VIDEO/TRANSCRIPT: Van Hollen Questions Vought, Nominee for OMB Director, on Federal Workforce Protections, Congressional Power of the Purse

WASHINGTON - Today, in a hearing before the Senate Budget Committee, U.S. Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) questioned President Trump's nominee to serve as the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Russell Vought, on his positions around federal workforce protections and Congress's power of the purse. You can watch the full video of the Senator's questioning here and a transcript of his full remarks follows:

SENATOR CHRIS VAN HOLLEN (D-Md.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Vought, good to see you. Look, we're just a few days into the Trump Administration and we've already seen a huge gap between what candidate Trump ran on - which was helping working men and women in this country - and what he's actually focused on, including recently pardoning people who had been convicted of assaulting and bludgeoning police officers; including an executive order that stops ongoing initiatives to reduce the costs of prescription drugs; including, as we've heard today, a renewal of a tax plan that disproportionately benefited the very wealthy and the biggest corporations at the expense of other Americans. As we saw on the dais during the swearing in, the "golden age for America" will be great for the billionaire tech titans who had seats better than those of the incoming cabinet officers. So, President Trump was very clear that he's going to govern in a way that was different than candidate Trump.

You're going to play a very instrumental role in this Administration, if confirmed, and I believe that the best way to sort of judge or guess what the future looks like in terms of your conduct is to look at the past. And in December 2019, I wrote to the GAO, asking them if OMB - you, the previous Trump Administration - had violated the impoundment control act by withholding funds from Ukraine. And in January, I got the response back - and their conclusion was, yes, that you had violated the Impoundment Control Act.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the letter I received from GAO be entered into the record.

SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-N.C.), CHAIRMAN: Without objection.

VAN HOLLEN: Now, I listened very carefully to the exchange you had with Senator Murray. And you had a very clear opportunity to say, yes, you will comply with the Impoundment Control Act. I didn't hear you say that, so, just to give you another chance, will you comply with the Impoundment Control Act?

RUSSELL VOUGHT: Senator, the President ran against the Impoundment Control Act.

VAN HOLLEN: This is - Mr. Vought, I know what the President did. He wants to change lots of things. He can submit legislation to do that, but you are going to be the head of OMB and here today at this hearing, you're refusing to commit to comply with the Impoundment Control Act. Is that right? Are you refusing to commit to complying?

VOUGHT: Senator, the Administration has to go through a policy process to understand the legal parameters for operating in the ICA...

VAN HOLLEN: Okay, I'm going to reclaim my time. I'm sorry. I was just - it seems that complying with the current law, even if you disagree with it, would result in a clear answer: yes, I will comply with current law, including the Impoundment Control Act.

Let me turn to DOGE. All of us support greater government efficiency. I'd like to see it in many different agencies, including the Pentagon, which is the one agency which has continued to fail audits. Now, Elon Musk is going to head up DOGE. And what I'm worried about DOGE is that it will not bring efficiency, but it will open the door to political cronyism. So, my question to you is this: will Elon Musk and the other folks at DOGE, will they be required to recuse themselves from recommending changes to programs in which they are huge beneficiaries? Because, I think as you know, Elon Musk has lots of interest in government actions and government contracts. So, will those members be - have to recuse themselves from putting forth proposals in areas where they have a clear conflict of interest?

VOUGHT: Senator, this Administration has the highest ethical standards and anyone who's a federal employee will be going through the recusal process and the ethics process. That is expected and required for all employees of the federal government.

VAN HOLLEN: So, they will be. Good.

Now, I just want to pick up on, you know, the quote that Senator Kaine, Senator Warner mentioned about traumatically inflicting, you know, trauma on federal employees. I just - this is an opportunity for you to retract that statement and apologize to those civil servants. Do you want to use this opportunity to do that?

VOUGHT: Senator, as I've said before, I was referring specifically to weaponized bureaucracies that are aimed in - against the American people themselves. And the president of the - that was their boss, the person that was put in charge.

VAN HOLLEN: I've looked at the transcript. It was much broader than that. It wasn't just focused on those individuals. I will say on Schedule F - and this is my last question - because there are lots of concerns that this will be used to convert a merit-based civil service, which we have today, into one based on political cronyism. So, if you are successful at going through with Schedule F and you decided to fire an individual, would they continue to have the due process rights that merit based civil servants have?

VOUGHT: Senator, Schedule F is not a tool to fire individuals. It is something that is so that the President gets people who are policy based, confidential staffers that are still merit, are still career, they are still in -

VAN HOLLEN: Mr. Vought, I'm sorry but my question was if you choose to fire somebody, are you firing them at will or will they have the due process rights that currently apply to merit-based civil servants to avoid having them fired for political reasons?

VOUGHT: Senator, Schedule F is a different classification. It is meant to ensure that the Administration, the President, has people who are working for him that are actually going to do the policies that he ran on, that he's articulating. We think that's an important fundamental principle. And it does not mean that we have any intent to use that to fire career civil servants. I worked with them. I value the work that they do. I hope that the same people there that was working for - I had one person that was there from Jimmy Carter. I actually had a person there from LBJ. I love the fact that the career individuals from OMB bring with them that expertise to be able to advise us on our policies. It is not a desire to just fire anyone that has that classification.

VAN HOLLEN: I understand. But Mr. Chairman, let the record show I ask simply whether those individuals, when they're fired would have any due process rights - as they currently have in the merit-based civil service - and the answer - it was not - I was not given an answer.

GRAHAM: Well, as I understood it, you're not firing anybody. You're just saying if you're going to be in this job, you need to be like moving the direction the President's going.

VAN HOLLEN: But if you do fire somebody -

VOUGHT: That's precisely it, Senator.

GRAHAM: Yeah.

VAN HOLLEN: But if you do fire someone in one of these jobs -

GRAHAM: Sure. Yeah.

VAN HOLLEN: - then does that person have any due process rights?

GRAHAM: I just don't think there's a right to a particular job in the government is what we're all saying here.

VAN HOLLEN: No, the question is a right to due process and not being fired for political reasons.

Public link

Please use the above public link if you want to share this noodl on another website.