Ranking Member Hoyer Opening Remarks during FSGG Oversight Hearing on Office of Management and Budget

WASHINGTON, DC - Today, Congressman Steny H. Hoyer (MD-05), Ranking Member of the Financial Services and General Government (FSGG) Appropriations Subcommittee, delivered opening remarks at the FSGG oversight hearing of the Office of Management and Budget. Below are a video and transcript of his remarks:

Click here to watch a video of his remarks.

"Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you calling this hearing, and you referenced how overwhelming is the relationship between the OMB and the policies being pursued by the government. Frankly, I think we could have used days of hearings, given the extraordinarily broad impact that the OMB has had on the operations of government. I wish, though, as well, that we had a chance to have this budget hearing before we did the budget. Mr. Vought is, in essence, the Administration's Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer. Process matters, and that bill would have emerged stronger from this subcommittee had we been able to hear from the Director and question him on OMB's priorities ahead of that markup. Nevertheless, I expect many of us will be asking pointed questions today about the management of federal resources, from the expensive war of choice to vanity projects [on] the White House grounds, and around D.C.

"OMB is one of the most powerful and least known offices in our government. It is, in many ways, the nerve center of presidential power. Under Director Vought, in my opinion, [OMB] has become a hub for making irrelevant the constitutional limits of the Executive Branch's power, and has become, in his own words, a source of 'trauma' for our nation's dedicated and hardworking civil servants. I hope today's hearing will be a reminder to Director Vought that every administration is accountable to Congress, which is the subject of the Constitution's First Article in which it represents the people. It also includes American science researchers who rely on federal grants, which are now at risk because of Director Vought's plan to impose a political litmus test over a nonpartisan, peer-reviewed historic process, and it includes the millions of Americans whose health, lives, and livelihoods are adversely impacted by cuts to federal programs and agencies that Director Vought seeks to impose unilaterally and without congressional approval, and in many cases, contrary to congressional intent and direction. I'm talking about impoundments, which are illegal and direct constitutional challenges to Congress of the United States, and I'm referring also to pocket rescissions.

"Mr. Chairman, this oversight hearing may be the most important one held this year in the House. It has, sadly, become rare in this committee to hold hearings with the leaders of the executive branch agencies directly. Today, we have a de facto leader of the unitary executive theory. And while the President's focus has been on printing money with his face on it and ensuring [he] and his friends make money through no-bid contracts, Director Vought has been relentlessly focused on enacting his own ideological program. President Trump said in September 2024 that he had, quote, 'nothing to do with Project 2025.' Before us is the architect of that program of which the President disclaimed any knowledge. Director Vought has certainly said he believes America is in a 'post-constitutional moment.' I'm not sure what that means. Not surprising, given his apparent disdain for the Constitution, that he, like all public servants, have sworn an oath to support and defend. Director Vought, I can assure you that our Constitution is alive and well, and that this committee and Congress will hopefully hold you accountable and the government accountable, the Executive Department accountable, using the oversight tools it places in our hands.

"So, we have a lot to cover today, and I hope, as I said at the beginning, that we will have sufficient time to do so because we have differences of opinion, serious disagreements. Unlike Justice Scalia, that said the Executive Department clearly did not have impoundment theory. I think the Director, Mr. Chairman, is the principal proponent of the opposite conclusion. So, we could take a lot of time on what the consequences of that philosophy are, and the consequences to the American people of the exercise of that philosophy. With that, I will yield back the balance of my time."