Hoyer Opening Remarks at Full Committee Markup of FY26 Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies 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 Full Committee Markup of the FY26 Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies bill. Below is a video and transcript of his remarks:

Click here to watch a full video of his remarks.

"I thank the Chairman and the Ranking Member. I'm not sure they were partners on this bill, my friend, but they both were on the committee. There are 63 of us on this committee; 35 Republicans and 28 Democrats. And we are here, presumably, because we're going to appropriate money that will be spent for the objects that we believe are priorities for our country. Mr. Aderholt said he appreciated DOGE. I condemn DOGE - for taking action, the consequences of which it had no knowledge. It knew how to cut, it didn't know the ramifications of those cuts. And certainly Mr. Vought does not believe he's our partner. In fact, he wants to make this a more 'partisan process' -that's a quote from him - and he believes it is but a suggestion to the Executive Department as to how money ought to be spent or could be spent. In fact, he does not believe that he's a partner. He believes he's an arbiter. The definition of arbiter is 'one who settles a dispute and has ultimate authority in a matter.' That's who Mr. Vought thinks he is, and that's who he thinks the President is.

"Trump's political appointees tell our doctors and scientists that their research can continue, so long as it's 'scientifically justifiable' in the minds of non-scientists. Was it scientifically justifiable to terminate the NIH effort to develop an HIV vaccine after investing decades of time and hundreds of millions of dollars in the program? What about this Administration's cuts to research grants aimed at cutting sickle cell anemia? Was that based on scientific merit? Was Trump scientifically justified when he ended funding for the Pediatric Brain Tumor Consortium, or the CDC's 9/11 World Trade Center Health Program?

"Earlier this month, Members of the committee, the Trump Administration canceled hundreds of millions of dollars for vaccine research that has great potential for curing various forms of cancer. In fact, this Administration and these bills that we are adopting cut over $400 billion of money that we appropriate - the bills don't - money that we previously appropriated and dedicated to certain objectives that we thought were important. $400 billion plus has been arbitrarily, capriciously, and without constitutional authority failed to be [spent]. Is that really the 'gold-standard of science' Trump claims to uphold? No. None of what we have seen [these] past nine months has been scientifically justifiable, only politically justifiable by the Republican doctrine of 'You're On Your Own.'

"Last month, Trump issued an executive order that gives his political appointees greater power to fund or block, NIH grants, a process normally determined through rigorous peer review from other scientists. Just days later, the Supreme Court allowed, sadly, Trump to maintain his freeze on some $2 billion in NIH grants. By politicizing science, this Administration has endangered both scientists and the American people they serve. A few weeks ago, a conspiracy theorist shot up the CDC headquarters in Atlanta, killing a police officer.

"Every day, my office gets calls from concerned parents who are unsure what vaccine policies are at the national level. Now, we've only had three hearings on the Labor-Health bill on substance. We had two others on information from the public. That was good, but only three Secretaries have appeared before the appropriations committee. No NIH personnel - who take up 25% of the expenditures in this bill - came before our committee. Nobody from [the] CDC came before our committee. So, it was the Secretaries who are political appointees, and no matter how good they are, they are not experts on all the facets of the agencies they head. And tragically, we only had three hearings on a bill that appropriates about $180+ billion, which is, by the way, much less than was spent - 11% to be exact - that was spent in '75.

"All of this fear, all of this [uncertainty] will continue so long as Trump, Vought, and the rest of the Administration continue their crusade against the health and education of the American people. So long as they do, the text of this bill means very little. So I urge my colleagues to vote no on this bill. This bill will not be law. This bill, whatever we do, will be largely dictated by what the Senate can do and what we should do in passing bills in a bipartisan fashion. Not doing so relegates us to an assured C.R., the worst of alternatives, but at least an alternative that funds government."