OMB Apportionment Transparency

Budget Concerns

The chairman expresses concern that the material provided does not constitute a budget, particularly a ten-year budget, and lacks a vision for the future.

Apportionment Process and Transparency

After an appropriation is enacted, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) makes funding available through an apportionment, which is a legally binding decision. This process has historically been secretive, effectively allowing unelected officials to make decisions about spending without accountability.

Transparency Requirements

Efforts have been made to introduce transparency into the apportionment process, driven by the need for:

  1. Congress to legislate effectively.

  2. Independent watchdogs to inform the public.

  3. American taxpayers to see how their money is being spent.

Congressional Inquiry

A key question is raised: Does the OMB Director believe Congress and American taxpayers deserve to know how laws are carried out and how money is spent?

OMB Director's Response

The OMB Director defends the agency's actions, stating that they testify and explain their decisions to Congress. They argue that apportionments are legally binding but part of a pre-decisional deliberative process within the executive branch. The Director also claims that the transparency law has degraded OMB's oversight responsibilities, implying that providing this information has hindered their ability to manage agencies effectively.

Debate on Compliance and Transparency

The committee member references past debates with the Director's predecessors, emphasizing that Congress needs to understand how money is being spent, at what intervals, and so on. It's noted that the previous director complied with the transparency law for over two years, and even the current director followed it for two months before the website was taken down. The committee member demands to know why the change occurred and why the process has reverted to secret decision-making.

Constitutional Concerns and Justifications

The OMB Director cites constitutional concerns and a veto threat as reasons for the change. They refer to a letter to the committee and the Department of Justice's (DOJ) letter, suggesting ongoing constitutional objections. The Director reiterates the claim that the transparency provision degrades their ability to manage taxpayer resources and fulfill responsibilities.

Constitutional Power of the Purse

The committee member refutes the constitutional concerns, asserting that the power of the purse constitutionally belongs to Congress and the Appropriations Committee. The member accuses the Director of making up constitutional issues and unilaterally deciding what is constitutional, thereby justifying the removal of the website. The committee member emphasizes that they have no way of knowing if the executive branch is carrying out its lawfully mandated responsibilities and accuses the OMB of selectively choosing which laws to follow.

The committee member argues that the OMB's responsibility is to execute what Congress has appropriated and expresses frustration that the OMB Director believes they can arbitrarily disregard laws. The time is then yielded to another member.