WASHINGTON—U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), a member of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on Tuesday questioned Christopher Landau, nominee to be U.S. Deputy Secretary of State, and Michael Rigas, nominee to be U.S. Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources. Murphy pressed Landau on the administration’s hollowing out of USAID and how he can claim there was a good faith review if he also purports to not know the extent of furloughs and terminations. Murphy pushed Rigas on the executive branch’s legal obligation to spend money appropriated by Congress.

A full transcript of Murphy’s exchange with the nominees can be found below:

MURPHY: “Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Landau, I deeply appreciate your service to this country and your willingness to come before this committee. But I’ll be honest with you, I find it pretty offensive that you are trying to maintain that there is some good faith review happening at USAID, when the representatives of the administration in charge of cost-cutting have made it clear that the goal is to destroy USAID. Do you know what percentage of USAID employees have been fired or furloughed?”

LANDAU: “Senator, I do not. I’m here as a private citizen. I’m a nominee, so I am not part of the administration at this point.”

MURPHY: “Do you have a ballpark guess? You’re about to help lead America's diplomatic efforts–a ballpark guess as to how many USAID employees have been fired or furloughed?”

LANDAU: “Again, Senator, I’ve just looked at the way the president has set this forth–that he has instituted a 90-day review period–”

MURPHY: “You haven’t read reports that you might be able to cite today?”

LANDAU: “Well, I’ve seen some reports, again, in the press, but I want to be very careful before I start acting as if I know what is going on behind the scenes. I’m not part of the administration yet. Obviously, if I am confirmed, you can call me before you for oversight.”

MURPHY: “Here’s the problem: so the number is 94%. 94% of USAID staff have been fired or essentially permanently furloughed. And you stated to us that you believe this is a good faith 90-day review. And yet, you actually don't know how many people have been fired or furloughed. How can you come to the conclusion that this is a good faith review when you actually don't know the extent of the terminations? Wouldn't it be relevant as to the question of whether it was a good faith review if 94% of the agency had already been terminated?”

LANDAU: “Well, Senator, again, I think it’s important to recognize: what are the programs and how are these people that are being fired or furloughed–” 

MURPHY: “But how did you come to the conclusion that this is a good faith review if you don't even know what's happening? You can’t have it both ways. You can’t come to the committee and say, ‘I know this is a good faith review, but I don't know anything that's happening because I’m not in the administration.’”

LANDAU: “Well, Senator, again, I assume– there's a presumption of government regularity that exists generally in the law. I believe strongly that the president wants to comply with the law, wants to make sure that we are doing the American taxpayers' bidding by looking carefully at these programs and making sure that we separate the baby from the bathwater.”

MURPHY: “I just don't think you can have it both ways. I don't think you can come here and tell us that you know that this is a good faith review but assert that you don't have any basic information about what's happening. Mr. Rigas, which branch of government has the power to decide how taxpayer money is spent? Is it the legislative branch, the executive branch, or the judicial branch?”

RIGAS: “Thank you for the question, Senator. Congress has the power of the purse. The executive has the power to make sure the laws are faithfully implemented, and the courts arbitrate disputes between those two branches.”

MURPHY: “So, if Congress has authorized an agency or a department, and has appropriated money with the caveat that the money shall be spent, does the administration have the obligation to spend that money in accordance with how Congress has appropriated the dollars?”

RIGAS: “Senator, I’m not a lawyer but my understanding is the executive has a role in how those moneys are spent. So to the extent that the–”

MURPHY: “I think Republicans and Democrats on this committee should care about the answer to this question. That’s a pretty easy one. If Congress has authorized a function, an agency or department, and has appropriated dollars with the word ‘shall,’ do you believe the executive branch can decide not to spend those dollars?”

RIGAS: “Well I’m familiar with mandatory entitlement programs which have that language, and those are on autopilot, so–”

MURPHY: “This is not an entitlement program. Let me give you an example. The National Endowment for Democracy is established by law. We appropriate every year, and we say that the dollars appropriated–in this case, $315 million–shall be spent. You are going to oversee spending at the Department of State. Do you believe that the executive branch could choose not to spend dollars that are appropriated by Congress with a ‘shall’ rather than a ‘may?’”

RIGAS: “I don't think so but I’m not the ultimate arbiter of that question. And how the money is spent–”

MURPHY: “You are the arbiter of that question. You are actually being nominated for the job that would decide how those dollars are spent.”

RIGAS: “I think the question at hand here is on what things is the money being spent, not whether it should be spent or not.”

MURPHY: “No, we decide how the money is spent, and you’re supposed to execute it. If we say $315 million is to be spent at the National Endowment for Democracy, do you believe that you have the ability to deny that money to be spent on the functions that Congress appropriates? This is a really important question.”

RIGAS: “I don't think so, but I also think what’s at–”

MURPHY: “So you don’t think so. So yes or no?”

RIGAS: “I think that if that’s what the law says, then that is what needs to happen.”

MURPHY: “Okay, thank you.”

###