[House Prints 119-CP]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
119th Congress}
1st Session } COMMITTEE PRINT
======================================================================
FULL COMMITTEE BUSINESS MEETING:
AUTHORIZATION AND OVERSIGHT PLAN
=======================================================================
FOR THE
COMMITTEE ON
OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 25, 2025
__________
Serial No. CP:119-3
__________
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
59-351 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 Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts
Brian Jack, Georgia Rashida Tlaib, Michigan
John McGuire, Virginia
Brandon Gill, Texas
------
Mark Marin, Staff Director
James Rust, Chief Counsel for Oversight
Mitch Benzine, General Counsel
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
Meeting held on February 25, 2025................................ 1
INDEX OF DOCUMENTS
----------
* No documents were entered into the record for this meeting.
FULL COMMITTEE BUSINESS MEETING:
AUTHORIZATION AND OVERSIGHT PLAN
----------
Tuesday, February 25, 2025
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 12:50 p.m., in
HVC-210, Capitol Visitor Center, Hon. James Comer [Chairman of
the Committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Comer, Jordan, Gosar, Grothman,
Cloud, Palmer, Higgins, Sessions, Biggs, Mace, Fallon, Perry,
Timmons, Burchett, Greene, Boebert, Burlison, Crane, Jack,
McGuire, Gill, Connolly, Norton, Lynch, Krishnamoorthi, Khanna,
Mfume, Brown, Stansbury, Garcia, Frost, Lee, Casar, Crockett,
Randall, Subramanyam, Ansari, Bell, Simon, Min, Pressley, and
Tlaib.
Chairman Comer. The Committee will please come to order. A
quorum is present.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a
recess at any time.
Pursuant to Committee Rule 5(b) and House Rule XI, Clause
2, 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 ayes and nays are
ordered.
Now pursuant to notice, I call up the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform's Authorization and Oversight
Plan for the 119th Congress. The clerk will report the plan
which has been distributed in advance.
The Clerk. The Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform's Authorization Oversight Plan for the 119th Congress.
Chairman Comer. I ask unanimous consent that the plan be
considered as read and open for amendment at any point.
Without objection, so ordered.
The Chair recognizes himself to offer an amendment in the
nature of a substitute. The clerk will please report the
amendment.
The Clerk. An amendment in the nature of a substitute to
the Committee's Authorization and Oversight Plan, as offered by
Mr. Comer of Kentucky.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read, and the substitute will be considered as
original text for the purposes of further amendment.
I now recognize myself for 5 minutes for a statement on the
ANS.
Good afternoon. We are here today to approve the
Committee's Authorization and Oversight Plan. The Rules require
us to mark up and submit this plan at the beginning of each new
Congress. Last Congress, on February 28, 2023, the Committee's
Oversight Plan was adopted by voice vote after the Democrats
worked with me to finalize the plan. In fact, I accepted some
suggestions from the previous Ranking Member last Congress.
Because of this and Mr. Connolly's past efforts to forge
bipartisan consensus, I was hopeful that our Oversight plan for
the next 2 years would once again be a bipartisan work product
this Congress. In an effort to facilitate a productive
conversation, we shared a draft of the plan with the Democrats
1 week ago. We also offered to discuss any questions or
legitimate additions the Democrats had. Our hope was that
Ranking Member would meet us at the table, but we did not hear
anything back.
Then this week, we offered to add in their Minority Views
to the plan. This offer would allow the Ranking Member to have
his voice heard and contribute to the plan, but unfortunately
they declined. Instead of working together, the Democrats
informed us that they have amendments to the plan but are
refusing to discuss them with me in advance. They kept any
changes they wanted a secret.
Democrats have rejected every opportunity I offered to
contribute to the Oversight plan, so how am I supposed to
incorporate secret opinions that they refuse to share? You may
be asking yourself why would the Democrats do that? Democrats
say they want to participate in oversight, but if that were
true, why would they decline multiple opportunities to actually
engage in the plan for that oversight? Because they do not want
to participate. They want to stonewall and engage in theater.
In fact, they say they were sticking to their original plan
today.
So, whatever you all hear from the Minority, just know it
was their plan all along. It was their plan to distract from
the Committee's mission. It was their plan to delay a hearing
on rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse. It was their plan to
obstruct the operations of this Committee. The Minority made
this clear when they previously stated they had zero interest
in working with me and Republicans on this Committee to help
them with anything as it relates to DOGE. No interest in
working together to root out waste, fraud, and abuse. Instead
of legislating and conducting actual oversight, the Democrats
are more interested in disruption and spectacle. Their actions
speak louder than their empty words. They want to pretend that
they are trying to fight to put their words in the Oversight
Plan, but I already gave them two opportunities to work with me
to do that, and they rejected both of those gestures.
I would like to list a range of important topics that the
Democrats have declined to participate in working together on
in the Authorization Oversight Plan that I have submitted for
the 119th Congress. This year's plan includes sections for
lapsed and expiring authorizations; preventing waste, fraud,
abuse, and mismanagement in Federal programs; the Federal
workforce; Federal regulations; the Government Accountability
Office; Inspectors General; GSA real property disposal;
whistleblower protection; Federal financial management;
government contracting; grant reform; cybersecurity and data
privacy; information technology and management; open government
and transparency; the United States Postal Service; oversight
of the District of Columbia; National Archives and Federal
records; Office of Government Ethics; and the Federal disaster
response and recovery. Those are a lot of important topics that
Democrats apparently do not consider worth their time. They
would rather hear themselves talk about President Trump and the
evil Elon Musk than work together on actual oversight that the
American people are demanding.
And newsflash to the Democrats: according to a new poll
released this week, the American people overwhelmingly support
the work President Trump and DOGE are doing. And the hypocrisy
is that the longer they pontificate today, the longer they
delay the start of an important hearing with the Government
Accountability Office on Federal Government programs at a high
risk of fraud, waste, abuse, and improper payments. So, I would
urge my friend, the Ranking Member, to ask his Democrat
colleagues to stop with the spectacle and pretense and actually
come to the table to work on oversight. I urge my colleagues to
vote yes on this comprehensive plan for oversight.
With that, I yield to Ranking Member Connolly for his
opening statement.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I must say, it
is a bit much being lectured about cooperation from the
Republican Majority that chased every rabbit hole on
impeachment of Joe Biden, and suddenly we are the ones who are
obsessed with the President of the United States.
Today, we are considering the Committee's Authorization and
Oversight Plan for the 119th Congress. At its core, this
document should serve as a road map for the Committee's work,
an articulation of our constitutional responsibilities, and a
demonstration of our unwavering commitment to accountability,
transparency, and good governance. But what has been presented
by the Chairman on behalf of the Republican Majority is not a
serious or comprehensive plan for congressional oversight.
Rather, it is Exhibit A of the Majority's unilateral retreat
from Article I of the Constitution and their duty to conduct
meaningful oversight of the executive branch, particularly when
that executive branch is led by a President of their own party.
The sins of omission in this plan are damning.
It is as if this Committee, which should serve as a proud
sentinel of accountability, has chosen to don blinders,
shielding itself from the very real abuses of power we have
witnessed during the first month alone of this Administration.
That is why I intend to offer an amendment in the nature of a
substitute which would more clearly identify the urgent
oversight priorities that ought to be before this Committee. My
amendment would restore the Committee's proper role as a
watchdog, not a lapdog.
It would ensure the Committee investigates urgent matters
that sit at the heart of its legislative and oversight
jurisdiction, issues the Majority's plan ignores, conveniently.
Among the many crises demanding our attention, we must examine
President Trump's infamous Friday night massacre of 17
Inspectors General across 18 agencies and departments, a
blatant effort to purge the Federal Government of its
independent overseers and lower a veil of darkness to conceal
potential waste and corruption sure to follow. This Committee
must reinvestigate the Trump Administration's purge of
nonpartisan civil servants, which will have catastrophic
results for the American people who rely on government every
day for services and benefits all across this country.
The Administration is engaged in a rapid and sweeping
effort to purge the Federal workforce through mass terminations
of new or recently transferred employees, scam resignation
offers, efforts to replace career professionals with partisan
loyalists, attempts to eliminate entire agencies without
congressional approval, and general threats of mass firings
based on arbitrary decrees from Elon Musk. The Administration's
concerted attacks on Federal employees risk grinding the
essential functions of our government to a halt, and when they
do, it is going to be the American people who suffer. The most
glaring example, of which the Republican Majority has abandoned
Article I duties of Congress, is the Administration's
unconstitutional impoundment of congressionally appropriated
funds.
Whether the attempted elimination of entire agencies
established in statute, such as USAID and the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau, or the Administration's disastrous
Federal funding freeze, the Administration's impoundment
broadside against congressional authority cannot be ignored by
this Committee and ought to be part of our work plan. Congress,
not the executive branch, has the constitutional power of the
purse. That has been reaffirmed by the GAO, the Department of
Justice, the Supreme Court, time and time again.
At the center of many of these crises that scream out for
Congressional oversight sits Elon Musk, the world's richest
man, who gave President Trump and congressional Republicans
nearly $300 million in campaign donations last year. In return,
Mr. Musk received the reins of exactly one United States
Federal Government. Mr. Musk and the so-called DOGE have since
gone on a rampage. They have inflicted their brand of cruel,
and I mean cruel, and arbitrary chaos on our government by
targeting agencies for elimination with outright lies,
infiltrating sensitive Federal payment and taxpayer data
systems, and bypassing congressional authority to promote Mr.
Musk's financial and political interests. Mr. Musk and DOGE
have shielded themselves from critical oversight mechanisms,
silenced career public servants who dare to question their
actions, and hastily developed false savings metrics to justify
their dubious actions. Their reckless and self-serving agenda
has left agencies in disarray, eroded public trust, and placed
essential government functions at risk, all under the guise of
so-called efficiency.
President Trump and Mr. Musk do not have a mandate to do
what they are doing. President Trump did not even win a
majority of the popular vote, much less a mandate, and Mr. Musk
is an unelected billionaire. The approval ratings are falling
faster than the stock market for what he is up to. And my
Republican colleagues are getting an earful back home from
constituents who are fed up with the wrecking ball approach
that is destroying their government. If my colleagues think it
is bad now, just wait until the American people start to hear
what Republicans are willing to cut in order to deliver tax
cuts for billionaires.
The Majority may have no interest in oversight of the
executive branch, but the American people do. They expect this
Committee to do its job. They expect us to provide a check on
executive overreach, to expose corruption and self-dealing
wherever we find it, to safeguard the institutions that uphold
our democracy, and, above all, bring transparency and
accountability to this government. If the Majority continues to
abdicate its duty, that is their choice, but let the record
reflect today that we had an opportunity to be responsive to an
American public calling out for more, not less, accountability.
And Oversight Democrats are answering that call.
In the past month, we have pursued nearly 2 dozen
investigations of the Administration, made more than 100
related requests for information and documents, and exposed the
systemic abuses, conflicts of interest, and unlawful actions
that have become, unfortunately, a hallmark of this
Administration. Our work has shed light in the Administration's
attempt to silence independent oversight and conceal critical
public records and erode safeguards that protect taxpayer
dollars. And we are just getting started.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to moving my
amendment at the appropriate time.
Chairman Comer. Do any other Members wish to be heard? The
Chair recognizes Mr. Min. Go ahead. You are recognized.
Mr. Min. One minute? For 1 minute or 5 minutes? Five
minutes. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Ranking Member Connolly. I
appreciate the opportunity to speak on the Committee's
Authorization and Oversight Plan. Investigation and oversight,
of course, are fundamental responsibilities of Congress, and as
the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, we should be
exercising these powers to fulfill our constitutional duties as
a check on the consolidation of executive power. Ensuring good
government that works on behalf of all Americans is not a
partisan issue. However, at this time, as the Ranking Member
alluded to, we are living through a constitutional crisis, and
this committee must lead right now.
We need to meet this unprecedented moment. Anything else is
to cede the legislative branch's constitutional duty and to
deny the American people the kind of oversight that they
deserve and are demanding. And, yes, we are all hearing it in
our districts. So, I must say that I am extremely disappointed
that this proposed Administration and Oversight [sic] plan
completely ignores the elephant in the room: the gross abuses
of power and flagrant disregard for the Constitution and the
rule of law that Donald Trump and Elon Musk are engaging in.
Within days of taking office, President Trump fired nearly
a quarter of Inspector Generals across the Federal Government.
He has tried to fire FBI agents and DOJ staff that he views as
insufficiently loyal to him. And this weekend, he fired not
only a number of top generals at the Pentagon, which made the
news, but also the judge advocate generals at each of the major
military arms. Let us be clear: these are the people and
institutions that are actually supposed to be monitoring waste,
fraud, abuse, and mismanagement. They are the watchmen at the
front lines, and Donald Trump has fired them all. And it is,
frankly, outrageous that this Committee has refused to
investigate this or to address it in our Administration and
Oversight Plan [sic].
President Trump, of course, also issued the DOGE executive
order, which authorizes the creation of the Department of
Government Efficiency, which, to be clear, is not a department.
That would require congressional action and also Senate
confirmation, but is a temporary organization limited by law to
a specific study or project, in this case, as the White House
order made clear, data modernization. But what DOGE has indeed
done has gone far beyond a temporary data modernization
project. Under the leadership of Elon Musk, DOGE has asserted
sweeping powers to undo congressionally enacted laws and to
redirect congressionally mandated appropriations, powers which
are not only clearly illegal for a temporary special government
employee, which is how Musk has been categorized to exert, but
which would also be illegal if the President tried to do this.
The Constitution is clear. Congress, and only Congress, has
the power to make laws and appropriate money. This is so simple
that it is taught in our elementary schools. I know this
because I have kids who are 14, 12, and 9. They have all
learned this. All of us here swore an oath to support and
defend the Constitution of the United States, an oath that, by
the way, Elon Musk has not taken. But too many members of this
Congress have chosen to ignore Donald Trump and Elon Musk's
blatantly unconstitutional attacks on our congressional powers.
And I want to make clear, this is not a partisan issue.
When Musk steals our congressional appropriations authority,
when he usurps our congressional legislative authority, it
affects Democrats and Repubs together because it is your power
on the other side of the aisle that is also being taken away.
And by being silent on this, you are setting the precedent that
in any future administration, a special government employee can
rewrite congressionally enacted laws and redirect
congressionally appropriated funding. That is why I introduced
the Bolstering American Democracy and Demanding Oversight in
Government Ethics or BAD DOGE Act because DOGE is violating
Federal laws and the Constitution every single day.
Now let us also talk about the particular problems posed by
Elon Musk. He is the world's richest and most ethically
conflicted person. He reportedly failed a high-level security
clearance because of his rampant drug use and close ties to
Russian and Chinese leaders. Musk has taken control of our
Federal payment systems, and he has acquired access to the
sensitive personal information of anyone who has ever received
a check from the Federal Government, and now he is trying to
gain access to our tax returns. In so doing, he is violating
dozens of laws around privacy and ethics.
At the same time, he appears to be using DOGE for his own
personal interests to settle scores against agencies like the
FAA and the California Coastal Commission, which prevented him
from launching SpaceX rockets indiscriminately due to concerns
around safety and environmental impact; or USAID, which was
reportedly investigating his interference with Starlink
terminals used by Ukraine; or to advance his business
interests, such as by canceling contracts with his rivals, like
the $6.6 billion federally guaranteed loan to Rivian that was
canceled. And let us not forget that he is keeping all of his
contracts and getting new ones, like the $400 million contract
for armored cyber trucks.
Now, Elon Musk is out of control. What he is proposing is
out of control. He is violating a number of laws. He is
ethically conflicted, and the American people need transparency
and answers, and we need to be looking into this. I
respectfully yield back.
Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Mr. Grothman from
Wisconsin.
Mr. Grothman. Just a comment because I have heard similar
comments from other members of your party and, of course, I
love working with you guys.
When Elon Musk or DOGE or the President look into some of
the Federal employees around here, and we all know Federal
employees around here because maybe we have relatives, we have
friends, whatnot, who work in the government. We hear some
scare stories about people doing--and there are many, many
hardworking Federal employees, I am glad we have good Federal
employees--but we hear anecdotal evidence of people doing very
little.
If President Trump is the head of the executive branch and
he discovers some employees doing very little, your position is
apparently that we must keep these people going through the
next budget, or what have you, and keep doing very little. It
is obvious to me that both President Trump and the American
public, upon discovering people who are doing very little work,
should ask that those employees be terminated. It is not
something he does joyfully, but that is what you do if you are
running the executive branch.
And it is ridiculous that we have to have President Trump
attacked and the Republican Party attacked when an effort is
made to find employees who are doing very little. I am glad
that President Trump has assigned people to look into this. And
there are critical things you can say about the Republicans,
but I wish you would focus on that rather than trying to claim
that every Federal employee here in this town is necessary.
Mr. Frost. Would you yield for a question?
Mr. Grothman. Sure. I would love to.
Mr. Frost. Well, because you are bringing up that it should
be OK and you see no problem with the Trump Administration and
with DOGE doing this mass firing because ``people are doing
very little.'' How are they figuring out who is doing very
little? I am just curious.
Mr. Grothman. Well, you will have to ask them, right?
Mr. Frost. Oh, I will have to ask them? So, you are OK with
being behind something that is happening, the mass firing of
people, firing of veterans?
Chairman Comer. It is Congressman Grothman's time.
Mr. Grothman. The President is in charge of the executive
branch. I would assume at any given time, people are being
hired and being fired, probably more than have been the last 50
years around here, but they are. They are not going to report
to Congress every time they feel a position is unnecessary.
Mr. Gosar. Chair?
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields his time to Mr. Gosar.
Mr. Gosar. You know, Glenn, I would like to ask you--this
is not novel, having somebody like this. Wasn't Ezekiel Emanuel
part of Obamacare? And I do not know what is more personal,
personal financial or personal----
Mr. Grothman. All Presidents have unconfirmed advisers.
Mr. Gosar. Thank you.
Mr. Grothman. That is not a new thing either.
Mr. Min. Would the gentleman yield?
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back, right?
Mr. Min. Is it your position that the President can delete
any agency?
Chairman Comer. Yes, the gentleman, he yielded his time
back. The Chair recognizes Mr. Krishnamoorthi from Illinois.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just to very
briefly address Mr. Grothman. I take you as being serious about
wanting to improve efficiency in government and so forth. I
think the issue is when you fire or give a pink slip to 200,000
probationary workers at one time, regardless of their
efficiency. I think that is where there is a serious concern
that is raised. But I want to just address one other issue, Mr.
Comer, and that is the U.S. Postal Service.
On December 14, 2024, the Washington Post reported that the
Trump Administration was considering, at that time, a move to
privatize the Postal Service and push thousands of Federal
service employees out of their jobs in favor of a broad
privatization of the Agency's essential services. Then, just
last week, on February 20, the Washington Post stated that the
Administration is preparing to ``dissolve the leadership of the
USPS and absorb the independent mail agency into his
Administration,'' as you know, the Commerce Department,
potentially throwing trillions of dollars of e-commerce
transactions into turmoil. These reports are beyond troubling,
and I respectfully request that you have a hearing again on the
USPS. You had a very good hearing the other day, where we were
able to grill Mr. DeJoy, and I learned a lot. I think a lot of
our Members on both sides learned a lot. I think we need to
have a hearing on this particular issue.
As you know, the USPS is the foundation of our $1.92
trillion mailing industry, led courageously by numerous
veterans, letter carriers, who deliver 44 percent of the
world's mail. More importantly, no private sector entity
provides universal service across the Nation. And without these
letter carriers and others, more than 51.5 million households
and businesses, especially in rural communities, Mr. Chairman,
would have no guaranteed delivery.
As a member of this panel tasked with oversight of the
Federal Government's activities, including the USPS, I believe
it is essential, it is imperative that we have this hearing,
sir. I know that you and the Ranking Member care deeply about
the USPS, and what the Administration is proposing to do with
the USPS, in my opinion, is illegal. It is against the
framework of the USPS and we need to look into it. I yield
back.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. Before I
recognize Ms. Greene from Georgia, I will just respond. When we
see a proposal or something, we will have something, either a
briefing or a committee hearing or subcommittee hearing or
something. You mentioned potentially throwing it into turmoil.
Some would argue the Postal Service is already in turmoil right
now with the delays in certain mail sorting facilities. So, I
agree with what you said. I know you are sincere, and I think
Ranking Member Connolly and I have demonstrated we want to
support the Postal Service. And so, when we find out more, we
will do something immediately, have a briefing or a
subcommittee hearing or a full committee hearing. OK. The Chair
recognizes Ms. Greene from Georgia.
Ms. Greene. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Democrat colleagues
across the aisle are complaining and pitching tantrums over
Elon Musk and his DOGE team's cutting waste, fraud, and abuse
from the executive branch and the Federal Government. Claiming
this is unconstitutional is an outright lie. Article II of the
Constitution clearly states that the executive power shall be
vested in a President of the United States of America.
President Trump exercised that power by appointing Mr. Elon
Musk as a special government employee. The President, via
executive order, created the U.S. DOGE Service within the
former U.S. Digital Service to implement the President's DOGE
agenda by modernizing Federal technology and software to
maximize governmental efficiency and productivity. DOGE has
been brought in exactly like the U.S. Digital Service during
President Obama's tenure. This is not unconstitutional.
Seventy-two percent of Americans--this is on both sides of
the aisles, you guys, these are people in your district, these
are people in my district--agree that we need to cut the
ridiculous amount of waste, fraud, and abuse because Americans,
all of us together, are $36 trillion in debt. Thirty-six
trillion dollars in debt is what should be unconstitutional,
not doing everything we can to save the American people their
hard-earned tax dollars.
You can protest all you want outside of departments of this
government. You can protest all you want, but the American
people disagree with you. You are protecting the bureaucracy.
The bureaucracy is not a business. Those are not real jobs
producing Federal revenue. By the way, they are consuming
taxpayer dollars. Those jobs are paid for by the American tax
people who work real jobs, earn real income, pay Federal taxes,
and then pay these Federal employees. Federal employees do not
deserve their jobs. Federal employees do not deserve their
paychecks, and these are jobs that can be fired at will.
But you want to know why? The American people cannot pay
for it anymore. We cannot afford it. Thirty-six billion dollars
in debt. If you want to make that your platform, your hill to
die on, go ahead because 72 percent of Americans agree with
DOGE, agree with cutting the waste, fraud, and abuse, and agree
with what this Committee is supposed to be about: oversight.
So, continue your temper tantrums. I would love to win the
midterms. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair
recognizes Mr. Frost from Florida.
Mr. Frost. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate it. In the
mission statement that you have put out for this Committee, it
says it is to ensure that the economy, efficiency,
effectiveness, and accountability of the Federal Government,
which I think we all agree on. We all want to combat waste,
fraud, and abuse. But the thing is that you all are all looking
in the wrong places. You want to talk about making cuts to
things like Medicaid, which, by the way, over 35 percent of all
the children in this country are covered under Medicaid. Over
100,000 people in my district are covered under Medicaid.
People like the [words stricken] Trump and president Musk are
openly using their public offices to enrich themselves to the
tune of billions of dollars.
So, if we want to look at waste, fraud, and abuse, which I
am down to do, why is there complete silence on the other side
of the aisle about looking at the complete grifter that is the
President of the United States and the richest man on the
earth, which is looking into things like Social Security and
different things like that?
Mr. Higgins. Mr. Chairman, personalities and----
Mr. Frost. Why don't we investigate the real corruption?
Mr. Higgins. Point of order.
Chairman Comer. Hold up. Hold up.
Mr. Higgins. Point of order.
Mr. Frost. I reclaim my time. I reclaim my time.
Mr. Higgins. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Comer. Hold up. Point of order.
Mr. Higgins. Mr. Chairman, point of order.
[Cross-talking.]
Chairman Comer. Hold on. Hold up. Hold up. There was a
point of order when you said something. Who asked for it?
Mr. Higgins. Mr. Higgins.
Chairman Comer. Mr. Higgins.
Mr. Higgins. He referred to the President as a [words
stricken] and Elon Musk as the President. Mr. Ranking Member,
put some reins on that.
Mr. Frost. I can refer to Elon Musk as the president.
Mr. Connolly. I do not believe the First Amendment has been
suspended in this Committee yet.
Mr. Frost. Yes. You all were fine when your other Members
calling for a fight a few weeks ago.
Chairman Comer. All right. Suspend for a second.
Let me speak to the parliamentarian.
[Pause.]
Mr. Frost. Would anyone on our side make a meme coin----
Chairman Comer. Mr. Frost? Mr. Frost? Mr. Frost?
Mr. Frost [continuing]. Right after being elected President
of the United States?
Chairman Comer. Mr. Frost, before we proceed on all of
this, would you like to----
Ms. Mace. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Comer. Hold on. I am the Chairman. I recognized
Mr. Frost, and we will recognize you. Would you like to revise
your remark with respect to improperly identifying the
President of the United States?
Mr. Frost. I will say president Musk and grifter-in-chief
Trump----
Chairman Comer. All right.
Ms. Mace. Mr. Chairman, point of order. If I wanted to
challenge someone to a fight, they would know it. Thank you.
Mr. Frost. There is an extra fundraising video for her.
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman, I do not believe
that Mr. Musk is protected by the Rules of the House or the
Committee.
Chairman Comer. We are looking at the disparaging the
President now.
Mr. Connolly. But I do not believe Mr. Frost disparaged the
President. I believe he disparaged Mr. Musk.
Chairman Comer. Well, he did disparage the President when
he called him the----
Ms. Stansbury. Mr. Chairman, if Mr. Musk actually came
here, then maybe the rules of the Committee would apply to him.
Mr. Frost. All right.
Mr. Connolly. I heard no disparagement.
Mr. Frost. I will say something else.
Chairman Comer. We will save a lot of time.
Mr. Frost. I will say something else.
Chairman Comer. OK. All right. We are going to let--the
Chair recognizes Mr. Frost. You still have 3:49. You are going
to maybe revise the disparaging comment about the President
because that is supposed to be our decorum here.
Mr. Frost. It is supposed to be. President Musk and the
President of the United States, Donald Trump, who has engaged
in grifting of the American people, often use their public
offices to enrich themselves. Someone on the other side was
just asking how would you feel if you called someone else from
the----
Ms. Boebert. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Comer. Hold off. Hold off. Mr. Frost, hold up.
There is a pending motion for disparaging the President. So,
the motion was words taken down about disparaging the
President, and the Chair finds the words from the gentleman
from Florida are not parliamentary because they constitute
personalities toward the President, which if you sit on the
House Floor, that is always uttered by the presiding officer on
the House Floor. You cannot disparage the President of the
United States.
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Chairman, would you please read back to
us the words that were disparaging because I did not hear them.
Chairman Comer. If you are willing to request unanimous
consent to withdraw the disparaging comments about President
Trump--I guess, you can disparage Elon Musk if you want.
Mr. Frost. I will withdraw [words stricken] and----
Mr. Biggs. You said President Musk and President Trump were
grifting.
Mr. Frost. I will say the President is grifting because you
spent the last 2 years saying President Biden was corrupt.
Chairman Comer. All right.
Ms. Boebert. Take down his words.
Mr. Frost. I can say that Trump is grifting. What I will
withdraw is calling him ``[words stricken].'' That is what I
will withdraw.
Chairman Comer. The Chair sustains the point of order, and
the words in question are ordered stricken from the transcript
of this proceeding. So, the Member is barred from further
participation.
Mr. Connolly. I challenge the ruling of the Chair.
Chairman Comer. Challenge the ruling of the Chair, all
right.
Mr. Gosar. I move to table.
Chairman Comer. OK. We have a motion to challenge ruling of
the Chair, and then Mr. Gosar made a motion to table Connolly's
motion.
Ms. Boebert. Second.
Chairman Comer. So, there is a motion and second to table
Mr. Connolly's motion. The motion is not debatable. As many as
are in favor of tabling, 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 ayes have
it.
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a recorded vote.
Chairman Comer. A recorded vote is ordered. The clerk will
call the roll.
The Clerk. Mr. Jordan?
Mr. Jordan. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Jordan votes yes.
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?
Mr. Cloud. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Cloud votes yes.
Mr. Palmer?
Mr. Palmer. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Palmer votes aye.
Mr. Higgins?
Mr. Higgins. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Higgins votes yes.
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?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Perry?
Mr. Perry. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Perry votes aye.
Mr. Timmons?
Mr. Timmons. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Timmons votes aye.
Mr. Burchett?
[No response.]
The Clerk. 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?
[No response.]
The Clerk. 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. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. McGuire votes yes.
Mr. Gill?
Mr. Gill. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Gill votes aye.
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?
Mr. Khanna. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Khanna votes no.
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. Absolutely not.
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. Insulting people's appearance as well as
trying to fight them is not a problem?
Mr. Fallon. Point of order. It is a ``yes'' or ``no.''
Ms. Crockett. But we are so set----
Mr. Fallon. Point of order.
Chairman Comer. Order. Order. Order.
Ms. Crockett. We are so set----
Ms. Boebert. Order, order, order.
Chairman Comer. Skip her. Skip her. Skip her. Go to the
next one. Go to the next one.
The Clerk. Ms. Randall?
Ms. Randall. No.
Chairman Comer. Go to the next one. Do not count that. Go
to the next one.
The Clerk. Ms. Randall votes no.
Mr. Subramanyam?
Mr. Subramanyam. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Subramanyam votes no.
Ms. Ansari?
[No response.]
The Clerk. 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.
Ms. Pressley?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Ms. Tlaib?
Ms. Tlaib. Nope.
The Clerk. Ms. Tlaib votes no.
Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Comer. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman votes yes.
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Chairman, how is Ms. Crockett recorded?
Chairman Comer. Let us try this one more time. How is Ms.
Crockett voted?
The Clerk. Ms. Crockett is not yet recorded.
Ms. Crockett. No.
Chairman Comer. All right.
Mr. Connolly. I thank my colleague.
The Clerk. Ms. Crockett votes no.
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Chairman, how is Mr. Casar recorded?
The Clerk. Mr. Casar is not recorded.
Mr. Casar. I vote no.
The Clerk. Mr. Casar votes no.
Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the ayes are 20. The nays are
19.
Chairman Comer. All right. The motion to table passes.
I now recognize Mr. McGuire.
Mr. Frost. I want to say it is despicable that this
Committee is going to silence me for bringing up----
Ms. Boebert. The gentleman's words have been taken down. He
is not permitted to speak for the rest of the hearing.
Mr. Frost [continuing]. Making millions of dollars----
Chairman Comer. Mr. Frost. Mr. Ranking Member, I am going
to have the Sergeant-at-Arms remove him if he does not refrain.
All right. The Chair recognizes Mr. McGuire.
Ms. Stansbury. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
Parliamentary inquiry.
Chairman Comer. Mr. McGuire.
Ms. Stansbury. Parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. McGuire. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I would
like to correct the record. President Trump----
Chairman Comer. Order.
Ms. Stansbury. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry
on the motion that just passed.
Mr. McGuire. President Trump did win a mandate. He won the
popular vote, and he won the electoral college, and he is
delivering on those promises. And I find it interesting that
our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are mad at the
folks that are having success, like Elon Musk, in identifying
and correcting waste, fraud, and abuse, and not upset with the
folks that committed that waste, fraud, and abuse. And if you
were supportive of the last Administration, I do not know if
you are an authority on how we solve that problem, considering
we are getting more results in the last 5 weeks than our
country has achieved in the last 50 years.
Also, I want to talk about the Post Office. In my district,
we have 4 hospitals and 42 health clinics. I went to visit a
health clinic, and one of the things they do is every day they
mail prescription drugs to older folks all over the district.
And so, I said, well, how does that work with the post office,
and they said, we do not use the post office because sometimes
they are a week or 2 weeks late on delivering those drugs,
which could have life-saving implications. So, I said, well,
who do you use, and they said they use UPS, and I said, well,
how reliable are they, and they said they are 100 percent
reliable. And I said, well, what is your worst-case story of
the UPS? And they said, well, we sent something in the mail in
2013, and we got it back in 2023. So, definitely, we need to do
some oversight on what is going on with the Postal Service, so
I can understand why we need to look at that.
Also, I think that President Trump is an incredible
President. He is a peacemaker, and he is on a roll, Trump warp
speed. This is the most historic first month of our presidency,
and I think the other side does not have an answer for this. He
signed 72 executive orders. He ended burdensome regulations. He
sealed the border. He unleashed American energy, eliminated
divisive DEI--which is illegal discrimination, from our Federal
Government. He saved women's sports. He ended censorship of
free speech. He cut waste, fraud, and abuse, restored common
sense. He signed the Laken Riley Act, and the Senate has
confirmed 19 of his cabinet nominees. President Trump is on a
roll. He has a mandate, and I am glad that we are going to make
progress and win the midterms if you guys keep creating this
manufactured outrage. And with that, I yield back.
Chairman Comer. Before I recognize Mr. Fallon, Ms.
Stansbury has a parliamentary inquiry.
Ms. Stansbury. Yes.
Chairman Comer. And I want to note that they just called
votes on the Floor, but, Ms. Stansbury, you are recognized.
What is your point of order?
Ms. Stansbury. Well, it is a parliamentary inquiry. So, Mr.
Chairman, I just want to make sure that I am clear on the vote
that was just taken. So, the vote that was just taken in the
Committee was to table a motion that would overturn striking
down the words that Mr. Frost said, essentially saying that--I
am putting quotes--that Donald Trump and Musk were grifting.
Chairman Comer. No, no, that is not correct. It was to
table his motion challenging the ruling of the Chair.
Ms. Stansbury. Yes, that is exactly. OK. Yes.
Chairman Comer. OK.
Ms. Stansbury. So, just to be clear, the outcome of this--
--
Chairman Comer. I mean, that is the question. It was to
table the motion by the Ranking Member to challenge the ruling
of the Chair. All right.
Ms. Stansbury. And the ruling of the Chair--this is my
parliamentary inquiry.
Chairman Comer. Now the Chair recognizes Mr. Fallon.
Mr. Fallon. Mr. Chairman, I move the previous question.
Ms. Stansbury. Mr. Chairman, my parliamentary inquiry is if
this essentially silenced Mr. Frost, took down his words, and
makes that he cannot speak again----
Mr. Fallon. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman, am I recognized?
Chairman Comer. You are out of order, Ms. Stansbury.
Ms. Stansbury [continuing]. Because he criticized the
President. I am asking if this is what happened parlimentarily
just now. Did you just silence Mr. Frost by procedural vote.
Yes, you did. You just silenced him.
Chairman Comer. I do not even think----
Mr. Fallon. Mr. Chairman, if I am recognized, I believe I
am, I move the previous question.
Chairman Comer. Ms. Stansbury, if you can just wait until
the Committee hearing starts. Mr. Fallon?
Ms. Stansbury. Do we even have free speech anymore?
Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Mr. Fallon.
Mr. Fallon. Mr. Chairman, thank you for recognizing me.
Chairman Comer. Mr. Fallon?
Mr. Fallon. I move the previous question.
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Comer. Ms. Stansbury.
Mr. Fallon. Let us talk about free speech, Mr. Chairman. I
move the previous question.
Chairman Comer. There is a motion to move the previous
question. Is there a second?
Mr. Biggs. Second.
Chairman Comer. Second by Mr. Biggs.
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Comer. The motion is not debatable, but I will
recognize you, Mr. Connolly.
Mr. Connolly. If this motion were to be acted upon, it
would prevent the Minority from providing its ANS, which I
understood earlier we were going to be allowed to be
considered.
Chairman Comer. We have a hearing on waste, fraud, and
abuse that has not even begun. These normally last--even in
this Committee--the organizational thing just normally lasts 5
or 10 minutes. We have been in here 35 minutes arguing over the
same things that the people on each side of the Committee argue
over on TV multiple times a day. We have got to get to business
if we want to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse. We have got
witnesses waiting. We have tried to do this. The debate has
gone on well beyond what was expected. Now there is a motion by
Mr. Fallon, a good Subcommittee Chair, to move to previous
question. The motion is not debatable.
And shall the main question now be put, those in favor of
signifying support for Mr. Fallon's motion to move the previous
question, 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 ayes
have----
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a recorded vote.
Chairman Comer. A recorded vote is ordered. The clerk will
call the roll.
The Clerk. Mr. Jordan?
Mr. Jordan. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Jordan votes yes.
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?
Mr. Cloud. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Cloud votes yes.
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?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Perry?
Mr. Perry. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Perry votes aye.
Mr. Timmons?
Mr. Timmons. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Timmons votes aye.
Mr. Burchett?
[No response.]
The Clerk. 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?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Burlison?
Mr. Burlison. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Burleson 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. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. McGuire votes yes.
Mr. Gill?
Mr. Gill. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Gill votes aye.
Mr. Connolly?
Mr. Connolly. A resounding no.
The Clerk. Mr. Connolly votes no.
Ms. Norton?
Ms. Norton. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Norton votes no.
Mr. Lynch?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Krishnamoorthi?
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Krishnamoorthi votes no.
Mr. Khanna?
Mr. Khanna. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Khanna votes no.
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?
[No response.]
The Clerk. 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.
Ms. Pressley?
Ms. Pressley. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Pressley votes no.
Ms. Tlaib?
Ms. Tlaib. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Tlaib votes no.
Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Comer. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman votes yes.
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Chairman, how is Mr. Casar's vote
recorded?
The Clerk. Mr. Casar is not yet recorded.
Mr. Casar. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Casar votes no.
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Chairman, how is Mr. Frost recorded?
The Clerk. Mr. Frost is recorded as voting no.
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Chairman, how is Ms. Tlaib recorded?
The Clerk. Ms. Tlaib is recorded as voting no.
Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the ayes are 20. The nays are
19.
Chairman Comer. All right. The motion passes. We will
immediately roll into voting on the Rules, but because the
Floor votes have been called and they were called about 10
minutes ago, pursuant to the previous order, the Chair declares
the Committee in recess subject to 10 minutes after the final
vote.
[Recess.]
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Comer. Yes, sir.
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Chairman, before we begin, I want to
address the course of events that preceded our going to the
Floor to vote. Comity and dignity in this Committee are
important. Mr. Frost was threatened with the Sergeant-at-Arms.
I believe that was a very unfortunate outburst from the Chair.
I understand his frustration in having to manage an unruly
bunch of people, and I am part of that unruly bunch of people
too. But I just want to say, before Mr. Frost would be removed
by the Sergeant-at-Arms, you would have to remove this Ranking
Member and all of the Democrats on this side of the aisle. I
thank the Chair for his consideration.
Chairman Comer. I appreciate the Ranking Member. What do we
do when he has gaveled out for 3 minutes and continues to
ramble? What is the process there?
Mr. Connolly. I believe, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Frost was not
rambling, and I believe Mr. Frost would have finished his
thoughts and proceeded with the motion. I know Mr. Frost not to
be a disruptive presence. He was trying to articulate a point
of view and be heard, and, of course, everything was
suppressed. By ordering the previous question, the Minority has
been denied its right to have an alternative work plan
considered, which I consider unfortunate and a suppression of
our rights.
Mr. Perry. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Comer. Yes, go ahead. Mr. Perry?
Mr. Perry. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Look, Gerry Connolly is my
friend. I know that many in the room are frustrated. I have
been frustrated in the past, too--you know, John Kerry out as
the President's special envoy; signing us up for the Paris
Climate Accord; Alexander Moniz signing us up for the Iran
nuclear deal, of which nobody signed. Look, we all get
frustrated. I get it. But if the Chairman has to maintain order
here, quite honestly, I think he has to rely on the good graces
and the integrity of the Members themselves. And if they refuse
to abide by that, and I have been frustrated in the past, too,
and I probably pushed the limits, but sometimes you say
something that you should not have said. And when you are given
an opportunity to have--to take it down yourself, that is your
opportunity, and if you are not going to do it, that is your
choice.
We all make decisions, but then there are consequences for
those decisions, and I would say by moving the previous
question, it is not taking anyone's right away. We still had a
vote. I appreciate fully that you do not agree with the vote,
but we still had the vote. We still considered it. We still
heard your narrative on it. I appreciate it. I can see a lot of
work went into it. But at the end of the day, the Chairman is
the Chairman. He has got to make sure that we have order so
that we can have the arguments in a fashion by which we can
respect one another, have our voices heard, knowing that there
are going to be disagreements, and then move forward so that we
can proceed around this place. And I appreciate you, Mr.
Connolly. I just think in this one, I think the Chairman did
the right thing. And with that I will yield.
Chairman Comer. Thank you, and I let Mr. Connolly speak,
Mr. Perry speak. We are going to now resume the Committee
hearing.
The question is now on the amendment in the nature of the
substitute.
All those in favor of the vote on the ANS for the Committee
oversight plan--that is what this hearing is about, our
prehearing--offered by me, offered by Mr. Comer from Kentucky.
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 the Chair, the ayes have it.
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a recorded vote.
Chairman Comer. OK. A recorded vote is ordered. The clerk
will call the roll--oh.
Members will record their votes using the electronic voting
system. The clerk will now open the vote on the amendment to--
the ANS.
All those in favor signify by voting yes. All those
opposed, no.
[Voting.]
Chairman Comer. Have all Members voted who wish to vote?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Does any Member wish to change their vote?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. The clerk will report the tally.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the ayes are 22. The
nays are 17.
Chairman Comer. The motion passes. Pursuant to this vote,
the Committee--OK. Now----
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Comer. Yes.
Mr. Connolly. Just pursuant to House Rule XI, Clause 2(i),
I intend to file Minority Views on the report.
Chairman Comer. OK. The ayes have it on the amendment in
the nature of a substitute. It is agreed to.
The question is now on favorably reporting the plan, as
amended. Members will record their votes using the electronic
voting system. The clerk will now open the vote.
[Voting.]
Chairman Comer. Have all Members been recorded who wish to
be recorded?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Does any Member wish to change the vote?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. The clerk will call the vote.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the ayes are 22. The
nays are 18.
Chairman Comer. Pursuant to the vote, the Committee hereby
adopts this Authorization and Oversight Plan for the 119th
Congress.
Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the
table.
Now, before we roll into the regular hearing, I am going to
grant the Ranking Member time to express whatever he wants to.
Go ahead.
Mr. Connolly. I was just notifying the Committee, Mr.
Chairman, that pursuant to House Rule XI, Clause 2(i), I intend
to file Minority Views, especially in light of the fact that we
were denied the opportunity to move our ANS.
Mr. Khanna. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Comer. Yes.
Mr. Khanna. Mr. Chairman, given we did not have much time,
could we get 1 minute to speak on this or no?
Chairman Comer. No, we have been moved to previous
question, so that ends debate.
Now we will have a committee hearing. We are going to start
the committee hearing and----
Mr. Min. Point of order.
Chairman Comer [continuing]. Everybody will have 5 minutes.
Mr. Min. A point of order. Mr. Chairman, point of order.
So, I am new to this Committee, but I guess I was hoping for
some clarification on how we are allowed to describe people. I
watched a lot of footage last year as Members of this Committee
made comments about President Biden that may or may not have
been factually true, but certainly could be taken as insulting.
And I guess the question I have is, some people might say that
launching a meme coin or the fact that the President's wife
took a $40 million deal from Amazon might qualify him to be a
grifter, and I am not calling him that. I am just wondering
what we are allowed to say. For example, are we allowed to
describe him as a convicted felon, given that he was convicted
by a jury of his peers for felony counts? What are we allowed
to say or not say?
Chairman Comer. You all have been saying that, so you can
say that. It is just the personalities, not to engage in
personalities with the President of the United States. And
pardon me, if I said anything to offend you about the Biden
family.
Mr. Min. No, I am not offended. I do not get offended. I
was just wondering what the rules are because some people might
say that Donald Trump----
Chairman Comer. OK.
Mr. Min [continuing]. Is a grifter, and I think that that
could be seen as factually asserted, in fact.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the staff is authorized
to make necessary technical and conforming changes to the plan
ordered reported today, subject to the approval of the
Minority.
Without objection, so ordered.
If there is no further business before the Committee,
without objection, the Committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:29 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[all]