[House Prints 119-CP]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
119th Congress}
1st Session } COMMITTEE PRINT
======================================================================
FULL COMMITTEE
ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING
=======================================================================
FOR THE
COMMITTEE ON
OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JANUARY 14, 2025
__________
Serial No. CP:119-1
__________
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
58-536 PDF WASHINGTON : 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
JAMES COMER, Kentucky, Chairman
Jim Jordan, Ohio Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia,
Mike Turner, Ohio Ranking 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 Robert Garcia, California
Pat Fallon, Texas Maxwell Frost, Florida
Byron Donalds, Florida Summer Lee, Pennsylvania
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania Greg Casar, Texas
William Timmons, South Carolina Jasmine Crockett, Texas
Tim Burchett, Tennessee Emily Randall, Washington
Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia Suhas Subramanyam, Virginia
Lauren Boebert, Colorado Yassamin Ansari, Arizona
Anna Paulina Luna, Florida Wesley Bell, Missouri
Nick Langworthy, New York Lateefah Simon, California
Eric Burlison, Missouri Dave Min, California
Eli Crane, Arizona Vacancy
Brian Jack, Georgia Vacancy
John McGuire, Virginia
Brandon Gill, Texas
Mark Marin, Staff Director
Ryan Giachetti, Deputy General Counsel and Parliamentarian
Mallory Cogar, Deputy Director of Operations and Chief Clerk
Contact Number: 202-225-5074
Jamie Smith, Minority Staff Director
Contact Number: 202-225-5051
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on January 14, 2025................................. 1
INDEX OF DOCUMENTS
----------
The documents listed below are available at: docs.house.gov.
* Amendment No. 1; submitted by Rep. Connolly.
* Amendment No. 2; submitted by Rep. Mfume.
* Amendment No. 3; submitted by Rep. Stansbury.
* Amendment No. 4; submitted by Rep. Garcia.
* Amendment No. 5; submitted by Rep. Crockett.
ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING
----------
Tuesday, January 14, 2025
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:04 p.m., in
room HVC-210, Capitol Visitor Center, Hon. James Comer
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Comer, Jordan, Turner, Gosar,
Foxx, Grothman, Cloud, Palmer, Higgins, Sessions, Biggs, Mace,
Fallon, Donalds, Perry, Timmons, Burchett, Greene, Boebert,
Langworthy, Burlison, Crane, Jack, McGuire, Gill, Connolly,
Norton, Lynch, Krishnamoorthi, Mfume, Brown, Stansbury, Garcia,
Frost, Lee, Casar, Crockett, Randall, Subramanyam, Ansari,
Bell, Simon, and Min.
Chairman Comer. The Committee will please come to order.
A quorum is present. The Chair is authorized to declare a
recess at any time.
Without objection, the Chair may postpone further
proceedings today on the question of approving any measure or
matter or adopting an amendment on which a recorded vote, or
the yeas and nays, are ordered.
The Committee will continue to use the electronic system
for recorded votes on amendments and passage of the bills
before the Committee. Of course, should any technical issues
arise, which I do not anticipate, we will immediately
transition to traditional roll call votes. Any procedural or
motion-related votes during today's markup will be dispensed
with by a traditional roll call vote.
I want to welcome everyone to the organizational meeting of
the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. This
Congress, the Committee will continue its important work:
safeguarding taxpayer dollars from waste, fraud, abuse, and
mismanagement; ensuring the Federal bureaucracy is transparent
and accountable to the American people; and making sure the
Federal Government is working efficiently for the American
people.
Before we begin our meeting to adopt the Committee Rules
for the 119th Congress, I would like to welcome all our new and
returning Members to the Committee. I look forward to working
with each Member on both sides of the aisle of this Committee
during this Congress.
The new Members on the Republican side are Eli Crane from
Arizona, Brian Jack from Georgia, John McGuire of Virginia, and
Brandon Gill of Texas. I want to welcome you all. We are glad
you are here, and we look forward to working with you to
protect American taxpayer dollars.
I would also like to congratulate Ranking Member Gerry
Connolly on his appointment to serve as the Ranking Member this
Congress.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you.
Chairman Comer. A significant upgrade, I might add. We are
really happy to have you here. I look forward to working with
you on several issues. And we have a great track record, I
think you would say, of working together on legislation. I have
said to many people that you are a Member of great substance,
great character, someone that I believe wants to govern and
wants to pass good government legislation. So, I look forward
to working with you.
With that, I want to yield to the Ranking Member to
introduce his new Members.
Mr. Connolly. I thank the Chair for his kind remarks.
Though I will note, he did support my opponent when I ran for
this job.
Chairman Comer. I think my endorsement was more damaging
than Liz Cheney's endorsement.
Mr. Connolly. I used it to a fare-thee-well, Mr. Chairman.
I want to join you in welcoming our returning and our
incredible new Members to the Committee on both sides of the
aisle and look forward to trying to work closely with you in
this next Congress.
This Committee has the most important mandate in the House
of Representatives, from my point of view, to ensure a
transparent government that is fully accountable to the
American people. We take seriously this duty and are committed
to promoting a government and economy and a shared national
purpose that work for all of the American people.
Our Nation is facing deep political division. Trust in
government is low. The economy is not delivering for all
hardworking people who should be able to afford a home and
provide for their families. And the American social compact of
shared belief in fairness, opportunity, and mutual
responsibility has frayed, leaving too many feeling left behind
and disconnected. We have an opportunity to work together to
prove to the public that this government serves them first and
foremost and that the cards are not stacked against them.
As the Committee organized at the start of the 117th
Congress, Chairman Comer, you acknowledged that the Chair of
the Committee is historically reluctant to send serious
inquiries to an executive branch comprised of the same party.
Following that mold would do a great disservice to the American
people who demand that their tax dollars be spent wisely and
effectively, unquote. Mr. Chairman, I urge you to approach the
incoming Administration with the same rigorous approach to that
accountability you discussed back then.
Throughout my time on this Committee, I have been a staunch
advocate for improving the Federal Government to ensure that it
responds to the needs of our constituents. Whether through
improved and expanded use of modern technologies, the reduction
of waste and fraud, more efficient acquisition processes, and
so much more, we can create a more responsive and accessible
government and find political common ground.
But a responsive government is never enough. We have much
work to do to ensure that the Federal Government is also
accountable. To do this we must make clear that the entire
Federal Government--from the President on down--is subject to
the rule of law. We must acknowledge where we have not met that
standard and work together to restore the basic guardrails
envisioned by the Founders of our republic. And we must
continue to advance the rights and liberties of the American
people, because a truly effective and responsive democratic
government must always protect individual rights.
It would be easy to say reform is too hard, things are too
broken, change is too slow, why not just give up and scrap what
does not work. This Committee does not have that luxury. Again,
the American people are depending on us to deliver on our
promises for a government, an economy, and a shared national
purpose that works for them. I do not believe any of us would
be here today if we did not think that we could accomplish the
hard work of this Committee as it has before it.
I hope the Committee can work together to set aside
partisan politics to deliver fact-based, reasoned results for
the public we serve. And I urge my colleagues on both sides of
the aisle to consult early and often on letters, hearings,
witnesses, subpoenas, and legislation. We may not--and we know
we will not--always agree, but we must endeavor to always
remain respectful and reasonable, and I hope that will be the
new standard of this Committee on both sides of the aisle.
As the subcommittee Chairman and Ranking Member, it has
always been my goal to encourage a respectful exchange of
ideas, vigorous but respectful. And I will continue to promote
that approach and that level of civility as the Ranking Member
of this full Committee. I ask my colleagues to approach all of
our work in the same way.
Now, onto business. The task of our meeting today is to
establish rules for this Committee for the 119th Congress.
These rules will serve as the architecture for the Committee to
operate over the next 2 years. I believe that is why it is
critical these rules not only empower the Committee to act
effectively and efficiently but to protect minority rights. To
further those goals, Committee Democrats will offer a handful
of what I think are reasonable, commonsense amendments for
consideration.
Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. You and I have already spoken a
couple of times, and I appreciate the commitment you have made
to work together as much as possible. Again, I welcome everyone
to the Committee and look forward to our deliberation.
Chairman Comer. I want to thank the Ranking Member, and,
again, I look forward to working with you. And I think there
are a lot of areas where we can find common ground. Even in the
last Congress, we found common ground on many issues related to
cybersecurity, information technology, as well as our three PBM
hearings and investigations, so I look forward to this
Congress.
Before we move to consideration of the Committee Rules, I
want to mention a few things. The Rules package before you is
substantially the same as last Congress with only a few
changes, and I want to just mention those changes.
First, I want to highlight Rule 6, which outlines our new
subcommittees and their jurisdictions. Through these
subcommittees we will once again focus on the priorities of the
American people. Second, we are including language in Rule 5 to
accommodate the electronic voting that this Committee adopted
last Congress, and I do not think anyone complained about that.
It reduced the time of our mark-ups at least an hour. Last,
Rule 15(j) contains changes regarding the transcription of
witness testimony.
I was going to allow--I would like--before we get into the
Committee hearing, I was going to yield back to Representative
Connolly to see if he wanted to introduce your new Members. Do
you have that?
Mr. Connolly. I do.
Chairman Comer. And while he is looking that up, I want to
welcome the new Democrats to the most high-profile committee in
Congress. You all hit the ground running.
So, Representative Connolly.
Mr. Connolly. So, let us see, we have new Members: Emily
Randall; Suhas Subramanyam from my corner of the world in
Virginia--welcome, Suhas--Yassamin Ansari from Arizona; Wesley
Bell from Missouri; Lateefah Simon from California; and Dave
Min from California. Welcome.
Chairman Comer. Welcome.
We will begin the debate on any amendments to Committee
Rules. Does any Member seek recognition?
The Chair recognizes Ranking Member Connolly.
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
Chairman Comer. The clerk will distribute the amendment to
all Members.
Does everyone have a copy of the amendment?
The clerk will designate the amendment.
The Clerk. An amendment to the Rules of the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform for the 119th Congress is
offered by Mr. Connolly of Virginia.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read.
I reserve a point of order.
The gentleman, the Ranking Member, is recognized for 5
minutes to explain his amendment.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Committee's proposed Rules are silent on whether or not
the Chair consults with the Ranking Member and provides a draft
copy of a proposed subpoena in advance of the one being issued.
This amendment would simply require that at least 24 hours in
advance of authorizing and issuing the subpoena the Chair would
consult with the Ranking Member and provide a draft copy of the
proposed subpoena. This is similar to the rule adopted by the
Judiciary Committee.
During the 118th Congress, the Ranking Member was not
consulted or notified of a single subpoena out of more than 50
that were issued. The practice followed last Congress was a
significant departure from the precedent set by former
Democratic Chairman Cummings and Chairwoman Maloney in the
116th and 117th Congresses. Both Democratic Chairs consistently
provided the Ranking Member with 48 hours' notice and a copy of
the subpoena before it was issued.
My amendment is also similar in nature to the one that you,
Mr. Chairman, offered at the organizational meeting at the
start of the 117th under a Democratic Majority at that time. At
that time, you said, and I quote, the subpoena is a powerful
tool and that notice and consultation are commonsense measures
that the Majority should afford the Minority to the fullest
extent possible. I strongly agree with those sentiments that
you expressed in the 117th Congress.
I would also be remiss if I did not give proper recognition
to the source of the amendment that I propose. My amendment is
modeled off language that Chairman Jim Jordan of the House
Judiciary Committee has included in his committee rules for
this Congress on the Judiciary Committee. Returning to a
practice of proper notice on the issuance of subpoenas would
lend further credibility to the reputation of this Committee
and take away from the harmful practice of issuing secret
subpoenas.
In the spirit of cooperation and collegiality, I think we
should return to this Committee's prior precedent. We cannot
allow the Oversight Committee's Rules and practices to become a
race to the bottom. The Democratic Members of the Committee and
the American public I think both deserve better. I urge Members
to support this simple, commonsense amendment, which has been
adopted under the Judiciary Committee, and I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The Ranking Member yields back. I will now
recognize myself for 5 minutes.
And I must say, I am sympathetic to that request. Many of
you will remember, I was a Ranking Member for 2 years with the
Democratic Majority and I did offer the exact same amendment
that the Ranking Member just presented today. And I just so
happen to have a roll call from the 117th Congress, and lo and
behold, Mr. Connolly voted against the amendment that he
offered today.
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Chairman, might I just point out,
actually, it was not the same amendment. Your language would
have required a vote. We are not doing that today.
Chairman Comer. Well, at any rate, as we discussed, we are
going to communicate. I think we are going to have a very good
working relationship, like Chairman Cummings and Mark Meadows
and Jim Jordan had, I feel like.
As we have discussed, a congressional subpoena is a
powerful tool, which should be used only in appropriate
circumstances. I have vowed to use this power responsibly and
only when necessary. Document subpoenas must be issued after I
have exhausted reasonable efforts to obtain voluntary
compliance with requests for information critical to this
Committee's work. It will be very clear to Committee Members
and to the Ranking Member when I need to issue a subpoena to
ensure that the Committee has the information it needs to
conduct oversight investigations and hold wrongdoers
accountable.
Similar amendments were proposed by past Congress, and we
mentioned that, and unfortunately, when--the last time the
Democrats were in the Majority and the Republicans had the same
request, as I noted earlier, the Democrats voted that amendment
down. I do not see any reason why the rules should change now.
But to be clear, I am not opposed to providing reasonable
notices of subpoenas as a matter of practice, and will continue
to work with the Ranking Member to ensure the Minority is
appropriately informed. And I must say that in the last 3
weeks, or however long it has been since Representative
Connolly was elected to be Ranking Member, I think the dialog
with our staffs, the Majority staff and Minority staff, has
been excellent. It has been significantly better than it has
been in the past, and I think we have a very bright future to
work together.
But on this amendment, Mr. Ranking Member, I oppose this
amendment, and I urge my colleagues to vote against it.
Do any Members wish to seek recognition? Any other Members?
Mr. Lynch. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Comer. Yes, Mr. Lynch.
Mr. Lynch. As I recall it, your amendment required a vote
on the subpoena. And Mr. Connolly's amendment is de minimis
here, and that is just you need to--not only is it waivable if
circumstances in your determination require it, but also this
is mere notice. There is no vote that the Minority is claiming
here. I think it is a really de minimis obligation on the part
of the Chair just to let Mr. Connolly know of a subpoena being
issued.
Mr. Connolly. Would my friend yield?
Mr. Lynch. I would yield.
Mr. Connolly. I thank my friend. And he is correct. The
substantial difference between the roll call vote, my friend,
the Chairman, cited and what we are discussing here today is
quite substantial. It would have required a vote, a vote to
approve a subpoena. We are not seeking that, because our hope
is that someday the worm turns and we are not going to
necessarily give away the power of subpoena when we are in the
Majority, and we do not expect this Majority to do it either.
However, what we are asking for is a reasonable standard of
consultation, advance consultation, so we are not surprised or
reading about a subpoena that may be very consequential and
very controversial, or not. You know, we believe that in the
work of the Committee, as was the tradition, I can--my
predecessor Tom Davis, who is coming to testify tomorrow in a
hearing before this Committee, and then-Chairman of this
Committee, Henry Waxman, actually had a modus operandi where
they agreed before they issued a subpoena.
We are simply asking for advance notice and consultation,
no restriction on the ability of the Chairman to issue the
subpoena. I think that is a fairly reasonable standard. And I
thank my friend from Massachusetts for clarifying, and I yield
back to him.
Mr. Lynch. I thank the gentleman.
Just very briefly, and, again, Mr. Connolly's amendment
allows that the Chair may waive this requirement in the event
of an emergency that does not reasonably allow for advance
notice. So, I think it bends over backward trying to respect
the prerogative of the Chair.
And with that, I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back.
And I might add that--just to correct--the amendment that
we offered did not require a vote unless the Ranking Member
objected to the subpoena. I think that is the way the language
was. Is that correct, Mr. Connolly?
Mr. Connolly. I think that is right.
Chairman Comer. So, I just wanted to correct that. And,
again, I can tell you, we will work with the Ranking Member and
our staffs will be in constant communication on these
subpoenas. Honestly--and I have said this to the press, so this
is not any groundbreaking news--we had issues with--you know,
whenever we issue a subpoena--for the freshmen--whenever a
subpoena is issued, the Minority gets a copy when the subpoena
is issued. Whenever subpoena documents come in, both sides get
the documents at the same time.
And there were lots of issues with--you know, sometimes we
would have preferred some of the subpoenas didn't make the
press, but they were leaked to the press. And, you know, we
never know who the leakers were. I had a strong, sneaky
suspicion that the leaker was the former occupant of the chair
to my right, but I do not have any evidence of that.
So, at the end of the day, I do think that we will work
together. I give you my pledge to work with you on the
subpoenas, but, again, I oppose this legislation, just like the
Members who were here the last time, and there were at least
five that voted against my amendment 4 years ago when we
offered that.
So, do any other Members seek recognition on the Connolly
amendment?
OK. The question now is on the amendment offered by the
Ranking Member, Mr. Connolly, from Virginia.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman Comer. All those opposed, signify by saying no.
[Chorus of noes.]
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Chairman, I would ask for a recorded
vote.
Chairman Comer. All right. A recorded vote is ordered. As
previously announced, further proceedings on the question will
be postponed.
And just so the freshmen know, we will vote electronically.
After all the amendments are debated, we will vote
electronically and it will be real, real quick.
So, do any other Members seek recognition?
Mr. Mfume. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Mr. Mfume from
Maryland.
Mr. Mfume. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
Chairman Comer. The clerk will distribute the amendment to
all the Members.
Do all Members have a copy of the Mfume amendment?
The clerk will designate the amendment.
The Clerk. An amendment to the Rules of the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform for the 119th Congress is
offered by Mr. Mfume of Maryland.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read.
I reserve a point of order.
The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 5 minutes to
explain his amendment.
Mr. Mfume. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member.
This amendment, I believe, strongly helps the Oversight
Committee maintain the order, reasonableness, and intellectual
honesty for which we have been known for many, many years as a
Committee for, both in the Congress and, more broadly, in the
minds of many of the American people.
Specifically, my amendment would preserve the
jurisdictional authority of the Subcommittee on Government
Operations and Federal Workforce in the current Congress from
what it was in the previous Congress by merging the Government
Operations Subcommittee and the newly fashioned Delivering on
Government Efficiency Subcommittee in the 119th Congress.
An as an initial matter, Mr. Chairman, I call our attention
to the fact that this Committee operated in the 118th Congress
also with five subcommittees, yet the proposed Rules before us
today would expand that number to seven subcommittees. In an
age where government efficiency is the mantra, it appears that
we are doing exactly what we say the Federal Government should
not do: growing in size and creating unnecessary, overlapping
bureaucracy.
As a point of personal privilege, Mr. Chairman, I served as
Ranking Member on the Government Operations and Federal
Workforce Subcommittee in the previous Congress. And thanks to
a very healthy working relationship with subcommittee Chairman,
the distinguished gentleman from Texas, Mr. Sessions, we were
together able to repeatedly go after the bad guys, the
swindlers, the fraudsters, and the crooks, and in the process
analyze many of the underlying causes for improper payments in
Federal Government programs that were draining American
citizens of hundreds of millions of dollars and depriving many
of our poor citizens from some of the basic things they need,
because oftentimes the money had been taken out, swindled, and
stolen.
Likewise, we were able to address backlogs and delays at
Federal agencies, including within the Department of Defense.
And we have had a working--healthy working relationship with a
number of inspector generals who were part and parcel of the
work of that committee and very much responsible for not only
finding the bad guys but also moving toward conviction of many
of them.
So, forgive me if I find it not genuine to pretend that the
pursuit of government efficiency is new. We have been doing
that, and we have been doing it year after year. Likewise,
forgive me if I find it not genuine also to divest the
Subcommittee on Government Operations and Federal Workforce of
all of its jurisdictional rights. And when I say all, I mean
some of the most important ones, particularly the oversight of
Federal employees.
Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, I believe each one of us
know that on both sides of the aisle, in our heart of hearts,
American campaigns and American elections are in peril because
of money. I would offer also that our government is in peril
because of money, but money going the wrong way, from where it
is supposed to go to people who have devised all sorts of
schemes to get around that and who are making fortunes off of
money intended to help the American public.
So, I just believe that this situation we have really calls
for the merger of these committees, not the separation of them,
and as I said before, not the growth from five into seven. So,
I would urge Members of the Committee to consider that,
consider the work that we have been doing in that subcommittee,
to consider the fact that these two committees should have
joint oversight and be combined, and I would urge its passage,
and yield back, without objection, Mr. Chair, to you and to the
Ranking Member for any additional or concluding remarks.
Chairman Comer. Thank you. The gentleman yields back.
I will recognize myself for 5 minutes. And I agree with
what you said, Mr. Mfume, the great work that Chairman Sessions
and you did on the Government Ops Committee. There is not two
finer Members of this Committee than you two.
We are going to be very busy this Congress, and I think
that the difference in this Congress and last Congress is
that--I hope--we have an administration that is more
forthcoming, that is more transparent, that is more willing to
provide us documents, receipts, and any type of information we
need to do our job to make government more efficient. And if
that is the case, we are going to be using a lot of
subcommittees to do a lot of work.
We believe that if you look at the current level of
bureaucracy, the current level of spending, the current level
of--the lack of efficiency from what we are going to be talking
about tomorrow in our hearing, government employees not coming
to work, I think that, you know, we have got a lot of work to
do. The Government Operations Subcommittee will still be the
top subcommittee on this Committee, but we are going to have
two additional subcommittees as well, because we believe there
is going to be a huge portfolio of oversight for us to conduct
this session, and we want to have as many Members of this
Committee participating and working to try to achieve our goal
of making government more efficient.
And you mentioned something that I think this Committee did
great work--Chairman Sessions and your work--improper payments.
We want to really focus on that, and hopefully we can come up
with some solutions and get some clawbacks on these improper
payments. So, I am confident the Government Operations
Subcommittee is going to be busier than ever with Chairman
Sessions, and we will have two additional subcommittees that
will have a full platter as well.
With that, I will conclude my remarks. The Chair recognizes
the Ranking Member.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I enthusiastically support the amendment offered by Mr.
Mfume of Maryland. I believe that in this reorganization, the
Rules, we are considering today, we are gutting the primary
jurisdiction of the Government Operations Committee and
devolving a lot of it to this new subcommittee. To me, the
logic is why not merge the two, as Mr. Mfume is proposing, and
get on with the business of that transparency you talk about.
I share a hope the Chairman is right that we are going to
be ushering in a world of accountability and transparency with
the second Trump Administration. However, early signs are not
encouraging. The world's richest man donated $277 million, a
quarter of $1 billion, to President-elect Trump and
congressional Republicans just last year. In return, he is
getting, among other things I am sure, his own entity to gut
the Federal Government of its ability to work for the people
who need it.
What could go wrong--remember, he talked about cutting $2
trillion. What could go wrong with handing the reigns of the
Federal Government to a billionaire oligarch who sees no use
for government, except for his own purposes, in the first
place? He does not rely, and nor do his cronies, on Social
Security checks when they retire, and they have no problem
cutting Social Security as a result. They do not have to worry
about a spouse losing his or her job or the family needing to
go on food stamps so they can take nutritional support from a
Federal Government that is so important to them. They do not
know, those oligarchs, what the anxiety is of a family farmer
who has a drought or a hailstorm. Cutting crop insurance is no
skin off their backs.
I think holding people accountable is an absolutely
noteworthy goal. I think we could start with the DOGE process
and Mr. Ramaswamy and Mr. Elon Musk.
I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair recognizes Ms. Greene from Georgia.
Ms. Greene. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would also like to commend Chairman Sessions for the good
work that he has done on Government Ops. I think that has been
great. However, our current state of affairs, as we are $36
trillion in debt, Congress cannot have enough committees on
oversight to look at cutting the ridiculous amount of spending,
waste, fraud, and abuse from the Federal Government. So, I am
very grateful for the opportunity to Chair the Subcommittee on
DOGE.
Also, I do not think that we should be shaming people for
success in this country, as we are hearing from the Ranking
Member today. You know, success is something every single
American strives for, and we want to do everything we can to
make sure that Americans can be successful. And in doing so,
cutting the ridiculous amount of spending that has carried on
for decades here in Washington, DC. is one of the most
important steps that we can take as Members of Congress in
ensuring that the American people are successful. In doing
that, we can get them and hopefully dig them out of this grave
of debt, which is $36 trillion.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The gentlelady yields back. Do any other
Members----
Mr. Frost, from Florida.
Mr. Frost. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
You know, I just want to point out, you know, we just heard
someone say that we cannot have enough committees to look into
government efficiency. But if you know anything about
efficiency, you can have too many committees doing the same
exact thing. It is almost as inefficient as having two co-
directors of a fake department of government efficiency.
And so, if we want to be serious about this, which I am
very skeptical that folks are, I agree with this amendment on
combining these subcommittees that would essentially do the
same thing, help us consolidate government resources and spend
less, which is supposedly what you care about. And so, I am in
support of this amendment. And I also would yield some time--if
he wants--to my friend Dave Min.
Mr. Min. Thank you.
Chairman Comer. Yep, you are recognized.
Mr. Min. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to associate myself with the comments of my
colleague from Maryland. I want to thank him for bringing this
amendment forward.
Look, we all know that DOGE was started as the original
meme coin, and this particular subcommittee that is being
proposed feels a lot like a meme subcommittee. We are a serious
body. I am honored to be here, but I think we have to take the
business of oversight and accountability seriously. I think
political stunts, which is what this looks like, are really not
appropriate. So, I will yield back the remainder of my time.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Biggs from Arizona.
Mr. Biggs. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Of course, I oppose this amendment. It is dripping with
TDS, dripping with TDS. This is the crap that goes on from the
other side. The fact that you would say, oh my gosh, we are
going to talk about Donald Trump and hassle him, I mean, that--
you want--you talk about cooperation, oh, lovey-dovey, let us
unify, and then you just spit all over a fairly rational move,
which is to divide a subcommittee up to actually go after
specific items while the other one is going after broader
items. And Chairman Sessions did a great job. $1.7 trillion of
improper payments over 3 years. Hmm, wonder where that came
from? From the same guys who were criticizing wanting to look
at DOGE more specifically.
Mr. Chairman, this is what you get. They want you to feel
good and join their hand in hand and walk along with them while
they want you close enough so they can stab you in the back. I
am an absolute no on this. I wish--I wish that I felt there was
some sincerity to work together, but there is none.
Mr. Mfume. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Biggs. It is perfectly clear in the comments of the
Ranking Member that we just heard.
And I will yield to the Chairman.
Chairman Comer. Do any other Members seek recognition?
The Chair recognizes Ms. Mace--oh, Ms. Stansbury from New
Mexico.
Ms. Stansbury. Yes. Mr. Chairman, obviously, if the stated
purpose of the DOGE Subcommittee is to promote government
efficiency, wouldn't we also want government efficiency here in
Congress? I think that is what Mr. Mfume is trying to achieve
with this amendment.
And with that, I yield the remainder of my time to him to
explain.
Mr. Mfume. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Unless I have a different set of ears, to the gentleman who
raised this very strong objection, I do not think I ever
mentioned the word ``Donald Trump'' or ``Elon Musk'' or
anything else. So, I am not over here playing games. I am too
old to be playing games. And I think as long as we try to
conduct ourselves with some sense of dignity without being so
upset that you point to the person who made the amendment with
accusations that are untrue, that is not playing fair.
Mr. Biggs. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Mfume. After I make my point, yes, I will be more than
happy to yield.
I am just saying, if we are going to have a bipartisan
relationship here, which is what Mr. Sessions and I had, as we
Chaired and co-Chaired that committee, and came up with all of
those savings in dollars, it was because we took time to
recognize the dignity of both sides and the right to disagree
in a very agreeable sort of way. So, when you make those
accusations about me, sir, go back and look at what I said in
the introduction of this amendment, and you will see that you
are clearly off mark.
And I will yield.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you. Yes, you and Mr. Sessions worked
together. I did not make comments to you. I specifically
mentioned the Ranking Member.
I will yield back.
Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Ms. Mace.
Ms. Mace. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I do not think we should be taking the advice from a group
of people who cannot define what a woman is. You certainly
cannot define what government efficiency is. So, let us just
start right there, Mr. Chairman. I support the subcommittee,
the creation of the Subcommittee on DOGE. I wildly support
Marjorie Taylor Greene as the subcommittee Chairwoman.
And, again, to the party who says we do not like or support
women, well, guess what, we have two women on this Committee
who are subcommittee Chairwomen who carry gavels, and we are
working for the President of the United States, the President
who made the first female Chief of Staff ever in the history of
the United States.
And I also want to correct the record of the Ranking Member
earlier. There is no Republican up here who has cut Social
Security. That is a lie. That is a lie being promulgated by the
left, aided and abetted by the mainstream media, and all those
liars out there on social media on the left saying that, is not
true.
And when we want to talk about oligarchy, we had Joe Biden,
we had Nancy Pelosi, we had Chuck Schumer controlling
everything on the Hill and the Capitol for years. And guess
what? They have all delivered. They delivered the worst economy
in history for Donald Trump. They have delivered more
terrorists coming across the southern border than any
administration in history.
And so, this subcommittee is greatly needed, Mr. Chairman.
I hope that we all support it unanimously.
Ms. Greene, you are going to do a great job as subcommittee
Chairwoman. I would love to be waived on anytime you let me,
because it is time that we stop wasting American taxpayers. It
is time that we stop--we stop wasting time up here on the Hill,
we stop wasting time here in Congress talking about BS.
And someone brought up dignity earlier. I would love to see
dignity and respect for women up here on the Hill, which is why
we should ban men from women's spaces, which is why we should
ban men from the locker rooms, from women's locker rooms, which
is why we should ban men from women's dressing rooms. I am done
with this. We have got to get back to common sense. We have got
to get back to fighting and working hard for the American
people, and we have got to do it together.
So, you guys can talk all you want on the left side of the
aisle. You are not going to be successful because there was a
mandate in November, the most historic mandate by Donald John
Trump, and the American people want us to get our stuff
together--notice how I am not cursing today. They want us to
get our stuff together and work for the American people. And
that starts now. That can start with the DOGE Subcommittee.
That can start with every committee on the Hill today if we put
in the effort and the work to do it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The gentlelady yields back.
The Chair recognizes Ms. Crockett.
Ms. Crockett. I am so glad that we could finally end that
nice little propaganda commercial break. Listen, I do not know
what Ms. Mace was talking about. I thought we were talking
about government efficiency. And the last time that I checked--
last time that I checked, this Committee in the 118th, just
like in the 119th, has been governed by the Republicans.
Chairman, is it not true that you were the Chairman in the
118th? You were? OK.
So, the Republicans have controlled this Committee. So, my
question is, why is it that you need to create an entirely new
subcommittee when you literally could go through and do
whatever work it is that you are talking about handing over to
the gentlelady, who has never seemingly brought up anything
about efficiency? The only thing I recall from the 118th was
her spending a lot of time on somebody's junk in this
Committee.
So, let me be clear. You all had a chance. You chose not to
use it. So, why should the American people be convinced that
now all of a sudden, because you create a new committee that
has been promulgated by a real oligarch--you are talking about
Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi. They were actually duly
elected, not somebody sitting there buying Twitter and just
happens to be the most--the richest person in the world telling
you all what to do.
Let me tell you something. You all need to find some people
that actually care about their constituents. And honestly,
whenever you all are ready to work, we on this side of the
aisle have always been ready to do what is right by the
American people. Instead, what you continue to do is go after
the most vulnerable in our country.
The fact that you just sat up there and somehow figured out
how to tie trans folk to your argument makes no sense to me.
But let me tell you something. Trans people ain't going
nowhere. Just like when the racists wanted to make sure that
Black people somehow were going to be dismissed in this
country, we ain't left either.
And I will yield.
Mr. Frost. Would you yield back?
Ms. Crockett. I will yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. Frost. You know, I just want to say one thing. And I
hope everyone is listening, because there is something one of
our colleagues just said that I actually think is true. There
was a lot of lies, but there is something I think is true, and
it is when they said that they work for Donald Trump.
Last Congress, no Democrat on this Committee worked for Joe
Biden. We work for our constituents and we worked with Joe
Biden. That right there shows why this Committee--and this
subcommittee that is being proposed--it has nothing to do with
your constituents, nothing to do with government efficiency. It
has to do with your boss, not the people who elected you, but
Donald Trump, and then his boss, Elon Musk.
I yield back.
Chairman Comer. Then next is Mr. Cloud. But before I
recognize--OK. Mr. Gosar will be next.
Before I recognize Mr. Gosar, I just want to make the
point, the number of Oversight Committee staffers is the same
regardless of how many subcommittees there are. The budget for
the Oversight Committee is the same regardless of how many
subcommittees there are, so it does not add to any cost. We are
just trying to do more work to get more--to help make
government more efficient.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Gosar from Arizona.
Mr. Gosar. Yes. To the Ranking Member, on the subcommittee,
from Illinois, I think you have a lot of merit to this, because
the problems are so great they are from both sides. The
spending has got to stop. There is no way we can continue on
this trajectory. So, I think if this subcommittee has one
mission, one mission only, I think it is important for us all
to call into question. I think that they ought to be that
specific, because that is how big the problem is, folks.
We have spent $12 trillion since Bill Clinton was in office
on emergencies that we do not have a single receipt for, folks.
That is not a Republican problem. That is not a Democratic
problem. It is an us problem. So, I would hope that we would
keep this Committee just to do that, and I hope they come up
with the greatest cuts, because I have got to tell you, we have
got to get to some solvency here.
Folks, our biggest debt is our biggest problem. We have got
to start finding some efficiencies. And so, I commend the
Chairman for putting this Committee together, and I want to see
some results. I really want to see some results, because we
cannot continue as a country of our stature with this kind of
debt.
I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back.
Any other Members seek recognition?
The Chair recognizes Mr. Cloud, and then Mr. Fallon is
next.
Mr. Cloud. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
There has been talk about the danger of a duplicity in
having two committees working on reigning in Federal spending.
And I assure you, the danger of duplicity is not in too many
Members in Congress working on finding savings for the American
people. That is almost a comical thinking. The danger of
duplicity lies squarely in the bureaucracy that has way
outgrown its authority, way outgrown its mandate, has become a
bastion of waste, fraud, abuse, error, and a heavy burden on
the American people.
And as far as Congress goes, we have gotten by for far too
long somehow justifying our worth on how much money we send
things versus whether or not those programs and those
initiatives are actually accomplishing the purpose they were
sent to be funded with and what the American people want. And
the American people have spoken very clearly on this. It is not
like the DOGE effort and those ideas were somehow a secret
thing that was hidden in the campaign season. It is something
President Trump talked about. It is something many Members here
talked about, and it is something the American people decided
overwhelmingly that they wanted to see leading this next season
in our country's life.
And so, this is something we should do, it is something
that the American people have asked us to do, and frankly,
something that should be bipartisan. The waste, fraud, and
abuse that have grown over time is an issue.
Right now, we are--one of the national security existential
threats against our country is our fiscal responsibility. Right
now, with what is happening with interest rates, we are looking
at spending another $50 billion just in interest costs next
year. That helps no one, whatever side of the aisle you are on
or whatever you want to accomplish. And so, we have got to
bring our fiscal house in order, we have got to put this
country back on fiscal footing, and we have got to turn a
good--return a good ROI to the American people. These are all
the objectives of the DOGE initiative.
I applaud the Chairman in setting up this Committee and
look forward to the work--and the great work that will be done
on it. And thank you, Chairman.
I yield back to the Chairman.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back.
Any other Members seek recognition?
The Chair recognizes Mr. Fallon from Texas.
Mr. Fallon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You know, we had somebody on the other side of the aisle
condemn propaganda, and then you hear people go on to say that
they did not work for Joe Biden, they worked with Joe Biden.
Yet they held Joe Biden's water for all those 2 years. And many
people on the other side of the aisle protected his son when he
certainly did not deserve any protection whatsoever. And he was
actually convicted and committed felonies that he was convicted
of--real felonies, not fairytale, made-up lawfare felonies.
So, we work for the American people. We were accused just
now of not working or caring for the American people either.
Well, the American people, in November, 5 million more of them
voted for Republican candidates for Congress than they did
Democrats. That is a clear mandate that the American people do
not agree with that sentiment whatsoever.
And then you talk about DOGE. You know, my colleague just
said, Mr. Cloud, $800 billion-plus has been burned and wasted
on paying interest on the debt itself. This is an existential
threat to our country. Democrats and Republicans should be
joining hands on DOGE and not criticizing with viciousness a
committee that has never even met yet.
How dare you, Marjorie Taylor Greene. What are you doing?
You are doing a horrible job not even having done your job yet
because we did not give you a chance to. So, how about being
fair arbiters and saying, you know what, maybe this Committee
could work, and maybe you can save your criticism for when they
actually meet and see how they do and how they perform. That is
like saying someone is a terrible hitter before they have ever
gotten to the plate.
And, then, I guess, we are going to hear for the next 2
years about Elon Musk. Every time you hear his name, ``hateful
oligarch.'' You can just mark it down now how many times we are
going to hear it. The over/under is about, I would say, 9,000.
I yield back.
Chairman Comer. Do any other Members seek recognition?
Seeing none, the question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Mfume.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman Comer. All those opposed, signify by saying no.
[Chorus of noes.]
Chairman Comer. In the opinion of the Chair----
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Mfume. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Comer. Mr. Mfume.
Mr. Mfume. Yes. I request a recorded vote.
Chairman Comer. A recorded vote is ordered. As previously
announced, further proceedings on the question will be
postponed.
And I must admit, I just got a message that the tremendous
1980's technology in this committee room does not work, and we
are going to have to do that all by voice vote instead of the
electronic, but we will suffer through it.
Mr. Mfume. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Comer. Yes, sir.
Mr. Mfume. Just a quick point of personal privilege----
Chairman Comer. Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
Mr. Mfume [continuing]. For clarification and for the
record so that we are not lost on this and the record reflects,
that this amendment was not getting rid of any committee. It
was combining two committees so that they would have joint
jurisdiction over finding ways to eliminate the debt and to
eliminate the problems that we have seen. So, let us keep it
for what it is, not for what people think it is. That is why I
want to get back again to the way that it was read into the
record deliberately, as an effort to combine, not to do away
with.
I yield back, and I thank you.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back.
For what purpose do you seek recognition, Ms. Stansbury?
Ms. Stansbury. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment
at the desk.
Chairman Comer. Will the clerk please report the
amendment--or the clerk distribute the amendment.
Everyone have the amendment, the Stansbury amendment?
OK. The clerk will designate the amendment.
The Clerk. An amendment to the Rules of the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform for the 119th Congress is
offered by Ms. Stansbury of New Mexico.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read.
I reserve a point of order.
The gentlewoman from New Mexico is recognized for 5 minutes
to explain her amendment.
Ms. Stansbury. All right. Well, good afternoon, everyone.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member.
To my colleagues, to those of you who are new to the
Oversight Committee, welcome to the 119th Congress. The fun has
already begun.
Today's meeting is ostensibly to discuss and to approve the
rules for the Oversight Committee, a simple procedural meeting.
The Rules are printed, we discuss them, there is some new
subcommittees being created. And so, the purpose of the
amendment, which I am offering here today, is very clear and
very straightforward. It is for the purpose of preventing this
Committee, its subcommittee, its staff, its resources, and its
members from being used by those with a financial interest or a
conflict of interest in front of the Federal Government for
being used for their own means.
And, in particular, I think many Americans are extremely
concerned that the new DOGE effort is being led by somebody
with billions of dollars of financial interests in front of the
Federal Government. We know, because of reporting that came out
yesterday in the New York Times, that already this DOGE effort
which is being led, of course, co-led by Mr. Musk, who is the
richest man in the world, as has been stated here today, is
literally already running this effort out of his private
company headquarters here in Washington, DC. at SpaceX, which
has billions of dollars in front of the Federal Government in
Federal contracts.
This is a clear financial conflict of interest that is
governed and regulated on the executive branch, and so this
amendment would ensure that this Committee as a Federal
resource would not be used to advance the financial interests
of Mr. Musk or anyone else who might appear either before the
DOGE Subcommittee or any other of our subcommittees or
committees.
So, I am just going to read you the amendment. It is very
clear. It is very straightforward. ``No person with a personal
financial interest impacted by the decisions of the Committee
or any subcommittee thereof, including the newly created
Subcommittee on Delivering on Government Efficiency, shall
advise the Committee or its Members in a paid or unpaid
capacity or otherwise interact with the Committee or
subcommittee on any matter that would benefit that person
financially or constitute a conflict of interest.''
And that, Mr. Chairman, is the amendment, and I will stand
for questions.
Mr. Connolly. Would my friend yield?
Ms. Stansbury. Yes, I yield.
Mr. Connolly. If I could make a question to my friend. You
talk about potential conflict with Elon Musk. Is it true that
his company SpaceX holds about $20 billion of contracts with
NASA?
Ms. Stansbury. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, I am not
personally aware of what the total dollar amount is, but it is
my understanding that indeed it is tens of billions of dollars,
not only through SpaceX, but we also know that significant
other financial interests, whether it is regulation of our
communications networks, as well as other transportation----
Mr. Connolly. Well, might I further pursue that?
Ms. Stansbury. Yes.
Mr. Connolly. He has a competitor in Boeing, the Starliner,
and he has actually said, ``The world does not need another
capsule,'' suggesting that he would like to maybe eliminate
competition. Is it possible that could be a conflict of
interest----
Ms. Stansbury. Absolutely.
Chairman Comer [continuing]. Given his position?
Ms. Stansbury. Absolutely.
Mr. Connolly. On the regulatory front, the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration has opened five investigations
into Tesla. Having Elon Musk as the head of this DOGE
enterprise could lead to perhaps the suppression of those kinds
of investigations, I am speculating. There is no evidence he
has done that. But isn't that a risk, conflictually?
Ms. Stansbury. Absolutely.
Mr. Connolly. So, I support the gentlelady's amendment. I
believe that there is ample evidence of conflicts all over the
place, especially with respect to Elon Musk. And I think we
need to protect ourselves from it.
I yield back to my friend from New Mexico.
Ms. Stansbury. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I yield my time.
Chairman Comer. The gentlelady yields back.
I will recognize myself for a few minutes. I am glad the
Democrats are--or at least the gentlelady from New Mexico--we
will see how this vote turns out, but the continuing--she is
continuing the Biden regime of censuring speech by limiting who
can interact with the Committee.
I stand ready to work with anyone who wants to make
government better. I do not care if they are Republican,
Democrat, rich, poor, urban, rural. We have got--as my friend
and colleague, Mr. Gosar, mentioned, we have a crisis of debt
in our country. And I do not know of another committee in the
House of Representatives that is as serious and focused on
reducing wasteful spending as this Committee. That is what this
Committee was created to do. I hope that we can do that, and I
hope that we can do that in a bipartisan manner. But I oppose--
--
Ms. Stansbury. Mr. Chairman, would you----
Chairman Comer [continuing]. The lady's amendment. It is
unnecessary. It undermines Americans' constitutional rights to
petition the government. So, I urge my colleagues to vote
against the Stansbury amendment.
Any other Members seek recognition?
Ms. Stansbury. Mr. Chairman, do you yield?
Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Mr. Gosar.
Mr. Gosar. Yes, I am yield----
Chairman Comer. Actually, I am supposed to recognize the
Democrats next. I am sorry. Who is--who wants to be recognized
on this?
Mr. Connolly. Do you want more time?
Chairman Comer. We rotate--for the freshmen, we go back and
forth. I was the last speaker, so now we will say----
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Chair?
Chairman Comer. Mr. Mfume.
Mr. Mfume. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am in support of the amendment. And I would yield the
balance of my time to the maker of the amendment.
Ms. Stansbury. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I want to clarify. This is perfectly in
accordance with the existing requirements within the executive
branch of government. It is required under the executive branch
that you provide financial disclosures, that if you have a
clear financial conflict of interest with business in front of
the Federal Government and you have business in front of an
agency that you are advising on. One, it is required that it be
done in the public domain. It is obvious that you have to
recuse yourself from any financial interest or government
advising that have to do with that. And so, this would put
those same requirements on the legislative process.
There are many, many Americans who can advise the Federal
Government, thousands of Americans who work in the Federal
Government and in the private sector on government efficiency.
There is absolutely no reason why a billionaire who bought his
way into Donald Trump's inner circle with a quarter billion
dollars in campaign donations should be the person that is
allowed to run a different branch of government's efforts,
alongside our colleagues across the aisle, who literally has
tens of billions of dollars in front of the Federal Government
and could benefit from the efforts that come before this
Committee.
I yield back.
Chairman Comer. Now Mr. Gosar.
Mr. Gosar. You know, I find this very interesting. You
know, we have got a conflict of interest everywhere. You know,
you look at the wealth of some individuals--and I am not
picking out one side or another--you know, whether it be people
working for us, people who are on this Committee, all the way
across the board have a financial interest. So, are we even
capable of doing this?
Now, let me also tell you a little bit about Mr. Musk. What
would have happened to those folks in North Carolina, in
Georgia, in Florida that were taken back by the hurricanes? He
volunteered Starlink. So, we also have to have an ability to
have innovators, because the last thing I have seen in this
body of work is that we are poor innovators. We do not think
outside the box. We go over and over the same things, over and
over again expecting the same--a different result. That is
insanity, folks.
I hope that he picks on--and I am not on the Committee, but
I hope that he picks on his own platform that we saw he
admitted to being censored by this previous administration, the
Biden Administration, forced to do that. So, let us not talk
about, you know, high and mighty about being one side or
another. How about what we do is allow this man to do this and
then take a look.
Now, I know that the Ranking Member brought up Boeing.
Well, I think we look at Mr. Musk because he has actually taken
something that has actually gone further than anything Boeing
has done. Boeing has been part of that problem. So, we need to
think outside the box here.
I agree, the gentlelady has got a point here, but this
amendment is poorly written, and I would vote no against it.
And I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back.
They have called votes. We are going to go another 5 or 6
minutes, as long as we can, and then we will recess to go vote.
Do any other Members seek recognition?
The Chair recognizes Mr. Min.
Mr. Min. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
So, when I started my career, I prosecuted securities fraud
at the SEC. I later went on to become a law professor at UC
Irvine, where I specialized in corporate governance issues.
And I would just note that this type of rule, essentially a
rule of recusal, is not seen by anyone as unconstitutional. So,
I gently dispute that claim. This is a very prevalent rule that
we see across a wide variety of areas.
And the principle is very simple: When someone in the
government has a financial conflict of interest, they should
remove themselves from being a decision-maker. It is not rocket
science. It reflects basic ethics.
And I would just say that I am a little bit disappointed by
this debate, because I asked specifically to be on this
Committee because it is the committee responsible for
oversight, for ensuring accountability, transparency, ethics in
our government. And that is important at a time when Americans
around this country overwhelmingly believe that our government,
and particularly this body, Congress, is fundamentally corrupt
and self-dealing.
Now, there is a saying that the ancient Romans used to say,
``Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?'', ``Who watches the
watchmen?'' And as the committee responsible for overseeing
ethics, for overseeing accountability, that question is very,
very important. Who watches the watchmen?
This is a rule of commonsense that ensures that the
watchmen are not engaged in self-dealing, that we are not
engaged in a pay-to-play, restoring trust in this institution.
So, I thank the author for bringing this forward, and I am
going to vote ``aye'' on this.
Ms. Stansbury. Does the gentleman yield?
Mr. Min. Oh. Yes, I yield back--or----
Ms. Stansbury. Thank you. And thank you so much,
Representative Min. We are so grateful to have you and your
expertise here on the Committee.
You know, I do find it just a little surprising, shocking--
although certainly nothing should be shocking to us anymore on
the Oversight Committee, for those who are watchers of this
Committee. But if you read the amendment, it is very clear it
is just intended to keep anyone, any person--just read it; it
is in front of you, the text is in front of you--who has a
financial interest in front of the Committee from financially
benefiting from their work and interaction with the Committee.
And the fact that our colleagues are, like, fighting back
against that?
This is just basic ethical behavior. That is what the rules
of the Committee are for, is to make sure that we govern
ourselves in a way that is ethical and in alignment with the
public trust that the American people put on us.
That is what this amendment is about. It is good
government. It is about ethics, and it is about making sure
that things are being done aboveboard.
Mr. Cloud. Will the gentlelady yield?
Ms. Crockett. No. May I----
Ms. Stansbury. I will yield back to the----
Ms. Crockett. OK.
Ms. Stansbury. Oh, I will yield to the gentlelady----
Chairman Comer. I think you yielded back. I thought you
yielded back.
Ms. Stansbury. He yielded to me, so----
Chairman Comer. All right. All right.
Ms. Crockett, I will recognize you, but we have called
votes, so--the Chair recognizes Ms. Crockett.
Ms. Crockett. I will be very quick.
You know what? The fact--I associate myself with the
remarks that have already been made, especially by the
gentleman from California. This is what is wrong with
government.
And the idea that we are debating whether or not--just to
be clear--and I know that Mr. Gosar, you know, pointed out the
fact that he felt as if Mr. Musk has something to contribute--
this amendment does not disallow someone from being able to
contribute.
But it would say that it may be a problem if you are
receiving hundreds of millions of dollars from the Federal
Government while at the same time arguing that we need to cut
trillions of dollars from our debt.
It may say, ``You know what? You need to divest''--
something that Democrats have actually been pushing for a
while, as we did believe that the now-incoming President
violated the Emoluments Clause and that there were conflicts
there.
Honestly, this is literally about the American people
looking at us and knowing that you have no other interest
except for to do what is right by this country. And I do not
understand what could be more patriotic than deciding that you
truly want to make sure that people do not have to trust what
you say but they can believe what you do because they know that
you have no other interest.
That is all that it is. It is the basic ethics that we are
missing from this Supreme Court that has the lowest ratings
that it has ever had because the American people feel as if
they are constantly conflicted.
Again, as someone who is licensed to practice law in
multiple states, one of the things that we have to do is pass a
separate ethics test. Because this should be about ethics.
Why is it that only one side of the aisle seems to care
about truth, honor, and----
Chairman Comer. Oh, my----
Ms. Crockett [continuing]. Honestly, what I would consider
to be the most patriotic thing that we could do, which is
being----
Chairman Comer. The yielded time has been expired.
Ms. Mace. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Comer. There were 2 minutes left when Ms.
Stansbury----
Ms. Mace. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Comer [continuing]. Yielded. The time has expired.
Before--let me say--I am going to recognize--Mr. Palmer
will be the last speaker, and then we are going to recess until
5 minutes after the last vote. After the last vote, we will all
come back in here. And I am, again, talking to the freshmen.
So, I will recognize--Ms. Mace, did you recognize--for a
motion or parliamentary inquiry or----
Ms. Mace. No. I wanted to say a word.
Chairman Comer. OK. OK. We will get you when we come back.
The last speaker before we recess, Mr. Palmer from Alabama.
And then, remember, come back 5 minutes after the last
vote.
Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am very troubled by the amendment. I think I understand
the intent of the gentlelady in bringing it, but this
violates--in my opinion, it violates the Constitution's right
to redress grievances before the government, because it does
not say--it says, ``no person'' could be interpreted as ``any
person.''
And because somebody might have a government contract,
might be working for a company that is involved with government
work, that does not deny them the right to participate in their
government. We are a participatory Republic.
And I am really--I know what this is about. This is an
effort to undermine what the incoming administration is trying
to do to get our debt under control, get our spending under
control, and it is a direct shot at Mr. Musk, whom they feel
like played a disproportionate role in the success of
President-elect Trump. But we should not be doing things like
this.
We should respect the constitutional right of every U.S.
citizen to participate in the governance of the country, either
through elections or through the opportunity to advise on
issues of critical importance to our country.
So, in that regard, Mr. Chairman, I would encourage the
gentlelady to withdraw the amendment, but I know that is
probably not likely, so I am going to oppose the----
Ms. Stansbury. Does the----
Mr. Palmer [continuing]. Amendment.
Ms. Stansbury [continuing]. Gentleman yield just briefly
for a minute?
Chairman Comer. The gentleman's time has expired--or the
gentleman yields back, rather.
Pursuant to the previous order, the Chair declares the
Committee in recess until 5 minutes after the last vote. The
Committee stands in recess.
[Recess.]
Chairman Comer. The Committee will come back to order. The
Committee will come back to order.
I understand there are a few people en route, but we are
going to start back with discussion.
And it is now the Minority side, and I believe I was
informed that Ms. Crockett sought recognition for 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes Ms. Crockett.
Ms. Crockett. Thank you, Mr. Chair. At this time, I would
yield the remainder of my time to the gentlelady from New
Mexico.
Ms. Stansbury. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, Madam Crockett, this is a
commonsense, good-government amendment. The entire purpose of
this amendment is to bring standard ethics language into the
Committee process to make sure that anybody--anybody--who is
interacting with this Committee does not use it or its
resources for personal profit. It is basic ethics language.
It does not infringe on speech. It does not prevent someone
from appearing or advising the Committee on general issues or
classes of issues which are permissible under the rules and the
ethics of the House of Representatives. But it would prevent
someone from using the Committee and Federal resources for
personal financial gain.
And I want to read the text in the amendment that is really
clear about this. It says that folks shall not advise the
Committee or its Members in a paid or unpaid capacity or
otherwise interact with the Committee or subcommittee on any
matter that would benefit the person financially or constitute
a conflict of interest.
This is not a violation of the Constitution or of free
speech. Using Federal resources to benefit your own financial
interest is not protected speech, unless--I was trying to
figure out while we were on break what my colleagues are
referring to. Maybe they are referring to the Citizens United
case. Maybe they are referring to protecting the speech of
campaign donations. Maybe they are referring to protecting the
quarter-billion dollars in donations that Elon Musk made to
Donald Trump and his campaign and that has given him access not
only to the inner circle of Donald Trump's Administration but
it is going to land him an office in the White House and pretty
much unfettered access to this Committee and its resources.
So, this amendment is designed to make sure he can come
here, he can come testify, he can talk about issues that are
general issues, but he cannot use this Committee as a personal
piggybank to put forward an agenda that would personally profit
him or others against the public interest.
That is what this amendment is about. That is what we are
trying to do, is to make sure that people do not use this
Committee for personal and private gains.
Now, I am dismayed that in the first organizing committee
of this Congress, we cannot even agree on the most basic
ethical standards for how this Committee is going to conduct
itself, language that appears in almost every single government
agency--Federal, state, local, tribal--also in the private
sector.
This is about protecting the public interest. This is about
making sure that the goals that are supposedly laid out in this
rule change that creates these two new subcommittees is really
about achieving government efficiency and improvements. And it
is about making sure that billionaires who buy their way into
the inner circle of Donald Trump do not use this Committee and
its resources for their own financial gain.
And, with that, I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The gentlelady yields back.
The Chair recognizes Ms. Greene from Georgia.
Ms. Greene. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
There is a lot of outrage today about my new Subcommittee
on DOGE. I want to say, I am honored. Thank you.
You see, all the talk about billionaires--let us talk about
George Soros, who has donated hundreds of billions of dollars
to Democrats, Democrat PACs, Democrat interests that ripped
open our border, invaded our country, have had all types of
policies that have directly impacted Americans in the worst
ways possible.
You know, Elon Musk used to be a Democrat. And I think the
problem here is, is you guys are really jealous. And let us be
brutally honest: It is your policies that have run off
Democrats. You have run off your own donors. And you ran off
the voters in this last election because of the absolute
failures that you did to this country.
So, let us be really clear in what you are trying to do.
You are attacking Elon Musk because you are really jealous. You
are. You are just really jealous.
And Elon Musk, I want to remind you guys, while California
is on fire, he is directing his resources there, with Tesla
trucks and Starlinks, to help people and victims that are being
impacted right now by the failures of the Democrat leaders in
California.
No, it is not climate change that is burning down
California. It is a failure of how to handle and prevent these
types of problems. No water in the fire hydrants. No water in
the water reservoirs. Not cleaning up the forest floors.
So, let us be very clear about Democrat policies, Democrat
decisions that have run off so many people. And let us talk
about, what you are trying to do is just attack someone that
used to actually support your party and supports your party no
more.
But let us really talk about this amendment. And it is not
an attack on Elon Musk, specifically, as it is an attack on
Elon Musk and every single taxpayer--every single taxpayer in
this country.
It says, ``no person with a personal financial interest
impacted by the decisions of the Committee or any subcommittee
thereof, including the newly created Subcommittee on Delivering
on Government Efficiency, shall advise the Committee or its
Members in a paid or unpaid capacity.''
Think about that. So, you do not want taxpayers to have any
say in what this subcommittee holds hearings on, talks about;
talks about things that need to be funded or unfunded;
departments that need to be shut down; union employees of the
Federal Government that need to be fired; unions that need to
be busted up; waste, fraud, and abuse?
If this amendment were to pass, this amendment would
directly violate the freedom of speech of taxpayers, of
Americans, because this amendment says that no one can have any
say to Committee Members or on the Subcommittee of Government
Efficiency. That is what this amendment says.
And our job and our role is to serve the taxpayers, to
serve the American people, to protect their freedom of speech,
to uphold their interests, to protect how their taxpayer
dollars are used. And so, this is why this Committee cannot
even--we cannot consider having an amendment like this in our
Rules, because we would be violating exactly what we are here
to do. It is a complete waste of time.
And, Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment, and I yield
back. Thank you.
Chairman Comer. The gentlelady yields back.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Garcia.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you.
I just have to--first, that was--that was a lot.
And, first, I think the people of California and the West
absolutely deserve an apology for politicizing fires that are
actually killing people right now and where people are losing
their homes. And the idea that somehow you want to politicize
those and say that those were caused by crazy conspiracy
theories. I do not think anyone should take any advice on how
fires are created, certainly by someone that has said space
lasers actually create forest fires. And so that deserves an
apology to the people of California.
And this idea that somehow Elon Musk is going to save us--
the richest person on the planet, multiple times over--and that
we are arguing about what he can do for this country but we are
not actually bringing in people that are actually impacted by
the policies of our friends on the other side of the aisle, I
think, is quite shameful.
And the gentlelady from Georgia should apologize.
Chairman Comer. Any other Members seek recognition?
Ms. Mace from South Carolina.
Ms. Mace. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
On this conflict of interest that we have before us today--
I am hearing about ``conflict of interest''; quote, ``most
basic ethics standards''; quote, ``basic ethics''; ``resources
for personal profit''; making sure we are--you know,
``financial interests are at stake,'' et cetera.
I just--Mr. Chairman, I find it rich that the same Members
of Congress who defended the Biden crime family, who are making
millions of dollars from international business deals while
trading on public office, are now here lecturing us today about
conflicts of interest. Like, they have--they should just sit
right back down. They have no room on this issue. I would love
to know if they think Nancy Pelosi trading stocks is a conflict
of interest.
So, you know, if the Biden family international business
dealings, trading off the Vice Presidency and Presidency, is or
is not a conflict of interest, I would love to know where they
stand on that, Mr. Chairman. Because this is ridiculous.
We need to work for the American people. We need to get to
work fast. There was a mandate in November, on November 5, to
push our country forward, to get out of the worst economy in my
lifetime that the left forced upon the American people. They
cannot afford groceries. They cannot afford gas. They can
definitely not afford childcare. And the education system in
this country is down the tubes. Taxes are hurting American
families on top of it. We have at least 14 million illegals in
this country. It is probably far higher than that. We cannot
keep count. We do not even know where the 300,000 kids are.
And so, what they have done to destroy the fabric of the
United States of America, everything we were founded on--
freedom and liberty, the ability to prosper, to work, live, and
retire in the greatest Nation in the world--they have destroyed
that.
And it is our job to get back to the basics. And, quite
frankly, I do not think government efficiency is enough. I
think we are going to have to go much further than that and, in
fact, you know, look at dismantling entire departments or even
agencies. Because it is just--the bureaucracy we have created
with the deep state of bureaucracy here is hurting our country,
it is hurting our national security. We are weaker on the world
stage. Our economy is going to be a national-security issue in
very close order.
I was hoping that American families would be able to refi
with lower interest rates this quarter on their homes and be
able to afford housing. It does not look like that is going to
happen because of what the Biden-Harris Administration has done
in the run-up to President Trump's swearing-in on January 20.
This is un-American. It is disgusting. It is gross. Let us
move forward. Let us get these votes done this afternoon, and
let us get to work for the American people, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The gentlelady yields back.
Any other Members seek recognition?
The Chair recognizes Mr. Higgins from Louisiana.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My colleagues can expect conflict in this Committee. There
is going to be a lot of conflict. And Elon, Mr. Musk, is
absolutely bringing conflict to the United States' focus. We
are in conflict with the Big Government machine that has been
devouring the wealth and smashing the individual rights,
liberties, and freedoms of the American people whom we serve.
You think that is funny, young man? Talk to your great-
grandchildren, your yet-unborn generations that is inheriting
the debt that the machine of D.C. has forced upon our country.
We are $36 trillion in debt. That is $36-thousand-billion
dollars. Were we to balance the budget and run a $1 billion
surplus, it would require 36,000 years to address that debt.
And that is not funny. And we are not playing. So, you can
expect conflict in this Committee.
And with men like Elon Musk coming in, working with our
President, who my people elected, you can absolutely look
forward to many discussions that will cause wailing and
gnashing of teeth across this town that has crippled the future
of our country with debt.
You should look forward to that conflict, because we will
be saving a generation yet unborn of our country. And that is
exactly what we intend to do.
I yield the balance of my time to the Chair.
Chairman Comer. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Any other Members seek recognition?
Seeing none, the question is now on the Stansbury
amendment, offered by the gentlewoman from New Mexico.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman Comer. All those opposed, signify by saying no.
[Chorus of noes.]
Ms. Stansbury. Mr. Chairman----
Chairman Comer. In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have
it, and the amendment is not agreed to.
Ms. Stansbury. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask for a
recorded vote.
Chairman Comer. A recorded vote is ordered. As previously
announced, further proceedings on the question will be
postponed.
Do any other Members seek recognition?
Mr. Garcia. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Mr. Garcia.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We have an amendment as well.
Chairman Comer. The clerk will distribute the amendment to
every Member.
I believe every Member has a copy on their desk.
The clerk will designate the amendment.
The Clerk. An amendment to the Rules of the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform for the 119th Congress, as
offered by Mr. Garcia of California.
Mr. Garcia. Well, thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think we are obviously all aware, as a Committee, that
the President of the United States should serve the American
people, never their own financial interests. Yet, we are facing
some of the most serious conflicts of interests, going into
this Administration, in the history of our country.
Now, Donald Trump and Elon Musk, who are at least appearing
to essentially be co-Presidents in this next few years, are
plotting to remake our government and our very social safety
net. And they could get, of course, we know, richer in the
process.
Now, this amendment will make sure that we do not advance
any legislation from this Committee that enriches Donald Trump
or his businesses. And, unfortunately, as we know because of
the work of this Committee and House Democrats, this
legislation could not be more important, because we know and we
saw Donald Trump trying to enrich himself and his family in his
first term.
Now, we know that Committee Democrats showed that Donald
Trump received payments from over 20 countries during his first
term--20 countries. Donald Trump's network of businesses made
it possible for anyone in the world to funnel money to him
through his businesses. Now, these countries, of course,
included China, Saudi Arabia, and many others.
Now, we actually have, because of this Committee, receipts
and documents that prove that he received at least $7.8 million
directly from foreign governments. And, by the way, that number
is much larger, but of course we do not have all the documents
and receipts because this Committee's Majority blocked us from
getting all of them.
We also know that eight Ambassadors stayed at President
Trump's D.C. hotel at the time while serving in the office of
the Trump Administration, in clear violation of the
Constitution.
The Committee also found that Elliott Broidy, a Republican
fundraiser and lobbyist, spent $15,000 at Trump's D.C. hotel
while actually lobbying the Trump Administration. Later, he
received a pardon--which we know that Donald Trump and his
Administration like to give out to people that donated to him.
And we know that that, of course, is a clear violation of the
Foreign Agents Registration Act.
Now, we should all be concerned that this lobbying effort
signifies a pay-to-play scheme that capitalizes on President
Trump's influence. And these conflicts of interest are a direct
threat and a national-security threat.
Of course, this is on top of the fact that this Committee
continues--and refuses to investigate Jared Kushner, who
received $2 billion, with a ``B,'' directly from Saudi Arabia
just months after leaving the White House and has used that
power to facilitate record arms deals and other pro-Saudi
policies.
As he enters his second term, this amendment is incredibly
important so that we can ensure that Donald Trump is not
directly benefiting, through his businesses, by foreign
governments and other people that are interested.
Once again, this amendment would ensure that we work
through this Committee to ensure the President does not
directly benefit. I urge all of my colleagues to support this
commonsense amendment.
Mr. Connolly. Would----
Mr. Garcia. And I yield back.
Mr. Connolly. Would my friend yield?
Mr. Garcia. Yes, sir.
Mr. Connolly. Just for some questions?
Mr. Garcia, is it not true that when President Trump was
elected in 2016, the then-President of the Philippines,
President Duterte, actually named a business partner of
President Trump to be a special envoy to the United States?
Mr. Garcia. Absolutely, sir. And, as you all know, much
beyond that. Donald Trump has continued, through his family and
through his businesses, to gain the influence of foreign
governments and then trade them for policy proposals.
Mr. Connolly. Is it not also true, Mr. Garcia, that a
number of Gulf countries, Saudi Arabia among them, actually
pointedly would stay at or rent rooms and facilities at the
then-Trump-hotel downtown in order, presumably, to curry favor?
Mr. Garcia. Saudi Arabia and many other countries, yes,
sir.
Mr. Connolly. And did President Trump then, in fact,
financially benefit from those transactions?
Mr. Garcia. Directly, against the Constitution, absolutely,
sir.
Mr. Connolly. And is there a policy at GSA, the Government
Services Administration, that actually would prohibit an
elected official from benefiting from a lease owned by or
provided by GSA?
Mr. Garcia. That is correct.
Mr. Connolly. And was that honored in the first Trump
Administration?
Mr. Garcia. Absolutely not, which is why this amendment is
needed.
Mr. Connolly. I thank my friend.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you.
Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Mr. McGuire.
Mr. McGuire. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You know, I heard some accusations on the other side about
President Trump being corrupt. And I would say that they tried
to put him in jail, they tried to bankrupt him with
``lawfare''--we all know the Russia-gate and the perfect phone
call. And then, of course, he took a bullet for this country.
And of every President in my lifetime, in our lifetime, he left
office with less money, not more money.
And he did more in 4 years than any President in my
lifetime. Every President in my lifetime talked about a peace
treaty in the Middle East, and they got zero, and President
Trump got two. When we talk about the greatest economy, when--
record unemployment, especially for minorities and Black people
and women. When you have low unemployment, record unemployment,
you have less people living on the street and you have less
people dying on the street.
And we look at the foreign wars, like Ukraine-Russia; you
look at October 7, Israel. We all know those things would not
have happened if President Trump were in office.
He is not a corrupt President. He loves our country. He
loves the American people. He loves all people. And I am
excited that we are going to be able to work on oversight, hold
the government accountable, and help him put America First and
not America last.
I yield the remainder of my time.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back.
Any further Members seek recognition?
Mr. Jack from Georgia.
Mr. Jack. Mr. Chairman, I will just add, President Trump
was one of the last--or most recent Presidents and one of the
shining examples of a President that did not take a salary from
the day he was sworn in through the day he left office. He
donated his salary to a lot of incredible causes.
So, I would urge the gentleman to withdraw this amendment.
I think it is--I think it is an offense to the American people
that gave President Trump and House Republicans a mandate, a
clear mandate, this past election.
And, again, if you want to talk about a conflict of
interest when the President of the United States does not
accept a salary, I think that demonstrates the unique nature
that he has and the connection that he has to the American
people, wanting to serve them and show that he is not in this
for the money. He lost money getting elected. He has sacrificed
so much. There is no reason for this nongermane amendment.
I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Ms. Stansbury.
Ms. Stansbury. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Well, notwithstanding these beautiful love letters and
campaign ads to Donald Trump, this Committee has examined a
multitude of thousands of pages of evidence and receipts that
show that Donald Trump did actually take foreign money through
and launder through his hotels and properties. And I know we
got some new Members on the Committee, but we are happy to
provide that documentation to you as well.
But, with that, I would like to yield the remainder of my
time to Mr. Garcia.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you.
I think it is comical to say that Donald Trump did not take
a salary when he and his family benefited in the billions of
dollars from peddling influence to foreign governments. This
has actually been documented. The receipts were presented
through this Committee from multiple countries.
And the fact that your son-in-law--who was, by the way,
advised to not serve as an envoy by the Secretary of State at
the time of Donald Trump--could come in and make $2 billion
months after leaving the White House by the Saudi Government--
of which, by the way, he has not returned any sort of
investment to the country on--and him being the envoy to the
Middle East while he was in the White House is absolutely
corrupt.
And the President's salary is nothing compared to what he
and his family have received, in the billions of dollars,
through their foreign peddling and corruption in the White
House.
I will yield back--oh, actually, I yield to Ms. Crockett.
Ms. Crockett. Thank you so much.
Listen, if you all really believe this--listen, I will do
this in a very diplomatic, bipartisan way--we are sitting in
the proper Committee that can do the investigation. If you feel
as if there is nothing to see, then prove us wrong. Prove us
wrong. Because the last time that I checked, we were shut down
as we were getting documents from his attorneys.
So, if you say that there is nothing there, then let us go
ahead and have a hearing and an investigation and prove it.
Show it to the American people that we do not have to be
concerned that this incoming President has been paid off by the
likes of people that do not like the American citizens that
live in this country. Because last time I checked, he was
palling around with Putin and he was loving on Xi Jinping. I
mean, like, I do not know what you have to hide then.
So, in Oversight, let us go ahead--Chairman, can we go
ahead and get a hearing set up and an investigation just to
prove us wrong? Because the Democrats are----
Chairman Comer. Would the lady yield?
Ms. Crockett [continuing]. The Democrats are--hold on, Mr.
Chairman--because we lying, according to you all. We lying. So,
prove us to be liars. I will sit here and I will be the first
one to say, ``I apologize.''
So, let us go ahead and do it. Will you do that, Mr.
Chairman?
Chairman Comer. Let me ask--will the lady yield for a
question?
Ms. Crockett. I will absolutely yield for a question.
Chairman Comer. So, you are suggesting that we investigate
Donald Trump?
Ms. Crockett. Yes, because you all saying that we lying
about----
Chairman Comer. Would----
Ms. Crockett [continuing]. Him. Prove us wrong.
Chairman Comer. My question is, have there ever been any
other investigations of Donald Trump? Have there been any----
Ms. Crockett. Yes.
Chairman Comer. I mean----
Ms. Crockett. Yes, there have been.
Chairman Comer. I mean, it just seems like he is----
Ms. Crockett. And he had trouble----
Chairman Comer [continuing]. The most investigated person
in the world.
And, look, I love this newfound concern for ethics by my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle. This is rich, to be
honest with you, especially when you were talking about
violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act, I think, Mr.
Garcia or Mr. Frost, one of you mentioned, and things like
that.
So, you know, I think there are a lot of interesting things
coming that I have not heard over the past 2 years. So, look--
--
Ms. Crockett. So, Mr. Chairman, is that a yes or no that
you all are going to prove us wrong?
Chairman Comer. Well, I mean, Ms. Crockett, there have been
so many investigations of Donald Trump. You have weaponized--I
would argue, and I think the American people would agree, that
the judiciary has been weaponized, that the man has had so many
investigations----
Ms. Crockett. But, Mr. Chair, if you were the one that is
conducting it--we know that he trusts you. You are a good
Republican.
Chairman Comer. You are wanting to investigate him and he
has not even been sworn in yet.
Ms. Crockett. OK. Well, we can wait a few more days--that
is only on Monday--and we can get started. I just want you all
to prove us wrong, because I----
Chairman Comer. Well, I think the----
Ms. Crockett [continuing]. Believe in functioning in facts.
Chairman Comer [continuing]. American people are concerned
about their tax dollars being flushed down the commode, being
spent----
Ms. Crockett. I think they are also concerned about foreign
influence upon----
Chairman Comer. Foreign influence?
Ms. Crockett [continuing]. The highest--absolutely. Why
wouldn't they be? That is something that would fall under our
purview in this Committee.
And, Mr. Chairman, listen----
Chairman Comer. With all due respect, ma'am, you were not
concerned about $27 million of foreign influence that was
laundered.
Now, Ms. Stansbury, ``laundered,'' we can debate on the
term of ``laundering.'' I do not think you----
Ms. Stansbury. Would you like to?
Chairman Comer [continuing]. Understand what ``laundering''
means.
Ms. Stansbury. Do you yield? We can discuss----
Chairman Comer. No, because this is Ms. Crockett's time----
Ms. Crockett. I will----
Chairman Comer [continuing]. And it is about to expire.
Ms. Crockett. I will go ahead and yield to Ms. Stansbury
then.
Chairman Comer. She has 10 seconds.
Ms. Stansbury. All right. Well, Mr. Chairman, this is--this
is a bit absurd, but, you know, it is very clear, this
Committee did investigate, Donald Trump did launder his money--
--
Chairman Comer. Time has expired.
Ms. Stansbury [continuing]. Through his hotels.
Chairman Comer. Do any further Members seek recognition?
Ms. Stansbury. And we will provide----
Mr. Gill. Mr. Chair?
Ms. Stansbury [continuing]. The report, which you
suppressed.
Thank you.
Chairman Comer. Mr. Gill. The Chair recognizes Mr. Gill
from Texas.
Mr. Gill. Thank you.
I find it rich that the other side of the aisle is suddenly
concerned about corruption and ethics whenever President Biden
just gave his son a 10-year blanket pardon for foreign
influence-peddling and whatever else he was doing while high on
whatever drugs with whatever prostitutes.
I also find it rich that all of the sudden the other side
has some problem with successful businessmen being involved in
politics whenever you guys are the party of George Soros, of
Bill and Melinda Gates, of Sheryl Sandberg, of MacKenzie Bezos,
of Taylor Swift, of so many other billionaires across the
country, as well as every woke, weird pervert in Hollywood. I
find this incredibly disingenuous.
I think the reality is that the Republican Party, under
President Trump, has a very clear mandate from voters, and you
guys do not like it, because voters rejected everything you
stand for and every policy that you have shoved down the
American people's throats over the past 4 years, whether it is
open borders, a failing economy, raging inflation, this weird
woke stuff that you guys have been shoving down our children's
throats. And the voters rejected you, and they welcomed our
party.
So, with that, I yield my time, but I find this
conversation incredibly rich from the other side.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back.
Any further discussion on this?
Seeing none, the question is on the amendment offered by
Mr. Garcia.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman Comer. All those opposed, by saying no.
[Chorus of noes.]
Chairman Comer. In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have
it, and the amendment is not--do you seek a recorded vote?
Mr. Garcia. Yes, please, sir.
Chairman Comer. All right.
Mr. Garcia requests a recorded vote. As previously
announced, further proceedings on the question will be
postponed.
Does any further Member seek recognition?
Ms. Crockett. Mr. Chair?
Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Ms. Crockett.
Ms. Crockett. I have an amendment at the desk.
Chairman Comer. Will the clerk--everyone has the
amendment--everyone has the Crockett amendment on their desk?
Would the clerk please report the amendment?
The Clerk. An amendment to the Rules of the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform for the 119th Congress, as
offered by Ms. Crockett of Texas.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read.
I reserve a point of order.
The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes to explain her
amendment.
Ms. Crockett. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
During the 118th Congress, Oversight Republicans disbanded
one of the most important subcommittees in Congress, the
Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Civil Liberties.
And now, in the 119th Congress, the Chairman and House
Republicans have decided to prioritize the demands of the real
President--Elon Musk--and his billionaire friends over the
needs of the American people.
Now, we are about to approach the birthday of Martin Luther
King. It is actually tomorrow. And on January 20 will be the
inauguration of Donald Trump, but it will also be the
observation of MLK Day.
And the fact that we have decided that in this country we
are not going to honor civil rights should be something that we
all take issue with, considering the fact, for some that do not
know what civil rights are about--because some people only
believe that it deals with Black folk--let me explain.
Civil and political rights are a class of rights that
protect individuals' freedom from the infringement by
governments, social organizations, and private individuals.
They ensure one's entitlement to participate in the civil and
political life of society and the state.
Defined another way, the right to be free from
discrimination, the freedom to worship as we choose, the right
to vote for our elected representatives, the protections of due
process, the right to privacy.
If any of that sounds familiar, it is because these are
rights that are born out of our Constitution, something that we
all supposedly have sworn an oath to. And we swear to not
only--we do not just swear to it; we are supposed to protect
those rights.
Interestingly enough, we just had the funeral of one of our
beloved Presidents. And I caught a flight to Austin on the day
of the funeral, and I had the honor of sitting next to someone
who was a little familiar with the White House. That person was
Luci Baines Johnson. And when I tell you that she is a wealth
of information, I really mean that.
And when we had an opportunity to talk about what she
experienced as her father was President during a time in which,
honestly, our country was on fire--and I would argue that,
unfortunately, our country is on fire right now. When I first
ran for office, I ran for the Statehouse and said that we were
in the in the midst of a modern-day Civil Rights Movement, and
I have not been convinced otherwise just yet.
But this is the daughter of the President that signed the
Civil Rights Act of 1964. She was also there when he signed the
Voting Rights Act of 1965. And, to be perfectly honest, without
that Voting Rights, I do not believe that I actually would have
a seat in Congress.
And so, I do believe in preserving the fact that everyone
should be entitled to real and true representation, because I
do have a Section 2 seat as our Voting Rights Act has been
decimated.
But one of the stories that she told me was that her father
asked her about coming over to the Congress for the signing of
the bill as it relates to the Voting Rights Act. Now, for her,
it was a bit inconvenient as an 18-year-old to have to leave
the White House and go over to Congress, and she asked her
father, ``Why should we go over to the Congress, Daddy, to sign
this particular bill?''
And she [sic] said, ``We need to go over to the Congress
because we need to pay due respect to those Members of Congress
that knew that voting for this bill meant that they would not
be returning to Congress but they had the courage to do what
was right for this country and make sure that everyone's voices
were going to be heard.''
The one thing that we could do, the very small thing that
we could do, is have a little bit of courage and decide that we
are going to reinstitute this particular subcommittee. Because,
unfortunately, I do not see the type of courage that the people
that served back in the 1960's had coming out of some of our
colleagues.
And so, I am asking you to do the courageous thing today
and just institute a subcommittee that would make sure that we
are looking out for those protections of everyone in this
country to make sure that we have real freedom, something that
we all supposedly espouse to believe in.
And, with that, I will yield, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Comer. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Do any Members seek recognition? Mr.----
Ms. Mace. Yes.
Chairman Comer [continuing]. Higgins? Oh, oh, Ms. Mace was
first. I am sorry.
Ms. Mace?
Ms. Mace. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Again, I do not know what is going on today. I find it
extremely rich and offensive.
So, we are talking about civil rights. I am the former
Ranking Member on the Civil Rights Subcommittee, something I
believe in, civil rights and civil liberties of all Americans.
And we were talking about infringement of individual people;
also, quote, ``the right to privacy of individuals''--coming
from a party that cannot define what a woman is and will not
give women the right to privacy.
You all want men with penises, chicks with dicks, in the
bathroom with us. You want women to be forced to undress in
front of men in the locker room and in dressing rooms. And it
is so hypocritical for you to sit here and say--and be, you
know, screaming from the rooftops about the right to privacy
and civil rights when you do not respect women and you do not
respect women who have been raped, women who are victims of
sexual abuse. And you want me, a victim of rape, a survivor of
rape, to go into a locker room and be forced to undress in
front of a man? You have to be f'ing kidding me.
So, I do not want to hear about you talk about rights,
individual rights, civil rights, because you cannot find the
courage from the 1960's to fight for women all around America,
fight for women like me, every single woman.
And as a rape survivor, I should not have to explain to you
why women have rights and why women, when we are in the
bathroom, when we are in the locker room, when we are in a
dressing room, why I do not feel safe when there is a man
nearby.
And the fact that we are going here and we are going to say
all these things is the ripeness of hypocrisy on the Hill.
People need to tell the truth, and if we are going to talk
about the rights of individuals, we have to talk about it.
Everybody has rights, including women. And, at some point, men
are infringing on the rights of women.
We just had it today; we just had a vote about protecting
women and girls in sports. And I believe it was not one, it was
two people from the Democrat Party who voted to protect women's
rights in sports today. Two, yes.
So, Mr. Chairman, this is a deeply offensive conversation
to me today. We want to talk about real freedom? Women have
freedom in this country. Women have the freedom to go to a
private, women's-only space and not see a man in it. Women have
the right to change and not be feared that somebody, with their
sexual perversion, someone who is confused about their gender--
we have the right to feel safe in these spaces.
We have the right to know that we are not going to have
trans people filming us in the bathroom. How many of these
trannies are taking selfies, these men are taking selfies in
women's spaces, in the bathroom? It is gross, it is disgusting.
So, if we are going to talk about civil rights, let us talk
about the rights of women in this country and how you are
stripping them away every single day. And you are doing it in
your legislation, you are doing it in your messaging, you are
doing it on X. You are making women feel unsafe in this
country. And you are making the opportunity for women and girls
to be raped, to be sexually abused in this country even greater
than they have ever, ever been.
So, do not come over here with your attitude and talk to me
about rights when you are trying to take my rights as a woman,
a rape survivor, away.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The gentlelady yields back.
Any Member seek recognition?
Ms. Stansbury.
Ms. Stansbury. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate the gentlelady across the aisle demonstrating
why we need civil rights. We need civil rights to protect all
people, especially trans Americans, who are under attack right
now.
I would like to yield the rest of my time to the gentlelady
who is carrying the amendment.
Ms. Crockett. I do not even know how we got there, because
I tried to make it clear how many civil rights--it does not
just boil down to one conversation. But I can see that
somebody's campaign coffers really are struggling right now, so
she going to keep saying ``trans,'' ``trans,'' ``trans'' so
that people will feel threatened.
And, child, listen, I want you all to----
Ms. Mace. I am no child.
Ms. Crockett [continuing]. Tell me whether or not----
Ms. Mace. Do not call me a child. I am no child. Do not----
Ms. Crockett. I want to find out----
Ms. Mace [continuing]. Even start. I am a grown woman. I am
47 years----
Ms. Crockett [continuing]. Which of those emails actually
has----
Ms. Mace [continuing]. Old. I have broken more glass
ceilings than----
Chairman Comer. All right. Order, please.
Ms. Crockett. Chairman, I am reclaiming my time.
Chairman Comer. Let us go.
Ms. Mace. You will not do that. I am not a child.
Chairman Comer. Order.
Ms. Crockett. Chairman----
Ms. Mace. I am not a child.
Ms. Crockett [continuing]. I am reclaiming my time.
Ms. Mace. If you want to take it outside, we can do that.
Mr. Mfume. Mr. Chairman, the Committee is not in order.
Chairman Comer. OK. All right. Order. Order.
Mr. Frost. Point of order. Point of order.
Chairman Comer. Order, order, order.
The Chair recognizes Ms. Crockett.
Mr. Frost. No. A point of order, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Comer. State your point.
Mr. Frost. Is it allowed in the Rules for a Member to
incite violence against another Member? I mean, she just said
she wants to take it outside with Crockett, and----
Ms. Mace. Hey, I have the First Amendment right, too, young
man.
Mr. Frost. And so----
Chairman Comer. All right.
Ms. Mace. I have the First Amendment right.
Mr. Frost [continuing]. I would like those words to be
taken down.
Ms. Mace. I am not going to be a child----
Mr. Frost. I am moving to have those----
Ms. Mace. I am not going to be called a child by any of
you.
Mr. Frost [continuing]. Words taken down. I believe it is
against the Rules----
Ms. Mace. ``Going outside''----
Mr. Frost [continuing]. To incite violence----
Ms. Mace. [continuing]. Does not incite violence. It is
just to have a conversation----
Mr. Frost [continuing]. Against another Member of Congress.
Ms. Mace [continuing]. That is not interrupting----
Chairman Comer. The Committee will suspend.
Ms. Mace [continuing]. This Committee.
Chairman Comer. The Member will state the words he wishes
taken down.
Mr. Frost. Where she said that we can take it outside,
which is a direct violation against the rules, inciting
violence against----
Ms. Greene. What rule?
Mr. Frost [continuing]. Another Member.
Ms. Greene. What rule? What rule? Cite the rule.
Ms. Mace. How does that incite violence?
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Chairman, there are--if I might point
out, Mr. Chairman, there are decorum rules in the House of
Representatives.
Chairman Comer. And the two parliamentarians are discussing
this right now. We will suspend for a second.
The Chair is going to make a rule.
What the gentlelady said was, ``We can take this outside if
you want.''
Mr. Frost. OK. So----
Chairman Comer. And that could mean you could go outside
and have a cup of coffee or perhaps a beer or--you know, I
mean, we have lots of conversations outside.
So, I am going to rule that it was, you know, just a----
Mr. Frost. That it is OK.
Chairman Comer [continuing]. That it is OK.
Mr. Frost. All right.
And then point of inquiry--or, I have a question----
Chairman Comer. And, remember, this is a slippery slope you
are going down, because we have a----
Mr. Frost. Oh, you are going down the slippery slope.
Chairman Comer. Inquiry before in this Committee, as you
know.
Mr. Frost. So, just to be clear, in this Committee, we can
ask----
Voice. Apparently.
Mr. Frost [continuing]. We can threaten violence on someone
as long as----
Chairman Comer. No, no, that is not----
Mr. Frost. Excuse me. As long as that behavior----
Ms. Mace. I did not threaten violence.
Mr. Frost. Excuse me. Excuse me.
Ms. Mace. I threatened no violence.
Chairman Comer. There was no violence----
Ms. Mace. I threatened no violence.
Chairman Comer. No violence----
Mr. Frost [continuing]. As long as at the end----
Chairman Comer. Do not create a false narrative.
Mr. Frost [continuing]. We add a question----
Ms. Mace. I threatened no violence.
Mr. Frost [continuing]. That the other person----
Ms. Mace. None. You are making shit up----
Mr. Frost. That is good to know.
Ms. Mace [continuing]. As you go along. You might want----
Mr. Frost. Good to know.
Ms. Mace [continuing]. To figure this one out.
Chairman Comer. OK. Order, order. There was no----
Mr. Fallon. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Frost. I thought you were not cursing today.
Chairman Comer. There was no violence.
Mr. Fallon. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Comer. No violence.
Mr. Frost. I am going to appeal the ruling of the Chair.
Mr. Fallon. Mr. Chairman, I have a----
Mr. Frost. I am going to appeal the ruling of the Chair.
Mr. Fallon [continuing]. Point of inquiry.
Chairman Comer. State your point.
Mr. Fallon. And I apologize because I had a meeting and
came right down.
Is it true that Ms. Mace was belittled by being called a
child? Is that against our Rules?
Chairman Comer. I would have to look up the Rules. I do not
know that it is----
Mr. Frost. I would like to appeal the ruling----
Chairman Comer [continuing]. Specifically in the Rules. We
ask for proper----
Mr. Fallon. Well, can we strike it then?
Chairman Comer [continuing]. Decorum. We ask for everybody
to cooperate----
Mr. Fallon. I would like to have it stricken.
Chairman Comer. OK. There is----
Mr. Fallon. If I could have Ms. Crockett's words stricken
then.
Chairman Comer. There is a motion. You have a motion, Mr.
Frost?
Mr. Frost. Yes. I move to appeal the ruling of the Chair.
Chairman Comer. There is a motion to appeal the ruling of
the Chair.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Gosar.
Mr. Gosar. I move to table----
Mr. Fallon. There is a motion to strike words, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Gosar. I move to table, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Comer. There is a motion----
Mr. Fallon. Motion to take down words. Sorry.
Chairman Comer. There is a motion to table. The motion is
not debatable as--OK. The motion is not debatable.
All those in favor of--OK. We are going to vote on the
motion to table by Mr. Gosar, to table Mr. Frost's appeal.
So, the motion is not debatable.
All in favor of Mr. Gosar's motion to table Mr. Frost's
motion, signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman Comer. All those opposed, say no.
[Chorus of noes.]
Chairman Comer. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have
it----
Mr. Frost. Mr. Chair, I ask for a recorded vote.
Chairman Comer [continuing]. And the motion is agreed to.
A recorded vote is ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
We have to do that right now. The clerk will call the roll.
The Clerk. Mr. Jordan?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Turner?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Gosar?
Mr. Gosar. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Gosar votes yes.
Ms. Foxx?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Grothman?
Mr. Grothman. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Grothman votes yes.
Mr. Cloud?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Palmer?
Mr. Palmer. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Palmer votes aye.
Mr. Higgins?
Mr. Higgins. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Higgins votes aye.
Mr. Sessions?
Mr. Sessions. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Sessions votes aye.
Mr. Biggs?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Ms. Mace?
Ms. Mace. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Mace votes aye.
Mr. Fallon?
Mr. Fallon. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Fallon votes aye.
Mr. Donalds?
Mr. Donalds. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Donalds votes yes.
Mr. Perry?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Timmons?
Mr. Timmons. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Timmons votes aye.
Mr. Burchett?
Mr. Burchett. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Burchett votes aye.
Ms. Greene?
Ms. Greene. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Greene votes aye.
Ms. Boebert?
Ms. Boebert. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Boebert votes aye.
Mrs. Luna?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Langworthy?
Mr. Langworthy. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Langworthy votes aye.
Mr. Burlison?
Mr. Burlison. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Burlison votes aye.
Mr. Crane?
Mr. Crane. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Crane votes aye.
Mr. Jack?
Mr. Jack. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Jack votes aye.
Mr. McGuire?
Mr. McGuire. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. McGuire votes aye.
Mr. Gill?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Connolly?
Mr. Connolly. Nay.
The Clerk. Mr. Connolly votes nay.
Ms. Norton?
Ms. Norton. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Norton votes no.
Mr. Lynch?
Mr. Lynch. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Lynch votes no.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi?
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Krishnamoorthi votes no.
Mr. Khanna?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Mfume?
Mr. Mfume. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Mfume votes no.
Ms. Brown?
Ms. Brown. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Brown votes no.
Ms. Stansbury?
Ms. Stansbury. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Stansbury votes no.
Mr. Garcia?
Mr. Garcia. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Garcia votes no.
Mr. Frost?
Mr. Frost. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Frost votes no.
Ms. Lee?
Ms. Lee. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Lee votes no.
Mr. Casar?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Ms. Crockett?
Ms. Crockett. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Crockett votes no.
Ms. Randall?
Ms. Randall. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Randall votes no.
Mr. Subramanyam?
Mr. Subramanyam. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Subramanyam votes no.
Ms. Ansari?
Ms. Ansari. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Ansari votes no.
Mr. Bell?
Mr. Bell. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Bell votes no.
Ms. Simon?
Ms. Simon. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Simon votes no.
Mr. Min?
Mr. Min. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Min votes no.
Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Comer. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman votes yes.
Chairman Comer. Has Mr. Cloud voted?
The Clerk. Mr. Cloud is not recorded.
Mr. Cloud. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Cloud votes yes.
Chairman Comer. Has Mr. Biggs been recorded?
The Clerk. Mr. Biggs is not recorded.
Mr. Biggs. I vote aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Biggs votes aye.
Chairman Comer. Has Mr. Turner been recorded?
The Clerk. Mr. Turner is not recorded.
Mr. Turner. I vote aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Turner votes aye.
Chairman Comer. Has Ms. Foxx--has Dr. Foxx been recorded?
The Clerk. Ms. Foxx is not recorded.
Ms. Foxx. Foxx votes aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Foxx votes aye.
Chairman Comer. Any other Member wish to be recorded?
Would the clerk report the tally?
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the ayes are 22, the
nays are 17.
Chairman Comer. The motion to table passes.
Now we will go back to debate. And I believe it was Ms.
Crockett, with 2 minutes and 57 seconds remaining.
Mr. Donalds. Mr. Chairman----
Ms. Crockett. Mr. Chair, I actually had more time than
that, but----
Mr. Donalds. Mr. Chairman, I have a quick motion.
Ms. Crockett [continuing]. I can finish up in the 2----
Mr. Donalds. Chairman, I have a quick--Mr. Chairman, I have
a quick----
Chairman Comer. We will give you 4 minutes.
Ms. Crockett. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Donalds. Mr. Chairman, I have a quick motion.
Chairman Comer. Oh, wait a minute.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Donalds.
Mr. Donalds. Mr. Chairman, I move that we move to structure
debate for 15 minutes on Ms. Crockett's amendment.
Voice. Second.
Chairman Comer. Motion and second to structure debate for
15 minutes.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman Comer. Any opposed, no.
[Chorus of noes.]
Chairman Comer. The motion passes to limit debate to 15
minutes.
Ms. Crockett. Mr. Chair, I would ask for a recorded vote.
Chairman Comer.
All right. The clerk will call the roll on Mr. Donalds'
motion to limit debate to 15 minutes.
Mr. Connolly. A parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman. Are we
in the middle of debating this motion?
Chairman Comer. I do not believe it is debatable.
Is it?
It is debatable. It is debatable?
Yes, the motion to debate has already passed. I apologize.
So, now we are on the vote to--the clerk is calling the vote--
--
Mr. Connolly. Right, the recorded vote.
Chairman Comer. The recorded vote----
Mr. Connolly. Thank you.
Chairman Comer [continuing]. On Mr. Donalds' motion to
limit debate to 15 minutes.
The Clerk. Mr. Jordan?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Turner?
Mr. Turner. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Turner votes aye.
Mr. Gosar?
Mr. Gosar. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Gosar votes aye.
Ms. Foxx?
Ms. Foxx. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Foxx votes aye.
Mr. Grothman?
Mr. Grothman. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Grothman votes aye.
Mr. Cloud?
Mr. Cloud. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Cloud votes aye.
Mr. Palmer?
Mr. Palmer. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Palmer votes aye.
Mr. Higgins?
Mr. Higgins. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Higgins votes aye.
Mr. Sessions?
Mr. Sessions. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Sessions votes aye.
Mr. Biggs?
Mr. Biggs. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Biggs votes aye.
Ms. Mace?
Ms. Mace. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Mace votes aye.
Mr. Fallon?
Mr. Fallon. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Fallon votes aye.
Mr. Donalds?
Mr. Donalds. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Donalds votes aye.
Mr. Perry?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Timmons?
Mr. Timmons. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Timmons votes aye.
Mr. Burchett?
Mr. Burchett. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Burchett votes aye.
Ms. Greene?
Ms. Greene. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Greene votes aye.
Ms. Boebert?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mrs. Luna?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Langworthy?
Mr. Langworthy. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Langworthy votes aye.
Mr. Burlison?
Mr. Burlison. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Burlison votes aye.
Mr. Crane?
Mr. Crane. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Crane votes aye.
Mr. Jack?
Mr. Jack. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Jack votes aye.
Mr. McGuire?
Mr. McGuire. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. McGuire votes aye.
Mr. Gill?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Connolly?
Mr. Connolly. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Connolly votes no.
Ms. Norton?
Ms. Norton. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Norton votes no.
Mr. Lynch?
Mr. Lynch. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Lynch votes no.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi?
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Krishnamoorthi votes no.
Mr. Khanna?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Mfume?
Mr. Mfume. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Mfume votes no.
Ms. Brown?
Ms. Brown. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Brown votes no.
Ms. Stansbury?
Ms. Stansbury. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Stansbury votes no.
Mr. Garcia?
Mr. Garcia. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Garcia votes no.
Mr. Frost?
Mr. Frost. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Frost votes no.
Ms. Lee?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Casar?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Ms. Crockett?
Ms. Crockett. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Crockett votes no.
Ms. Randall?
Ms. Randall. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Randall votes no.
Mr. Subramanyam?
Mr. Subramanyam. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Subramanyam votes no.
Ms. Ansari?
Ms. Ansari. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Ansari votes no.
Mr. Bell?
Mr. Bell. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Bell votes no.
Ms. Simon?
Ms. Simon. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Simon votes no.
Mr. Min?
Mr. Min. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Min votes no.
Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Comer. The Chairman votes yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman votes yes.
Chairman Comer. How has Ms. Boebert been recorded?
The Clerk. Ms. Boebert is not recorded.
Ms. Boebert. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Comer. Yes.
Ms. Boebert. I vote aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Boebert votes aye.
Chairman Comer. And has Mr. Perry been recorded?
The Clerk. Mr. Perry is not recorded.
Mr. Perry. Mr. Perry votes aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Perry votes aye.
Chairman Comer. Any other Members seek recognition to vote?
All right. The clerk will report the vote tally.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the ayes are 23, the
nays are 16.
Chairman Comer. All right. The motion passes for Mr.
Donalds to limit debate to 15 minutes. Ms. Crockett will get
her remaining 4 minutes, and then each side will have 7 1/2
additional minutes, if necessary.
So, the Chair recognizes Ms. Crockett for the remainder of
her 4 minutes that do not count toward the limit to debate.
Then from thereon, if there is further request for debate,
there will be 7 1/2 minutes each time.
The Chair recognizes Ms. Crockett for her remaining 4
minutes.
Ms. Crockett. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The final points that I was going to make is, while this
amendment has to do with civil rights, for whatever reason, the
colleague on the other side of the aisle decided to attack
Democrats and pretend as if we do not look out for women. And I
want to be clear that it is Democrats that were pushing for the
equal rights amendment, and I do not recall any Republicans
supporting us having the equal rights amendment.
I also want to make it clear that just because someone
fantasizes or wants to be dramatic about the idea of someone
could be a, quote/unquote, man in a locker room or in a
bathroom, I have yet to hear an actual testimony of someone
who, for whatever reason, has experienced this in real time.
But I can tell you some real numbers and some real facts,
because I do not like to live in fantasy when I am talking
about how I am going to govern for the American people. The
facts are, in my state alone, in the state of Texas, once they
decided that they were going to overturn the Roe decision,
26,000 women then ended up raped. 26,000 is what we had
reported, and that was only within about a year's time span.
And when they reported those rapes, none of them seemed to have
anything to do with trans folk, and I do not recall any
legislation to help out those women in Texas and beyond that
are actually dying, we are not projecting may die but are
actually dying or have died in southern states that have
decided that they wanted to go after our reproductive freedoms.
So, as a woman in this country, as a Texan, and as a Black
woman, who when we look at the numbers--and I believe in data
and science, and I know that that escapes a lot of people in
this chamber--but the numbers are clear that, specifically,
Black women have always struggled when it came down to the
maternal mortality rates in general.
The fact that somebody who looks like me, no matter how
much money they have--because I can remind you of a very
wealthy tennis star that almost lost her life while trying to
give birth--some things I honestly just do not think should be
partisan. And, frankly, I do believe in privacy, because
honestly, I do not want none of you all making decisions if I
ever end up pregnant and have to decide what it takes for me to
save my life. And I give the same opportunity for other women
in this country to make decisions as they see fit.
So, while we look at how we protect women completely
differently, I can tell you that at least in the 766,000
women--or 766,000 constituents that I represent, I have had
them come to me concerned about whether or not they could
survive childbirth. But I have not had a single person in my
district tell me that they were concerned that they may be
raped by a trans person. So, if there is an issue to solve in
this country based on facts, data, and statistics, I think that
we need to look at the type of healthcare that we are going to
advance for women in this country.
And with that, I will yield.
Chairman Comer. All right. The gentlelady yields back.
We are going to now go into the 15-minute cap. The Chair
recognizes Mr. Higgins from Louisiana for 3 1/2 minutes.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the 3 1/
2 minutes, especially given the fact it takes me about 30
minutes to deliver a 5-minute speech. So, I am sure the other
side is quite delighted that we are limited in time.
So, to my brothers and sisters on both sides of the aisle,
I am going to have the gavel of the Federal Law Enforcement
Subcommittee, and I would encourage you to participate, because
it is a subcommittee that is going to respond to the needs of
our time.
And, respectful of the good lady's comments regarding civil
rights, liberties, and freedoms, this is a page that we happen
to agree upon, ma'am. We have sworn a mutual oath. I swore oath
as a police officer, long ago as an Army veteran, long before
that as a military police officer, and that oath does not
expire. We have an obligation to address the weaponization of
our government against the American people that we have indeed
witnessed, and in nowhere is it more frightening than when the
weaponization of government is actually our Federal law
enforcement.
So, since November the 5, Mr. Chairman, your rank-and-file
Federal law enforcement professionals have been celebrating,
because they know that they--their beloved agency or department
has been corrupted from within at the highest levels by
oppressors of individual rights, liberties, and freedoms. But
your rank-and-file guys, they want to enforce the law, uphold
the Constitution, defend individual rights, liberties, and
freedoms.
Meanwhile, the elitist executives, the oppressors who have
rooted their agenda deep within the highest levels of Federal
law enforcement, they are packing their desk right now. But
those men and women will appear before my subcommittee, Mr.
Chairman. We will have our time with those men. And we will
pull--we are not just pulling the curtain back, we are ripping
it from the rod. We are going to reveal the oppressive nature
of Federal law enforcement at its highest levels that we have
experienced.
And I will yield the balance of my time to the Chairman. I
believe the Ranking Member would like some time.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member for however
much time he wants. You have got 7 1/2 minutes on your side.
Mr. Connolly. I thank the Chair.
Well, this is a circuitous route to an amendment that
would, I would remind my colleagues, reestablish the
Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. Why would we
do that? Because almost nothing matches the importance of
guaranteeing civil rights and civil liberties as a Member of
Congress than ensuring the expansion of and protection of
fundamental rights, including voting rights.
We have seen suppressive activity all over America, whether
it comes to women's reproductive rights or the right--the
fundamental right to cast a ballot and have it counted. Ballot
boxes have been suppressed. Voting times have been restricted.
This is America. And if this Committee can contribute anything
to America, it is the preservation of the sacred right of
franchise guaranteed in the 14th Amendment.
It took 100 years from the Civil War to the Civil Rights
Movement and the adoption of the Civil Rights Act and the
Voting Rights Act in 1964 and 1965, respectively. And by the
way, a higher percentage of Republicans voted for each than
Democrats at that time. We had bipartisan consensus. We
understood that we had been bankrupt in meeting that moral
obligation, and it was time to correct the record back in 1964
and 1965.
Having this subcommittee anchors us in that fundamental
commitment that ought to transcend our politics. I support the
amendment to reestablish this subcommittee as something very
fundamental to the function, role, and dedication of this
Committee, the Government Operations and Accountability
Committee [sic]. And I support the adoption of the amendment.
I reserve the balance of our time.
Chairman Comer. You all have 5 minutes and 20 seconds left.
We have 3 1/2. I am going to recognize the gentlelady from
Georgia, Ms. Greene.
Ms. Greene. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
When we talk about civil rights, we should talk about the
rights of over 63 million unborn people that were slaughtered
in the womb by what Democrats call reproductive rights. Your
reproductive rights are murder. And when you want to talk about
which form of murder do you want to use against an unborn,
innocent person who should have the right to life, we should go
into all of those nasty, disgusting methods. Whether these
innocent people are ripped limb from limb, and they are washed
in saline and murdered in the womb, or are their heads crushed
before they are pulled out of their mother's cervix and womb;
let us talk about those rights.
And let us talk about rape. Yes, let us talk about it. A
former student convicted of sexually assaulting two girls
released by Loudoun County judge. You know, you were talking
about stats and data, there is information if you just take a
minute to go look it up on your cell phone that you are looking
at right now. You can look up a biological male student that
was mentally ill and dressed up like a girl and went in the
girl's high school bathroom and sexually assaulted two women,
two young women in their school. Yes, it happens all the time.
And when you talk about civil rights, let us talk about
women's rights in sports. A male swimmer competed on the men's
team for 3 years before winning the women's NCAA Division One
championship in the 500-yard freestyle event. This same man was
nominated NCAA Woman of the Year. That is a big violation of
women's rights.
After playing on a college men's team 30 years prior, a 52-
year-old, 6-foot-6 man joined a women's junior college
basketball team and destroyed them on the court. Oh, wow, I
thought you cared about rights, civil rights, women's rights.
A male runner was named women's athlete of the week after
competing in an NCAA Division One women's cross country meet.
One male athlete won first place in the women's mile race at an
NCAA Division One conference championship, and a 17-year-old
female volleyball player was left partially paralyzed with
brain damage after a ball was spiked at her by her biological
male opponent. The team rightfully forfeited the remainder of
the games played against that school out of safety concerns.
Why don't you care about these women's rights? If you want
to preach about civil rights, civil liberties, and protecting
people's rights, you should be standing up and protecting women
and girls' rights in sports, and keep your biological men who
are mentally insane and have sexually perversive ideas,
thoughts, and fantasies out of our bathrooms, out of our
sports, out of our women's spaces.
And if you want to continue to be the party that stands up
for that absolute insane bullshit, we will keep beating you
election after election after election. You want to know why?
Because you all are for they/them, and we are for the American
people. And we actually do stand up for people's rights. We
stand up for the unborn. We stand up for women and children.
And we will protect them from the deranged lunatics that you
all call women.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The gentlelady yields back.
That is going to wrap up our time. You all have, what did I
say, 4 1/2 minutes? Is that what--does anyone seek recognition,
or are we going to go straight to votes?
All right. The motion now is on the Crockett amendment.
All those in favor of Ms. Crockett's amendment, signify by
saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman Comer. All those opposed, signify by saying no.
[Chorus of noes.]
Chairman Comer. In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have
it. The amendment is not agreed to.
Ms. Crockett. Mr. Chair?
Chairman Comer. Ms. Crockett.
Ms. Crockett. I would ask for a recorded vote.
Chairman Comer. A recorded vote is ordered. As previously
announced, further proceedings on the question will be
postponed.
So, pursuant to the previous order, the Committee stands in
recess for 10 minutes while we prepare the electronic voting
system. Good news, we think we have got it fixed. So, 10
minutes. Do not run off very far. Ten minutes, we are coming
back, and we are going to vote electronically. It should be
quick. So, the Committee stands in recess.
[Recess.]
Chairman Comer. The Committee comes back to order.
We are going to have a test vote first. If everyone will
make a vote, whether it is yes or no, it does not matter, just
make a vote and make sure your button works. It is looking
good, I think. Make sure everybody's button works. Make sure
the voting card is on. This is just a test vote just to make
sure the system works.
The Committee will now resume consideration of the
Committee Rules. And the Ranking Member and I have discussed
and have an agreement, if somebody's electric voting system
does not work, we are just going to try to get through this
hearing and do a thumbs up or a thumbs down and you will be
recorded as voting yes or no until we get all these kinks
worked out.
So, the question is now on the amendment offered by Mr.
Connolly from Virginia. Members will record their votes using
the electronic voting system.
The clerk will now open the vote on the amendment to the
Rules.
[Voting].
Chairman Comer. Have all Members been recorded who wish to
be recorded?
Does any Member wish to change the vote?
The clerk will close the vote and report the vote total.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the ayes are 16, the
nays are 24.
Chairman Comer. The noes have it, and the Connolly
amendment is not agreed to.
The Committee will resume consid---OK. The question is now
on the amendment offered by Mr. Mfume from Maryland. Members
will record your votes using the electronic voting system.
The clerk will now open the vote on the amendment to the
Rules.
[Voting.]
Chairman Comer. Have all Members been recorded who wish to
be recorded?
Does any Member wish to change their vote?
Any other Members wish to vote?
Seeing none, the clerk will close the vote, report the vote
total.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the ayes are 16, the
nays are 25.
Chairman Comer. The nays have it, and the Mfume amendment
is not agreed to.
The question is now on the amendment offered by Ms.
Stansbury from New Mexico. Members will record their vote using
the electronic voting system.
The clerk will now open the vote on the Stansbury
amendment.
[Voting.]
Chairman Comer. Have all Members been recorded who wish to
be recorded?
Does any Member wish to change their vote?
The clerk will close the vote, report the vote total.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the ayes are 16, the
nays are 25.
Chairman Comer. The noes have it, and the Stansbury
amendment is not agreed to.
The question is now on the amendment offered by Mr. Garcia
from California. Members will record their votes using the
electronic voting system.
The clerk will now open the vote on the Garcia amendment.
[Voting.]
Chairman Comer. Have all Members been recorded who wish to
be recorded?
Not yet. OK.
Does any Member wish to change their vote?
The clerk will close the vote, and report the vote total.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the ayes are 16, the
nays are 25.
Chairman Comer. The noes have it, and the Garcia amendment
is not agreed to.
The question is now on the amendment offered by Ms.
Crockett from Texas. Members will record their votes using the
electronic voting system.
The clerk will now open the vote on the Crockett amendment.
[Voting.]
Have all Members been recorded who wish to be recorded?
Does any Member wish to change their vote?
The clerk will close the vote and report the vote total.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the ayes are 16, the
nays are 25.
Chairman Comer. The noes have it, and the Crockett
amendment is not agreed to.
The question is now on adopting the proposed Rules as the
Rules of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform for
the 119th Congress. Members will record their votes using the
electronic voting system.
The clerk will now open the vote on adopting the Committee
Rules.
[Voting.]
Have all Members been recorded who wish to be recorded?
Does any Member wish to change their vote?
The clerk will close the vote and report the vote total.
And leave your voting devices at your desk, please.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the ayes are 25, the
nays are 16.
Chairman Comer. The ayes have it, and the bill is ordered
favorably reported.
Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the
table.
Pursuant to House Rules, the Rules adopted by the Committee
on Oversight and Accountability for the 119th Congress will be
published and in the congressional Record and made available to
all Members and the public on the Committee's website.
Without objection, the staff is authorized to make
necessary technical and conforming changes to reflect the
action of the Committee in adopting the Rules.
Without objection, so ordered.
If there is no further business before the Committee,
without objection, the Committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:23 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[all]