***WATCH: Senator Murray’s full questioning***
Washington, D.C. — Today—at a Senate Budget Committee hearing to consider Hal Duncan’s nomination to serve as Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)—U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Vice Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee and a senior member and former chair of the Budget Committee, expressed her doubt that Duncan would serve as anything other than a rubberstamp for Russ Vought’s extremist agenda.
[FOLLOWING THE LAW]
MURRAY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Duncan, you’re up for a very important job running the nerve-center of the federal government. It is really critical that you can be depended upon to follow the law and to speak up when you believe others are not. Can we count on you to do that?
DUNCAN: Senator Murray, I appreciate the question. I will commit to following the law and upholding the Constitution.
[POCKET RESCISSIONS]
Murray pressed Duncan on whether he would guarantee OMB will not attempt another illegal pocket rescission to do an end run around Congress.
MURRAY: So, to that end, and following up a bit on what Senator Merkley was asking you: can you assure all of us that OMB will not attempt to do another end run around Congress with an illegal pocket rescission this September?
DUNCAN: Senator, I appreciate the question as it relates to the pocket rescissions. Pocket rescissions have been executed by previous administrations, notably the Ford administration, following the passage of the Impoundment Control Act. I can’t commit to any of the fiscal tools the administration may or may not use in the future, but certainly look forward to working.
MURRAY: Well, I’m glad you want to work with me, but pocket rescissions is a critical issue, and I am concerned about the answer that you just gave, but let me move on.
[NEW OMB GRANT RULE]
Murray then asked Duncan about a new proposed OMB rule governing the federal grants system that would empower the Trump administration to cut off funding to communities solely on the basis of politics.
MURRAY: OMB recently proposed a rule to overhaul the federal grantmaking system that allows you to terminate grants based on some vague “administration values or priorities.” That really sounds to me like you are trying to turn the entire federal government into this one big slush fund to reward those aligned with this administration and punish everyone else.
One of the provisions in that actually prohibits funding any activities that promote “anti-American values.” Now, under this administration, that could mean practically anything, and I just want to make sure we are on the same page here.
So let me ask you: if this proposed rule went into effect, what limits would be placed on the administration’s ability to award grants to its political allies or deny funding to anyone else?
DUNCAN: Well, Senator, I appreciate the question. Obviously, the rule is currently in the proposed phase. It will close for comment, I believe, on July 13. The rule is fundamentally about accountability in ensuring that we are able to have good oversight over the grant process, and that it is in alignment with the administration’s agenda. But as it relates to the rule, we will certainly follow the statutes that govern underlying programs and are committed to ensuring that federal taxpayer dollars are awarded in a way that is responsible.
MURRAY: Well, I was looking for a concrete answer. Is there any language in it that—I didn’t see any, but I’ll ask you—places limits on cronyism?
DUNCAN: Senator, we would move forward with the rule and move forward with the agencies in a manner that is consistent with applicable law.
MURRAY: Well, the way I read it: the reality is that a political appointee like you could terminate a cancer research grant or a hospital grant solely because of the president’s whim or personal vendetta.
And to me that that is really unacceptable. We all know how this administration would abuse this. I really hope all of our colleagues will join us to stop this—and they should remember what goes around comes around. But I think that is a very concerning proposed rule, and allows some—allows OMB to make political decisions that they should not be making, so I think we should all be worried about that. Just wanted to bring it to everybody’s attention.
[SOCIAL SECURITY]
Senator Murray then asked Duncan about the Trump administration’s failure to propose a solution to the looming Social Security solvency crisis.
MURRAY: Let me ask about another issue. Last week, we learned that the Social Security Trust Fund will run out of money in just six years—three months sooner than previously estimated.
When he was pressed on this, Speaker Johnson insisted that entitlements should be “adjusted.”
Well, I’ve been around long enough to know that “adjustment” means cuts.
You’ve worked for Republicans like Chip Roy who support benefit reductions. Elon Musk, who had free rein over the federal government, has called Social Security a “Ponzi Scheme.”
So it’s kind of no surprise that Trump’s latest budget request did not include any solvency proposal for Social Security. Why doesn’t OMB view Social Security solvency as an important enough to include in a budget request?
DUNCAN: Senator, I appreciate the question. And as the director testified on a similar question when he was up here, President Trump has been immensely clear on his support for protecting Social Security and Medicare, and that will continue to be the North Star for this administration moving forward.
MURRAY: But nothing in the budget request, and for all of our knowledge, for decades, presidents have presented a full budget—including projections and proposals for mandatory programs like Social Security. So this administration is simply failing to do its most important work, I got a guess, because they don’t care.
Democrats have introduced a number of proposals to address the solvency crisis without cutting benefits. We haven’t seen anything from this administration. Doing nothing means that seniors will see a 22% cut in their Social Security benefits in 2032—that’s about $10,000 a year per couple.
So we expect this administration to do in the budget what previous presidents have done and present a proposal.
###