[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.

                          ____________________