Hearings to examine the nomination of James Bishop, of North Carolina, to be Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget.

1[Senate Hearing 119-30]2[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]34                                                      S. Hrg. 119-3056                   NOMINATION OF THE HONORABLE DAN BISHOP,7                      OF NORTH CAROLINA, TO BE8                      DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE9                      OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET1011=======================================================================1213                                HEARING1415                               BEFORE THE1617                        COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET1819                          UNITED STATES SENATE2021                    ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS2223                             FIRST SESSION2425                               ----------2627 March 5, 2025--HEARING ON THE NOMINATION OF THE HONORABLE DAN BISHOP,28 OF NORTH CAROLINA, TO BE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT29                               AND BUDGET3031  March 12, 2025--EXECUTIVE BUSINESS MEETING ON THE NOMINATION OF THE32 HONORABLE DAN BISHOP, OF NORTH CAROLINA, TO BE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF THE33                    OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET3435                               ----------3637           Printed for the use of the Committee on the Budget3839[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]4041                              www.govinfo.gov4243                               __________4445                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE4659-626                     WASHINGTON : 20254748-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------4950                        COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET5152              LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina, Chairman5354CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa            JEFFREY A. MERKLEY, Oregon55MIKE CRAPO, Idaho                    PATTY MURRAY, Washington56RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin               RON WYDEN, Oregon57ROGER MARSHALL, Kansas               BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont58JOHN CORNYN, Texas                   SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island59MIKE LEE, Utah                       MARK R. WARNER, Virginia60JOHN KENNEDY, Louisiana              TIM KAINE, Virginia61PETE RICKETTS, Nebraska              CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland62BERNIE MORENO, Ohio                  BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico63RICK SCOTT, Florida                  ALEX PADILLA, California6465                  Nick Myers, Majority Staff Director66                   Ben Ward, Minority Staff Director67                   Mallory B. Nersesian, Chief Clerk68                  Alexander C. Scioscia, Hearing Clerk6970                            C O N T E N T S7172                              ----------73                                                                   Page74March 5, 2025--Hearing on the Nomination of the Honorable Dan75  Bishop, of North Carolina, to be Deputy Director of the Office76  of Management and Budget.......................................     177March 12, 2025--Executive Business Meeting on the Nomination of78  the Honorable Dan Bishop, of North Carolina, to be Deputy79  Director of the Office of Management and Budget................    858081                OPENING STATEMENTS BY COMMITTEE MEMBERS8283Senator Lindsey O. Graham, Chairman.............................. 1, 8584Senator Jeffrey A. Merkley....................................... 2, 8585    Prepared Statement8687Senator Ted Budd.................................................     38889                    STATEMENTS BY COMMITTEE MEMBERS9091Senator Johnson..................................................     992Senator Lee......................................................    1093Senator Van Hollen...............................................    1294Senator Kennedy..................................................    1595Senator Murray...................................................    1796Senator Scott....................................................    1997Senator Warner...................................................    2198Senator Ricketts.................................................    2399Senator Padilla..................................................    25100Senator Moreno...................................................    27101Senator Lujan....................................................    29102Senator Whitehouse...............................................    34103104                               WITNESSES105106The Honorable Dan Bishop, of North Carolina, to be Deputy107  Director of the Office of Management and Budget................     3108    Prepared Statement...........................................    41109    Statement of Biographical and Financial Information..........    43110111                                APPENDIX112113Responses to pre-hearing questions for the Record114    Hon. Bishop..................................................    51115Responses to post-hearing questions for the Record116    Hon. Bishop..................................................    71117Chart submitted by Senator Johnson...............................    83118119 THE NOMINATION OF THE HONORABLE DAN BISHOP, OF NORTH CAROLINA, TO BE120         DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET121122                              ----------123124                        WEDNESDAY, MARCH 5, 2025125126                                           Committee on the Budget,127                                                       U.S. Senate,128                                                    Washington, DC.129    The hearing was convened, pursuant to notice, at 10:06130a.m., in the Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Lindsey O.131Graham, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.132    Present: Senators Graham, Johnson, Marshall, Lee, Kennedy,133Ricketts, Moreno, R. Scott, Merkley, Murray, Whitehouse,134Warner, Kaine, Van Hollen, Lujan, and Padilla.135    Also present: Republican staff: Nick Myers, Majority Staff136Director; Caitlin Wilson, Senior Counsel; Lillian Meadows,137Counsel; Walker Truluck, Senior Policy Advisor; Nick Wyatt,138Professional Staff Member.139    Democratic staff: Ben Ward, Minority Staff Director; Joshua140Smith, Budget Policy Director.141    Witness: The Honorable Dan Bishop, of North Carolina, to be142Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget.143144              OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN GRAHAM145146    Chairman Graham. Good morning, everybody. Told them, you147were still clapping over in the Chamber, but thanks for coming.148We're going to do the Deputy Director of Office of Management149and Budget (OMB). I'm going to make a short opening statement150and turn it over to Senator Merkley. Here's my short opening151statement. I am for eliminating waste and relooking at the152government, but I'll be honest with you. If President's153Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) is shut down, that's154bad. There are 83 girls in Oman from Afghanistan that we're155supporting. They're going to run out of money for their support156in the middle of March. Nobody, I think, wants to send them157back to Afghanistan.158    So what we're going to do is we're going to work with the159Administration to the point that we can to give the government160a good once over, but in the process of eliminating programs161that make no sense, making them more efficient, I think it's162important we realize there are some things in this world we163need to do and find out what's wrong with the system because164Rubio gives a waiver and the money still doesn't come and165that's not acceptable. Senator Merkley.166167            OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MERKLEY \1\168---------------------------------------------------------------------------169170    \1\ Prepared statement of Senator Merkley appears in the appendix171on page 39.172---------------------------------------------------------------------------173    Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and174welcome, Mr. Bishop. And today we're considering your175nomination for Deputy Director of OMB and that's a very176important post. OMB has been at the center of many177consequential decisions in a very short of time. It's cancelled178programs, it's suspended grants, it's reorganized departments,179it's fired federal employees, and many of these actions are in180violation of the law and certainly when it comes to181Impoundment, in violation of the Constitution.182    The Executive Branch has existing ways to reorganize the183federal government and to cut spending. It can work with184Congress to pass a new law. The President can reorganize a185department by asking Congress to put forward such legislation,186but also the President has recession powers. He can send a187request to change an existing program that's already been in188the law. That was put into the 1974 Act because Congress wanted189to give a fast track for a President to ask for changes for the190existing law, subject to a simple majority and both sides 45191days, but that recession power has not been used by this192Administration.193    And the President, of course, can influence the budget to194come. We're only months away from the start of the next year195and the President has a lot of ability through bringing forward196an initial budget, to lobby, in this case, his own party that197controls both chambers to implement that vision into law. And198if he doesn't like it, he can veto it. He can veto the bill. So199he has tremendous power going forward.200    But here we are at this moment in a situation where instead201of using the legal tools, the President is illegally acting and202part of what members of this Committee is interested in is are203you going to be party to these illegal actions? Are you going204to be a party to violations of the Constitution? Are you going205to be a different influence that says, hey, let's use these206tools. We're months away from Fiscal Year (FY) 26, starts on207October 1st. Let's build this vision for the future. Let's work208with the majority in both chambers to make it happen.209    I can tell you in my town halls back home--and I do a town210hall in every county every year. Most of my counties are very211``red'' so it's a wide diversity of opinion that's brought to212bear. There is extreme concern that the very foundations on213which country operates, respect for the law and respect for the214Constitution are in deep trouble.215    Today I want to find out if you're going to be part of that216trouble or are you going to be part of restoring the vision of217the foundation of law and the Constitution. There will also be218questions today, I'm sure, from members regarding your specific219viewpoints. That's normal in a hearing to understand better the220talents and qualifications that you bring to the post. Look221forward to that conversation.222    Chairman Graham. Thank you. So it's my pleasure to223introduce the nominee, Dan Bishop, who I've known for a long224time. I think you're an excellent choice. You and Mr. Vought225will be a good team. He's currently a senior advisor at OMB. He226was the North Carolina Attorney General campaign in 2024, so he227knows what it's like to campaign throughout a big state. House228of Representatives from 2019 to 2025. He was on the Judiciary229and Homeland Security Committee and North Carolina State230Senate, North Carolina State House, County Commissioner, and231went to University of North Carolina (UNC)--nobody's perfect.232So I just think you're the right guy at the right time and233welcome to the Committee. Senator Budd.234235                   STATEMENT OF SENATOR BUDD236237    Senator Budd. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Ranking238Member. I'm proud to introduce my friend, Dan Bishop, who I've239known quite a long time. It's good to see his wife, Jo, here240and a lot of other North Carolinians, almost South Carolinians,241if you will, Chairman.242    So long before I was ever in Congress when Amy Kate and I243lived in Charlotte, North Carolina, everyone would tell me if244you want to know a great leader, if you want to get to know a245great leader, get to know County Commissioner Dan Bishop. So I246was in my twenties at that point and I was just getting started247in business. I think I was a little too shy or a little too248nervous to even give him a call because after all, Mecklenburg249was a really big county. So I've got no doubt that Dan will250bring the same tenacity of the job at OMB that he's shown251throughout his career, both as a litigator in his time serving252the people of North Carolina public office and through his role253in the U.S. Congress.254    So Dan, best of luck and God speed. When I introduced Dan--255this has two hearings and when I introduced Dan at the Homeland256Security Conference, I ended with y'all be nice. While I say257that again, I want to leave the Budget Committee with this. If258we're serious about shrinking our national debt and deficit,259Dan is the man for the job of Deputy OMB Director. Dan, good260luck and thank you.261    Chairman Graham. Would you please stand? Raise your right262hand. Do you solemnly swear the testimony you're about to give263before the Budget Committee is the truth, the whole truth, and264nothing but the truth, so help you God?265    Hon. Bishop. I do.266    Chairman Graham. Thank you. The floor is yours.267268STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DAN BISHOP, OF NORTH CAROLINA, TO BE269   DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET \2\270---------------------------------------------------------------------------271272    \2\ Prepared statement of Hon. Bishop appears in the appendix on273page 41.274---------------------------------------------------------------------------275    Hon. Bishop. Thank you, Chairman Graham and Ranking Member276Merkley, and members of the Committee for this hearing. Thank277you also to my dear friend, Ted Budd. I think he was rubbing it278in how much younger he is than me, but I want to thank him for279his kind words of introduction at both hearings. Our friendship280is a great personal privilege for me and the people of North281Carolina should know, they do know, that they have a great282champion in Ted Budd.283    After five years in the House of Representatives where I284had the pleasure of working with several of you, I now find285myself facing you on the other side of the dais. If I am286confirmed, it would be an honor to work with you once again to287serve our nation in a new capacity--to implement President288Trump's vision and agenda.289    I want to thank my wife, Jo. She's also my partner in life290in every respect, and my son, Jack, who's working hard at law291school today, for their endless strength and support over my292entire career, including this nomination process.293    Thanks also to my former Congressional office staff who've294come to show their support at these hearings as my dear295friends. And of course, I want to thank Director Vought for his296support and for his extraordinary gesture of attending today. I297was thrilled to see Director Vought confirmed and I can assure298you that he is the man to get management of the federal299government back on track.300    If confirmed, I look forward to serving as his Deputy. It's301a tremendous honor to be nominated by President Trump to serve302as the Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget.303Unknown by name to many, it impacts every American household304through crafting the President's budget, managing the federal305government, reforming regulation, and much more.306    It's a critical part of ensuring that the government307reflects the will of our democratically elected President in308order to respond to the will of the American people. That's who309government is for, not entrenched Washington interests and the310political establishment.311    Something I always noticed when I was in Congress when I312was out meeting folks in North Carolina is that the American313people are way ahead of us in Washington. They know what is314going on. They're smart, resourceful, resilient, and315hardworking. They want accountability, transparency, and an end316to the waste and the Washington status quo.317    They recognized in this past election that our nation was318at a crossroads. On the precipice of either renewed greatness319or ruin. In that precarious moment, they placed their320confidence in President Donald Trump to usher in a new Golden321Age for America. I'm here on behalf of that mission and the322trust placed in President Trump by the people.323    Our children and grandchildren are being crushed. Their324futures are being crushed under the massive burden of an out of325control federal debt. For too long we've been spending money we326don't have on things we don't need. Our government has been327self-absorbed, inefficient, unaccountable, and maladministered.328The good news is that we can fix all of those things and if329confirmed, I will be laser-focused on doing so at the side of330Director Russ Vought and the superb public servants at OMB.331    It's finally time for a government accountable to the332people. I fought to deliver that my entire public service333career from county commission, as Ted mentioned, to state334legislature, to Congress, and it will continue to be my North335Star. Whether elected or appointed, we must never forget the336right of the people to decide. I know that I will never forget337it.338    Thank you for considering my nomination. I look forward to339your questions.340    Chairman Graham. Thank you very much. I'll start off here.341Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), do you believe342that's a good exercise in terms of trying to find out what343makes sense in terms of spending and what doesn't?344    Hon. Bishop. I think it's an absolutely outstanding effort,345Senator. And I think the President's made it clear that's what346he wanted to do. Elon Musk's contribution to the effort--it is347changing the status quo.348    Chairman Graham. I agree. And let me tell you why.349    Somebody should've known a long time ago. What percentage350of the federal budget is entitlements, plus interest?351    Hon. Bishop. Can't give you the exact percentage. You know,352it's--when you get the interest added on, which now exceeds the353Defense budget, we're talking, you know, well over 50 percent354of the federal budget.355    Chairman Graham. Yes, I think it's north of 75 but Ron356would know that.357    Hon. Bishop. Right.358    Chairman Graham. I think it's like 78.359    Hon. Bishop. Right.360    Chairman Graham. The way I've always supposed this. You're361never going to get people to work together to reform362entitlements until you first go through the budget and get363waste and stupid stuff out. Do you agree with that?364    Hon. Bishop. I totally agree, Senator.365    Chairman Graham. Well, that's going on and I applaud that.366The list things that the President read last night was pretty367funny and at the same time obscene what your money's being368spent on, right?369    Hon. Bishop. Right.370    Chairman Graham. So I applaud all that, but there's some371things in the process. In the process of finding out what works372and what doesn't, let's don't kill things that are absolutely373necessary. The President wants 5 percent of Gross Domestic374Product (GDP) on Defense. That's what he says. Does that make375sense to you?376    Hon. Bishop. Well, Senator, if the President says it----377    Chairman Graham. Well, that's what he said. Yeah, I'm not378trying to pitch against him. I'd like that too. Let's see if we379can get there. He wants to balance the budget. I know I do too.380And so about 25 percent of the budget is non-entitlements, non-381interest, and let's give a once over. Defense is in that.382Eliminating the Department of Education, fine with me, and all383that good stuff. But there are 83 girls in Oman that we got out384of Afghanistan that we're supporting, that the money ends out385in the middle of March.386    Do you think it's in our interest to make sure they don't387have to go back to Afghanistan?388    Hon. Bishop. Well, Senator, I think I'd have to know the389rest of the details. You made reference to it in your opening390comments. I'm not familiar with the story you're talking about.391Undoubtedly, when you make change, you're going to see some392things that are dislocated and they may have to be put back.393    Chairman Graham. Well, I want to talk to you about that394because that doesn't advance the ball at all. Are you familiar395with PEPFAR.396    Hon. Bishop. I am.397    Chairman Graham. Do you think it's generally been a good398program?399    Hon. Bishop. As a general proposition, absolutely. I've400heard some news about PEPFAR in the last couple days and the401things from which PEPFAR money is going that were stunning to402me, if true, so I think even that--every program, no matter how403valuable ought to be looked at very carefully.404    Chairman Graham. 100 percent. Yes, I'm a big fan of PEPFAR.405The concept of helping people not pass Acquired406Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS) onto unborn children and all407that good stuff, but it could be looked at too. Mothers--child408AIDS transmission has gone down by like 70 percent in the last40920 years. All that's good stuff, but everything should be410looked at, so count me in for that, including the Defense411Department.412    I hope the DOGE people will give the Defense Department a413good once over. Does that make sense to you?414    Hon. Bishop. It does, Senator, very much.415    Chairman Graham. Now here's the problem I've got. I support416what you're doing, but I've talked to Secretary Rubio a bunch417about programs that are now very much in limbo or have actually418been shutdown that I don't think most Americans would want that419to happen and he's granted waivers. He has waiver authority;420are you familiar with that?421    Hon. Bishop. I am, Senator.422    Chairman Graham. When he grants a waiver, the money doesn't423flow. Do you know what causes that?424    Hon. Bishop. I do not, Mr. Chairman.425    Chairman Graham. Well, I don't either. I mean I'm not426blaming you. Can we, me and you and Mr. Vought get together and427try to figure out--the only way this works--you're not going to428get the American people to do what Ronald Reagan and Tip429O'Neill did, which is save Social Security by making some430commonsense adjustments--until they have confidence you've431really cleaned the underbrush of the government out. In the432process of doing that, all things are not the same. Does that433make sense to you?434    Hon. Bishop. It does.435    Chairman Graham. So if you go too far, you're going to lose436trust in terms of actually cleaning up the place. So this is a437historic moment. What's happening should've happened a long438time ago and let's get it right to the point that we can. If we439have to adjust because we overshot the runway, do it. If you440need to go around--let's get this right. I really do believe441you and Mr. Vought are the right two to be able to convey to442the Congress and to the President what works and what doesn't.443    Most people don't know about this job you two have, but444it's one of the most important jobs in town. Good luck.445    Hon. Bishop. Well, thank you, Senator.446    Senator Merkley. Thank you very, very much, Mr. Chairman.447    The key point of conversation has been the Impoundment448Control Act and back when Nixon decided to start impounding449funds two things happened. One is there were appeals to the450courts which eventually made it to the Supreme Court and the451Supreme Court reinforced that you know when a separation of452powers embodied in our Constitution Congress makes the law. The453Executive has to follow the law and that means to spend the454money in the way that Congress has laid out.455    The second thing is that Congress said, but you know what,456we should create a fast track for a President to undo or457propose undoing spending that the President considers458inappropriate called a rescission. That rescission power was459used in the early years after the 1974 Budget Empower Control460Act, but not used much since. And you have a law degree. You461practiced law. Correct?462    Hon. Bishop. That's correct.463    Senator Merkley. You have a fundamental education and an464understanding of the U.S. Constitution, do you not?465    Hon. Bishop. I do.466    Senator Merkley. Do you understand the importance of law467being applied as written?468    Hon. Bishop. Certainly.469    Senator Merkley. And so, how do you feel about this470situation in which funds are being impounded currently which471the Supreme Court has said is unconstitutional?472    Hon. Bishop. Senator, President Trump ran on Impoundment.473I've heard Director Vought in his hearings speak about474Impoundment. I've studied the issue, but I am seeking a475position--seeking to be confirmed to a position that is not a476lawyer position. I won't be making the legal determinations for477OMB or for the Administration in terms of the legal positions478that it decides to take. I am persuaded, though, that there was479history in the United States before the 1974 Impoundment480Control Act.481    Former Senator Harry Truman, as President of the United482Stated impounded funds to prevent the funding of a squadron of483strategic aircraft. Ulysses S. Grant exercised Impoundment484Power. Thomas Jefferson exercised the Impoundment Power, and I485think Senator, when you dig in, it's a compelling argument that486there is power in the Executive in the nature of Impoundment.487Exactly what its contours are I don't know. I won't be deciding488those things, but I support the President's plan to use489Impoundment to get federal government spending in line.490    Senator Merkley. Well, sitting behind you is your future491boss, who very much advocates that he doesn't care what the492Supreme Court decided before because he disagrees and he thinks493the President disagrees. He was very honest and upfront about494that. But in our system of government, we don't get to decide495the constitutional issue and say individually we disagree with496the Supreme Court.497    Now if the Supreme Court relitigates this and comes to498comes to a different conclusion, then there would be the499traditional power is granted by the Court and I understand that500that's the plan. But at this point every consideration has been501that this is illegal and unconstitutional and I'm sorry to hear502that with your training in the law you're inclined to simply503say, well, President ran on it.504    He didn't give a lot of speeches about Impoundment, by the505way, and he didn't give a lot of speeches about the plan to cut506two trillion dollars from fundamental programs for families to507give two trillion dollars to tax giveaways to the richest508Americans. He didn't talk about it last night either, but when509there's a fundamental question of law and you, as a trained510lawyer, say, well, I'll just follow whatever the President511says, that concerns me because we need to have people of512integrity who are willing to follow the law in key positions513like this. Are you going to be a person with integrity to514follow the law?515    Hon. Bishop. Senator, you've put words in my mouth that I516did not say and you've put words in Director Vought's mouth517that he did not say, with respect, and I certainly am a person518of integrity, but it is not a question of not following the519Supreme Court. For example, you say the Supreme Court has520decided the constitutional questions of the Impoundment Control521Act. That's just misinformed.522    Senator Merkley. Oh really? Why don't you inform us all on523how--given that they've made that decision.524    Hon. Bishop. Well, they didn't, sir. Train v. New York does525not consider the Impoundment Control Act and it does not526consider the President's power of Impoundment, neither one.527    Senator Merkley. We'll continue that conversation because528others disagree with you. I'm not a lawyer myself, so I will529take this under advisement, but that's certainly my530understanding from other legal scholars that this has been well531adjudicated.532    I am concerned also about your flipflopping. You proceeded533to say in a letter back in 2021 when you were concerned about534whether or not President Biden was proceeding to not execute535the law exactly as written. You said this action is an abuse of536the Executive Branch's authorities and appears in violation of537the Impoundment Control Act of 1974.538    Here you are a champion of the Impoundment Control Act back539in 2021 and now you're saying you're not so sure. You just want540to follow the President and the President doesn't believe that541he needs to follow it. I'm a little concerned about that542flipflopping. Can you explain why your opinion has changed so543dramatically in just a couple years?544    Hon. Bishop. Well, first, it hasn't changed that545dramatically. In that instance, what was being discussed was546President Biden's three year by then refusal to spend money547that the Congress had appropriated for border wall548construction. General Services Administration (GSA) had earlier549said at an earlier point that his suspending funding for a550programmatic review was not in violation of the Impoundment551Control Act, by the way. And so, it something that continued552almost to the entire Administration at that point in time.553    And furthermore, as I said, Senator, I've spent time554studying Train v. New York that you made reference to. I've555spent time studying the history of Impoundment and the556presidents who've used it and the circumstances and I'm557disinclined to believe that the Congress could fundamentally558alter the balance of authority between the Executive and the559Congress when they decided to pass a statute in 1974.560    Senator Merkley. My time is up, but I'll just say you were561very firm in attacking President Biden for Impoundment. Now562you're very firm in granting license to Impoundment. That seems563like a massive flipflop to me.564    Chairman Graham. I don't tend to be a legal scholar, but if565you look at the case, it really doesn't address the issue of566the scope of the Impoundment Act. You're right about that in my567view. I think the Court will take that up and it'll probably be568good for the country. Senator Johnson.569570                  STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHNSON571572    Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.573    Mr. Vought and Mr. Bishop, welcome back to the Committee. I574look forward to working with you closely in your important575role. I didn't want to disappoint anybody, so I thought I'd576bring at least one chart.577    Hon. Bishop. You have some famous charts, Senator.578    Senator Johnson. Again, you realized I've proposed a number579of pre-pandemic levels of spending. They've all been prepared580the exact same way. I've taken actual total outlays from 1998581under Clinton, 2014 under President Obama, and then 2019 under582President Trump. I've exempted Social Security and Medicare.583I've used 2025 numbers for those and interest, but all other584spending I've increased the total outlays by population growth585and inflation.586    So these are three options ranging from 5.5 trillion up to5876.5 trillion. It's interesting if President Trump or President588Biden projected revenue for 2025 at 5.5 trillion. If we use the589Clinton baseline, we'd have a balanced budget, so it's within590our grasp if we know how to do it. That's what I want to really591talk about.592    Yesterday at the Senate lunch for the Republicans I just593asked the question. Did anybody, any of our colleagues think594that in 2019 we spent too little? Nobody did. Anybody think it595wouldn't be a reasonable control to take that spending level596increased by population and inflation and put that in as a597baseline. Nobody disagreed. Then I pointed out this year we'll598spend 7.3 trillion. That baseline is 6.5. It's an almost599trillion dollar delta, $800 billion. So how do you get there?600    A couple dozen of us Republican senators meet with Elon601Musk last week and what I thought was noteworthy is we're not602talking about two or three big items. We're talking about603thousands and thousands of contracts. You know a few million604dollars, you know, just unbelievably wasteful and abuse of the605taxpayer money or the borrowed money that's mortgaging our606children's future.607    President Trump had some great examples, some embarrassing,608some outrageous examples last night. So I handed you a variance609sheet, 17 pages, comparing that baseline to project '25 by610function and subfunction. I've also got hundreds of pages of 5611to 6,000 line items of every outlay, again, plussed up for612population growth and inflation compared to about 2025 within613the variance. And that's what I'm trying to get across to my614colleagues who've never been in business the way the private615sector would do this.616    Line by line, you know, asking the manager to come and say617we never gave you the permission to increase your budget beyond618the number of people we're working with or inflation. Explain619yourself and then basically demand reduce spending to that620control. How do we do this? Is that the right approach? Because621what's happening in the House right now, they're starting at6227.3 trillion. They're looking at a couple of big programs.623They're getting attacked, so they're saying we can't cut that,624can't cut that, can't cut that as opposed to, start from a625baseline that everybody on our side thinks more than626reasonable.627    I don't think we should be looking at anything over 6.5.628I'd be starting at 5.5 and probably plussing up for Defense,629but isn't that the way we need to do this, line-by-line the way630the private sector would approach outrageous overspending, Mr.631Bishop?632    Hon. Bishop. Well, Senator, I would say a couple things.633I've heard you speak of this topic and lay this out in this634very persuasive way in a number of different forums, as you635know, public ones and private ones. And first, I would say I636think the conversation--the point that you are making637absolutely should be at the forefront of the discussion at all638times and I'm grateful to you for making it so.639    I have seen it. I think most Americans would wonder why the640massive growth in the federal government spending at COVID, at641that event, why would that be completely irreversible? Why642would we now be on a permanent track at a higher percentage of643GDP as expenditures in federal government than ever in the644history of the country? It's untenable and you can look at645those numbers and you can see that the debt is already out of646control and it's going in the wrong direction so fast it ought647to frighten everyone. So your point's well taken.648    I would say also that, of course, in my role as Deputy649Director I spent a lot of time in Congress articulating my own650views, but now I am working on behalf of the President to651implement his policies and there are a lot of things that are652competing for attention, but I think that one--you make the653greatest points of anyone I think in Congress about654consistently focusing on this issue and making sure this point655is in the conversation. And it certainly has an impact on me. I656know it does on Director Vought and we'll continue to look657forward to working with you to see how we can bring the logical658conclusion to reality.659    Senator Johnson. So Mr. Chairman, one more point is, you660know, on thing--and we have to figure out how do we implement661the DOGE exposures. There may be room for Impoundment, but in662general, we're going to have to codify that and it is going to663be line-by-line. So again, I want to work with you and the664Administration to literally go line-by-line and build this665thing up as opposed to suffering death by a thousand cuts,666starting a grotesquely unreasonable spending level of $7.3667trillion, so I look forward to working with you.668    Hon. Bishop. I look forward to joining in the endeavor.669Thank you, Senator.670    Senator Johnson. Thank you.671    Chairman Graham. Senator Merkley actually had that one672right, I thought, do a recession bill. Senator Lee.673674                    STATEMENT OF SENATOR LEE675676    Senator Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Bishop, it's677great to see you. I'm so glad that you're willing to stand for678this nomination and be considered for confirmation.679    Hon. Bishop. Thank you, Senator.680    Senator Lee. As you note, the administrative state has been681crushing the American people for some time. This is often682perceived as a soft exercise of power, but the way it's683experienced by the American people is anything but soft. You684know in 2024 alone our administrative agencies promulgated685enough regulations that together it produced a combined net686economic impact of about $1.5 trillion. So you add to where the687federal regulations promulgated prior to 2024 stood, which688estimates vary wildly, but a lot of people have estimated those689regulations in effect previous to that time being somewhere in690the range of maybe 2.5 to $3 trillion.691    We're now looking at a federal regulatory system that692imposes costs that more or less rival that which we spend on693federal income tax as an entire country. These are laws made by694men and women as well educated, well intended, hardworking,695highly trained as they might be, don't work for the American696people. They're lawmakers who are never elected.697    Now my copy of the Constitution in Article 1, Section 1 and698in Article 1, Section 7, makes clear you cannot make a federal699law unless you follow the formula and the formula goes700something like this. You got to pass the bill in the House and701you've got to pass it in the Senate. Most of the time it702doesn't matter what order, unless you're dealing with a revenue703bill, but you've got to pass the same text in both Houses and704then present it to the President, who may sign it, veto it, or705acquiesce to it.706    At the conclusion of that process, the legislative bill has707been rung. Then and only then may you make a new federal law or708change an existing federal law. But the means by which Congress709has since the late 1930s has been deferring, been delegating710this lawmaking power. It's completely reversed the equation711such that the American people are now subject to this byzantine712labyrinth of federal regulations and it brings to fulfillment a713warning made by James Madison in Federalist 62, who said, in714effect, it'll be of little avail to the American people that715their laws may be written by men of their own choosing if those716laws be so voluminous, complex, and everchanging that they717can't be read and understood. Anticipated from one day to the718next as to what the law actually requires. Only it's much worse719than James Madison's warning because it's not just that they're720everchanging, voluminous, and complex such that you can't know721what's happening. They're not even written by men and women of722our own choosing.723    Now in my view, this calls out for aggressive reforms,724including, but not limited to, but definitely including the725REINS Act, Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny.726The REINS Act would require essentially what Article 1, Section7277 already compels us to do, which is before you create a new728affirmative legal obligation applicable to the public,729enforceable on the public at the risk of losing life, liberty,730or property for failure to comply that you've got to run these731through the legislative formula prescribed by Article 1,732Section 7.733    Mr. Bishop, I'd like to know your views on the REINS Act734and how the White House and Congress can work together on735regulatory reform more broadly.736    Hon. Bishop. Thank you, Senator, for the question. Anybody737who hasn't had the experience needs to come to sit with you in738your office where you see that massive--I guess they call it a739bookshelf filled floor to ceiling, floor to top with paper that740represents the regulatory output last year and then see what741Congress passed as a small stack on top. I'm not sure I've ever742seen anything that--in fact, it took me by surprise when I met743with you that it well captures how out of control the744regulatory states--you know, massive output of law is and yet745those were regulations.746    I mean on top of that you've got guidance and unofficial747statements that get out on the websites, all of which can be748the source of enforcement by those same agencies in which they749make the law, they act as the judge and jury also for everybody750out in the society. I guess I'd say a couple things, Senator.751    President Trump has, you know, his own plans to reform the752regulatory state. He's talked about taking 10 regulations down753for every 1 that comes along. The Office of Information and754Regulatory Affairs, OIRA, at OMB will be at the heart of that755effort and I look forward to participating very much in that.756As a member of Congress, I was very much in support of the757REINS Act. In fact, we tried to do something similar in North758Carolina. We did have a great regulatory reform agenda that was759very successful in North Carolina, so I know it can be done. I760think REINS has great merit, but of course what the President's761priorities are where I'll focus as Deputy Director of OMB.762    Senator Lee. I appreciate that, Mr. Bishop, and I see my763time's expired. I'll add here just that I too cheered last764night when President Trump talked about 1 in/10 out.765    That's fantastic. That buys us food for a day or at least766four years.767    In order to have a sustainable supply of liberty, we need768legislative reform, permanent structural reform. And in my769view, the best way to make that happen, maybe the only way to770make it happen is to attach to a must-pass vehicle. I think the771most fitting pairing would probably be a debt ceiling bill. I772believe Congress should not enact legislation suspending or773increasing the debt ceiling without attaching the REINS Act and774I hope that you and the White House will support that. Thank775you, Mr. Chairman.776    Hon. Bishop. Thank you, Senator.777    Chairman Graham. Senator Van Hollen.778779                STATEMENT OF SENATOR VAN HOLLEN780781    Senator Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.782    Mr. Bishop, it's good to see you. As you know, we only get783five minutes.784    Hon. Bishop. Yes, of course.785    Senator Van Hollen. Try to keep your answers short.786    I'm just going to ask some direct questions.787    Hon. Bishop. All right.788    Senator Van Hollen. The first one is do you commit, if789you're confirmed for this position, to comply with any court790orders directed toward the jurisdiction of the Office of791Management and Budget?792    Hon. Bishop. Yes, Senator.793    Senator Van Hollen. Good. So now let me talk briefly about794what Senator Merkley discussed, which is the Impoundment795Control Act. I think he referenced the letter you earlier796signed at Government Accountability Office (GAO) asking whether797or not the Biden Administration had violated the Impoundment798Control Act. You remember that letter, right?799    Hon. Bishop. I do.800    Senator Van Hollen. And at that time you agreed that the801Impoundment Control Act was good law, am I right about that?802    Hon. Bishop. Well, Senator, my views were more informed now803than they were then, but I didn't draft the letter either, but804I signed a letter to that effect.805    Senator Van Hollen. That's right. And obviously, the806assumption behind that letter at that time you believed that807was good law.808    Hon. Bishop. It was a lay opinion, Senator. That's right.809    Senator Van Hollen. So you've changed your opinion since810then, is that right?811    Hon. Bishop. Well, I've studied it more.812    Senator Van Hollen. It is the law of the land. I mean you813signed that letter to GAO making that clear. Do you agree that814until it's overturned by a court that you will comply with the815Impoundment Control Act, if confirmed?816    Hon. Bishop. Well, Senator, the determinations about how817the Administration will proceed and the legal strategy or the818determinations are being made by others than me. I'm not a819lawyer. I'm not going to be--I'm not a lawyer in the820Administration or to be a lawyer in the Administration. The821General Counsel's Office at OMB makes those determinations.822Director Vought will make decisions in light of their823determinations.824    Senator Van Hollen. Okay. I would suggest, Mr. Bishop, that825you were right when you signed that letter a number of years826ago. And to the Chairman's comments, I would just point out if827you tear up the Impoundment Control Act, you might as well tear828up Article 1 and we might as well pack up when it comes to829using the power of the purse.830    Chairman Graham. If I may, I don't mean----831    Senator Van Hollen. As long as it doesn't come of my time.832    Chairman Graham. Oh yeah, it will not count against you.833Take all the time you need. Biden said the Impoundment Control834Act did not require him to build the wall. Do you agree with835that?836    Senator Van Hollen. I believe the GAO looked at the837allegation.838    (Simultaneous discussion)839    Senator Van Hollen. No, no, no, GAO is the body that we840entrust to make these determinations.841    Chairman Graham. Well, I mean okay, but he said the842Impoundment Control Act did not require him to build the wall843when Congress told him to do it.844    Senator Van Hollen. Well, GAO found that that was not----845    Chairman Graham. GAO is not the court here.846    Senator Van Hollen. Well, GAO is the body that we, as847Congress, have--well, they are.848    Chairman Graham. No, they're not. You get two extra849minutes.850    Senator Van Hollen. Actually, they are if you look at the851law. They're the ones that are entrusted in bringing actions to852comply with the Impoundment Control Act, is that right, Mr.853Bishop?854    Hon. Bishop. No, sir. The GAO is an instrument of Congress,855so it might set an opinion that binds Congress, but it's not a856court.857    Senator Van Hollen. No, no--anyway, that's who we empower858to bring cases on behalf of Congress with respect to compliance859with the Impoundment Control Act. Let me turn to the issue of860the firing of probationary employees. You're familiar with the861fact that a California Federal District Court issued a ruling862related to this, right?863    Hon. Bishop. Actually, Senator, there are a lot of stories864about a lot things. I don't know if I've got that one crystal865clear in my mind, but yes, I'm aware there's----866    Senator Van Hollen. So they just issued a ruling that867directly relates to this and the Merit System Protection Board868also ruled in favor of six representative federal employees869who'd been on probationary status, are you familiar with that?870    Hon. Bishop. I heard about that, yes, sir.871    Senator Van Hollen. All right. And so it's interesting872because just yesterday, I believe, a spokesperson for Office of873Personnel Management (OPM) said, ``This change was helped to874provide clarity in light of a recent court order'' and the875change was that the Administration conceded that OPM cannot876fire people who probationary employees, are you familiar with877that?878    Hon. Bishop. No, I'm not actually, Senator.879    Senator Van Hollen. So these employees were getting these880notices from OPM and some of Elon Musk's folks to informed them881that they were being fired. That is not allowable. It has to be882done by the agencies and so I see that OPM had to clean that883up. They claimed it was because of some public misinformation,884but there's no public misinformation when somebody gets a885directive from OPM.886    You are familiar with the standard, and I think you outline887it here in this memo, that it's always been up to agencies888whether to take performance-based actions against probationary889employees. So you agree that it has to be a performance-based890reason to fire somebody who's on probationary status, is that891right?892    Hon. Bishop. I'm sorry, Senator. I'm trying to remember893what memo you're referring to; is it something that I wrote?894    Senator Van Hollen. No, but this is something that came out895of OPM that directly relates to the Administration's action.896    Hon. Bishop. Well, I'm not in command of everything that897OPM has issued and not even in the same agency obviously.898    Senator Van Hollen. Right.899    Hon. Bishop. And I'm just a senior advisor.900    Senator Van Hollen. OMB is sort of the cockpit for the901entire federal budget, but let me ask you this. Do you know902what the standard is for firing somebody who's on probationary903status?904    Hon. Bishop. I do not. I certainly don't profess, for905example, to be an expert, a legal expert on that subject. A lot906of people sort think if you're a lawyer you should know all of907the law. I have not been an expert in federal personnel. I'm908generally aware of the existence of Title V and so forth.909    Senator Van Hollen. Well, the bottom line is courts are910finding that these were illegal actions taken by the Musk911operation and so I appreciate your answer to my very first912question that if confirmed you will agree to comply with court913orders. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.914    Hon. Bishop. Yes, Senator. Thank you.915    Chairman Graham. You've got a minute if you want it.916    Senator Van Hollen. That's all right.917    Chairman Graham. Okay.918    Senator Van Hollen. I may come back, but thank you, Mr.919Chairman.920    Chairman Graham. Okay. Senator Kennedy.921922                  STATEMENT OF SENATOR KENNEDY923924    Senator Kennedy. Congressman, when moms and dads lie down925to sleep at night and can't, one of the things they're worried926about is cost of living, high prices; isn't that true?927    Hon. Bishop. Absolutely, certainly true.928    Senator Kennedy. And those high prices were caused by929inflation.930    Hon. Bishop. Yes, Senator.931    Senator Kennedy. Am I right?932    Hon. Bishop. That's right.933    Senator Kennedy. And inflation has come down. That's a good934thing, right?935    Hon. Bishop. It is a good thing, Senator.936    Senator Kennedy. But that just means when the inflation has937gone from 10 percent to 3 percent that prices are rising less938quickly. They're still rising, aren't they?939    Hon. Bishop. Yes, Senator.940    Senator Kennedy. That's call disinflation.941    Hon. Bishop. If they fall, that'd be disinflation, yes,942sir.943    Senator Kennedy. No, if the rate of inflation comes down,944that's disinflation.945    Hon. Bishop. Oh, I beg your pardon. Okay.946    Senator Kennedy. If prices comes down that's deflation.947    Hon. Bishop. Yes.948    Senator Kennedy. Now most Americans they don't read949Aristotle every day. They're too busy earning a living. They950don't know the difference between deflation and disinflation,951but they sure as hell understand that the high prices have952remained, don't they?953    Hon. Bishop. Yes, Senator.954    Senator Kennedy. We've got a lot of work to do around here.955    Hon. Bishop. Yes, sir.956    Senator Kennedy. And we need four years to do it and we957need a cooperative House and Senate to do it.958    Hon. Bishop. I agree, Senator.959    Senator Kennedy. If we don't get these high prices down,960we're not going to have four years. We're going to have a961divided Congress. You can write that down and take it home to962momma.963    Hon. Bishop. Yes, sir.964    Senator Kennedy. This election was about the economy and965people were still worried about these high prices. Now one way966to get these high prices down to reduce prices. Reduce prices967would be to reduce the amount of federal spending; isn't that968true?969    Hon. Bishop. I think so, Senator.970    Senator Kennedy. Because that's how we got here with the971massive amount of federal spending that President Biden972perfected. So if we can reduce the federal budget, we can973reduce prices.974    Hon. Bishop. Yes, Senator.975    Senator Kennedy. That's one thing you and Mr. Vought can976do. Number 2, if we deregulate that'll reduce prices, won't it?977    Hon. Bishop. It will, Senator.978    Senator Kennedy. Why is that?979    Hon. Bishop. Because producers of goods and services in the980economy face less costs, particularly less costs that waste981money because they're not really accomplishing anything.982They're just sort of chasing the regulatory wheel.983    Senator Kennedy. Well, hell yeah. Regulations cost the984American business community two trillion dollars a year. If we985can cut that in half, they can pass and will pass the savings986onto the American people.987    Hon. Bishop. Yes, sir.988    Senator Kennedy. Now the third way we can get these high989prices down, is it not, is to grow out of them.990    Hon. Bishop. Agreed.991    Senator Kennedy. Stimulate the economy.992    Hon. Bishop. Certainly, the President intends to that,993Senator that's right.994    Senator Kennedy. To raise wages.995    Hon. Bishop. Yes, real wage gains.996    Senator Kennedy. So this idea that we have to go into a997recession in order to have deflation is not really true, is it?998    Hon. Bishop. Not at all.999    Senator Kennedy. If we cut spending, if we deregulate the1000economy, if we stimulate the economy in a way that helps real1001people--small businesses and large businesses, but most real1002people to increase their wages we can deal with these high1003prices, can't we?1004    Hon. Bishop. That's exactly right.1005    Senator Kennedy. Well, that's what I hope you gentlemen1006will do.1007    Hon. Bishop. Well, we'll need the help of Congress.1008    Senator Kennedy. I haven't heard enough about deregulation.1009I mean I know these other issues that we're talking about are1010important, but that's the surest way.1011    Hon. Bishop. I can assure you, Senator----1012    Senator Kennedy. In the short term, while we're working on1013our reconciliation bill, the surest way is to deregulate and1014reduce the spending.1015    Hon. Bishop. I can assure you that is a focus that Director1016Vought is focused on like a laser and the effort is getting1017ready to get underway.1018    Senator Kennedy. Yes. Now another question quickly. Do you1019think we ought to be sending government checks to dead people?1020    Hon. Bishop. No, Senator, I think that's poor management.1021    Senator Kennedy. During the pandemic we sent out $1.41022billion of checks to dead people, didn't we?1023    Hon. Bishop. I don't have the figures, Senator, but I1024wouldn't be surprised by that, given everything that----1025    Senator Kennedy. And they were cashed, weren't they?1026    Hon. Bishop. They generally get cashed whether they're dead1027or not.1028    Senator Kennedy. What does that tell you?1029    Hon. Bishop. Somebody's alive.1030    Senator Kennedy. Yes. Now Senator Carper and I passed a1031bill. It took us two years to try to stop that. When you die,1032the state sends your name to the Social Security1033Administration. Your name goes on what's called the Death1034Master File.1035    Hon. Bishop. Yes, sir.1036    Senator Kennedy. I went to Social Security and I said can I1037see the list. They said sure. I said who do you share this1038with. They said nobody. We can't. We don't have statutory1039authority. I said you don't share it with the Do Not Pay folks1040at Treasury? They said nope. It's against the law. Well, rather1041than argue with them, Senator Carper and I passed a bill. But1042believe it or not, to say Social Security share the dead people1043list with the rest of government for God's sakes. Put down the1044bong and share it with them. And believe it or not, we had1045opposition, so we had to agree to a three-year trial period.1046    We saved a bunch of money. That three-year trial period is1047up at the end of 2026. I've got another bill with Gary Peters1048to extend it to make it permanent. You guys got any problem1049with that?1050    Hon. Bishop. Well, Senator, I cannot speak for the1051President or for Director Vought.1052    Senator Kennedy. Oh, go ahead.1053    Hon. Bishop. It's hard for me to imagine who would be1054opposed.1055    Senator Kennedy. Well, you'd be surprised.1056    Hon. Bishop. No, sir, I wouldn't be surprised as it turns1057out, but I still can't imagine who would be opposed.1058    Senator Kennedy. Okay. You going to follow the law?1059    Hon. Bishop. Absolutely. Absolutely.1060    Senator Kennedy. You going to defy court orders?1061    Hon. Bishop. No, sir.1062    Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.1063    Chairman Graham. Thank you, Senator. Dead people have a1064very good lobby apparently. So Senator Murray.10651066                  STATEMENT OF SENATOR MURRAY10671068    Senator Murray. Well, thank you. Thank you very much,1069    Congressman Bishop. I just want to be really clear upfront.1070You may not like it, but our Appropriation bills are not1071optional. They're actually law. You were just asked if you'd1072follow the law. Appropriation bills are law and I expect you1073and the entire Administration to allocate funding as Congress1074intended by law. This is not a theoretical issue. If Congress1075passes a law that specifies that a hospital in Seattle should1076receive some amount of federal funding, I expect that hospital1077to receive every penny.1078    In this system of government under the American1079Constitution, Elon Musk, President Trump can't pick winners or1080losers. They don't get to pick which laws they follow or what1081hospitals or schools get funded. They can write a budget. They1082lobby all of us for it. I expect them to do it, but they cannot1083overrule the entire democratically elected Congress and use the1084American people's taxpayer dollars as a giant slush fund.1085    Congressman, at a hearing last week, you refused to say1086that you'd follow that law no matter what illegal directive1087you're given. I, as a former preschool teacher, like to keep1088things simple. Congress legislates. We write the bills,1089allocate the funding, after the President signs the bills, he1090faithful executes. So just let me give you another opportunity1091to say you will follow the law.1092    Appropriation bills are passed, will you follow the law and1093use the funds as directed?1094    Hon. Bishop. Senator, thank you for the question. I've said1095in response to several Senators here today President Trump's1096run on Impoundment. Director Vought's expressed his view that1097impoundment is within the power of the President in certain1098ways.1099    Senator Murray. Wait a minute. There's a law that says that1100impoundment is illegal. You won't follow that law.1101    Hon. Bishop. I'm aware of the Impoundment Control Act,1102Senator.1103    Senator Murray. Right. You just don't agree with that law?1104    Hon. Bishop. I believe that is--I join Director Vought's1105view that that's not a constitutional law.1106    Senator Murray. You just answered Senator Kennedy that you1107would follow the law, but you're going to pick out one1108exception that you won't follow?1109    Hon. Bishop. Well, Senator, you know, the Budget Control1110Act requires a budget process be completed every year. The1111Senate hasn't done that in decades.1112    Senator Murray. That's not a law. That is a process here,1113but when we write Appropriations bills.1114    Hon. Bishop. It is a law, Senator.1115    Senator Murray. Appropriations bills are laws. Correct?1116    Hon. Bishop. They are.1117    Senator Murray. Signed by the President.1118    Hon. Bishop. That's correct.1119    Senator Murray. Will you follow those laws or not? Do you1120have a law you disagree with?1121    Hon. Bishop. Senator, we'll certainly follow the law. It's1122no more complicated than the question----1123    Senator Murray. Yes, I can see you're not going to follow1124that one. Okay. Perhaps you can help me understand something1125else. As I understand it, Elon Musk and DOGE are saying they're1126conducting mass firing to help save taxpayer dollars. Out in1127the Pacific Northwest we have the Bonneville Power1128Administration (BPA). It's actually a self-sustaining agency.1129It provides millions of dollars--power, sorry. Power to1130millions of people in states like mine in the Pacific1131Northwest. It's actually funded by ratepayers, not by1132taxpayers. We don't use a dime of taxpayer money to pay BPA1133salaries. So do you have any idea why Elon Musk thinks firing1134people, which he did at the BPA, will reduce federal spending?1135    Hon. Bishop. Senator, I am completely unfamiliar with that1136situation. Be glad to take it back or look into it and be glad1137to make my number available to you.1138    Senator Murray. I would appreciate that because firing BPA1139employees saves us zero taxpayer dollars. It is completely1140funded by the users in the Pacific Northwest.1141    Hon. Bishop. Thank you, Senator. As I said, I'd be happy to1142take that back and look into it.1143    Senator Murray. Okay. I want to talk about Social Security1144for just a minute. Do you think seniors should be able to talk1145to a real person? Elder people when they're trying to get ahold1146of somebody, do you think they should talk to a real person or1147have the possibility to do that?1148    Hon. Bishop. Senator, it might seem like common sense to1149me, although I will say there's a somewhat--you know, I'm not a1150spring chicken anymore and a lot of things have moved into a1151direction other than having a live person available for every1152telephone call. I really can't speak to it.1153    Senator Murray. Well, can you promise every member here1154that cutting more than 12 percent of the agencies' workforce1155will improve customer service?1156    Hon. Bishop. I don't know enough about the Social Security1157Administration's workforce to know that Senator. I think that's1158one of the issues about where we are today is there are lot of1159assumptions like that, that turn out not to be true when1160they're looked at very carefully.1161    Senator Murray. I would just have the premise when you cut116212 percent of the people that there will not be--and, by the1163way, a number of field offices, there won't be people to answer1164people's calls or have them come in and understand really1165challenging situations when a spouse dies or the other many1166things that they deal with. So we'll leave that at that.1167    I just want to ask you one last question for the record.1168    Do you believe the 2020 election was rigged?1169    Hon. Bishop. I join the view Director Vought expressed on1170the point.1171    Senator Murray. I'm sorry?1172    Hon. Bishop. I join Director Vought's view of that1173question. He said it was rigged in his responses and I join1174that.1175    Senator Murray. And you think it's rigged?1176    Hon. Bishop. Yes.1177    Senator Murray. Thank you.1178    Chairman Graham. Senator Moreno. Scott, I apologize.11791180                   STATEMENT OF SENATOR SCOTT11811182    Senator Scott. Well, Congressman, I'm glad you're here.1183    Hon. Bishop. Thank you.1184    Senator Scott. Good luck with your job.1185    Hon. Bishop. Great to be here.1186    Senator Scott. You know I love it when the Democrats talk1187about following the law. When I was Governor of Florida because1188I wouldn't expand Medicaid, Barack Obama cut a billion dollars1189out of my Medicaid program like that. Not one Democrat said1190that was a problem, not one Democrat. He cut a billion dollars1191and it was a program that went to hospitals that did more1192uncompensated care, a billion dollars gone and didn't come back1193until we got a new president. So congratulations. Why do you1194want to do this and what're you going to get done in your four1195years?1196    Hon. Bishop. Thank you, Senator. And if I might real1197quickly to say in response to what you just said, I think there1198are many such examples. If you think about orders that1199President Biden issued in the last Administration that were1200plainly contrary to law. Even after the Supreme Court issued1201opinions on student debt cancellation, for example, he did more1202of it. And I want to make clear because I think there is1203something that needs to be said, which I haven't talked about1204violating the law. I talked about there may be issues about the1205Impoundment Control Act and its constitutionality and what1206exactly the contours are of the historic power to impound and1207that's probably going to--President Trump has made clear that's1208going to be looked at. So that's part of, I think, in answer to1209the question what I hope to do.1210    I think what President Trump said last night in a speech--I1211don't think I've ever seen a better State of the Union1212address--but he said there's going to be action. The American1213people are so ready for action and I spent five years in the1214Congress in the House of Representatives ready for action that1215I never saw take place. And I don't even know that it's1216conservative or liberal. It's common sense and it's actual1217change.1218    The reason I'm looking forward to this job more than any1219job I've had in my life is because I know Russ Vought. I know1220what the President of the United States intends to do in terms1221of action to see change and I am thrilled, should I be1222confirmed by the Senate, to be part of it.1223    Senator Scott. Do you think you can balance the budget?1224    Hon. Bishop. Absolutely. I'm certain that can be done,1225    Senator.1226    Senator Scott. Have you done that in your personal life?1227    Hon. Bishop. I certainly have.1228    Senator Scott. Gosh, how do you do it?1229    Hon. Bishop. It's amazing. My wife is the key to so many1230things.1231    Senator Scott. Did you like find out what you're going to1232make and not spend more than that?1233    Hon. Bishop. Look for opportunities to save and not pay for1234some things we paid for at one point in time we find not to be1235worthwhile.1236    Senator Scott. Do you have a credit card?1237    Hon. Bishop. I do.1238    Senator Scott. Do you review it to see if it's proper?1239    Hon. Bishop. The way the review works in our household is1240that if something's on it that's not supposed to be there, I1241hear about it from the boss.1242    Senator Scott. And have you ever like changed your1243telephone plan to get a better deal?1244    Hon. Bishop. And that's a constant source of discussion1245internally. I've got the cheapest plan you can imagine,1246    Senator. I'd be glad to tell you about it.1247    Senator Scott. Yes. So we've seen a 2 percent increase in1248population five years and a 53 percent increase in federal1249spending. How on God's green earth can we live within this?1250    Hon. Bishop. Every American who had an opportunity to focus1251on that number would say that's absurd.1252    Senator Scott. Yes. So my colleague from Ohio and others1253here we just went through campaigns. I went through my1254reelection and I tell people when they come up here because1255everybody's in my office now asking for money. And here's what1256I tell them. I said, you know what, I'd say, I don't know, I'd1257say a thousand events in the last year, nobody, not one person1258in my state asked me about that program, but you know what they1259did ask me about? Why isn't the border secure and why's the1260cost of living going up? That's all they're asking about. I1261mean the whole campaign that's they--I was at a Jimmy Johns1262restaurant the other day and the lady was just saying, look, I1263moved to Florida because you're the governor. I could get a job1264but she said the cost of living is just skyrocketed. The1265groceries are out of whack.1266    So what are some of the things you think that you can get1267done--and by the way, do you think we get inflation under1268control if we don't balance the budget?1269    Hon. Bishop. No, sir, I don't think so. And whether we have1270to actually get the balance to get it under control, I think1271you could get inflation under control probably short of that1272target, but it still needs to be done to be sustainable over1273the long term. But I think the plain thing is that President1274Trump has made it clear over and over. In his State of the1275Union last night, he made it clear how relentlessly he is1276focused on that.1277    He's laid out strategies that are plausible in terms of,1278for example, unleashing American energy production, lowering1279the cost of energy. You're not only going to reduce the cost of1280every time somebody makes an energy-related transaction, but1281energy goes into everything that is done in the goods and1282services across the economy. That's a businessman's judgment.1283If I can say that to you and Senator Moreno next to you1284thinking about this, Senator Johnson, Senator Ricketts, and I1285think that's so refreshing to the American people to hear, but1286those are the things that are affecting their lives. What1287prevents them from getting to the end of the month successfully1288and so I think that's right, Senator.1289    Senator Scott. When I was in business, I read the lines of1290my budget, right? I had 342 hospitals--went through the1291budgets. Surgeons went through the budget. Every manufacturing1292companies went through the budget. When I was governor of1293Florida 4,000 lines of the budget, I went through every line1294every year. They had a written purpose. Do you think we ought1295to do that with the federal government?1296    Hon. Bishop. I think there's no substitute for it. It1297requires sort of a preparedness to confront a tedium and work1298through it because it has to be done.1299    Senator Scott. And if we can't find a purpose or didn't do1300it, should we just keep doing it because we did it before?1301    Hon. Bishop. That one doesn't sell for me, Senator, ever. I1302think we ought to consider everything anew every time.1303    Senator Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, sir.1304    Chairman Graham. Senator Warner.13051306                  STATEMENT OF SENATOR WARNER13071308    Senator Warner. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.1309    Mr. Bishop, it's good to see you. We don't know each other.1310I have a dramatically different view of the President's1311discussion last night. I've never heard frankly one that was1312less bipartisan and less willing to acknowledge ought to be in1313this together. And actually, Senator Scott--and I'll match my1314business credentials against anybody. I balanced a budget. I've1315met a work payroll. I was governor of Virginia and got named1316best managed state and best state for business. And as a matter1317of fact, we even did it in a way where we also got named--1318Senator Kaine and I were colleagues and he was governor1319afterwards. We got best state in the country for its public1320education. And we realized you couldn't just balance the budget1321on one side of the ledger.1322    And again, I've only got five minutes but I am1323flabbergasted by some of your comments. The last time I had a1324hearing here we had Russell Vought in this chair and your1325willingness to be obsequious to him which I inferred from some1326of your comments, frankly, scares the hell out of me.1327    Mr. Vought, one thing he's been remarkable in 40 some odd1328days is terrorize the federal workforce. I know you're a1329lawyer. I was actually a business guy, so I read a balance1330sheet. But by terrorizing your workforce you don't get better1331production. As a matter of fact, you destroy production and the1332haphazardness of the DOGE boys firing people without warning,1333not letting them come back, then realized, oops, we screwed up.1334I think it's kind of the absolutely opposite of any kind of1335solid business credentials.1336    Now I will acknowledge some consistency on voting against1337every federal funding bill under the Biden Administration, but1338now you're going to be charged with helping to fund the Trump1339Administration. I don't know whether you're going to vote1340against or encourage your congressional colleagues to vote1341against everything put forward. You also flipflopped on the1342basic notion of whether a nation should default on its debt. I1343mean, again, I know you're a lawyer, I was a business guy, but1344if we default on our nation's debt that is not something the1345markets are going to be willing to reverse on right away.1346    And kind of to add insult to injury, yes, you accused Biden1347of illegally withholding federal funds. The Trump1348Administration is doing this at an unprecedented level, yes,1349your peers are willing to go in and simply support those1350policies. I don't get it. I know you're from our neighboring1351state in North Carolina, maybe you've not heard the economic1352disruption that's being caused. I frankly don't even know1353whether the Trump Administration is going honor its commitment1354under disaster relief. Lord knows you guys and we in Virginia1355got hard hit. But I guess in my last two minutes, I want to1356talk about Social Security.1357    So we had a 1.6 million Virginians on Social Security1358benefits. Now Mr. Musk, who appears to me to be the actual czar1359of the budget and management or lack thereof, has called Social1360Security the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time. Now I know1361President Trump says he's not going to touch it, but I have no1362confidence that, so I've got a couple, if you don't mind, sir,1363yes/no questions.1364    Are you aware that the Social Security Administration has1365currently as fewer staff at this time than any point in the1366last 50 years?1367    Hon. Bishop. No, I don't know that, Senator. I'm not1368familiar with the staffing at the Social Security1369Administration.1370    Senator Warner. All right. Thank you. Are you aware that1371Social Security and DOGE, and I believe your new boss, Mr.1372Vought, plans to actually fire half of that existing staff, are1373you aware of that?1374    Hon. Bishop. I am not aware of a specific plan Senator1375Warner. Okay. Thank you. And you said you and your wife manage1376your budget and I appreciate that. Have you ever made a call to1377a Social Security representative and ever been put on hold or1378waited a long time to get an answer?1379    Hon. Bishop. Have I done that?1380    Senator Warner. Yes, sir.1381    Hon. Bishop. No, in fact, I've had some interactions with1382Social Security Administration and I did not have that1383experience.1384    Senator Warner. Okay, so you never had any constituents1385that complained that they got put on hold. You be a remarkable1386district because I----1387    Hon. Bishop. I didn't say that.1388    Senator Warner. All right, sir. Do you actually think that1389Social Security seniors who rely on those funds ought to get1390them on time?1391    Hon. Bishop. Absolutely.1392    Senator Warner. Okay, so if we're going to have the lowest1393staffing levels in 50 years, your plan is to cut half that1394staff additionally. I don't know how that's going to get done.1395And my time has run out, Mr. Chairman, but I would just say I1396even get to the questions around concerns when I was Chairman1397of the Intelligence Committee, now Vice Chairman, the damage1398that's being done to our Intelligence and national security1399issues, so Mr. Bishop, I want to try to give all nominees a1400fair shot. I voted for many of Mr. Trump's initial nominees but1401your alignment with Mr. Vought and some of these Musk1402principles really concerns me greatly, sir. So thank you, Mr.1403Chairman. I look forward to hearing the rest of his answers.14041405                 STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICKETTS14061407    Senator Ricketts. Great. Well, I am sitting in for Chairman1408Graham and so I get to go next on questions as well, so I'll1409pick it up from there, but I want to thank the Ranking Member1410here and the Chairman for holding this hearing and Mr. Bishop1411for your willingness to serve in this role for our country.1412    We had a great discussion when you were in the office last1413week and when Director Vought came before this Committee, we1414talked a lot about the consequences of the Biden1415Administration's flood of federal regulations and the reckless1416spending and I think you've talked a little bit about that.1417    Last week I actually joined Elon Musk and a member of my1418colleagues getting an update about what the DOGE has been doing1419and one of the things that he talked about was making sure that1420we were doing what you said a little bit earlier is if we got1421things we don't need we shouldn't pay for them.1422    For example, he used the fact that in one of our agencies1423we have 13,000 employees and 3700 software licenses. The1424Senator from Virginia just referenced Social Security, but I1425think Mr. Musk in that meeting said we have 22 million people1426that are on Social Security that are too old to be alive and I1427think that's what the President was highlighting last night in1428his State of the Union address and the fact that we've got 4.61429million credit cards out there but not that many people work1430for the federal government. All those things leave open the1431opportunity to be able to find ways to do a better job. And in1432fact, it's that kind of business approach and frankly common1433sense that I think is so refreshing about having Elon Musk and1434the DOGE there.1435    One of the things we discussed was Lean Six Sigma, which is1436what I implemented in the State of Nebraska and it's a process1437of proven methodology. We discussed about how you could1438actually have fewer people and do a better job providing1439services because you leverage better process and better1440technology.1441    That's what we did to be able to reduce about--we did about1442a thousand projects, saved about 900,000 hours of our1443teammate's time. We cut $100 million in hard savings that way.1444And now a part of the DOGE caucus, I'm excited to bring some of1445those processed improvement ideas to how we run the federal1446government. The bottom line is this, we need to make sure that1447we're doing a better job providing services. We're doing a more1448effective and that we're increasing efficiency and saving1449taxpayers' dollars to get at that goal that President Trump1450played out last night of balancing the budget, which is, you1451pointed out earlier, very, very important that we get to a1452balanced budget. It's not sustainable what we're continuing to1453do. When your interest payments are more than what you spend on1454national defense, you've got a problem. We need to acknowledge1455that and we need to address it.1456    Elon Musk in our meeting said he wants to cut a trillion1457dollars out of the federal budget on a run rate fiscal year14582026. So I look forward to continuing to work with Elon Musk1459and President Trump and the Senate DOGE caucus and you, Mr.1460Bishop, to replicate what we did in Nebraska at the federal1461level.1462    So Mr. Bishop, are you committed to increasing government1463efficiency and saving American taxpayer money?1464    Hon. Bishop. I certainly am, Senator.1465    Senator Ricketts. Great. That was an easy question.1466    Hon. Bishop. It was easy.1467    Senator Ricketts. All right. Good. Will you commit to work1468with me on bringing cost improvement methodologies like the one1469I described with you, the Lean Six Sigma to the federal1470government so we can improve our services while keeping our1471cost down?1472    Hon. Bishop. Yes, Senator. And in our meeting, I was1473intrigued by the Lean Six Sigma idea. And one of the things1474that I could say quickly is that, you know, you hear a lot of1475Ad Hominem attacks on Elon Musk, but people rarely want to1476engage with the merit of what he's actually saying, what makes1477sense. And by the same token, what Lean Six Sigma recognizes is1478that you're actually empowering employees when you elevate them1479to make process improvement recommendations and that's exactly1480what--you know, there's a notion that they're trying to set up1481an antagonism between Elon Musk and employees, but what Musk1482has done in his businesses, if you read his biography, is he1483has shown that by being ready to make significant change, you1484actually bring out the superlative employment or performance1485out of people and they actually can improve things beyond that1486you might expect by just adding numbers and I think it's a1487similar concept.1488    Senator Ricketts. Yes, you're actually right there, Mr.1489Bishop. At the state of Nebraska, Lean Six Sigma engages1490frontline people in making their jobs better because they see1491the waste, the number of steps that we try to cut out. They see1492that duplication and wonder why we do it. They don't feel1493empowered to change it. Lean Six Sigma actually gives them the1494opportunity to be able to change those processes that not only1495do a better job providing services, keep our costs down, but1496actually make their jobs easier as well.1497    Quickly, as I'm running out time here as well, when1498Director Vought was here I asked him about his commitment to1499helping ensure the timely issuance of Renewal Volume1500Obligations or RVOs. The biofuels industry is very important to1501Nebraska's farmers. It's our number one industry in the State1502of Nebraska and of course to the energy industry as well. The15032026 RVOs were obligated to be filed by November 1st, 2024, but1504will not be filed until December 2025, so a year late.1505    Timely RVOs are critical, not only because it's the law,1506because our nation's farmers rely on ROVs to inform planting1507decisions and of course, as you know, businesses want1508certainty. So Mr. Bishop, will you make the same commitment to1509me today to help expedite this process and ensure the timely1510issuance of RVOs?1511    Hon. Bishop. Yes, Senator. Director Vought makes clear that1512he wants to move processes on time and that's the discipline he1513brings, and so I can't speak with great specificity to that1514particular situation, don't have the knowledge of it yet, but1515certainly look forward to working with you and with Director1516Vought to accomplish that objective.1517    Senator Ricketts. Great. Thank you, Mr. Bishop, and Mr.1518Padilla.15191520                  STATEMENT OF SENATOR PADILLA15211522    Senator Padilla. Thank you, Mr. Chair.1523    Colleagues, I know I'm not alone in saying that it's1524extremely unfortunate where we find ourselves today. President1525Trump has made clear that the OMB's sole mission, at least as1526he wishes it under his Administration, is to cut programs, the1527very programs that so many Americans rely on in order to pay1528for another massive round of tax cuts for the wealthiest1529Americans.1530    In fact, during his address to Congress just last night, he1531doubled down on DOGE's wildly unpopular agenda of chaos and1532corruption. Proudly listing the ways he has and will continue1533to devastate communities. And today we're asked to consider the1534next nominee preparing to further eliminate funding and jobs1535from our constituents.1536    Mr. Bishop, I'd like for you to speak to the Californians1537that I represent for a minute here. I want them to hear how1538you'll justify ripping away important services and programs1539while raising the cost of everything. That's the impact that1540we're seeing from this Administration. My constituents deserve1541to know exactly who to thank for these reckless cuts.1542    You know in the last six weeks it's all of the time that1543it's taken for President Trump and the Office of Management and1544Budget to wreak havoc across critical government programs.1545During your confirmation hearing in the Senate Homeland1546Security and Government Affairs Committee last week, I heard1547you insist multiple times that President Trump's firing of1548civil servants was not indiscriminate; is that correct?1549    Hon. Bishop. That's correct and I continue to hold that----1550    Senator Padilla. So is it not indiscriminate or was it1551intentional when President Trump fired scientists fighting the1552Bird Flu outbreak while the cost of eggs continues to soar.1553    Hon. Bishop. We'd have to look at the details of that,1554Senator. I'm not aware of the specific point you're making.1555    Senator Padilla. You're a smart man. You're a smart man. I1556know you've seen the details. Was it indiscriminate or1557intentional when President Trump fired military veterans1558operating the Veterans Crisis Line?1559    Hon. Bishop. I'd have to look at the details of that,1560Senator. I don't--as I said----1561    Senator Padilla. Was it not indiscriminate or was it1562intentional when President Trump fired thousands of seasonal1563employees at the National Park Service?1564    Hon. Bishop. Yes, I do not think that--and the dismissals1565that have occurred are indiscriminate.1566    Senator Padilla. I'm asking these questions because you1567seem to be applauding Elon Musk's efforts and this DOGE1568strategy and chaos.1569    Hon. Bishop. I certainly am.1570    Senate Padilla. So was it not indiscriminate or was it1571intentional when President Trump fired thousands of nuclear1572weapons safety and security workers at the National Nuclear1573Security Administration?1574    Hon. Bishop. We'd have to look into the details of that,1575Senator. I'd be glad to do that.1576    Senator Padilla. All this is just to disappoint and to make1577matters worse in so many areas of these indiscriminate firings.1578They have had to scramble to hire them back shortly after they1579realized their colossal error. And I could go on and on with1580additional examples but let's be clear. This is not a one-time1581adjustment as Mr. Bishop has characterized it. So here's the1582actual real question and I'm interested in your response.1583    What corrective measures has OMB taken to undo and limit1584indiscriminate firings of federal employees by an unelected1585bureaucrat?1586    Hon. Bishop. I don't think any of the premise of the1587question is accurate, Senator, but of course, OMB is not the1588agency within the Executive Office of the President that deals1589with personnel. That's a different office and moreover, I'm not1590yet serving as Deputy Director and do not have management1591responsibility nor am I aware of some of the details that1592you've made reference to, so I can't speak to the question.1593    Senator Padilla. OMB's involvement, Russell Vought's1594involvement, the Director now, will be evidence to the contrary1595of direct involvement in those personnel decisions. Maybe let1596me end with this since I referenced Director Vought. When he1597was before this Committee, one of the questions I asked is if1598he stood by his previous statements of a mission, a goal, an1599agenda to put federal employees into trauma and there's example1600after example of exactly that happening, given the activity of1601the last six weeks and especially since Mr. Vought was1602confirmed. Is that what you're signing up for, to help1603facilitate that, to help further that, putting federal1604employees into trauma?1605    Hon. Bishop. You know, Senator, with that comment in one of1606his writings that's been--or one of his speeches that has been1607taken out of context.1608    Senator Padilla. It's pretty clear and direct.1609    Hon. Bishop. No, it really--it's been used in a misleading1610way. What he means is that federal employees--that the American1611people need federal employees to perform. If federal employees1612themselves, I'm certain----1613    Senator Padilla. How do they perform when they're in trauma1614or traumatized by their employer?1615    Hon. Bishop. Yes, well, I think that the--again, the answer1616is that federal employees--there must be change in the1617workplace. Federal employees were making the comment that they1618see underperformers continuously among their colleagues that1619they cannot see--the processes will not allow to be removed.1620Those were federal employees. I've seen the way Russ Vought1621works with the people at OMB, the career officials there. He1622has extraordinary respect for their skill but he expects them1623to perform and they do.1624    Senator Padilla. But don't mistake their trauma for1625respect. Thank you, Mr. Chair.1626    Chairman Graham. Who's up?16271628                  STATEMENT OF SENATOR MORENO16291630    Senator Moreno. Moreno.1631    Chairman Graham. You're up.1632    Senator Moreno. We had a little shuffle. Thank you, Mr.1633Bishop, for agreeing to serve your country again. I think the1634American people appreciate your willingness to put yourself1635into the battlefield.1636    I want to ask you. You've been around--how long have you1637been around government? I've been around government for eight1638entire weeks. How about you?1639    Hon. Bishop. Senator, a little longer than that but I too1640think of myself as a private sector career person. I spent 301641years practicing law in a small firm serving people whose lives1642were on the line, frankly, in commercial matters that, you1643know, might be their business ownership or something that was--1644and so----1645    Senator Moreno. But how long as an elected official?1646    Hon. Bishop. So as an elected official, I've been about 101647years.1648    Senator Moreno. Ten years. So in that time, especially your1649time here in Congress, have you ever seen an appetite to1650actually reduce the size and scale of government, like a really1651meaningful effort to make that happen?1652    Hon. Bishop. You know, Senator, it has been a constant1653presence. I've seen a lot of really great people who've pursued1654the objective and yet it doesn't ever seem to come to pass. You1655would have to conclude that there are a lot of people who are1656not doing that.1657    Senator Moreno. And when you were in the private sector,1658did you ever run into organization that didn't fire anybody?1659Like did you ever run into a company that said, you know, we1660haven't fired a human being in 50 years or is it more natural1661that you have to constantly evaluate your workforce and say1662this group of people just isn't getting the job done. Maybe1663they didn't have the right training, maybe they were the bad1664hire, whatever reason, but I've found in my private sector1665experience that when you do that, when you reduce and get rid1666of and eliminate poor performers the whole enterprise rises.1667Did you find that?1668    Hon. Bishop. I think that's exactly right, Senator. And1669it's never a pleasant task perhaps or one we'd like to avoid,1670but it's one of the tasks that's necessary in order to perform.1671    Senator Moreno. And just to clarify some misinformation1672that's out there online, does Elon Musk personally have the1673authority to fire anybody in the United States Government?1674    Hon. Bishop. That is not my understanding. I will say I'm1675not involved with the DOGE effort directly yet and in any way,1676but everything that I've understood about it and followed is1677that he does not exercise that power. Correct.1678    Senator Moreno. That's in the job of the people who1679actually do that.1680    Hon. Bishop. That's right.1681    Senator Moreno. But he could certainly recommend. So for1682example, like I get a lot of calls from constituents. So if1683somebody's a person who works for the Veterans Affairs (VA) and1684their jobs is to greet veterans at the door, make sure that1685they got the resource they need, we look at it and say that's a1686good job, right? We should have somebody there greeting the1687veterans, making certain they know what their needs are. If1688that person lives five hours away and never shows up to the1689actual VA, would you think that that's a job that should be1690eliminated?1691    Hon. Bishop. That ought to be looked at pretty seriously.1692    Senator Moreno. So what if they're a really nice person?1693What if they're a really nice guy?1694    Hon. Bishop. Even then.1695    Senator Moreno. What are they're a veteran themselves and1696still live five hours away and never show up for work, should1697we just keep that person on?1698    Hon. Bishop. That's the kind of thing that doesn't make any1699sense, Senator, and the American people are ready for something1700to be done about it.1701    Senator Moreno. And if you have a company, for example, and1702we're going to get to the bottom of it in Homeland Security and1703Government Affairs Committee (HSGAC), but if you have companies1704that have sales reps that call on the government and yet allow1705something like what's happening at Small Business1706Administration (SBA) with 37,000 software licenses for 13,0001707employees, does that seem normal to you?1708    Hon. Bishop. That would never happen in a private business1709where you're trying to make ends meet, Senator.1710    Senator Moreno. I mean I would just urge my Democratic1711colleagues. I plead with them argue with us on things that1712actually are common sense and reasonable, but to argue the1713counterpoint that we should absolutely not root out waste,1714fraud, and abuse and the counterargument would be, oh, we'll1715all for rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse. I've been here1716eight weeks. They've been here centuries combined, centuries,1717like literally centuries combined and it's never been done. So1718maybe sit this one out and allow this effort to go forward and1719not defend insanity like what we're seeing.1720    What the DOGE efforts is being done--I want to say how1721history's going to judge this moment. You have the world's most1722successful entrepreneur, a guy who has zero reason even to go1723to work. He could literally point anything on this earth and1724say I'll take it. I want to take that 500-foot yacht and go1725sail away. He's sleeping at the Executive Office Building,1726going through line-by-line of the federal budget and1727recommending things like that to be cut, 4.7 million credit1728cards out in the hands of government workers.1729    I ran a company of 1100 employees, so a minuscule1730comparison. I had five corporate credit cards and I had anxiety1731over all five of them.1732    Hon. Bishop. Right.1733    Senator Moreno. How do you defend that? Like why not be on1734the side where you say this makes sense. Like we got this1735incredible entrepreneur, a generational talent, the Thomas1736Edison of our time, and he's willing to serve our country, to1737help us. The guy who you once loved. I mean the left loved Elon1738Musk and now they hate him. This is a subject of a Taylor Swift1739breakup song. I've never seen anything like it. But you know I1740want healthy competition from the other side. I think we should1741have a healthy exchange of debate and ideas, but watching them1742humiliate themselves last night at the State of the Union1743address was just too much. You can't applaud for a 13-year-old1744Black kid who has brain cancer? Is this where we're at, Mr.1745Chairman, were we're sitting here as a body that's supposed to1746be deliberative body of the world and instead we can't even get1747them to applaud for a 13-year-old kid. We can't get them to say1748rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse is a good thing.1749    I urge my Democratic colleagues don't be like that team1750that played the University of Miami and got beaten 97 to 0. We1751need a healthy, vibrate Democrat party to challenge us, but1752challenge on the things that makes sense and don't put out1753misinformation like we're going to go out there and randomly1754cut 50 percent of Medicaid. Those messages on TV affect real1755people, real people who think, my God, if this happens I don't1756know what I'm going to do. That's not what we're doing. Attack1757us when you think we're wrong on real information.1758    My time is way expired. I used my minute and a half it took1759me to get to my chair, but thank you, Mr. Bishop for serving. I1760look forward to you serving with Director Vought and it was1761great to see him here today and I yield the negative amount to1762my time back to you, Mr. Chairman.1763    Chairman Graham. Thank you. Senator Lujan.17641765                   STATEMENT OF SENATOR LUJAN17661767    Senator Lujan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to accept1768the challenge of my colleague. I'm going to read you a note,1769Representative Bishop, from a constituent that was fired.1770    I am a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Victims1771Specialist, a civil servant, a career government employee. I am1772there when your loved one is killed by an actual shooter, when1773your child is sexually exploited online, when your family1774member is kidnapped and held for ransom. When your mother,1775sister, daughter is the victim of interstate domestic violence1776or stalking, when the federal agent is injured or killed in the1777line of duty, when your elderly parent is defrauded of their1778life savings, when your child is kidnapped by their other1779parent, when you or someone you love is victimized in so many1780ways. I am not waste, fraud, and abuse. I am not the enemy. I1781am not expendable.1782    For more than 22 years, it has been my greatest honor to be1783with people in their darkest hour to bring light into the1784darkness of the cost of my own wellbeing. I do not deserve to1785be forced out under fear or duress or discarded. For if I am,1786you and those you love will have to walk in that darkness1787alone.1788    She continues, there are so many of us throughout the1789United States with stories just like this. Examples of how1790they've responded to crime victims. I agree, let's root out1791waste, fraud, and abuse but we should both agree that when1792there's a victim of a sexual crime or someone from across the1793border that is going to kill someone or do something to them,1794they don't deserve to be fired. That's the nonsense going on1795here.1796    I accept this responsibility but I'll tell you what, I'm1797not sitting this one out, not on behalf of my constituents.1798There's a better way for us to do these things. You know,1799Representative Bishop, you served at a time in the House of1800Representatives where there was a policy that wasn't in place1801and it's because Republicans got rid of it but Democrats never1802put it back in place. I hope this is something we could1803actually agree on. I know Senator Graham supported this once1804upon a time as well. He used to talk about this in a way that1805would convince more people to do it.1806    Under President Clinton, there was a balanced budget. There1807was something called PayGo and Congress restrained itself. In1808the same way that you described balancing your checkbook, if1809Congress moved a piece of legislation that cost money they had1810to either cut or they had to create revenue. It led us to1811balance budgets. I believe Congress needs to bring this policy1812back in place so everyone can restrain themselves and I think1813things will be better. I'll let that sit.1814    As Deputy Secretary of the Office of Management and Budget,1815Representative, it seems like you'll be working in lock step1816with Elon Musk and DOGE. I appreciate the conversations that1817we've had on both sides of the aisle, speaking about what Elon1818Musk and others are doing here. Now over the weekend, Elon Musk1819said something. I think it was brought up by one of my1820colleagues. He said Social Security is the biggest Ponzi scheme1821of all time. Do you believe that Social Security is a Ponzi1822scheme?1823    Hon. Bishop. It really isn't my place--what I'm doing is1824sitting to be the Deputy Director of OMB is to implement1825President Trump's policies. I really am not in a position to1826comment on every comment that Elon Musk makes but I know that1827President Trump has said he's not touching Social Security or1828Medicare. He's going to ensure those benefits and that is the1829policy that I'm going to be seeking to work with Director1830Vought to implement.1831    Senator Lujan. President Trump says to do this, but Elon1832Musk says to do something else. He's not just someone. Elon1833Musk was described as President Trump last night at the address1834to the American people as being in charge. There's been a lot1835of questions over the last eight weeks if he is in charge or1836not, but Elon Musk is calling the shots right now.1837    President Trump's going to Daytona, Super Bowl, golfing,1838doing some good things. I believe in finding balance in your1839life. I had a stroke three years ago. Thank God I got better. I1840believe in finding that balance, but I think that the President1841is able to do those things because the other president is1842actually calling the shots. So when Elon Musk is passing things1843down to Director Vought and to others, some of which were1844actually documented and these ideas came from Director Vought,1845which are part of Project 2025 and you have someone that's1846calling the shots firing people across the country, cutting1847budgets, cutting programs, putting people on the chopping block1848using a chainsaw as a tool, who says Social Security is a Ponzi1849scheme. I think that requires us just to take notice. That's1850all I'm saying.1851    Your responsibility, sir, as you know is going to be making1852decisions with Director Vought to the President about these1853budgets. You said you want to get to a balanced budget. That's1854going to require cuts. This notion that Medicaid and Medicare1855are not on the chopping block I would just ask voters--1856Democrats, Republicans, Independent, (unintelligible). Go look1857at the votes that were cased in the House of Representatives1858last week, read the document, go back and read the document1859that Speaker Paul Ryan put together when he was Speaker of the1860House, 50-page document that described going after this1861program.1862    Go back when Paul Ryan was the Chairman of the Ways and1863Means Committee and went after that program. Go back and look1864in 2017 when Republicans were trying to eliminate all aspects1865of Medicaid, eliminating Affordable Care Act, and it took John1866McCain coming to the floor, and may he rest in peace, the great1867hero that he is and said, no, fighting brain cancer.1868    This is not new. It's not some secret. These are the facts.1869Go look them up. I invite that and I challenge my colleagues.1870Let's come up with a factsheet that we get back to a place1871where Congress once deliberated. Here are the facts. Let's1872agree and disagree based on the facts that are in front of us.1873That doesn't exist anymore. We need to get back to those times.1874So, Representative Bishop, it's good to see you again.1875    Hon. Bishop. Thank you, sir.1876    Senator Lujan. We didn't vote the same a lot, but I1877appreciate you being here and stepping up and I pray for you. I1878pray for the President because we've got to do better for the1879American people. And I'll close where I started, I'm not1880sitting this one out. I'm going to stand up and fight for my1881constituents. I yield back.1882    Hon. Bishop. Thank you, Senator.1883    Chairman Graham. Thank you. Senator Merkley has a couple of1884questions and I believe we'll be done.1885    Senator Merkley. Well, thank you so much.1886    Congressman, when you were in the House of Representatives,1887you were a fierce opponent of raising the debt ceiling. Are you1888now planning to encourage the House--the House has put raising1889the debt ceiling into their plan on the House side by four1890trillion dollars. Do you now support raising the debt ceiling?1891    Hon. Bishop. Well, Senator, the premise was not complete. I1892was an opponent of raising the debt ceiling without reforms to1893spending that would change the fiscal path, but the really1894significant thing in what I'm acutely aware of, as I sit here1895as a nominee of the President, is that I'm not being nominated1896to serve my own views or interests. I'm being nominated to1897implement the policies that President Trump wishes to have1898implemented. He certainly has different ideas than me precisely1899about the debt ceiling and how that should be administered and1900so forth, but I'm going to be administering--I support and I'm1901going to be administering President Trump's or implementing1902President Trump's priorities.1903    Senator Merkley. Let's clear up a couple of points that1904have come up in this hearing. One is I noted that the Supreme1905Court had weighed in about the illegality and1906unconstitutionality of Impoundments. You then noted that the1907Supreme Court had not ruled on the Impoundment Control Act.1908Both you and I were both right. That is the summary of Train v.1909The State of New York. The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed1910that presidents do not have the unilateral power to impound1911enacted funding.1912    But the ruling wasn't on the Budget Control Act. It was on1913the constitutionality of impoundments, impoundments that Nixon1914had done, so I wanted to clear up that point.1915    And I've already asked you if you would follow the1916constitutional ruling of the Court and you made the point,1917well, they didn't rule on the impoundments, and that's the1918point I want to emphasize, and they said that they're1919unconstitutional. So I hope when you go away from here you'll1920have a moment when you go, hmm, am I going to take an oath to1921President Trump or Russell Vought or am I going to honor the1922Constitution because that is the challenge of you as a public1923servant and in our republic you take an oath to the1924Constitution, not to an individual.1925    The second point I want to make is there's been a lot of1926conversation here about the plan for a balanced budget.1927Actually, the President's plan as put forward by the House1928increases the deficits that total up to an additional 2.51929trillion in additional debt on top of what was already1930forecast. So increasing the deficits and increasing the debt.1931There was a lot happy talk about a balanced budget, but that is1932a big lie. The plan is to increase the deficits by 2.5 trillion1933of our total debt over the 10 years.1934    The third point I'm concerned about is in your previous1935testimony before another committee. Ranking Member Peters1936asked, do you know about any federal grant or loan programs1937that are frozen and you said, ``I am unaware of any funds being1938frozen.'' Well, some of the headlines in the news were things1939like this. Climate Environmental Justice Program stalled by1940Trump freeze despite court orders and Trump team finds loophole1941defies spirit of court orders blocking spending freezes.1942    Trump Administration there's another headline, Associated1943Press (AP) headline, flaunting an Order temporarily lift a1944freeze on foreign aid. Another headline, Emergency food,1945Tuberculosis (TB) test, Human Immunodeficiency Viruses (HIV)1946drugs, vital health aid remains frozen. Another, Trump1947Administration stalls scientific research despite court ruling.1948And yet, you testified you were unaware that any funds had been1949frozen. Now you took an oath to tell the truth right before1950this Committee when this hearing started. Are you telling me1951you never heard of any story about funds being frozen as you1952testified last week?1953    Hon. Bishop. Senator, I first of all deeply resent the1954assignation that something that I said was not true in the1955committee to which I testified.1956    Senator Merkley. This is your chance to clear it up right1957now.1958    Hon. Bishop. I'm happy to do that. I certainly am reading1959the same newspapers that you are. The question was about--as I1960recall, was about my personal involvement in something in the1961course of serving as senior advisor at OMB. And as you know,1962Senator, until I'm confirmed as Deputy Director, it would be1963inappropriate for me to exercise the authorities of that office1964and I have not done so. So I have not been involved in any1965decisions or actions by OMB to manage spending or to cease1966spending in any way and that's what the testimony was about.1967And you may count on me always to be truthful.1968    Senator Merkley. This is a great chance to clarify that1969because I think you maybe didn't answer the question Peters1970asked because he asked, and I quote, ``Do you know of any1971federal grant and loan funds are still frozen.'' And you said,1972``I am unaware of any funds being frozen.'' Those are direct1973quotes. I hear you saying that that's not the context in which1974you meant. That you are aware that funds have been frozen.1975    Hon. Bishop. Senator, you said you're a lawyer, I think, so1976you know----1977    Senator Merkley. I actually said I'm not a lawyer and I'm1978thankful for it.1979    Hon. Bishop. Oh, you're not a lawyer. Then it might escape1980that if someone's asking me in testimony about something for me1981to speak I'm speaking about my personal knowledge. I can talk1982to you all day about things that are in the media and whether--1983and if you want to know whether I'm aware of something that's1984in the media, I'm glad to talk about that, but the questions1985were what about I knew, my personal knowledge.1986    Senator Merkley. All right. I'm going to try to help you1987help out here, try to give you an opportunity to clear that up1988since your statement that I am unaware of any funds being1989frozen, you are clarifying that based on your personal1990experience and service you were unaware and we'll just accept1991that for the record. Because I'm glad you are aware of it and I1992hope that in the context of the challenge of the number of1993court ruling saying that these actions are illegal and the1994Trump team has been told you need to reverse what you've done.1995My colleague mentioned in the context of Agency for1996International Development (AID) programs that many of them do1997important work and I don't mean to put words in your mouth, but1998essentially, I think we've all had a lot of support for some of1999the programs affecting disease around the world.2000    Hon. Bishop. I agree.2001    Senator Merkley. We don't want Ebola coming back here on2002the airplane and we also see it as a vision of helping people2003around the world thrive, which gives us a lot of soft power. So2004several of us on both sides of aisle have been concerned about2005the difficulty of getting the funds moving again, even after2006the court said it should be unfrozen. I hope in your work at2007OMB you will help in whatever part of the Administration where2008the gears need to turn a little faster to follow the court2009orders so that you'll be helpful in doing so.2010    Hon. Bishop. I think that's certainly a central function of2011the job, Senator. I'd be glad for you to have my cell number2012and to be in touch with anyone from here or around your staff2013at any time to see to it we can solve problems that have2014cropped up.2015    Senator Merkley. All right. We're going to take you up on2016that, I'm sure. You may be blocking my number very soon, but I2017certainly do feel like we need to advocate for when the court2018says unfreeze the funds they actually get unfrozen.2019    Chairman Graham. Senator Whitehouse.20202021                STATEMENT OF SENATOR WHITEHOUSE20222023    Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Chairman.2024    Mr. Bishop, have you discussed with anyone at OMB plans for2025firings or freezes?2026    Hon. Bishop. Senator, it would be inappropriate for me to2027talk about the details of deliberative processes at OMB. I will2028say to you, Senator, as I've said otherwise, I'm serving as a2029senior advisor now. I'm not exercising management authority as2030though confirmed.2031    Senator Whitehouse. So you have had those discussions and2032you assert that the content of them is protected by2033deliberative process.2034    Hon. Bishop. I'm not saying that I have had such2035conversations, Senator. I'm simply saying it would be2036inappropriate for me to speak to the details of deliberative2037processes at OMB.2038    Senator Whitehouse. Well, why would you refrain from giving2039me the details of the deliberative process if you weren't a2040part of it? The simple answer then being, no, I have not had2041those discussions.2042    Hon. Bishop. Well, if that were true, that would still be2043an indication of what processes are at OMB and my role----2044    Senator Whitehouse. That is actually not true, That's2045actually not the way the law works. You can assert a privilege2046as to the substance, but as to whether or not you've been2047involved in conversations that is not protected by the2048deliberative process privilege.2049    Hon. Bishop. Senator.2050    Senator Whitehouse. And are you actually asserting the2051deliberative process privilege here?2052    Hon. Bishop. I am not asserting a privilege, Senator. I'm2053simply saying there's an accommodation process and people who2054come up to the Hill don't talk about the details of internal2055deliberation.2056    Senator Whitehouse. And my question was have you discussed,2057not what are the details. Will you answer that question?2058    Hon. Bishop. I'm sorry. Have I discussed----2059    Senator Whitehouse. Have you discussed with people at OMB2060the plans for firing and freezes?2061    Hon. Bishop. No, Senator, I have not had discussions of2062that sort.2063    Senator Whitehouse. Okay. How about with respect to plans2064for taking advantage of a long-term continuing resolution?2065    Hon. Bishop. Senator, I'm trying to recall. I don't know if2066there's been a specific discussion or not, but again, I think2067that's the reason you don't sit and try to give out details of2068the internal deliberations at OMB.2069    Senator Whitehouse. Which is why I'm not asking for the2070details, although I believe I'm entitled to ask for the2071details, but that was not my question. So my question was2072simply have you had discussions on that topic.2073    Hon. Bishop. About long-term continuing resolutions?2074    Senator Whitehouse. Planning for long-term continuing2075resolution and how to take advantage of it?2076    Hon. Bishop. Senator, I do not think so.2077    Senator Whitehouse. All right. And how about plans in the2078event of a government shutdown?2079    Hon. Bishop. Senator, I do not think so.2080    Senator Whitehouse. Alrighty. What role, if any, have you2081had in----2082    Chairman Graham. Can I ask a question with that? Do you2083support a government shutdown?2084    Hon. Bishop. I don't think we should have a government2085shutdown, Senator. I think that'd be a bad idea. The President2086thinks it would be a bad idea, which is more important than2087what I think.2088    Senator Whitehouse. Well, I have my doubts about that, to2089tell you the truth, but we'll see. I've got a pretty strong2090impression that Mr. Vought think that we should have a2091government shutdown and he would relish the opportunity that it2092provided him.2093    Project 2025, have you had any role dealing with Project20942025 or Heritage while it was running Project 2025?2095    Hon. Bishop. Well, to Senator Merkley's point, I certainly2096read and heard a lot about Project 2025 in the media, Senator.2097I've had no personal involvement with Project 2025.2098    Senator Whitehouse. Okay, that's good to hear. Are you2099aware of any ongoing Administration strategy to defy court2100orders regarding the freezes by refusing to give direct answers2101or refusing to answer phone calls or even suggesting that the2102funding has been freed up while at the same time not releasing2103the funds?2104    Hon. Bishop. No, Senator.2105    Senator Whitehouse. Okay, that seems to be the strategy2106we're seeing. I call it the fog bank strategy where everybody2107who's under a court order to comply with the order saying that2108there shouldn't be a freeze, refuses to actually comply with2109the court order and unfreeze the money, but when you try to pin2110them down on it, emails not answered, calls not returned, vague2111answers, general senses that, you know, don't worry. We'll get2112there or even actual, yes, the funding is clear and then the2113funding is not cleared. It's like this, you know, somebody in2114the room at the agencies who's saying no, no, no, no, the2115funding won't go out even though everybody else is saying that2116it's cleared to go or that we're ready to obey court orders.2117    Just in terms of conflict of interest, ProPublica reported2118that you've been living until recently in a Capitol Hill2119townhouse owned by a wealthy Republican donor named Lee Beamon.2120That Speaker Johnson has also been living in what was described2121as a four-level, second empire styled townhouse of impeccable2122elegance and exceptional scale. Did you pay fair market rent in2123that townhouse of impeccable elegance and exceptional scale?2124    Hon. Bishop. Yes, Senator.2125    Senator Whitehouse. And how was that fair market rent2126determined?2127    Hon. Bishop. It was determined by the landlord. I rented a2128room, so I don't know the details of the determination, merely2129that it was done.2130    Senator Whitehouse. Yes, so if, for instance, he offered2131you highly favorable terms because he wanted you in the house2132because you are an important potential policymaker, same reason2133he might want the Speaker in the house, you would have no idea2134whether that actually was fair market rent. It was just you2135paid what you were asked to pay.2136    Hon. Bishop. I have my own experience to rely upon and what2137seems proportional, so I'm pretty sure it's about right.2138    Senator Whitehouse. Okay. My time has expired.2139    Chairman Graham. Two minutes to Senator Moreno and we're2140going to wrap it up.2141    Senator Moreno. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the extra little2142follow up.2143    Look, we could spend 15 hours if we had to rebut2144misinformation from the other side, but let me just do it real2145quickly. Again, I've been here eight years. The Ranking2146Member's been here--I mean eight weeks. The Ranking Member's2147been here 16 years. You say you've been here 10 years. Is a2148budget resolution a budget?2149    Hon. Bishop. No, Senator, it's not. It's not the whole plan2150in other words, yes.2151    Senator Moreno. Well, wait a second. I just heard my2152colleague who's been here a long time as well, say that we're2153cutting Medicaid because the House passed that. Did they pass a2154budget?2155    Hon. Bishop. No, Senator, they didn't. They passed just the2156first step in the direction of a spending plan.2157    Senator Moreno. So when you spew nonsense, it's not helpful2158and that's the point I was trying to make to my colleagues2159earlier. Look, don't try to win arguments by just making2160nonsensical points. I just urge my colleagues not to do that.2161Senator Lujan gave a very--and I think he's a good man. I don't2162know him that well--again, I've been here eight weeks--gave an2163impassioned speech about some federal employee who is a very2164good writer. I mean that guy should be a fiction writer for2165sure. Do you think that it's possible that he was an employee2166that had disciplinary actions?2167    Hon. Bishop. That's the thing. You know we've got a2168secondhand account of someone's perception about their own2169employment situation. More has to be taken into consideration.2170    Senator Moreno. But he wrote a very impassioned email,2171doesn't that make him automatically a good employee?2172    Hon. Bishop. He might be, even all the things that he2173said----2174    Senator Moreno. But he might not be.2175    Hon. Bishop. But he still might not be the right person for2176the job or it may be that those jobs need to be checked.2177    Senator Moreno. He didn't show up for work, maybe a2178disciplinary action, maybe a troublemaker in the office, but I2179think that this idea that, oh my God, a constituent wrote me a2180letter. We're doing terrible things. Last quick, quick point,2181this body tried, with my Democratic colleagues, to pass student2182loan relief, is that correct? Like we try to say, hey, if you2183went to college somehow you're better than all the other2184Americans and your debt should be forgiven. That got voted2185down. Joe Biden said, well, too bad what Congress said and2186relieved student debt.2187    The Supreme Court said absolutely not. And yet Joe Biden2188still forgave student debt. My colleague crickets. So they love2189the Constitution when it serves their point, but in reality2190they shredded the Constitution over the last four years. And2191again, I would urge them to please come back to the side of2192reality and common sense. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.2193    Chairman Graham. Senator Merkley.2194    Senator Merkley. Since my colleague isn't here and since2195you made comments about his presentation, I just want to throw2196out a little bit more information, which is the Energy and2197Commerce Committee in the House has basically two accounts.2198They have Medicaid and they have Medicare. The President said2199we're not cutting Medicare. That means that instruction2200basically can only go towards Medicaid and there were many,2201many conversations that I had with House members saying, well,2202we think our plan is to cut about 800 billion in Medicaid.2203    Certainly, some of those conversations were reported. It's2204simple math in the Committee. You are correct, technically,2205that the instructions don't say cut Medicaid, but the2206conversation in the House was that that was the plan. And so,2207I'd just like to acknowledge you're technically right, but my2208colleague is also right that the intention of that instruction2209was cuts to Medicaid. So I just wanted to clarify that.2210    I also wanted to clarify the dialogue about the border wall2211that came up earlier. In 2021, Biden announced a pause in2212border wall construction and that pause was based on following2213the environmental rules for pre-clearance and GAO looked at it2214and said, yes, you've got to follow the law on the2215environmental side. Then by two years later, a Texas court2216decision said Biden has to start obligating funds. He then2217began disbursing those funds and he made a comment. And this2218comment acknowledges that he was going to follow the law. He2219said the border wall the money was appropriated for the border2220wall. I tried to get Congress to reappropriate it and to2221redirect it, but they didn't. And then he proceeded to allocate2222the funds for the border wall construction, a whole series of2223projects along the way.2224    So yes, he didn't like the idea. He resisted it. But when2225the court said, no, you've got to follow the law, he followed2226the law and that's the point we're trying to make here is that2227the law is not a suggestion and a president is not a king.2228Thank you, Mr. Chairman.2229    Chairman Graham. Well, we end on a note of commonality.2230President Biden believed he had the authority to not follow2231Congress's direction here. The Impoundment Act the contours are2232yet to be determined by the court. They will one day. The War2233Powers Act, whether you're a Republican or Democratic2234president, I believe you have the authority to commit troops2235and use military force as an inherent authority under Article22362. Congress is trying to limit that. I think it's2237unconstitutional. But having said that, because we declare war2238that's all we do.2239    All these things are nuanced. The court did say, Senator2240Merkley, that the President does not have unlimited authority2241to ignore Congress. I agree with that. Where the balance is I2242think we'll find out soon. As to you, you did a really good2243job. I appreciate it. I want to thank you for appearing before2244the Committee. Your full statement will be included in the2245record. The hearing record will remain open until noon tomorrow2246for the submission of statements and questions for the record2247delivered to the Committee Clerk. And if President Trump's team2248loses in court, I expect them to follow the court. The hearing2249is adjourned.2250    [Whereupon, at 11:53 a.m., Wednesday, March 3, 2025, the2251hearing was adjourned.]22522253[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]22542255                        SENATE BUDGET COMMITTEE2256                            BUSINESS MEETING22572258                              ----------22592260                       WEDNESDAY, MARCH 12, 202522612262                                           Committee on the Budget,2263                                                       U.S. Senate,2264                                                    Washington, DC.2265    The hearing was convened, pursuant to notice, at 2:11 p.m.,2266in The Capitol Building, Room S-120, Hon. Lindsey Graham,2267Chairman of the Committee, presiding.2268    Present: Senators Graham, Grassley, Crapo, Johnson,2269Marshall, Cornyn, Lee, Kennedy, Ricketts, Moreno, Scott, and2270Merkley.2271    Also present: Republican Staff: Nick Myers, Majority Staff2272Director; Katherine Nikas, Deputy Staff Director and Chief2273Counsel; Erich Hartman, Deputy Staff Director; Caitlin Wilson,2274Senior Counsel; Walker Truluck, Senior Policy Advisor; Nick2275Wyatt, Professional Staff Member.2276    Democratic Staff: Ben Ward, Minority Staff Director; Mike2277Jones, Deputy Staff Director; Jill Harrelson, Deputy Staff2278Director; Joshua Smith, Budget Policy Director; Melissa Kaplan-2279Pistiner, General Counsel.22802281              OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN GRAHAM22822283    Chairman Graham. The meeting of the Senate Budget Committee2284will come to order. We're going to vote on the nomination of2285Dan Bishop to be Executive director of Office of Management2286Budget. I'm going to give him an opening statement. I think2287he's a good pick.22882289            OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MERKLEY \3\2290---------------------------------------------------------------------------22912292    \3\ Prepared statement of Senator Merkley appears in the appendix2293on page 88.2294---------------------------------------------------------------------------2295    Senator Merkley. Well, I'm so delighted you all attended to2296hear my opening statement. I can see my Democrats really wanted2297to hear it. Certainly, OMB has been at the center of a lot of2298major decisions regarding the impounding of funds, the2299canceling of programs, the firing of employees.2300    Some of these actions, certainly on my side of the aisle,2301we believe violate the law and violate the Constitution. So,2302Senator Kennedy, you asked the question of Mr. Bishop, ``you're2303going to follow the law?'' end quote. And he responded,2304``Absolutely, absolutely.'' And then Senator Murray asked Mr.2305Bishop kind of the same question, ``Would he follow the law2306under the Impoundment Control Act?'' And he said he would join2307Director Vought's view that impoundment was in the power of the2308President. He would not affirm that he would follow the law.2309    So, I'm troubled. Many of my colleagues are troubled by2310this viewpoint. And our view is the law is not a suggestion and2311the president is not a king. That we swear an oath to the2312Constitution, not to the President, not to Mr. Vought. And for2313these reasons, all of the Democrats who are now here in the2314room, have the viewpoint that we should not confirm this2315nomination.2316    Chairman Graham. Well said. It was almost persuasive2317(laughter). We'll now move to the committee vote. We have a2318quorum. The clerk will call the roll if you want to. Can we do2319it by----2320    Senator Merkley. Yes, please. No, we can call the roll.2321    Chairman Graham. Call the roll.2322    The Clerk. Mr. Grassley.2323    Senator Grassley. Aye.2324    The Clerk. Mr. Crapo.2325    Senator Crapo. Aye.2326    The Clerk. Mr. Johnson.2327    Senator Johnson. Aye.2328    The Clerk. Mr. Marshall.2329    Senator Marshall. Aye.2330    The Clerk. Mr. Cornyn.2331    Senator Cornyn. Aye.2332    The Clerk. Mr. Lee.2333    Senator Lee. Aye.2334    The Clerk. Mr. Kennedy.2335    Senator Kennedy. Aye.2336    The Clerk. Mr. Ricketts.2337    Senator Ricketts. Aye.2338    The Clerk. Mr. Moreno.2339    Senator Moreno. Aye.2340    The Clerk. Mr. Scott.2341    Senator Scott. Aye.2342    The Clerk. Mr. Merkley.2343    Senator Merkley. No.2344    The Clerk. Mrs. Murray.2345    Senator Merkley. By proxy, no.2346    The Clerk. Mr. Wyden.2347    Senator Merkley. Can I just keep saying no instead by2348proxy.2349    Chairman Graham. Just a blanket ``no.''2350    Senator Merkley. Okay. No.2351    The Clerk. Mr. Sanders.2352    Senator Merkley. No.2353    The Clerk. Mr. Whitehouse.2354    Senator Merkley. No.2355    The Clerk. Mr. Warner.2356    Senator Merkley. No.2357    The Clerk. Mr. Kaine.2358    Senator Merkley. No.2359    The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen.2360    Senator Merkley. No.2361    The Clerk. Mr. Lujan.2362    Senator Merkley. No.2363    The Clerk. Mr. Padilla.2364    Senator Merkley. No.2365    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman.2366    Chairman Graham. Aye.2367    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, ayes are 11 and the nays are 10.2368    Chairman Graham. Reported out favorably. The record must be2369submitted to the committee--A reminder that statements for the2370record must be submitted to the committee by 12:00 p.m.2371tomorrow. The committee stands adjourned.2372    [Whereupon, at 2:18 p.m., Wednesday, March 12, 2025, The2373Senate Budget Committee was adjourned.]2374[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9626.04623752376                          [all]