Loading video...
Source: Congress.gov
Summary
The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform held a hearing to examine efforts to make the federal government more efficient and accountable, focusing on the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and its potential impact. The hearing featured testimony from Governor Kim Reynolds, who outlined her state's successful efforts to streamline government operations and reduce costs, and Tom Schatz of Citizens Against Government Waste, who emphasized the need to address duplication and mismanagement in federal programs. Key topics included waste and abuse in federal operations, the role of external consultants in government reform, and concerns about the authority and oversight of DOGE, with significant discussion of Elon Musk's involvement, transparency, and potential impacts on civil servants. Witnesses highlighted the scale of federal spending and debt, urging action to ensure taxpayer dollars are spent effectively and in line with constitutional principles, while calling for independent oversight and accountability in any reorganization of government agencies.
Participants
Transcript
Sorry. The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform will come to order. I want to welcome everyone here today. Without objection, the chair may declare a recess at any time. I now recognize myself for the purpose of delivering an opening statement. This morning, we'll explore how we can make the federal government work better for all Americans. President Trump promised he would eliminate Washington waste and reform the unchecked federal bureaucracy. And he is delivering on his promise made to the American people. President Trump created the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, to conduct a government-wide audit to root out waste, fraud, abuse, and ensure we protect taxpayer dollars. At the helm of President Trump's effort is Elon Musk, one of the most successful entrepreneurs ever. For decades and on a bipartisan basis, members of this committee have lamented the inefficiency of the federal bureaucracy. We fought never-ending battles against the waste, fraud, and abuse the bureaucracy generates during both Republican and Democrat administrations. One byproduct of this inefficiency, according to GAO, is the near quarter trillion dollars in annual improper payments the government issues. But now that President Trump is taking action to drain the swamp and expose how the federal government is spending taxpayer money, which he was elected to do, Democrats are hyperventilating and sensationalizing it. Over the past few days, we've heard wild claims from Democrats that we are, quote, at the beginning of a dictatorship, end quote, and we are in a constitutional crisis. This kind of theatrical rhetoric is exactly what the American people rejected in November.
Americans know that Washington needs reform and Doge is taking inventory to bring about change in steward taxpayer dollars entrusted to the federal government. Real innovation is not clean and tidy. It's necessarily disruptive and messy. But that's exactly what Washington needs right now. And it's what the American people voted for in November, a departure from the broken status quo. This committee intends to work in partnership with DOGE. We want to reinforce its efforts and not blunt the momentum it's generating for needed change to the federal bureaucracy. At the Oversight Committee, our core mission remains unchanged, identifying waste, fraud, and abuse in the federal government, and proposing solutions to make it more efficient and effective for the American people. For this Congress, we created a subcommittee chaired by Marjorie Taylor Greene that is dedicated to working with Doge, but I expect all of our subcommittees will participating in this effort to make Washington more accountable. I'm hopeful that we can find some common ground with our Democrat colleagues to ensure the federal government more efficiently and effectively serves the American people. I ask all my colleagues here today, Who among us believes that the federal government operates at peak efficiency? The federal government has expanded dramatically since the early years of our republic. There are today more than 400 executive branch agencies and sub-agencies and roughly 1,000 federal commissions. Most of these entities are relatively new commissions. new creations. They did not exist for most of our nation's history. Not only has the government grown in size and complexity, but it has also taken on many functions once handled by the states or even the private sector. How did we get here? Tom Schatz, the president of the Citizens Against Government Waste and one of our witnesses today notes that Congress tends to respond to each new problem that arises by creating a new program or agency.
And even if the problem goes away, the program or agency remains. Congressional authorizing committees tend to generate these new programs and entities all too often without sufficient regard to similar federal activities occurring outside of their jurisdiction. Over time, the expansion of entities and programs has yielded an increasingly complex bureaucracy with a massive amount of overlap and duplication. For instance, the Government Accountability Office, the GAO, recently found 43 job training programs scattered across nine different federal agencies. That's just one of dozens of areas of wasteful duplication the GAO has identified across a range of federal activities. I hope we can learn today from Governor Kim Reynolds, who proposed her own wide-ranging reorganization in Iowa, which the state legislature enacted. For example, she will detail how Iowa consolidated a host of state-level job training programs. Iowa's reorganization also eliminated or consolidated a slew of state agencies, commissions, and vacant job positions. Iowa's example shows that the chief executive of any unit of government, federal, state, or local, is well positioned to propose ways to streamline that government. After all, they're the ones who run it on a day-to-day basis. At the federal level, the president has considerable authority within existing law to reorganize certain government offices and functions. That's the case, for instance, with respect to USAID. But some reorganizations do require changes in law.
Sign up for free to see the full transcript
Accounts help us prevent bots from abusing our site. Accounts are free and will allow you to access the full transcript.