Russ Vought Sits In Silence As Steny Hoyer Points Out His Misdeeds During House Hearing

[0:00] I now recognize the Ranking Member for his opening statement. [0:04] Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your calling this hearing, [0:10] and you referenced how overwhelming is the relationship between the OMB [0:20] and the policies being pursued by the government. Frankly, I think we could have used days of [0:26] hearings given the extraordinarily broad impact that the OMB has had on the operations of government. [0:34] I wish, though, as well, that we had a chance to have this budget hearing before we did the budget. [0:41] Mr. Vogt is, in essence, the administration's chief financial officer and chief operating officer. [0:47] Process matters, and that bill would have emerged stronger from this subcommittee had we been able [0:51] to hear from the director and question him on OMB's priorities ahead of that, Marco. Nevertheless, [0:57] I expect many of us will be asking pointed questions today about the management of federal resources [1:04] from an expensive war of choice to vanity projects the White House grounds and around D.C. [1:11] OMB is one of the most powerful and least known offices in our government. It is, in many ways, [1:18] the nerve center of presidential power. Under director of vote, in my opinion, it has become a hub for [1:24] making irrelevant the constitutional limits of the executive branch's power. It has become, [1:32] in his own words, a source of trauma for our nation's dedicated and hardworking civil service. [1:39] I hope today's hearing will be a reminder to director of vote that every administration is [1:45] accountable to Congress, which is the subject of the Constitution's first article and which represents [1:52] the people. It also includes American scientists, researchers who rely on federal grants, which are now at [1:59] risk because of director of vote's plan to impose a political litmus test over a nonpartisan peer-reviewed [2:07] historic process. And it includes the millions of Americans whose health, health, lives and [2:13] likelihoods are adversely impacted by cuts to federal programs and agencies that director of vote seeks to [2:19] impose unilaterally and without congressional approval. And in many cases, contrary to congressional [2:27] intent and direction, I'm talking about impoundments, which are illegal and direct constitutional [2:35] challenges to Congress of the United States. And I'm referring also to pocket rescissions. [2:41] Mr. Chairman, this oversight hearing may be the most important one held this year in the House. [2:47] It has, sadly, become rare in this committee to hold hearings with the leaders of the executive branch [2:52] agencies directly. Today, we have a de facto leader of the unitary executive theory. And while the [3:01] president's focus on being, uh, has been on printing money with his face on it and ensuring him and [3:06] his friends make money through no bid contracts, director vote has been relentlessly focused on [3:13] enacting his own ideological program. President Trump said in September 24 that he had, quote, [3:21] nothing to do with project 2025. Before us is the architect of that program of which the president [3:33] disclaimed any knowledge director vote has discernment said he believes America is in a post constitutional [3:42] moment. I'm not sure what that means. Not surprising given his apparent disdain for the constitution [3:49] that he, like all public servants have sworn an oath to support and defend director vote. I can assure [3:55] you that our constitution is alive and well, and that this committee and Congress will hopefully hold you [4:03] accountable and the government accountable, the executive department accountable, uh, using the [4:10] oversight tools it places in our hands. So we have a lot to cover today. And I hope, as I said at the [4:20] beginning, that we will have sufficient time to do so because we have differences of opinion, serious [4:28] disagreements. Unlike justice Scalia that said the executive department, uh, clearly did not have [4:36] impoundment theory. Uh, I think the director, Mr. Chairman is the principal proponent of the opposite [4:44] conclusion. So we could take a lot of time on what the consequences of that philosophy are and the [4:54] consequences to the American people of the exercise of that philosophy. With that, [5:00] I will yield back the balance of my time.