[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
A LEGACY OF INCOMPETENCE:
CONSEQUENCES OF THE BIDEN-HARRIS
ADMINISTRATION'S POLICY FAILURES
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 19, 2024
__________
Serial No. 118-130
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available on: govinfo.gov,
oversight.house.gov or
docs.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
56-886 PDF WASHINGTON : 2024
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY
JAMES COMER, Kentucky, Chairman
Jim Jordan, Ohio Jamie Raskin, Maryland, Ranking
Mike Turner, Ohio Minority Member
Paul Gosar, Arizona Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina Columbia
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts
Michael Cloud, Texas Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia
Gary Palmer, Alabama Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Clay Higgins, Louisiana Ro Khanna, California
Pete Sessions, Texas Kweisi Mfume, Maryland
Andy Biggs, Arizona Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York
Nancy Mace, South Carolina Katie Porter, California
Jake LaTurner, Kansas Cori Bush, Missouri
Pat Fallon, Texas Shontel Brown, Ohio
Byron Donalds, Florida Melanie Stansbury, New Mexico
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania Robert Garcia, California
William Timmons, South Carolina Maxwell Frost, Florida
Tim Burchett, Tennessee Summer Lee, Pennsylvania
Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia Greg Casar, Texas
Lisa McClain, Michigan Jasmine Crockett, Texas
Lauren Boebert, Colorado Dan Goldman, New York
Russell Fry, South Carolina Jared Moskowitz, Florida
Anna Paulina Luna, Florida Rashida Tlaib, Michigan
Nick Langworthy, New York Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts
Eric Burlison, Missouri
Mike Waltz, Florida
------
Mark Marin, Staff Director
Jessica Donlon, Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel
James Rust, Chief Counsel for Oversight
Sloan McDonagh, Counsel
Kim Waskowsky, Professional Staff Member
Lisa Piraneo, Senior Advisor
Billy Grant, Professional Staff Member
Mallory Cogar, Deputy Director of Operations and Chief Clerk
Contact Number: 202-225-5074
Julie Tagen, Minority Staff Director
Contact Number: 202-225-5051
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on September 19, 2024............................... 1
WITNESSES
----------
The Honorable Brendan Carr, Commissioner, Federal Communications
Commission
Oral Statement............................................... 6
Mark Krikorian, Executive Director, Center for Immigration
Studies
Oral Statement............................................... 7
Meaghan Mobbs, Director, Center for American Safety and Security,
Independent Women's Forum
Oral Statement............................................... 9
Mandy Gunasekara, Former Chief of Staff, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
Oral Statement............................................... 11
Skye L. Perryman, JD (Minority Witness), President & Chief
Executive Officer, Democracy Forward Foundation
Oral Statement............................................... 12
Opening statements and the prepared statements for the witnesses
are available in the U.S. House of Representatives Repository
at: docs.house.gov.
INDEX OF DOCUMENTS
----------
* Letter, September 19, 2024, from the Associated Builders and
Contractors to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability;
submitted by Chairman Comer.
* Article, Breitbart, ``Biden-Harris Parole Pipeline Releases
More than 1.3 Million Migrants''; submitted by Rep. Biggs.
* Article, Washington Times, ``Border Patrol union chief says
Biden must quit saying union backed border bill''; submitted by
Rep. Biggs.
* Article, Breitbart, ``Exclusive CBP One App Migrants Released
Into U.S.-No Asylum Questions Asked''; submitted by Rep. Biggs.
* Article, Axios, ``Harris to visit Mexico and Guatemala to
address `root causes' of border crossings''; submitted by Rep.
Biggs.
* Article, Daily Caller, ``Jerome Powell Suggests Influx of
Migrants Contributing to Rising Unemployment''; submitted by
Rep. Biggs.
* Article, The Hill, ``Trump Says Blame It on Me''; submitted
by Rep. Crockett.
* Press Release, USDA; submitted by Rep. Crockett.
* Article, Newsweek, ``Amber Thurman First Named Preventable
Abortion Death''; submitted by Rep. Greene.
* News Report, FoxNews.com, Interview with Heritage Foundation
Kevin Roberts; submitted by Rep. Greene.
* Letter, April 4, 2024, from Rep. Langworthy to FCC; submitted
by Rep. Langworthy.
INDEX OF DOCUMENTS
----------
* Letter, from Afghan Women Negotiators; submitted by Rep.
Lynch.
* Article, Newsweek, ``Bill Clinton Pronounces Kamala Harris'
Name Wrong During DNC''; submitted by Rep. Mace.
* Questionnaire, Harris' ``ACLU-Candidate-Questionnaire'';
submitted by Rep. Mace.
* Text Message; submitted by Rep. Mace.
* Press Release, Gov. Dunleavy, ``Alaska PR 23-010 BEAD Funding
Allocation''; submitted by Rep. Norton.
* Press Release, Gov. Gianforte, ``Montana First in Nation to
Open BEAD Portal''; submitted by Rep. Norton.
* Press Release, Gov. Holcomb, ``Biden-Harris Administration
Approves Indiana's `Internet for All' Initial Proposal'';
submitted by Rep. Norton.
* Press Release, Gov. Lee, ``Tennessee TNECD Announces Approval
of Proposal''; submitted by Rep. Norton.
* Press Release, Gov. Little, ``Idaho Awarded $583 Million to
Expand Broadband Access''; submitted by Rep. Norton.
* Press Release, Gov. Parson, ``Missouri's Initial Proposal for
the Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment program (BEAD)
approved by the NTIA''; submitted by Rep. Norton.
* Press Release, ``Mississippi to Setup Over $1.2 Billion for
Broadband Expansion; submitted by Rep. Norton.
* Press Release, Gov. Sanders, ``Arkansas to receive over $1B
to expand broadband''; submitted by Rep. Norton.
* Press Release, Gov. Scott, ``Vermont to Receive $229 Million
from the Federal Government for Broadband Buildout''; submitted
by Rep. Norton.
* Press Release, Gov. Stitt, ``Oklahoma to Receive $797.4
Million for Highspeed Internet Buildout''; submitted by Rep.
Norton.
* Press Release, Gov. Justice, ``West Virginia secures $1.2
billion in broadband funding, among first states in the country
allowed to request BEAD funds''; submitted by Reps. Norton and
Raskin.
* Press Release, Governor Glenn Youngkin, Governor Glenn
Youngkin Clebrates Approval of Virginia Broadband Proposal'';
submitted by Reps. Norton and Raskin.
* Article, the Wall Street Journal, ``Where's Kamala Harris on
LNG Exports''; submitted by Rep. Palmer.
* Article, The Hill, ``Former Afghan president agrees Trump
deal with the Taliban was a disaster''; submitted by Rep.
Raskin.
* Article, Business Insider, ``GOP Blames Biden for Afghanistan
Withdrawal''; submitted by Rep. Raskin.
* Article, CNN, ``Trump administration officials try to rewrite
their own Afghanistan history''; submitted by Rep. Raskin.
* Article, Forbes, ``Trump denies releasing 5000 Taliban
prisoners but his administration negotiated their release'';
submitted by Rep. Raskin.
* Document, ``Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise,
Project 2025 ''; submitted by Rep. Stansbury.
* Memo, June 21, 2023, re: Ad Hoc Hearing titled ``Oversight of
Anti-democratic Abuses of Power in the State of Florida'';
submitted by Rep. Frost.
* Questions for the Record: to Mr. Carr; submitted by Rep.
Raskin.
* Questions for the Record: to Ms. Gunasekara; submitted by
Rep. Raskin.
The documents listed are available at: docs.house.gov.
A LEGACY OF INCOMPETENCE:
CONSEQUENCES OF THE BIDEN-HARRIS
ADMINISTRATION'S POLICY FAILURES
----------
Thursday, September 19, 2024
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Oversight and Accountability
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. James Comer
(Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Comer, Foxx, Grothman, Cloud,
Palmer, Sessions, Biggs, Mace, Fallon, Donalds, Perry, Timmons,
Burchett, Greene, Boebert, Fry, Langworthy, Burlison, Raskin,
Norton, Lynch, Connolly, Krishnamoorthi, Khanna, Mfume, Ocasio-
Cortez, Porter, Brown, Stansbury, Garcia, Frost, Lee, Casar,
Crockett, Moskowitz, Tlaib, and Pressley.
Chairman Comer. The hearing of the Committee on Oversight
and Accountability will come to order. I want to welcome
everyone here today.
Without objection, the Chair may declare a recess at any
time.
I recognize myself for the purpose of making an opening
statement.
Three-and-a-half years ago when Joe Biden and Kamala Harris
took office, they promised to build back better. The fawning
media told us that the adults are back in the room, but 3 1/2
years later, the economy is suffering, the border is broken,
and crises continue to erupt worldwide. Everything Joe Biden
and Kamala Harris has touched has failed. Americans are asking
themselves, what is better? The evidence of President Biden and
Vice President Harris' incompetent and weak leadership is seen
and felt by Americans across our Nation.
Let us look at the economy. Vice President Harris has
claimed repeatedly that Bidenomics is working and is a term we
are proud of, yet Americans have faced 20-percent average
inflation since Joe Biden and Kamala Harris took office. The
price of everything has gone up. More Americans are now having
to choose whether to pay their energy bill, pay rent, or buy
food. How is this record something to be proud of? These price
increases are not transitory at all, as one of Biden-Harris
Administration official claimed. American households must now
spend over $11,000 more each year just to maintain the same
quality of life.
Let us turn to our broken border. On their first day in
office, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris immediately enacted
policies that eroded border security, overwhelmed law
enforcement, and left us vulnerable to terrorist infiltration.
They ended the Remain in Mexico Program, stopped construction
of the border barrier system, and gutted interior enforcement
against illegal aliens. They signaled to the world our border
was open. Finally realizing it was turning into an inconvenient
problem, President Biden tapped Vice President Harris to
examine the root causes of the border crisis that happened on
their watch. Did she bother to examine her own Administration's
policies fueling the crisis? Clearly not. In fact, since Joe
Biden and Kamala Harris took office, over 7 million--7
million--illegal aliens were either released into the country
or evaded apprehension entirely to make it here. And instead of
being given swift due process and deportations, the Biden-
Harris Administration flew these illegal aliens all over the
country, paying hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to
nongovernment organizations and to provide food, shelter, and
other services.
Communities across our country are suffering from the
Biden-Harris open border. Meanwhile, the Biden-Harris
Administration grossly mismanages the very government programs
they champion. Congressional Democrats committed $5 billion in
2021 to build electric vehicle charging stations. Do you know
how many the Biden-Harris Administration built? Eight. Not
8,000. Not 800. Eight. That is $625 million per charging
station. Forty-two billion dollars is spent on their Broadband
Equity Access and Deployment program to connect Americans to
high-speed internet. Over one thousand days later, this program
is not connected to a single American to the internet. Not one.
Forty-two billion dollars for internet, not a single American
has been connected in that program. Meanwhile, American
taxpayers who are already struggling with sky-high inflation
are on the hook to pay for the Biden-Harris Administration
boondoggles.
The Biden-Harris Administration's incompetence has extended
to the world stage, contributing to chaos extending across the
planet. Instead of the adults in the room, the American people
continue to bear the consequences of weak and effective
leadership on the global stage: the disastrous withdrawal from
Afghanistan, where a failure to plan created the conditions
ripe for a terrorist attack that killed 13 service members and
scores of Afghan civilians; the invasion of Ukraine by Russia;
the emboldening of Iran and its proxies; and growing political
welfare by the Chinese Communist Party. These are just a few
examples of the Biden-Harris Administration's failed policies.
Americans cannot afford more of them.
The Oversight Committee has been diligent this Congress to
uncover what works, what does not, and how to move forward as
this Administration has drifted from crisis to crisis. We know
that border walls work because we heard it firsthand from
border patrol experts and border patrol agents. We know the
solution to inflation is to get spending under control and roll
back overreaching and costly regulations that will only be
passed on to consumers. We know that strong leadership on the
world stage is necessary to confront aggression by foreign
powers aligned with evil terrorists. The Oversight Committee
looks forward to hearing from the witnesses today on more
solutions to the problems our country now faces because of Joe
Biden and Kamala Harris' failed policies, ineffective,
incompetent, and weak leadership. Thank you to the witnesses
appearing here today, and I now yield to the Ranking Member for
his opening remarks.
Mr. Raskin. And thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the
witnesses for joining us today for one of the Committee's last
hearings in the 118th Congress with the extremely fitting title
of, ``A Legacy of Incompetence.'' The Majority has assembled a
group of leading Project 2025 intellectuals for a Project 2025
coming-out party today. The witnesses will advertise their
wares, which almost makes me a bit nostalgic, Mr. Chairman, for
the days when our colleagues said that they were pursuing
President Joe Biden for the worst Presidential crime in
American history, a crime which, unfortunately, they were never
able to identify, but which they now appear to have dropped
completely.
So last week, my Democratic colleagues and I urged the
Chairman to hold a hearing on a real issue. On the gun violence
epidemic that is ravaging American communities. This Congress,
our colleagues have refused to hold a single hearing about a
single mass shooting, except for the one that involved former
President Donald Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania. The security of
the former President is absolutely critical. But doesn't the
rest of the country count, too? Who is going to keep the rest
of America safe from AR-15 attacks by disturbed people loaded
up on hate and conspiracy theory? Don't all Americans deserve
to live free of gun violence?
There have been more than 1,000 mass shootings, defined as
at least four people being shot, that have claimed more than
1,000 lives since the start of this Congress. Just since the
mass shooting and assassination attempt on the ex-President on
July 13, there have been more than a hundred additional mass
shootings that have claimed 88 more American lives. There were
four other Americans who died that day on July 13 after the
attack in Butler, and yet we are told by J.D. Vance that gun
violence is a ``fact of life'' in America. C'est la vie.
Nothing can be done about it. Of course, it is not a fact of
life in England or France or Ireland or Canada or Japan or
dozens of other countries. The NRA, the GOP, and the terribly
weak Swiss cheese gun laws they insist upon have made gun
violence a fact of death in America because they refuse to
discuss the policy solutions favored by the vast majority of
the American people of all parties: a universal, violent
criminal background check, red flag laws, a ban on the sale of
AR-15s and other military-style assault weapons.
So, we have a rate of gun homicide 25 times higher than
people living in Europe, and gun violence is now the leading
cause of death for children and teenagers in the United States
of America. Yet instead of holding a hearing on gun violence,
we have convened a panel of four witnesses with deep ties to
Project 2025, the MAGA manifesto for a second Trump term, so
they can audition for Mr. Trump's approval and land a spot on
his Cabinet or sub-Cabinet, a fate not necessarily to be envied
if you talk to former Vice President Mike Pence; or Trump's
former Defense Secretary, Mark Esper; or his former national
security adviser, John Bolton; or Cassidy Hutchinson; or more
than a hundred other former Republican officials declaring
Donald Trump completely unfit for office. But here we are with
these Project 2025 ``luminaries'' who have taken up the
challenge to set forth the agenda on how to take America
backward in every domain of public life.
A recently disclosed email from Steven Bradbury, one of
Project 2025's leaders, and Trump's former Secretary of
Transportation, says that, ``Those who show real commitment and
valuable contributions will be recognized by the leaders of the
Project 2025, whose recommendations are likely to carry
influence with the key personnel decisionmakers.'' And today,
two of our witnesses, Mr. Carr and Ms. Gunasekara, showed just
that real commitment by authoring chapters of Project 2025.
Press reports say Mr. Carr is vying to be Mr. Trump's FCC
Chairman, while Ms. Gunasekara apparently has her eye on
becoming Mr. Trump's next EPA Administrator. And I will stand
corrected if you guys disclaim any ambitions for those offices,
but that is what the press is reporting. The Majority's other
two witnesses also come to us from organizations that are right
there on the advisory board of Project 2025.
So, we will hear from them, and we will discuss how they
intend to implement the extremist Project 2025 game plan in a
hypothetical second Administration for Donald Trump. It is a
program that depends on sending in an army of Trump sycophants
and loyalists to replace 50,000 professional civil servants. It
is a program subordinating the people's government to big
corporations, and it tramples the civil rights and liberties of
women to abortion, birth control, and IVF, which the
Republicans just voted against yesterday.
It is a plan to upend democratic government as we know it.
And it involves politicizing the Federal work force and gutting
the professional civil service; weaponizing the Department of
Justice against political rivals and the people; seizing
political control of independent agencies, like the Federal
Reserve Board and the FCC; eliminating overtime pay for
millions of workers; denying the climate crisis and pulling the
plug on environmental progress; ending reproductive freedom in
every state; federally surveilling births and abortions;
legalizing discrimination against LGBTQ Americans; organizing
mass deportations and detention camps; deploying the military
to quash free speech and protests; eliminating Head Start and
the Department of Education; dismantling NOAA; and privatizing
the National Health Service, limiting benefits for veterans.
Now, Donald Trump has half-heartedly tried to distance
himself from this toxic and increasingly unpopular agenda, but
you need only to turn the table of contents of this big book to
realize it is the total product of Trump's inner circle. The
MAGA manifesto has 37 authors and contributors. Of those, 31
served in Trump's Administration, 80 percent. Donald Trump has
turned dodgy about his connection to Project 2025, despite the
fact that he has praised it and commended its authors, because
he knows it is way too extreme for the vast majority of the
American people.
The Biden-Harris Administration has restored America's
place as a global leader and led an economic recovery that is
the envy of the rest of the world. Project 2025 wants to
reverse all the progress we have made, strip Americans of
basic, fundamental rights and freedoms that we have had for
decades, and create a Federal work force loyal only to Donald
Trump and not to the Constitution of the United States. Today,
Mr. Chairman, we are going to try to get to the details from
these Project 2025 experts that you have kindly assembled for
us. Let us get specific today, and let us see if the American
people really want to follow the dark vision for America that
Project 2025 has set forth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I
yield back.
Chairman Comer. OK. Today we are joined by excellent
witnesses. The Honorable Brandon Carr is the senior Republican
Commissioner on the Federal Communications Commission. He has
been unanimously confirmed by the Senate three times and has
extensive expertise in the private and public sector in
communications and tech policy. Mark Krikorian is the Executive
Director of the Center for Immigration Studies, where he has
served since 1995, overseeing their work on research and policy
analysis relating to immigration and border security topics, on
which he is a nationally recognized expert.
Meaghan Mobbs is the Director for Independent Women's Forum
Center for American Safety and Security, a graduate of West
Point, former paratrooper and combat veteran, and current
member of the Board of Visitors for the Virginia Military
Institute. She is an expert on defense, national security, and
public safety. Mandy--and I am going to do my best here--I
think my counterpart may have butchered it too, and I am going
to do my best--Mandy [Goon-a].
Mr. Raskin. [Goon-a-sekura].
Chairman Comer. Gunasekara.
Ms. Gunasekara. [Goon-a-say-ka-rah].
Chairman Comer. Yes, and I am----
[Laughter.]
Chairman Comer [continuing]. Is former Chief of Staff at
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under Administrator
Andrew Wheeler, where she set and implemented environmental
policy priorities for the Trump Administration. She is an
environmental attorney and has significant experience in both
the legislative and executive branches related to energy and
environmental regulations and policy. Finally, Skye Perryman is
President and CEO of the nonprofit Democracy Forward. She was
recently named by Washingtonian Magazine as one of the most
influential people shaping policy in 2024.
Pursuant to Committee Rule 9(g), the witnesses will please
stand and raise their right hand.
Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony that you
are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you God?
[A chorus of ayes.]
Chairman Comer. Let the record show that the witnesses
answered in the affirmative.
Thank you all. We appreciate so much you being here today
and look forward to your testimony.
Let me remind the witnesses that we have read your written
statement, and it will appear in full in the hearing record.
Please limit your oral statements to 5 minutes. As a reminder,
please press the button on the microphone in front of you so
that it is on, and the Members can hear you. When you begin to
speak, the light in front of you will turn green. After 4
minutes, the light will turn yellow. When the red light comes
on, your 5 minutes have expired, and we would ask that you
please wrap up.
I now recognize Mr. Carr for his opening statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE BRENDAN CARR
COMMISSIONER
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Mr. Carr. Chairman Comer, Ranking Member Raskin,
distinguished Members of the Committee, thank you for the
invitation to testify. I have had the privilege of serving as a
Commissioner on the FCC for over 7 years now. Before that, I
served as the agency's general counsel after first joining the
FCC as a staffer back in 2012. My primary focus has been
ensuring that every American has a fair shot at next-generation
connectivity.
In my view, there is no better way to do a job in
Washington than to get outside the Beltway and see firsthand
the challenges ahead. That is why I spent time in nearly every
state over the past few years meeting with broadband builders,
local leaders, and community members alike. Along the way, I
have stood on top of 2,000-foot broadcast tower with tower
crews. I have been a mile below ground to see a fiber build
connecting an underground research lab. I have visited with
crews stringing fiber along the Arctic Ocean in Utqiagvik,
Alaska, America's northernmost point, and I have been on the
Gulf Coast with teams as they restored service after hurricanes
in Florida. In every community, I have heard about the
opportunity that comes with a high-speed connection, and that
is why I was pleased when a bipartisan consensus emerged to
provide the support necessary to end the digital divide. And
the most significant of those efforts is a $42 billion
initiative known as BEAD. But unfortunately, BEAD is a program
that has gone off the rails. Here is how.
In 2021, Vice President Harris agreed to lead the
Administration's signature $42 billion effort to extend
internet service to millions of Americans. It has now been
1,039 days since that program was enacted. After all of that
time, not one person has been connected to the internet. Not
one home, not one business, not even one shovel worth of dirt
has been turned, and it gets worse. No infrastructure builds
will even start until sometime next year at the earliest, and,
in many cases, not until 2026. This makes Vice President
Harris' $42 billion initiative the slowest-moving Federal
broadband deployment program in recent history.
With Vice President Harris at the helm, Politico recently
reported on the ``frustration and finger pointing'' that
defined the program's ``messy, delayed rollout.'' One state
broadband official described ``a chaotic implementation
environment, dysfunction, delays.'' She added that the
Administration ``has provided either no guidance, guidance
given too late, or guidance changing midstream.'' The
Administration, she said, is slowing states down. So, what has
the Administration been doing over the last 1,039 days instead
of connecting Americans? It has been advancing a wish list of
progressive policy goals. The $42 billion program, led by Vice
President Harris, is being used to push a climate change
agenda, DEI requirements, price controls, preferences for
government-run networks and rules that will lead to wasteful
overbuilding. All of this will leave rural communities behind.
Frankly, it would not be the only time the Biden-Harris
Administration has left rural America behind. In 2020, the FCC
secured a commitment from Starlink to provide internet to
640,000 homes and businesses for about $1,300 per location in
Federal support. But the government revoked that award last
year after President Biden gave agencies the green light to go
after Musk. The Administration is now spending dollars on the
penny to connect locations through its own initiatives. Senator
Cruz released a report identifying entire projects where the
Administration is now spending over $100,000 per location for
internet. So here is the bottom line: absent major reforms,
Vice President Harris' $42 billion program is wired to fail. It
is time to correct course, get rid of all the extraneous
political goals, and focus on quickly connecting Americans.
In closing, I want to thank you again for the opportunity
to testify. I look forward to your questions.
Chairman Comer. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Krikorian
for his opening statement.
STATEMENT OF MARK KRIKORIAN
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES
Mr. Krikorian. Thank you for the invitation to speak----
Chairman Comer. And mic, please.
Mr. Krikorian. Thank you for the invitation to speak before
the Committee. I would like to assure the Ranking Member I am
not, in fact, auditioning for a job.
Do not take this the wrong way, but with regard to
immigration, at least the title of the hearing is a little bit
misleading. The Biden-Harris record on immigration is the
result of neither incompetence nor failure. The largest border
crisis in the history of our country, probably the largest such
event in human history, began on January 20, 2021, on purpose,
not due to incompetence.
Since that date, there have been more than 10 million
encounters of inadmissible aliens at our borders, millions of
whom have been and continue to be unlawfully allowed to enter
the United States. This did not happen because the Biden-Harris
Administration and its impeached Secretary of Homeland
Security, Alejandro Mayorkas, made mistakes or miscalculations.
That would have been bad enough and certainly a subject for--a
proper subject for congressional oversight, but would be
excusable because we all have shortcomings. We all make
mistakes. Rather, the ongoing border crisis is the result of
ideology.
There are only two ways of thinking about the immigration
issue overall. Either no one in the world is allowed to come
here, and then we make limited exceptions, or everyone in the
world is allowed to come here with certain limited exceptions.
So, no one gets to come in with exceptions, or everyone gets to
come in with exceptions. The Immigration and Nationality Act,
of course, is based on the former perspective. No foreigner has
a right to move here, but we, the people decide there are
specific grounds to admit a limited number of people. Maybe
they have a relative here or a job skill or what have you.
There are different opinions about how to do that, but they
all are under one umbrella, basically that immigration is a
privilege granted by the American people. This Administration's
approach to immigration is based on the second view, the
opposite view, that everyone in the world has a right to move
here if they choose to do so, and the American people have no
right to place limits on immigration apart from those related
to basic safety. Terrorists, criminals, deadly diseases, and
even those limitations are highly circumscribed.
Strictly speaking, this is not open borders, though that
description may do as a shorthand. Instead, I would describe
the Biden-Harris approach to immigration as one of unlimited
immigration that holds that any limits on the level of
immigration are morally indefensible, and circumventing those
limits by any means available is a moral duty. This is
fundamentally contrary to Federal law, of course, but also
contrary to the Constitution and the very concept of
sovereignty and consent of the governed. The fruit of that
ideology is spelled out in detail in my written statement.
The most common pretext for subverting the will of the
people on limits on immigration is asylum, and the chief
practical means of achieving unlimited immigration are unlawful
releases from detention and unlawful grants of mass categorical
parole. This unlimited immigration perspective also requires an
inversion of the proper role of the executive. The allocation
of authority in the INA is that the President has the power to
keep out anyone he thinks should be excluded, but can let in
only those who have been specifically authorized by Congress
for him to admit. Due to this belief in unlimited immigration,
the Biden-Harris Administration's understanding is the precise
opposite. They have acted for 3 1/2 years on the belief that
the President may let in anyone he wants but may keep out
aliens only for very narrow reasons.
Let me close with an example to illustrate this. The CBP
One parole scheme seeks to funnel through the ports of entry
inadmissible aliens who ostensibly otherwise would cross the
border illegally. When this unlawful program was started in May
2023, DHS set the limit at 1,000 inadmissible aliens being
given interviews per day. The next month, they increased the
number of 1,250 a day. Later that same month, they increased it
again to 1,450 a day, so it is more than 1/2 a million
inadmissible aliens released into the United States. These
numbers have no basis in law, nor did Congress even authorize
the President to come up with his own number, as with refugee
resettlement. The Administration has simply made up numbers for
how many inadmissible aliens to admit, based mainly on how
quickly they can be processed and released, and feels free to
change those numbers at will.
This is illustrative of the Biden-Harris approach to
immigration, which might be put this way: we can let in anyone
we want, in any number, for any reason, and we dare Congress to
do anything about it. This is not the way a self-governing
people's immigration system should work. Thank you.
Chairman Comer. Thank you. I now recognize Ms. Mobbs for
her opening statement.
STATEMENT OF MEAGHAN MOBBS
DIRECTOR
CENTER FOR AMERICAN SAFETY AND SECURITY
INDEPENDENT WOMEN'S FORUM
Dr. Mobbs. Chairman Comer, Ranking Member Raskin, and
Members of the Committee, thank you for your leadership in
convening a hearing to discuss the policy implications of the
current Administration.
Ranking Member Raskin, I would like to assure you I am not
seeking an appointment, nor have I even read Project 2025, but
the core duty of any government is to protect its citizens, yet
over the last 4 years, the world has only grown more dangerous.
We have witnessed the largest attack on a European nation in 85
years and the deadliest day for Jews since the Holocaust.
History has been made by the number of full and partial U.S.
embassy evacuations around the world, and the United Nations
concurs that, ``The world is facing the highest number of
conflicts since World War II.''
It is crucial to understand that these conditions were not
simply imposed on us. Instead, reckless policies of appeasement
embolden our enemies, giving them the power and confidence to
act. When the world's most powerful democracy projects
indecision, it invites aggression. Authoritarian states and
hostile nonstate actors have sensed a window of opportunity to
expand their influence and challenge American power and
prestige. The clearest example of such overt aggression by a
state actor can be found in Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
A war that has entered its third year was presaged by a
lengthy series of policy decisions by the Administration that
strengthened Putin's position and demonstrated a provocative
unwillingness to defend Ukraine. The end result of these policy
choices was the greatest deterrence failure since the cold war.
Once the invasion occurred, the Administration continuously
slow-rolled critical military aid and a strategy for victory.
The Biden-Harris Administration's chronic delays project
weakness, dragging out the conflict, and escalating the
economic burden borne by the United States and our allies.
It is no surprise that the failed execution of another key
policy, the withdrawal from Afghanistan, was overseen by the
same team. U.S. intelligence assessed the chaotic withdrawal
from Afghanistan played a major role in influencing Putin's
decision to invade. The Administration prioritized political
timelines over on-the-ground realities. At State, they resisted
early calls for a noncombat evacuation, believing it would
signal failure. At the Department of Defense, operational
mistakes, such as the closure of Bagram Air Base, severely
hindered the U.S.' ability to conduct a secure evacuation. And
despite credible intelligence warning of a terrorist threat,
the DoD failed to prevent the deadly bombing at Abbey gate,
which claimed the lives of 13 U.S. service members.
To this day, key figures across all agencies have avoided
responsibility, and accountability has been notably absent
across all levels. Not only did the U.S. Government leave
behind $7 billion worth of military equipment, which the
Taliban just paraded in a celebratory event, but a January
report from the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan
Reconstruction noted since August 2021, the U.N. has purchased,
transported, and transferred $2.9 billion in U.S. currency to
Afghanistan. The report also highlighted that the U.S. remains
Afghanistan's largest international donor. In short, the U.S.
is sending money to the to the Taliban. Again, it is
unsurprising that one of the chief architects of the withdrawal
failure also touted that ``The Middle East is quieter today
than it has been in 2 decades,'' only 8 days before the multi-
frontal attack launched by Iranian supported Hamas into Israel.
The Administration's efforts to revive the Iran nuclear
deal have been disastrous. Once again, the shift from a maximum
pressure campaign under the previous Administration to a
conciliatory, appeasement-based strategy has shown to be
catastrophic. In fact, most of Iran's nuclear expansion
occurred after President Biden's election. Iran's increasing
involvement in regional instability and its military support
for Russia underscores the Administration's inability to
curtail Iran's authoritarian expansion.
Just as the Biden-Harris Administration has failed to
effectively deter other enemies, he is running the risk of
failing to lead against our greatest threat, China. Now we have
bolstered our alliances. We do have the AUKUS security
partnership. We have concentrated bipartisan efforts, which are
positive developments. Yet, the Biden Administration's hallmark
embrace of this idea of diplomatic ease with authoritarian
leaders, in this case China, runs the risk of tipping us into
managing competition rather than winning. The U.S. is in a new
cold war with China, and attempts to temper or tame that
reality only increase the likelihood of an actual war.
When American foreign policy fails, women and girls often
pay the highest price. The United Nations reported a 50-percent
increase in verified cases of conflict-related sexual violence
from 2022 to 2023. This violence has had far-reaching societal
consequences, severely limiting women's livelihoods and
restricting girls' access to education in many countries around
the world. This is particularly true in Afghanistan, where, as
one young woman described, ``Women and girls have lost all
their hope in the world.''
Ladies and gentlemen, I do not enjoy sitting here reciting
a litany of U.S. failures and a decline in America's power and
presence on the world stage. I am a proud American who deeply
loves her country. Unfortunately, many of the failures outlined
here represent systemic breakdowns, from the White House to
individual agency leadership. There has been a startling lack
of accountability, and Americans have taken notice. When
accountability is neglected, the consequences are clear and far
reaching. Ultimately, the cost of ignoring accountability is
not just organizational inefficiency. Without accountability,
the price is eventually paid in the form of deteriorated
systems, weakened institutions, deepened crises, and chaos.
Tragically, it is Americans who are bearing the burden of
these costs. Therefore, it is altogether unsurprising that less
than a quarter of the American people trust the government in
Washington to do what is right. It is my hope effective and
strong oversight can change that for the better. Thank you, and
I look forward to your questions.
Chairman Comer. Thank you. I now recognize Ms. [Goona-sah-
ray].
Ms. Gunasekara. [Goon-a-say-ka-rah]. Thank you.
Chairman Comer. Say that one more time. It is going to----
Ms. Gunasekara. It is all right. Gunasekara.
Chairman Comer. That is what I meant.
Ms. Gunasekara. That is what you all said.
Chairman Comer. All right. Thank you. Sorry.
Ms. Gunasekara. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF MANDY GUNASEKARA
FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Ms. Gunasekara. Chairman Comer, thank you for being here
today. Ranking Member Raskin, it really is an honor to be with
all of you all and fellow Members of the Committee.
I have a prepared opening statement that I will get into in
just a second, but, Ranking Member Raskin, you reiterated and
have created a boogeyman that just is not there. I did author
the EPA chapter on Project 2025, but in the course of that, I
did not work with President Trump, with any of the people who
work for him directly, or his campaign. And it is very
misleading to suggest that there is any coordination there
because I can personally tell you it did not happen. And I am
not vying for a position in the next Administration. I have
actually left D.C., and I have moved to a small town in
Mississippi where I interact every day with people who live
outside this bubble of gaslighting and misleading, and they
actually are dealing with the consequences caused by policy
decisions of this Administration that is not defined by
progress, but defined by creating unnecessary hardship.
I understand why it is hard to think about the political
realm prior to President Trump, but the Heritage Foundation has
been very involved in pushing forward conservative policies for
quite a while, and the mandate for leadership, the latest
iteration, it is the 9th edition. This is a project that has
been put out every few years since 1981. So, it has been around
for quite some time and, again, is more committed to
representing the position of the broader conservative movement
than any one candidate or person. And I understand why there is
the creation of this boogeyman because your leading candidate
is the one running away from policy actions she has taken that
make Americans' lives much more difficult.
In fact, Vice President Kamala Harris was recently asked on
national television the following question: When it comes to
the economy, do you believe Americans are better off than they
were 4 years ago? She said a lot of words, but she did not
answer the question because the reality is most Americans are
not better off. Most Americans are struggling to deal with
expensive gas, expensive electricity, and high-cost goods and
groceries that have created financial burdens that Americans
have had to deal with throughout the Biden-Harris
Administration. Their day one energy policies are a key driver
behind Americans' increasing financial distress. From President
Biden's promise to end all fossil fuels, alongside Vice
President Kamala Harris' commitment to ban fracking, Americans
have suffered under their radical agenda. From the energy
perspective, this has included locking up development of
resources and demonizing industries, mainly coal, oil, and
natural gas that still provide 80 percent of our daily energy
needs.
A recent report from the Institute of Energy Research has
been tracking these actions, and they have found that since
January 2021, President Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris,
and congressional Democrats have taken over 250 actions that
make it harder to produce energy in America. This has included
stopping construction of the Keystone XL pipeline that
immediately cut 11,000 domestic jobs, including thousands of
union jobs; issuing a moratorium on new oil and gas permits on
Federal lands; greenlighting Putin's Nord Stream 2 pipeline
while shuttering the development of U.S. pipelines along the
East Coast; rejoining the disastrous Paris climate agreement
that is squeezing out U.S. jobs; and increasing the regulatory
burden on American companies; launching a war on household
appliances that are now 34 percent more expensive than 15 years
ago; blocking the Twin Metals mine; shuttering U.S. steelworker
jobs in Minnesota; and cutting off access to critical minerals
that we need more and more of.
And instead, this Administration is making us more and more
dependent on China; slowing permits for LNG facilities from an
average of 7 weeks to 11 months, then completely halting
permits for new LNG facilities altogether; mandating that
Americans drive electric vehicles, despite growing market
resistance; infrastructure shortfalls; and a preference for
more affordable and reliable gas-powered vehicles. Americans
are dealing with the consequences of these actions every time
they put gas in their car, pay their electricity bills, or go
to the grocery store. Now, this is not necessary for purposes
of protecting the environment or saving future generations from
climate change. I know this because during the Trump
Administration, we were able to grow the economy, create jobs,
reduce emissions, and address legacy environmental issues. The
reality is that America needs more energy, and with the right
policies in place and a pragmatic mindset from our leaders, we
can build a strong economy that delivers lower cost for
consumers, protects the environment, and reverses the negative
financial consequences of the past 3 1/2 years.
Again, thank you for your time, and I look forward to your
questions.
Chairman Comer. Very good. Thank you. Now I recognize Ms.
Perryman.
STATEMENT OF SKYE PERRYMAN
PRESIDENT AND CEO
DEMOCRACY FORWARD
Ms. Perryman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking
Member. Thank you for the invitation to testify here today. My
name is Skye Perryman. I am a lawyer and the President and CEO
of Democracy Forward, which is a nonpartisan, nonprofit
organization that promotes democracy and progress through
litigation, regulatory engagement, policy, education, research,
and commitment to the rule of law. Democracy Forward has had
the privilege of representing clients that make up the very
fabric of this country and across the Nation, including
parents, teachers, workers, small businesses, scientists,
veterans, voters, and many more. Our team is committed to our
country's founding idea that our government does derive its
power from the consent of the governed, and we are dedicated to
bringing about our democracy's promise that the government must
work for all people.
American democracy is at an inflection point, and it is in
a crisis that threatens our freedoms. In the months following
an attempt by extremists to disrupt the peaceful transition of
Presidential power, on January 6, 2021, the United States was
added to a list of global backsliding democracies by the
International Institute of Democracy and Electoral Assistance.
The report noted, ``The United States, a bastion of global
democracy, fell victim to authoritarian tendencies.'' Myriad
factors have contributed to this, including the rejection of an
election result by an incumbent President, scholars have noted,
and an attempted insurrection against this legislative branch.
Last year, 13 of our Presidential libraries in the United
States, from President Hoover's Library to President Bush's
Library to President Obama's Library, warned of the fragile
state of United States' democracy.
These threats to our democracy and freedoms enjoyed by the
American people are not academic, and they are not hyperbole.
In 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed a Federal
constitutional privacy protection that had been recognized for
nearly 5 decades, leaving women of reproductive age in the
United States with fewer rights than the generation just before
them. Across the Nation, women are living without access to the
critical care they need, including in emergency situations.
Book bans are on the rise in our Nation and communities across
the country. Misinformation and disinformation continues to be
rampant and perpetuated by far-right groups and political
actors, often targeting families and communities, including
those that have immigrated to the United States, and political
violence that is on the rise. And, yes, Mr. Ranking Member, gun
violence continues to be a scourge in our education system and
across the country.
Just 2 years after former President Trump and his allies
refused to acknowledge the results of the 2020 election,
reports began to surface that the former President and his
associates were planning a shadow government and developing
extensive policy plans to remake American government as we know
it. These and related efforts, including the development of a
922-page document known as Project 2025, have been well
documented. Proposals in Project 2025 represent profound
threats to the American people, to our freedoms, and to our
democracy.
Democracy Forward has published a ``People's Guide to
Project 2025'' to expose many of the policies that undermine
the well-being of the American people, which the authors of the
Project purport to say a President could do on day one of an
Administration. Those policies include, but are not limited to,
the weaponization of the Department of Justice against the
American people; the politicizing of our civil service;
undermining the government's ability to work for the American
people; enabling discrimination across society; making it
harder for Americans to make ends meet, including Americans in
rural areas, through taking overtime eligibility away from
millions of American workers; denying our climate crisis;
undermining and delegitimizing our public education; and
failing to address gun violence, childcare crisis, and many
other crises in this country.
Project 2025 is not hypothetical. It and other extreme
proposals are already taking hold at the state and community
level in many communities across the country and are being
pursued in the courts. Anti-democratic actors are using the
states to incubate and normalize Project 2025 and other
extremist tactics. Many of the same groups that have supported
regressions of our Federal rights, including the overturning of
Roe v. Wade, restricting voting rights, and undermining our
government's ability to work for the people, are behind this
project. And in many cases, these groups and aligned far-right
attorneys generals [sic] are seeking to undermine the progress
and policies of the Biden-Harris Administration in the courts
and in communities across the country.
It is incredibly important that this Congress understand
the threats posed by Project 2025 and the harms of far-right
extremism and anti-Democratic movements that are afoot in this
country. I provide this testimony today and look forward to
your questions with the sincere hope that it is through
understanding this crisis that we can build for a better
tomorrow. I look forward to your questions, and thank you for
having me.
Chairman Comer. And let me remind everyone that the purpose
of this hearing is to dissect the policies of the Biden-Harris
Administration, and if there is an opportunity and some want to
defend those policies, this is the perfect forum to do that.
So, again, I look forward to a very substantive hearing, and I
will begin with questions. I recognize myself.
Mr. Krikorian, you mentioned what I think is one of the
biggest failures in policy of any administration, and that is
the disaster at the Southern border, and I know that Vice
President Harris has kind of flip-flopped. Four years ago, she
implied that the border wall was racist, and now she is
featuring it in campaign ads. One of the first policies enacted
was the halting the construction of the border wall. You have
stated in your remarks that you believe that was their policy
to have an open border policy. It was not incompetence. This
was their specific intent. One of the arguments that some of my
colleagues make is that there was a bill that would have fixed
the border crisis. Now, would that bill have solved the border
crisis? I guess it was the one the Oklahoma senator and
whomever was in the Senate, that was the Senate bill. Would
that have solved the crisis?
Mr. Krikorian. Yes, that was Senator Lankford's bill, and,
no, it would not have solved the crisis. H.R. 2, which this
body passed, would have been much more effective in that
regard. The Senate so-called bipartisan bill, first of all, was
drafted by the Biden-Harris DHS, basically, and it was a joint
effort of a Democrat, a Republican, and an independent, and I
have every reason to believe they were actually trying to craft
something constructive.
Chairman Comer. Right, but----
Mr. Krikorian. But neither they nor their staffs have the--
--
Chairman Comer. Right.
Mr. Krikorian [continuing]. Depth of knowledge on
immigration, and so they ended up getting basically----
Chairman Comer. So, it would not have solved the problem?
Mr. Krikorian. Right. No, it would have codified some of--
--
Chairman Comer. Right.
Mr. Krikorian [continuing]. The illegal actions that----
Chairman Comer. Exactly. Commissioner Carr, you have
vocally criticized the Biden Administration's very expensive
$42 million BEAD Program. Who is primarily to blame for this
program's lack of meaningful follow-through, and what are the
causes of these? We spent all this money for broadband access,
and I know my district desperately needs that, but no one is
getting broadband. No one is benefiting from this. What is
going on with that? What is this Administration done with
that----
Mr. Carr. Yes, I think we----
Chairman Comer [continuing]. Forty-two billion dollars?
Mr. Carr. The reason why we are having $42 billion
allocated, 1,039 days in, and not a single person connected is
because the Administration, under Vice President Harris'
leadership, has prioritized a progressive wish list of issues.
They want to put DEI requirements in place. They want to put
price controls in place. They want government-run networks. So,
it has taken time to put those requirements in place, and that
has delayed the actual turning of dirt.
Chairman Comer. That is so bad. It is such a huge issue in
Kentucky, and Congress allocated $42 billion, yet no one has
benefited from this. That is what the purpose of this Committee
is about: waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement of the Federal
Government. If someone on the other side wants to defend this
BEAD Program, I am anxious when they get their 5 minutes.
Ms. Mobbs, I believe the Chinese Communist Party is the
biggest threat we have to the United States.
Dr. Mobbs. Uh-huh.
Chairman Comer. Do you believe the Biden-Harris
Administration is still approaching the Chinese Communist Party
as a competitor instead of an adversary? And how has their
approach contributed to the CCP's increased infiltration and
influence operations, such as flying a spy balloon over our
country, buying up land close to U.S. military bases, and
increased aggression toward Taiwan?
Dr. Mobbs. So, I do feel that we are approaching it as
competition versus looking them as an adversary, which I said
in my opening statement. It is critical for us to develop
policies to effectively begin to deter and counter them as an
adversary. Unfortunately, we have had weak deterrence in the
Indo-Pacific. The U.S. naval fleet in the Pacific is crucial
for countering China's growing military presence. We have the
lowest number of ships since the cold war, and that rapid naval
expansion poses a significant threat, and the Biden
Administration has, unfortunately, been slow to increase
military investments in that region.
We have also failed to mitigate Chinese economic dominance
via maintaining tariffs or failing to do so from economic
sanctions. We have had an inadequate response to cyber threats,
and we have missed opportunities for strategic diplomacy that
could help us establish a winning strategy with our
counterparts.
Chairman Comer. Uh-huh.
Dr. Mobbs. So, in essence, we are failing to win in this
strategy.
Chairman Comer. Right.
Dr. Mobbs. We are looking at managing the competition
versus dominating.
Chairman Comer. Right. Very good. We talked about the
border crisis. We have talked about misappropriating $42
billion in taxpayer dollars. We published a report last week
where $200 billion was lost to fraud during COVID in the
Unemployment Insurance Program. We talked about the lack of
seriousness and the soft-on-China policies of this
Administration. Last, I want to ask about the Green New Deal
because when Vice President Harris was campaigning for
President, she was an advocate of the Green New Deal. Ms.
Gunasekara, what would happen, what would our energy grid look
like, what would America look like if Vice President Harris was
able to implement the Green New Deal?
Ms. Gunasekara. Well, we have a snapshot of what that would
look like because under the leadership of President Biden and
Vice President Kamala Harris, the agencies have been largely
implementing pieces of the Green New Deal, and so the resulting
effect is increased cost energy and a less reliable grid, and
also, no real tangible benefit to show in terms of reducing
overall emissions. So, it is quite counterintuitive to the
purported and stated goals of the Green New Deal to improve the
environment.
What you have actually seen, is that you have had
electricity prices go up. Most recently, home heating oil is up
36 percent, electricity up is up 32 percent, and natural gas is
up 25 percent. This is all a direct result of policies coming
from agencies run by the Biden-Harris officials, agencies
enacting regulations that put the squeeze on these operations,
inject politics, and manifest itself in increased prices on the
American people, expanding financial burdens.
Chairman Comer. So, and I am going to give the Ranking
Member an extra minute and a half, so is it safe to say the
Kamala Harris Green New Deal would contribute as much to
increased inflation as the Democrats' Inflation Reduction Act
has?
Ms. Gunasekara. Well, yes, certainly, and I know you recall
she was the tie-breaking vote that passed the Inflation
Reduction Act. But yes, the Green New Deal, when energy prices
go up, the price of everything else goes up, and when you are
in the inflationary economy, everyone dealing with it, makes it
that much worse.
Chairman Comer. Yes. Thank you. I now yield 6 1/2 minutes
to the Ranking Member.
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman, thank you kindly. For the record,
it is [Kah'-mah-la] Harris and not [Kim-ah'-la]. And so, I
mean, we take it as an honest mistake, but I think everybody on
the Committee is capable of saying our----
Chairman Comer. You know, I have trouble with a lot of last
names.
Mr. Raskin. I gotcha.
Chairman Comer. That is a characteristic from Appalachia. I
apologize.
Mr. Raskin. Well, I remember when I hiked the Appalachian
Trail, they said if you call it [Apple-ate'-tcha], they will
throw an apple-atcha, so.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Raskin. All right. Back to you, Ms. Gunasekara, and I
just want to get this straight. Nobody here has disavowed their
own connection to Project 2025, in the big report that I am
calling the MAGA Manifesto, but the big book. Donald Trump is
trying to backpedal right now. What he said when he was at the
Heritage Foundation is our country is going to hell. The
critical job of institutions such as ``Harrige's''--and
admittedly, he called Heritage ``Harrige's'', but we know he
meant Heritage--is to lay the groundwork. `And ``Harrige's''
does such an incredible job at that,' he said, `they are going
to lay the groundwork and detailed plans for exactly what our
movement will do and what your movement will do when the
American people give us a colossal mandate to save America.'
Are you not proud of your association with Donald Trump and the
fact that he seems to be embracing Project 2025?
Ms. Gunasekara. It was an honor of my life to serve
President Trump at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
And the work that I have put into Project 2025 is a result of
that experience and lessons learned that I think would be
extremely beneficial to trying to advance the cause of the
conservative movement, to reduce the government, ensure that
the voice of the people to----
Mr. Raskin. Just to interrupt for a second. So, your
contribution to the Project 2025 Report is something you are
proud of, right?
Ms. Gunasekara. Yes. Yes.
Mr. Raskin. And you are proud of the association with
Donald Trump?
Ms. Gunasekara. Again, I disagree with the way that you are
asking that question.
Mr. Raskin. Well, OK.
Ms. Gunasekara. I understand what you are trying to do
here. You are trying to create a----
Mr. Raskin. I am just trying to get to the facts, that is
all, because everybody seems to be backpedaling from what seems
completely obvious. Donald Trump praised Project 2025. He said
that this ``lays the groundwork and details the plans for what
our movement will do,'' and now all of a sudden, everybody
wants to run away from that. Well, Mr. Krikorian, let me come
to you. I was interested in your little exchange about the
Senate immigration deal. We had a bipartisan border agreement,
which Donald Trump blew up at the last minute because he did
not want a border solution. He wanted a border crisis to run
on, but in any event, are you denying that the people at the
border, who work at the border, wanted that deal, wanted the
immigration deal?
Mr. Krikorian. The now-former Chairman of or head of the
Border Patrol union endorsed it, and my sense was that--I have
not talked to him about it--but that it was because it offered
extra, you know, pay, and that is the----
Mr. Raskin. Well, I will help you out.
Mr. Krikorian. OK.
Mr. Raskin. ``As Conservatives Balk, U.S. Border Patrol
Union Endorses Senate Immigration Deal.''
Mr. Krikorian. Yep.
Mr. Raskin. That is, the union for everybody who works at
the border wanted it. There are people who want to politicize
the border and do not want a solution there because they would
prefer to engage in scapegoating and immigrant bashing and
stereotyping and so on. But we had what conservative senators
were describing as a great deal, and yet, that that was
destroyed, and that is unfortunate, but it demonstrates the
real lack of commitment to make something happen there.
Ms. Mobbs, I wanted to come to you. I was very interested
in your remarks about Ukraine. From what you were saying, it
indicated to me that, unlike Donald Trump and unlike J.D.
Vance, you actually support Ukraine's effort to repel Vladimir
Putin's filthy imperialist invasion of their country. Is that
right? Do you support Ukraine against Putin?
Dr. Mobbs. I do support Ukraine against Putin.
Mr. Raskin. OK. So, you would disavow the positions taken
by Trump and J.D. Vance who say they do not care? J.D. Vance
said he does not care. He does not give a damn about the people
of Ukraine.
Dr. Mobbs. I cannot speak to their position outside of what
I witnessed in the first debate when President Trump
specifically stated that he did not and would not concede any
territory to Vladimir Putin.
Mr. Raskin. He did say that?
Dr. Mobbs. He did in his first debate.
Mr. Raskin. OK. I thought his position was he is going to
solve this on day one, basically by letting Putin have what he
wants, but I am glad to hear it if that is his position. It is
certainly not the position being taken by MAGA Republicans, as
you know, who have opposed and consistently voted against aid
to the Ukrainian people. So, that is different. All right.
Let me come to you, Mr. Carr, because I know you are on the
FCC right now. You did not disclaim the possibility of becoming
Chairman of the FCC, and that is cool. Everybody has got
ambitions. And you have not disclaimed your connection to
Project 2025 or to Donald Trump, but here is what I want to ask
you about. When Donald Trump said after his--I think everybody
can concede--world-class, dreadful, terrible, and pathetic
performance in the Presidential debate, he wanted to blame ABC
for it, and he called on the FCC to take away ABC's license,
OK? In January, he called for revocation of NBC's license
because he felt that they cut short his full victory speech
after he won the heavily contested Iowa caucus, OK? If you were
Chair of the FCC and Donald Trump, per usual, called you from
the Oval Office or called upon the FCC to demand the revocation
of a license for ABC or NBC because he had a political problem
with something they had done, what would your reaction be? It
is an honest question. How would you deal with that?
Mr. Carr. I thank you for the question. I do not know about
all the premises in there, but I will tell you----
Mr. Raskin. Well, they are all true, but I can give you the
documentation if you want.
Mr. Carr. Speaking of the hypothetical about the future
that you were laying out, I am not sort of speaking to a
hypothetical future, but I can tell you where I am right now,
which is, look, I have been nominated by President Trump. I
have been nominated by President Biden. I have been vetted by
the Senate three times. I have been confirmed unanimously. In
all of those contexts I have been asked repeatedly very similar
versions of this question. I have said going all the way back
to 2017, every single decision that I make on the FCC will be
based on the FCC's precedent, Federal law, and the First
Amendment. I have said it repeatedly, and I have acted
consistent with that.
Mr. Raskin. OK. And so just to be a little more specific,
you would agree that the President has no authority to order a
Federal commission or agency to engage in an action of a
political or partisan nature?
Mr. Carr. Again, what I have said is, anything that comes
from the White House, whether it is Republican or Democrat,
every action that I will take----
Mr. Raskin. Yes?
Mr. Carr [continuing]. At the FCC is the same that I have
done over the last 6 years, which is apply the law consistent
with the First Amendment.
Mr. Raskin. All right. So, are you disavowing the so-called
unitary executive theory that is being propounded by Project
2025, that everything that happens in the executive branch of
government, including commission and agency action, is directly
under the political control of the President of the United
States?
Chairman Comer. And the gentleman's time has----
Mr. Raskin. Yes.
Chairman Comer [continuing]. Expired by a lot, but if you
want to answer it, you can. If you do not, you do not have to.
We could----
Mr. Raskin. Could you answer the----
Chairman Comer. All right.
Mr. Raskin. Yes.
Mr. Carr. This is not an issue that I have spoken to
publicly. It is not something that I have addressed.
Mr. Raskin. That is why I am asking you now, you know. Do
you disavow?
Chairman Comer. I was gracious with your time.
Mr. Raskin. Oh.
Chairman Comer. You have went a minute over, 7 1/2 minutes.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Grothman from Wisconsin.
Mr. Grothman. Sure. First of all, I just give you a
historical quote to start things off. They asked Benjamin
Franklin on the Constitution, and he said he was giving the
American people a republic, if they can keep it. So, every 4
years, we got to fight to keep that republic.
Now, Mr. Carr, you kind of were interesting there, in which
you implied that the Biden Administration is intentionally or
spent a long time not enforcing our border law and, therefore,
apparently intentionally trying to get as many people here as
possible, which would be one way to change the country that we
have permanently. Another way would be to try to get rid of the
middle class. And one of you--was it Ms. Mobbs or Ms.
Gunasekara who mentioned the electric vehicle thing? That is
you? I think a vehicle, a car, is something that Americans
really need today to get around, I guess, unless you are in New
York City or something. Question I have for you. This electric
car thing, do you have any idea how much it is going to
increase the cost of a car?
Ms. Gunasekara. Well, again, we have a snapshot because the
price of vehicles has already increased substantially to the
point where a lot of Americans are priced out of purchasing new
cars. It ranges from $10,000 to $30,000, depending on the
chassis and what manufacturer you are ultimately looking at.
But the reality is, when Americans are priced out of buying new
cars, they drive older cars longer, so all of the benefits you
would try to achieve by improving efficiency standards are not
realized because the changeover is not actually achieved.
Mr. Grothman. OK. As I understand it, the cost of insurance
is also dramatically higher for an electric car. Is that right?
Ms. Gunasekara. Yes, absolutely, and there are a lot of
questions, too, with regard to replacing whether or not an
electric vehicle is totaled once it is involved in a fender
bender. That typically is a quick fix for a regular gas-powered
vehicle. And then when the life of the battery again, this
ranges everywhere from 3 years to 10 years, what actually
happens with the end of life, the recycling piece of that, and
that all adds to considerations on insurance. And what we have
seen recently as the trend is the price continues to go up.
Mr. Grothman. Right. I also heard yesterday for the first
time--I was not aware of this--these electric cars that people
are going to have to buy, they depreciate quicker than the
standard car. Have you ever heard that?
Ms. Gunasekara. Yes, I have heard that as well. Again, I
would just look at consumer preference. It is not necessarily
about picking one technology over the other. It is what do the
consumers want, and when it comes to mobility, they want an
affordable, reliable car that safely gets them and their family
from point A to point B. And increasingly, Americans are saying
no to electric vehicles that this Administration is pushing,
alongside state-based regulations like California that is
looking to ban the sale of gas-powered vehicles starting in 5
to 7 years from now.
Mr. Grothman. It is a difficult thing to wonder, but given
that people need a car, the combination of driving up the cost
of a new car, driving down the amount you are getting in a
trade-in, and the dramatic increase you are going to have to
pay in insurance, it is going to make it much more difficult to
be members of the middle class in America than before these
cars, don't you think?
Ms. Gunasekara. Yes, absolutely. And again, point A to
point B is usually taking your kids to school or driving to
your job and coming back, going to the grocery store and coming
back, aspects that are fundamental to create a thriving and
healthy home. And you have to think, too, what is all of this
for? Why is this Administration and, the Biden-Harris
Administration, so keen on pushing Americans into electric
vehicles? They say it is to reduce emissions and for their
climate agenda, but the reality is the majority of the minerals
that go into these batteries are sourced from areas like China
where they have appalling environmental standards. They violate
basic norms of humanitarian standards and rely on either forced
or child labor to extract these minerals. So, if you think big
picture, it actually undermines some fundamental goals that all
Americans, Republican or Democrats, have fought very hard to
seek some degree of improvement.
Mr. Grothman. Yes. Another way that you try to get rid of
the middle class is you cause inflation by spending huge
amounts of money that we do not have, and I want to give you an
example of that. We talk about the huge cost of inflation from
the so-called Inflation Reduction Act, but it is forgotten that
the Democrat party, if it were not for Senator Manchin,
actually wanted to have this bill be three times the cost of
the bill that was eventually passed. What effect would have
that had on inflation if the vast majority of Democrats got
what they wanted, including, apparently, President Biden? What
effect would have that had on inflation? Would have been much
worse than we already saw?
Chairman Comer. The gentleman's time is expired, but please
feel free to answer that.
Ms. Gunasekara. Yes, I would just summarize it. I think
everyone has done a good job on this side of the dais, but it
would make Americans lives that much harder because of the
financial hardships and burdens that have been experienced
during the Biden-Harris Administration and their disregard for
inflation that was predicted, especially with the passage of
the Inflation Reduction Act and how that has manifested itself
in more expensive gas, groceries, and everyday goods.
Mr. Grothman. Just one other brief comment.
Chairman Comer. OK.
Mr. Grothman. A comment was made about the Republicans
trying to ban books. Usually, I think that when Republicans try
to ban books, it is explicit books for sex-ed class for
elementary school kids. I do not think a lot of people realize
that when Democrats talk about that, that is what they mean.
Chairman Comer. Thank you. All right. The Chair now
recognizes Ms. Norton from Washington, DC.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Perryman, this
question is for you. The Biden-Harris Administration landmark
Inflation Reduction Act and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law
provided historic investments in our communities and America's
future. Under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, the Biden-
Harris Administration has announced $480 billion for over
60,000 projects to date, including upgrading bridges in
Kentucky, replacing lead pipes in Detroit, and new and ungraded
rail tracks from North Carolina to Virginia. On September 5,
2024, President Biden and the U.S. Department of Agriculture
announced a $7.3 billion investment for clean energy in rural
communities, including in Kentucky, Ohio, Texas, and Florida,
made possible by the Inflation Reduction Act.
So, Ms. Perryman, how has the Biden-Harris Administration's
focus on investing in America through landmark legislation,
like the Inflation Reduction Act and the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law, helped communities across the country?
Ms. Perryman. Well, I think they are tremendous
achievements, and we have seen investment job growth, hundreds
of thousands of jobs that have been reported. By the way, at
the same time that we are seeing a multiyear low in inflation,
which many economists did not think was particularly possible
to be able to keep unemployment relatively low, build jobs,
create new jobs at the same time, while also reducing inflation
to multiyear lows. So, those are some policy highlights. But
other things that are worth highlighting is the work that the
Infrastructure Act has done to connect communities that have
been traditionally left out of these infrastructure bills.
Where infrastructure has been built and has actually torn
communities apart, and highways that have run through
communities and displaced people, the IRA, or the
Infrastructure Act, did a lot of work in order to invest
specifically in those communities that had been left out, and
so those are some of the highlights.
The other thing is, with respect to healthcare, the
Inflation Reduction Act, of course, has made tremendous strides
toward making our medications more affordable by allowing
Medicare to negotiate drug prices, which is something, of
course, Project 2025 calls on repealing for all Americans,
including the middle class.
Ms. Norton. Would you call these investment policies
failures or successes?
Ms. Perryman. You know, I think that it is not just me that
would call them a success, but I think Nobel laureate
economists have called them successes, as have communities
across America, including in home states like my state of
Texas, that are seeing a lot of investment in their
communities.
Ms. Norton. Well, investments like these and others through
the Inflation Reduction Act have led to the creation of more
than 330,000 good-paying and union clean-energy jobs since the
law was enacted a little over 2 years ago. In total, the Biden-
Harris Administration's leadership has led to more than 775,000
new manufacturing jobs, while 200,000 manufacturing jobs were
lost under the Trump Administration. Ms. Perryman, do policies
that create good-paying union jobs benefit Americans?
Ms. Perryman. They certainly do, and that is one of the
concerns that we have with a number of these far-right policies
that you see in Project 2025 that are really seeking to repeal
that progress.
Ms. Norton. Would you say this is a failure or a success?
Ms. Perryman. Creating jobs in the United States,
particularly good jobs, is always, always a success.
Ms. Norton. Another highlight of the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law is the Broadband Equity Access and
Deployment Program, and do not just take my word for it. We
know Republican Governors think so, too. I have a packet of
press releases and statements from 12 Republican Governors,
including the Governors of Alaska, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana,
Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Vermont,
Virginia, and West Virginia, celebrating the money they will
receive through this program to connect rural communities in
their states to high-speed internet.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to submit these 12
press releases and statements into the record.
Chairman Comer. Without objection. So, ordered.
Ms. Norton. Thank you. I am grateful for the Biden-Harris
Administration's leadership investing in American communities
and American workers. I am also proud to have passed the
Inflation Reduction and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law that have
made these investments properly possible. And I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Sessions from
Texas.
Mr. Sessions. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I want to
go to Meaghan Mobbs if I can, please, first. Maybe the only
one, but the time we have.
We have heard a lot of discussion about families, women,
safety, people being able to afford housing, people being able
to afford a job that they may have to drive to, middle America,
families, women, children, education. Can you please talk to us
what, I believe, is about the Administration's excessive
spending that has caused inflation, a border that is open where
we do not have enough housing for people, cities and crime
impacting our schools and communities, and last, the attack on
women that has occurred by allowing transgenders to compete
against women, thus taking away their opportunity to find
success at even national championships? Can you give us an
overlay of that? We know that you are here today to talk about
Center for American Safety, Security, and Independence. I think
they are taking this away from middle-class America.
Dr. Mobbs. Thank you, Congressman. I appreciate the
question, and specifically, I am here to talk about kind of
foreign policy and national security failures. And what I can
say about that is that when we fail to demonstrate safety and
security both at home and abroad, the most vulnerable are
always impacted, and the most vulnerable are typically the
elderly, women, and children. And we are seeing an inability of
women to feel safe in their communities. There is the
perception that crime is on the rise, there is the perception
that schools are unsafe, and certainly when we perceive our
lives to be unsafe, you act in accordance with that. There is a
reason why one of the largest-growing gun ownership is actually
Black women because of feelings of safety. So, certainly, there
is an eradication of feelings of safety, security here in
America.
I think it is important to also recognize what I said in my
opening statement, that it is not just here at home that women
and girls are being impacted. It is women and girls abroad who
are being impacted by these failed foreign policies, and they
are often placed in these vulnerable positions as well because
we are not demonstrating substantial leadership.
Mr. Sessions. Thank you very much. Mr. Carr, I live within
that area that is not fully compatible with broadband and have
several counties that are completely without the ability to
have broadband, and yet, I am understanding $42 billion has
been spent by the Administration, and it is not out there. It
is not happening. And the Democrats love to talk about all this
money that they spend, but I think it is a lot like President
Obama, where he had, back in 2009, all this $787 billion that
had to be spent within 6 weeks, and you cannot even engineer a
project in that time. Why is it that this $42 billion has not
taken hold of giving people what they needed now to compete?
Mr. Carr. I think we have now gone to the opposite extreme.
If you look at Texas alone, they are supposed to get $3.3
billion of the $42 billion to connect somewhere in the order of
628,000 homes and businesses that have nothing today, so
millions of Texans. And what has happened is, rather than
focusing on quickly turning dirt or otherwise connecting
Americans, they have spent time and wasted time adopting these
DEI preferences, these climate change agendas, price controls.
You know, we heard about some Governors that supported
this. Yes, everybody was excited about this. Once it was
passed, the money was going to be spent. Every state wanted to
benefit. They deserve to benefit. But Virginia, for instance,
they were the first out of the gate, put their first
application in. You know what happened? They had to wait and
sit around while the Biden Administration, under Vice President
Harris' leadership, tried to force them to put in price
controls that the state did not want to do. So, the good news
is all this money has not been spent. It is largely still
sitting there. There is time to correct course. Let us get rid
of the extraneous political goals and just connect Americans.
Mr. Sessions. It seems like to me that this is something
that Republicans have gathered, and that is almost why the
Supreme Court said, as it relates to the issue of abortion, we
will let local people make their own decisions. We will provide
the money, provide basic parameters around it, and let the
states go and get things done. I think it is a model that is
going to gain power this next year. Mr. Chairman, I yield back
my time.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes Mr. Lynch from Massachusetts.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want
to clear up one part of the record. This Committee actually had
jurisdiction over the negotiations that the Trump
Administration conducted for the withdrawal from Afghanistan.
They negotiated directly, unilaterally with the Taliban, and
from the very beginning, the status of Afghan women and girls
was not a priority for the Administration until this Committee,
and I was the Chairman, called Zalmay Khalilzad, the Special
Ambassador for the Trump Administration, came to this
Committee. And in a bipartisan fashion--I believe Mr. Sessions
was the Member of the Committee at the time--we insisted that
four women would be appointed to represent the voices of Afghan
women and girls. And after that, we received a letter that I am
going to ask to have submitted to the record.
They thanked the Members of this Committee on both sides
for having--here it is--to having women appointed to that
negotiation. And look, that was from the very beginning, and
the Trump Administration said the status of women and girls in
Afghanistan would not be a priority for our negotiating team.
Let me leave it at that.
So, we are on the heels of a 2-year sham impeachment that
failed to yield any evidence of wrongdoing by President Biden
whatsoever, and now Republican leadership has turned their
focus to Vice President Harris and the border. I do want to
review the facts. Earlier this year, a group of Republican and
Democratic senators announced that they had worked out, with
the Biden-Harris Administration, a deal to negotiate and
develop a bipartisan national security agreement. Importantly,
this agreement proposed the most comprehensive border security
reforms in nearly 30 years, including $20 billion to add more
than 5,000 Customs and Border Protection personnel at the
border. It also included critical provisions, including
cutting-edge detection technology, to combat fentanyl
distribution and human trafficking, and it codified the power
of any President to shut down the border in an emergency.
President Biden stated he would sign the legislation upon
passage. Vice President Harris urged Congress to set political
gamesmanship aside and urgently pass the agreement to secure
the border. No one--no one--agreed that the bill was perfect,
but everyone agreed it would greatly improve the situation.
Unfortunately, former President Trump felt differently. As
reported by various Republican Members of Congress, he sought
to kill the bipartisan border deal to keep the issue alive
purely for his own political gain.
According to Republican Senator Mitt Romney, former
Governor of my state, and, if anything, an honest man, he said,
``Former President Trump indicated to senators that he does not
want us to solve the problem at the border. He wants to lay the
blame for the border at Biden's feet, and the idea that someone
running for President would say please hurt the country so I
can blame my opponent and help my politics is a shocking
development.'' The former President's opposition to the deal
even led Republican senator, Thom Tillis, to warn his
Republican colleagues, ``It is immoral for me to think you look
the other way because you think this is the linchpin for
President Trump's efforts to win the White House.''
Unsurprisingly, however, this Republican-led House did look the
other way, with Speaker Johnson killing the bipartisan deal
before the text was even available to the House.
Ms. Perryman, Vice President Harris has committed to
signing the bipartisan border security agreement into law if
she is elected, even while acknowledging that it is not a
perfect deal. How does Trump's ability to shut down the
democratic process and the Republicans inability or
unwillingness to stand up for their constituents affect the
representative nature of our democracy?
Ms. Perryman. This is one of the most unfortunate trends
that we have. I mean, the bipartisan border deal was something
that if you got a bunch of people together, they would agree on
some parts of it, disagree on other parts of it because it was
the product of compromise, which has always been a hallmark of
legislation in this country because that is what we are. We are
a country of compromise, and we are a country that gets things
done.
Our Congress has not been able to do that, unfortunately,
and as a result of not being able to pass this legislation, we
know that there is harm and that the crisis is not being
addressed. So, I think it is a deeply troubling outgrowth of
broader polarization that we see, and this is exactly why I
think so many of the Presidential libraries are saying we have
to have some type of role in American politics to restore
compromise and understanding how to work across the aisle in
disagreements.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. The Chair
recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Donalds.
Mr. Donalds. Thank you, Chairman. Actually, I am glad we
are coming in at this time because we need to set the record
straight about the Senate bill, and actually, H.R. 2.
When the Senate bill was actually published, I remember I
was at a dinner Sunday night when the text came out. I read the
text of the Senate bill. Many Members in the House read the
text of the Senate bill. Members contacted Speaker Johnson, and
we were very clear: there is no way the Senate bill should get
a vote in the House because it is a terrible piece of
legislation that will not secure the Southern border.
House Republicans have passed border security measures,
H.R. 2. We did it more than a year ago. Has Chuck Schumer
brought it up for even debate or a vote in the Senate? No, he
has not. Has the White House decided to reach out to the
Speaker Johnson to debate and deliberate or negotiate or
compromise on H.R. 2 and its elements to secure the Southern
border? No, they have not. They are in charge in the Senate and
in the White House. They have done nothing except the bill that
could not even make it out of the Senate, so I think it is
important to set the record straight. Oh, also, by the way,
House Republicans were not going to vote for that bill, and
that was before Donald Trump even made his view known on the
Senate compromise bill. We were already against it when the
bill text came out because it is a trash bill.
Now, moving on. Ms. Gunasekara--I think I got it right--can
you explain to me what an environmental impact assessment is?
Ms. Gunasekara. Yes, certainly. It is an assessment a
Federal agency does to measure a proposed project's potential
impact on the environment.
Mr. Donalds. The Biden-Harris Administration, does their
EPA use environmental impact assessments?
Ms. Gunasekara. They do in some applications. Typically, it
is in the context of NEPA, which is in conjunction with other
Federal agencies, but yes.
Mr. Donalds. If you are trying to go through the process
of, let us say, limiting permit applications for leases that
have been extended to private drillers, would an environmental
impact assessment be the way that you would do that?
Ms. Gunasekara. It certainly is a tool that this
Administration has used. It is to analyze it to death or to
keep it in bureaucratic purgatory, which, with a lot of
important infrastructure projects, we have actually seen. This
Administration has backtracked on important infrastructure
improvements that we put in place to limit time for review, to
limit the scope of review, that this Administration, again, has
changed to the detriment of building out energy infrastructure
projects, highway infrastructure projects, and on and on.
Mr. Donalds. Would you argue that this Administration is
pretty adept at using these types of reviews to slow walk
energy development projects in the United States?
Ms. Gunasekara. The Biden-Harris Administration is an
expert at using the Federal Government and weaponizing those
processes to undermine the development of key energy projects
that we need.
Mr. Donalds. Thank you so much. Ms. Mobbs, I have a
question for you. You said in your opening testimony that there
have been embassies that have been lost/evacuated. How many
embassies have--I am going to just say evacuated--have been
evacuated under the Biden-Harris Administration?
Dr. Mobbs. There has been seven total evacuations, and then
there have been numerous partial evacuations.
Mr. Donalds. What is a partial evacuation of a U.S.
embassy?
Dr. Mobbs. It is when nonessential personnel are removed
for safety purposes and then can return later.
Mr. Donalds. What is going on in foreign policy in a
specific country that would require the United States to do a
partial evacuation of an embassy?
Dr. Mobbs. So, the situation would have deteriorated so
critically that they felt that they could not establish
protection for those nonessential personnel for them to be kind
of forced to leave.
Mr. Donalds. In any administration, let us say, the last 30
years, how many embassies have been lost over the last 30
years, evacuated either total or partial?
Dr. Mobbs. I do not have the number in front of me. I could
get it to you.
I think the important thing here, though, is that because
there is a historic number, it is because of the unprecedented
levels of chaos and instability and the inability of our State
Department, and certainly the executive, to project enough
strength and power to protect our embassies and our embassy
officials around the world.
Mr. Donalds. Would you say that this State Department has
done a fair job, an average job, a terrible job of getting
Americans out of harm's way in countries that are experiencing
serious security questions for the United States citizens?
Dr. Mobbs. I think we have seen substantial and significant
problems in a number of different theaters where the State
Department has failed to effectively plan to ensure that
American citizens are safely returned to their home.
Mr. Donalds. Do you think that in Afghanistan it was wise
for us to pull our troops out last and for the State Department
to not do everything possible to get Americans out before it
was turned over to the Taliban?
Dr. Mobbs. I deeply believe we should never leave an
American behind. I was a huge advocate of withdrawing from
Afghanistan. We were spending $2 trillion there, almost $300
million of U.S. taxpayer dollars there every day. But what we
saw was basically a catastrophic failure of the State
Department, of the DoD, of our intelligence agencies, of the
National Security Council, of the National Security Advisor, to
effectively coordinate an effective strategy to allow our
interests to remain and to get American citizens safely out.
Mr. Donalds. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes Mr. Connolly from Virginia.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Perryman, I am
going to try to cover a lot of territory, so let us be quick.
The gentlelady next to you decried the fact that the Biden
Administration is impeding energy production in the United
States. Do you happen to know what the daily oil and gas
production is in the United States right now?
Ms. Perryman. I do not have the precise point, but I know--
--
Mr. Connolly. Thirteen-point-four----
Ms. Perryman [continuing]. It has not been impeded.
Mr. Connolly. Thirteen-point-four million barrels. Is that
the largest in the world right now?
Ms. Perryman. I believe so.
Mr. Connolly. Is it also the largest in American history?
Ms. Perryman. I believe it is.
Mr. Connolly. And are we now exporting energy because we
have so much of it?
Ms. Perryman. We are.
Mr. Connolly. Are we, in fact, energy independent?
Ms. Perryman. I believe we are close.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you very much. So much for the failure
of the Biden Administration. Infrastructure. Also comments
about infrastructure. Did the Trump Administration have
numerous infrastructure weeks, we are going to promote
infrastructure 6, 12 times?
Ms. Perryman. They did.
Mr. Connolly. They did. Did they ever pass an
infrastructure bill?
Ms. Perryman. They did not.
Mr. Connolly. Did President Biden pass an infrastructure
bill?
Ms. Perryman. He did.
Mr. Connolly. Is it also the largest infrastructure bill in
American history?
Ms. Perryman. The Biden-Harris infrastructure bill is the
largest in American history.
Mr. Connolly. And pretty comprehensive. It covers lots of
different kinds of infrastructure. Is that correct?
Ms. Perryman. Many infrastructure and lots of investment.
Mr. Connolly. Right. Now, Ms. Moby [sic] has an interesting
revisionist history with respect to foreign policy, which
happens to be my beat. So, let us visit foreign policy.
Decrying Afghanistan. And so, I got to go back in history
because I remember my other committee having Ambassador
Khalilzad, who was the negotiator for President Trump on
Afghanistan. Is it true that the United States, under the Trump
Administration, had direct negotiations with the Taliban in
Doha and excluded the Afghan Government from that table and
those negotiations, the very government, purportedly, we were
there to support?
Ms. Perryman. That is true.
Mr. Connolly. Did that agreement that Ambassador Khalilzad,
on behalf of President Trump, negotiate with the Taliban, did
that also involve the release of 5,000 Taliban prisoners, many
of whom were in prison because they were suspected terrorists?
Ms. Perryman. Yes.
Mr. Connolly. Five thousand. Have I got that right?
Ms. Perryman. Those are the figures I am familiar with.
Mr. Connolly. And did that agreement also actually
stipulate a full and complete withdrawal of U.S. troops by May
2021?
Ms. Perryman. I recall that it did.
Mr. Connolly. Right, and did President Biden inherit all of
that?
Ms. Perryman. And more.
Mr. Connolly. And did he try to extend the withdrawal to
buy time to avoid the very chaos, unfortunately, we
experienced?
Ms. Perryman. That is what I understand.
Mr. Connolly. And do you think it would be fair to say
that, actually, if we are decrying what happened that summer,
we might want to look at the antecedents and the discouragement
and the demoralization of the Afghan Government and military
from resisting the Taliban, given the fact that the sponsor of
the Afghan Government, purportedly the United States, had
clearly abandoned that government? Would that be a fair
statement, do you think?
Ms. Perryman. I believe so.
Mr. Connolly. OK. She also talked about Ukraine, that,
somehow, we should have, you know, anticipated what was going
to happen. Was there a President of the United States who
withheld Javelin missiles necessary for the defense of Ukraine
and threatened to withhold all military assistance to Ukraine
until and unless the President of Ukraine, President Zelenskyy,
provided political dirt on a political opponent?
Ms. Perryman. I believe there was, and it was the former
President.
Mr. Connolly. And was that President, in fact, impeached
for that very phone conversation over that very issue?
Ms. Perryman. Yes.
Mr. Connolly. And would it be fair to say that that
development, that threat, and that withholding of weapons might
be construed, if you were Vladimir Putin and the Kremlin, as a
sign of weakness on the part of Ukraine and a sign that maybe
the United States was not going to be there should something
bad happen between Russia and Ukraine?
Ms. Perryman. Seems like a plausible.
Mr. Connolly. And might that be enhanced by the fact that
that same President, President Trump, actually praised
President Putin on numerous occasions and even said that he
trusted his word over U.S. intelligence with respect to Russian
interference in the 2016 election?
Ms. Perryman. That is, unfortunately, what the former
President----
Mr. Connolly. And finally, Iran and nuclear weapons. Was
there not an agreement that the United States actually led that
involved Russia and China, Europe and Iran to limit nuclear
weapon production in Iran?
Ms. Perryman. There was a historic agreement.
Mr. Connolly. And was it working?
Ms. Perryman. Yes.
Mr. Connolly. In all respects?
Ms. Perryman. I believe so.
Mr. Connolly. Inspected by IAEA and the Trump
Administration and certified by both?
Ms. Perryman. Yes.
Mr. Connolly. Isn't that correct? Uh-huh. And what happened
to that treaty?
Ms. Perryman. President Trump pulled out.
Mr. Connolly. And has Iran been less active in producing
nuclear weapons or more?
Ms. Perryman. Iran is now a greater threat because of that
failure of diplomacy.
Mr. Connolly. So much for efficacy. Just thought I would
revisit that revisionist history of foreign policy. Thank you.
Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Dr. Foxx from North
Carolina.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to our
witnesses for being here today.
Mr. Krikorian, according to the Office of Management and
Budget, each year the taxpayers provide more than $1.2
trillion, or nearly 5 percent of GDP, in funding for thousands
of programs across the entire government through grants and
other forms of financial assistance. For such a large sum,
taxpayers need assurance that their money is not being wasted
or spent undermining law and order. However, taxpayers have no
such assurances today. Should American taxpayer funds be given
to organizations and NGO's that undermine U.S. immigration laws
and help illegal aliens get into our country?
Mr. Krikorian. No, Congresswoman, they should not, and, in
fact, you are seeing that every day, even outside the United
States, where NGO's funded by American taxpayers are
facilitating the move of illegal immigrants to our borders.
Ms. Foxx. A second question, please. Last year, the DHS
Inspector General published a report on the Biden-Harris
Administration's failure to provide adequate oversight of
Federal grant funding. That is why I introduced H.R. 8334, the
Grant Integrity and Border Security Act, to require any entity
seeking a Federal grant to certify that they have not and will
not violate Federal immigration law with regard to assisting or
attempting to bring aliens into the United States illegally.
This Committee voted to pass H.R. 8334 in May to help correct
yet another of the Biden-Harris Administration's failures. Can
you provide us with other examples of where the Biden-Harris
Administration refuses to enforce existing U.S. immigration law
as Congress intended?
Mr. Krikorian. Well, the big example is the refusal to
detain people who are, under law, required to be detained. If
an inadmissible alien either crosses the border illegally or
shows up at a port of entry and says that he is making some
kind of protection claim, he fears being returned to his home
country, the INA requires that person to be detained. And the
mass release from detention of people who have no right to be
in the United States is the single biggest driver of subsequent
illegal immigration.
In other words, someone who is thinking about immigrating
to the United States and paying a smuggler a lot of money to do
so is only going to do that if the odds of his succeeding,
which is to say being let go into the United States, is high
enough. And the mass release policies of this Administration
have, in fact, incentivized this entire border crisis that we
have been facing.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you very much. Ms. Gunasekara, as I have
said before, the Biden-Harris era EPA has managed to add $1.3
trillion in costs on Americans. In contrast, in 8 years, the
Obama EPA added only about $300 billion in costs. What will be
the impact of these new costs on consumers?
Ms. Gunasekara. Well, it makes the price of everything go
up. Regulatory costs are another form of tax that is ultimately
borne out by the consumers that are either using the energy
that the Environmental Protection Agency is trying to squeeze
out of existence or create barriers in the cultivation of
commercial activities. And so, at the end of the day, it means
Americans are paying more for gas at the pump, electricity
bills, whatever form they may receive that in, or more for
groceries at the grocery store.
Ms. Foxx. I have a second question for you. Since the start
of the Biden-Harris Administration, Americans have seen the
cost of everything rise by over 20 percent, as you alluded to,
which means families pay $11,000 more each year to maintain the
same lifestyle. What role have the Biden-Harris
Administration's energy and climate policies contribute to the
economic pain felt by Americans?
Ms. Gunasekara. A huge role. This was a day one action of
this Administration: promises made during the campaign by
President Biden and then longstanding actions in the Senate by
Vice President Kamala Harris, consistent with actions she took
on day one to effectuate a war on fossil fuels, as they say.
This is traditional energy coal, oil, and natural gas. The
reality is this energy still provides 80 percent of our daily
energy needs. So, if you have an Administration using the power
of their agencies to squeeze the development and cultivation of
those energy resources that really are the lifeblood of our
entire economy, it makes the price of everything go up, and
that is exactly what we have seen throughout this
Administration.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now
recognizes Mr. Khanna from California.
Mr. Khanna. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Gunasekara, you
are the former EPA Chief of Staff in the Trump Administration,
and my understanding is you authored the Project 2025 chapter
on the EPA. Do you still support Project 2025's proposal to
reinstate Schedule F, which would lead to the firing of 50,000
expert civil servants?
Ms. Gunasekara. Absolutely. And I think there are more
``civil servants'' that should be gone because the growth of
the Federal bureaucracy actually gets in the way of agencies
fulfilling important missions, like protecting public health
and the environment.
Mr. Khanna. And do you have an interest in serving in a
future Trump Administration, should he win?
Ms. Gunasekara. I do not.
Mr. Khanna. Do you believe that if Trump wins, that he
should implement the Project 2025 recommendation of firing the
civil servants?
Ms. Gunasekara. I think it is the President's prerogative
to determine what policies he ultimately wants to implement.
Mr. Khanna. What would your recommendation be?
Ms. Gunasekara. There are a lot of recommendations that I
would suggest that the President embrace from an overarching
governance perspective.
Mr. Khanna. Would that include the firing of the 50,000
civil servants that the Schedule F----
Ms. Gunasekara. Yes, I actually have a book coming out
called ``Y'all Fired: A Southern Belle's Guide to Restoring
Federalism and Draining the Swamp,'' and I go step by step of
what I would
suggest the President do to actually right size the Federal
Government----
Mr. Khanna. Is that fair to say that there are other people
who share your view who will be in his Administration?
Ms. Gunasekara. There are a lot of people in the
conservative movement that share this view, and there are a lot
of Americans----
Mr. Khanna. And will some of them be in the Administration?
I mean, I have no problem in terms of the transparency. I just
think the American people should know what their choice is, and
my understanding is that your view is that we should fire these
civil servants for whatever reasons. I have not read your book,
maybe I will, and there are other people in the conservative
movement who wanted to do that. And if Trump wins, you believe
they should help implement that, correct?
Ms. Gunasekara. I do not know who the President plans to
hire for various positions. I know when he is ready to announce
that, he will. I think the ways that he does----
Mr. Khanna. But certainly, it is reasonable to assume some
of these people would be in the Administration pushing this
view of bureaucratic reform, as you put it?
Ms. Gunasekara. Yes, bureaucratic reform, is----
Mr. Khanna. And that includes firing these 50,000 civil
servants?
Ms. Gunasekara. Again, I would suggest more than 50,000,
but there is a lot within the conservative movement that
believe and a lot of the American electorate that actually
believe the growth of the Federal bureaucracy----
Mr. Khanna. I appreciate your perspective because some--
Donald Trump is saying, `oh, I do not know anything about
Project 2025.' You should just say, yes, we are going to fire
50,000 civil servants like you have been honest about--I
respect that--so that the American people can see if that is
what they really want.
Ms. Gunasekara. Yes. Mr. Khanna----
Mr. Khanna. Let me just go to Mr. Carr.
Ms. Gunasekara. I would just say Schedule F, the policy
existed well before the most recent iteration----
Mr. Khanna. I appreciate that.
Ms. Gunasekara [continuing]. And mandate for leadership.
Mr. Khanna. Mr. Carr, you did not answer Mr. Raskin's
simple question on ABC and revoking the license. I do not need
to know whether you make the same decisions with Democrats and
Republicans. I just want to know, simply, do you think, based
on the ABC debate and your role as a former FCC commissioner,
do you think that that is grounds for revoking the license for
ABC?
Mr. Carr. Thank you. What I have said is consistent with
what I have said for the past 6 years, which is every single
decision, including in the licensing context, is one that I
will make based on the facts, the record, and always consistent
with the First Amendment.
Mr. Khanna. The whole country has the facts. We all saw the
debate. I mean, it is not like some complicated question. Based
on those facts, based on what David Muir did, based on the
questions that were asked, would you recommend that the license
be revoked? I mean, President Trump obviously has an opinion on
it. He has made it. What is your opinion?
Mr. Carr. Look, I think I have been pretty clear. Again, I
have been nominated by both President Biden and nominated by
President Trump----
Mr. Khanna. And that is not answering the question. That is
not answering the question.
Mr. Carr [continuing]. And vetted three times. I have been
asked different versions of the question.
Mr. Khanna. I am not trying to be a debate moderator. That
answer would never fly in a debate. I mean, come on. It is a
simple question. Do you agree with President Trump's opinion?
Look, at least I respect that Trump has an opinion. Just give
us your opinion. Yes or no?
Mr. Carr. My opinion is that the FCC, in every single case,
has to apply the law, consider the First Amendment.
Mr. Khanna. Yes, and I am saying how would you apply it
here? Trump looked at the debate. He said the debate was
unfair. He says the one thing that people respect about him, he
says what he believes. You are sitting here not giving us an
opinion. Just say yes, I agree with President Trump, or no, I
disagree with it. People, they hate the obfuscation. Just take
a stand. How hard is it?
Mr. Carr. My position is clear. What you are raising are
concerns about weaponization. I think that is important that we
talk about that. When there is a license transfer of radio
stations----
Mr. Khanna. This is a bunch of gobbledygook.
Chairman Comer. Let the witness answer the question.
Mr. Khanna. Look. Look. Look.
Mr. Carr [continuing]. A license transfer in South Florida
to a group that people believed were conservative purchasers.
Democrats said the FCC should block it because the election
depended on it.
Mr. Khanna. But my question is very simple. Based on the
debate and based on what----
Mr. Carr. We have had Democrats in Congress who wrote
letters to----
Mr. Khanna. Do you think that----
Mr. Carr [continuing]. To cable companies telling them they
should drop Fox News----
Mr. Khanna. But you are not answering the question.
Mr. Carr [continuing]. Because of the decision----
Mr. Khanna. Let me try one last time.
Mr. Carr [continuing]. That the newsroom made.
Mr. Khanna. Based on the debate, did you think that the
questions were unfair or rigged in a way that calls for ABC's
license to be revoked? President Trump has been very clear. I
respect he is very clear on his view. Do you agree or disagree
with his view? It is a ``yes'' or ``no.''
Mr. Carr. Gosh, I think my position has been very clear
going back to 2017 as a Commissioner for the FCC----
Chairman Comer. The gentleman's time has expired, but
please feel free to answer the question.
Mr. Carr [continuing]. Two-thousand-twelve. I have
maintained a very consistent issue, but if your concern is
weaponization, we should talk about that. When President Biden
stood at the White House podium and said Elon Musk is worth
being looked at, and then all of a sudden, the FCC abruptly
reverses a 2020 decision to get him $885 million to bring
broadband to 640,000 people, I think that is concerning. When
Democrats in Congress write letters to cable companies asking
them to drop Fox News because of the decisions, I think that is
concerning. And so, I think you have seen from my record a
consistent pattern of always basing my decisions at the FCC
based on the law, the facts, and the First Amendment. That is
what I have done. That is what I will always do.
Mr. Khanna. Mr. Chair, can I ask the gentleman----
Chairman Comer. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Mr.
Palmer from Alabama.
Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record, I have
already taken care of ABC. I do not watch them. Mr. Carr, there
is $42 billion allocated for connecting people who are not
connected to the internet. How many have been connected?
Mr. Carr. Zero. Through this $42 billion program? Zero.
Mr. Palmer. That is what I thought. Mr. Krikorian, we have
taken a lot of heat in the House for not taking up the Senate
border bill, but wouldn't that have just codified catch and
release?
Mr. Krikorian. Yes, it would have, and it would have made
the border crisis worse by making it more likely that illegal
border crossers would end up being released into the United
States.
Mr. Palmer. Ms. Mobbs, Wall Street Journal, this morning, I
want to read you a quote. It says, ``Any delays providing
additional supplies of LNG to Ukraine and our Eastern European
allies could jeopardize European energy security and market
stability in the long term. LNG exports promote geopolitical
stability and serve our national security interests.'' Who do
you think said that?
Dr. Mobbs. I do not know.
Mr. Palmer. Democrats. There is a letter sent to the Biden
Administration by no fewer than a dozen House Democrats urging
the Administration to expedite projects to help Ukraine and
investments in the United States. But the most telling thing
is, is Biden officials had hoped to use the pause on LNG
exports to excite young progressive voters, and they were using
TikTok lobbying campaign on that issue. I find that problematic
considering that we have determined, in a bipartisan manner, a
hundred percent agreement in the Energy and Commerce Committee,
that TikTok is a national security threat. Yet, the Biden
Administration used TikTok to launch a lobbying campaign to
have a pause on LNG, and it has alienated European allies, who
have been counting on the U.S. to reduce their dependance on
Russian gas, which still accounts for about 15 percent of
Europe's gas supplies. Is that a problem?
Dr. Mobbs. I think much of what you just said is a problem,
Congressman, to include, obviously, TikTok being a national
security threat. But there were 23 different key actions the
Biden Administration took that actually encouraged Russia to
invade Ukraine, and if I had more time, I would be happy to
delineate all 23 different key policy decisions that were much
like this one.
Mr. Palmer. Mr. Carr, we allocated $7.5 billion to build
charging stations. How many have been built?
Mr. Carr. I believe eight more than have been built in
terms of connections on the internet side.
Mr. Palmer. Ms. Gunasekara, the EPA set up a National Clean
Investment Fund. Do you know who heads up that bank? It is
basically an investment bank. In your experience at the EPA,
how many investment bankers did the EPA have on staff?
Ms. Gunasekara. None that I recall.
Mr. Palmer. Have you looked into the Clean School Bus
Program and the grants that have been allocated for that? Have
you had a chance to look at that?
Ms. Gunasekara. Not most recently. I am familiar with the
Diesel Emissions Reduction Act, which was a longstanding
program actually supported by a former boss of mine, Senator
Jim Inhofe, and Tom Carper over at Senate EPW and then
culminated into lots of advancements and improvements led by
Administrator Wheeler to ensure that we could reduce emissions
in areas where there is a ton of idling, but I have not looked
into recent developments.
Mr. Palmer. Well, hold on. What I am talking about, though,
is that they have set up this investment bank, and they are
making grants to nonprofit groups. They are making grants to
hub groups. And it concerns me because if you go back to what
happened with NIH and the gain-of-function research, our law
clearly prohibits funding for gain-of-function research, but
they make grants to a grantee who would then make subgrants,
and I am concerned about how this is going to be managed at the
EPA. I just had an opportunity to have this discussion with the
Inspector General of EPA. He is very concerned about a number
of things, and particularly the Criminal Division of the EPA,
but also the fact that they are rushing this money out the
door. He cited one instance where a school administration
applied for a grant for the Clean School Bus, and they have no
students. Is that a problem?
Ms. Gunasekara. Yes, that is a huge problem. And waste,
fraud, and abuse through the grant program, especially when an
agency like EPA is receiving billions of dollars to be funneled
through their grant office, that they are not equipped to
handle that degree of taxpayer funds appropriately or
responsibly, it creates all sorts of opportunities for
nefarious uses.
Mr. Palmer. OK. On the Criminal Division, they have bought
military-style weapons, military equipment, and yet my
Democratic colleagues want to defund the police, but they want
to militarize the EPA's Criminal Division. Is that a problem?
Ms. Gunasekara. Yes, I see that as a problem. I would
suggest defense resources go toward defense agencies, and that
is not within EPA's mission.
Mr. Palmer. Thank you for your answers, to all the
witnesses. I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes Ms. Brown from Ohio.
Ms. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am disappointed how
this Committee is continuing to operate: no solution for the
American people, chaos and confusion, and baseless accusations
against President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris.
Kamala. Kamala. Like the pronunciation. And I know that we have
addressed this multiple times, but it is frustrating to see
adults that cannot master the art of pronunciation that was put
on display by elementary school-aged children. It is
disappointing, it is disrespectful, it is disparaging, but it
seems like this is the only path that the Majority continues to
pursue.
That is because my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle do not have a positive agenda. They do not have a plan to
increase access to healthcare. They do not have a plan to
protect a woman's right to bodily autonomy. They do not have a
plan to protect our climate, Social Security, and Medicare, and
SNAP access. Democrats, on the other hand, and the Biden-Harris
Administration have actual plans, not concepts of plans, but
real plans, and we have been hard at work delivering on behalf
of the American people. Unemployment is at an all-time low. The
economy is growing from the middle out. Healthcare is more
affordable than ever and so much more. Just as one example,
under President Biden and Vice President Harris' leadership, we
have had the largest investment in the Nation's infrastructure
in the last 75 years with the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law,
unlike the previous Administration, which only talked about
Infrastructure Week but never did anything.
President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris led the
way. Thanks to this historic legislation, bridges, roads, and
public transportation systems are receiving the repair,
renovation, and renewal they have desperately needed. In my
district, the Cleveland RTA received $16 million to renovate
stations, making them accessible for seniors and people with
disabilities. This will help keep our seniors and those with
disabilities independent, connecting them to downtown Cleveland
and other areas across Northeast Ohio. Every time I go back to
my district, I hear praise for cleaner buses and electric
vehicle station, Metro Parks expansion on the east side,
potholes being filled, and new bridges and highways cutting
down commute times--very real acts which benefit people every
single day. And these are not acts of God. They are acts of
Democrats and the Biden-Harris Administration. The Biden-Harris
Administration also invested $3 billion nationwide to replace
lead pipes, ensuring clean water for all. My district alone
received $184 million to replace lead pipes. That means fewer
kids getting sick from lead poisoning, so they can go to school
healthy and ready to learn.
So, Ms. Perryman, if you could tell us, what the success of
the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law meant for families and
communities across the country, particularly in low-income
communities and Black and Brown communities that face the
history of unequal treatment?
Ms. Perryman. Well, the act was historic in a number of
ways, but that is one of them. Previous infrastructure bills
often had overlooked the fact that sometimes when
infrastructure is built, it separates communities. It displaces
people, particularly people in historically underserved areas.
The infrastructure bill actually had provisions that addressed
that very thing while also empowering and strengthening
communities across the country.
Ms. Brown. Thank you very much. As my colleagues noted, the
Majority's witnesses are proponents of a certain kind of plan,
Project 2025. In fact, some of the Republican witnesses are
authors of the plan, and you have heard their testimony. So,
let me remind all of us. Under Project 2025, over 70 percent of
Ohio recipients of Social Security would have their benefits
cut by almost $4,000 per year. A family of four would see their
taxes raised by over $2,800 per year. Project 2025 would
eliminate Head Start, which provides childcare and education
for over 32,000 Ohio children. Their plan is dangerous,
divisive, and downright destructive. I am extremely proud of
the Biden-Harris record, and all of our constituents are better
off because of it, and with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Comer. Before I recognize Mr. Biggs, Mr. Palmer,
do you have a UC request?
Mr. Palmer. Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into the
record the Wall Street Journal editorial this morning,
demonstrating there are at least a dozen sensible Democrats
that are critical of the Biden-Harris natural gas policies.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Biggs from Arizona.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to point
out before I get into my questioning that unless you have all
eight of those electric vehicles built by Novvi with the $5
billion given to Novvi in your district, then you have got EVs
that are done by the private sector, and you should acknowledge
that, perhaps, maybe, when you are talking about how great they
are. So, I appreciate the testimony of the witnesses.
Mr. Krikorian, thank you for your work. Let us ask you some
numbers quickly, Mr. Krikorian, and I want you to let me know
if these are accurate in the ballpark: 8 million illegal alien
encounters by CBP during the Biden-Harris regime.
Mr. Krikorian. Actually, more than that because that is the
Southern border. When you count the whole country, it is more
than 10 million.
Mr. Biggs. Right. Very good. Southern border. 5.6 million
illegal aliens released into the United States by this
Administration?
Mr. Krikorian. As far as I know, yes. They are not very
transparent about it, but that is the conclusion we have come
to.
Mr. Biggs. One-point-nine million known got-aways.
Mr. Krikorian. Yep.
Mr. Biggs. Myriad number of unknown got-aways?
Mr. Krikorian. We do not know what that number is,
obviously because it is unknown.
Mr. Biggs. Six hundred 17 thousand, six hundred and seven
illegal aliens released into the country with criminal
convictions or pending criminal charges?
Mr. Krikorian. I do not have the number in front of me, but
yes, I think that is correct.
Mr. Biggs. And in early 2021, the Administration tapped
Vice President Harris to serve as the Administration's border
czar. That is not my title. It is not a title manufactured by
Republicans. And Mr. Chairman, I submit an article in the
record entitled, ``Harris to Visit Mexico and Guatemala.''
Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Biggs. Border Czar Kamala Harris often blames the root
causes or push factors in Central America for the border
crisis. Do you agree with that assessment, Mr. Krikorian?
Mr. Krikorian. Those factors are endemic. The reason we
have the border crisis is because of the pull factors, the
other side, which is to say policies this Administration
implemented.
Mr. Biggs. So, the current Commander in Chief has said that
the Border Patrol union backed the Senate border bill, and I
want to submit for the record, Mr. Chairman, an article that
says Border Patrol union chief says Biden must quit saying the
union backed the border bill.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Biggs. And Mr. Krikorian, the Senate border bill
allowed 5,000 individual encounters a day before you could even
begin to call it an emergency situation. Is that true?
Mr. Krikorian. Yes, it is.
Mr. Biggs. And then before the President was mandated to
take any action, it allowed up to 7,500 people a day. Is that
correct?
Mr. Krikorian. Yes.
Mr. Biggs. And there were 40 different loopholes. Even if
the President were to put up a roadblock and say this is an
emergency, we are going to stop there, 40 different loopholes
allow people in.
Mr. Krikorian. It was riddled with loopholes, yes.
Mr. Biggs. So, Mr. Chairman, I have an article here: ``The
Biden-Harris parole pipeline releases more than 1.3 million
migrants into American communities,'' and I would like to admit
that to the record.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Biggs. Over the last 15 months, the CBP One app has let
in 813,000 into the country. CBP One app. They do not include
those in the encounter figures that they release. Isn't that
that true, Mr. Krikorian?
Mr. Krikorian. Well, it is not included in the border
encounter numbers. It is included in the overall----
Mr. Biggs. Release numbers.
Mr. Krikorian [continuing]. Total numbers.
Mr. Biggs. Yes, in the release numbers. And not only that,
they also released over 500,000 from the CHNV Program, which,
for folks who do not know what that is, that is the Cuba,
Haitian, Nicaraguan, and Venezuelan Program, which, by the way,
they stopped. Do you remember when they stopped that for 2
weeks? Why did they stop that, Mr. Krikorian? Do you remember?
Mr. Krikorian. Because of widespread fraud on the part of
supposed sponsors, because the people are supposed to have a
sponsor. And so, there were, like, multiple fake addresses,
fake sponsors, hundreds of people sponsored by the same person,
that kind of fraud.
Mr. Biggs. Yes. They said they had more than 12,000 cases
of fraud, and they took 2 whole weeks to look at it, and then
they reignited the program. So, let us talk about some other
impacts. Jerome Powell. Anybody know who Jerome Powell is?
Federal Reserve Chair, right? He suggested just the other day
that the influx of migration is contributing to rising
unemployment. I would like to submit that for the record,
please, Mr. Chair.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Biggs. I would like to submit another article for the
record. This one says, ``CBP One Application Migrants Are
Released Into the United States, No Asylum Questions Asked.''
Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Biggs. Yes, and then we get to the end of this and the
border. Having just been to the border once again, just 2 weeks
ago, I can tell you, folks, it continues to be wide open, and
this Administration drives that. They are providing every
incentive in the world. They love an open border. I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes Ms. Crockett from Texas.
Ms. Crockett. Thank you so much. You know what? This
hearing is actually the best example of what waste, fraud, and
abuse looks like, because the only reason we are having this
hearing is because somebody got their feelings hurt in a
debate, and I do not understand why we are wasting taxpayer
dollars. Next time, tell your big boy to show up and be ready
to handle the woman in the room who hopefully will become the
next President of the United States. Nevertheless, while we do
have two amazing authors from Project 2025, which it seems like
everybody got the memo like, yes, I am going to double down and
say it is my thing, but I am going to make sure I also say that
it is not our homeboy's thing because we know that it does not
poll very well with the American people because the American
people are woke enough to recognize that there is nothing good
in it for them.
So, with that being said, Ms. Perryman, I am just curious,
and this is yes or no, is Trump's name ever mentioned in
Project 2025? Yes or no. Just yes or no. I got you.
Ms. Perryman. Within the document itself?
Ms. Crockett. Yes.
Ms. Perryman. There are a number of references to the
former Administration.
Ms. Crockett. OK. So, is Trump's name mentioned just one
time?
Ms. Perryman. I believe it is mentioned more.
Ms. Crockett. OK. Five times?
Ms. Perryman. I have not counted.
Ms. Crockett. Oh, OK. Well, if I told you that his name is
mentioned approximately 312 times, would you have any reason to
dispute that?
Ms. Perryman. I do not have any reason to.
Ms. Crockett. OK. Thank you very much. So, it is
interesting that we want to try to pretend. We are not going to
pretend in here. We are going to work with facts and not
fiction. So, I also want to talk about inflation really quickly
with you, Ms. Perryman, because we have talked about it a lot.
I am just curious to know is the inflation that we just
struggled through, was that global, or was that limited to the
United States?
Ms. Perryman. Global.
Ms. Crockett. Global. Seemingly, it was attached to this
thing called the global pandemic. Is that correct?
Ms. Perryman. That is my understanding.
Ms. Crockett. Oh, OK. So, it was not just the United
States?
Ms. Perryman. No.
Ms. Crockett. OK. So, it was not just a matter of the
Biden-Harris Administration and the United States is
struggling, right?
Ms. Perryman. I think the United States actually fared
better than the rest of the world.
Ms. Crockett. Oh, yes. In fact, we are, correct?
Ms. Perryman. I think so, yes.
Ms. Crockett. All right. But inflation still hurts, and so
that is why we have a candidate that has an actual plan instead
of concepts of a plan, or, as I like to say, Trump only has
offered concepts of constitutionality mixed with coordination
of a coup, but nevertheless, we are going to move on.
I want to talk about the internet really quickly because we
wanted to talk about the internet. Actually, let me talk about
the border real fast, and then we can talk about Texas in this
way. I would ask for unanimous consent to admit this article
from The Hill that says, ``Trump Says 'Blame it on Me' if
Border Bill Fails.''
Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
Ms. Crockett. Thank you so much. Now I am going to move on
to the internet, and I am actually going to talk about Texas
because I believe that the testimony has been somewhere around
the fact that no money has actually been distributed as it
relates to rural broadband. I would also ask for unanimous
consent to admit this article from the USDA.gov, ``USDA
Officials Attend Groundbreaking to Expand High-Speed Internet
Access in Rural Texas'' dated March 7, 2024, Italy, Texas.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
Ms. Crockett. Thank you so much.
Mr. Carr. With respect, that was not the testimony.
Ms. Crockett. Oh, I thought you said no dollars had been
spent.
Mr. Carr. The largest single program----
Ms. Crockett. My question is, did you not say----
Mr. Carr [continuing]. Is $42 billion.
Ms. Crockett. OK.
Mr. Carr. Zero houses have been connected. There are other
Federal programs, including Trump-era ones, that right now are
turning dirt and connecting----
Ms. Crockett. OK. So, just to be clear, because I do not
want the American people to be confused because I was confused,
considering the fact the name of this hearing is the failed
policies as if nothing had been done. But to clarify for those
that are watching, you are not saying that no dollars have been
spent as it relates to rural broadband dollars under the
Infrastructure Act, correct?
Mr. Carr. To be clear, for the signature effort, $42
billion dollars----
Ms. Crockett. Yes or no. Have any dollars been spent? One
dollar?
Mr. Carr. Not a single person has been connected. There is
another program----
Ms. Crockett. That is not my question, though.
Mr. Carr [continuing]. But they have their----
Ms. Crockett. My question was, have any----
Mr. Carr [continuing]. Own sets of issues.
Mr. Carr. Senator Ted Cruz from Texas put out a report----
Ms. Crockett. OK. I am going to move on.
Mr. Carr [continuing]. That showed that----
Ms. Crockett. I am going to move on. I am reclaiming my
time at this point.
Mr. Carr [continuing]. For many of these bills----
Ms. Crockett. I am reclaiming my time----
Mr. Carr [continuing]. It is $100,000 per location.
Ms. Crockett [continuing]. Which means----
Mr. Carr [continuing]. Per location----
Ms. Crockett. Chairman, I am going to ask that you stop my
time because the witness is not----
Chairman Comer. Are you asking him a question or are you
reclaiming your time?
Ms. Crockett. No, I am not asking him a question. I reclaim
my time.
Chairman Comer. All right. The Chair recognizes Ms.
Crockett.
Ms. Crockett. OK. I was at 41, you all, so go back up.
Chairman Comer. I will give you 9 more seconds.
Ms. Crockett. OK. Thank you so much. Here is the deal. You
have testified a lot about the problem with the broadband
rollout being diversity, equity, and inclusion. You said
``DEI'' I do not know how many times, which is one of the
issues that Project 2025 takes issue with. But it is
interesting to me because I have another article from the Texas
Tribune, and it actually specifically states that, ``Internet
providers say they are simultaneously hopeful and skeptical
about whether the incoming Federal dollars will be enough to
connect the most underserved Texans. Historically, other
Federal rural broadband funding programs have seen limited
success because many companies who committed to providing
broadband went into default after radically underestimating
their cost.'' It does not say anything about diversity. And the
final thing that I will say----
Mr. Carr. Do you know why those costs have increased----
Ms. Crockett [continuing]. Is that this election----
Mr. Carr [continuing]. Substantially?
Ms. Crockett. I did not ask you a question. The final thing
that I will say is that this election is the best example of
why you all are so afraid of diversity, equity, and inclusion
because then you cannot have a simple-minded, underqualified,
White man somehow end up ascending. Instead, you have got to
pay attention to the qualified Black woman that is on the other
side, and with that, I will yield.
Chairman Comer. The gentlelady yields. The Chair now
recognizes Mr. Perry from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Mobbs, you served
in uniform, didn't you, as I recall?
Dr. Mobbs. That is correct.
Mr. Perry. Yes. Thank you for your service. So, I think you
know or are aware that in the last few years, the U.S.
military, across all branches, have had a struggle in
recruiting and meeting their goals, and in an answer to that,
this Administration has revised the targets or the goals
downward. Is that not correct?
Dr. Mobbs. That is correct.
Mr. Perry. And I think we are on the precipice of being at
the lowest point in the Army, which is where I served--and
thank you for your service, ma'am--of being at Army recruiting
levels or sustainment levels that are akin to pre-World War II,
1939 and 1940, right?
Dr. Mobbs. That is correct. Yes.
Mr. Perry. You served, I served, but I think it is better
you are the witness here. Why do you suppose that is? Why is
the military having a difficult time recruiting?
Mr. Perry. Well, thank you for your service, sir. I
appreciate it as well. I think this is for a variety of
reasons, and I actually testified on this very topic before a
subcommittee here. It is for a variety of reasons, but one of
the major reasons that is often cited is there are morale
issues. There are both morale with recruitment, but there are
also issues with retention. But then, broadly speaking, the
American populace is not necessarily prepared to serve, and
this is across a variety of different factors to include their
mental health, their physical well-being, and then their
patriotism. The Wall Street Journal did a fantastic poll that
showed patriotism is significantly declining over time in our
country, and because of that, young Americans do not
necessarily feel like they are willing to put on a uniform to
fight and die for our country.
Mr. Perry. Are there any actions that the military itself
is taking from a policy standpoint that you think might
dissuade, and I say that because we are trying to look at the
differences between two administrations or the different
philosophies among administrations. And I appreciate the
gentlelady that was just speaking, but the hearing is kind of
about some of the failures, so we can do better. I do not know
that she really defended any of the policies of the current
Administration as much as she derided the potential policies of
a future administration, which does not yet exist, but if you
know of any.
Dr. Mobbs. Well, I think, in general, that this
Administration has more focused on initiatives related to
diversity, equity, inclusion, and I think the problem with that
is it derivates from the core function of our military, which
is lethality. Ultimately, the responsibility of the military is
to fight and win our Nation's wars, and that requires the
necessity of unification regardless of your background, walk of
life, your demographics. There has to be a belief in both the
unit that you are serving in and that the broader apparatus has
that unifying factor together. I think, unfortunately, this
Administration has focused a little bit more exclusively than
the previous Administration on doing things that highlight
individuality, and the one place you cannot have individuality
is our United States military.
Mr. Perry. And would you agree with me that the uniform
military service, if you break that down, uniform is one form,
not many forms, but it is one form, and as you so stated, the
policies of the current Administration celebrate the
individual, which is great for certain walks of life. But in
the military, in the uniform military services, you must put
some of those personal things aside so that you can be one
cohesive unit, and not doing so is an impediment to recruiting
and retention.
Dr. Mobbs. Absolutely. And I think the military, for a long
period of time, often remained one of the last bastions of
meritocracy. There was the opportunity to compete. And if you
were successful, irrespective of your background, your
demographic, if you were the best, then you were promoted and
you were put into positions of greater leadership and power,
and that is something extraordinarily beautiful. It is a
pathway to the middle class. It is an opportunity from those
all around our country to serve in uniform, and it allowed them
to achieve things that they may not have been able to achieve
otherwise without the military.
Unfortunately, some of those standards have been reduced,
and when there is a focus instead of not on a meritocracy or
achievement, but rather meeting quota systems, you,
unfortunately, have an erosion of the belief that the military
is that bastion of meritocracy where you can go in, and if you
are the best, you will be promoted.
Mr. Perry. Thank you. I would agree with that. I yield the
balance.
Chairman Comer. Thank you. The Chairman yields back,
gentleman. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Garcia.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to our
witnesses. We have been talking a lot about the Biden-Harris
record. It is, I think, important to note that we are doing
this hearing likely because the debate was such a disaster for
Donald Trump and for the House Majority. Now, I was actually
there in Philly. It was embarrassing to watch. Donald Trump
admitted, of course, to terminating Roe v. Wade. He attacked
reproductive freedoms. He wants to kill the Affordable Care Act
and spread misinformation about immigrants eating cats and
dogs. And I just also want to remind folks that we have been
talking a lot about Project 2025, of which many of our
witnesses know a lot about and which Donald Trump said contains
many good ideas, but it is not just Project 2025. Donald Trump
has already been the President, and I thought it was also
important at this moment to review his record.
Let us start with some of the facts about Donald Trump.
Donald Trump, first and foremost, had the worst jobs presidency
since World War II and maybe American history, the worst jobs
record since World War II and maybe American history. He lost
4.9 million American jobs. He added $4.8 trillion to the debt,
even without the COVID-related spending. Now cities and
communities like mine were facing disaster. State and local
governments were looking at service cuts. Schools, vital
programs were all being looked at being cut. By contrast, when
we are talking about the Biden-Harris record, 15.4 million jobs
were added during the Biden-Harris Administration, and the
Project 2025 agenda, we know, will raise a sales tax on
everything we buy, and economists think it will cost the
American family an average of $1,700 per year and would cost
600,000 American jobs, and could even cause a recession.
But it is not just the economic destruction. Let us talk
about his COVID mismanagement. We lost 1.3 million American
lives, a disaster, under Donald Trump. He asked people that we
could combat the virus by injecting disinfectant into peoples'
bodies. He failed to get PPE out the door. He picked fights
with Governors rather than uniting the country. We were on our
own, and Donald Trump should own his failures with the
pandemic.
But let us look at the rest of the Trump record. He
destroyed Roe v. Wade, as a third thing on this bullet point.
He brags about the extremist Supreme Court and turning back Roe
v. Wade. Just this week, ProPublica documented a heartbreaking
case where a Georgia woman waited for 20 hours after doctors
refused to perform a routine procedure. She passed away. Her
death was preventable. But Donald Trump is putting these state
abortion bans in place through his judges and the legislatures
all across the country.
But let us talk about family separation because it does not
just end there. His record attacking immigrants like myself and
my family is also shameful. He is promising the most extreme
mass deportations in the country, going door to door to arrest
our neighbors and friends. He believes that immigrants poison
the blood of his country, his quote, not mine. And of course,
let us remember at the debate, he kept talking about somehow
Haitian immigrants are eating pets in Ohio, and we know that is
not true. This country and the world should be united against
this type of rhetoric and this record. We all want a secure
border, but Donald Trump has shown us time and time again,
through his record and his future agenda, the Project 2025
agenda, that he has zero respect for immigrants and for the
Latino community.
But I want to also end with January 6. Donald Trump
betrayed his oath of office when he provoked an attack on this
Capitol and an insurrection on January 6. Project 2025 shows
how he will continue to threaten our institutions and our
democracy. The Trump Administration was a disaster, and you do
not need to take my word for it. Why we are talking about the
Biden-Harris record when it fixed the COVID crisis, when jobs
are up, when unemployment is down, and not focus on the
destruction of Donald Trump is clearly because this is, again,
another political Committee hearing.
And let us look at what others have said. Vice President
Mike Pence; former Attorney General, Bill Barr; former Defense
Secretary, Jim Mattis and Mark Esper; former national security
advisor, H.R. McMaster and John Bolton; former Chief of Staff,
John Kelly, all of these folks believe that Donald Trump is
unfit to serve as President, that he has failed his country and
the Constitution. We cannot go back. With that, I yield back.
Mr. Raskin. Would the gentleman yield?
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Garcia. The gentleman yields, sir.
Mr. Raskin. I was asking for the time. Is that OK? Thank
you. But I just wonder on that point whether any of the
witnesses would comment on this unprecedented defection of
former Trump officials from supporting him, and anybody, you
know, who is on the Project 2025 side wants to weigh in on
that, or, Ms. Perryman, what do you say about Vice President
Pence and these former cabinet officials who have abandoned
Donald Trump. Any comments on that?
Ms. Gunasekara. Yes. I think President Trump has spoken
explicitly about the majority of these people were either
running against him, in the case of Vice President Pence, or
they lost their job because Vice President----
Mr. Raskin. Well, Pence was not running against him----
Chairman Comer. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Raskin. The mob came in chanting, ``Hang Mike Pence.''
He was planning----
Chairman Comer. The gentleman----
Mr. Raskin. He ran with Donald Trump.
Ms. Gunasekara. Many of the people who Mr. Garcia
referenced are people who were let go because they failed to
fulfill the vision that President Trump had painted for the
American people----
Mr. Raskin. So, I see. There is nothing wrong with what
Donald Trump did. You are blaming it on these people.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman's time has expired.
Ms. Gunasekara. I am just saying there was----
Chairman Comer. Before I recognize----
Mr. Raskin. Yes.
Chairman Comer [continuing]. Ms. Mace. Yes, before I----
Ms. Gunasekara [continuing]. Why he fired employees.
Chairman Comer. Yes. Before I recognize Ms. Mace who is
next, Ms. Greene, do you have something to enter into the
record?
Ms. Greene. Yes. Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into
the record an article from Newsweek that tells the truth about
Amber Nicole Thurman, who died after taking abortion pills. She
did not die for the lack of abortion. She died because of
abortion. Abortion pills are what led to her death, and this
has been a lie that has been told by the Vice President, Kamala
Harris, and this is a lie being told by Democrats. This Georgia
woman died from abortion pills, so thank you. I would like to
enter that on the record.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, enter the Newsweek
article. Without objection, so ordered.
Chairman Comer. I am sorry. Mace. The Chair recognizes the
gentlelady from South Carolina, Ms. Mace.
Ms. Mace. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My colleagues across the
aisle said that those that cannot pronounce Kamala's name
correctly are elementary-aged children. I would like to enter
into the record an article by Newsweek saying, ``Bill Clinton
Pronounces Kamala Harris' Name Wrong During DNC Speech.'' Bill
Clinton, along with Al Sharpton, rapper Lil Jon, let us not
forget that Joe Biden cannot say her name right, neither can
Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor. And this morning on
Morning Joe, Joan Baez called her a camel, so I do not want to
hear it. It is fake outrage.
I would like to also enter into the record a screenshot of
a text message I received from the esteemed professor from
Vanderbilt, Michael Eric Dyson, after my CNN interview, begged
me for photos. In this text, he says, after calling me a racist
on CNN, ``Shh, don't tell anybody we look good together,'' and
sent me a kissy emoji.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
Ms. Mace. And this guy says I am gorgeous and all these
photos. I do not think he is that bent out of shape on how
anyone pronounces Kamala. And if we are going to have that
standard, you got to hold it to both sides, not just one or the
other.
On to the issue at hand, I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman,
for our witnesses being here today. Joe Biden and Kamala Harris
have presided over the worst Presidential administration in
American history. Biden and Kamala Harris inherited a country
with a strong economy and next to zero inflation. Under the
Biden-Harris Administration, inflation skyrocketed, wages
stagnated, and the American families are struggling to make
ends meet, as we are all well aware of today.
Biden and Kamala inherited a world at peace and turned it
into a world at war. Our allies are under attack, our
adversaries emboldened, and America embarrassed on the world
stage. In fact, even being forced to evacuate seven embassies
during this Administration. Biden and Kamala inherited a
country with the most secure border in our Nation's history.
They flung our borders wide open to the largest invasion of
illegal aliens our country has ever seen. The illegal aliens
Biden and Kamala have let into our country have gone on to rape
and murder American citizens, including our women and girls,
including 158 Democrats who voted against deporting illegals
who are here murdering, raping, and who are also pedophiles,
harming our women and girls. Biden and Kamala cannot even tell
us the difference between a woman and a mentally ill man in a
dress.
Of all Joe and Kamala's many failings, I would like to
focus my 5 minutes today on immigration. I am down to about 2,
so we will be quick. During her failed 2020 Presidential
campaign, well before her coup against Joe Biden, Kamala Harris
completed an ACLU candidate questionnaire outlining her policy
positions. I would like to examine a few of her responses and
how they have informed her work as border czar, since she says
her values have not changed.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into the record this
questionnaire, ``ACLU Rights for All Candidate Questionnaire
2019, Kamala Harris.''
Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
Ms. Mace. Thank you. One of the strangest responses from
Kamala in the questionnaire was when she indicated she
supported providing taxpayer funded so-called gender-affirming
care for illegal aliens and immigration detention, which we all
know is taxpayer funded cutting off of their private parts. So,
Mr. Krikorian, is this occurring under this Administration and
what are the serious safety consequences it may pose?
Mr. Krikorian. Well, I mean, the safety consequences of the
procedures themselves, I am not qualified to talk about, but
clearly it serves as yet one more incentive for people to
illegally immigrate into the United States, in this case,
people seeking a particular kind of medical procedures.
Ms. Mace. In the questionnaire, Kamala pledges to slash
funding for ICE, cut immigration detention by more than 50
percent, and even expressed support for ending immigration
detention. Have Biden-Harris Presidential budget requests
reflected Kamala's desire to cut ICE funding----
Mr. Krikorian. Oh, absolutely.
Ms. Mace [continuing]. And immigration detention?
Mr. Krikorian. Detention funding, absolutely. It is
decreased significantly, and, in fact, it needs to be increased
significantly because detention is the one way you are going to
be able to deter people who want to come into the United States
and be released. If you do not release them, the appeal of
trying and spending all of that money is significantly less.
Ms. Mace. She pledged to end the use of ICE detainers and
criticized the cooperation between ICE and state and local law
enforcement. How is this going to negatively affect our
country?
Mr. Krikorian. It would make it extremely difficult to
enforce immigration law because ICE is a relatively small
agency and does not walk around the streets asking people what
their green cards are. The main vehicle for finding illegal
aliens, if you do not do worksite enforcement, which this
Administration has essentially stopped, is working with state
and local law enforcement. When they arrest people for state
and local crimes, their fingerprints go to DHS, and they are
flagged as somebody that they know to be an illegal immigrant.
A detainer is the request ICE sends out to say hold on to
this person for up to 48 hours so we can go and get them. If
you are not using detainers, it is one of the most pro-criminal
policies you could imagine because the only people protected by
stopping ICE detainers or not honoring them as sanctuary cities
do, the only people protected are criminals. So, it is a pro-
criminal policy as well as an anti-immigration enforcement in
general policy.
Ms. Mace. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair
recognizes Mr. Casar from Texas.
Mr. Casar. Good morning. Mr. Krikorian, you are an advisory
board member for Project 2025, correct? Yes or no?
Mr. Krikorian. Yes.
Mr. Casar. Mr. Kirkorian, in addition to being a Project
2025 board member, you also run the Center for Immigration
Studies. You have done that for decades, where you spread and
disseminated writings of people like Kevin MacDonald, John
Friend, and Jared Taylor, correct?
Mr. Krikorian. We used to have an email service that
distributed links to those feds.
Mr. Casar. To their writings. That is right.
Mr. Krikorian. And the New York Times and all kinds of
other--across the board.
Mr. Casar. Correct. Yes, I know that you are aware that you
spread the writings of these three, along with others, but
these three are egregious examples. MacDonald is the editor of
a White nationalist journal. Your organization, as you said,
disseminated his writings. He blamed Jewish people for the
deaths of millions of people in the 20th century. John Friend,
who you just said you disseminated his writings, is an infamous
Holocaust denier. You spread his writings. Jared Taylor stated,
and I quote this horrible quote, that ``When Black people are
left on their own, civilization disappears.'' That is what he
said.
Mr. Krikorian. Not anything we said----
Mr. Casar. You, a Project 2025----
Mr. Krikorian. We distributed only op-eds about----
Mr. Casar. You only distributed. Correct. I understand----
Mr. Krikorian [continuing]. Immigration issues.
Mr. Casar. I am reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman. Correct.
You only disseminated writings----
Mr. Krikorian [continuing]. Nor did you research----
Mr. Casar [continuing]. From multiple White nationalists.
Mr. Krikorian [continuing]. The backgrounds----
Mr. Casar. I am reclaiming my time. I am going to ask you a
question, sir. I am going to ask you the next question.
Mr. Krikorian. [continuing]. Who wrote about immigration.
Mr. Casar. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman. I would like
that time back. So, you, a Project 2025 board member, you are
stating you did not disseminate, for example, Mr. Taylor and
Mr. MacDonald or Mr. Friend's specific quotes here, but you
continuously disseminated these White nationalists writing. One
time is a problem. When you do it over and over and over again,
it is a pattern, but I will stop asking about the things that
you and your organization disseminated. I will ask you, Mr.
Krikorian, and I know you are a Project 2025 board member, your
recent quote from a few years ago where you said, ``Haiti is so
screwed up because it wasn't colonized long enough.'' Is that
correct? Did you say that?
Mr. Krikorian. I am happy to talk about that all you want.
Mr. Casar. You did say it.
Mr. Krikorian. I wrote it, yes.
Mr. Casar. You said that?
Mr. Krikorian. Yes.
Mr. Casar. Haiti was colonized as a slave plantation
colony. The French colonized Haiti so that slaves would work on
plantations. The end of colonization in Haiti was so that the
people there would no longer be slaves. So, what you are
saying, and I read your quote, and anybody watching this online
should go read it. What you are saying is it would have been
good if they had stayed colonized, which means that it would
have been good if they had stayed enslaved by the French.
Mr. Krikorian. In the long run, it is one of the facts of
history----
Mr. Casar. In the long run?
Mr. Krikorian. No, excuse me----
Mr. Casar. People should not have been enslaved a single
day.
Mr. Krikorian. Of course not.
Mr. Casar. I am reclaiming my time, Chairman.
Mr. Krikorian. And they had every right to throw the French
out----
Mr. Casar. What you said is that you would have wanted
them----
Mr. Krikorian. My point is----
Mr. Casar. Reclaiming my time. I am talking now.
Mr. Krikorian. They would have been freed----
Mr. Casar. You said----
Mr. Krikorian [continuing]. Thirty years later----
Mr. Casar. You said----
Mr. Krikorian [continuing]. And they would have been in the
same situation.
Mr. Casar. You are saying you wanted 30 more years of
slavery in Haiti? Reclaiming my time.
Mr. Krikorian. No, I did not. I did not----
Mr. Casar. You just said it.
Mr. Krikorian. I did not want that.
Mr. Casar. Honestly, it adds up. You said that they would
have benefited from the French influence. The French were the
ones----
Mr. Krikorian. In the long run, like the people in
Martinique----
Mr. Casar. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman. I would like
my time.
Mr. Krikorian. [continuing] Who were also enslaved----
Mr. Casar. Please. This is my time. This is my time, Mr.
Krikorian.
Mr. Krikorian. They are much better off now than Haiti was.
Mr. Casar. Honestly, this all starts to add up. This all
starts to add up. You continue to do this, disseminate writings
of White nationalists, try to rationalize, for example, Haiti
being colonized for 30 more years. You are a Project 2025 board
member. In Project 2025, I could not figure out why on page 583
it advocates for not allowing racial disparity or gender
disparity to be considered discrimination legally anymore. In
Project 2025, it eliminates a 50-year-old executive order that
prohibits discrimination in Federal jobs. On page 586, Project
2025 advocates for Donald Trump to allow businesses to
discriminate based on religious beliefs.
Before today, I could not understand why Trump's Project
2025 could advocate for ending civil rights protections. Why
would Trump's Project 2025--I know there is crazy stuff in
here, but I could not get why he would advocate for ending
protections against discrimination, but now I understand. We
have Project 2025 board members here who are the directors of
groups that the Southern Poverty Law Center has designated as a
hate group. We have people that are on the board that developed
this who have said, for example, that Haitians would have been
better off with more influence from their enslavers.
Now, with my time remaining, which I believe should be
added, Mr. Chairman, because I was interrupted and I reclaimed
that time, I have questions for Ms. Gunasekara. You served as
Chief of Staff at the EPA in the Trump Administration, correct?
Ms. Gunasekara. Yes.
Mr. Casar. And you have worked with the Trump and his
Administration to implement your ideas in the past, correct?
Ms. Gunasekara. Yes.
Mr. Casar. You authored Chapter 13 of Project 2025,
correct?
Ms. Gunasekara. Yes.
Mr. Casar. So, you would support the ideas in Chapter 13
being implemented by the government?
Ms. Gunasekara. I believe they are very good ideas for the
next EPA.
Mr. Casar. Yes, you would support those?
Ms. Gunasekara. Yes.
Mr. Casar. So, if Trump was President and he reached out to
you and said he wanted to implement your chapter of Project
2025, would you support him in implementing that chapter? Would
you say yes?
Chairman Comer. Time has expired, but you can answer that.
I gave you 15 seconds.
Ms. Gunasekara. Yes, I do not know----
Mr. Casar. No, they interrupted me first.
Chairman Comer. I am the Chairman of the Committee. I
decide. I gave you 15.
Mr. Casar. I would like to appeal that ruling, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Comer. Look, you got your time, and the witness,
feel free to answer the question, and then I am going to
recognize Mr. Fry.
Ms. Gunasekara. Yes. I do not believe he would call me and
ask to do that.
Mr. Casar. Right, but if he did, you do want him to
implement the----
Ms. Gunasekara. Again, I do not believe that he would call
and ask me to do that.
Mr. Casar. I understand you. Do you want----
Chairman Comer. All right. Time has expired----
Mr. Casar. Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to appeal the
ruling----
Chairman Comer. Next item on the agenda.
Mr. Casar. I would like to appeal the ruling.
Chairman Comer. No. No. No. The Chair now recognizes----
Mr. Casar. Mr. Chairman, point of order.
Chairman Comer. Mr. Fry----
Mr. Casar. Isn't it within the rules for me to appeal the
ruling of the Chair and ask for a vote?
Chairman Comer. It is not an appealable rule. I gave you
extra time. The Ranking Member went a minute over. I gave the
Ranking Member 6 1/2 minutes. He took 7 1/2 minutes.
Mr. Casar. I was interrupted.
Mr. Raskin. Yes. I think you guys are doing OK, Mr.
Chairman. All right. We will let it rest with that.
Chairman Comer. All right.
Mr. Raskin. And you will see what happens in the next
Congress because we are going to be fastidious about the rules
in the next Congress----
Chairman Comer. Well, we have already read rules to----
Mr. Raskin. We are going to show you how to do it.
Chairman Comer [continuing]. Everybody already, so that is
good.
Mr. Raskin. Yes.
Chairman Comer. That is good.
Mr. Raskin. Yup.
Chairman Comer. All right, because the Committee is about
waste, fraud, abuse and mismanagement. This is a hearing about
policies----
Mr. Raskin. And you exemplify it well, Mr. Chairman. I
concede that.
Chairman Comer. No, no, no. You exemplify it. This is a
hearing about substantive policy. If you want to defend the
policies of the current Administration, if you want to talk
about Kamala Harris' agenda, her policy positions, please do so
because we are not very clear what they are.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Fry from South Carolina.
Mr. Fry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is actually a great
segue. When you fail your classes in school, you do not
graduate, right? This is a tale as old as time. For the past 4
years, Kamala Harris and Joe Biden have repeatedly failed the
American people. So, let us look at the report card on the
border, fail; unleashing American energy, failing again;
growing our economy, fail again; support American values, fail.
The top leaders of the United States have consistently failed
the American people, but it does not have to be this way.
Let us start at the border, the first one. Under the Biden-
Harris Administration, we have seen 8.5 illegal encounters at
our Southern border, more than 10 across the board, 1.9 million
got-aways. Drugs are coming across our border in record
numbers. Over 1/2 of a million pounds of meth have come across
our border, 250,000 pounds of cocaine, 56,000 pounds of
fentanyl, and these drugs are killing our kids every single
day.
On the first day of office, Biden and Harris issued a
hundred executive orders to reduce our border security. They
have gaslit the American people about the seriousness of the
border crisis. In fact, the Ranking Member of the House
Judiciary Committee says that we were imagining a border
crisis. They ended the Remain in Mexico policy. They stopped
construction of the border wall. They established unlawful
categorical parole programs. Kamala Harris even was deemed the
border czar, but it took her 90 days to even visit the border
after entering office. We have seen Americans killed by illegal
aliens. We had a hearing on that in the House Judiciary
Committee just last week. They forced children to vacate their
schools and remote learn to make room for migrant shelters, and
they have let terrorists in record numbers into the interior of
this country.
Next, let us talk about energy. On day one, they shut down
construction of the Keystone XL pipeline that eliminated 10,000
good-paying jobs. On day one, the U.S. rejoined the Paris
Climate Agreement without any consultation at all from
Congress. They have banned LNG exports, pushing Europe further
into the arms of Russia. They tried to ban gas stoves. Their
policies have led to skyrocketing gas prices under this
Administration. They have drained the Strategic Petroleum
Reserve, arguably for political reasons. They insert climate
change into every policy, which hampers domestic production.
They blocked domestic mineral development in the United States,
again, further pushing the rest of the world into China in
getting those minerals. They have restricted energy development
on Federal land, and they have crippled our domestic energy
production, which has harmed our national security.
Next, on the economy. Everyone feels it. The only people
that seem to be surprised are the ones on the other side of the
aisle, but everyone is getting pinched. Overall, prices are up
20 percent. Inflation has outpaced wages for 26 straight
months. The monthly mortgage payment for a median-priced new
home has increased by $1,038. Interest rates are over 5
percent, the highest in over 23 years. Average weekly earnings,
by the way, for employees have decreased in that same time, 4.5
percent. Credit card interest rates are at the highest level
they have been in nearly 3 decades, and over a third of
families paid a late fee in the last year.
Moving on to the next one, foreign policy. For starters,
the Biden-Harris Administration withdrew from Afghanistan. I do
not need to talk much about that given what has happened, given
the catastrophe that happened there. That was a huge blunder.
Unfortunately, the failures continue. The Biden-Harris
Administration has been incredibly mixed-messaged on whether to
stand with Israel. Vice President Harris even went so far as to
boycott Netanyahu's congressional address in this country.
Biden and Harris have projected weakness on the world stage.
They have had weakness against the Iranian-backed Houthis,
against Chinese aggression. They have handed billions of
dollars to Iran, which has funded these terror activities in
the Middle East.
The U.S. Army has fallen 15,000 soldiers short of their
recruitment goal in Fiscal Year 2022. There have been a
complete lack of oversight for the funding of Ukraine. There
has been grift all over the place. They allowed a Chinese spy
balloon to traipse itself all across the country, eventually
getting shot down in my coastal district of South Carolina.
They allowed Cuba, a known state sponsor of terrorism, to tour
the Miami TSA facilities. They have discharged troops for
refusing the COVID vaccine.
Let us talk about American values for a second. They have
worked to insert DEI initiatives into every aspect of our
lives. They allow males to compete in women's sports. Biden and
Harris proclaimed Easter as the Transgender Day of Visibility.
They have been funding abortions and travel expenses through
the Pentagon for military personnel. They have lied to the
American people about Biden's cognitive state. I could go on
and on and on.
And so, for somebody who wants a promotion to the highest
office in the land, you first have to pass the test. In every
which way, Kamala Harris has not passed the test. She has not
upheld her oath of office, and she has failed the American
people, and we should not promote her. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back.
Ms. Greene. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Ms. Greene.
Ms. Greene. I would like to enter for the record a Fox News
interview by Bret Baier with Foundation Kevin Roberts. Kevin
Roberts stated--for the record, he also published Project
2025--that Mr. Trump is telling the truth, confirming on Fox
that Trump never collaborated on Project 2025 and never
endorsed it, nor has Heritage Foundation endorsed Trump for
President. Democrats are lying over and over and over again
about Project 2025 and President Trump. Thank you.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, we will enter in the
Bret Baier interview. Without objection, so ordered.
The Chair now recognizes Ms. Lee from Pennsylvania.
Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to appreciate
for a moment that this hearing my Republican colleagues have
called is about incompetence and failure of our Federal
Government when failure is exactly what they want to happen.
Incompetence is their M.O., the same Congress that cannot pass
a rules vote, cannot pass a government funding bill, coming
after the Administration that has actually passed historic
pieces of legislation like CHIPS and Science, and the Inflation
Reduction Act, and the infrastructure bill, and an actually
productive Congress.
But when we talk about keeping the government functioning,
let us be real. The people who are actually keeping things
afloat are not my colleagues, thank God, and it is not even the
President. It is our Federal work force. It is the hardworking
career professionals across our agencies that work to improve
our air quality and our water quality. They work to ensure that
our medications are safe to take, that Social Security checks
get to folks on time, and that our veterans can live with
dignity and comfort after their service. These are regular
folks who know how to get their job done day in and day out to
serve the American people. There is a reason why these people
are career professionals. There is a reason why they are not
partisan shills. They have the right experience and knowledge
to properly do their jobs, yet Trump and the Republican Project
2025--whoever wrote it, whoever endorses it, it exists--wants
to get rid of these workers and replace them with people whose
only qualification is their loyalty and their financial support
to Donald Trump.
So, while I would argue that my colleagues in the Majority
have not proven competence, dismantling our government
agencies, it is not incompetence. It is intentional. They are
purposefully creating dysfunction. We have seen this in action
as money pours into our elections, as our Supreme Court
justices are wined and dined and then giving increasingly
radical rulings. And now, with their plan to gut these Federal
agencies and fill them with partisan hacks, they are purposely
shifting the balance of power to one man, Donald Trump, the
same man who promised to be a dictator on day one. His words.
So, Ms. Perryman, when we talk about replacing these career
Federal workers with Trump loyalists, who is actually
benefiting? And if it is not the American people, then who do
we see gaining the most from these policies?
Ms. Perryman. I am glad that you have raised this,
especially in this Committee where there has been a lot of
conversation about waste, fraud, and abuse, because what we
know is that when governments function without career civil
service, when governments function with high levels of
appointees that have to be loyal to a particular ideology as
opposed to our Constitution and to the American people, they
are actually less efficient and more prone to corruption and
waste, fraud, and abuse. So, I think that the American people
are the ones that lose out from Schedule F policies. And I
think on, you know, the question of the Biden-Harris record, we
do know that this is an Administration that has promulgated a
final rule in order to help protect our civil service.
Ms. Lee. Thank you. So, while we are on the topic of
loyalists, I would like to talk about one of the Republican
witnesses, Ms. Gunasekara. She is the author of Project 2025's
EPA chapter. She was also a top official at the EPA during the
Trump Administration, and word on the streets is that she might
head the Agency during a future Trump term, and what is her
vision for the EPA? She wants to dismantle it, and so that the
EPA goes easy on corporate polluters. She wants to make our air
and our water less safe. She wants to place fewer regulations
on greenhouse gases, endangering public health and driving
climate change. She had also called the threats of climate
change ``overstated.'' She laid out all of this in her chapter
for Project 2025. It is on page 417. Ms. Perryman, what damage
can be done if these harmful policies are unleashed at the EPA?
Ms. Perryman. We know that it will make Americans less
safe. It will make our world less safe. But we also know, and
there was a Scientific American article recently about this
that we can submit to the Committee, that there are scientists
in the U.S. Government today that are dusting off their
resumes, that are already concerned about being purged for
their loyalty to facts and evidence and to the American people.
And so, I think this presents more than just a single policy
concern, but really, a broader overall problem for the American
people and for the safety of our world.
Ms. Lee. So, let us be clear. This whole plan is another
attempt to buy out our democracy. That is why Big Oil met with
Trump at Mar-a-Lago. These corporations want less regulation.
They want less government oversight. Dismantling our Federal
work force makes that easier. These huge corporations pour
money into our elections, and they lavish our Supreme Court
justices with gifts, and now they want to buy out our Federal
agencies. Our Federal Government has jobs to do and the
American people to serve. They cannot do that if they are
staffed with partisan hacks. And that, I would argue, is the
true incompetence and danger that we are facing, not the
incompetence of actually getting things done. Thank you so
much, and I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair
recognizes Mr. Burlison from Missouri.
Mr. Burlison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, you said
that we should stick to the facts, so here are the facts. It is
a fact that since the Biden-Harris Administration took office,
there have been over 8 1/2 million illegal immigrants cross
into the United States through the Southern border. That is a
fact. It is also a fact that that population is greater than
the population of 37 states. Almost 7 million have been
released into the United States. It is also a fact that
fentanyl is poisoning the American people. On average, in 2023,
it killed 75,000 Americans. We are at war. They are at war with
us.
It is also a fact that you have violent crime occurring on
a regular basis, and we all know the names of Laken Riley,
Kayla Hamilton, Jocelyn Nungaray, but just last month, you had
a Mexican national who was here illegally shoot another man in
Alabama. You had another individual just a few weeks earlier
kill people in a drunken driving incident. In fact, there have
been numerous cases where people are being killed by
individuals who are not able to drive. In one case, an illegal
immigrant took over a semi-truck and killed people. So, these
are all facts. You cannot ignore them. You cannot hide from
them.
So, Mr. Krikorian, the state of Florida claimed in Federal
court that the Biden Administration's policies, specifically
the policies of parole and release, imposed significant costs
on the state in educating minor children, housing. In addition,
you have hospital visits. Has there been any studies as to the
financial costs? We know the human cost. Have there been
studies for the financial costs?
Mr. Krikorian. We have not done that. There have been
studies on this. I do not have the numbers at hand, but it is
often very difficult to get, especially at the state and local
level because there is unwillingness to provide the information
often, on the part of, for instance, school districts and
others.
Mr. Burlison. But they do----
Mr. Krikorian. They do.
Mr. Burlison [continuing]. Put a strain on the community
resources.
Mr. Krikorian. Enormous cost. Enormous cost in--for, like
you said, for schools, healthcare, law enforcement, et cetera.
Mr. Burlison. We know that, in addition, they have
increased costs in incarceration because they are committing
crimes, sometimes violent crimes. What about other public
services or law enforcement?
Mr. Krikorian. Well, law enforcement, especially, obviously
it creates extra work for law enforcement. And I would just
like to add because there will be an objection, that a lot of
these people are, in fact, paying taxes. All illegal
immigrants, everybody pays taxes, but the question is what is
the balance? In other words, are the expenses on the services
provided, more than the taxes received? And the answer is,
especially for those who are here illegally and with less
education, the answer is yes. There is simply no question that
the Federal taxpayer is, at the end of the day, on the hook.
Mr. Burlison. It is also a fact that the House passed H.R.
2, a solution to this. The Senate had a response. Instead of
actually correcting this, and fixing this problem and passing
H.R. 2, they devised the Senate bill. What were your thoughts
on the Senate bill?
Mr. Krikorian. It would have made things worse. It was not
a kind of thing where the House and the Senate bills could have
split a difference. I mean, that happens. You all have dealt
with that. That is inevitable in any kind of compromise. But
the Senate bill was inherently problematic because it would
have codified unlawful Administration policies that lead to the
release into the United States of illegal immigrants.
Mr. Burlison. Right. It would have actually even handcuffed
a future President who wants to do the right thing from
actually closing down the border.
Mr. Krikorian. Right. That provision, that trigger that
would have triggered an emergency ability to shut down the
border would have expired, basically, I think, you know, in the
middle of a new Trump Administration. I think that was the
thinking when the way they put it together.
Mr. Burlison. And, you know, Kamala Harris has said that
she supports now a border wall, but what has been the track
record?
Mr. Krikorian. Has she said that?
Mr. Burlison. What is the track record? I mean, the Biden-
Harris Administration has dismantled stretches of the border
wall.
Mr. Krikorian. It really struck me the most when I went to
a section in New Mexico where there was border wall being
built, but on Inauguration Day, President Biden said, you know,
sort of a stop work order. Put your tools down. Step away.
There was a gate that had been put into the fence required by
treaty because there was a border marker on the other side, and
there is an opening and they put in a locked gate. It is
something they are required to do. The doorway was there, the
gate was not. Because the Biden Administration had stopped
construction, and so it was almost like something out of
Blazing Saddles, you know, where there is a fence and then
there is just this big opening in the fence, and it is because
they stopped construction. Later, years later, the
Administration said, OK, well, maybe we will plug some of those
holes, but, you know, it is a day late and a dollar short.
Mr. Burlison. After 8.5 million people came in. Thank you.
My time is up.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair
now recognizes Ms. Stansbury from New Mexico.
Ms. Stansbury. All right. Well, thank you so much, Mr.
Chairman. I want to say welcome and thank you to our witnesses
for being here today. I respect it takes a lot to put yourself
out there to come and testify in front of Congress. And I know
that some of this ground has been covered before, and I really
do appreciate the transparency that all of you have brought
about your backgrounds, about your positions, and about your
perspectives on the policy issues. But just to kind of put it
all in one place, I want to quickly go through, and I am going
to mostly state it. I will ask some questions as we go.
Mr. Carr, I know you have said this has been asked and
answered several times, but just, you know, going back, we know
you are currently serving in the FTC. You have been serving
there since 2017 since Donald Trump appointed you, and you are
the author of the FCC chapter of Project 2025, correct? It is
just a ``yes'' or ``no.''
Mr. Carr. Well, sorry. Just to be clear, the----
Ms. Stansbury. Yes, you are. Thank you. I appreciate it.
Mr. Krikorian----
Mr. Carr. The chapter you referenced was done in my
personal capacity after----
Ms. Stansbury. Yes. The answer is ``yes.''
Mr. Carr [continuing]. Getting clearance from the FTC
ethics.
Ms. Stansbury. Mr. Krikorian, you are----
Mr. Carr. I just want to be clear that it was not in my
official capacity.
Ms. Stansbury. Mr. Krikorian, you serve as the ED of the
Center for Immigrant Studies. You are also on the advisory
board of Project 2025. Your organization has been actually
designated as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
And Dr. Hobbs [sic], thank you for your service to this
country. I understand you are a veteran and an academic. I do
very much respect your background and your work. You are
involved in the Independent Women's Forum, which is also
involved in Project 2025. You have had a number of authors and
contributors from the Women's Forum that are participants in
Project 2025. And Ms. Gunasekara, I know we have already
covered this, but you are a former Chief of Staff for the Trump
Administration at the EPA, and I think you have been very clear
about your role in drafting the EPA section of Project 2025.
So, I think it is very clear this hearing is actually about
Project 2025.
So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask for
unanimous consent to enter the entire Trump Project 2025 into
the record so that the American people can have it at their
disposal for reference for this hearing.
Chairman Comer. Very good. I do not think anyone on this
side has ever read that, but apparently you all have, so we
will enter it into the record.
Without objection, so ordered.
Ms. Stansbury. Thank you so much. And again, I just
appreciate the transparency of this particular Committee
because last week, right after the debate, we tried to enter it
into the record in the House Natural Resources Committee, and
three Members on the GOP side of the aisle actually objected to
putting it in the record. And I have to say, we were genuinely
shocked because I have never seen an objection to a UC to put
evidence in the record, but it was very clear in that hearing
that the GOP was trying to distance themselves from this
document.
So, you know, I think it is interesting that we are here
today. We have got the authors of the document, and I just want
to say, welcome to the American people, to your campaign stop
on the Donald Trump Campaign. Here we are in the Oversight
Committee, and we have got a bunch of former Trump and current
Trump officials. We have got authors of Project 2025, which is
the blueprint for the next Presidential transition. And the
last stop for the Trump Campaign was the House Floor last night
because Donald Trump asked the House GOP leadership to put a CR
on the Floor that they knew was not going to pass, that had a
voter bill attached to it, and then he told everyone to vote
against it.
You know, we have seen over the last almost 2 years how
leadership has used this Committee essentially as a campaign
resource. They tried to impeach Joe Biden. They tried to impugn
his family. And now here we are, and we are just 47 days until
the election, and now they are trying to attack Kamala Harris
and use the resources of this Committee and to platform future
Trump Administration officials and their agenda, and to try to
normalize what are, frankly, very extreme policies. And we
heard from one of the witnesses today that, in fact, not only
do they support dismantling our Federal Government, but would
support doing even more damage than was done during the Trump
Administration and even what is recommended inside of this
book. So, you know, it is an interesting adventure here always.
But I do want to take the remainder of my time to talk
about, since there have been some unfounded and unfactual
attacks on the current Administration, to say that this
Administration has been one of the single most important
administrations in American history in rebuilding our Nation's
infrastructure, in tackling the climate crisis, in defending
our rights, and making sure that our country can function after
a historic pandemic. And I think we all look forward to the
continued leadership under the next Administration in that way.
So, with that, I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the gentlelady from Georgia, Ms. Taylor Greene.
Ms. Greene. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and welcome
to the Oversight Committee, where we focus on waste, fraud, and
abuse, not the campaign trail. This hearing is called ``A
Legacy of Incompetence: Consequences of the Biden-Harris
Administration's Policy Failures.'' Policies that do not
deliver results for the American people, who are the taxpayers,
are complete failures. Spending money and allocating money is
not a policy of success. It is the outcome of the money that
has been spent based on the policy.
So, I would like to talk through this one that I find
absolutely shocking, especially given that my district is a
rural district in Georgia. This is in 2021. ``President Biden
Taps Kamala Harris to Lead Effort to Close Digital Divide.''
The White House released their remarks by President Biden in an
address to a joint session of Congress, and, ``in the process,
it will create thousands and thousands of good-paying jobs. It
creates jobs connecting every American with high-speed
internet, including 35 percent of the rural America that still
doesn't have it. This is going to help our kids and our
businesses succeed in the 21st century economy, and I am asking
the Vice President to lead this effort, if she would.'' The
Vice President replied ``of course.'' The President said,
``Because I know it will get done.''
Now, fast forward to 2024. Here is the headlines: ``Why Has
Joe Biden's $42 billion Broadband Program Not Connected One
Single Household?'' Maybe it is because--this is also in the
headlines--that ``Harris Announces Plans to Help 80 Percent of
Africa Gain Access to the Internet, Up From 40 Percent Now.''
Talk about a policy failure. Talk about not delivering results
to the American people, spending $42 billion, yet not having
one household connected to the internet. Mr. Carr, is that
actually true, not one home got internet?
Mr. Carr. That is correct. In Georgia alone, there are
about 257,000 homes and businesses that lack internet today, so
that is potentially millions of people that were supposed to be
connected through this program. Forty-two billion was enough
money to actually end the digital divide in this country with
competent implementation. Unfortunately, we have not cleared
that hurdle. We have stories out right now that describe the
implementation as chaotic, dysfunction, delays, no guidance,
finger pointing, messy, delayed rollout. That is just not
getting the job done.
Ms. Greene. That is right, Mr. Carr, and many of those
homes and businesses are actually in my district, and they are
outraged. You know, we are over $35 trillion in debt. The
Biden-Harris Administration has been in charge for nearly 4
years, but not one home or business has gotten internet. It is
outrageous. This is so concerning to me. How can the woman,
Kamala Harris, that is telling the country right now she wants
to be President of the United States actually ask for this job
if she has not been able to deliver what the President assigned
her to do, which was to take that $42 billion and provide
internet to the American people? I find that hard to believe
because I own a construction company, and when we get hired to
do a job, guess what? We deliver it.
Let me ask you a question. Under the Trump Administration,
in 2020, the FCC awarded Starlink $885 million to serve 642,925
homes and businesses that lacked internet. What happened to
that program?
Mr. Carr. Well, last year, after President Biden went to
the White House podium and said that Elon Musk is worth being
looked into, the FCC abruptly reversed course and yanked back
that award. And now, in other programs, the ones that are
actually connecting people under this Administration, we are
spending dollars on the pennies. Senator Cruz recently had a
report showing that in some cases, we are spending $100,000 per
home for broadband when with that Starlink deal, it was $1,300.
I do not think there is any way to explain the FCC's decision
other than to go back to Joe Biden giving the green light to
agencies to go after him.
Ms. Greene. So, what has happened in the process of $42
billion being allocated for Americans to get internet? Why
cannot Kamala Harris deliver those results?
Mr. Carr. Look, after 1,039 days and no Americans being
connected, what they have been doing so far is advancing a wish
list of progressive policy goals. They have been pushing for
DEI requirements, climate change agenda, preferences for
government-run networks, rather than just focusing on getting
people connected.
Ms. Greene. You know, thank you very much, Mr. Carr. That
is exactly what the American people are so fed up with, is so-
called policies that actually never deliver results for the
American people. I yield, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Comer. Thank you. The gentlelady yields. The Chair
recognizes Mr. Moskowitz. Do you----
Mr. Raskin. Just unanimous consent, if it is OK.
Chairman Comer. That is fine.
Mr. Raskin. This is from Governor Youngkin in Virginia.
``Governor Glenn Youngkin Celebrates Approval of Virginia
Broadband Proposal. Approval provides access to Virginia's 1.48
billion BEAD Allocation;'' and then another from the Governor
of West Virginia: ``West Virginia Secures $1.2 billion in
Broadband Funding. Among First States in the Country Allowed to
Request BEAD Funds.'' All of this, of course, just started in
the summer, which is what that is all about. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Ms. Moskowitz.
Mr. Moskowitz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Man, I love our
Chairman. I mean, people have called the Chairman many things,
different adjectives over the last 2 years, but I admire his
courage. I mean, literally, as Donald Trump is running away
from Project 2025, trying to put as much distance between him
and Project 2025 because the American people know it is toxic,
but not our Chairman. No, no. The Chairman, with all of his
wisdom, he features Project 2025 in the hearing, one of our
last hearings right before the election. I mean, if the Trump
campaign is listening, here you go, Project 2025, any hearing,
I am sure they are real happy about that.
But, you know, Project 2025 wants to get rid of NOAA, wants
to get rid of the National Weather Service, you know, the
people that tell you the weather and help us prepare for
hurricanes. So, I say that as a former Director of Emergency
Management for the state of Florida, for a Republican Governor,
actually, who responded to hurricanes. You know, maybe if once
we get rid of it, if Project 2025 were to succeed, if Trump
were to win, maybe we will just do it with a magic eight-ball,
or maybe with a Ouija board, or maybe we will do hurricane
cones like President Trump did, right, where he just, you know,
circled in another state that was not in the cone.
So, maybe what we will do, is we will do hurricane
predictions, like maybe it will go to Mississippi, maybe it
will go to North Carolina, or maybe it will go to all three.
Oh, look, I made a smiley face. Maybe that is how we will do
the weather. You know, I could see it right now, right? Trump
would come out and say it is going to be raining cats and dogs
today. Please do not eat them. OK.
But you know, the name of this Committee today is Failures
and Incompetencies, so let us talk about the big knish, right:
the Chairman's failed impeachment. Let us remember, we
misplaced an informant over a year ago. Could not find him. Did
not know where he went. Another informant was indicted for
providing false information that came from Russian
intelligence. We used a second informant who turned out to be
an indicted Chinese foreign agent. And to top it off, the
Chairman was like, who could we find to make it even better?
Maybe we can get someone to testify from prison, which actually
we did here on Zoom.
Here is the Chairman's 300-page book report on impeachment.
He said in his release, ``It is the strongest case for
impeachment of a sitting President the House of Representatives
has ever investigated.'' Wow, that sounds pretty serious. So, I
want the Chairman to show the American people that we did not
just waste millions of taxpayer dollars to issue this book
report. Mr. Chairman, the Speaker is watching. You could call
for impeachment right now, right? We got a little bit of time
left before the election. I mean, you know, just ask the
Speaker. You could ask the Speaker right now, or talk to him,
like when are we going to schedule an impeachment? Or is this
just concepts of impeachment? Right? No? OK.
Well, I mean, here is the thing. I think that the Chairman
titled this--and I love the title of today's hearing, right--
``A Legacy of Incompetence: Consequences of the Biden-Harris
Administration Policy Failures.'' I made a couple of edits to
the title of today. So, the title, I think, really is ``A
Legacy of Incompetence: Consequences of the Comer
Chairmanship,'' OK, because all we have had in this Committee
for 2 years is failure: failed impeachment, failure on this gas
stove nonsense, failure on all the Chinese COVID stuff. They
did nothing with that COVID committee. It is all failure. The
whole House, the whole 118th Congress is failure.
They removed the Speaker, right? Then they tried to remove
a second Speaker, right? That is really great for the American
people, right? Then they impeach the Cabinet Secretary. That
had not happened in 150 years. They have had multiple CRs fail,
right? They cannot even keep the government open without both
Speakers crawling to the Democrats to be the adults in the room
to keep government opening. So, I mean, literally, if we are
going to talk about failures and incompetencies, we should just
look at what we have done here over the last 2 years.
And I want to end with this. I mean, literally 2 weeks ago,
right, all we heard was about what the Haitian people were
doing in Springfield, but no, the Chairman wanted to top that.
He literally brought a witness who proffered in this Committee
that the Haitian people would have been better off had they
stayed in slavery for several more decades. Mr. Chairman, I
want to spare you the embarrassment. You should strike his
words from the record. No, you stand by his comment that the
Haitian people would have been better off in slavery for 30
more years, or should we strike that from the record? I just
want to spare you that embarrassment. OK. So, the Chair----
Chairman Comer. All right. Your time has expired. Before I
recognize Mr. Timmons, I would love to be a fly on the wall
when you find out that Joe Biden dropped out of the
Presidential election and his son pled guilty for corruption.
Mr. Moskowitz. Why didn't you impeach him?
Chairman Comer. The Chair now recognizes----
Mr. Moskowitz. Wait. Wait. Why didn't you impeach him, Mr.
Chairman?
Chairman Comer. Your time is expired.
Mr. Moskowitz. Where is the impeachment vote?
Mr. Timmons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Moskowitz. Mr. Speaker, when is the impeachment vote?
Mr. Timmons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Moskowitz. I mean, we have a 300-page book report, tens
of millions of dollars----
Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Mr. Timmons from South
Carolina.
Mr. Moskowitz [continuing]. And a failed impeachment.
Mr. Timmons. Mr. Chairman, I will begin by pointing out
that Hunter Biden is going to be sentenced on December 16----
Mr. Moskowitz. Hunter Biden is not the President.
Mr. Timmons [continuing]. And I bet you money he is going
to----
Chairman Comer. Dude, you need to take your medication and
leave. The Chair recognizes Mr. Timmons.
Mr. Moskowitz. Mr. Chairman, you are several decades older
than me. We know who is taking more medication.
Mr. Timmons. All right. Hunter Biden is going to plead
guilty on December 16, and President Biden will pardon him
probably days after, so just write that down.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the witnesses for
being here today. We are here to examine the numerous failures
of the Biden-Harris Administration that had led to chaos for
the American people. My constituents in the upstate of South
Carolina feel deceived by Joe Biden and Kamala Harris' reckless
spending and policy positions that are dreamed up by woke Ivy
League professors who have no common sense or real-world
experience. These policies have led to record inflation, an
unprecedented influx of illegal immigrants, and a drastic
decrease in our standing in the global community. Many
Americans have lost their trust in the government, and they do
not believe it is working for them, and why should the American
people trust this Administration? They have flip-flopped around
on policy when it best serves their interests because they know
that what they are doing is wrong, and they are hurting the
American people. They have deceived us from the start and
cannot be trusted to lead our country for another 4 years.
So, let us start with immigration first. In 2020, the Vice
President ran on decriminalizing illegal border crossings and
even endorsed the redirection of funds from ICE to our law
enforcement agencies. On day one of this Administration,
President Biden ordered a stop to the construction of the
border wall, the end of the successful Remain in Mexico policy,
and gave exemption status to millions of illegal immigrants
already here with a hundred-day deportation moratorium.
As a result, Border Czar Harris' overwhelmed Southern
border is responsible for the No. 1 cause of death for
Americans between the ages of 18 and 45, fentanyl overdoses,
which kills hundreds of people every day. Crime has skyrocketed
in cities across the country, and our law enforcement officers
have not received adequate assistance from our leaders. Now
Vice President Harris says she will fund thousands of new
border agents and continue funding the construction of a border
wall, the wall that she has previously opposed dozens of times.
Mr. Krikorian, can officials from this Administration be
trusted to follow through on the VP's promises to finally
support law enforcement and finish the border wall when they
have done the exact opposite for their entire tenure?
Mr. Krikorian. Well, in investment they say past
performance is no guarantee of future results, but I think in
politics, how can you avoid it? I mean, there is no way to read
the future except by looking at what they have said and done.
And so no, I do not think it could be----
Mr. Timmons. Well, she will not answer interviewers
whatsoever, and it really is sad that she is running from
everything that she is done and she is taking the exact
opposite position on every major issue.
Let us talk about instability abroad. In 2020, Joe Biden
ran for President on a promise to ``restore America's alliances
and leadership abroad.'' These past 4 years have been a
showcase of the exact opposite. Our allies no longer trust us,
and our enemies no longer fear us. The Biden-Harris
Administration's foreign policies have given our enemies the
green light to attack in Israel and Ukraine without the fear of
retaliation. The catastrophic withdrawal from Afghanistan
resulted in the tragic loss of American lives and gave
terrorist organizations direct access to our most advanced
military equipment. Finally, China is constantly overstepping
in the South China Sea and worldwide because they no longer see
America as a dominant leader on the world stage. Now Vice
President Harris promises to find a peaceful solution to
international conflicts and continue on the foreign policy
track of her current Administration.
Ms. Mobbs, can our Nation, or the world for that matter,
withstand another 4 years of this same foreign policy without
devastating outcomes for the global community?
Dr. Mobbs. No, it cannot, and while we are talking about
facts I want to address, I am Dr. Mobbs, not Dr. Hobbs, and I
appreciate the opportunity to also set the record straight on a
couple of different things, as this is critical to talk about
oversight. In particular, if you are talking about Ukraine, for
example, there have been substantial issues with oversight that
I think that we need to address.
Now congressional Republicans should be very proud of the
fact that it has been their leadership that allowed 39
oversight provisions to enter into any of the supplementals.
However, to your point, Congressman, there has been a refusal
to give the weapons that they need. They have done onerous
restrictions on that which the continuation of Obama policy,
will be continuation of Biden policy, and, therefore,
continuation of Harris policy. They also failed to deliver an
unclassified version of the strategy to Congress. It was
already months late, and, therefore, there is no transparency
to the American people.
Mr. Timmons. Thank you for that. Thank you. I got one more
issue I got to address, and I will just say this. When Trump
wins in November, Russia will be out of Ukraine and all the
hostages will be released, probably before he is actually sworn
in.
Last but certainly not least, inflation. Back in 2021,
President Biden told the American people inflation would be
only temporary. Then Treasury Secretary Yellen claimed
inflation was transitory. Outrageously, in 2022, Biden casts
the blame on Russian aggression in Ukraine for rising prices.
Listen, the people of my district are suffering because
inflation is the highest it has been in my lifetime. Interest
rates are through the roof, and that is hitting them in the
grocery store, at the gas pump. And look, they are just worse
off than they were 4 years ago. It is as simple as that, and I
think that is what is on the ballot in November. And Mr.
Chairman, I appreciate you having this hearing, and with that,
I yield back.
Chairman Comer. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. The
Chair now recognizes Ms. Pressley from Massachusetts.
Ms. Pressley. Thank you. You know, this would all be funny
if it was not so devastating at a time when the leader of the
Republican Party is trying to claim that he has no connection
whatsoever to Project 2025, an outright lie, another lie, like
the one that he spews daily about Haitian Americans in
Springfield, Ohio. Again, the leader of the Republican Party is
trying to claim that he has no connection whatsoever to Project
2025, an outright lie. My Republican colleagues have invited
four of the manifesto's architects to testify today. I am over
here. In a desperate attempt to erase all of the ways that the
American public has benefited from the Biden-Harris
Administration, this Committee has instead spotlighted what
Project 2025 would offer: chaos and corruption.
However, we would be ignoring a critical component of
Project 2025 if we did not address the fact that its creators
have been secretly peddling a ``100-day playbook'' that
contains executive orders and emergency actions to roll out in
the first hours of a second Trump presidency. Instead of
sharing this plan with the public, an indictment of your
dangerous policy plans in and of itself, those behind Project
2025 claim it is too controversial to release. Ms. Gunasekara,
yes or no, as a main author of Project 2025, are you aware of
this playbook or ``fourth pillar?'' And remember, you are under
oath.
Ms. Gunasekara. Yes, and it is online on the website.
Ms. Pressley. Can you please detail what exactly it calls
for?
Ms. Gunasekara. I think you explained it pretty well. It is
a plan of action so that when Republicans and conservatives
have another chance at a next administration, there is not lost
time, and so that there is a plan ready to go.
Ms. Pressley. I do not know if that was specific enough.
You are under oath. Can you please detail what exactly it calls
for, this fourth pillar, this 180-day playbook? Please detail
what it calls for.
Ms. Gunasekara. Again, I would reiterate what I just said,
that I think you summarized it quite well. It includes a plan
of action on day one so that Republicans----
Ms. Pressley. But you did not say anything, and that is the
problem. What is the plan of action?
Ms. Gunasekara. It is to institute a more conservative
vision on things that the American people want because they are
experiencing all of these hardships caused by the chaos and
corruption of the Biden-Harris Administration.
Ms. Pressley. All right. Reclaiming my time. Mr. Carr, how
about you. Yes or no, as a main author of Project 2025, are you
aware of this fourth pillar playbook?
Mr. Carr. Well to be----
Ms. Pressley. Yes or no.
Mr. Carr. To be clear, I am here in my official capacity--
--
Ms. Pressley. Yes or no?
Mr. Carr. So, I do not want to have any confusion on that.
Ms. Pressley. I am reclaiming my time. You are under oath,
and I do not want you to filibuster. Yes or no, are you aware
of this fourth pillar playbook?
Mr. Carr. Just so I can be clear, that writing that I did
was in my personal capacity after getting the----
Ms. Pressley. Reclaiming my time. I did not ask you that.
Are you aware of the fourth pillar playbook, and can you
detail, as you are under oath, what exactly it calls for?
Mr. Carr. Again, I have not seen this fourth pillar
playbook that you are talking about. I can----
Ms. Pressley. Moving on. Moving on.
Mr. Carr. But I am happy to----
Ms. Pressley. I find it hard to believe that you do not
know----
Mr. Carr. No, but I am happy to talk----
Ms. Pressley [continuing]. The details of this 100----
Mr. Carr [continuing]. I am happy to talk about----
Ms. Pressley. Well, please.
Mr. Carr. I am happy to talk about----
Ms. Pressley. You are under oath, and do not waste my or
the public's time.
Mr. Carr. I am happy to talk about all of the policy ideas
that I have talked about. I have talked about them in that
context. I have talked about them otherwise.
Ms. Pressley. I want to talk about 100-day playbook, the
fourth pillar. Can you elucidate us to that?
Mr. Carr. Again, my----
Ms. Pressley. All right. I am moving on, sir. I find it
hard to believe that you do not know details of the 100-day
playbook, but there is one person that definitely knows: Kevin
Roberts, the President of the Heritage Foundation. And that is
why, as co-founder of the Stop Project 2025 Task Force,
alongside Representative Jared Huffman and dozens of our
colleagues, we sent a letter to Mr. Roberts requesting he
testify before Congress and release this 180-day playbook. We
sent this letter on August 8. The next day, he delayed his book
launch, went into hiding.
Kevin Roberts, what are you so afraid of? I am
disappointed, but unsurprised, that the authors and leaders of
Project 2025 are hiding their 180-day playbook. So today,
Congressman Huffman and I are announcing a new, fully
confidential tip line. Any person can visit Huffman.House.gov/
tip-line-form to submit any information you have about the
secret playbook behind Project 2025. That goes for
conservatives with a change of heart, workers at the Heritage
Foundation, and our witnesses here today who will perhaps find
more courage when the cameras are off. I yield.
Chairman Comer. Now it is the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr.
Burchett.
Mr. Burchett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Mobbs, is it
fair to say that the Biden-Harris Afghanistan withdrawal was a
complete failure?
Dr. Mobbs. It is very fair.
Mr. Burchett. Thank you. Thirteen U.S. service members were
killed during that withdrawal, and one of those service members
was my constituent, Staff Sergeant Ryan Knauss. I know his
family well. Every time I come out of our farm, I turn left,
and I see the sign right there, the Ryan Knauss Memorial
Highway. Young man, he was 23 years old. Has the Biden-Harris
Administration acknowledged the families of these victims?
Dr. Mobbs. No, they have not.
Mr. Burchett. What would be the reason behind not
acknowledging them? I just cannot imagine that. I was county
mayor, and somebody would get hurt and we would call their
families to make sure they were OK. Just to me, it is just
beyond belief.
Dr. Mobbs. I agree with you.
Mr. Burchett. All right. How many billions worth of
military equipment were left behind during the withdrawal?
Dr. Mobbs. Seven billion.
Mr. Burchett. Did you say $7 billion?
Dr. Mobbs. Seven billion.
Mr. Burchett. Seven billion. The Taliban has also accessed
$58 million. Fifty-eight million. It is the Taliban, U.S.-
provided funds meant for the former Afghan Government. Has the
Biden Administration taking steps to prevent U.S. funds from
falling into the hands of terrorist groups in the future?
Dr. Mobbs. No, they currently have not, and that does not
also include the $2.9 billion since August 2021 that the U.N.
transported. And unfortunately, the U.S. remains the largest
international donor to the United Nations, and, thereby, that
money is eventually landing in the hands of the Taliban.
Mr. Burchett. So that money is what?
Dr. Mobbs. Landing in the hands of the Taliban.
Mr. Burchett. Yes, ma'am. Close friend of mine, he was on a
podcast with another really good buddy of mine, Shawn Ryan.
This other friend is a former U.S. Army soldier and citizen of
Afghanistan. He recently revealed that the U.S. continues to
send the Taliban $40 million weekly. Are you aware of this?
Dr. Mobbs. I am not aware of that figure exactly, but it
would make sense, given the fact that we are transporting a
massive amount of money through the U.N.
Mr. Burchett. And what would that money be used for?
Dr. Mobbs. I could not say specifically, but probably
nothing positive.
Mr. Burchett. Well, the fact that a single penny of
American tax dollars has ended up in the hands of terrorists is
a disgrace. I have a bill--of course, everybody gets here and
promotes their bills that are going absolutely nowhere--and I
actually have a bill, 6586, that would require the Secretary of
State to report on countries aiding the Taliban, the amount and
its use. It would develop a strategy to discourage countries
from aiding the Taliban and review the eligibility for U.S.
assistance, and it would report on direct assistance in
Afghanistan, including recipients, payment methods, and
measures to prevent Taliban access. Now, this bill has already
passed the House, and it is sitting in the Senate.
And I really urge Majority Leader Schumer--this is a
bipartisan issue. This is just a failure of the U.S.
Government, and apparently millions a week do not add up to a
lot. I will tell you, in East Tennessee, dadgummit, they mean a
lot, and people are struggling to get by right now. And when we
are throwing millions at people that want to kill us, to me,
is, our so-called legacy news in this country ought to hang
their head in shame for not talking about this at all because
this is a complete disgrace. Would you comment on that?
Dr. Mobbs. I could not agree more, Congressman, and I think
that the issue is not just the money that is going to the
Taliban and Afghanistan. I think, broadly speaking, there needs
to be more oversight and accountability of foreign aid dollars
going to countries that hate us. I think the Senator said that
people should be able to hate us for free. Currently, so much
of our money is going to places like Yemen and Libya and Syria
to be utilized allegedly for humanitarian purposes. Oftentimes,
it is taken away and utilized for the nefarious purposes that
you are speaking about.
Mr. Burchett. Yes, ma'am. I totally agree with that, and I
would urge Senator Schumer to bring this bill up for a vote,
tack it on to some other piece of legislation that is going to
pass. I do not see how we can look at the American taxpayer
that is struggling so hard, especially in East Tennessee. Folks
are, you know, you see them at the gas pump, and they do not
fill up. They get a quarter of a tank and they go to the store,
and you can tell they are looking through their change, making
sure they got enough, and that is pathetic. That is pathetic,
and as usual, the war pimps seem to be making out pretty good.
They get on both sides of these conflicts, and eventually it is
going to be as my daddy, old World War II Marine, told me, he
said, ``Old men make decisions, and young men die,'' and we are
going to get to that, so thank you. The American public, the
people of this country deserve more. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I
yield back.
Chairman Comer. Thank you, gentleman. The Chair now
recognizes----
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman, I have a unanimous consent
request just corroborating the perspective of my friend from
Tennessee. This is from Business Insider, ``GOP Blames Biden
for Afghanistan Withdrawal, but Trump Brokered the Deal.'' CNN:
``Fact Check: Trump Administration Officials Tried to Rewrite
Their Own Afghanistan History.'' Forbes: ``Trump Denies
Releasing 5,000 Taliban Prisoners, but His Administration
Negotiated Their Release.'' And The Hill: ``Former Afghan
President Ghani Agrees Trump's Deal With Taliban on U.S.
Withdrawal was a Complete Disaster.''
Chairman Comer. Without objection. So, ordered.
The Chair now recognize Mr. Frost from Florida.
Mr. Frost. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, this is the House
Rules Manual.
[Book]
Mr. Frost. And at the start of Congress, the House approves
the House Rules. Every Republican Member on this Committee
voted yes to it. On page 640, Rule XI, Clause 4(b), it states
that this Committee, ``may not be used for any partisan
political campaign purpose.'' This hearing is in violation of
the House Rules that we all voted on, including the Chair,
including all the Republicans on the other side of the aisle.
And all we have done in this hearing and over these hearings
over this entire year is promote the Trump Campaign. And so, my
question for the Chairman or for any Republican is, how can we
allow this hearing to continue when we are in direct violation
of the House Rules?
Chairman Comer. It is about the Biden-Harris policies. You
can defend them----
Mr. Frost. That is what you say. You keep saying it is not
about the campaign, it is not about the campaign, but Ms.
Gunasekara, during her brief, in their opening, said ``we are
less than 2 months away from the election. Democrats are
working overtime to rewrite the truth of the Biden-Harris
Admin.'' One of my colleagues put up a report card to make the
point that Vice President Harris should not be elected. Another
one of my colleagues literally asked the witness, ``why should
Harris get the job?'' and you expect us to believe that this
hearing is not about the campaign?
This Committee functions as an extension of the Trump
Campaign. First, we went after President Biden with a nonsense
impeachment hearing. Then we went after his son. Now we are
going after the Vice President because she is the nominee. And
my question is, Mr. Chairman, are we going after Tim Walz next
week because I hear from my staff that you are planning a
hearing on Governor Tim Walz, even though he has been Governor
for 5 years and his name has not been uttered in this room or
in this Committee until something happened recently. Oh, yes.
He became the vice Presidential nominee. Is he next?
Chairman Comer. His son is going to jail.
Mr. Frost. Oh, OK. OK. I am talking about Governor Tim
Walz.
Chairman Comer. Oh. Oh.
Mr. Frost. Are we doing a hearing on him next week?
Chairman Comer. I will have to check the calendar.
Mr. Frost. You will have to check. OK.
Chairman Comer. I will let you know.
Mr. Frost. Well, we will see what happens next week.
Someone whose name has not been uttered in this Committee, but
now that he is the Democratic vice Presidential nominee, we are
going to do a hearing on him, a complete and blatant----
Chairman Comer. And Trump----
Mr. Frost [continuing]. Use of official----
Chairman Comer [continuing]. Is not President. I----
Mr. Frost [continuing]. Resources for a political campaign
is what this Committee has been, and anyone who has taken part
in that should be ashamed of themselves.
Ms. Perryman, we worked together in 2023 when I hosted an
ad hoc hearing to spotlight different issues in the state of
Florida.
Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record
the ad hoc hearing memo and testimony.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered. And we are
not doing a hearing on Walz. I just got confirmation.
Mr. Frost. Oh, OK. OK. For those concerned about Project
2025, people should know that Project 2025 is Florida 2024. Ms.
Perryman, there are policies and lawsuits that have been
popping up all over my state and across the south--book bans,
abortion bans, voter suppression--that are now in the Project
2025 plan for the entire country. The architects of this plan
want us to believe that this is some sort of organic,
grassroots movement, but you and I know that this is really a
small group of people. What is so dangerous about this trend
for people in every state across America?
Ms. Perryman. Well, Project 2025 would take away rights of
the American people and beneficial programs that we have come
to rely on in communities across the country. And so, I think
that, you know, it really presents a profound threat to
individual Americans. We have heard a lot about today about the
plight of the middle class and the plight of workers in this
country, and we know that it is hard for people to make ends
meet. But Project 2025 would seek to undermine things that the
Biden-Harris Administration have done, for instance, to qualify
millions of American workers for overtime pay, and it would
reduce a lot of programs that working families rely on.
Mr. Frost. Yes, I mean, two people in the state of Florida
are responsible for about 50 percent of the book bans across
the entire state. That does not sound like an organic
grassroots movement to me. Ms. Perryman, of the policies these
extremists are testing in Florida, which ones do you see these
same groups laying the groundwork for at the national level,
and how are they doing this?
Ms. Perryman. Well, certainly attacks on the freedom to
read, attacks on public education, attacks on just very basic
ideas and history, we see in Florida. We have also seen, of
course, the Governor of Florida seek to establish a state
military and to try to deploy those individuals for his
purposes, and we see a variety of those themes in Project 2025.
Mr. Frost. And we see happening right now with Amendment 4.
Ms. Perryman. Absolutely.
Mr. Frost. I do not have much time left, but I just want to
say Trump is trying to make it out like he does not know
anything about Project 2025, but I do not buy it for 1 second,
not when this Committee that functions as an arm of the Trump
campaign invites Project 2025 authors to be their credible
witnesses to attack the Biden-Harris Administration. I yield
back.
Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Mr. Fallon from Texas.
Mr. Fallon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know what I want
to focus on today? The truth. Not your truth or my truth, but
simply the truth. That would be a novel idea. And I will not be
talking about the big boogeyman, Project 2025, all right? How
about this? Ms. Perryman, would you describe Kamala Harris, her
role as the border czar, to be a success or a failure?
Ms. Perryman. I do not agree with the premise of your
question.
Mr. Fallon. And what premise is that?
Ms. Perryman. You are calling her a border czar.
Mr. Fallon. OK. So, let us just say this. On March 24,
2021, the quote from President Biden, ``I have asked her,''--
the Vice President--``today, because she is the most qualified
person to do it, to lead our efforts with Mexico and the
Northern Triangle and countries that help--are going to need
help in stemming the movement of so many folks, stemming the
migration to our Southern border.'' So, whether or not you want
to call her the border czar, the boss, the don, the grand
poohbah----
Ms. Perryman. Or the Vice President of the United States.
Mr. Fallon. Or the person that the President of United
States put in charge of the border, and this is what he tasked
her with. One thing is undeniably clear: she was tasked with
mitigating and reducing the flow, or better stated, the flood
of illegal migrants from four countries, Mexico, Honduras,
Guatemala and El Salvador. Do you agree with that?
Ms. Perryman. Do I agree with what?
Mr. Fallon. That the President tasked her with mitigating
the flow of illegal migration from those four countries?
Ms. Perryman. I think, as the President called on Congress
from day one of his Administration to do something----
Mr. Fallon. OK. So----
Ms. Perryman [continuing]. About our immigration crisis, I
think----
Mr. Fallon. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman?
Ms. Perryman [continuing]. it is also as----
Chairman Comer. You are under oath, Ms. Perryman.
Mr. Fallon. Mr. Chairman, I reclaim my time. So, Ms.
Perryman does not want to answer a very simple question. The
American people just saw that quote. That was her task: get
these numbers down. So, did she get those numbers down? Did she
succeed or did she fail? Because since its inception, it was
known as the Biden-Harris Administration. Now she wants us to
forget about the hyphen and the ``Harris.'' So, Ms. Perryman
does not want to answer. Mr. Krikorian, did she succeed or
fail?
Mr. Krikorian. No, I am not sure she even tried, but she
did not succeed. Let us put it that way.
Mr. Fallon. OK. Again, let us talk about truth. This can be
objectively ascertained because we have data. Donald J. Trump
was in office, and the Biden-Harris Administration has been in
office. Under Donald J. Trump, the illegal migration from those
4 countries was 1.8 million. Under this Administration, it was
4.3 million. That is a 239-percent increase, and by any
empirical measure, that was an abject failure in reducing
illegal migration. So, Joe Biden, Ms. Perryman, on numerous
occasions, along with Kamala Harris, has asserted that the
border was secured. Do you believe the border is secure?
Ms. Perryman. I believe we need a border bill that this
Congress should pass----
Mr. Fallon. It is not a trick question. Not a trick
question. Yes or no? Is the border secure right now? Is our
Southern border secure?
Ms. Perryman. I am not here to testify about the border
today.
Mr. Fallon. OK. So, I will take that as a yes. We all know
it is not. In fact, Homeland Security Secretary, Alejandro
Mayorkas, testified under oath in front of God, country, and
Congress, ``The border is no less secure than it was
previously,'' and then he also said, ``We don't bear
responsibility for a broken system,'' but here is the thing. We
have got data. And I am glad he was impeached because he
deserved it.
Under even Barack Obama's Administration, 4 years, illegal
encounters was 1.7 million. Under Donald Trump, it was 1.9
million. So, commensurate numbers. They are close. Under the
Biden-Harris Administration, that figure was 10.6 million, a
557-percent increase. That was an abject failure. The Homeland
Security Secretary was inaccurate, he was wrong, and I believe
he was lying under oath.
In the last 20 years, Washington Post said that we had
172,000 illegal crossings in April, yes. We had not had a month
in 20 years that we had over 200,000 illegal border crossings,
had not happened in 20 years. Under this Administration, it has
happened 28 times. We had Chinese communists, migrants, people
from the Communist China; 1,282 in 2020, and this past year it
was 27,000, a 2,100-percent increase. People on the terror
watch list under Donald J. Trump, 4 years, there were 11 people
that were apprehended on that list. Under this Administration,
it was 375. Fentanyl deaths have doubled, and the people of
Texas have had to bear the brunt. In the last decade-plus, we
have had 299,000 criminal aliens arrested charged with 513,000
crimes and convicted of 187,000 of them. We are talking about
murder, rape, kidnapping, burglary, et cetera.
The biggest and the greatest task, Mr. Chairman, any of us
have in this dais is to keep Americans safe because if you are
not safe, then you are not free. And it is very clear that if
you want more of the same chaos, crime, cartels, corruption,
then you keep the same people in power, but if you want change
and you want to be safe and you want to put America first, you
have an option to do that, too. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Ocasio-Cortez
from New York.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. You
know, days like today are really deeply felt. I am going to
speak briefly as the highest-ranking Latino or Latina on this
Committee. We hear a lot of rhetoric on both sides about the
issue of immigration, and it is precisely because it is seen as
a border issue that millions of people suffer over and over and
over again. It does matter that Vice President Harris was not
the ``border czar,'' and let me explain to you why. Because
what Vice President Harris has been tasked with under President
Biden's Administration is addressing the root causes of
immigration. Once you have millions of people at the Southern
border of the United States, you have lost.
We need to understand why people are coming to the Southern
border of the United States and mitigating that in the first
place. And frankly, when we turn the page and look at what
happened in the Trump Administration, we have to see where
folks are coming from. And I am tired of hearing from people
who cannot point out Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Guatemala on
a map telling us about how to mitigate the millions of people
seeking refuge. We should be eliminating the reasons why people
are seeking refuge in the first place.
Under the Trump Administration, Donald Trump participated
in what we saw in Venezuela and many of the regime change
activities that were happening there. And what we saw most
desperately are the horrific sanctions that were placed, not
targeting specifically the Maduro regime, but the Venezuelan
people, innocent Venezuelan people that are being starved of
food and basic resources. That is what is contributing to a
destabilizing environment and part of what they are fleeing.
And that is not to conflate the Venezuelan people with the
Maduro regime because I oppose the anti-democratic measures, in
which even just recently in the election, Maduro's refusal to
make public the results of a free and fair election.
You want to know how else Republicans have contributed to
the immigration crisis? Marco Rubio has been sitting and sat
and stalled and delayed key Ambassadorial appointments of the
United States across the world. I, myself, led a congressional
delegation to Latin America and sat across in the Colombian
embassy where we had an acting Ambassador because Marco Rubio
refuses to allow U.S. diplomacy to proceed. You tell me what is
destabilizing. What is destabilizing? People have no idea.
Legislators who are claiming to understand the issue of
immigration do not have the slightest clue as to what is
happening in Latin America while supporting the very policies
that are driving people here in desperation in the first place.
So do not talk to me about how Republicans have an answer to
the issue of immigration.
Mr. Krikorian, you advised the Trump Administration and
Stephen Miller quite closely while President Trump was in
office, correct?
Mr. Krikorian. No. I mean, we talked to him. He called us
for information, and we gave it to him.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. OK. So, he called you for information.
You talked to him. I do not know how you interpret advising.
That is how I would interpret advising. Now, you mentioned
earlier that it is your position, we disagree, but it is your
position, that you believe Haiti should have been colonized for
longer, correct?
Mr. Krikorian. It is not a position. It was a musing, a
speculation on my part, a blog post.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. It is your musing that Haiti should have
been----
Mr. Krikorian. Yes. Sure.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Do you believe that the oldest colony in
the world, Puerto Rico, should continue to be colonized as
well, just as your position with Haiti?
Mr. Krikorian. Again, personally, CIS does not take a
position on this, but I am for independence for Puerto Rico.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. OK.
Mr. Krikorian. Strongly in favor of that.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. So, do you believe in the Trump
Administration when Donald Trump raised selling the island of
Puerto Rico?
Mr. Krikorian. I do not even remember that one.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Oh, you do not remember when Donald
Trump----
Mr. Krikorian. No, I have not heard of that.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. I mean, I suppose that puts you in----
Mr. Krikorian. I am not sure who he would sell it to, but I
do not know. I mean, sure.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Yes. I suppose that puts you and Nicky
Jam and Anuel in the same boat. President Trump did raise and
consider selling the island of Puerto Rico. It is your position
that Puerto Rico should have no affiliation. What process do
you think that should happen by?
Mr. Krikorian. I mean, I do not know. I have no idea.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. But you are not sure----
Mr. Krikorian. It is not my area. I do immigration policy.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. OK.
Mr. Krikorian. So, like I said, personally, I think Puerto
Rico, because it is a distinct, separate country, it is a
colony, and it should be given its independence. It is long
overdue.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Given.
Mr. Krikorian. It is not a CIS position.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. All right. Thank you. Thank you very
much.
Chairman Comer. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Langworthy
from New York.
Mr. Langworthy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would
like to enter into the record a letter that I sent to the FCC
on April 8, 2024, urging the Commission to thoroughly
scrutinize the transfer of ownership of Odyssey Incorporated to
the Soros Management Fund.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Langworthy. Commissioner Carr, are you aware of this
letter?
Mr. Carr. Yes, I am.
Mr. Langworthy. OK. And can you give me a status update on
the proceedings as they relate to the transfer of ownership of
Odyssey Inc. to the Soros Fund Management Company?
Mr. Carr. Yes. As you have indicated, there is a
transaction where a Soros-backed group would take ownership of
over 200 radio stations across 40 different markets after the
FCC originally indicated that that transaction could be
reviewed and approved at the Bureau level without a Commission
vote. It has now become clear that that is a decision before
the full Commission, and it is one that I would assume now, or
in the near future, the Commission would approve.
I think what is interesting about it is that the FCC here
is not following its normal process for reviewing a
transaction. We have established over a number of years one way
in which you can get approval from the FCC when you have in
excess of 25 percent foreign ownership, which this transaction
does. And it seems to me that the FCC is poised to create, for
the first time, an entirely new shortcut.
Mr. Langworthy. Yes. Thank you. As you pointed out here and
previously, these proceedings for transfer of ownership have
been expedited. What exactly makes this case so deserving of an
expedited proceeding so far, from what you could tell?
Mr. Carr. There is nothing about this transaction that is
out of the ordinary. It is the type of thing that we see all
the time, and the FCC has a process for this. The full
Commission itself has never signed off on a shortcut like this.
What we usually do is we require people to file a petition with
us. We bring in national security agencies. They can review the
foreign ownership. It is probably no big deal here, but we
review that foreign ownership, and then we vote. Here, they are
trying to do something that has never been done before at the
Commission level.
Mr. Langworthy. Yes. I must say, Commissioner, I am
extremely alarmed at what is happening with this transaction.
This is very unprecedented. Looking at the facts, it seems that
the Administration is giving a left-wing billionaire, who is a
major donor, a close ally, you know, one of the chief funders
of all of their efforts in their dark money, a free pass to
take control of hundreds of local radio stations flooding the
airwaves with leftist propaganda, and I think it is blatant.
What would a normal proceeding look like, Commissioner, here
for the transfer of ownership in this nature?
Mr. Carr. If you followed the process of the FCC adopted
back in 2016, there would be a petition for dictatorial ruling.
We would bring in national security agencies. They would review
the excessive foreign ownership that is involved here. They
would figure out if there are any issues, again, probably not,
but we do not know yet. We have not reviewed it. That could
take 3 to 4 to 5 to 6 months. Then the full Commission would
step in and decide up or down on the merits of the transaction.
It looks like we got the cart before the horse this time.
Mr. Langworthy. It certainly appears that way. From my
perspective, local radio and local media are the lifeline of
communities like those in my district, much of small-town
America, and they offer a diversity of ideas and viewpoints
that are not available elsewhere. And it is that diversity of
ideas that the left, including, you know, partisan, very
activist billionaires, like George Soros, like to stifle and
they like to silence. And I am deeply disturbed that this
Administration has fast tracked a process to hand over these
stations to one of their most loyal funders. And make no
mistake, they know exactly what they are doing and they welcome
the result. And at this point, I will yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Comer. Would you yield your remaining minute and
20?
Mr. Langworthy. I would be glad to yield.
Chairman Comer. I was wanting to go back on the
regulations. With respect to the Green New Deal and these
policies, all we know about Vice President Harris is what she
talked about when she was running for President, as well as the
policy she has while she has been vice president. Ms.
Gunasekara, could you explain what the Green New Deal does with
respect to the bureaucracy? I do not think my colleagues
understand the frustration with the American people out there.
The government is supposed to work for the people. My
colleagues on the left are really concerned about the
bureaucracy and doing anything to disrupt the bureaucracy. But
can you explain what the bureaucracy does to the consumers with
respect to the Green New Deal and energy policies? Like, how
does this affect our energy bill? How does this affect the grid
and their reliance on and availability of energy?
Ms. Gunasekara. The bureaucracy right now has the power to
determine what businesses succeed or fail, what industries
succeed or fail. And what increasingly we have seen in the
Biden-Harris Administration is they use that authority to push
out and squeeze out of existence business and industries that
have fallen out of political favor. And what this ultimately
means for the small business owner that is trying to get a
permit, is that they never get that permit.
Chairman Comer. Right.
Ms. Gunasekara. What it means for investors who have put up
millions of dollars of capital investment, that that is frozen,
and so the jobs and the economic development affiliated with
that never manifest itself. And under this Administration,
those decisions are made whether or not that business, that
industry, or the person aligns with the ideology of the left.
Chairman Comer. Very good. I agree. The Chair now
recognizes Mr. Tlaib from Michigan.
Ms. Tlaib. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. Of course, we
heard a lot today from both sides regarding different views for
our country. I mean, historically, it has always been the case.
But I do want to focus on, and folks know and Chair Comer, I
think, appreciates it, but I want to get centered to the
everyday, daily life of our families at home.
You know, I hear a lot of them talk to me about, you know,
what are the government's policies affecting, you know, their
ability to put food on the table, lights. I think, you know,
the cost of utilities is just increasing. I think the cost of
water has gone up 400 percent nationwide. And I always tell
people, you know, our families are living check by check,
majority, and over 50 percent of my colleagues are
millionaires. Really, Democrat, Republican, they will never
fully understand the struggles of many of our families. And,
you know, they are in survivor mode. I do not know how to
explain it other than, like, survivor mode. They never have
time to be able to think of `how can I thrive?,' and it is
real. Like, I know we are in this, like, bubble of Congress,
but it is very real out there.
So, a number of Americans, including many of my neighbors,
rely heavily on overtime pay. Ms. Perryman, as you know, to
make ends meet, they will bust their butt. They will work that
10, 20 hours because they got to get that tire fixed or they
got to pay a certain bill that they did not expect. So, I know
most, you know, again, Members are in an income bracket that is
completely disconnected, so they do not understand what that
means.
But you know, even with all those hours, sometimes they are
not even eligible for like, overtime pay. And I am going to
talk about--what is it, page 592 of Project 2025--where it
says, ``Congress should provide flexibility to employers and
employees to calculate overtime period over a long number of
weeks.'' Sounds great, right? Like, oh, flexibility. But when
you actually go look down, you know, the implementation of it,
this means you would be forced to work long hours 1 week, then
have your hours dramatically cut later in the month so your
boss does not have to pay overtime. Is that correct, Ms.
Perryman?
Ms. Perryman. It is. It is.
Ms. Tlaib. What do you think the impact would be here?
Ms. Perryman. We know it would be devastating, and that is
not the only thing that is in Project 2025 that is devastating
to working Americans who need to be paid for their work. It
also would seek to revise the threshold by which you qualify
for overtime, which is something that the Biden-Harris
Administration, through the Department of Labor, did revise
upwards so that more families could be paid fairly.
Ms. Tlaib. Yes, and I know the National Labor Relations
Board is incredibly important. Many of our workers are, you
know, folks in the labor community, I mean, day-to-day workers
rely on the establishment of this Board to make sure that their
rights are protected. You know, even in Project 2025, and the
former President, you know, seriously continues to attack,
saying that the National Labor Board is unconstitutional. I
mean, this is literally the Federal agency that protects the
right to organize and collectively bargain, many of which my
colleagues, their parents benefited from that. Can you talk a
little bit about the importance of that Board?
Ms. Perryman. Yes, absolutely. I mean, it is incredibly
important for the American people and for the fairness of our
work force, for the ability of people to collectively bargain,
including in workplaces that are structurally inequitable
toward workers. And we do see it attacked not only in Project
2025, but in our courts and in a variety of contexts.
Ms. Tlaib. Yes. And you know, Chairman Comer, you know
this. I mean, Project 2025, we keep talking, I know I wish we
could, Chairman--and I always look at Cummings because we need
to make sure that we are not bringing the campaigning inside
the Capitol. It is what most Americans hate about Congress. I
mean, I think our approval rating is 17 percent. Honestly, I
want to talk about Postal Service. You know that. I want to
talk about the cost of insulin, the Big Pharma. I want to talk
about these issues. You know, Project 2025 is scary. It is.
As somebody that comes from the most beautiful, Blackest
city in the country, all I keep thinking about is what is going
to happen to my neighbors. Working class folks, what is going
to happen to them? This is real. It is not something on paper.
Implementation-wise, it will be devastating for families, you
know. I just think we could do better. I think our families
deserve better, for our country. We can use this Committee for
so much more. Thank you so much, and I yield.
Chairman Comer. May I respond----
Ms. Tlaib. Sure.
Chairman Comer [continuing]. To my friend?
Ms. Tlaib. Yes.
Chairman Comer. Ms. Tlaib, we get along great. This hearing
is about policy. It is a substantive hearing. I think many on
your side have made it about this Project whatever it is that,
that I have never read. The President----
Ms. Tlaib. It is just the----
Chairman Comer [continuing]. The former President said he
is never read it.
Ms. Tlaib. Yes, I know, but----
Chairman Comer. And with respect to Postal, we have got
that next month.
Ms. Tlaib. I know. I know.
Chairman Comer. DeJoy is coming in, I think, or somebody.
Ms. Tlaib. Look, I could talk about the COVID money because
I want to know where that money is, right?
Chairman Comer. Yup.
Ms. Tlaib. All of us do. We could talk about a lot of those
things, but yes. And Mr. Chair, just all due respect----
Chairman Comer. Right.
Ms. Tlaib [continuing]. It is hard for our families to be
looking at this Committee and just rolling their eyes, and we
wonder why the popularity of Congress continues to be reduced.
Chairman Comer. I respectfully disagree. We published a
report last week about $200 billion in unemployment insurance
fraud----
Ms. Tlaib. Yes.
Chairman Comer [continuing]. That the Administration does
not seem that concerned about.
Ms. Tlaib. We did that in a bipartisan----
Chairman Comer. We have talked about $46 billion being
spent on broadband that has never connected a single household.
So, you know, we are concerned about waste, fraud, and abuse.
Ms. Tlaib. I agree. I can say it is 100 percent----
Chairman Comer. And that is kind of what we have been doing
this whole Congress.
Ms. Tlaib. Yes. No, I know. We could do----
Chairman Comer. All right.
Ms. Tlaib. Yes. I appreciate that Committee hearing. I
think we all appreciated it, and it was done in a bipartisan
way.
Chairman Comer. All right.
Ms. Tlaib. I thank you again, Mr. Chair.
Chairman Comer. I thank the lady from Michigan. Her time
has expired.
And that concludes our questions. In closing, I want to
thank our witnesses, again, for being here today, for your
testimony. This is not the easiest committee to testify in
front of in this Congress. I now yield to Ranking Member Raskin
for 4 minutes of closing remarks.
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Witnesses, thank you
all for your participation today.
You know, Mr. Frost made the key point that the hearing was
framed as a partisan exercise, but at least it has invited a
straight-up comparison between the economic records of Donald
Trump and Joe Biden. Donald Trump left Americans with 3 million
fewer jobs than when he started in office, the worst record
since the Great Depression. Meantime, we have had, under the
Biden-Harris Administration, the lowest unemployment rate in 50
years, 11 million new jobs created since 2021, including
750,000 new manufacturing jobs, and while bringing inflation
down dramatically, putting us at the very top of the G7
countries in terms of our ability to deal with the supply chain
problems caused by COVID-19 and Donald Trump's lethally
reckless stewardship of the country during that period when he
was recommending that people inject themselves with bleach and
hydroxychloroquine and all of these crazy things.
But look, the Inflation Reduction Act dramatically reduced
prescription drug prices in America. I had constituents who
were paying $600 a month, Mr. Chairman, for their insulin shots
as diabetics. The Democrats reduced that to $35 a month and
made similar dramatic cost reductions across the board for 25
or 30 new drugs. That is a dramatic change. Now, I know
Republicans reject that. They are campaigning all over the
country to repeal the Inflation Reduction Act, which did that.
We also led to create, finally, a $1.2 trillion investment
in infrastructure, the roads, the bridges, the highways, the
ports, the airports, rail and trail, rural broadband. I cannot
believe this slander against rural broadband in America. The
program did not start until this last summer. That is why that
money has not been spent. At least one of the witnesses
conceded there had been lots of other money spent. But we are
getting Republican Governors, like in Virginia and West
Virginia, praising the program because of the hundreds of
millions of dollars that have been made available to the states
in order to expand rural broadband.
But I do want to commend you, Mr. Chairman, as well as the
witnesses, for your absolute forthrightness in bringing forward
this panel of Project 2025 intellectuals, the people who wrote
the plan, the people whose organizations have been involved in
the plan, and the people who are defending the plan. I want to
particularly commend Ms. Gunasekara--I hope I pronounced it
correctly, finally--no, but maybe I got closer--Gunasekara, for
saying not only does she support Project 2025, she thinks the
idea of getting rid of 50,000 professional civil service
workers in NOAA and NIH and FDA and all across the government
is not enough. She said it does not go far enough. She wants to
extend the demolition of professional civil service jobs and do
what Project 2025 is advocating, which is replacing them with
political appointees, flunkies, acolytes, supplicants, and
sycophants who are willing to do whatever Donald Trump says.
Their unilateral executive theory is that the President
should control everything that goes on in the executive branch,
including by the commissions and by the boards, wiping out the
independence of Federal regulatory commissions and boards. So,
they want to slash reproductive freedoms. That includes IVF. It
includes birth control, abortion, of course. They want a
national ban on abortion in America. That is the reality of
what we are talking about, and you have put the politics of it
front and center today. And I am glad at least you have not
been abashed about it the way Donald Trump is now running away
as quickly as he can from Project 2025. You have put it
forward, and I thank you for that. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman's time has expired, and I
apologize to the witnesses with his constant misstatements that
the majority of this panel had anything to do with Project
2025. Honesty is not the Ranking Member's strong suit. So
again, I apologize on behalf of this Committee.
You know, one of the things that is disturbing to me is,
when I go back to Kentucky, listening to my constituents, they
want government to work for them. They feel like government is
not working for them. The policies are not working for them.
And the most outrage I have seen from my colleagues today was
not over the billions of dollars that have been wasted, was not
over the billions of dollars that we left behind in
Afghanistan. It was not over the wide-open border that is
costing the taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars. It was
the notion of firing some bureaucrats, some bureaucrats, some
fat cat bureaucrats. And you know, that is the level of tone
deafness I think that you see by my colleagues on the left. And
to imply that the Federal work force is not partial now, I
mean, this Federal work force is populated overwhelmingly, if
not nearly unanimously, by left-wing activists.
And when you talk about government, we have, you know, the
judicial branch, we have the executive branch, and we have the
legislative branch, but what has happened in a few years? There
is a new branch of government: the bureaucracy. Government is
too big. We need to rein in the size of government, one reason
we have inflation. We have Biden-Harris inflation because the
government has spent too much money. And there are necessary
expenses of a government. It is necessary to fund Border
Patrol. It is necessary to fund our military. It is necessary
to fund social programs like food programs. I have always been
a strong advocate for food programs, but it is not necessary to
continue to grow these bureaucracies and to continue to hire
these Federal left-wing bureaucrats that will not comply with
the directives of the American people.
If the American people make a statement this election, that
they want a different kind of policy with respect to energy
policy. Is the EPA, the way it is populated now, situated and
willing to comply with that new direction, the mandate that the
American people say that they will voice? No. The answer is no.
And you know, Ms. Stansbury wanted to thank the witnesses
for their transparency on background and policies. I appreciate
that. Where is the transparency among my Democrat colleagues?
What is the vision for the future for the Vice President? All
we know are the policies of the past, and the policies of the
past, as we have outlined in this Committee hearing, have been
a huge failure, primarily to the American consumer who is
having to struggle to pay for their grocery bills or having to
pay more for rent, pay more for gasoline, pay more for every
expense to the tune of $11,000 to $13,000 more per year for the
same goods and services. The salaries did not increase $11,000
to $13,000. That is what inflation is, and we have inflation
because of the bad policies of the Biden-Harris Administration.
I want to conclude with this. The Ranking Member mentioned
the strong job market. His constituent, Jerome Powell, cut the
interest rates yesterday by the--and I come from a banking
background--by about as much as I have ever seen at one time,
and he said the reason they did that is because of the weak job
market. So, at the end of the day, we need to--the weak job
market that was created with mass illegal immigration into this
country that has had a negative impact on the job market. That
is his words.
So again, I want to thank the witnesses for being here
today to talk about substantive policy. I appreciate your
willingness to come before this Committee.
And with that, without objection, all Members have 5
legislative days within which to submit materials and
additional written questions for the witnesses, which will be
forwarded to the witnesses.
If there is no further business, without objection, the
Committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:55 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[all]