Skip to player
Skip to main content
Search
Connect
Watch fullscreen
Like
Bookmark
Share
More
Add to Playlist
Report
'The Law Actually Does Require That You Submit These': Chris Van Hollen Grills Howard Lutnick Over Reorganization
Forbes Breaking News
Follow
5 months ago
At today's Senate Appropriations Committee hearing, Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) questioned Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick.
Category
🗞
News
Transcript
Display full video transcript
00:00
but I will call them and I will have it to you. Thank you so much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
00:05
Chairman Collins, thank you very much. Senator Van Halen. Thank you. So, Mr. Secretary, I mentioned
00:13
in my opening comments the RIF plans. On February 11th, President Trump signed an executive order
00:20
requiring agency heads to plan, quote, large-scale reductions in force, known as RIFs, and agency
00:26
reorganization plans. On March 27th, Senator Moran and I sent you a letter requesting that you send
00:33
us the plans the department submitted to the White House. It's now June 4th. We've not received a
00:40
response. We're in the middle of a budget hearing. First of all, you would agree, would you not, that
00:46
your reorganization plans are relevant to the committee's consideration of the budget?
00:52
Um, I, I think our proposal for the budget is, is clear. So, I think it takes those things into
01:00
account. Mr. Secretary, let me ask you this. Um, are you going to provide us with the reorganization
01:05
plan and, and, and when? I will, uh, certainly get together with, uh, with the department and we will
01:13
consider what information we can give you that makes sense. But I'm happy to work with you, uh,
01:19
offline if you'd like. Okay, Mr. Secretary, I, you're, you're aware of the fact that a, a district,
01:24
federal district court, um, ruled that the RIF plans proposed by, uh, the Trump administration,
01:32
um, could not go forward, uh, because the judge stated that, quote, agencies may not conduct large-scale
01:39
reorganizations or reductions in force in blatant disregard of Congress's mandates, and a president
01:45
may not initiate large-scale executive branch reorganization without partnering with Congress.
01:51
Um, that decision was upheld by an appellate court just a few, uh, days ago. Um, I'm not asking
01:57
you to opine on that legal decision. I'm simply asking you to provide the committee with the
02:03
reorganization plan, and your response is maybe yes, maybe no. Uh, is, is, am I getting that right?
02:12
I mean, are you going to provide the plan to the Congress, this, this committee as we review the
02:18
budget for the upcoming year? Well, we, we at the department are going to follow the law.
02:24
That, of course, is what we're going to do. Okay. Well, the law actually does require that you submit
02:28
these major changes to the, the, the Senate. Let me, let me ask you this. Um, I mentioned in my
02:34
opening statement the fact that, uh, I'd sent a number of letters, um, to you. Our staff has actually
02:39
sent inquiries to your, your team. Um, I have a lot of questions today, but there'll be a lot longer,
02:47
um, unless I can get a commitment that you and your team will, um, respond to the inquiries we've
02:54
made. These are simple questions. They don't, uh, and I'll, I'll, I'll set aside for now the RIF,
02:59
uh, plan. Um, and Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent to submit to the record the letters that I've
03:05
sent to the secretary and the staff inquiries that my team has made. Without objection. Okay. Mr.
03:10
Secretary, will you agree, say within a week to get responses to these inquiries? I can easily agree
03:18
that I will go through your letters and to the extent I can answer them, I will happily answer
03:22
you within a week. Well, what is, what do you, when you say, I don't know what the letter says. This is an
03:26
oversight right now. Well, okay. Mr. Secretary, their, their, their question, I can, I can, well,
03:32
we'll just, I'll, I'll read through some of them later in the hearing. Um, we can go through them
03:36
one by one. They're pretty straightforward, simple questions about the implications of, um,
03:42
the department's actions on certain, certain, uh, programs. Uh, let me turn to the national weather,
03:47
uh, service, uh, for a moment because, um, as you know, originally 600 staff were eliminated from the
03:55
national weather service. Um, then all of a sudden it seems the department realized that
04:02
this was not really a good idea as many weather stations around the country and the chairman
04:07
referenced, some of them, uh, said they couldn't be staffed, uh, full time. We have a headline from
04:13
just May 15th, Washington Post, Noah scrambles to fill forecasting jobs as hurricane season looms.
04:21
Um, uh, I know that we're scrambling to try and rehire about a hundred or higher, 126 people,
04:28
but Mr. Secretary, it's my understanding that as of today, offices in Kansas, Alaska and Oregon are
04:34
no longer operating 24 hours a day. Is that, is that accurate? The department employs 2100 meteorologists
04:43
and hundreds of, uh, of other forecasters. Okay. This is less than 5%. We are fully, fully staffed.
04:54
There is no, there are no, uh, openings on the national hurricane center. Zero. It is fully
05:03
staffed. We are fully ready for hurricane season and our meteorologists. Mr. Secretary, you did not
05:09
answer, you did not answer the direct question about whether, whether those weather offices are open
05:14
full time. And, and it's obvious that you all made a huge mistake. I mean, you've acknowledged it by,
05:21
you know, having to rehire 126 people, but can you just comment on whether or not those offices
05:27
I mentioned are operating 24 hours a day? We have not made a huge mistake. I did not say such a thing.
05:32
I didn't say you did. It's pretty obvious from the actions. I, I will, I will, uh, as I, as I said,
05:38
you fired 600, you're re-hired. Whose report was inaccurate, obviously?
05:42
Obviously. Obviously. Obviously. We're happy to follow up and you can provide the facts.
05:45
Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
05:46
Uh, Mr. Secretary, uh, in Kansas, we have lots of, lots of many
Be the first to comment
Add your comment
Recommended
5:50
|
Up next
'That's Not Unreasonable, Is It?': Chris Van Hollen Presses Howard Lutnick About Terms Of UAE Agreement
Forbes Breaking News
5 months ago
5:47
Chris Van Hollen Reads List Of Failures Of Trump Administration To Comply With Law To Lutnick's Face
Forbes Breaking News
5 months ago
1:56
John Kennedy Grills Howard Lutnick About Law Used By Trump To Impose Tariffs
Forbes Breaking News
5 months ago
5:39
'Yes Or No?': Jeff Merkley Grills Howard Lutnick On Implementation Of Chips Contracts
Forbes Breaking News
5 months ago
5:21
Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick Opening Statement
Forbes Breaking News
5 months ago
3:37
John Kennedy Is Stunned By Howard Lutnick’s Answer About Reciprocity And Tariffs
Forbes Breaking News
5 months ago
6:17
John Kennedy Presses Howard Lutnick For Clarity On Tariff And Tread Deal Strategy
Forbes Breaking News
5 months ago
7:06
Chris Coons Asks Howard Lutnick To Compare U.S. And Chinese Chip Manufacturing
Forbes Breaking News
5 months ago
5:44
Chris Van Hollen And Noem Exchange Blows Over Kilmar Abrego Garcia: 'I'm Not Vouching For The Man'
Forbes Breaking News
6 months ago
5:04
'You're Out Of Compliance With The Requirements Of The Law': Chris Van Hollen Warns Patel About Budget
Forbes Breaking News
6 months ago
1:56:40
Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick Takes Questions About Tariffs, Trade Deals At Senate Hearing
Forbes Breaking News
5 months ago
2:17
Chris Van Hollen's Bill Amendment Faces Roll Call Vote From Appropriations Committee
Forbes Breaking News
4 months ago
1:42
'We Are Facing An Unacceptable Situation': Chris Van Hollen Decries Possibility Of More Rescissions
Forbes Breaking News
3 months ago
7:52
'You Don't Get To Keep Laptops From Our Kids': Patty Murray Rips Howard Lutnick For Ignoring Digital Equity Act
Forbes Breaking News
5 months ago
5:32
Van Hollen Tells Pam Bondi That DOJ Is Failing To Uphold The Rule Of Law And Defend The Constitution
Forbes Breaking News
4 months ago
5:09
'You Don't Understand It Yet Bc No One's Explained It To You': Howard Lutnick Has Quippy Answer For Peters
Forbes Breaking News
5 months ago
6:18
Jack Reed Presses Lutnick Over His Plan To Personally Review All Contracts Of $100,000 Or More
Forbes Breaking News
5 months ago
8:57
'Will You Comply With The Budget Authorization Law?': Chris Van Hollen Questions AG Pam Bondi
Forbes Breaking News
4 months ago
5:54
Lindsey Graham Rapid-Fire Questions Howard Lutnick About Immediate Effects Of Tariffs
Forbes Breaking News
5 months ago
2:18
Chris Van Hollen: Road To Housing Act Fell Short On Vouchers And Veteran Loans
Forbes Breaking News
3 months ago
5:45
'That Wasn't True, Was It?': Chris Van Hollen Grills State Department Official About His Testimony
Forbes Breaking News
4 months ago
8:07
Susan Collins Asks Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick: Where Do ‘We Stand With Canadian Tariffs?’
Forbes Breaking News
5 months ago
2:13:34
Secretary Howard Lutnick Grilled By Lawmakers In The House Appropriations Committee
Forbes Breaking News
5 months ago
5:45
Deb Fischer Presses Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick About Expanding Telecommunications Funding In Rural Areas
Forbes Breaking News
5 months ago
10:27
Chris Coons Presses HUD Secretary Turner On Major Proposed Cuts To Funding And Staffing
Forbes Breaking News
5 months ago
Be the first to comment