Steny Hoyer Asks OMB Director Russell Vought If He Considers The Budget Passed By Congress As A 'Suggestion'

Forbes Breaking News

During a House Appropriations Committee hearing on Wednesday, Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD) questioned OMB Director Russell Vought on the appropriations process.

Transcript

00:00the Ranking Member, Hoyer, for any questions he may have.

00:07Congress passes the budget.

00:10Do you consider the budget that Congress passes to be a suggestion or a directive?

00:16We believe it's a proposal for Congress to consider.

00:19We propose, and you obviously take it as a policy proposal

00:23and send it through your appropriations process.

00:25Question, Director. Once we pass that back to you, do you take it as a suggestion or a directive?

00:33It's a directive. We believe it's important for the congressional appropriations process

00:40to give us the levels as consistent with the power of the purse to set levels by which we can't go above.

00:48And therefore, you consider it a ceiling?

00:51We do believe it is a ceiling.

00:53So we send you a budget and say spend $100 on X objective.

00:57You can spend anywhere between $1 and $99 or $100.

01:01Is that accurate from your perspective?

01:03No, I don't think it's accurate from my perspective.

01:05I think it's much more similar to if you've asked us to perform a function

01:09and you've given us $100 million and if we can perform it for $80 million,

01:15there is given the system as to whether we are required constitutionally,

01:21we don't believe that we are, to push every last dollar out the door

01:24and lead to use it or lose it situations where we are creating waste, foreign abuse at the agencies.

01:31And the Congress made provision for that.

01:33It's called a rescission. Is that accurate?

01:35There is one tool that Congress, is one of many tools that Congress has given to deal with that scenario.

01:41The other tool is the unilateral judgment of the President of the United States and or yourself not to spend?

01:48No. No, I was actually referring under the ICA to normal rescissions, deferrals, pocket rescissions.

01:54There's all manner of provisions in the ICA in addition to just the agency doing the work that it does programmatically

02:01to review whether the spending that Congress has appropriated to an agency within the consistent with the law,

02:11authorizing committees is there and can be done consistent with the President's views as he was elected on behalf of the American people.

02:18So, do you believe you have traumatized the people at OMB?

02:25No, I don't.

02:27So, notwithstanding that, did they also get the letter sent to two plus million people?

02:33They did.

02:34Was a judgment made as to how many of the people at OMB were absolutely necessary to do the job you now want to expand?

02:42No, and in fact...

02:44No judgment was made on that.

02:45So, as it pertains to the letter that you're referring to, it went out.

02:49I believe it went out before I was in office as the Director.

02:52And I don't think we lost very few at all.

02:56And my hope was that we wouldn't lose anyone from the deferred...

02:59But you lost a substantial amount throughout the government service

03:04without any understanding of how critical their work was to the task at hand.

03:10Is that accurate?

03:11Well, again, it was based on their choice.

03:12Is that accurate?

03:13I don't think it actually is accurate because the decision was made to give the employees the chance to make that determination.

03:21I don't think it was done lightly.

03:22And I think they made those employees thought long and hard about whether it made sense.

03:27I agree it wasn't done lightly.

03:28Obviously, it was considered blitzkrieg on the entire federal government.

03:32But nobody knew whether or not critically important people were going to take that or not.

03:38Isn't that accurate?

03:39Well, I think it's important to reflect that we don't ask employees to be in these positions and locked into these positions.

03:46There is no reason that they would have had to take that opportunity.

03:50And it's something that was not in any way compelled upon them.

03:55Of course, it wasn't compelled.

03:57But nor did you have or Mr. Musk have or his people any knowledge of who would take it and who didn't.

04:05And therefore, it was simply across the board, which could have cost.

04:10Let's say everybody said yes.

04:11Now, probably everybody wouldn't have said yes.

04:16But that would have been a cataclysmic event for the United States.

04:21Do you believe this is the way people should be treated?

04:23I think all employees, political and career, should be treated with respect and dignity.

04:30And to have that reflected through all of our employment processes.

04:33The people who just laughed obviously don't share that view.

04:38They're all people who were removed involuntarily.

04:41One way or another.

04:43They were traumatized.

04:45So you accomplish your objective, which I think personally is not an objective that either any personnel manager should be very proud of.

04:55How many people are in the administrative leave are being paid not to work?

04:59Congressman, I just would push back on your characterization.

05:04It's never been my desire to traumatize individuals or workers at federal agencies.

05:10Why did you say that?

05:10Because you didn't actually listen to the entirety of the – in the context of what I said.

05:16I was referring specifically to bureaucracies that are weaponized against the American people.

05:21So do I believe that at the NIH or the OMB or VA that across the federal government –

05:27And Noah, that there aren't career individuals that are doing incredible work and are great public servants.

05:34But the notion that we don't have weaponized bureaucracies – and we saw this in the last administration –

05:38that are aimed at parts of our own citizenry.

05:43The chair now recognizes Mr. Womack for any questions he may have.

Category

Transcript

Recommended