Comer: Oversight Committee is Working with DOGE to Improve Government Efficiency, Eliminate Rampant Washington Waste

WASHINGTON—House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) delivered opening remarks at a full committee hearing titled “Rightsizing Government.” In his opening statement, Chairman Comer emphasized that President Donald Trump is delivering on his promise to eliminate Washington waste and reform the bloated federal bureaucracy. He noted that there has long been bipartisan concern over the inefficiency of the federal government, but Democrats are now hyperventilating and sensationalizing the Trump Administration’s efforts to advance necessary reforms. He stressed that federal reorganization is critical, and Congress can help streamline needed improvements in government operations. Chairman Comer concluded that the House Oversight Committee remains committed to identifying waste, fraud, and abuse in the federal government and intends to continue working with the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) on solutions to make federal operations more efficient and effective for all Americans.

Below are Chairman Comer’s remarks as prepared for delivery.

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, and 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’ve 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 at “the beginning of a dictatorship” 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 and steward taxpayer dollars entrusted to the federal government. 

Real innovation isn’t 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 Green, that is dedicated to working with DOGE.  But I expect all of our subcommittees will be participating in this effort to make Washington more accountable.

I am 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 our federal government operates at peak efficiency?

The federal government has expanded dramatically since the early years of our Republic. There are today more than four hundred executive branch agencies and sub-agencies, and roughly one-thousand federal commissions. Most of these entities are relatively 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 the private sector.

How did we get here?

Tom Schatz, the President of 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 recently found forty-three job training programs scattered across nine different federal agencies. 

That’s just one of dozens of areas of wasteful duplication the GAO 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. Throughout our nation’s history, such reorganization legislation typically originated from the White House.

That’s in part because, for much of the twentieth century, presidential reorganization proposals requiring changes in law were granted special consideration by Congress.  

I think renewing that special authority—requiring Congress to take an up or down vote on reorganizations proposed by the President—would help facilitate needed improvements in government operations.  

In the meantime, I look forward to learning more about keys to successful reforms from our witnesses during today’s hearing.   

I yield to Ranking Member Connolly for his opening statement.