera Tanden when she as before the Committee a few weeks ago,
and I want to ask you because I think it is appropriate here.
It is a broad question about policy priorities. Do you think
that the big tech companies and Wall Street firms have too much
influence in our government and society right now?
Mr. Miller. Yes, I agree with that, and I think the data
bears out that there is too much concentration, as well, on our
economy.
Senator Hawley. I am glad to hear you say that. What about
a company like Amazon? Do you think Amazon has too much power?
Mr. Miller. I think, broadly, there are a number of large
companies that have too much power and, in some cases, too much
influence.
Senator Hawley. I am glad to hear you say that too. I asked
you about Amazon because I understand that the Greater
Washington Partnership, which you led as CEO for 3 years, from
2017 to 2020, I think, if I am not mistaken, was one of the
organizations that was in the front of trying to attract Amazon
to the Washington, DC. area. Amazon, of course, did ultimately
choose the D.C. area as a place for one of its expanded
headquarters. Do you think that the proximity to Congress had
anything to do with that?
Mr. Miller. That is correct, I was, in my role as the CEO
of the Greater Washington Partnership, supportive of creating
new jobs in the areas. It is a relatively slow-growth region,
despite lots of strong assets, and bringing that kind of talent
into the region was a huge benefit.
Senator Hawley. I have here a report, that maybe you have
seen, from Mother Jones magazine, ``Amazon has become a prime
revolving door destination in Washington.'' It extensively
details the extent to which the company has established this
revolving door by doing things like hiring 247 government
officials in the last 10 years. That is on top of $20 million
Amazon spent on lobbying activities just in 2020.
Now you have never been employed by Amazon, right?
Mr. Miller. Correct.
Senator Hawley. But I would like to know, what do you think
about this revolving door that Mother Jones and others have
reported on, and our government, between these mega-
corporations? Do you think that is a problem? Do you think it
has a negative impact on our public policy?
Mr. Miller. I have not seen all the specifics of that
report. When I left public service previously I had the
opportunity to go in the private sector and chose to help run a
nonprofit on behalf of this region, and I understand it the
Biden administration has a very strong and robust standard by
which it is going to hold all of its appointees to, regarding
both conduct while in office as well as after.
Senator Hawley. So you do think that the revolving door,
that that is a problem, having a revolving door between these
major corporations, that you said to me a second ago you
thought had too much power, and government officials, that that
is a problem. Is that what you are saying?
Mr. Miller. I think it is appropriate for the
administration to take clear and consistent guidelines to its
appointees so that there is trust in government.
Chairman Peters. Mr. Miller, could you pull the microphone
just a little closer to your mouth, please?
Senator Hawley. Let me ask you about that trust in
government. In your written testimony you write similarly, that
successful delivery is built on three pillars, and one of those
is a system for measurement and accountability, which I agree
with. If you are confirmed, how will you work to ensure that
companies like Amazon and others, that have such incredible
power and market concentration, how will you work to ensure
that they do not unduly influence government policy, whether it
is through the revolving door, or whether it is through
lobbying, or other means of influence?
Mr. Miller. Senator, thank you for the question. I think it
is important that agencies are putting forward, in their
strategic plans, clear priorities with measures associated with
those, transparency associated with are they delivering on
those measures. If not, why not?
Part of what I would see as my role, if confirmed as Deputy
Director for Management, is to work closely with agency
leadership to put in place clear agency priorities with smart,
clear metrics associated with them, and hold them accountable
to deliver on it.
Senator Hawley. Very good. Will you commit to us here that
you will work to ensure, if confirmed, you will work to ensure
that OMB serves the American public first and not Amazon or
Google and/or a Wall Street bank, or any of these mega-
corporations?
Mr. Miller. Senator, I absolutely commit to OMB serving the
American public, first and foremost.
Senator Hawley. Great. Thank you for that.
Ms. Young, in my time remaining let me just ask you a
couple of questions. You will be involved, as Deputy Director,
if you are confirmed, in decisions that surround the obligation
of congressionally appropriated funds. Do you believe that
religious organizations are entitled to compete on equal
footing with other secular organizations for Federal funding
that is used to support government programs?
Ms. Young. Senator Hawley all of these programs are guided
by their own authorizations, so whatever Congress has decided
to authorize in passing the law, we will follow the law.
Senator Hawley. Very good. The former Director of OMB
issued a memorandum last year which ensured that Federal
agencies do not discriminate against faith-based organizations
when it comes to Federal grants, and, in fact, that they take
steps to prevent States from doing so. This is a big deal
because if the Federal Government does everything right, some
States can still discriminate against religious institutions on
the basis of their faith-based nature. That would be a
violation of the free exercise clause.
If you are confirmed, can religious institutions count on
you to ensure that you will work to prevent either the Federal
Government or States from discriminating on the basis of faith?
Ms. Young. Senator Hawley, I think the goal of the American
government for the American people is discrimination should
have no place, period, in our government, so you certainly have
my commitment that I will work toward that goal, which is
inherent in a free democracy.
Senator Hawley. Including discrimination on the basis of
faith?
Ms. Young. I certainly believe that is one of the tenets.
We do not discriminate on the basis of faith.
Senator Hawley. Very good. Thank you for that. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Peters. Thank you, Senator. Senator Ossoff, you
are recognized for your questions.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR OSSOFF
Senator Ossoff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the
nominees, and welcome.
I would like to ask you a question, please, Ms. Young,
about corporate influence in rulemaking within the Federal
bureaucracy. What are the mechanisms, the avenues by which
corporate actors, concentrated powers, special interest groups
exert influence on Federal rulemaking in the regulatory review
process?
Ms. Young. Senator, thank you for that question. We have to
ensure that when we call for public input it is the real
public. I think, you know, there are some who are sophisticated
enough to hire representatives who understand the system well
enough that we might be hearing from them in louder voices and
more organized voices than we do from the general public, who
are the most impacted, and ensure that we get regulations
right.
So I think we have to have a regulatory system that regular
people can understand and be involved in their government,
because I do think it is easy for corporations with a lot of
resources to bring those to bear, certainly in the public
comment timing of regulations. We need to make sure we are
actually hearing from your constituents and not representatives
that have the money to bear, to make sure that their facts are
the only voices that we are hearing during that public comment
period.
Senator Ossoff. Thank you, Ms. Young. And where organized
interests, who may be on different sides of an issue, have the
greatest capacity to weigh in, in an organized way, on the
rulemaking process, do you view the Federal rulemaking process
and the public comment aspect of it as one where those
organized interests are balanced, or do Federal agencies and
OMB have an obligation to independently assess the true public
interest, regardless of how various organized interests are
weighing in via public comment?
Ms. Young. I certainly think we need to ensure that our
system is hearing from, and we have to assess whether or not,
or where it is being generated. I mean, look, they have the
right to also petition the government and let the government
know their opinions, but if we have a system so complicated
that only those with resources can effectively get to their
government. So I think it is beholden upon OMB and the agencies
to ensure that we are getting to the public where they are, so
they know how to petition their government when they are not
represented by major financial backing.
Senator Ossoff. Thank you so much. Will you work with my
office and this Committee, Ms. Young, should you be confirmed,
to try to make more responsive and more accessible that process
so that ordinary people can weigh in and make their voices
heard?
Ms. Young. Absolutely, Senator Ossoff.
Senator Ossoff. Thank you so much, Ms. Young.
I would like to talk about a couple of issues of particular
concern to my constituents in Georgia. At Fort Gordon in
Augusta, and at Fort Benning in Columbus, there have been
consistent, long-term concerns about the health and safety of
base housing, and military families who have had to endure
unsafe, unsanitary, unhealthy conditions at base housing. And
the commanding officers at both facilities, I believe, are
making diligent and good-faith efforts to address that issues,
so military families in Georgia can live in safe conditions.
Will you commit to working with my office to ensure that
Federal resources necessary to ensure that housing on post at
Fort Benning and Fort Gordon is safe for our military families?
Ms. Young. Senator Ossoff, you see me smiling because my
partner with me was born at Fort Gordon in Augusta, and grew up
in Augusta. You absolutely have my commitment. Also, this is a
good example of when we talk about defense funding, it matters
not just the top line but what is in it, and we have a lot more
to do on basic life safety projects. With military housing, our
men and women in uniform deserve at least that much.
Senator Ossoff. Well, I know the military families in
Augusta and Columbus will be grateful, and I appreciate the
Georgia connection in your family.
I would like to ask you, as well, about a major
infrastructure project, which is the Port of Savannah, where a
multi-year, very expensive deepening of that port, which is
vital to Georgia and, indeed, national prosperity, is over
budget and behind schedule. Will you work with my office and
with Mayor Van Johnson in Savannah to ensure that Federal funds
are disbursed appropriately and with all appropriate speed, so
we can complete that project without any more cost overruns or
delays in the schedule?
Ms. Young. I have heard a lot about the port in my years on
the Appropriations Committee. I understand the economic engine
that it is, the dredging, what it is to the rest of the
country, not just Georgia. So you have my commitment to working
with you on that longstanding project.
Senator Ossoff. Thank you so much, Ms. Young. I would like
to ask you about the roles of inspectors general at Federal
agencies, and just offer you the opportunity to reflect on how
OMB can instruct or encourage components at other Federal
agencies to comply with requests for information by inspectors
general, in the interest of good governance. Would you be
willing, to the greatest extent of your capacity, should you be
confirmed to this post, to issue such instruction to senior
government executives, that they must comply within their
components with requests for information from inspectors
general?
Ms. Young. Yes, Senator Ossoff. One, I hope that is
happening. Where it is not, you certainly have my commitment to
work on the issue writ large, and if there are any issues,
serve as someplace that can help resolve those issues between
the IGs and the agencies they serve.
Senator Ossoff. Thank you. And final question please, Mr.
Miller, in my remaining time. What is your view of whether the
specifics of apportionment decisions made by the administration
via OMB should be posted publicly?
Mr. Miller. Senator, thank you for the question. First,
just briefly on your prior question, if confirmed in the role
of the Deputy Director for Management I would serve as the
executive chairman of the Council of Inspectors General for
Integrity and Efficiency, and I think it is absolutely
imperative that OMB repair the relationship with inspectors
general and make sure that they have the resources and the
access necessary to do their jobs.
Senator Ossoff. Thank you.
Mr. Miller. With regards to the specifics of apportionment,
something that I would commit to work on, as I understand it,
OMB has returned the authority associated with that to the
career staff and will follow longstanding past practice.
Senator Ossoff. My question is what is your view, your
personal view, on whether apportionment decisions should be
posted publicly?
Mr. Miller. On whether apportionment--Senator, the
specifics of apportionment decisions is not an area that I have
spent significant past time on, but I would be happy to follow
up and talk with you further about what is past practice and
how OMB is going to proceed, and make sure that the work that
we are doing, including spending data and spending decisions,
are done in a transparent way.
Senator Ossoff. OK. I would be grateful for that, for the
record. And, Ms. Young, did you want to weigh in?
Ms. Young. I know from where I sit now OMB has provided
some of the apportionment data, well, all of it that the
Appropriations Committee has requested to date. The legislative
solution to this, I think we are all going to have to work
together, but I do believe when a committee of Congress asks
for the apportionment data, OMB should be responsive, and I
have seen that in action during my time on the Appropriations
Committee, we were finally able to get apportionments from the
Office of Management and Budget in the last 2 months.
Senator Ossoff. OK. And we can return to the question of
whether it should be posted publicly as a matter of course. I
appreciate you. Thank you for working through this process and
for your answers today.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Peters. Thank you, Senator Ossoff.
We are coming to the end of the hearing. I just wanted to
raise one fine issue with you before we wrap up. As both of you
are well aware, cybersecurity is a persistent challenge for
Federal agencies as well as across our economy, and
particularly even challenging to attract and retain the
specialized cyber workforce necessary to deal with this
challenge.
I introduced, in the last session, two pieces of
legislation, was working with OMB, and hope to, if confirmed,
we could continue to work with you. It is the Federal System
Incident Response Act, which is legislation that arose out of
the SolarWinds attack and how we deal with that more
effectively going forward, those kinds of attacks. And the
Federal Rotational Cyber Workforce Program, that will help us
both attract and retain quality cyber professionals who make it
their mission to serve the Federal Government and make the job
even more rewarding than it already is.
I would hope, if confirmed, both of you would commit to
working with me and other legislative proposals, and make these
a priority, to deal with the cyber threat. Would you be willing
to make that commitment, Ms. Young?
Ms. Young. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Peters. Mr. Miller.
Mr. Miller. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Peters. Well, wonderful. I will look forward to
working with you, and I will say that it has been a pleasure
being here with you during the hearing. I appreciate your
willingness to serve the country, and congratulations on your
nominations.
In closing, I will just say that both Ms. Young and Mr.
Miller have made financial disclosures and have provided
responses to biographical and pre-hearing questions submitted
by this Committee,\1\ and without objection this information
will be made part of the hearing record,\2\ with the exception
of the financial data, which is on file and available for
public inspection in the community offices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The information for Ms. Young appears in the Appendix on page
48.
\2\ The information for Mr. Miller appears in the Appendix on page
114.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The hearing will remain open until 12 p.m. tomorrow, March
5, for the submission of statements and questions for the
record.
With that this hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:28 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]