Budget Hearing – Office of Management and Budget

House Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government

2025-06-04

Loading video...

Source: Congress.gov

Summary

This budget hearing of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) focused on Director Russ Vogt's leadership and the administration's fiscal strategies for the upcoming fiscal year. Chairman David P. Joyce acknowledged OMB's central role in federal decision-making and highlighted the agency's FY2026 budget request, noting its significant increase compared to the previous year and the need to ensure funds are used as Congress intends [ 00:18:30-00:19:56 ] . Director Vogt emphasized OMB's commitment to delivering on the President's promises for a government that serves the American people .

Themes

OMB's Role and Budget Request

Chairman Joyce outlined OMB's historical role, from its creation by Congress in 1921 to its current position, and noted its critical involvement in presidential policies and budget submissions [ 00:18:34-00:19:11 ] . He specifically addressed OMB's FY2026 request for $146.1 million, a 13.3% increase over FY2025, questioning the necessity for additional staff and "unavoidable costs" . Director Vogt defended the request, attributing the need for additional FTEs to the increased size of government, the complexity of program analysis, and the demands of deregulatory initiatives and border security .

Impoundment of Funds and Congressional Authority

The debate over the "power of the purse" was a central and contentious theme. Ranking Member Steny H. Hoyer pressed Director Vogt on whether a budget passed by Congress is a "suggestion or a directive," to which Vogt responded it is a directive and a ceiling, but not an obligation to spend every dollar . Ranking Member Rosa L. DeLauro vehemently accused the administration of unlawfully impounding or "stealing" congressionally appropriated funds, citing constitutional clauses, Supreme Court rulings, and the Government Accountability Office as evidence that the President lacks unilateral authority to refuse spending . Director Vogt countered that OMB has not impounded money but is conducting a "programmatic review," stating that previous transparency initiatives were discontinued due to constitutional concerns .

Treatment of Federal Employees and "DOGE" Initiative

Ranking Member Hoyer expressed strong disapproval of a past statement by Director Vogt suggesting bureaucrats should be "traumatically affected" . He highlighted the negative impact on federal employees, including suicides and heart attacks, and questioned the "DOGE" (Department of Government Efficiency) initiative, particularly given the reported departure of its leadership . Director Vogt clarified his earlier remarks, stating they were aimed at "weaponized bureaucracies" and not individual career civil servants . He also explained the reorganization of DOGE, emphasizing a more decentralized leadership structure at the agency level . Representative Ivey corroborated the negative experiences of federal employees, describing widespread trauma and unceremonious dismissals .

Waste, Fraud, Abuse, and CBO Scoring

Representative Ashley Hinson lauded the administration's efforts, including Executive Order 14249, to combat waste, fraud, and abuse of taxpayer money . Director Vogt affirmed these efforts, outlining plans for government-wide guidance and emphasizing a "one OMB" approach to ensuring efficient use of funds . Representative Charles (Chuck) Marion Edwards questioned the Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) impartiality, suggesting it consistently misrepresents the costs and benefits of policies based on political leanings . Director Vogt agreed that CBO's scoring, particularly for the "One Big Beautiful Bill," is "fundamentally wrong" due to skewed baselines and a lack of dynamic economic assumptions [ 01:14:39-01:15:15 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
. Several members presented examples of perceived waste, such as SBA loans to infants, and Director Vogt credited the DOGE initiative for uncovering such issues .

Tone of the Meeting

The meeting had a highly contentious and often confrontational tone . Democratic members leveled strong accusations of illegality, authoritarian tendencies, and a blatant disregard for constitutional authority and congressional intent against Director Vogt and the administration . Director Vogt and Republican members defended the administration's actions as necessary to control spending and combat waste, portraying them as responsive to the American people's demands . Debates were passionate, marked by frequent interruptions, challenges to factual claims, and pointed questions about political motivations and impacts on the country [ 00:47:15 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
.

Participants

Transcript

Thank you.
Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government will come to order.  This hearing is titled the Budget Hearing of the Office of Management and Budget.  Members will have five legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material into the record.  I now recognize myself for an opening statement.  I'd like to thank Director Vogt for being here today.  The Office of Management and Budget, or OMB, plays a central role in most of the decisions made in the executive branch, particularly as it relates to the federal budget.   It's also important to remember that OMB is an office created by Congress.  In 1921, the Congress passed the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, which created the Bureau of Budget under the Department of Treasury.  Later in 1939, in the Reorganization Act of 39, the Bureau was relocated to the newly created Executive Office of the President.   And in 1970, Congress approved the Bureau's renaming to the Office of Management and Budget.  I mention his history because OMB plays a unique role both as an office created by Congress and one that has been and continues to be responsible for fulfilling the President's policies.   In fact, over the last 100 plus days, OMB has played a central role, not just in the reconciliation negotiations or recent budget submission, but in the reshaping of the federal government.  As of May 27th, 157 executive orders, 39 memoranda, and 62 proclamations have been signed by the president.  OMB plays a critical role in each of these decisions.   But as appropriators of the federal government, we need to work with OMB to ensure that funds are being used as Congress intended.  That is why the President's budget is so important.  This is a guide to helping Congress understand the agency priorities and how the legislative and executive branch can work together to deploy the resources necessary to execute these priorities.   Last Friday, federal agencies, including the Executive Office of the President, set up their budget requests for fiscal year 2026.  OMB is requesting $146.1 million for the next fiscal year, a 13.3% increase above its FY 2025 enacted level.   I look forward to discussing OMB's FY2026 request with you today, Director, and how we can work together to ensure agencies have the resources they need to work on our priorities for our constituents and the public at large.
I now recognize the ranking member for his opening statement.
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Director, candidly, Director Boat, I think your agenda is a danger to our country.   our constitution, our people, and one that marginalizes the Congress and Article I to establish an imperial presidency.  That's exactly the opposite of what our founders had in mind.  What this administration has done under your direction mirrors what you did during Trump's first term.   what you wrote in your Project 2025 chapter, and what you said in a 23-speech, 2023, to members of the MAGA right.  You had it quoted to you many times.  As you probably know, I represent over 70,000 federal employees.  A highly offensive statement.  We want the bureaucrats, which is so often used as an epithet, not a descriptor, to be traumatically affected.   When they wake up in the morning, we want them to not want to go to work because they are increasingly viewed as villains.  We want their funding to be shut down.  Were the thousands of doctors, scientists, and cancer researchers Doge fired from NIH villains?  The more than 800 employees Doge dismissed from NOAA, people who track hurricanes and protect Americans from storms.   Were they deep state agendas?  What about the food inspectors, intelligence officers, national park rangers, first responders, and countless others purged by this administration?  They're just patriotic Americans trying to serve their country.  All received an email seeking their decision to leave the federal service.  Two point plus million of them.
What sort of message does that send?   I think of a Marylander named Caitlin who worked at the Center for Medical and Medicaid Innovation.  After spending weeks agonizing over whether Doge would fire her, she died of suicide back in February.  I think of another Marylander, Monique, who worked for the Social Security Administration.  She was forced to pick up more work as many of her colleagues took the buyout or were fired by Doge.  The stress grew and grew until sitting at her desk in February,   she died of a heart attack.  Her friends and family are certain it was triggered by the stress she was under at work.  No business on Earth could treat employees like this and expect efficiency to improve or their enterprise to succeed.  There is no doubt efficiency has gone down.

Sign up for free to see the full transcript

Accounts help us prevent bots from abusing our site. Accounts are free and will allow you to access the full transcript.

Sign up