[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
LOCKING IN THE DOGE CUTS: ENDING
WASTE, FRAUD, AND ABUSE FOR GOOD
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON DELIVERING ON
GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 24, 2025
__________
Serial No. 119-35
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available on: govinfo.gov, oversight.house.gov or docs.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
60-614 PDF WASHINGTON : 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
JAMES COMER, Kentucky, Chairman
Jim Jordan, Ohio Robert Garcia, California, 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 Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Gary Palmer, Alabama Ro Khanna, California
Clay Higgins, Louisiana Kweisi Mfume, Maryland
Pete Sessions, Texas Shontel Brown, Ohio
Andy Biggs, Arizona Melanie Stansbury, New Mexico
Nancy Mace, South Carolina Maxwell Frost, Florida
Pat Fallon, Texas Summer Lee, Pennsylvania
Byron Donalds, Florida Greg Casar, Texas
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania Jasmine Crockett, Texas
William Timmons, South Carolina Emily Randall, Washington
Tim Burchett, Tennessee Suhas Subramanyam, Virginia
Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia Yassamin Ansari, Arizona
Lauren Boebert, Colorado Wesley Bell, Missouri
Anna Paulina Luna, Florida Lateefah Simon, California
Nick Langworthy, New York Dave Min, California
Eric Burlison, Missouri Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts
Eli Crane, Arizona Rashida Tlaib, Michigan
Brian Jack, Georgia Vacancy
John McGuire, Virginia
Brandon Gill, Texas
------
Mark Marin, Staff Director
James Rust, Deputy Staff Director
Mitch Benzine, General Counsel
Peter Warren, Senior Advisor
Lisa Piraneo, Senior Professional Staff Member
Mallory Cogar, Deputy Director of Operations and Chief Clerk
Contact Number: 202-225-5074
Jamie Smith, Minority Staff Director
Contact Number: 202-225-5051
------
Subcommittee On Delivering on Government Efficiency
Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia, Chairwoman
Michael Cloud, Texas Melanie Stansbury, New Mexico,
Pat Fallon, Texas Ranking Member
William Timmons, South Carolina Elanor Holmes Norton, District of
Tim Burchett, Tennessee Columbia
Eric Burlison, Missouri Stephen Lynch, Massachussetts
Brian Jack, Georgia Greg Casar, Texas
Brandon Gill, Texas Jasmine Crockett, Texas
Vacancy
C O N T E N T S
----------
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
Hon. Marjorie Taylor Greene, U.S. Representative, Chairwoman..... 1
Hon. Melanie Stansbury, U.S. Representative, Ranking Member...... 3
WITNESSES
Mr. Matthew Dickerson, Director of Budget Policy, The Economic
Policy Innovation Center (EPIC)
Oral Statement................................................... 6
Mr. David Burton, Senior Fellow in Economic Policy, Thomas A. Roe
Institute for Economic Policy Studies, The Heritage Foundation
Oral Statement................................................... 8
Mr. Dan Lips, Senior Fellow, Foundation for American Innovation
Oral Statement................................................... 9
Ms. Emily DiVito (Minority Witness), Senior Advisor for Economic
Policy, Groundwork Collaborative
Oral Statement................................................... 11
Written opening statements and bios are available on the U.S.
House of Representatives Document Repository at:
docs.house.gov.
Index of Documents
* Article, ``Donald Trump Approval Rating New polls show
shakeup over Iran bombing''; submitted by Rep. Crockett.
* Article, Newsweek, ``Donald Trump's Approval Rating Plunges
in Multiple Polls''; submitted by Rep. Crockett.
* Article, CAP, ``How the Trump Administration's DOGE Cuts Are
Harming Women''; submitted by Rep. Crockett.
* Article, CNN, ``How Trump's DOGE Cuts Package Could put GOP
in a Bind''; submitted by Rep. Crockett.
* Article, Brookings, ``How will we know if DOGE is
succeeding''; submitted by Rep. Crockett.
* Article, CNN, ``Trump Admin Scrambles to Rehire Key Federal
Workers''; submitted by Rep. Crockett.
* Article, USA, ``Today Trump Pivots to Distractions as Polls
Show Collapsing Support''; submitted by Rep. Crockett.
* Article, CREW, ``DOGE's Big Illusion''; submitted by Rep.
Crockett.
* Article, TipRanks, ``Trump's Approval Rating Drops to Term-
Low amid Israel-Iran War''; submitted by Rep. Crockett.
* Article, ProPublica, ``Internal VA Emails Reveal How Trump
Jeopardizes Veterans' Care''; submitted by Rep. Lynch.
The documents listed above are available at: docs.house.gov.
LOCKING IN THE DOGE CUTS: ENDING
WASTE, FRAUD, AND ABUSE FOR GOOD
----------
TUESDAY, JUNE 24, 2025
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Subcommittee on Delivering on Government Efficiency
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m.,
Room HVC-210, U.S. Capitol Visitor Center, Hon. Marjorie Taylor
Greene, [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Greene, Cloud, Fallon, Timmons,
Burchett, Burlison, Jack, Gill, Stansbury, Norton, Lynch,
Casar, and Crockett.
Also present: Representative Subramanyam.
Ms. Greene. This hearing of the Subcommittee on Delivering
on Government Efficiency will come to order.
Welcome, everyone. Without objection, the Chair may declare
a recess at any time.
I recognize myself for the purpose of making an opening
statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRWOMAN
MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE
REPRESENTATIVE FROM GEORGIA
Ms. Greene. Good morning, and welcome to today's hearing. I
would like to begin by showing a video of what the Department
of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is all about.
I certainly wish that my Democrat colleagues felt the same
as their former Democrat leaders felt and worked to try to
reduce our deficit and reduce the size of our government.
Unfortunately, these former Democrat leaders failed at what
they were saying they were trying to do, but today's DOGE and
DOGE Subcommittee is actually delivering on those exact
promises, and we are delivering the results.
It is too bad that my Democrat colleagues constantly mock
DOGE, attack DOGE, criticize DOGE, and criticize the
hardworking people in DOGE. They also attack this Committee and
attack what we are all about, but that is today's Democrat
Party. They are for big government, big spending, and doing
nothing for the American people. They are America last.
This Subcommittee has highlighted where DOGE has staunched
the flow of waste, fraud, and abuse in Federal spending. DOGE
drove the Administration to turn off the spending faucet that
was pouring out billions of dollars to corrupt anti-American
Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO)s; to illegal Diversity,
Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs; and to a vast array of
wasteful, unnecessary Federal grants, contracts, leases, and
personnel. President Trump drove this massive effort by
creating DOGE via executive order on Inauguration Day. He then
issued a series of White House directives empowering DOGE teams
to work with agency leaders governmentwide in an unprecedented
effort to root out wasteful spending using all means at their
disposal.
And that effort has borne fruit. The DOGE website
identifies $180 billion in savings achieved in just a matter of
months. We need to make sure we lock in those savings. It
should be the first installment we pay on our Nation's $37
trillion debt. We need to tackle that debt on behalf of our
children and future generations. That is why Congress needs to
act.
DOGE has shown how our government can cost less and deliver
more. It has shown how we can turn off the faucet. It has shown
we do not need to spend all the dollars that Congress
appropriated for this year. Congress can reverse that
unnecessary spending by rescinding dollars it has appropriated.
That is why the Administration recently sent a $9 billion
rescission request to Congress.
By the way, you just saw Democrats on that video talking
about saving $9 billion. Republicans just delivered on that.
Our $9 billion rescission would prevent dollars from going
to corrupt international organizations, to woke NGOs, to
National Public Radio (NPR), and to Public Broadcasting Service
(PBS). The House adopted the legislation earlier this month,
H.R. 4, the Rescission Act of 2025. But we need to do more,
much more. Nine billion is just the tip of the iceberg of the
waste that DOGE has identified and of the spending that the
Administration has paused or shut off, so Congress needs to
work with the Administration and DOGE to rescind billions more
of dollars it has appropriated for agencies to spend.
DOGE is also creating savings that will lower the cost of
government for years to come. For instance, the Administration
is right-sizing the Federal bureaucracy by eliminating several
hundred thousand staff positions. That reduces discretionary
spending costs for the next year and every future year by tens
of billions of dollars. So, we need to adjust those levels of
new appropriations to align with the streamlined government
DOGE is creating.
That is why the President proposed last month when he
submitted to Congress a budget for next year that reduces
nondiscretionary spending by $163 billion. If we lower the
spending baseline in that way, we can save $2 trillion in that
portion of the budget over the coming decade. We need to lock
in DOGE savings for the taxpayers, and we should also be
thinking about locking in the DOGE process that has produced
these savings.
DOGE has attracted enemies because it has taken on
Washington's culture of spending and the money laundering
schemes that have been embedded in this institution. We should
make that a permanent battle. We should institutionalize the
battle against waste, fraud, and abuse in government. I hope
that is something with which my Democrat colleagues can at
least agree on.
DOGE is working with agencies to reduce the rampant fraud
that Government Accountability Office (GAO) says costs
taxpayers as much as a half trillion dollars annually. To
enhance fraud detection, agencies are now providing the
Treasury Department more information about financial awards,
and they are making more use of Treasury's Do Not Pay data base
to avoid funding fraudsters. DOGE is also lowering the barriers
that prevent agencies from sharing data to identify duplicate
awardees.
What is more, DOGE has pioneered what the President calls
radical transparency concerning wasteful spending. The DOGE
website and individual Federal agency sites continually update,
for public view, the specific grants, contracts, leases, and
other payments that they are flagging for termination. This is
how you change the culture of spending.
And with that, I yield to Ranking Member Stansbury for her
opening statement.
Ms. Stansbury. All right. Well, good morning, everyone.
Welcome to the DOGE Subcommittee.
OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER
MELANIE STANSBURY
REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW MEXICO
Ms. Stansbury. Notwithstanding the abject failure of the
DOGE enterprise inside the Federal Government and the epic
breakup of Elon Musk and Donald Trump, here we are again, once
again, in this Committee.
I am grateful that the Chairwoman showed, again, one of my
favorite videos, which she showed on the first day of this
Subcommittee. I am grateful because it highlights the work that
we have been doing for decades to root out waste, fraud, and
abuse, including work that I was intimately involved in as a
budget examiner in the Office of Management and Budget, in
which we actually eliminated waste, fraud, and abuse.
But unfortunately, as my friends across the aisle in the
GOP and their Heritage Foundation witnesses are still trying to
make DOGE happen yet again, and the American people are over
it. In fact, you do not have to take my word for it. A poll,
from just two weeks ago, found that 67 percent of voters
believe DOGE has done a bad job. That was just two weeks ago.
In fact, when I told one of my friends that we were having
another DOGE Subcommittee hearing, they asked, really, is that
still happening? Because literally the American people are over
it. Except that it is not funny because DOGE has been used to
wage a chaotic, destructive, and ideological war against the
American people and the vital programs that they depend on. But
I am going to turn to that in just a moment here.
Given everything that is happening in the world right now
and with this Administration, I do not think we can sit here
and pretend like everything is normal because just four days
ago, the President launched an unauthorized military attack in
Iran without the consent of Congress, putting our troops and
our bases in harm's way, as we saw just last night with the
retaliatory bombing of one of our largest bases.
And, Madam Chair, I have actually been extremely grateful
and wholeheartedly agree with your outspoken advocacy against
this war. But like so many in this Administration, so many days
and weeks, this follows weeks of chaos here at home. As the
President has deployed U.S. Marines and National Guard on our
own soil against our own people, his Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) Secretary and Federal officials shoved a U.S.
Senator to the ground, DOJ indicted a sitting Congresswoman in
this House for doing her job, and tried to arrest a New York
city official in a Federal courthouse. This is not only not
normal, it is dangerous, it is anti-American, and it is anti-
democratic.
And so, we are not going to sit here today and pretend like
what this Administration is doing is normal. And we are not
going to sit here and pretend like DOGE is just some normal
government program. It is a scam in service of a political
agenda.
While we came to the table at the beginning of this whole
process in good faith, with real ideas, bipartisan ideas that
folks have been working on for years, and a desire to actually
fix and modernize the Federal Government, what we have seen
from DOGE is the exact opposite. It has so failed in its stated
mission of saving money that even the President asked if it was
bullshit as Elon Musk was exiting the building.
And if they want to talk about fiscal responsibility, while
we are sitting here, they are still trying to pass a
reconciliation bill across the aisle that would saddle
taxpayers with $2.5 trillion in deficit spending. And in the
last few weeks, reports have revealed that DOGE may actually
have cost the Federal Government more than it actually saved
because of the mass firings, dismantled agencies, stolen data,
lawsuits, agencies in chaos, agencies that are not able to do
their basic operational duties. This is not efficiency. This is
a scam.
And that is not even to mention the completely reckless and
needless suffering that DOGE has caused. We are talking about
millions of children and people across the planet who no longer
will have access to food and medicine because of the very $9
billion rescission package that was just discussed. Thousands
of veterans and public servants here at home whose lives have
been shattered and millions of Americans who have been impacted
by the gutting of vital programs, including staffing at Social
Security. And now they are here today to try to make the case
for making it permanent. Are you serious? Really? Are you
serious? I cannot even believe my ears.
So, why are they actually trying to make DOGE permanent?
Well, I think you have to look no further than the witnesses
that they have called over the last several hearings, including
today. We have got the Heritage Foundation and other authors
and architects of Project 2025. And so, we have to be real
about what this is actually about. It is not about efficiency.
It is about a political agenda, an ideological agenda, about
remaking the U.S. Government, about remaking our economy and
our society in line with a hyper-conservative worldview that is
so unpopular that even Donald Trump tried to distance himself
from Project 2025 during the campaign, and now he has hired
over 70 officials to try to enact it, and now they are trying
to use this Committee to make the case.
Now, they like to try to claim that they are taking on
cancel culture and a woke agenda, but let us be clear, DOGE and
the folks who want to make it permanent are the actual cancel
culture because they want to cancel anything that they do not
like or they do not agree with, including your democratic
rights and your freedoms; economic opportunity and education;
lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning (LGBTQ+)
rights; rolling back the clock on civil rights; canceling the
history of Black, Chicano, and indigenous communities; and
stripping protections from our families and the healthcare,
housing, and food people depend on so that they can give more
tax breaks to their friends.
But this is all part of a wider agenda that is now seeking
to apply political purity tests to government programs and
services, including both Federal employment and, yes, veteran
services. Let me repeat that again. Even veteran benefits. They
want to apply political purity tests to your VA benefits.
Folks, this is not about efficiency. This is about eroding
and privatizing our institutions, gutting programs that keep
our people and our country safe. It is about rewriting history
and remaking society to take us back decades, if not centuries.
In short, it is about making this country less free, less
democratic, less prosperous, and, frankly, consolidating power
under Trump and his allies who are becoming increasingly
dangerous, ideological, and, yes, autocratic.
So, we have to be clear-eyed about what is actually going
on because this Administration and its allies, if they are
willing to arrest and indict elected officials who are just
doing their jobs, including a U.S. Senator and a U.S.
Congresswoman, what will they do if we let them get away with
it? We cannot and we will not remain silent. We have to
continue to speak up, to speak out, and continue to stand
together.
I yield back.
Ms. Greene. Without objection, Representative Subramanyam
of Virginia is waived onto the Subcommittee for the purpose of
questioning the witnesses at today's Subcommittee hearing.
I am pleased to introduce our witnesses today. Matthew
Dickerson is the Director of Budget Policy at the Economic
Policy Innovation Center. He is recognized as an expert on
fiscal policy issues, including the budget, appropriations, and
entitlement reform and served as a senior policy advisor on the
House Budget Committee.
David Burton is a Senior Fellow in Economic Policy at the
Heritage Foundation's Thomas A. Rowe Institute for Economic
Policy Studies. He is widely regarded for his deep knowledge in
issues such as entrepreneurship, financial privacy, tax
matters, and regulatory and administrative law.
Dan Lips is a Senior Fellow at the Foundation for American
Innovation. He has more than 20 years of experience in public
policy, including with the Senate Governmental Affairs
Committee. His current work is focused on enhancing government
efficiency.
Emily DiVito is the Senior Advisor for Economic Policy at
Groundwork Collaborative.
Again, I want to thank you for being here to testify today.
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 you are
about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth, so help you, God?
[Chorus of ayes.]
Ms. Greene. Let the record show that the witnesses answered
in the affirmative.
Thank you, and you may take a seat.
We appreciate you being here today and look forward to your
testimony. Let me remind the witnesses that we have read your
written statement, and they will appear in full in the hearing
record. Please limit your oral statement 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 it up.
I now recognize Mr. Dickerson for his opening statement.
STATEMENT OF MATTHEW DICKERSON
DIRECTOR OF BUDGET POLICY
THE ECONOMIC POLICY INNOVATION CENTER (EPIC)
Mr. Dickerson. Chairwoman Greene, Ranking Member Stansbury,
and all the Members of the Committee, thank you so much for
inviting me to testify today.
The fiscal state of our Nation is deteriorating, and
unsustainable spending is the problem. Government spending that
grows faster than the economy is inherently unsustainable. That
is just basic math. Annual spending is now 50 percent higher
than it was in 2019 before the pandemic. The national debt held
by the public is now equal to the size of the entire economy.
For context, in 1944, the year of D-Day and the Battle of
the Bulge, the debt as a percentage of GDP was 86 percent.
After we went into debt to save the world, the Federal budget
and the debt shrank while the economy grew in the post-World
War II decades. But on our current trajectory, the debt is only
projected to keep growing.
This growing debt risks evaporating the government's fiscal
space, which is its capacity to borrow, without undermining
debt sustainability or risking a loss of market confidence.
This fiscal limit can be considered the government's true debt
limit.
The fiscal situation was made much worse by four years of
reckless spending under the Biden Administration. The policies
of the Biden-Harris Administration increased Federal spending
by $4.7 trillion over just four years, compared to the
projections made by The Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
immediately prior. President Biden's executive actions added
more than $2 trillion in spending, without explicit approval
from Congress. The Biden Administration spent hundreds of
billions of dollars transferring student loan debt to the
taxpayers from borrowers, they unilaterally increased food
stamp benefits, they gutted Medicaid eligibility verification,
and many other policies that increased spending.
The point of the American system of government, based on
hundreds of years of experience under the British crown, was to
restrict the ability of the unilateral expenditure of funds. By
asserting the prerogative to spend the taxpayers' money
unilaterally without authorization from Congress for this new
spending, it can be said that Biden attempted to act as a king.
In contrast, President Trump has focused on reducing
taxpayer costs and reducing the power of government. This is
the whole point of DOGE. Trump's discretionary budget would
multiply to about $1.8 trillion of savings over the 10-year
budget window, but that is only if Congress implements and
continues these commonsense savings. And that is why it is so
important that you are holding this hearing today, Madam
Chairman, so thank you.
To paraphrase Madison in Federalist 58, the power to levy
taxes and provide spending authority and the power to withhold
funds from the executive, that is the most effective way for
the elected representatives of the American people to provide
for the vital and appropriate services of the Federal
Government, as well as to prevent abuse by the government using
the people's funds.
Congress has many tools at its disposal to carry out this
vital responsibility. The most straightforward way to control
waste, fraud, and abuse is by controlling agency budgets in the
annual appropriations process. You can reduce the size of the
Federal bureaucracy. I estimate that reducing the Federal
workforce by ten percent would allow discretionary
appropriations for salaries and other benefits to be reduced by
$559 to $608 billion over the next decade.
The scope of authorized agency activities should also be
properly limited. You can work with the Administration, as you
are currently doing, to rescind unneeded, unobligated funds.
And of course, one of the most important tools at Congress'
disposal to achieve budgetary savings is through the
reconciliation process.
America's current fiscal trajectory is unsustainable, but
it is not irreversible. DOGE has demonstrated that meaningful
savings are, in fact, achievable. By exercising its
constitutional power of the purse, controlling appropriations,
implementing workforce reforms, rescissions, and
reconciliation, Congress can lock in the DOGE cuts, safeguard
taxpayers, and avert a fiscal crisis.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Ms. Greene. The gentleman yields.
I now recognize Mr. Burton for his opening statement. Mr.
Burton?
Mr. Burton. Oh, excuse me.
Ms. Greene. Can you turn it on, thank you.
Mr. Burton. I apologize.
Ms. Greene. And make sure when you talk, your microphone is
close to your mouth.
Mr. Burton. Yes.
Ms. Greene. Yes, thank you.
STATEMENT OF DAVID BURTON
SENIOR FELLOW IN ECONOMIC POLICY
THOMAS A. ROE INSTITUTE FOR ECONOMIC POLICY STUDIES
THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION
Mr. Burton. President Trump deserves tremendous credit for
establishing the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE.
It is the first effort in a generation to provide comprehensive
governmentwide oversight of Federal spending and management.
There has been no similar effort since the 1990s during the
Clinton Administration. President Clinton and Speaker Gingrich
controlled Federal spending and improved government
administration. Before that, you have to go back to President
Reagan's Grace Commission to observe anything similar.
Currently, the Federal Government, most assuredly, is not a
good steward of the tax dollars taken from hardworking
Americans and is poorly managed. It is time for that to change,
and DOGE is an important part of making that change. Under
President Clinton in 2000, Federal spending fell to 17.7
percent of GDP, the lowest level since 1966. The Federal
Government ran its last surplus in Fiscal Year 2001, which
began during President Clinton's final term. In Fiscal Year
2025, Federal spending is expected to be about 23.3 percent of
GDP. Thus, the share the government now consumes of the economy
is 32 percent greater than it was under President Clinton.
The budget deficit is expected to be six percent of GDP
this Fiscal Year and continue at that level for a decade. The
Federal debt is now $29 trillion and is expected to increase to
$52 trillion, or 119 percent of GDP, over the next decade. And
it is projected to reach a crushing 156 percent of GDP by 2025.
In context, at the final year of President Reagan, it was 39
percent, and the final year of President Clinton's term, it was
33 percent.
Federal Government is on an unsustainable path. The path
will lead to sustained suffering among the American people,
economic dislocation, and a declining standard of living unless
Congress changes that path. No matter what, it is going to end.
It can either end by making Congress make dramatic changes to
the current fiscal path, or it can end in fiscal calamity.
DOGE represents an effort to return to fiscal sanity and
meaningfully alter our fiscal path. But DOGE, by itself, is not
enough, although it is a major step forward toward American
renewal. Most of the personnel reductions, grant reductions,
and other forms initiated by DOGE will not result in actual
savings unless Congress takes action through appropriations
bills and the accompanying explanatory statements. DOGE and the
Administration can, within certain limits, reprogram spending,
implement administrative efficiencies, and rely on statutes
authorizing the withholding of expenditures. But ultimately,
the Congress is going to have to address entitlements.
Let me talk for a second about improper payments. The GAO
has estimated since Fiscal Year 2003 improper payments have
been $2.8 trillion, which is nearly 1/10 of the national debt.
In Fiscal Year 2024, it was $162 billion from at least 16
different agencies, and many commentators think these are gross
underestimates. This is a massive amount of money, and
seemingly no one in the executive branch cares or is able to
solve this problem. Certainly, that is a focus of what Congress
and the Administration should be about, and ultimately, if the
Federal executives in charge of these improper payments cannot
change it, they need to be replaced.
Let me just talk for one second about the overall Federal
situation and the need to address entitlement reforms. You
could abolish the entire Federal Government and all
appropriated spending, and it would not get rid of the Federal
deficit, right? You could abolish the Pentagon and each agency,
and it will not get rid of the Federal deficit. We need to
address entitlement spending.
And there is a host of things that we can do. We can
obviously address the improper payment problem. We can also
adjust the entitlement program, so they reflect tremendous
increases in life expectancy since they were created. We can
adjust it so that they no longer are transferring hundreds of
billions of dollars a year from working young Americans to
relatively wealthy old seniors. Programs can be consolidated,
and that includes Social Security, Medicare, Obamacare, and the
literally dozens of programs designed to address poverty.
If these things are not done, then the United States will
eventually suffer a Greek-style meltdown, inflation that will
make our latest round of inflation look like child's play, or a
gradual squeeze like what happened to Great Britain in the
1960s and 1970s or Japan.
Ms. Greene. Mr. Burton?
Mr. Burton. Thank you.
Ms. Greene. We have got to wrap. Thank you. Thank you.
I now recognize Mr. Lips for his opening statement.
STATEMENT OF DAN LIPS
SENIOR FELLOW, FOUNDATION FOR AMERICAN INNOVATION
Mr. Lips. Chairwoman Greene, Ranking Member Stansbury, and
Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
testify. My name is Dan Lips, and I am a senior fellow with the
Foundation for American Innovation. Our mission is to advance
technology, talent, and policy ideas that support a freer and
more prosperous future.
Earlier in my career, I served on the staff of the Senate
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, where I
worked on bipartisan government reform legislation and
oversight.
In my testimony, I offer you three points. First, the
United States is on an unsustainable fiscal path. The Treasury
Department and the Government Accountability Office have both
warned that our growing national debt poses serious economic,
security, and societal challenges. Last year, the Federal
Government spent $882 billion just on interest payments. That
is more than it spent on Medicare or national defense.
At the same time, the government is losing hundreds of
billions of dollars each year to fraud and waste. GAO has
estimated that the Federal Government annually loses between
$233 billion and $521 billion due to fraud. That is up to
$4,000 per American household per year. And as we just heard,
last year, the Federal Government reported making $162 billion
in improper payments. And over the last four years, improper
payments totaled more than $900 billion. Better oversight and
financial controls could save hundreds of billions of dollars
every year.
Second, the Trump Administration's focus on government
efficiency builds on decades of bipartisan government reform
efforts. From the Reagan Administration's Grace Commission to
the Clinton-Gore National Performance Review to President
Obama's fiscal responsibility initiatives, including a 2009
executive order that initiated Treasury's Do Not Pay system,
there is a history and a bipartisan tradition of executive
action to root out inefficiency in the Federal Government.
President Trump's new Department of Government Efficiency
is working to reduce Federal spending, shrink the size of the
Federal workforce, and streamline operations. DOGE has already
identified $180 billion in savings and reduced regulatory
burdens by eliminating over 1.7 million words from the Federal
code. The Administration has also issued several executive
orders informed by DOGE's efforts, such as to reduce fraud and
improper payments by centralizing payment systems under the
Treasury Department and modernizing financial transactions. But
the executive branch cannot do this work alone, which brings me
to my final point.
Congress should use its legislative and appropriations
powers to implement lasting reforms to increase government
efficiency and reduce waste, fraud, and abuse. And this should
be a bipartisan effort. Members of the House Oversight and
Government Reform Committee and the Senate Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs Committee, where I used to work, have
a tradition of passing bipartisan government reform
legislation.
For example, bipartisan legislation has been enacted and
introduced in the past to reduce improper payments and prevent
fraud. Key reforms to strengthen the Treasury Department's Do
Not Pay system, consistent with President Trump's executive
orders, have been included in recent bills sponsored by
Democratic and Republican lawmakers. These reforms would serve
as a good starting point for legislation aimed at improving
government efficiency.
In my testimony, I discuss other opportunities for
government reform legislation that could achieve substantial
savings. For example, GAO has identified more than 200 open
recommendations for Congress and more than 5,000 open
recommendations for Federal agencies. These are nonpartisan
good-government reforms. If addressed, the Federal Government
could save hundreds of billions of dollars.
More broadly, Congress should consider creating an annual
legislative vehicle, similar to the National Defense
Authorization Act, which moves every year, focused specifically
on government reform. This would ensure consistent legislative
oversight and give the American people's Representatives
greater input into ongoing reforms to government operations.
In closing, improving government efficiency should not be a
partisan issue. It is a fiscal necessity. The 119th Congress
has a historic opportunity to reduce waste, prevent fraud, end
misspending, and begin addressing our long-term fiscal
challenges.
Thank you, again, for the opportunity to testify. I look
forward to your questions.
Ms. Greene. I now recognize Ms. DiVito for her opening
statement.
STATEMENT OF EMILY DIVITO (MINORITY WITNESS)
SENIOR ADVISOR FOR ECONOMIC POLICY
GROUNDWORK COLLABORATIVE
Ms. DiVito. Chairwoman Greene, Ranking Member Stansbury,
and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity
to testify today. My name is Emily DiVito, and I am the Senior
Advisor for Economic Policy at Groundwork Collaborative, an
economic thinktank based in Washington, D.C. I have previously
served as a policy advisor at the Treasury Department.
Americans deserve a government that works for them, a
government that makes their lives easier. By that standard,
DOGE has failed. It has led to higher costs and more confusion
and complexity. It has undermined consumer protections for
families, all while the ambitious savings Elon Musk promised
failed to materialize.
Americans are not impressed with these results. Consistent
polling shows strong disapproval of DOGE and deep concerns
about the haphazard and reckless cuts DOGE is making across the
Federal Government. Americans also believe, as do I, that the
government can do more to deliver for workers and families. As
the Subcommittee considers the future of DOGE and improving
government efficiency and accountability, I would like to
highlight several ways DOGE has done the opposite.
First, DOGE cuts make it harder and more expensive for
families to access the basic needs programs for which they are
eligible. DOGE's interventions at the Social Security
Administration have disrupted access to critical monthly
benefits for the nearly 74 million Americans, including 52
million retirees who rely on them. New policies, such as
restrictions on updating bank account information by phone,
will force seniors to collectively spend over one million hours
annually on unnecessary travel just to receive benefits. Staff
departures increase the risk of system outages, and
beneficiaries face longer wait times and poorer service at
understaffed field offices.
The Department of Veterans Affairs, which serves over nine
million veterans annually, has also seen interrupted service.
The impact of DOGE firings and buyout initiatives has been
devastating. One rural Illinois hospital was forced to close
its acute care unit due to nurse resignations. Orlando-area
veterans faced a backlog of over 2,000 unread radiology exams,
and over 1,000 veterans in Pennsylvania were denied treatment
for life-threatening diseases like cancer.
Additionally, sweeping cuts are degrading consumer
protection safeguards and empowering bad actors. DOGE has
targeted the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which has
put over $21 billion back into the pockets of more than 200
million consumers since its founding. Eliminating this key
consumer protection agency will enable exploitative companies
and financial firms to profit at the expense of consumers.
DOGE has also gutted the IRS enforcement teams that ensure
billionaires and corporations pay their fair share. As of early
March, the IRS has lost 11 percent of its total workforce and
31 percent of the revenue agents who conduct audits. This is
projected to reduce U.S. revenue up to $350 billion over ten
years.
Further, the Federal science enterprise is being stripped
of the tools and talent needed to develop and deliver the next
generation of lifesaving treatments. Recent estimates suggest
that DOGE's severe cuts to scientific research funding will
reduce GDP and overall Federal revenues well into the future by
inhibiting innovation. Permanently cutting non-defense research
and development funding by 50 percent could decrease GDP in the
long run by at least seven percent and Federal revenues by more
than eight percent.
Finally, DOGE's funding disruptions to U.S. aid and global
health programs have already caused widespread deaths.
Estimates suggest that the abrupt termination of public health
programs will be responsible for over 360,000 deaths, including
200,000 children.
DOGE did not generate the $2 trillion in efficiencies that
Elon Musk initially called for or even the $180 billion figure
that it now claims. Credible analysis shows that canceled
contracts, service cuts, and layoffs may have saved as little
as $12 to $15 billion while total Federal spending actually
increased year over year. Now that Musk has made his exit, it
is clear that DOGE did not deliver more efficiency, just poorer
service.
Congress is at a crossroads. It can learn from DOGE's
mistakes, redirect, and get back to the important work of
ensuring government works for people and not special interests,
or Congress can double down on DOGE, cementing the harms that
it has caused to families, communities, and our economy. For
me, the choice is clear. I encourage leaders in Congress to put
this dark episode behind us and deliver a government that works
for working families.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
Ms. Greene. I now recognize myself for 5 minutes of
questions.
The DOGE website details much of the wasteful spending it
hits the brakes on, and it has an incredible list of top hits.
Some of the spending is not just embarrassing, but it is
funding actually the genital mutilation of our children,
forcing the American taxpayers to pay for it. A $620,000 Health
and Human Services (HHS) grant for hashtag ``transcendent
health,'' adapting an LGBT+ inclusive teen prevention program
for transgender boys. $620,000 from HHS. It is absurd. This is
disgusting, and it facilitates a lie.
Here is another one. A $2,000 National Institutes of Health
(NIH) grant for cross-sex steroid therapy and cardiovascular
risk in transgender females. This is another absurd grant that
was handed out. A $120,000 NIH grant for personalized 3D avatar
tool development for measurement of body perception across
gender identities. Here is another absurd grant that, again,
tells the lie that there is more than two genders. There are
only two, male and female. That is it.
Something else that the American people should know about,
these radical extremist judges that are playing politics from
the bench, a judge ruled that this has to be protected. This is
an HHS program for gender-affirming care in young people.
Again, the only thing that affirms gender is the fact that
there are only two sexes, male and female, and the American
people should never have to pay for that lie.
Ms. DiVito, in your testimony, you talk about so-called
failures of DOGE, in your opinion, but do you support the
Federal Government funding HHS and NIH studies that promote the
genital mutilation of children? Do you support forcing
Americans to pay for genital mutilation of children? Yes or no,
Ms. DiVito.
Ms. DiVito. Thank you for your question. I think we all
agree that the government should work for people.
Ms. Greene. No, I asked you do you support genital
mutilation of children and the American people having to pay
for it. That is a yes or no question.
Ms. DiVito. I think government research is responsible for
all sorts of innovations that we employ today.
Ms. Greene. So, for the record, you do support the American
people paying for top and bottom surgeries of children?
Ms. DiVito. I think----
Ms. Greene. Cutting off the breasts of young girls, teenage
girls, and castrating teenage boys, you support the American
people paying for that?
Ms. DiVito. I think government research is incredibly
important to our overall innovation.
Ms. Greene. That is not research, Ms. DiVito. That is
mutilating kids' bodies before they are old enough to vote,
before they are old enough to join the military, before they
are old enough to even be adults. That is what you are saying
the American people should pay for.
Just so you know, Ms. DiVito--and I am very proud to
announce that I have a bill called Protect Children's Innocence
Act that will criminalize sex changes on children, and that
bill will see a vote on the House floor, and I look forward to
my Republican colleagues, and hopefully Democrats that come to
their senses, voting yes for that bill because it is absolutely
repulsive and disgusting, and America voted against that this
past election. Sick.
Mr. Dickerson, how do we implement cuts and appropriations
moving forward to prevent these agencies from ever being able
to fund these studies that promote the mutilation of children's
bodies ever again?
Mr. Dickerson. I think what you need to do is ensure those
riders are included in the appropriations bills that are passed
to clarify to the agencies that even though they have never
actually received authorization for these, so they should not
have actually done it in the first place, but if they need that
funding rider to restrict American taxpayer funds for going to
those terribly divisive and harmful things.
Ms. Greene. Yes, permanently, right?
Mr. Dickerson. Exactly.
Ms. Greene. Thank you. Other egregious abuses of funds, a
$10 million Department of Education grant to the Virginia
Commonwealth University for faculty workshops on decolonizing
the curriculum. A nearly $700,000 National Science Foundation
grant to the University of Tennessee for Black and Latinx
parents leading reform and advancing racial justice in
elementary mathematics, a project that can provide a model for
other communities and schools seeking to advance racial justice
in mathematics and education. This is insane, absurd, and it is
racist in itself. Math is math.
A $500,000 EPA grant, green jobs, growing a new generation
of environmental justice problem solvers. All of this stuff is
far left ideology, and the American people should not be paying
for it.
It looks like my time is up, so with that, I will yield to
the Ranking Member Stansbury for 5 minutes.
Ms. Stansbury. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
As we get started here, we would like to show a brief
video.
Ms. Stansbury. Now, I want to start by describing what we
just saw there. For any of the American people out there who
have not seen this video yet, that is United States Senator
Alex Padilla being handcuffed in a Federal building after self-
identifying as a United States Senator at a Cabinet Secretary's
DHS public press conference. This happened two weeks ago.
A few days later, they tried to arrest a New York city
official in a Federal courthouse. A few days after that, there
was a politically motivated assassination of a state legislator
in Minnesota. This is not normal. This is the sign of an
authoritarian approach to governance that is threatening our
democracy and our people.
So, we can sit here today and debate government efficiency.
We can sit here and listen to lies from both our colleagues and
from witnesses about what has been done by former and current
administrations. But what is happening in this country right
now is not normal. What they are trying to do through the
budget is not normal. The rescissions package that they are
trying to shove down your throats right now, with $9 billion in
cuts, is not normal.
It is not the programs that they are describing. They want
to dismantle the United Nations. They want to defund NATO. They
want to defund programs that keep children fed across the
world. They are trying to defund programs that have saved
literally hundreds of thousands of lives of people in countries
across the planet.
And we just heard witnesses here just a few moments ago say
that they are not satisfied with what they have already done
and the damages that they are already doing. They want to go
after entitlement programs. That means your Social Security.
That means Medicare. That means they are going to come for your
programs, the programs that are lifesaving, that sustain people
as they age, the lifesaving programs that make it possible for
people with disabilities to live with dignity in this country.
They are coming for those programs.
So, we are not going to sit here and pretend like what is
happening in this hearing is normal at a time when this
Administration is using DOGE to enact an ideological agenda
against the American people while they are out there trying to
arrest U.S. Senators and Members of Congress because this is
not okay. This is not okay.
We all agree the government should be more efficient. We
all agree that we should cut waste. We all agree that there
should be bipartisan pathways forward to make the government
operate in a modern manner. But that is not what this
enterprise is all about. This enterprise is about consolidating
power and endangering the lives of people that they disagree
with, including people who ask questions, doing their jobs in
public settings. And if they will do that to a United States
Senator, what will they do to the rest of us?
So, we are not going to sit here today and normalize this
behavior. We are just not. We are just not going to do that.
And with that, I yield back.
Ms. Greene. I strongly support law enforcement for
protecting the Secretary of Homeland. I would not recognize
Senator Padilla if he walked in this room.
I now recognize Mr. Timmons from South Carolina for 5
minutes.
Mr. Timmons. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
We have $37 trillion in debt. We have a $1.8 trillion
annual deficit. The fact that this is a partisan issue and the
fact that my colleagues across the aisle are not taking this
seriously is really frustrating. It is really, really
frustrating.
We have not even talked about Social Security, which goes
into austerity measures. My constituents and your constituents
all over this country will receive 21 percent less if we do not
save Social Security. These are just facts. This is just math.
So, we have to do our job here. We have to do our job here.
And some of the most important work DOGE has done in the
last six months is just simply on increasing transparency.
Their website shows the public how taxpayer funds are actually
being distributed and justified on a daily basis. The DOGE
initiative has shown that enhanced payment tracking and upfront
verification can eliminate billions in waste. And we must make
these practices standard, not exceptional.
Tens of billions of dollars are lost each year to improper
payments across Medicaid, unemployment insurance, SNAP, housing
assistance, and more. Most people do not realize that there are
17 means-tested social safety nets that total more than $1.5
trillion in annual government spending. And a good portion of
these are improper payments, and it is simply due to lax or
outdated income verification processes.
So, all these different social safety nets that we
appropriately provide to Americans, they require that you have
an income threshold that you do not meet. And we tell the
states that they have leeway in how to do that, but it is a
patchwork framework, and it is all antiquated. Certain states
require paystubs, W-2s, other income documents to the IRS. It
is just simply not enough. This is 2025. Technology can solve
this problem.
We should be leveraging all income sources, in real time
and continuously, to verify eligibility for Federal benefit
programs, no more pay-and-chase, no more hoping the paperwork
matches up months later, and no more guesswork. Shockingly, in
the Big Beautiful Bill, the House proposal to simply require
states to confirm eligibility twice a year instead of only once
resulted in $11 billion in savings. What if we confirmed income
eligibility in real time?
That is why I introduced H.R. 1755, the Timely and Accurate
Benefits Act, or TABS Act, to require states to adopt enhanced
income verification across their Federal benefits programs to
get people the benefits they deserve faster and to stop
payments to those who no longer qualify, immediately.
Now let us zoom out. Income verification is one example of
a broader problem. Federal agencies are swimming in waste,
fraud, abuse, and redundancy, and thanks to DOGE, we now have a
public-facing receipt book of over $180 billion in identified
savings. From unnecessary grants to absurd leases to Federal
offices with no measurable output, DOGE is shining a light on
the insane bloat of our frivolous spending. And again, this is
critical work that must be done. We have $37 trillion in debt
and run a $1.8 trillion annual deficit. Our social safety nets
will fail if we do not make appropriate changes to save them.
Mr. Lips, DOGE is attempting to overcome barriers to data
sharing among and within agencies to enhance fraud detection.
Isn't the inability to cross-check data bases a problem
historically in identifying fraudsters?
Mr. Lips. Absolutely, and thank you for the question,
Congressman. It is important to look at the history around
improper payments. There was an executive order issued by
President Obama establishing the Do Not Pay system that the
Treasury Department has been using to try and increase
verification and tighten controls over Federal payments. But
that was more than 15 years ago, and we have seen hundreds of
billions of dollars in improper payments reported annually over
those past 15 years.
It is important to know that the Treasury Department has
been asking for help, asking for the ability to share
information. A long time ago, the Social Security
Administration could not share information about deceased
Americans with the Treasury Department. That stopped for a few
years. They can now do that. There is a lot more that can be
done to share information between agencies to stop fraud and
prevent improper payments. There have been bills introduced
both in the Senate and the House to do that, bills by
Republican Members and Democratic Members.
Mr. Timmons. I am running out of time.
Mr. Lips. Sorry.
Mr. Timmons. Let me finish. So, this is not a ``maybe.''
This is a ``must'' piece of legislation. We cannot continue
down this path. My bill came from a Missouri pilot program that
resulted in 17 percent savings. Seventeen percent of just
Medicaid is $140 billion annually, annually. Seventeen percent
across all social safety nets that are means-tested is $250
billion. We are running out of time. We have got to pass these
pieces of legislation. We have got to use technology to make
sure that we are being efficient with our tax dollars.
With that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
Ms. Greene. The gentleman yields.
I now recognize Ms. Norton of Washington, D.C., for 5
minutes.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Federal workers are essential not just to the fabric of the
District of Columbia but to the functioning of the Federal
Government and, in turn, to the well-being of every American.
Federal workers make sure that Social Security checks go out on
time. They provide healthcare to our veterans. They make sure
planes land safely. They make sure food and drinking water is
safe. Their work is critical to the functioning of the
government and making sure people, families, and communities
get the services and resources they need.
The so-called Department of Government Efficiency's gutting
of the workforce has meant the senseless, tragic, and
irreparable loss of more than 100,000 public servants so far,
each of whom has had their own life upended. Ms. DiVito, what
do we lose when we push qualified experts out of their roles
serving the American people?
Ms. DiVito. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman.
DOGE's widespread staff cuts represent a huge loss of potential
and talent from the Federal workforce. As you said, many of
these workers are located in D.C., but most are not. They are
the people who make sure food is safe to eat, that Medicaid
applications are processed in a timely way, that Social
Security benefit checks go out the door. So far, we have lost
thousands of these workers, and their loss is devastating not
just to the communities in which they live and serve, but to
the American public as a whole.
Ms. Norton. And Ms. DiVito, what are the effects of the
Department of Government Efficiency driving early career
employees from Federal service?
Ms. DiVito. Young and probationary employees are people
who, by definition, are just tending to start out in their
careers in public service. Some of them might have had decades
ahead of them dedicated to making sure that the government
works for people, and DOGE firing probationary employees guts a
generation of that talent from the workforce.
Ms. Norton. President Trump is also working to steadily
politicize the Federal workforce by attacking civil service
protections, replacing nonpartisan Federal employees with
partisan loyalists, by reclassifying Federal positions as
political jobs, and introducing loyalty tests to the Federal
hiring process. Ms. DiVito, how does the gutting and
politicization of the Federal workforce hurt everyday people,
reduce access to the services and protections they are entitled
to, and generally harm committees?
Ms. DiVito. For the government to work for people, it needs
people, workers, behind the scenes making sure that all of the
vital functions of the Federal Government are happening in a
timely manner that best serves the population. When you gut the
Federal workforce, you obviously lose that talent. You
undermine the resources, programs, functions of the Federal
Government, and politicizing certain agencies undermines the
overall effect of those agencies, so you see a lot more
politicization of things like apolitical regulators, people who
are trained and focused on making sure that they are serving
the interests of the public and not one particular person or
administration.
Ms. Norton. In April, Department of Government Efficiency
officials, including a 25-year-old with no Federal Government
experience, recklessly purged 15,000 employees of the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau. That is about 90 percent of the
Agency's workforce, which had been dedicated to protecting
Americans from deceptive and abusive financial practices like
predatory lending. Ms. DiVito, what impact does the hollowing
out of the civil service from Federal Government agencies and
regulatory bodies like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
have on consumers and the broader economy?
Ms. DiVito. The CFPB and other financial regulators do not
just make sure that consumer interests are protected, but they
keep the economy stable. They keep our financial system safe
and secure, and that benefits businesses and families across
the country.
Ms. Greene. The gentlelady's time has expired.
I now recognize Mr. Burlison from Missouri for 5 minutes.
Mr. Burlison. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you,
everyone, for being here today. I, like everyone, my
constituents, are fed up with watching Washington squander
their money on frivolous programs and bloated bureaucracies,
which is why the Department of Government Efficiency was the
most exciting thing that when I went back home and talked to
constituents about, it is the most exciting thing that was
happening with this Administration.
And look, this is an example of what private sector can do
when it is evaluating a bloated public sector system that seems
to be resistant to everything. When I spoke with Mr. Musk, I
warned him. I said, you know, this place is a swamp for a
reason, and you cannot rely on the politicians and the people
in this town to help you in evaluating or determining places to
cut. They will only deliver what they want, right? There is a
reason why Congress, it being in our hands, we are at $37
trillion in debt, and we have all of these wasted expenditures.
So, Mr. Dickerson, I am going to ask you three the same
question. If you had anything to say to the DOGE efforts, to
the DOGE team, and to Mr. Musk, what would you say?
Mr. Dickerson. I would say keep up the--it has been a good
start so far, and keep up the good work.
Mr. Burlison. Mr. Burton.
Mr. Burton. Excuse me. I think there is a need for them to
get beyond just canceling grants and starting to work with you
to draft legislation to make these changes permanent. If
Congress ultimately does not act, either through appropriations
bills or rescissions, it is going to be ephemeral. There is
also the need to make changes on the regulatory front. There is
need to change various secretary directives. They need to take
it to the next step to bring it home, and they have not done
that.
Mr. Burlison. Thank you. Mr. Lips.
Mr. Lips. I agree with that point. I think the most
important thing they could do now would be to work with the
Members of this Committee and the Congress on government
efficiency reforms, many of which I think should have broad
support among lawmakers.
Mr. Burlison. Ms. DiVito, let me ask you this. You have
seen a lot of the DOGE cuts in the programs. Is there a single
one that you would have agreed with, a single one?
Ms. DiVito. Part of the problem, I think, with DOGE----
Mr. Burlison. The answer is yes or no. Do not eat up my
time. Is there a single one that you would have agreed with?
Ms. DiVito. I do not think there is a yes or no answer to
that question.
Mr. Burlison. Okay. Well, I am not going to waste my time.
I want to dive into Mr. Burton and what you said. So, the
question is what should happen to force Congress to actually
make these cuts that have been identified?
Mr. Burton. Congress needs to legislate, and it has not
been. I mean, the GAO has made countless proposals. The
improper payments have been around for decades and literally
involve trillions of dollars. No one has fixed that. That is
one of the few things, though, that the Administration has the
ability, through administrative changes, to do on their own
because they are legally required not to spend that money, and
yet it is going on. Congress needs to appropriate the
appropriators. There needs to be changes in the authorizing
committee. A lot of the grants that the Chairwoman was
referencing could be prohibited through authorizing
legislation. Congress needs to legislate, and at some level, it
sort of has forgotten how to do so.
Mr. Burlison. Do you think that we could?
Mr. Burton. Yes.
Mr. Burlison. You do?
Mr. Burton. In fact, I am old enough to remember when you
guys did.
Mr. Burlison. Well, I may be just above being black-pilled
at this point, so you are giving me a little bit of hope here.
But, Mr. Dickerson, if you could make one significant change,
what would be the most significant change or policy change that
we could do that would save taxpayers' dollars?
Mr. Dickerson. I think one of the most important things you
can do is exactly what you are doing in the One Big Beautiful
Bill reconciliation package, which is reform our welfare
programs that literally pay people to stay out of the workforce
and have the entirely the wrong disincentives so that we can
actually preserve benefits for people who are actually needy,
right? Things like income verification that Mr. Timmons was
talking about, that is so essential to do.
Mr. Burlison. Mr. Lips, if you could change one thing, if
we passed one thing, what would we do?
Mr. Lips. I would recommend strengthening the Do Not Pay
data that is available to the Treasury Department. This is a
bipartisan measure that could be, I think, passed through the
House and Senate. It would provide access to Treasury to stop
improper payments and end fraud.
Mr. Burlison. Thank you. I yield back.
Ms. Greene. The gentleman's time has expired.
I now recognize Mr. Casar from Texas for 5 minutes.
Mr. Casar. Good morning. Today, Republicans have called
this DOGE hearing called ``Locking in the DOGE Cuts: Ending
Waste, Fraud and Abuse for Good,'' and I am deeply concerned
about the cuts that DOGE has made to services for our veterans.
So, I want to ask our pro-DOGE witnesses today some
questions about those cuts. So, Mr. Lips, ProPublica reported
that DOGE cuts have stalled lifesaving clinical trials for our
veterans with head and neck cancer, otherwise known as throat
cancer. Can you tell me, are lifesaving clinical trials for our
veterans waste or are they fraud or are they abuse?
Mr. Lips. I think that is an area of government that is
certainly vital and that there is many things that can be done
to improve VA services. I do not know all that DOGE has done
for the VA, and I think that if there is anywhere where you
could repurpose funds from these wastes that we are talking
about, hundreds of billions of dollars misspent----
Mr. Casar. But if they cut the clinical trials that are
helping our veterans with throat cancer, do you agree with
those cuts?
Mr. Lips. No.
Mr. Casar. Thank you. Mr. Dickerson, leaked documents
revealed that a VA hospital in rural Illinois was just forced
to close its acute care unit to new patients due to the DOGE
cuts. Can you tell me, is closing the doors of a VA acute care
unit waste or is it fraud or is it abuse?
Mr. Dickerson. I do not know all the details about that
particular instance, but I think that----
Mr. Casar. Would you say it is a big problem if DOGE cuts
cause the closing of an acute care facility in a VA hospital?
Mr. Dickerson. Like I said, I think if funding that
facility is a priority, we are running a $2 trillion annual
deficit----
Mr. Casar. I think it is a priority.
Mr. Dickerson [continuing]. So, we can repurpose funds to
something if it is a priority.
Mr. Casar. So, you think that if it is not a priority, that
it is waste?
Mr. Dickerson. I think that is for Congress and the
Administration to work together to determine.
Mr. Casar. Exactly. It is for Congress to work on, and the
Administration should not be calling our acute care veterans
facilities waste and closing the doors of an acute care
facility without Congress. And frankly, it is a priority, I
believe, of the American people to care for our veterans.
Mr. Burton, Trump recently eliminated the VA Services
Purchasing [sic] program, which just last year helped more than
33,000 veterans make sure that they do not get behind on their
mortgage and they do not get thrown out of their home. Can you
tell me, is this program that DOGE cut, is it waste, is it
fraud, or is it abuse?
Mr. Burton. That is highly fact-dependent, and I am not
that familiar with that program. I will tell you one thing
about----
Mr. Casar. And I will tell you, Mr. Burton----
Mr. Burton. Yes.
Mr. Casar [continuing]. I am familiar with it. It helped
33,000 of our veterans not lose their homes. And in my view,
our veterans are not waste, fraud, or abuse, nor are they a
piggybank for billionaires' tax cuts like Elon Musk. And so----
Mr. Burton. I doubt anyone thinks that.
Mr. Casar. This is my time, Mr. Burton.
Mr. Burton. Yes, fine.
Mr. Casar. I am deeply concerned that President Trump will
take reckless action to risk sending more American troops into
endless wars in the Middle East. But back at home, he is
breaking the sacred promise to our veterans to care for them
when and if they come back.
Donald Trump has already tried to fire thousands of people
at the VA, and recent reporting shows that there are plans to
try to fire 80,000 people at the VA. These reckless DOGE cuts
have thrown VA hospitals into chaos, and in my own district, I
have gotten reports of veterans waiting months for basic
services like a wheelchair.
I represent San Antonio, Texas, military city USA, where we
honor the service of our men and women in uniform. And if we
want to honor our veterans, we honor it with more than just
words. We take actions to care for them when they come home. We
do not needlessly send people into harm's way, and we do not
cut their services for when they come home. This Committee
should not be holding hearings on locking in DOGE cuts. We
should be holding hearings about restoring services for our
veterans.
And while DOGE is screwing over our veterans, the
Administration is also stealing from seniors. We just learned
about a huge new scandal that every senior in America needs to
hear about. After Trump and Musk made massive cuts to the staff
at the Social Security Administration, they have scrubbed
government websites of information about how long it takes to
get your phone call answered. They have erased from the
websites the delays that it takes to process benefit claims.
They have wiped away what used to be publicly available about
how long it takes to respond to a 1-800 call at the Social
Security Administration. This is a coverup. And why are they
covering it up? Because wait times have exploded. A brave
whistleblower just estimated that Trump's changes and Elon
Musk's cuts have doubled the amount of time it takes to process
a Social Security claim. Everybody needs to hear about it.
Social Security is not Elon Musk's piggybank. I yield back.
Ms. Greene. The gentleman yields.
Ms. Stansbury. Madam Chair?
Ms. Greene. No one loves veterans more than President
Trump, and he is made that apparent. That is why he is working
for peace.
Ms. Stansbury. Madam Chair?
Ms. Greene. Right now----
Ms. Stansbury. Madam Chairman, I mean, it is not your time
right now.
Ms. Greene. I am the Chair of this Committee.
Ms. Stansbury. That is not how----
Ms. Greene. I am the Chair.
Ms. Stansbury [continuing]. Parliamentary procedure works,
Madam Chairwoman.
Ms. Greene. You are not recognized, Ms. Stanbury. You are
not recognized.
Ms. Stansbury. You are not recognized either. You cannot
just speak any time you want. That is not how the----
Ms. Greene. I am the Chair of this Committee.
Ms. Stansbury. That is not how it works, Madam.
Ms. Greene. Ms. Stansbury, you are not recognized.
Ms. Stansbury. Madam Chairwoman, that is not how
parliamentary--you can smash your gavel----
Ms. Greene. Ms. Stansbury, you are not recognized.
Ms. Stansbury [continuing]. All day, but that is not how
parliamentary inquiry works.
Ms. Greene. Ms. Stansbury, you are not recognized.
Ms. Stansbury. We are going to get you a Robert's Rules of
Order and put it in----
Ms. Greene. Ms. Stansbury, you are not recognized.
Ms. Stansbury. [continuing]. The Committee so that you
can----
Mr. Lynch. Point of order.
Ms. Greene. Ms. Stansbury, you are not recognized.
Ms. Stansbury [continuing]. So that you can understand----
Mr. Lynch. Point of order.
Ms. Stansbury [continuing]. Parliamentary procedure.
Ms. Greene. Point of order.
Ms. Stansbury. Okay.
Mr. Lynch. Point of order.
Ms. Stansbury. All right. Madam Chair, calm down. Let us
move on.
Ms. Greene. Ms. Stansbury, you are not recognized.
Point of order.
Mr. Lynch. Madam----
Ms. Crockett. Madam Chair, I have got a--oh, I am sorry,
you had a point of order.
Mr. Lynch. So----
Ms. Crockett. Go ahead.
Mr. Lynch. Madam Chair, can we decide who is going to speak
first, and when we are going.
Ms. Greene. Absolutely. I am the Chair of this committee,
and Mr. Gill----
Mr. Lynch. I know that, but----
Ms. Greene. Mr. Gill from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Lynch. There you go.
Ms. Crockett. But, Madam Chair, I had unanimous consent I
was trying to----
Ms. Greene. Without objection.
Ms. Crockett. Thank you so much. This is from Citizens for
Responsible Reporting [sic]. ``DOGE'S big illusion, the heavy
cost of Trump administration's so-called cuts.''
I have another one. ``Trump Administration scrambles to
rehire key Federal workers after DOGE firing.'' That is four
hours ago.
I have another one. ``How will we know if DOGE is
succeeding?''
I have another one. ``How the Trump Administration's DOGE
cuts are harming women.''
I have another one. ``How Trump's DOGE cuts package could
put GOP in a bind.''
I have more, but I will do them later. Thank you.
Ms. Greene. Without objection, so ordered.
I now recognize Mr. Gill from Texas for 5 minutes.
Mr. Gill. Thank you, Madam Chair. It never gets boring in
here. I would like to say thank you to the witnesses for being
here and for taking the time.
Ms. DiVito, thank you for coming here. In your testimony,
you said that Americans deserve a government that works for
them, a government that makes their lives easier and more
secure. Is that correct?
Ms. DiVito. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gill. Great. I would like to read through a couple of
the grants that DOGE has pulled back, and I would like to get
your take on them. They pulled back a $1.5 million NIH grant to
Morehouse College. It was called ``the center to advance
reproductive justice and behavioral health among Black
pregnant/postpartum women and birthing people.'' Do you think
that that makes Americans' lives easier and more secure?
Ms. DiVito. I think that medical and scientific research of
all types----
Mr. Gill. Do you think that that constitutes critical
research? According to your testimony, NIH grants are critical
research.
Ms. DiVito. I think that government research of all types
in the medical----
Mr. Gill. Including birthing people?
Ms. DiVito. I think bench research of all types plays a
fundamental role----
Mr. Gill. What is a birthing person?
Ms. DiVito. Sir, I am here to talk about the DOGE impacts
to working families.
Mr. Gill. I am asking you about this grant, and you are
defending it. So, I am asking you, who is birthing people?
Ms. DiVito. I am not familiar with this grant. I take a
position that all kinds of government research--medical,
pharmaceutical----
Mr. Gill. Is a birthing person a woman?
Ms. DiVito [continuing]. Biological----
Mr. Gill. Is that another word for female?
Ms. DiVito. That is outside the scope of my expertise.
Mr. Gill. Seems like erasure language to me. I have been
told that that type of vernacular constitutes erasure language.
How about another one? How about the conference, ``Gender
equity in the mathematical study of commutative algebra?'' Do
you think that that is a valid form of government spending?
Ms. DiVito. I think mathematical research of all types is
deserving of government----
Mr. Gill. What about studying--and this is directly from
the National Science Foundation's website--women and non-binary
mathematicians?
Ms. DiVito. Again, I think all kinds of government
investment should be dedicated toward mathematical,
scientific----
Mr. Gill. All kinds of government investment. You do not
have any kind of limit on what we are spending our money on,
just everything? Is that your testimony?
Ms. DiVito. I am talking about DOGE. You brought up a
grant.
Mr. Gill. So am I. This is a grant that DOGE cut.
Ms. DiVito. I am not familiar with this particular grant,
but I think government investment in mathematical, biological--
--
Mr. Gill. Okay. Let us do another one. This one is called
``Hashtag: Transcendent Health, adapting an LGB+ inclusive teen
pregnancy prevention program for transgender boys.'' I cannot
even say this without laughing. Do you think that that is a,
you know, useful form of our tax spend?
Ms. DiVito. I am not familiar with that grant, but I think
bench research, government investment in scientific and
pharmaceutical research----
Mr. Gill. Teen pregnancy for transgender boys, do you think
that that is a useful spend of our tax dollars?
Ms. DiVito. I think government investment in all kinds of
scientific research is of the utmost importance.
Mr. Gill. Including pregnancy prevention for transgender
boys. Okay. Let me ask you--we can come back to this later,
maybe. Do you support abolishing the filibuster still?
Ms. DiVito. I am here to talk about DOGE, respectfully.
Mr. Gill. Right. We could abolish the filibuster and get a
lot of DOGE cuts through. And you have written at length on
your Twitter about abolishing the filibuster. I am just curious
if you think that we should do that still.
Ms. DiVito. I did a lot of previous work on different
topics because I am an economic policy expert, and
respectfully, I am here to talk about DOGE cuts.
Mr. Gill. Okay. But we could abolish the filibuster and get
DOGE cuts. This is totally germane here. Do you think we
should?
Ms. DiVito. I am here to talk about DOGE cuts, not
strategies for achieving more of them, but the harms that they
have produced for working families.
Mr. Gill. That is a convenient change of opinion. I notice
that most of your comments about the filibuster were during the
Biden Administration.
But we can move on. Let us go back to some more of these
grants. Do you think that we should be spending money on ``the
racialized basis of trait judgments from faces''?
Ms. DiVito. I am not at all familiar with that grant.
Mr. Gill. It is a $500,000 NSF grant.
Ms. DiVito. Okay. I am not familiar with the subject matter
or the particular grant.
Mr. Gill. But you are defending these.
Ms. DiVito. I am saying that I think the government has----
Mr. Gill. You are pretty adamant against DOGE cuts, and I
am asking you if you support the cuts----
Ms. DiVito. I think that there is----
Mr. Gill [continuing]. That DOGE has found.
Ms. DiVito [continuing]. Economic and medical public health
communal benefit to the government investing in----
Mr. Gill. What about cross-sex steroid therapy and
cardiovascular risk in the transgender female?
Ms. DiVito. Again, I think government investment in
scientific research is important.
Mr. Gill. Great. Thank you for your testimony. I appreciate
it.
Ms. Greene. The gentleman's time has expired.
I now recognize Ms. Crockett from Texas for 5 minutes.
Ms. Crockett. Yes, Madam Chair. I would actually like to
subpoena the former head of DOGE if we could subpoena Elon
Musk. Can we take a vote on that?
Ms. Greene. This hearing will suspend.
Ms. Crockett. Is the clerk in place? Do we have a clerk?
Can I make a motion that we subpoena Elon Musk right now?
Ms. Greene. The hearing has suspended.
[Pause.]
Ms. Crockett. Point of order, Madam Chair.
Ms. Greene. We are suspended.
Ms. Crockett. Point of inquiry? I am trying to ask a
question.
Ms. Greene. The hearing is suspended. If you can have some
patience, we are suspended.
The hearing will now resume.
Ms. Crockett, do you have a motion?
Ms. Crockett. I did not have a motion. I had a point of
order. I was trying to determine how long it was going to take
for us to call the roll. I can call it if need be.
Ms. Greene. Well, if you are not making a motion----
Ms. Crockett. I already made the motion.
Ms. Greene [continuing]. Then you can continue with your 5
minutes of questioning.
Ms. Crockett. The motion was to subpoena Elon Musk, who was
heading DOGE, who is the one that made the recommendations for
these cuts, yet he has yet to come before this Committee. And
last time I checked, none of the witnesses sitting here know
anything about DOGE, except for what they read on the internet.
I want to talk to the person----
Ms. Greene. You have made your motion.
Ms. Crockett. Okay. Well, you were asking, so I wanted to
make sure you understood.
Ms. Greene. You made your motion.
Ms. Crockett. Okay. Thank you.
Ms. Greene. Mr. Burchett.
Mr. Burchett. Chairlady, I would like to make a motion to
table that motion.
Ms. Greene. The motion is not debatable. As many as are in
favor of tabling the motion, signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Ms. Greene. All those opposed, signify by saying no.
[Chorus of noes.]
Ms. Greene. In the opinion of the Chair, the yeas have it,
and the motion----
Ms. Crockett. Madam Chair, we would ask for a recorded
vote.
Ms. Greene [continuing]. To table is agreed to.
A recorded vote is ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
Ms. Crockett. Yes, call it.
Ms. Greene. Okay. The clerk will prepare for the vote, and
then we will go from there.
The hearing is suspended.
[Pause.]
Ms. Greene. The hearing will resume.
A recorded vote is ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The Clerk. Mr. Cloud.
Mr. Cloud. No. Yes, yes, yes to table.
The Clerk. Mr. Cloud votes yes.
Mr. Cloud. Yes to table.
The Clerk. Mr. Fallon.
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Timmons.
Mr. Timmons. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Timmons votes yes.
Mr. Burchett.
Mr. Burchett. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Burchett votes aye.
Mr. Burlison.
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Jack.
Mr. Jack. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Jack votes aye.
Mr. Gill.
Mr. Gill. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Gill votes aye.
Ms. Stansbury.
Ms. Stansbury. No to table.
The Clerk. Ms. Norton.
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Lynch.
Mr. Lynch. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Lynch votes no.
Mr. Garcia.
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Casar.
Mr. Casar. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Crockett.
Ms. Crockett. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Greene.
Ms. Greene. Yes to table.
The clerk will report the tally.
The Clerk. Madam Chair, the ayes are six, the noes are
four.
Ms. Greene. The yeas have it, and the motion to table is
agreed to. The Committee will now resume.
I now recognize Ms. Crockett for 5 minutes.
Ms. Crockett. Thank you so much. You know what? It is
interesting because we sit here in the Department of Government
Efficiency Subcommittee, and the most inefficient thing that we
have done since we have had the invention of this nonsense was
the fact that we have decided that we will not do
accountability or oversight over DOGE because we have failed to
bring in the person who actually runs DOGE.
In fact, we have decided, or actually you all decided, that
we would not even debate why it is that we should or should not
subpoena Elon Musk. In fact, you all are just trying to get rid
of the musky smell because it was not working out very well for
you, and now you want to pretend as if you are coming in here
to do exactly what your constituents want you to do. But the
last time I checked, you all did not want to go talk to your
constituents because if there was one thing they were
complaining about, it was Elon and it was DOGE. You did not
want to hear those.
And listen, if I had time, I would run the tape, but I only
got 5 minutes, because there is plenty of video footage of all
of you all getting your butts handed to you when you went home
and people told you how they felt about DOGE.
So, let us talk about it for a quick second. Americans are
looking for help, but instead of offering it to them, the
Republicans have unleashed the most aggressive attack on the
working-class families in American history, and they have been
excited to do so. In fact, they are here today arguing to make
all the chaos, confusion, and destruction caused by DOGE
permanent. They want hungry kids to be permanent. They want
sicker Americans to be permanent. They want homeless veterans
to be permanent, shuttered hospitals to be permanent, disrupted
Social Security benefits to be permanent. They sold out their
constituents to give permanent tax breaks to billionaires, and
they are doing it, and now they want to have a victory lap,
celebrating the pain of their constituents.
So, Ms. DiVito, let us go through some of the things that
the Republicans have done to see if they are helpful or harmful
to Americans. Helpful or harmful? Stripping healthcare away
from 16 million people?
Ms. DiVito. I would say harmful.
Ms. Crockett. Laying off hundreds of thousands of Federal
workers?
Ms. DiVito. Harmful.
Ms. Crockett. Disrupting or delaying Federal services such
as Social Security?
Ms. DiVito. Harmful.
Ms. Crockett. Medicaid?
Ms. DiVito. Harmful.
Ms. Crockett. SNAP benefits?
Ms. DiVito. Harmful.
Ms. Crockett. Cutting billions from agencies like NIH?
Ms. DiVito. Harmful.
Ms. Crockett. EPA?
Ms. DiVito. Harmful.
Ms. Crockett. HUD?
Ms. DiVito. Harmful.
Ms. Crockett. FDA?
Ms. DiVito. Harmful.
Ms. Crockett. All right. Seems like you understand the
assignment. There is an entire agenda that is attacking the
working-class Americans from start to finish.
And then the thing is, they told us that they were going to
do this, but, you know, they pretended as if they knew nothing
about the playbook that was laid out by good old Heritage
Foundation.
All of this talk about lowering costs and reducing waste is
absolute BS. Their agenda is about one thing, making the
Federal Government so weak that they can exploit it for their
personal gain. They are stealing your data to help their
companies. They are taking away your healthcare and food
assistance to fund tax cuts for billionaires. Their agenda is
pro-disinformation, pro-obstruction, pro-greed, and pro-
exploitation. If you did not know, that is what DOGE actually
spells out. D, disinformation; O, obstruction; G, greed; and E,
exploitation.
And congressional Republicans have been complicit in this
agenda. They have helped this Administration terrorize the
public. They have allowed this Administration to launch the
country into a war without congressional approval. And while we
are talking about saving money, let me tell you, just dropping
those few bombs in one day, that was the beginning of what is
going to be a very long bill for us.
As they talk about being efficient, there was nothing
efficient about doing it. And maybe if there was some
consultation, maybe with those that, say, have constitutional
authority, since we care about the Constitution, then maybe we
could have saved the American people not only money, but the
lives that are now at risk as we have to put out warnings for
American citizens in this country and abroad. Maybe we need to
start leading with the people at the middle of what it is that
is guiding us instead of following one person.
The reason that people like me say things like, you all are
in a cult, is because somehow people are abdicating their
duties and abdicating the very people that put them into
office. But I got 30 seconds. They have allowed this
Administration to steal congressionally approved money, money
for cancer research and food delivery to vulnerable
communities. They have allowed Elon Musk to infiltrate your
medical records and banking data. They have allowed this
Administration to ignore court rulings. And now Republicans are
here patting themselves on the back, literally arguing to make
this chaos permanent.
So, Americans are going to continue to live through chaos
and destruction that has been occurring ever since he swore in,
in January. And I hope you all remember who caused this because
it was not just Trump this time.
Ms. Greene. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Ms. Crockett. It was also the congressional Republicans----
Ms. Greene. The gentlelady's----
Ms. Crockett [continuing]. Who do not have a spine----
Ms. Greene [continuing]. Time has----
Ms. Crockett [continuing]. To do what is right.
Ms. Greene [continuing]. Expired.
I now recognize Mr. Burchett from Tennessee.
Mr. Burchett. Thank you, Chairlady. I would remind Members
of both sides of the aisle that President Trump's approval
rating is soaring. And last I checked, congressional approval
is not, and I think that bears witness.
Mr. Dickerson and Mr. Burton, do you think Congress should
withdraw additional funds other than the $9 billion recently
approved by the House?
Mr. Burton. Absolutely. The Federal budget is entirely out
of control. There are hundreds of billions of dollars in
improper payments. There are tremendous numbers of agencies
whose missions are not being fulfilled and are wasting money.
There is the opportunity for many, many tens of billions of
dollars of additional rescissions.
Mr. Dickerson. Wholeheartedly agree.
Mr. Burchett. Just yesterday, we passed unanimously--it was
like pulling teeth, though, and I give a lot of credit to the
Chairlady for helping me get the bill across the finish line.
We were sending millions of dollars every week to the Taliban,
if you can imagine that, and the NGOs. And that money flows
right back to Washington, dark money or possibly in members of
this body's pockets or their families, I suspect.
Mr. Burton. Huge amounts of the money flows to very wealthy
beltway bandits that live around here.
Mr. Burchett. Yes, sir, and I would agree with that. What
other programs and activities should be looked at for
additional cuts?
Mr. Dickerson. I think there is a whole host of things that
you can look at to fix the Federal budget. For example,
Congress has allowed the Biden Administration to spend billions
of dollars to facilitate the illegal immigration, for example,
in the Migration and Refugee Assistance account, in the DHS
Shelter and Services account. That has helped facilitate open
borders and transport illegal immigrants all throughout the
country into your districts across the country.
We spend hundreds of millions of dollars on abortion
providers to literally kill American citizens. I think that is
a terrible thing. We spend billions of dollars subsidizing
green energy research that makes our grid more inefficient. So,
there is lots of great examples that we could go on about.
Mr. Burton. The list is extraordinarily long, but the big
money is two places, healthcare and entitlements. The United
States spends twice as much as the percentage of GDP than the
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
average on healthcare, which is well over $1 trillion we might
as well burn because we do not get better health outcomes than
major European countries. And then the entitlements, of which
there are three major ones--Medicare, Social Security, and
Medicaid, but also Obamacare and dozens of programs, some
effective, some not--meant to alleviate poverty. But there is
tremendous waste, duplication, and opportunities for savings
there.
Mr. Burchett. Mr. Lips, I see you itching to get on the
mic, and I need to ask you a question, followup, but you go
ahead.
Mr. Lips. Thank you, sir. I think a great area to focus on
would be implementing watchdog recommendations. The GAO has put
together a list of more than 200 recommendations for Congress
and 5,000 recommendations for Federal agencies. GAO says that
this could save upwards of $200 billion.
Mr. Burchett. What is GAO? We do not use initials in my
office. What does that stand for?
Mr. Lips. Sorry, the Government Accountability Office.
Mr. Burchett. Okay. All right. Do you think Congress should
codify the DOGE or certain aspects of its operations?
Mr. Lips. I think it is a good question. I do not know if
it is necessary. I think that I would recommend codifying and
putting strength behind the executive orders trying to improve
program integrity measures within Treasury. The Do Not Pay
system needs help, it needs more information, and you could
save hundreds of billions of dollars.
Mr. Burchett. Mr. Burton, Mr. Dickerson, should we have a
group of people at each agency who are focused on cost savings?
Mr. Dickerson. Yes. I think everybody at every agency
should be focused on that.
Mr. Burchett. You know, as fiscally responsible as the
State of Tennessee is, low-tax state, no debt, I have seen that
in the individual counties even, they are talking about this,
so I think it is one thing--the residual of this will be
hopefully some long-term savings in elimination of waste,
abuse, and fraud.
DOGE is subjecting Federal spending to a higher level of
scrutiny. What level of spending scrutiny do you think is
important?
Mr. Burton. I am not sure I entirely understand the
question.
Mr. Dickerson. Yes, I mean, I would say----
Mr. Burchett. How deep should we go? How about that?
Mr. Burton. We should--I think a reasonable objective would
be to get back to a level of Federal spending during President
Clinton's term.
Mr. Burchett. And I am out of time.
Mr. Burton. We would balance the budget at that point.
Mr. Burchett. I would just like to see us go back to pre-
COVID-level spending.
Thank you, Chairlady.
Ms. Greene. The----
Ms. Crockett. Madam Chair, I have a unanimous consent.
Ms. Greene. Without objection.
Ms. Crockett. Thank you so much. This is just from a couple
of hours ago. ``Trump pivots to distractions as polls show
collapsing support for his agenda.''
Ms. Greene. Without objection, so ordered.
Ms. Crockett. The next one is ``Donald Trump's approval
rating plunges in multiple polls.''
Ms. Greene. Without objection, so ordered.
Ms. Crockett. The next one, ``Donald Trump's approval
rating, new polls show shakeup over Iran bombing.''
Ms. Greene. Without objection, so ordered.
Ms. Crockett. The next one, ``Trump's approval rating drops
to term low amid Israel-Iran war.''
Ms. Greene. Without objection, so ordered.
I hope you are not reading the same thing from your phone,
which it looked like.
I now recognize----
Ms. Crockett. So, for clarification----
Ms. Greene. I now recognize Mr. Lynch from Massachusetts
for 5 minutes.
Ms. Crockett. I just want to clarify. I can give you the
sources because----
Ms. Greene. Mr. Lynch is recognized.
Ms. Crockett, you are rudely interrupting Mr. Lynch's 5
minutes.
Ms. Crockett. Well, Ms.----
Ms. Greene. I have already said without objection, so
ordered.
Ms. Crockett. Okay. Then there we go.
Ms. Greene. Mr. Lynch is recognized, Ms. Crockett, for 5
minutes. Thank you.
Mr. Lynch. Madam Chair, first of all, I want to be the
first to congratulate my friend and colleague, the gentleman
from California, Mr. Garcia, on becoming our new Ranking Member
on the full Committee, on this Committee, Oversight and
Government Reform. I am sure he will enjoy not only my own
support, but the full support of all of our Members, and we
will all work to help him in his new role.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you. Ms. DiVito, in the past, veterans'
benefits in this country have been separate and apart from
everything else we do. They are different because veterans'
benefits, for the time that I have been in Congress over the
last 25 years, they are regarded as special because they are
earned by courageous service to our Nation previously rendered
by a very narrow segment of our society.
And we, as a Nation, both Democrat and Republican, through
every President so far, made a promise that if a young man or
woman puts on that uniform for our country, serves our Nation,
and they come home from war with the scars of that war, either
invisible or visible, we make a promise that we will take care
of them and their families. And that has happened for every--we
have been proud that every administration has honored that
promise until now.
On January 20, Trump laid off 6,000 employees at the VA. He
even laid off the workers at the suicide helpline in the middle
of a suicide crisis among our returning veterans. It is an
epidemic. And after that, DOGE and Donald Trump have laid off--
2,700 of those people that they laid off were veterans
themselves. So, now we are looking at a 250,000 case backlog at
the VA, so veterans are waiting longer and longer to get their
care. You know, we still have World War II veterans, Korean War
veterans, Vietnam veterans who are older, and the delay in care
to those veterans is a denial, a denial of those benefits they
are owed.
I have a UC, Madam Chair, request, unanimous consent
request from ProPublica magazine, which the headline is,
``Internal VA emails reveal how Trump cuts have jeopardized
veterans' care, including that of lifesaving cancer trials.''
Ms. Greene. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you. The email itself, these are VA
internal emails, and it notes that this is between folks at the
VA talking about the cuts. The email says that more than 1,000
veterans will lose access to treatment for diseases ranging
from metastatic head and neck cancer to kidney disease to
traumatic brain injuries. And it goes on further, and this is a
quote from the internal emails, that ``the enrollment in those
clinical trials is stopping,'' meaning that these veterans lose
access to those therapies. Ms. DiVito, can you talk about that,
the delivery of services to our veterans?
Ms. DiVito. Thank you for the question. Unfortunately, what
we are seeing across the country is that veterans' healthcare
is being held up and interrupted because of the DOGE cuts. I,
and I think most of the panel, agreed that that should never be
the case when dealing with our servicemen and women. They
deserve, at the very least, quality and timely healthcare
through the VA. But DOGE has announced the goal of firing over
80,000 VA staffers. They have already lost 200 doctors, 1,700
nurses, and almost 900 advanced medical support assistants, in
addition to some of the cuts to grants that funded various
programs, including the suicide prevention hotlines. Veterans
are facing much longer backlogs and disrupted service. And in
many instances, it can be life and death.
Mr. Lynch. How important is it, you know, so we have got
this hotline, and these veterans, in many cases, are isolated.
They are isolated from their families, their communities. How
important is that suicide hotline?
Ms. DiVito. Oh, it is of critical importance. Veterans are
a population that are at heightened risk for suicide, so making
sure that they have all kinds of resources at their disposal is
of the utmost importance.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you. Madam Chair, I yield back.
Ms. Greene. The gentleman's time has expired.
I now recognize Mr. Jack from Georgia for 5 minutes.
Mr. Jack. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And first, I would like to acknowledge our colleague, Mr.
Lynch, for his hard-fought campaign.
And I would like to, at the same time, spend a little bit
of my time today working with Mr. Dickerson and Mr. Burton.
First, Mr. Dickerson, I want to congratulate you and EPIC for
all that you have accomplished. I worked with both Paul and Zoe
at the White House in the President's first term and commend
you all for your work.
Mr. Burton, if you could, I was reading through your
testimony, I would love for you just to walk this Committee
through the history of impoundment and recissions. It started,
as I understand, in Thomas Jefferson's Administration. I would
love for you to walk us through the history.
Mr. Burton. The earliest impoundment that I know of was by
Thomas Jefferson. The Congress appropriated money to build some
gunboats. Peace broke out, and he chose not to build the
gunboats. So, he, in effect, impounded the money and sent it
back to Congress. That has been going on for a very long time.
In older appropriations bills, particularly in the 19th
century, it generally read not to exceed X dollars, so
Presidents often did not because they did not think you needed
to spend that much money. And President Roosevelt impounded
money, and so did President Nixon. And at that point, there was
serious objection by the Congress, and the Impoundment Control
Act was enacted, which establishes an expedited procedure for
rescissions but has very broad prohibitions on impoundment.
There is certain reprogramming permitted and things of that
sort. Obviously, if the, as with improper payments, if you
cannot spend the money, that is fine. The President should do
that.
So, the rescissions process, however, is somewhat
cumbersome, as you probably just discovered. It could be
streamlined and made better, but nonetheless, that is the
general requirement today.
Mr. Jack. And, you know, one thing that stood out to me in
your opening testimony and your testimony throughout this
hearing is you mentioned the work that Speaker Gingrich and
President Clinton undertook.
Mr. Burton. Yes.
Mr. Jack. So, in your estimation, is our Committee's work
an extension of what was successfully done in the 1990s to rein
in spending?
Mr. Burton. Yes and no. I mean, the effort in the 1990s was
very broad. The Clinton Administration was serious about
improving government administration. They resisted some of what
the Gingrich Congress wanted to do, but ultimately, there were
serious, very hard negotiations, and they reached an agreement.
President Clinton signed legislation that substantially reduced
Federal spending.
And there was a tremendous amount of legislating going on
throughout the Congress, not just in one committee, but
committee by committee by committee by committee. There was a
lot of legislating done, a lot of markups, a lot of
investigations, a lot of hearings. It was not just one hearing
like here. There was systematic throughout the Congress and in
government and the executive branch.
Mr. Jack. Thank you. Mr. Dickerson, if we could spend a
little bit of time in the remaining time we have left talking
about improper payments. The first hearing our Chairwoman
convened was on the troublesome improper payments we discovered
over the last four years of the Biden Administration. I would
love for you to touch on some of the challenges we face with
respect to verifying identity, with respect to payments that
are going out the door, would love for you to comment on that.
Mr. Dickerson. Absolutely. Improper payments is a huge
issue. In one program alone, Medicaid, for example, spent $1.1
trillion over the last decade on improper payments. And that is
incredibly harmful because it is a waste of taxpayer money, but
it is also funds that are not going to people who are truly
vulnerable and truly needy. And so, this waste, fraud, and
abuse is rampant throughout the Federal Government.
And so, one of the major sources of that is the lack of
ability to identify the people who are claiming money, and
checks are going out the door to, are actually eligible. For
example, the Do Not Pay registry is supposed to be a data base
of accounts that the Federal Government is not supposed to
write checks to. But in many cases, those checks go out the
door and then they ping the registry. And in many cases, that
registry does not have access to all the data bases that it is
supposed to, so it is a huge problem, and we really should be
fixing it.
Mr. Jack. And I recall in our first hearing, we talked
about the amount of payments going out the door that are still
done by hand, not by computer or electronically. Is that
something you all have uncovered in your work?
Mr. Dickerson. Yes, I think it is something that we should
be using new technology, using AI, to actually look at what we
have across the government to ensure that only people who are
actually eligible for benefits are receiving it, nobody else.
Mr. Jack. Thank you. Madam Chair, in my closing, just a
point of clarification. The poll behind you, behind our Ranking
Member, it adds up to 110 percent. Just wanted to clarify, is
it meant to add up to 110 percent or is that an error?
Ms. Stansbury. Do you yield?
Mr. Jack. Yes, I do.
Ms. Stansbury. This is from a Quinnipiac poll that was held
two weeks ago, and this is the data that was provided. There is
a wealth of information, including information about Donald
Trump's falling poll numbers, so you should take a look.
Thanks.
Mr. Jack. I yield back.
Ms. Greene. The gentleman yields. And it still adds up to
110 percent. That is a fake poll right there.
I now recognize Mr. Subramanyam from Virginia for 5
minutes.
Mr. Subramanyam. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Before I get started on DOGE, Mr. Burton, you are one of
the coauthors of Project 2025. Is that correct?
Mr. Burton. Yes.
Mr. Subramanyam. And is this Administration trying to
implement Project 2025, yes or no?
Mr. Burton. In some respects, yes.
Mr. Subramanyam. Okay. Because last year, we kept hearing
about how they wanted nothing to do with Project 2025. That
must have hurt your feelings, I bet. But are you saying that
they are trying to implement all parts of Project 2025?
Mr. Burton. I just said in some respects, yes.
Mr. Subramanyam. Okay. Thanks. I just wanted to get that
out of the way. I am glad there is someone being honest these
days.
But let us talk about DOGE. So, DOGE promised us $2
trillion in cuts back in January. And so far, we have a report
card now out, and it has actually cost us billions of dollars,
maybe over $100 billion by one estimate. It is actually costing
taxpayers money. And it seems like, you know, they are cutting
a lot of things, how is this possible? Well, the reason it is
possible is because they are cutting the very people who are
actually there to help get rid of waste, fraud, and abuse. And
they are cutting people who do essential research and run
really important programs that save taxpayer money long term.
And so, the dashboard that we are talking about, the so-
called transparency, was riddled with errors. There has been
article after article about this. And so, we know now that that
dashboard cannot be trusted.
What can be trusted is that we are not anywhere close to $2
trillion. In fact, there is another bill that this House just
passed that adds $3 trillion to the debt. And so, even if we
did all these cuts, even if you cut every single Federal
employee in the entire government, you still end up with a
situation where you are adding to the debt in this
Administration because of the $3 trillion in the bill that was
passed a couple weeks ago that is being added to our debt.
And, you know, the examples that I have heard are things
like cutting meteorologists at the Weather Service, cutting
essential researchers at NIH. People who are doing
groundbreaking research that will spur entire industries are
being cut. Sometimes the government does research and funds
research because the money just is not there in the private
sector. The private sector mandate is not there. And so that
actually, you talk about the internet, for instance. That was a
DoD project at one point. And DoD funded ARPANET, which became
the internet. And so, we are basically--we will never know all
of the things that we missed out on because of some of these
cuts.
And I have heard a lot about, you know, we heard earlier
about these cuts to veterans' benefits. There is PFAS
inspectors, nuclear scientists fired although they tried to
rehire them. There has been a lot of firings where they tried
to roll them back.
But, you know, I think I, you know, Ms. DiVito, I just want
to know if you were to do this--is DOGE doing what they are
trying to do here? And why is DOGE so unsuccessful right now?
Why has it been such a failure?
Ms. DiVito. Thank you. I believe that DOGE has been a lose-
lose. It has failed to find the sizable savings, as you
mentioned, and has only made life harder and more expensive for
working families.
You mentioned a lot of the mistakes. Those do not just
cost--there is not just an opportunity cost to loss potential
and loss impact from those mistakes, but there is also a cost
to correct for them, so rehiring and retraining all of the
Federal workers that are----
Mr. Subramanyam. So, is DOGE on track to save us money? Is
it going to save taxpayers money long term?
Ms. DiVito. No.
Mr. Subramanyam. And why is that?
Ms. DiVito. I think DOGE has been making incredibly hasty
cuts, and these have consequences. There are already a lot of
protections baked into our Federal workforce----
Mr. Subramanyam. Yes.
Ms. DiVito [continuing]. Our system of regulations. We can
always add more that protect people in even better and stronger
ways, but we cannot take them back without costs.
Mr. Subramanyam. So, I would ask Mr. Burton or Mr.
Dickerson, you know, I had one idea for cuts, which is the
President actually, his last term, spent $150 million plus on
golf trips. Do you think that is waste, fraud, and abuse? Yes
or no?
Mr. Burton. I certainly would think there are more high-
priority spending things, yes.
Mr. Subramanyam. But do you think that is wasteful
spending? Do you think that is less or more wasteful than
cutting veterans benefits, his golf trips?
Mr. Burton. I would rather spend money on veterans.
Mr. Subramanyam. What about $50 million for the Department
of Homeland Security's private plane? That is what they
requested in the appropriations bill. Do you think they should
get a new plane for DHS, a private plane?
Mr. Burton. That is a factual question on whether or not
this----
Mr. Subramanyam. No, so I am going to reclaim my time.
In the end, what is happening is there is more waste,
fraud, and abuse since DOGE has come into effect. It has led to
poor services, a brain drain on our Federal Government, and it
is going to cost taxpayers money long term.
I yield back.
Ms. Greene. The gentleman's time has expired.
In closing, I want to thank our witnesses once again for
their testimony today.
I now yield to Ranking Member Stansbury for closing
remarks.
Ms. Stansbury. All right. Well, that is another DOGE
Subcommittee in the books, and another morning and a number of
hours of our lives that we will never reclaim spent here doing
more political theater with our friends across the aisle.
As the President is starting wars in the Middle East, and
by the way, news just broke, canceled the classified briefing
that had been scheduled for Congress without a rescheduling. He
is deploying United States troops against our people here in
the homeland, and this Congress, controlled by these folks
right over here, is trying to gut your healthcare, food
programs, and steal your public lands while saddling the
American people with trillions of dollars in debt to pay for
tax breaks for billionaires.
This is one of the most unpopular domestic and global
policy agendas in modern history, and they are here trying to
convince you all that we should make DOGE permanent. But here
is the thing. The GOP may continue to try to make DOGE a thing,
but no matter how hard they keep trying, GOP will never make
DOGE happen. Even with their Regina George out of the picture--
that is Mr. Elon Musk in this scenario--Americans just are not
buying tickets to this show, and just like the movie business,
House Republicans' DOGE reboot is not hitting like they thought
it would. And in fact, a majority of Americans actually oppose
DOGE cuts, a number that will only grow as the devastating and
real-life impacts continue to sink into everyday life for all
of us. And I think we have all seen this film before, and we do
not like it.
The fact is DOGE is costing taxpayers more than it is
saving, and Donald Trump has spent more of your hard-earned
taxpayer dollars in his first six months in office than any
other President in modern history. That is right, he spent more
money than the last President just in the last six months,
going golfing and doing other random things while the
Republicans are actually trying to increase Federal spending in
reconciliation with trillions of dollars in tax breaks and
kickbacks to their donors.
But despite this box office bomb--that is DOGE--here in
this Subcommittee we are stuck on repeat, watching the rerun
over and over again as the GOP continues to roll out the same
tired talking points that got Elon Musk fired in the first
place. And not only that, we are seeing the same kinds of
witnesses, backed by the Heritage Foundation and their allied
organizations, coming to testify again and again, attempting to
back up a flailing Administration and its flailing policies.
So, where are we? In case you forgot, the Heritage
Foundation is the same organization that brought you Project
2025, which is what this is actually all about, a show that was
so unpopular that even the President and members of this
Committee tried to distance themselves from during the campaign
season and even lied to the American people about.
But the American people are smart, and they are watching,
and they know what a scam is when they see it. You cannot run
away from Project 2025 because it is right here, and we will
not let you destroy our government, our democracy, our
institutions, and our freedoms. And we will hold you
accountable.
Medical trials ended, veterans' benefits cut, Social
Security decimated, thousands of children without food and
medicine, thousands dead across the world, American lives
upended, that is DOGE's legacy. But it is clear, however, no
matter the impact, the Trump Administration and the GOP does
not seem to care. Because DOGE is not actually about waste,
fraud, and abuse. It is not even about cost-cutting or making
the government more efficient. It is a means for pushing their
political agenda on the American people.
And if you could not tell already by their obsession with
the culture wars, from attacking education to slashing global
food aid to stripping healthcare, this is about remaking
American society. They want to remake our country in a hyper-
conservative image, just as they laid out in Project 2025. The
American people know what is going on, and this is not the
sequel we asked for.
So, I want to just take a note from America's real anti-
hero and to say to Mr. Elon Musk, as far as we are concerned,
you are just another picture to burn. And to DOGE, now we got
problems, and I do not think we can solve them. You made really
deep cuts, and baby, now we are bad blood. I think we are out.
I yield back.
Ms. Greene. I now recognize myself for closing remarks.
The American people gave President Trump a mandate to drain
the swamp, and they expect us to deliver on that promise. Our
massively growing debt and interest threaten every single
American, their children, and every generation to come. The
United States is now $37 trillion in debt. In Fiscal Year 2024,
the government spent over $1.8 trillion more than it took in.
And in Fiscal Year 2025, the interest on our debt is expected
to exceed $1 trillion, more than our military budget.
We need to be brutally honest about how this massive debt
came to be in the first place. It originated from Congress and
elected Presidential administrations for decades. We are
grateful that President Trump's DOGE team has already
identified at least $180 billion in Federal savings. However,
without legislative action, these hard-won cuts could be
reversed by the stroke of a pen with a future administration.
After all, we listen to Democrats every single day make fun of,
attack, and criticize the efforts of DOGE. They do not take it
seriously. They want government to be bigger and bigger and
bigger until we completely collapse.
Congress must use every tool at our disposal to make the
hard work of the Trump Administration permanent. Two weeks ago,
House Republicans took the first step in codifying the DOGE
cuts by passing the White House's $9.4 billion rescissions
package. This is only the first step. The Senate must
immediately pass these cuts and send them to President Trump's
desk. We must continue to codify every penny of DOGE cuts
through rescissions and the appropriations process. This is our
mandate. This is our duty.
The legislative branch cannot sit on the sidelines. In this
Subcommittee, we will fight the war on waste shoulder to
shoulder with President Trump. We have held hearings exposing
billions in improper payments, corrupt NGOs pushing destructive
policies, and taxpayer-funded media like NPR and PBS that serve
elite interests over the public good. We have uncovered
shocking examples like United States Agency for International
Development (USAID) funneling money to undermine United States
interests abroad, lavish spending on empty Federal buildings,
and so-called nonprofits bankrolling illegal immigration.
Today, we heard more egregious examples of Americans' hard-
earned tax dollars being abused to promote genital mutilation
of children, fund the Green New Deal scam, fund terrorists
overseas, and fund hundreds of billions of improper payments.
The American people overwhelmingly support the cuts, and I do
not know what faulty polls my Democrat colleagues are using to
back their claims saying otherwise, but I have never heard of
any legitimate poll that adds up to 110 percent like the one on
their poster that was displayed here today. What a joke. What a
pathetic example. My god. Maybe they should support spending a
little more on teaching actual mathematics in the classrooms
and a little less on seeking to advance racial justice in
mathematics, like the National Science Foundation grant.
Regardless, we know the American people are behind the DOGE
efforts, and we know the American people do not believe stupid,
fake polls that have math that make no sense.
Exposing this waste and abuse is only half the battle. To
win this war, we need to make sure these cuts are not just
temporary. That means passing laws to streamline agencies,
eliminate redundant programs, and give the President the
authority to fire bureaucrats who do not do their jobs, the
same bureaucrats that go ahead and give out these grants that
mutilate children, gives money to USAID to do regime change in
foreign countries, and so many more stupid, horrible things
that the American people do not want to spend their money on.
Slashing waste, fraud, and abuse from the Federal
Government provides real savings for the American people. We,
as lawmakers, should pass new DOGE cuts every single day and
make cutting waste, fraud, and abuse our top priority. Instead
of growing the government, we should be slashing the
government. The government is far too big. It is like an
overgrown, out-of-control animal, and the American people are
beginning to hate it.
With that, and without objection, all Members have five
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 12:02 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[all]