[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 180 (Thursday, December 5, 2024)]
[House]
[Pages H6408-H6411]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DISCUSSION ABOUT DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 9, 2023, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Roy) for 30 minutes.
Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Arizona. I didn't get
a chance to get down here in time during the time that was set aside to
honor her service, but I am glad I was down here and was able to get
down at the tail end of it to hear her speech.
It has been an honor. We were classmates. We came in together, served
together.
I remember when the gentlewoman told us that she wasn't running
again. I found her on the floor, and I said: So, what is going on? Why
aren't you staying with us? And she said one word, family. That is the
right answer.
You have been a great patriot. Congress is far better for having had
you in it, and we will miss you. We know you won't be too far away, and
we hope to see you here.
God bless you. Spend time with your family. I feel the pain of being
away as you do. I will be very happy for you, but I will give you a few
floor speeches to watch every once in a while here just for fun.
Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor tonight because there is a lot of
talk going on right now about what has been referred to as DOGE, this
effort by our friends Elon and Vivek with respect to the Department of
Government Efficiency.
I am not 100 percent clear yet what that looks like in terms of
formality, how the incoming President, President Trump, plans to
establish it and set it up.
We had some great meetings today with those two men and Members of
Congress who are interested in facilitating their work.
My only problem with the named Department of Government Efficiency is
I would refer to it as the department of government elimination. I
think we would be a lot better off if we were eliminating large swaths
of that which has been unconstitutionally created to rack up $36
trillion in debt.
I think what merits observation is what this body needs to do to
actually deliver on what people are, I think, to some degree across the
country, getting excited about with respect to the prospect of the
brain power that has been assembled around this department, DOGE, or
this effort. Congress has to actually do our part.
We had a meeting today. There was a lot of conversation back and
forth, and there were a whole lot of Members of Congress who were
looking to them to say to please do this. One Member said to please
help give us the fortitude, the spine, to be able to deliver on
removing and cutting this waste in government.
Look, to be very clear, the use of technology, crowdsourcing, AI by
these guys and other smart people around the country, the use of
technology, observe it, figure out what to do with it, great. I am for
it.
I support their efforts. I support efforts by the incoming President
and his staff, his administration, to, frankly, massively slash and
burn the bureaucracy that is sucking away, frankly, the life of the
American people through overregulation, overspending, and driving up
inflation because we keep spending more and more money in this vast
bureaucracy. You can't even keep up with it.
I have a bill that I introduced a few years ago, the Count the Crimes
to Cut Act. Do you know why? Nobody can tell me how many crimes there
are. Literally, nobody can tell me how many crimes there are in the
Federal Government. Does anybody see that as a problem? We literally
don't even know how many--forget cataloging them all, organizing them
all, figuring out how much of them are repeated or overburdensome or
perhaps out of line. We don't even know, and I can't even get that bill
through the committee and down to the floor. Members of this body don't
want to know how many crimes there are so we can maybe go observe and
try to do something about it?
On this score is where I believe Elon and Vivek can add massive
value. They don't necessarily need us to pass something to go count the
crimes. They can just use technology, AI, crowdsourcing, work and put a
whole lot of effort into doing that because, frankly, a lot of people
don't understand this, but we are pretty short-staffed here as it
relates to our offices on Capitol Hill dealing with constituents
services, dealing with the stuff we deal with all the time. Having an
army of people and being able to leverage that is going to be really
important.
Now, let's cut to the chase. The fact of the matter is, too many
Members of the United States Congress are all too excited to hide
behind Elon and Vivek to do the work they are supposed to do. That is
the truth. I saw colleagues going to the mike thanking them saying, oh,
please save us from the scourge of bureaucracy.
Well, what the hell is our job? We actually do have separation of
powers. We actually are Article I. We actually do have the ability to
use the power of the purse to constrain the leviathan and the executive
branch. We just never do it ever.
If we dare try, oh, the scorn, oh, the look from your colleagues when
you dare come down and object to a consent request, as I did, for $19
billion. That seems trivial now, doesn't it? I objected to a consent
request for $19 billion in 2019 for Hurricane Harvey relief
predominantly heavily in my home State of Texas.
A unanimous consent request was being offered on the floor. I was at
the airport. I got word that they were going to do this by consent. I
thought, wait a minute, they are going to pass $19 billion by unanimous
consent on the floor of the House, and we are not there, and it is not
paid for.
Well, it might be meritorious in some respects. I don't know, but I
would have to look at the funding and what it is going to be used for
in Texas. There are people hurting in Texas, but we have to pay for it.
We certainly don't pass things for $19 billion by consent.
[[Page H6409]]
Mr. Speaker, I got in my car, canceled the flight, got in a car, an
Uber, came back here to the Hill, and ran down on the floor, and I
objected.
Do you know what happened back in Texas? The usual suspects, the
newspapers, the editorial boards, the people who like to have wailing
and gnashing of teeth, and the wine-sipping crowds of the elites in the
cities in Austin, they are all like: Oh, you are the devil. This is
horrible. How could you do this?
A funny thing happened, and this is my message to my colleagues, my
constituents, even though, again, my district wasn't as directly
impacted by Harvey, fair, but my constituents and other people around
the State of Texas took notice that maybe if a Member of Congress says
there ought to be some principles that guide what we do and that there
is a right way to do things, maybe our country would be better off.
Maybe we wouldn't have $36 trillion of debt.
I would mention right now, in that very same context, we are
currently considering a disaster supplemental bill again. Every year,
we consider some sort of disaster supplemental bill. Why is that? That
is because the world has events. They have always had events. Galveston
was hit at the turn of the last century. It was wiped out. There have
been floods. There have been fires. There have been constant issues,
tornadoes. This isn't all related to climate change. It is over the
course of the history of mankind. In fact, our use of technology makes
us able to manage those better, our use of energy. We can manage that
better by abundant, reliable energy.
What happens is every year there is something that strikes at our
heart. There was Katrina in 2005, Ike, Harvey, what happened in Hawaii.
Go down the list of things that we care about. We are in a massive
drought in Texas, a massive drought.
We have all sorts of different things that pop up. So here we are,
and we have $113 billion that has been put forward from the
administration under the name of disaster relief.
There are all manners of things in that bill, and we are looking at
those things: replenish the disaster relief fund, what we call the DRF,
$40 billion; $16 billion for some stuff on defense; another pot of
money for farmers who have had issues across the country related to
disaster and otherwise; and go down the list to the tune of $111
billion or $113 billion.
It is not paid for. It is just another check-writing exercise, but it
is the writing of a check by printing of money because that is what we
do. There is no limiting principle.
My question for anybody watching this is: What do you think the
limiting principle ought to be for the elected Representatives you send
here to represent you? Is it, well, man, that is a really sympathetic
thing; write the check. Is that our limiting principle? ``Chip, there
are people hurting in North Carolina.'' Yes, I know. I pray for them.
We try to support organizations like Samaritan's Purse and others that
help.
{time} 1915
I have had colleagues like Cory Mills who went in early trying to
deal with disaster relief. The last time I checked, the State of North
Carolina is not a Third World country that has no resources or
abilities. They have a very robust economy and a very strong State.
Are they unable to issue bonds?
Are they unable to find ways to come up with their own dollars to
build their own infrastructure and rebuild?
The State of Texas when we have a calamity--the State of Texas is
literally the eighth biggest economy in the world. Just Texas is the
eighth largest economy in the world. Other than immediate disaster
relief using the resources of the National Guard or the resources at
FEMA where you have an actual emergency, where you have got to move
people and help them deal with being in floods, we all help each other
out. Send the resources, yes, Governors, go help.
However, we are now 1 month later, 2 months later.
Why is the State of Texas not able to deal with a disaster?
Are we unable to deal with it?
We have, I think, almost a $400 billion biennial budget, i.e.,
roughly a $200 billion a year budget in Texas.
So is Texas, the eighth largest economy, are we not able to deal with
disasters?
I think we can. I think most States in this country can. I think most
of us can do what we need to do.
The Federal Government doesn't need to be an ATM, but that is what we
are turning it into.
If there isn't a limiting principle on printing money, then how can
DOGE be successful?
Someone explain to me how all the efforts by Elon, all of the efforts
by Vivek, and all of the efforts of the incoming Office of Management
and Budget and President Trump, if this body, if this Congress, if this
Republican majority does nothing but do the same old thing we have
always done, which is come down here and write checks that have no
backing, we are literally the Fed just printing money, then how can we
possibly limit the size, the scope, and the growth of the Federal
Government?
In other words, Mr. Speaker, look in the mirror. Don't look for a
fiscal savior. Don't look for salvation for the future of the country's
well-being with some folks over in the executive branch or who are
friends with the executive branch who are going to provide us great
information. Be grateful for it, but remember when we go through the
appropriations process, it is our job. They can make the executive
branch more efficient, yes, but we are the ones who create these
departments and create these programs. We are supposed to authorize
them, but we don't.
The Homeland Security Department was created over 20 years ago. We
have never reauthorized it. It is insane. There are 200 and something
thousand employees at the Department of Homeland Security. We have
never reauthorized it. That is our job, but all we do is sit around and
shrug our shoulders and say: Well, man, have you been to the mountains
of Western North Carolina? It is just awful.
We have to write that check.
What if I say: Okay, fine. God bless these awesome Americans. They
need assistance. Yeah, fine, you don't have to pay for it. Write the
check.
Then what?
Do we write the next check?
Do we just keep printing money for everybody's illness?
Mr. Speaker, do you know that right now under FEMA we are using FEMA
emergency dollars to pay for COVID-related burials?
Why? Why?
It is because somebody declared an energy at some point, the
administration was given large pots of money, and now everybody just
shrugs and walks away.
The fact of the matter is the President, President Trump, was elected
in, in today's time, what you could describe as a landslide. In today's
divided world with what we call the trifecta, Republicans will control
the House, and Republicans will control the Senate. They are pretty
thin majorities in both Chambers.
The question that will be for Republicans is: What are we going to
do? Will we deliver?
Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to you that we are not going to truly
deliver unless at least two things are true, and I think there are
three, four, or five, but at least two things are true.
One, we fully secure the border and undo the damage caused by the
open borders of the last 4-plus years; and two, we stop spending money
we don't have. If we can't do those two things, then we won't have a
country left.
Mr. Speaker, I am not sitting here telling you that I think we can
balance the $2 trillion deficit in 1 year. I think that would be
difficult to continue to have economic growth and do what we need to
do. However, I am telling you, Mr. Speaker, that we need to actually be
serious because I would say to my fellow Republicans, I have said that
we need to repeal the Inflation Reduction Act, which is subsidizing
Chinese wind and solar. It is now putting American companies on the
hook, and they are wanting to get the big drug high of getting more
money and more subsidies.
We are now turning ourselves away from what is the strength of the
reliable American oil and gas industry. We are driving up the cost of
goods and driving up inflation all under the Inflation Reduction Act.
[[Page H6410]]
My view is, and the view of most Americans, and I promise you,
virtually everybody in this Chamber--not all--we ran on repealing the
so-called Inflation Reduction Act, ending those subsidies, returning to
market forces determining the best reliable energy and, importantly,
stop spending money we don't have for the subsidies to enrich the
Chinese and enrich our enemies who undermine our own well-being.
A handful of my colleagues signed a letter saying that they don't
want to do that.
Let me just posit: What if I am successful?
What if we are successful and we repeal it?
What have we done?
We have returned to the status quo of 2022.
Basically, on that issue I am begging to return to the halcyon days
of old in 2022 when everything was great, deficits were great, and
everything was wonderful.
I am being sarcastic.
So if I am successful, I fight, and I struggle for all the people who
don't want to tell their big corporations ``no,'' who are now hooked on
the subsidies, because that is what is going to happen, including
Texas, I am looking at you, Texas, all your big oil and gas companies
are getting on the hook because they like free money. It ain't free, by
the way. They like subsidies they can turn into current-day profits at
the expense of your children's future. It is because they don't care
because they will get a good earnings report, and they will make money
now.
However, the debt will keep going up and the dollar will keep getting
weakened and inflation will keep being real.
So if we can do it, if we can repeal it, if we are successful, then
all we will do is rewind the clock to 2022. If we return to pre-COVID
spending, Mr. Speaker, all you do is return the clock to 2020. That
would basically save us $200 billion a year.
Repealing the so-called Inflation Reduction Act and ending those
subsidies would save us, oh, probably about $70 billion a year over 10
years.
What if we secure the border tomorrow?
Now, mind you, Mr. Speaker, securing the border even under President
Trump meant we had 30,000 or so a month still coming across the border.
Let's just say we secure the border.
Now what are we doing with the, what, 10 million people or so who are
now in our country that weren't?
Okay, let's repatriate them.
How many will we repatriate?
We would have to repatriate them all just to return to the status
quo.
Mr. Speaker, my point of all this is: If you want to transform the
country, then we need transformative policies, and you need a Congress
willing to do it. You need a Congress willing to actually deliver on
what they said they would do.
This is a refrain I have offered in a number of speeches here on the
floor of the House. They are not always that well received. I gave a
speech saying: Name one thing. Some of my colleagues got a little mad,
as I said, the best way to do that is to do the thing, deliver.
However, we are $36 trillion in debt. If we do everything I just
said, if we renew the Trump tax cuts from 2017 and we extend them so
that everybody's taxes--again, I am going back to my point, go to the
status quo. If we do all of those things, then we will be struggling
just to get to deficit neutrality on the issue, meaning we will still
be at $2 trillion of debt a year.
Now, if Elon, Vivek and company can find a bunch of waste and we can
cut that out and then we can use that to either bring back savings or
maybe cut down on drugs or take that money and use it for additional
things that would be better, say, the Pentagon. Okay, that is great,
maybe we will save a little bit.
However, if you save 30 percent of our discretionary budget, let's
say they go and they hack out just mountains of waste, fire
bureaucrats, and one-third, 33 percent, of the discretionary budget
just goes away, poof, that is about $600 billion. We are running about
a $2 trillion deficit. I am just trying to put this in perspective.
I am for that.
Do you know why I am for it, Mr. Speaker?
Fire the bureaucrats, end the weaponization, end the waste, and end
the people who are targeting us. Make them have to go out and get a
real job. I am for all of those things, and our country would be better
off. If we do it, then we will earn the right to deal with mandatory
spending.
I said to some of my colleagues today in a meeting when Vivek and
Elon were here, and I pointed out that we have a $113 billion bill on
the floor for the disaster supplemental. I am pointing out that it is
not going to be paid for. I am pointing out it is going to continue to
perpetuate waste. I am talking about a bike path in Alaska, COVID
spending across the country, and I think a church parking lot in
Vermont. I mean, I could go down a laundry list of things that the
current FEMA emergency funding is being used for, Mr. Speaker. Then we
are going to just throw another $40 billion at it after we have been
criticizing FEMA all through the fall about how incompetent they are
and how bad they are.
We will say: Do you know what your reward is?
Here is more money, keep doing your bureaucratic thing. Don't worry,
Elon and Vivek will save us. That is because we sure as hell aren't
going to save us.
That is what we do.
My perspective is we should look in the mirror. We should do our job
and constrain that spending. Don't give it to bureaucrats. Do our part.
Find the savings and do what we can do to make it work.
However, do you know what my colleagues said?
My colleagues said: Well, Chip, the discretionary spending doesn't
matter because of the point I said a minute ago. If you cut one-third
of it, then you save $600 billion, and you still have a $2 trillion
deficit.
Why?
It is because we have made promises for at least one-half a century
on Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid and increasingly on
veterans' benefits that we can't keep up with. Then Republicans go
around pounding their chest on tax policy: We will cut taxes so we will
create economic growth. We will bring in revenue, and we will ignore
the deficits.
I am for the tax cuts, but if you are not doing the spending cuts,
then you end up with $36 trillion in debt.
Republicans need to look in the mirror. If my colleagues think we are
going to just waltz in to a reconciliation debate in January and it is
all going to be kumbaya because K Street wants tax cuts and
because certain people think that they are going to get their bread
buttered, but we are not going to focus on deficits, then I would just
suggest that maybe they think long and hard about the calendar that the
House put out whereby we are only here 3 days a week, 3 weeks a month,
and maybe we should follow the Senate calendar, which to his great
credit the incoming leader put out, 5 days a week every week for the
first 3 months of the year.
We were elected to do something different, and by goodness, we are
going to do something different. We must. We have no choice. Failure is
not an option.
I will make just one other point in closing here as we deal with all
of that on the spending issue. I watched the Senate Republicans doing
this dance of hand-wringing and concern about the President's nominees.
The President was elected by the American people to change this town.
He has nominated people who want to change this town. Mr. Speaker, if
you want to go turn over every rock of everybody's past and then say
that they are not capable or they don't deserve to serve in a position
like Secretary of Defense as is currently occurring with the targeted
attacks on Pete Hegseth, then maybe you should take the board out of
your eye.
I am not saying that we don't have standards that are appropriate in
the advise-and-consent process. We do, and we should. I am a believer
in that separation of powers. However, the President also is deserving
of the courtesy and the respect of his own party, in particular, of the
individuals he is nominating to change the town.
He was elected to change it.
You don't like Tulsi because she is a Democrat?
Get over it. She is not anymore. She is a Republican now, but she
was. In this Chamber, I served with her, she was a Democrat.
[[Page H6411]]
You don't like Bobby Kennedy because he is from an iconic Democrat
family?
Get over it. I don't agree with Bobby Kennedy on a lot of different
things, but I agree with him that we need to fundamentally change our
healthcare system and that we need to make America healthy again.
I agree with Tulsi that we have been involved in endless wars and
endless conflict that is draining our resources and undermining our men
and women in uniform.
{time} 1930
I agree with Pete Hegseth that wokeism is destroying the United
States military. I agree with Pete that we don't need to have endless
wars. I agree with Pete that we ought to have somebody who has served
in battle and understands it who is at the top of the Pentagon, rather
than the brass, who, frankly, often like the ribbons more than actually
doing the work that is necessary to defend this country.
I like the fact that we have people who the President is nominating
who will take on the establishment and take on, for example, the FBI
with Kash Patel.
The fact of the matter is we have Senators who are wanting to
challenge it. For example, the Senator from Iowa who is going after
Pete Hegseth, or seemingly, being critical. This is the same Senator,
by the way, who voted for an NDAA that would draft our daughters and
has been fighting to draft our daughters.
I tell her: You will do that over my dead body. There will be no
draft of my daughter.
She voted for The Respect for Marriage Act to codify gay marriage.
She went out to her constituents and talked about how the horrible
Senate border bill was somehow a good bill and then scolded President
Trump for opposing it. She voted for Garland for Attorney General,
voted for Lloyd Austin for Defense, voted for Buttigieg for DOT, voted
for Janet Yellen, voted for Ukraine's borders over America's borders.
With all due respect to the Senator from Iowa, she is not where the
American people are. President Trump is, and Pete Hegseth is.
We have an obligation to change this town, or we are going to lose
this country. If Republicans do not deliver and if we do not do what we
said we would do, this party will end. There will not be a Republican
Party if we fail in this term, this Congress, to deliver.
That is not hyperbole. It is true. We will go the way of the whigs.
We will secure the border. We will return order to our streets. We will
cut spending. We will move toward balancing our budgets.
As the President has nominated, we will confirm people who will
change this town and take on the bureaucracy. We will listen to and
work with Elon and Vivek, root out the waste and fraud, but do it
ourselves.
We will pass bills that actually get the job done. We will undo the
damage of the Biden administration, replace it with a legacy that our
kids and grandkids can be proud of, root out the wokeism, root out all
of the DEI and the critical race theory. Kill it. Kill it now.
We will do these things, or we will not exist. We will organize
ourselves as a Conference to do those things, or we won't succeed.
Our job between now, the first week of December, and the first week
of January is to get our heads in the right places. They currently
aren't there.
We are not structured right now to deliver, and we have 1 month to do
it. That is my calling. We are not here to take breaks. We are not here
for codels. We are not here for trips. We are here to get the job done.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________