Hoyer Opening Remarks at Subcommittee Markup of FY26 Financial Services and General Government Bill
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 House Appropriations Subcommittee Markup of the FY26 Financial Services and Government (FSGG) bill. Below is a video and transcript of his remarks:
Click here to watch a full video of his remarks.
"Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me start by making an observation, and I know I sound like a broken record. We have almost a full committee here, and we have people who have listened to all the testimony and have become more knowledgeable on this bill than other Members of the Congress of the United States on either side of the aisle. The reason for having subcommittees is to accomplish that objective. As you know, I don't consider this a markup because we don't mark it up. We don't take actions that offer amendments on both sides which feel – perfect – the chairman's mark, but that is as how it's operated for some time now and I really believe that we ought to return to a time when the subcommittees really did work, as opposed to waiting for the full committee. In any event, that's the way it's done.
"Last week, OMB Director Russell Vought said, and I quote, 'The appropriations process has to be less bipartisan.' That's in the context of the brief discussion the chairman – the big chairman and I had – as we closed our last markup. If it's less bipartisan, it will be less successful. That's the bottom line. When we had a four-vote majority and you have a four-vote majority, you know, there's some things you're going to have to have bipartisan support for and you're not going to get them done, and they need to be done. I imagine Vought is awfully pleased with what he has seen from the Appropriations Committee recently, however, where we have votes [and] on very few of them we have bipartisan agreement, but most of them are 'yes' on our side and 'no' on your side, or 'no' on our side and 'yes' on your side. We keep seeing partisan bills come out of a broken appropriations process.
"I don't know, Mr. Chairman, Chairman Cole, whether you saw John Kennedy's quote – who's a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, he said this just days ago: 'We don't have an appropriation process. It's broken. It's been broken for a while.' I would agree with Senator Kennedy on that observation. Our subcommittees have become largely irrelevant, with markups like this one being a little more than a pro forma ritual. This deterioration started long before Trump, but it has accelerated under his administration. He and Vought are trying to turn the entire appropriations process into an irrelevant rubberstamp. Frankly, I'm not sure what the purpose of the Appropriations Committee is if the administration is just going to impound, withhold, and redirect funding illegally as it sees fit, and then send rescissions package for the rest. I know we just passed rescission bill, it's the first one in 30 years, Republicans and Democratic presidents have been present, they have sent some rescissions down, but they haven't passed because we had passed bills in a bipartisan way, and we thought the levels were correct. I know some of my colleagues across the aisle agree with me in principle, but we need to take action to stop this perversion of constitutional law and intent to the benefit of presidential sovereignty.
"Congress, it seems to me, should not and must not sit idle as DOGE chainsaws through the federal government and as Trump politicizes and weaponizes agencies under this subcommittee's jurisdiction, including the FCC, OPM, GSA, and others. While I'm pleased, as I told you, Mr. Chairman, that this bill leaves certain vital areas of funding largely intact. Notably, as you pointed out, judicial security, public defender services, and the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund. But that is little comfort if the Administration can now just withhold funding at will. Ours is not a suggestion, it is the law when the president signs it, we have passed it in a bipartisan way. There are also cuts in this bill that will have consequences for the American people. This committee funds 96% of the federal government through the Internal Revenue Service, and yet our allocation accounts for less than 1% of the non-defense discretionary budget. Yet our allocations have shrunk even further for Fiscal Year 2026 by [turns to Chairman David Joyce (OH-14)], as you pointed out, 1.7%, and I know that you struggled with that, and I appreciate the efforts you have made and the staff has made. Larger agencies under the purview of other subcommittees can trim back grant programs and shift funding around to make ends meet when facing cuts. The only committee that has less money than we do is the Leg [Branch] committee. Our agencies, however, have smaller budgets and thus have to pare back their most basic operations just to make ends meet, all to the detriment of the American people. I am particularly worried, as I'm sure the chairman is not surprised, about the $2.7 billion cut, or 23%, to the already insufficient Fiscal Year 2025 level for the Internal Revenue Service. That includes more than $2.4 billion, or 45%, cut below the Fiscal Year 25 enacted for IRS enforcement.
"Now you've given people a huge tax cut, particularly at the upper end. Evidently, it wasn't enough, however, to just cut taxes for the wealthiest individuals in America with their 'One Big, Beautiful Bill,' they want to continue to make it easier for those same high earners and those who don't – like average working people in America [to] – have us take the taxes out every week, every biweek, every month. These high earners to evade their taxes to the detriment of the hardworking middle Americans. IRS data suggests that every $1 invested in the enforcement yields $7 of revenue return. That's across the board. For the wealthiest Americans, Harvard and Treasury economists found that when targeted at the top 10% of earners, $1 invested in IRS enforcement yields $12 in revenue. My colleagues across the aisle claim they're acting in the interest of fiscal responsibility, but the IRS cuts in their bill will cost taxpayers billions, billions of dollars more than it will save. Some estimates of nonpayment of owed taxes being owed is over $600 billion. That's not raising taxes, that's taxes owed, or more than the non-defense discretionary spending combined for every agency. These cuts will also undermine customer service for Americans trying to contact IRS about questions on their taxes.
"This legislation also, Mr. Chairman, maintains the pay freeze for civilian federal workers, which Russell Vought instituted as part of his campaign to traumatize the people who make the federal government function and call them villains. What an absurd personnel policy that is.
He slanders them. These civilian employees work side by side with their military counterparts, often performing the exact same task. They deserve a 3.8% cost of living adjustment and to maintain pay parity with our military service members. They're, after all, not Members of Congress who, of course, don't deserve a COLA adjustment, as we've seen.
"We are not going to find common ground on every issue, of course, that I have mentioned, but we need to find consensus on preserving this institution. When Russell Vought says he wants a less bipartisan appropriations process, what is he really saying? It's that he wants a weaker, more compliant, less functional Congress. I don't care if there's a Democrat or Republican in the White House. I will always, hopefully, stand up for Congress's power under Article I. I want to say something in addition to that about the riders, as you know, you pointed out a lot of them have been in there before. We've opposed them before, we're going to oppose them again, but, I would hope that we could have a discussion about some of them. Thank you."