[Senate Hearing 119-30]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 119-30
NOMINATION OF THE HONORABLE DAN BISHOP,
OF NORTH CAROLINA, TO BE
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE
OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
----------
March 5, 2025--HEARING ON THE NOMINATION OF THE HONORABLE DAN BISHOP,
OF NORTH CAROLINA, TO BE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT
AND BUDGET
March 12, 2025--EXECUTIVE BUSINESS MEETING ON THE NOMINATION OF THE
HONORABLE DAN BISHOP, OF NORTH CAROLINA, TO BE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF THE
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
----------
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Budget
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
59-626 WASHINGTON : 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina, Chairman
CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa JEFFREY A. MERKLEY, Oregon
MIKE CRAPO, Idaho PATTY MURRAY, Washington
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin RON WYDEN, Oregon
ROGER MARSHALL, Kansas BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
JOHN CORNYN, Texas SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island
MIKE LEE, Utah MARK R. WARNER, Virginia
JOHN KENNEDY, Louisiana TIM KAINE, Virginia
PETE RICKETTS, Nebraska CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
BERNIE MORENO, Ohio BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
RICK SCOTT, Florida ALEX PADILLA, California
Nick Myers, Majority Staff Director
Ben Ward, Minority Staff Director
Mallory B. Nersesian, Chief Clerk
Alexander C. Scioscia, Hearing Clerk
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
March 5, 2025--Hearing on the Nomination of the Honorable Dan
Bishop, of North Carolina, to be Deputy Director of the Office
of Management and Budget....................................... 1
March 12, 2025--Executive Business Meeting on the Nomination of
the Honorable Dan Bishop, of North Carolina, to be Deputy
Director of the Office of Management and Budget................ 85
OPENING STATEMENTS BY COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Senator Lindsey O. Graham, Chairman.............................. 1, 85
Senator Jeffrey A. Merkley....................................... 2, 85
Prepared Statement
Senator Ted Budd................................................. 3
STATEMENTS BY COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Senator Johnson.................................................. 9
Senator Lee...................................................... 10
Senator Van Hollen............................................... 12
Senator Kennedy.................................................. 15
Senator Murray................................................... 17
Senator Scott.................................................... 19
Senator Warner................................................... 21
Senator Ricketts................................................. 23
Senator Padilla.................................................. 25
Senator Moreno................................................... 27
Senator Lujan.................................................... 29
Senator Whitehouse............................................... 34
WITNESSES
The Honorable Dan Bishop, of North Carolina, to be Deputy
Director of the Office of Management and Budget................ 3
Prepared Statement........................................... 41
Statement of Biographical and Financial Information.......... 43
APPENDIX
Responses to pre-hearing questions for the Record
Hon. Bishop.................................................. 51
Responses to post-hearing questions for the Record
Hon. Bishop.................................................. 71
Chart submitted by Senator Johnson............................... 83
THE NOMINATION OF THE HONORABLE DAN BISHOP, OF NORTH CAROLINA, TO BE
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 5, 2025
Committee on the Budget,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
The hearing was convened, pursuant to notice, at 10:06
a.m., in the Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Lindsey O.
Graham, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Graham, Johnson, Marshall, Lee, Kennedy,
Ricketts, Moreno, R. Scott, Merkley, Murray, Whitehouse,
Warner, Kaine, Van Hollen, Lujan, and Padilla.
Also present: Republican staff: Nick Myers, Majority Staff
Director; Caitlin Wilson, Senior Counsel; Lillian Meadows,
Counsel; Walker Truluck, Senior Policy Advisor; Nick Wyatt,
Professional Staff Member.
Democratic staff: Ben Ward, Minority Staff Director; Joshua
Smith, Budget Policy Director.
Witness: The Honorable Dan Bishop, of North Carolina, to be
Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN GRAHAM
Chairman Graham. Good morning, everybody. Told them, you
were still clapping over in the Chamber, but thanks for coming.
We're going to do the Deputy Director of Office of Management
and Budget (OMB). I'm going to make a short opening statement
and turn it over to Senator Merkley. Here's my short opening
statement. I am for eliminating waste and relooking at the
government, but I'll be honest with you. If President's
Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) is shut down, that's
bad. There are 83 girls in Oman from Afghanistan that we're
supporting. They're going to run out of money for their support
in the middle of March. Nobody, I think, wants to send them
back to Afghanistan.
So what we're going to do is we're going to work with the
Administration to the point that we can to give the government
a good once over, but in the process of eliminating programs
that make no sense, making them more efficient, I think it's
important we realize there are some things in this world we
need to do and find out what's wrong with the system because
Rubio gives a waiver and the money still doesn't come and
that's not acceptable. Senator Merkley.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MERKLEY \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Prepared statement of Senator Merkley appears in the appendix
on page 39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
welcome, Mr. Bishop. And today we're considering your
nomination for Deputy Director of OMB and that's a very
important post. OMB has been at the center of many
consequential decisions in a very short of time. It's cancelled
programs, it's suspended grants, it's reorganized departments,
it's fired federal employees, and many of these actions are in
violation of the law and certainly when it comes to
Impoundment, in violation of the Constitution.
The Executive Branch has existing ways to reorganize the
federal government and to cut spending. It can work with
Congress to pass a new law. The President can reorganize a
department by asking Congress to put forward such legislation,
but also the President has recession powers. He can send a
request to change an existing program that's already been in
the law. That was put into the 1974 Act because Congress wanted
to give a fast track for a President to ask for changes for the
existing law, subject to a simple majority and both sides 45
days, but that recession power has not been used by this
Administration.
And the President, of course, can influence the budget to
come. We're only months away from the start of the next year
and the President has a lot of ability through bringing forward
an initial budget, to lobby, in this case, his own party that
controls both chambers to implement that vision into law. And
if he doesn't like it, he can veto it. He can veto the bill. So
he has tremendous power going forward.
But here we are at this moment in a situation where instead
of using the legal tools, the President is illegally acting and
part of what members of this Committee is interested in is are
you going to be party to these illegal actions? Are you going
to be a party to violations of the Constitution? Are you going
to be a different influence that says, hey, let's use these
tools. We're months away from Fiscal Year (FY) 26, starts on
October 1st. Let's build this vision for the future. Let's work
with the majority in both chambers to make it happen.
I can tell you in my town halls back home--and I do a town
hall in every county every year. Most of my counties are very
``red'' so it's a wide diversity of opinion that's brought to
bear. There is extreme concern that the very foundations on
which country operates, respect for the law and respect for the
Constitution are in deep trouble.
Today I want to find out if you're going to be part of that
trouble or are you going to be part of restoring the vision of
the foundation of law and the Constitution. There will also be
questions today, I'm sure, from members regarding your specific
viewpoints. That's normal in a hearing to understand better the
talents and qualifications that you bring to the post. Look
forward to that conversation.
Chairman Graham. Thank you. So it's my pleasure to
introduce the nominee, Dan Bishop, who I've known for a long
time. I think you're an excellent choice. You and Mr. Vought
will be a good team. He's currently a senior advisor at OMB. He
was the North Carolina Attorney General campaign in 2024, so he
knows what it's like to campaign throughout a big state. House
of Representatives from 2019 to 2025. He was on the Judiciary
and Homeland Security Committee and North Carolina State
Senate, North Carolina State House, County Commissioner, and
went to University of North Carolina (UNC)--nobody's perfect.
So I just think you're the right guy at the right time and
welcome to the Committee. Senator Budd.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR BUDD
Senator Budd. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Ranking
Member. I'm proud to introduce my friend, Dan Bishop, who I've
known quite a long time. It's good to see his wife, Jo, here
and a lot of other North Carolinians, almost South Carolinians,
if you will, Chairman.
So long before I was ever in Congress when Amy Kate and I
lived in Charlotte, North Carolina, everyone would tell me if
you want to know a great leader, if you want to get to know a
great leader, get to know County Commissioner Dan Bishop. So I
was in my twenties at that point and I was just getting started
in business. I think I was a little too shy or a little too
nervous to even give him a call because after all, Mecklenburg
was a really big county. So I've got no doubt that Dan will
bring the same tenacity of the job at OMB that he's shown
throughout his career, both as a litigator in his time serving
the people of North Carolina public office and through his role
in the U.S. Congress.
So Dan, best of luck and God speed. When I introduced Dan--
this has two hearings and when I introduced Dan at the Homeland
Security Conference, I ended with y'all be nice. While I say
that again, I want to leave the Budget Committee with this. If
we're serious about shrinking our national debt and deficit,
Dan is the man for the job of Deputy OMB Director. Dan, good
luck and thank you.
Chairman Graham. Would you please stand? Raise your right
hand. Do you solemnly swear the testimony you're about to give
before the Budget Committee is the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Hon. Bishop. I do.
Chairman Graham. Thank you. The floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DAN BISHOP, OF NORTH CAROLINA, TO BE
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Prepared statement of Hon. Bishop appears in the appendix on
page 41.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon. Bishop. Thank you, Chairman Graham and Ranking Member
Merkley, and members of the Committee for this hearing. Thank
you also to my dear friend, Ted Budd. I think he was rubbing it
in how much younger he is than me, but I want to thank him for
his kind words of introduction at both hearings. Our friendship
is a great personal privilege for me and the people of North
Carolina should know, they do know, that they have a great
champion in Ted Budd.
After five years in the House of Representatives where I
had the pleasure of working with several of you, I now find
myself facing you on the other side of the dais. If I am
confirmed, it would be an honor to work with you once again to
serve our nation in a new capacity--to implement President
Trump's vision and agenda.
I want to thank my wife, Jo. She's also my partner in life
in every respect, and my son, Jack, who's working hard at law
school today, for their endless strength and support over my
entire career, including this nomination process.
Thanks also to my former Congressional office staff who've
come to show their support at these hearings as my dear
friends. And of course, I want to thank Director Vought for his
support and for his extraordinary gesture of attending today. I
was thrilled to see Director Vought confirmed and I can assure
you that he is the man to get management of the federal
government back on track.
If confirmed, I look forward to serving as his Deputy. It's
a tremendous honor to be nominated by President Trump to serve
as the Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
Unknown by name to many, it impacts every American household
through crafting the President's budget, managing the federal
government, reforming regulation, and much more.
It's a critical part of ensuring that the government
reflects the will of our democratically elected President in
order to respond to the will of the American people. That's who
government is for, not entrenched Washington interests and the
political establishment.
Something I always noticed when I was in Congress when I
was out meeting folks in North Carolina is that the American
people are way ahead of us in Washington. They know what is
going on. They're smart, resourceful, resilient, and
hardworking. They want accountability, transparency, and an end
to the waste and the Washington status quo.
They recognized in this past election that our nation was
at a crossroads. On the precipice of either renewed greatness
or ruin. In that precarious moment, they placed their
confidence in President Donald Trump to usher in a new Golden
Age for America. I'm here on behalf of that mission and the
trust placed in President Trump by the people.
Our children and grandchildren are being crushed. Their
futures are being crushed under the massive burden of an out of
control federal debt. For too long we've been spending money we
don't have on things we don't need. Our government has been
self-absorbed, inefficient, unaccountable, and maladministered.
The good news is that we can fix all of those things and if
confirmed, I will be laser-focused on doing so at the side of
Director Russ Vought and the superb public servants at OMB.
It's finally time for a government accountable to the
people. I fought to deliver that my entire public service
career from county commission, as Ted mentioned, to state
legislature, to Congress, and it will continue to be my North
Star. Whether elected or appointed, we must never forget the
right of the people to decide. I know that I will never forget
it.
Thank you for considering my nomination. I look forward to
your questions.
Chairman Graham. Thank you very much. I'll start off here.
Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), do you believe
that's a good exercise in terms of trying to find out what
makes sense in terms of spending and what doesn't?
Hon. Bishop. I think it's an absolutely outstanding effort,
Senator. And I think the President's made it clear that's what
he wanted to do. Elon Musk's contribution to the effort--it is
changing the status quo.
Chairman Graham. I agree. And let me tell you why.
Somebody should've known a long time ago. What percentage
of the federal budget is entitlements, plus interest?
Hon. Bishop. Can't give you the exact percentage. You know,
it's--when you get the interest added on, which now exceeds the
Defense budget, we're talking, you know, well over 50 percent
of the federal budget.
Chairman Graham. Yes, I think it's north of 75 but Ron
would know that.
Hon. Bishop. Right.
Chairman Graham. I think it's like 78.
Hon. Bishop. Right.
Chairman Graham. The way I've always supposed this. You're
never going to get people to work together to reform
entitlements until you first go through the budget and get
waste and stupid stuff out. Do you agree with that?
Hon. Bishop. I totally agree, Senator.
Chairman Graham. Well, that's going on and I applaud that.
The list things that the President read last night was pretty
funny and at the same time obscene what your money's being
spent on, right?
Hon. Bishop. Right.
Chairman Graham. So I applaud all that, but there's some
things in the process. In the process of finding out what works
and what doesn't, let's don't kill things that are absolutely
necessary. The President wants 5 percent of Gross Domestic
Product (GDP) on Defense. That's what he says. Does that make
sense to you?
Hon. Bishop. Well, Senator, if the President says it----
Chairman Graham. Well, that's what he said. Yeah, I'm not
trying to pitch against him. I'd like that too. Let's see if we
can get there. He wants to balance the budget. I know I do too.
And so about 25 percent of the budget is non-entitlements, non-
interest, and let's give a once over. Defense is in that.
Eliminating the Department of Education, fine with me, and all
that good stuff. But there are 83 girls in Oman that we got out
of Afghanistan that we're supporting, that the money ends out
in the middle of March.
Do you think it's in our interest to make sure they don't
have to go back to Afghanistan?
Hon. Bishop. Well, Senator, I think I'd have to know the
rest of the details. You made reference to it in your opening
comments. I'm not familiar with the story you're talking about.
Undoubtedly, when you make change, you're going to see some
things that are dislocated and they may have to be put back.
Chairman Graham. Well, I want to talk to you about that
because that doesn't advance the ball at all. Are you familiar
with PEPFAR.
Hon. Bishop. I am.
Chairman Graham. Do you think it's generally been a good
program?
Hon. Bishop. As a general proposition, absolutely. I've
heard some news about PEPFAR in the last couple days and the
things from which PEPFAR money is going that were stunning to
me, if true, so I think even that--every program, no matter how
valuable ought to be looked at very carefully.
Chairman Graham. 100 percent. Yes, I'm a big fan of PEPFAR.
The concept of helping people not pass Acquired
Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS) onto unborn children and all
that good stuff, but it could be looked at too. Mothers--child
AIDS transmission has gone down by like 70 percent in the last
20 years. All that's good stuff, but everything should be
looked at, so count me in for that, including the Defense
Department.
I hope the DOGE people will give the Defense Department a
good once over. Does that make sense to you?
Hon. Bishop. It does, Senator, very much.
Chairman Graham. Now here's the problem I've got. I support
what you're doing, but I've talked to Secretary Rubio a bunch
about programs that are now very much in limbo or have actually
been shutdown that I don't think most Americans would want that
to happen and he's granted waivers. He has waiver authority;
are you familiar with that?
Hon. Bishop. I am, Senator.
Chairman Graham. When he grants a waiver, the money doesn't
flow. Do you know what causes that?
Hon. Bishop. I do not, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Graham. Well, I don't either. I mean I'm not
blaming you. Can we, me and you and Mr. Vought get together and
try to figure out--the only way this works--you're not going to
get the American people to do what Ronald Reagan and Tip
O'Neill did, which is save Social Security by making some
commonsense adjustments--until they have confidence you've
really cleaned the underbrush of the government out. In the
process of doing that, all things are not the same. Does that
make sense to you?
Hon. Bishop. It does.
Chairman Graham. So if you go too far, you're going to lose
trust in terms of actually cleaning up the place. So this is a
historic moment. What's happening should've happened a long
time ago and let's get it right to the point that we can. If we
have to adjust because we overshot the runway, do it. If you
need to go around--let's get this right. I really do believe
you and Mr. Vought are the right two to be able to convey to
the Congress and to the President what works and what doesn't.
Most people don't know about this job you two have, but
it's one of the most important jobs in town. Good luck.
Hon. Bishop. Well, thank you, Senator.
Senator Merkley. Thank you very, very much, Mr. Chairman.
The key point of conversation has been the Impoundment
Control Act and back when Nixon decided to start impounding
funds two things happened. One is there were appeals to the
courts which eventually made it to the Supreme Court and the
Supreme Court reinforced that you know when a separation of
powers embodied in our Constitution Congress makes the law. The
Executive has to follow the law and that means to spend the
money in the way that Congress has laid out.
The second thing is that Congress said, but you know what,
we should create a fast track for a President to undo or
propose undoing spending that the President considers
inappropriate called a rescission. That rescission power was
used in the early years after the 1974 Budget Empower Control
Act, but not used much since. And you have a law degree. You
practiced law. Correct?
Hon. Bishop. That's correct.
Senator Merkley. You have a fundamental education and an
understanding of the U.S. Constitution, do you not?
Hon. Bishop. I do.
Senator Merkley. Do you understand the importance of law
being applied as written?
Hon. Bishop. Certainly.
Senator Merkley. And so, how do you feel about this
situation in which funds are being impounded currently which
the Supreme Court has said is unconstitutional?
Hon. Bishop. Senator, President Trump ran on Impoundment.
I've heard Director Vought in his hearings speak about
Impoundment. I've studied the issue, but I am seeking a
position--seeking to be confirmed to a position that is not a
lawyer position. I won't be making the legal determinations for
OMB or for the Administration in terms of the legal positions
that it decides to take. I am persuaded, though, that there was
history in the United States before the 1974 Impoundment
Control Act.
Former Senator Harry Truman, as President of the United
Stated impounded funds to prevent the funding of a squadron of
strategic aircraft. Ulysses S. Grant exercised Impoundment
Power. Thomas Jefferson exercised the Impoundment Power, and I
think Senator, when you dig in, it's a compelling argument that
there is power in the Executive in the nature of Impoundment.
Exactly what its contours are I don't know. I won't be deciding
those things, but I support the President's plan to use
Impoundment to get federal government spending in line.
Senator Merkley. Well, sitting behind you is your future
boss, who very much advocates that he doesn't care what the
Supreme Court decided before because he disagrees and he thinks
the President disagrees. He was very honest and upfront about
that. But in our system of government, we don't get to decide
the constitutional issue and say individually we disagree with
the Supreme Court.
Now if the Supreme Court relitigates this and comes to
comes to a different conclusion, then there would be the
traditional power is granted by the Court and I understand that
that's the plan. But at this point every consideration has been
that this is illegal and unconstitutional and I'm sorry to hear
that with your training in the law you're inclined to simply
say, well, President ran on it.
He didn't give a lot of speeches about Impoundment, by the
way, and he didn't give a lot of speeches about the plan to cut
two trillion dollars from fundamental programs for families to
give two trillion dollars to tax giveaways to the richest
Americans. He didn't talk about it last night either, but when
there's a fundamental question of law and you, as a trained
lawyer, say, well, I'll just follow whatever the President
says, that concerns me because we need to have people of
integrity who are willing to follow the law in key positions
like this. Are you going to be a person with integrity to
follow the law?
Hon. Bishop. Senator, you've put words in my mouth that I
did not say and you've put words in Director Vought's mouth
that he did not say, with respect, and I certainly am a person
of integrity, but it is not a question of not following the
Supreme Court. For example, you say the Supreme Court has
decided the constitutional questions of the Impoundment Control
Act. That's just misinformed.
Senator Merkley. Oh really? Why don't you inform us all on
how--given that they've made that decision.
Hon. Bishop. Well, they didn't, sir. Train v. New York does
not consider the Impoundment Control Act and it does not
consider the President's power of Impoundment, neither one.
Senator Merkley. We'll continue that conversation because
others disagree with you. I'm not a lawyer myself, so I will
take this under advisement, but that's certainly my
understanding from other legal scholars that this has been well
adjudicated.
I am concerned also about your flipflopping. You proceeded
to say in a letter back in 2021 when you were concerned about
whether or not President Biden was proceeding to not execute
the law exactly as written. You said this action is an abuse of
the Executive Branch's authorities and appears in violation of
the Impoundment Control Act of 1974.
Here you are a champion of the Impoundment Control Act back
in 2021 and now you're saying you're not so sure. You just want
to follow the President and the President doesn't believe that
he needs to follow it. I'm a little concerned about that
flipflopping. Can you explain why your opinion has changed so
dramatically in just a couple years?
Hon. Bishop. Well, first, it hasn't changed that
dramatically. In that instance, what was being discussed was
President Biden's three year by then refusal to spend money
that the Congress had appropriated for border wall
construction. General Services Administration (GSA) had earlier
said at an earlier point that his suspending funding for a
programmatic review was not in violation of the Impoundment
Control Act, by the way. And so, it something that continued
almost to the entire Administration at that point in time.
And furthermore, as I said, Senator, I've spent time
studying Train v. New York that you made reference to. I've
spent time studying the history of Impoundment and the
presidents who've used it and the circumstances and I'm
disinclined to believe that the Congress could fundamentally
alter the balance of authority between the Executive and the
Congress when they decided to pass a statute in 1974.
Senator Merkley. My time is up, but I'll just say you were
very firm in attacking President Biden for Impoundment. Now
you're very firm in granting license to Impoundment. That seems
like a massive flipflop to me.
Chairman Graham. I don't tend to be a legal scholar, but if
you look at the case, it really doesn't address the issue of
the scope of the Impoundment Act. You're right about that in my
view. I think the Court will take that up and it'll probably be
good for the country. Senator Johnson.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHNSON
Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Vought and Mr. Bishop, welcome back to the Committee. I
look forward to working with you closely in your important
role. I didn't want to disappoint anybody, so I thought I'd
bring at least one chart.
Hon. Bishop. You have some famous charts, Senator.
Senator Johnson. Again, you realized I've proposed a number
of pre-pandemic levels of spending. They've all been prepared
the exact same way. I've taken actual total outlays from 1998
under Clinton, 2014 under President Obama, and then 2019 under
President Trump. I've exempted Social Security and Medicare.
I've used 2025 numbers for those and interest, but all other
spending I've increased the total outlays by population growth
and inflation.
So these are three options ranging from 5.5 trillion up to
6.5 trillion. It's interesting if President Trump or President
Biden projected revenue for 2025 at 5.5 trillion. If we use the
Clinton baseline, we'd have a balanced budget, so it's within
our grasp if we know how to do it. That's what I want to really
talk about.
Yesterday at the Senate lunch for the Republicans I just
asked the question. Did anybody, any of our colleagues think
that in 2019 we spent too little? Nobody did. Anybody think it
wouldn't be a reasonable control to take that spending level
increased by population and inflation and put that in as a
baseline. Nobody disagreed. Then I pointed out this year we'll
spend 7.3 trillion. That baseline is 6.5. It's an almost
trillion dollar delta, $800 billion. So how do you get there?
A couple dozen of us Republican senators meet with Elon
Musk last week and what I thought was noteworthy is we're not
talking about two or three big items. We're talking about
thousands and thousands of contracts. You know a few million
dollars, you know, just unbelievably wasteful and abuse of the
taxpayer money or the borrowed money that's mortgaging our
children's future.
President Trump had some great examples, some embarrassing,
some outrageous examples last night. So I handed you a variance
sheet, 17 pages, comparing that baseline to project '25 by
function and subfunction. I've also got hundreds of pages of 5
to 6,000 line items of every outlay, again, plussed up for
population growth and inflation compared to about 2025 within
the variance. And that's what I'm trying to get across to my
colleagues who've never been in business the way the private
sector would do this.
Line by line, you know, asking the manager to come and say
we never gave you the permission to increase your budget beyond
the number of people we're working with or inflation. Explain
yourself and then basically demand reduce spending to that
control. How do we do this? Is that the right approach? Because
what's happening in the House right now, they're starting at
7.3 trillion. They're looking at a couple of big programs.
They're getting attacked, so they're saying we can't cut that,
can't cut that, can't cut that as opposed to, start from a
baseline that everybody on our side thinks more than
reasonable.
I don't think we should be looking at anything over 6.5.
I'd be starting at 5.5 and probably plussing up for Defense,
but isn't that the way we need to do this, line-by-line the way
the private sector would approach outrageous overspending, Mr.
Bishop?
Hon. Bishop. Well, Senator, I would say a couple things.
I've heard you speak of this topic and lay this out in this
very persuasive way in a number of different forums, as you
know, public ones and private ones. And first, I would say I
think the conversation--the point that you are making
absolutely should be at the forefront of the discussion at all
times and I'm grateful to you for making it so.
I have seen it. I think most Americans would wonder why the
massive growth in the federal government spending at COVID, at
that event, why would that be completely irreversible? Why
would we now be on a permanent track at a higher percentage of
GDP as expenditures in federal government than ever in the
history of the country? It's untenable and you can look at
those numbers and you can see that the debt is already out of
control and it's going in the wrong direction so fast it ought
to frighten everyone. So your point's well taken.
I would say also that, of course, in my role as Deputy
Director I spent a lot of time in Congress articulating my own
views, but now I am working on behalf of the President to
implement his policies and there are a lot of things that are
competing for attention, but I think that one--you make the
greatest points of anyone I think in Congress about
consistently focusing on this issue and making sure this point
is in the conversation. And it certainly has an impact on me. I
know it does on Director Vought and we'll continue to look
forward to working with you to see how we can bring the logical
conclusion to reality.
Senator Johnson. So Mr. Chairman, one more point is, you
know, on thing--and we have to figure out how do we implement
the DOGE exposures. There may be room for Impoundment, but in
general, we're going to have to codify that and it is going to
be line-by-line. So again, I want to work with you and the
Administration to literally go line-by-line and build this
thing up as opposed to suffering death by a thousand cuts,
starting a grotesquely unreasonable spending level of $7.3
trillion, so I look forward to working with you.
Hon. Bishop. I look forward to joining in the endeavor.
Thank you, Senator.
Senator Johnson. Thank you.
Chairman Graham. Senator Merkley actually had that one
right, I thought, do a recession bill. Senator Lee.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR LEE
Senator Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Bishop, it's
great to see you. I'm so glad that you're willing to stand for
this nomination and be considered for confirmation.
Hon. Bishop. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Lee. As you note, the administrative state has been
crushing the American people for some time. This is often
perceived as a soft exercise of power, but the way it's
experienced by the American people is anything but soft. You
know in 2024 alone our administrative agencies promulgated
enough regulations that together it produced a combined net
economic impact of about $1.5 trillion. So you add to where the
federal regulations promulgated prior to 2024 stood, which
estimates vary wildly, but a lot of people have estimated those
regulations in effect previous to that time being somewhere in
the range of maybe 2.5 to $3 trillion.
We're now looking at a federal regulatory system that
imposes costs that more or less rival that which we spend on
federal income tax as an entire country. These are laws made by
men and women as well educated, well intended, hardworking,
highly trained as they might be, don't work for the American
people. They're lawmakers who are never elected.
Now my copy of the Constitution in Article 1, Section 1 and
in Article 1, Section 7, makes clear you cannot make a federal
law unless you follow the formula and the formula goes
something like this. You got to pass the bill in the House and
you've got to pass it in the Senate. Most of the time it
doesn't matter what order, unless you're dealing with a revenue
bill, but you've got to pass the same text in both Houses and
then present it to the President, who may sign it, veto it, or
acquiesce to it.
At the conclusion of that process, the legislative bill has
been rung. Then and only then may you make a new federal law or
change an existing federal law. But the means by which Congress
has since the late 1930s has been deferring, been delegating
this lawmaking power. It's completely reversed the equation
such that the American people are now subject to this byzantine
labyrinth of federal regulations and it brings to fulfillment a
warning made by James Madison in Federalist 62, who said, in
effect, it'll be of little avail to the American people that
their laws may be written by men of their own choosing if those
laws be so voluminous, complex, and everchanging that they
can't be read and understood. Anticipated from one day to the
next as to what the law actually requires. Only it's much worse
than James Madison's warning because it's not just that they're
everchanging, voluminous, and complex such that you can't know
what's happening. They're not even written by men and women of
our own choosing.
Now in my view, this calls out for aggressive reforms,
including, but not limited to, but definitely including the
REINS Act, Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny.
The REINS Act would require essentially what Article 1, Section
7 already compels us to do, which is before you create a new
affirmative legal obligation applicable to the public,
enforceable on the public at the risk of losing life, liberty,
or property for failure to comply that you've got to run these
through the legislative formula prescribed by Article 1,
Section 7.
Mr. Bishop, I'd like to know your views on the REINS Act
and how the White House and Congress can work together on
regulatory reform more broadly.
Hon. Bishop. Thank you, Senator, for the question. Anybody
who hasn't had the experience needs to come to sit with you in
your office where you see that massive--I guess they call it a
bookshelf filled floor to ceiling, floor to top with paper that
represents the regulatory output last year and then see what
Congress passed as a small stack on top. I'm not sure I've ever
seen anything that--in fact, it took me by surprise when I met
with you that it well captures how out of control the
regulatory states--you know, massive output of law is and yet
those were regulations.
I mean on top of that you've got guidance and unofficial
statements that get out on the websites, all of which can be
the source of enforcement by those same agencies in which they
make the law, they act as the judge and jury also for everybody
out in the society. I guess I'd say a couple things, Senator.
President Trump has, you know, his own plans to reform the
regulatory state. He's talked about taking 10 regulations down
for every 1 that comes along. The Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, OIRA, at OMB will be at the heart of that
effort and I look forward to participating very much in that.
As a member of Congress, I was very much in support of the
REINS Act. In fact, we tried to do something similar in North
Carolina. We did have a great regulatory reform agenda that was
very successful in North Carolina, so I know it can be done. I
think REINS has great merit, but of course what the President's
priorities are where I'll focus as Deputy Director of OMB.
Senator Lee. I appreciate that, Mr. Bishop, and I see my
time's expired. I'll add here just that I too cheered last
night when President Trump talked about 1 in/10 out.
That's fantastic. That buys us food for a day or at least
four years.
In order to have a sustainable supply of liberty, we need
legislative reform, permanent structural reform. And in my
view, the best way to make that happen, maybe the only way to
make it happen is to attach to a must-pass vehicle. I think the
most fitting pairing would probably be a debt ceiling bill. I
believe Congress should not enact legislation suspending or
increasing the debt ceiling without attaching the REINS Act and
I hope that you and the White House will support that. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Hon. Bishop. Thank you, Senator.
Chairman Graham. Senator Van Hollen.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR VAN HOLLEN
Senator Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop, it's good to see you. As you know, we only get
five minutes.
Hon. Bishop. Yes, of course.
Senator Van Hollen. Try to keep your answers short.
I'm just going to ask some direct questions.
Hon. Bishop. All right.
Senator Van Hollen. The first one is do you commit, if
you're confirmed for this position, to comply with any court
orders directed toward the jurisdiction of the Office of
Management and Budget?
Hon. Bishop. Yes, Senator.
Senator Van Hollen. Good. So now let me talk briefly about
what Senator Merkley discussed, which is the Impoundment
Control Act. I think he referenced the letter you earlier
signed at Government Accountability Office (GAO) asking whether
or not the Biden Administration had violated the Impoundment
Control Act. You remember that letter, right?
Hon. Bishop. I do.
Senator Van Hollen. And at that time you agreed that the
Impoundment Control Act was good law, am I right about that?
Hon. Bishop. Well, Senator, my views were more informed now
than they were then, but I didn't draft the letter either, but
I signed a letter to that effect.
Senator Van Hollen. That's right. And obviously, the
assumption behind that letter at that time you believed that
was good law.
Hon. Bishop. It was a lay opinion, Senator. That's right.
Senator Van Hollen. So you've changed your opinion since
then, is that right?
Hon. Bishop. Well, I've studied it more.
Senator Van Hollen. It is the law of the land. I mean you
signed that letter to GAO making that clear. Do you agree that
until it's overturned by a court that you will comply with the
Impoundment Control Act, if confirmed?
Hon. Bishop. Well, Senator, the determinations about how
the Administration will proceed and the legal strategy or the
determinations are being made by others than me. I'm not a
lawyer. I'm not going to be--I'm not a lawyer in the
Administration or to be a lawyer in the Administration. The
General Counsel's Office at OMB makes those determinations.
Director Vought will make decisions in light of their
determinations.
Senator Van Hollen. Okay. I would suggest, Mr. Bishop, that
you were right when you signed that letter a number of years
ago. And to the Chairman's comments, I would just point out if
you tear up the Impoundment Control Act, you might as well tear
up Article 1 and we might as well pack up when it comes to
using the power of the purse.
Chairman Graham. If I may, I don't mean----
Senator Van Hollen. As long as it doesn't come of my time.
Chairman Graham. Oh yeah, it will not count against you.
Take all the time you need. Biden said the Impoundment Control
Act did not require him to build the wall. Do you agree with
that?
Senator Van Hollen. I believe the GAO looked at the
allegation.
(Simultaneous discussion)
Senator Van Hollen. No, no, no, GAO is the body that we
entrust to make these determinations.
Chairman Graham. Well, I mean okay, but he said the
Impoundment Control Act did not require him to build the wall
when Congress told him to do it.
Senator Van Hollen. Well, GAO found that that was not----
Chairman Graham. GAO is not the court here.
Senator Van Hollen. Well, GAO is the body that we, as
Congress, have--well, they are.
Chairman Graham. No, they're not. You get two extra
minutes.
Senator Van Hollen. Actually, they are if you look at the
law. They're the ones that are entrusted in bringing actions to
comply with the Impoundment Control Act, is that right, Mr.
Bishop?
Hon. Bishop. No, sir. The GAO is an instrument of Congress,
so it might set an opinion that binds Congress, but it's not a
court.
Senator Van Hollen. No, no--anyway, that's who we empower
to bring cases on behalf of Congress with respect to compliance
with the Impoundment Control Act. Let me turn to the issue of
the firing of probationary employees. You're familiar with the
fact that a California Federal District Court issued a ruling
related to this, right?
Hon. Bishop. Actually, Senator, there are a lot of stories
about a lot things. I don't know if I've got that one crystal
clear in my mind, but yes, I'm aware there's----
Senator Van Hollen. So they just issued a ruling that
directly relates to this and the Merit System Protection Board
also ruled in favor of six representative federal employees
who'd been on probationary status, are you familiar with that?
Hon. Bishop. I heard about that, yes, sir.
Senator Van Hollen. All right. And so it's interesting
because just yesterday, I believe, a spokesperson for Office of
Personnel Management (OPM) said, ``This change was helped to
provide clarity in light of a recent court order'' and the
change was that the Administration conceded that OPM cannot
fire people who probationary employees, are you familiar with
that?
Hon. Bishop. No, I'm not actually, Senator.
Senator Van Hollen. So these employees were getting these
notices from OPM and some of Elon Musk's folks to informed them
that they were being fired. That is not allowable. It has to be
done by the agencies and so I see that OPM had to clean that
up. They claimed it was because of some public misinformation,
but there's no public misinformation when somebody gets a
directive from OPM.
You are familiar with the standard, and I think you outline
it here in this memo, that it's always been up to agencies
whether to take performance-based actions against probationary
employees. So you agree that it has to be a performance-based
reason to fire somebody who's on probationary status, is that
right?
Hon. Bishop. I'm sorry, Senator. I'm trying to remember
what memo you're referring to; is it something that I wrote?
Senator Van Hollen. No, but this is something that came out
of OPM that directly relates to the Administration's action.
Hon. Bishop. Well, I'm not in command of everything that
OPM has issued and not even in the same agency obviously.
Senator Van Hollen. Right.
Hon. Bishop. And I'm just a senior advisor.
Senator Van Hollen. OMB is sort of the cockpit for the
entire federal budget, but let me ask you this. Do you know
what the standard is for firing somebody who's on probationary
status?
Hon. Bishop. I do not. I certainly don't profess, for
example, to be an expert, a legal expert on that subject. A lot
of people sort think if you're a lawyer you should know all of
the law. I have not been an expert in federal personnel. I'm
generally aware of the existence of Title V and so forth.
Senator Van Hollen. Well, the bottom line is courts are
finding that these were illegal actions taken by the Musk
operation and so I appreciate your answer to my very first
question that if confirmed you will agree to comply with court
orders. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Hon. Bishop. Yes, Senator. Thank you.
Chairman Graham. You've got a minute if you want it.
Senator Van Hollen. That's all right.
Chairman Graham. Okay.
Senator Van Hollen. I may come back, but thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Graham. Okay. Senator Kennedy.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR KENNEDY
Senator Kennedy. Congressman, when moms and dads lie down
to sleep at night and can't, one of the things they're worried
about is cost of living, high prices; isn't that true?
Hon. Bishop. Absolutely, certainly true.
Senator Kennedy. And those high prices were caused by
inflation.
Hon. Bishop. Yes, Senator.
Senator Kennedy. Am I right?
Hon. Bishop. That's right.
Senator Kennedy. And inflation has come down. That's a good
thing, right?
Hon. Bishop. It is a good thing, Senator.
Senator Kennedy. But that just means when the inflation has
gone from 10 percent to 3 percent that prices are rising less
quickly. They're still rising, aren't they?
Hon. Bishop. Yes, Senator.
Senator Kennedy. That's call disinflation.
Hon. Bishop. If they fall, that'd be disinflation, yes,
sir.
Senator Kennedy. No, if the rate of inflation comes down,
that's disinflation.
Hon. Bishop. Oh, I beg your pardon. Okay.
Senator Kennedy. If prices comes down that's deflation.
Hon. Bishop. Yes.
Senator Kennedy. Now most Americans they don't read
Aristotle every day. They're too busy earning a living. They
don't know the difference between deflation and disinflation,
but they sure as hell understand that the high prices have
remained, don't they?
Hon. Bishop. Yes, Senator.
Senator Kennedy. We've got a lot of work to do around here.
Hon. Bishop. Yes, sir.
Senator Kennedy. And we need four years to do it and we
need a cooperative House and Senate to do it.
Hon. Bishop. I agree, Senator.
Senator Kennedy. If we don't get these high prices down,
we're not going to have four years. We're going to have a
divided Congress. You can write that down and take it home to
momma.
Hon. Bishop. Yes, sir.
Senator Kennedy. This election was about the economy and
people were still worried about these high prices. Now one way
to get these high prices down to reduce prices. Reduce prices
would be to reduce the amount of federal spending; isn't that
true?
Hon. Bishop. I think so, Senator.
Senator Kennedy. Because that's how we got here with the
massive amount of federal spending that President Biden
perfected. So if we can reduce the federal budget, we can
reduce prices.
Hon. Bishop. Yes, Senator.
Senator Kennedy. That's one thing you and Mr. Vought can
do. Number 2, if we deregulate that'll reduce prices, won't it?
Hon. Bishop. It will, Senator.
Senator Kennedy. Why is that?
Hon. Bishop. Because producers of goods and services in the
economy face less costs, particularly less costs that waste
money because they're not really accomplishing anything.
They're just sort of chasing the regulatory wheel.
Senator Kennedy. Well, hell yeah. Regulations cost the
American business community two trillion dollars a year. If we
can cut that in half, they can pass and will pass the savings
onto the American people.
Hon. Bishop. Yes, sir.
Senator Kennedy. Now the third way we can get these high
prices down, is it not, is to grow out of them.
Hon. Bishop. Agreed.
Senator Kennedy. Stimulate the economy.
Hon. Bishop. Certainly, the President intends to that,
Senator that's right.
Senator Kennedy. To raise wages.
Hon. Bishop. Yes, real wage gains.
Senator Kennedy. So this idea that we have to go into a
recession in order to have deflation is not really true, is it?
Hon. Bishop. Not at all.
Senator Kennedy. If we cut spending, if we deregulate the
economy, if we stimulate the economy in a way that helps real
people--small businesses and large businesses, but most real
people to increase their wages we can deal with these high
prices, can't we?
Hon. Bishop. That's exactly right.
Senator Kennedy. Well, that's what I hope you gentlemen
will do.
Hon. Bishop. Well, we'll need the help of Congress.
Senator Kennedy. I haven't heard enough about deregulation.
I mean I know these other issues that we're talking about are
important, but that's the surest way.
Hon. Bishop. I can assure you, Senator----
Senator Kennedy. In the short term, while we're working on
our reconciliation bill, the surest way is to deregulate and
reduce the spending.
Hon. Bishop. I can assure you that is a focus that Director
Vought is focused on like a laser and the effort is getting
ready to get underway.
Senator Kennedy. Yes. Now another question quickly. Do you
think we ought to be sending government checks to dead people?
Hon. Bishop. No, Senator, I think that's poor management.
Senator Kennedy. During the pandemic we sent out $1.4
billion of checks to dead people, didn't we?
Hon. Bishop. I don't have the figures, Senator, but I
wouldn't be surprised by that, given everything that----
Senator Kennedy. And they were cashed, weren't they?
Hon. Bishop. They generally get cashed whether they're dead
or not.
Senator Kennedy. What does that tell you?
Hon. Bishop. Somebody's alive.
Senator Kennedy. Yes. Now Senator Carper and I passed a
bill. It took us two years to try to stop that. When you die,
the state sends your name to the Social Security
Administration. Your name goes on what's called the Death
Master File.
Hon. Bishop. Yes, sir.
Senator Kennedy. I went to Social Security and I said can I
see the list. They said sure. I said who do you share this
with. They said nobody. We can't. We don't have statutory
authority. I said you don't share it with the Do Not Pay folks
at Treasury? They said nope. It's against the law. Well, rather
than argue with them, Senator Carper and I passed a bill. But
believe it or not, to say Social Security share the dead people
list with the rest of government for God's sakes. Put down the
bong and share it with them. And believe it or not, we had
opposition, so we had to agree to a three-year trial period.
We saved a bunch of money. That three-year trial period is
up at the end of 2026. I've got another bill with Gary Peters
to extend it to make it permanent. You guys got any problem
with that?
Hon. Bishop. Well, Senator, I cannot speak for the
President or for Director Vought.
Senator Kennedy. Oh, go ahead.
Hon. Bishop. It's hard for me to imagine who would be
opposed.
Senator Kennedy. Well, you'd be surprised.
Hon. Bishop. No, sir, I wouldn't be surprised as it turns
out, but I still can't imagine who would be opposed.
Senator Kennedy. Okay. You going to follow the law?
Hon. Bishop. Absolutely. Absolutely.
Senator Kennedy. You going to defy court orders?
Hon. Bishop. No, sir.
Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Graham. Thank you, Senator. Dead people have a
very good lobby apparently. So Senator Murray.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR MURRAY
Senator Murray. Well, thank you. Thank you very much,
Congressman Bishop. I just want to be really clear upfront.
You may not like it, but our Appropriation bills are not
optional. They're actually law. You were just asked if you'd
follow the law. Appropriation bills are law and I expect you
and the entire Administration to allocate funding as Congress
intended by law. This is not a theoretical issue. If Congress
passes a law that specifies that a hospital in Seattle should
receive some amount of federal funding, I expect that hospital
to receive every penny.
In this system of government under the American
Constitution, Elon Musk, President Trump can't pick winners or
losers. They don't get to pick which laws they follow or what
hospitals or schools get funded. They can write a budget. They
lobby all of us for it. I expect them to do it, but they cannot
overrule the entire democratically elected Congress and use the
American people's taxpayer dollars as a giant slush fund.
Congressman, at a hearing last week, you refused to say
that you'd follow that law no matter what illegal directive
you're given. I, as a former preschool teacher, like to keep
things simple. Congress legislates. We write the bills,
allocate the funding, after the President signs the bills, he
faithful executes. So just let me give you another opportunity
to say you will follow the law.
Appropriation bills are passed, will you follow the law and
use the funds as directed?
Hon. Bishop. Senator, thank you for the question. I've said
in response to several Senators here today President Trump's
run on Impoundment. Director Vought's expressed his view that
impoundment is within the power of the President in certain
ways.
Senator Murray. Wait a minute. There's a law that says that
impoundment is illegal. You won't follow that law.
Hon. Bishop. I'm aware of the Impoundment Control Act,
Senator.
Senator Murray. Right. You just don't agree with that law?
Hon. Bishop. I believe that is--I join Director Vought's
view that that's not a constitutional law.
Senator Murray. You just answered Senator Kennedy that you
would follow the law, but you're going to pick out one
exception that you won't follow?
Hon. Bishop. Well, Senator, you know, the Budget Control
Act requires a budget process be completed every year. The
Senate hasn't done that in decades.
Senator Murray. That's not a law. That is a process here,
but when we write Appropriations bills.
Hon. Bishop. It is a law, Senator.
Senator Murray. Appropriations bills are laws. Correct?
Hon. Bishop. They are.
Senator Murray. Signed by the President.
Hon. Bishop. That's correct.
Senator Murray. Will you follow those laws or not? Do you
have a law you disagree with?
Hon. Bishop. Senator, we'll certainly follow the law. It's
no more complicated than the question----
Senator Murray. Yes, I can see you're not going to follow
that one. Okay. Perhaps you can help me understand something
else. As I understand it, Elon Musk and DOGE are saying they're
conducting mass firing to help save taxpayer dollars. Out in
the Pacific Northwest we have the Bonneville Power
Administration (BPA). It's actually a self-sustaining agency.
It provides millions of dollars--power, sorry. Power to
millions of people in states like mine in the Pacific
Northwest. It's actually funded by ratepayers, not by
taxpayers. We don't use a dime of taxpayer money to pay BPA
salaries. So do you have any idea why Elon Musk thinks firing
people, which he did at the BPA, will reduce federal spending?
Hon. Bishop. Senator, I am completely unfamiliar with that
situation. Be glad to take it back or look into it and be glad
to make my number available to you.
Senator Murray. I would appreciate that because firing BPA
employees saves us zero taxpayer dollars. It is completely
funded by the users in the Pacific Northwest.
Hon. Bishop. Thank you, Senator. As I said, I'd be happy to
take that back and look into it.
Senator Murray. Okay. I want to talk about Social Security
for just a minute. Do you think seniors should be able to talk
to a real person? Elder people when they're trying to get ahold
of somebody, do you think they should talk to a real person or
have the possibility to do that?
Hon. Bishop. Senator, it might seem like common sense to
me, although I will say there's a somewhat--you know, I'm not a
spring chicken anymore and a lot of things have moved into a
direction other than having a live person available for every
telephone call. I really can't speak to it.
Senator Murray. Well, can you promise every member here
that cutting more than 12 percent of the agencies' workforce
will improve customer service?
Hon. Bishop. I don't know enough about the Social Security
Administration's workforce to know that Senator. I think that's
one of the issues about where we are today is there are lot of
assumptions like that, that turn out not to be true when
they're looked at very carefully.
Senator Murray. I would just have the premise when you cut
12 percent of the people that there will not be--and, by the
way, a number of field offices, there won't be people to answer
people's calls or have them come in and understand really
challenging situations when a spouse dies or the other many
things that they deal with. So we'll leave that at that.
I just want to ask you one last question for the record.
Do you believe the 2020 election was rigged?
Hon. Bishop. I join the view Director Vought expressed on
the point.
Senator Murray. I'm sorry?
Hon. Bishop. I join Director Vought's view of that
question. He said it was rigged in his responses and I join
that.
Senator Murray. And you think it's rigged?
Hon. Bishop. Yes.
Senator Murray. Thank you.
Chairman Graham. Senator Moreno. Scott, I apologize.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR SCOTT
Senator Scott. Well, Congressman, I'm glad you're here.
Hon. Bishop. Thank you.
Senator Scott. Good luck with your job.
Hon. Bishop. Great to be here.
Senator Scott. You know I love it when the Democrats talk
about following the law. When I was Governor of Florida because
I wouldn't expand Medicaid, Barack Obama cut a billion dollars
out of my Medicaid program like that. Not one Democrat said
that was a problem, not one Democrat. He cut a billion dollars
and it was a program that went to hospitals that did more
uncompensated care, a billion dollars gone and didn't come back
until we got a new president. So congratulations. Why do you
want to do this and what're you going to get done in your four
years?
Hon. Bishop. Thank you, Senator. And if I might real
quickly to say in response to what you just said, I think there
are many such examples. If you think about orders that
President Biden issued in the last Administration that were
plainly contrary to law. Even after the Supreme Court issued
opinions on student debt cancellation, for example, he did more
of it. And I want to make clear because I think there is
something that needs to be said, which I haven't talked about
violating the law. I talked about there may be issues about the
Impoundment Control Act and its constitutionality and what
exactly the contours are of the historic power to impound and
that's probably going to--President Trump has made clear that's
going to be looked at. So that's part of, I think, in answer to
the question what I hope to do.
I think what President Trump said last night in a speech--I
don't think I've ever seen a better State of the Union
address--but he said there's going to be action. The American
people are so ready for action and I spent five years in the
Congress in the House of Representatives ready for action that
I never saw take place. And I don't even know that it's
conservative or liberal. It's common sense and it's actual
change.
The reason I'm looking forward to this job more than any
job I've had in my life is because I know Russ Vought. I know
what the President of the United States intends to do in terms
of action to see change and I am thrilled, should I be
confirmed by the Senate, to be part of it.
Senator Scott. Do you think you can balance the budget?
Hon. Bishop. Absolutely. I'm certain that can be done,
Senator.
Senator Scott. Have you done that in your personal life?
Hon. Bishop. I certainly have.
Senator Scott. Gosh, how do you do it?
Hon. Bishop. It's amazing. My wife is the key to so many
things.
Senator Scott. Did you like find out what you're going to
make and not spend more than that?
Hon. Bishop. Look for opportunities to save and not pay for
some things we paid for at one point in time we find not to be
worthwhile.
Senator Scott. Do you have a credit card?
Hon. Bishop. I do.
Senator Scott. Do you review it to see if it's proper?
Hon. Bishop. The way the review works in our household is
that if something's on it that's not supposed to be there, I
hear about it from the boss.
Senator Scott. And have you ever like changed your
telephone plan to get a better deal?
Hon. Bishop. And that's a constant source of discussion
internally. I've got the cheapest plan you can imagine,
Senator. I'd be glad to tell you about it.
Senator Scott. Yes. So we've seen a 2 percent increase in
population five years and a 53 percent increase in federal
spending. How on God's green earth can we live within this?
Hon. Bishop. Every American who had an opportunity to focus
on that number would say that's absurd.
Senator Scott. Yes. So my colleague from Ohio and others
here we just went through campaigns. I went through my
reelection and I tell people when they come up here because
everybody's in my office now asking for money. And here's what
I tell them. I said, you know what, I'd say, I don't know, I'd
say a thousand events in the last year, nobody, not one person
in my state asked me about that program, but you know what they
did ask me about? Why isn't the border secure and why's the
cost of living going up? That's all they're asking about. I
mean the whole campaign that's they--I was at a Jimmy Johns
restaurant the other day and the lady was just saying, look, I
moved to Florida because you're the governor. I could get a job
but she said the cost of living is just skyrocketed. The
groceries are out of whack.
So what are some of the things you think that you can get
done--and by the way, do you think we get inflation under
control if we don't balance the budget?
Hon. Bishop. No, sir, I don't think so. And whether we have
to actually get the balance to get it under control, I think
you could get inflation under control probably short of that
target, but it still needs to be done to be sustainable over
the long term. But I think the plain thing is that President
Trump has made it clear over and over. In his State of the
Union last night, he made it clear how relentlessly he is
focused on that.
He's laid out strategies that are plausible in terms of,
for example, unleashing American energy production, lowering
the cost of energy. You're not only going to reduce the cost of
every time somebody makes an energy-related transaction, but
energy goes into everything that is done in the goods and
services across the economy. That's a businessman's judgment.
If I can say that to you and Senator Moreno next to you
thinking about this, Senator Johnson, Senator Ricketts, and I
think that's so refreshing to the American people to hear, but
those are the things that are affecting their lives. What
prevents them from getting to the end of the month successfully
and so I think that's right, Senator.
Senator Scott. When I was in business, I read the lines of
my budget, right? I had 342 hospitals--went through the
budgets. Surgeons went through the budget. Every manufacturing
companies went through the budget. When I was governor of
Florida 4,000 lines of the budget, I went through every line
every year. They had a written purpose. Do you think we ought
to do that with the federal government?
Hon. Bishop. I think there's no substitute for it. It
requires sort of a preparedness to confront a tedium and work
through it because it has to be done.
Senator Scott. And if we can't find a purpose or didn't do
it, should we just keep doing it because we did it before?
Hon. Bishop. That one doesn't sell for me, Senator, ever. I
think we ought to consider everything anew every time.
Senator Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Graham. Senator Warner.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR WARNER
Senator Warner. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop, it's good to see you. We don't know each other.
I have a dramatically different view of the President's
discussion last night. I've never heard frankly one that was
less bipartisan and less willing to acknowledge ought to be in
this together. And actually, Senator Scott--and I'll match my
business credentials against anybody. I balanced a budget. I've
met a work payroll. I was governor of Virginia and got named
best managed state and best state for business. And as a matter
of fact, we even did it in a way where we also got named--
Senator Kaine and I were colleagues and he was governor
afterwards. We got best state in the country for its public
education. And we realized you couldn't just balance the budget
on one side of the ledger.
And again, I've only got five minutes but I am
flabbergasted by some of your comments. The last time I had a
hearing here we had Russell Vought in this chair and your
willingness to be obsequious to him which I inferred from some
of your comments, frankly, scares the hell out of me.
Mr. Vought, one thing he's been remarkable in 40 some odd
days is terrorize the federal workforce. I know you're a
lawyer. I was actually a business guy, so I read a balance
sheet. But by terrorizing your workforce you don't get better
production. As a matter of fact, you destroy production and the
haphazardness of the DOGE boys firing people without warning,
not letting them come back, then realized, oops, we screwed up.
I think it's kind of the absolutely opposite of any kind of
solid business credentials.
Now I will acknowledge some consistency on voting against
every federal funding bill under the Biden Administration, but
now you're going to be charged with helping to fund the Trump
Administration. I don't know whether you're going to vote
against or encourage your congressional colleagues to vote
against everything put forward. You also flipflopped on the
basic notion of whether a nation should default on its debt. I
mean, again, I know you're a lawyer, I was a business guy, but
if we default on our nation's debt that is not something the
markets are going to be willing to reverse on right away.
And kind of to add insult to injury, yes, you accused Biden
of illegally withholding federal funds. The Trump
Administration is doing this at an unprecedented level, yes,
your peers are willing to go in and simply support those
policies. I don't get it. I know you're from our neighboring
state in North Carolina, maybe you've not heard the economic
disruption that's being caused. I frankly don't even know
whether the Trump Administration is going honor its commitment
under disaster relief. Lord knows you guys and we in Virginia
got hard hit. But I guess in my last two minutes, I want to
talk about Social Security.
So we had a 1.6 million Virginians on Social Security
benefits. Now Mr. Musk, who appears to me to be the actual czar
of the budget and management or lack thereof, has called Social
Security the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time. Now I know
President Trump says he's not going to touch it, but I have no
confidence that, so I've got a couple, if you don't mind, sir,
yes/no questions.
Are you aware that the Social Security Administration has
currently as fewer staff at this time than any point in the
last 50 years?
Hon. Bishop. No, I don't know that, Senator. I'm not
familiar with the staffing at the Social Security
Administration.
Senator Warner. All right. Thank you. Are you aware that
Social Security and DOGE, and I believe your new boss, Mr.
Vought, plans to actually fire half of that existing staff, are
you aware of that?
Hon. Bishop. I am not aware of a specific plan Senator
Warner. Okay. Thank you. And you said you and your wife manage
your budget and I appreciate that. Have you ever made a call to
a Social Security representative and ever been put on hold or
waited a long time to get an answer?
Hon. Bishop. Have I done that?
Senator Warner. Yes, sir.
Hon. Bishop. No, in fact, I've had some interactions with
Social Security Administration and I did not have that
experience.
Senator Warner. Okay, so you never had any constituents
that complained that they got put on hold. You be a remarkable
district because I----
Hon. Bishop. I didn't say that.
Senator Warner. All right, sir. Do you actually think that
Social Security seniors who rely on those funds ought to get
them on time?
Hon. Bishop. Absolutely.
Senator Warner. Okay, so if we're going to have the lowest
staffing levels in 50 years, your plan is to cut half that
staff additionally. I don't know how that's going to get done.
And my time has run out, Mr. Chairman, but I would just say I
even get to the questions around concerns when I was Chairman
of the Intelligence Committee, now Vice Chairman, the damage
that's being done to our Intelligence and national security
issues, so Mr. Bishop, I want to try to give all nominees a
fair shot. I voted for many of Mr. Trump's initial nominees but
your alignment with Mr. Vought and some of these Musk
principles really concerns me greatly, sir. So thank you, Mr.
Chairman. I look forward to hearing the rest of his answers.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICKETTS
Senator Ricketts. Great. Well, I am sitting in for Chairman
Graham and so I get to go next on questions as well, so I'll
pick it up from there, but I want to thank the Ranking Member
here and the Chairman for holding this hearing and Mr. Bishop
for your willingness to serve in this role for our country.
We had a great discussion when you were in the office last
week and when Director Vought came before this Committee, we
talked a lot about the consequences of the Biden
Administration's flood of federal regulations and the reckless
spending and I think you've talked a little bit about that.
Last week I actually joined Elon Musk and a member of my
colleagues getting an update about what the DOGE has been doing
and one of the things that he talked about was making sure that
we were doing what you said a little bit earlier is if we got
things we don't need we shouldn't pay for them.
For example, he used the fact that in one of our agencies
we have 13,000 employees and 3700 software licenses. The
Senator from Virginia just referenced Social Security, but I
think Mr. Musk in that meeting said we have 22 million people
that are on Social Security that are too old to be alive and I
think that's what the President was highlighting last night in
his State of the Union address and the fact that we've got 4.6
million credit cards out there but not that many people work
for the federal government. All those things leave open the
opportunity to be able to find ways to do a better job. And in
fact, it's that kind of business approach and frankly common
sense that I think is so refreshing about having Elon Musk and
the DOGE there.
One of the things we discussed was Lean Six Sigma, which is
what I implemented in the State of Nebraska and it's a process
of proven methodology. We discussed about how you could
actually have fewer people and do a better job providing
services because you leverage better process and better
technology.
That's what we did to be able to reduce about--we did about
a thousand projects, saved about 900,000 hours of our
teammate's time. We cut $100 million in hard savings that way.
And now a part of the DOGE caucus, I'm excited to bring some of
those processed improvement ideas to how we run the federal
government. The bottom line is this, we need to make sure that
we're doing a better job providing services. We're doing a more
effective and that we're increasing efficiency and saving
taxpayers' dollars to get at that goal that President Trump
played out last night of balancing the budget, which is, you
pointed out earlier, very, very important that we get to a
balanced budget. It's not sustainable what we're continuing to
do. When your interest payments are more than what you spend on
national defense, you've got a problem. We need to acknowledge
that and we need to address it.
Elon Musk in our meeting said he wants to cut a trillion
dollars out of the federal budget on a run rate fiscal year
2026. So I look forward to continuing to work with Elon Musk
and President Trump and the Senate DOGE caucus and you, Mr.
Bishop, to replicate what we did in Nebraska at the federal
level.
So Mr. Bishop, are you committed to increasing government
efficiency and saving American taxpayer money?
Hon. Bishop. I certainly am, Senator.
Senator Ricketts. Great. That was an easy question.
Hon. Bishop. It was easy.
Senator Ricketts. All right. Good. Will you commit to work
with me on bringing cost improvement methodologies like the one
I described with you, the Lean Six Sigma to the federal
government so we can improve our services while keeping our
cost down?
Hon. Bishop. Yes, Senator. And in our meeting, I was
intrigued by the Lean Six Sigma idea. And one of the things
that I could say quickly is that, you know, you hear a lot of
Ad Hominem attacks on Elon Musk, but people rarely want to
engage with the merit of what he's actually saying, what makes
sense. And by the same token, what Lean Six Sigma recognizes is
that you're actually empowering employees when you elevate them
to make process improvement recommendations and that's exactly
what--you know, there's a notion that they're trying to set up
an antagonism between Elon Musk and employees, but what Musk
has done in his businesses, if you read his biography, is he
has shown that by being ready to make significant change, you
actually bring out the superlative employment or performance
out of people and they actually can improve things beyond that
you might expect by just adding numbers and I think it's a
similar concept.
Senator Ricketts. Yes, you're actually right there, Mr.
Bishop. At the state of Nebraska, Lean Six Sigma engages
frontline people in making their jobs better because they see
the waste, the number of steps that we try to cut out. They see
that duplication and wonder why we do it. They don't feel
empowered to change it. Lean Six Sigma actually gives them the
opportunity to be able to change those processes that not only
do a better job providing services, keep our costs down, but
actually make their jobs easier as well.
Quickly, as I'm running out time here as well, when
Director Vought was here I asked him about his commitment to
helping ensure the timely issuance of Renewal Volume
Obligations or RVOs. The biofuels industry is very important to
Nebraska's farmers. It's our number one industry in the State
of Nebraska and of course to the energy industry as well. The
2026 RVOs were obligated to be filed by November 1st, 2024, but
will not be filed until December 2025, so a year late.
Timely RVOs are critical, not only because it's the law,
because our nation's farmers rely on ROVs to inform planting
decisions and of course, as you know, businesses want
certainty. So Mr. Bishop, will you make the same commitment to
me today to help expedite this process and ensure the timely
issuance of RVOs?
Hon. Bishop. Yes, Senator. Director Vought makes clear that
he wants to move processes on time and that's the discipline he
brings, and so I can't speak with great specificity to that
particular situation, don't have the knowledge of it yet, but
certainly look forward to working with you and with Director
Vought to accomplish that objective.
Senator Ricketts. Great. Thank you, Mr. Bishop, and Mr.
Padilla.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR PADILLA
Senator Padilla. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Colleagues, I know I'm not alone in saying that it's
extremely unfortunate where we find ourselves today. President
Trump has made clear that the OMB's sole mission, at least as
he wishes it under his Administration, is to cut programs, the
very programs that so many Americans rely on in order to pay
for another massive round of tax cuts for the wealthiest
Americans.
In fact, during his address to Congress just last night, he
doubled down on DOGE's wildly unpopular agenda of chaos and
corruption. Proudly listing the ways he has and will continue
to devastate communities. And today we're asked to consider the
next nominee preparing to further eliminate funding and jobs
from our constituents.
Mr. Bishop, I'd like for you to speak to the Californians
that I represent for a minute here. I want them to hear how
you'll justify ripping away important services and programs
while raising the cost of everything. That's the impact that
we're seeing from this Administration. My constituents deserve
to know exactly who to thank for these reckless cuts.
You know in the last six weeks it's all of the time that
it's taken for President Trump and the Office of Management and
Budget to wreak havoc across critical government programs.
During your confirmation hearing in the Senate Homeland
Security and Government Affairs Committee last week, I heard
you insist multiple times that President Trump's firing of
civil servants was not indiscriminate; is that correct?
Hon. Bishop. That's correct and I continue to hold that----
Senator Padilla. So is it not indiscriminate or was it
intentional when President Trump fired scientists fighting the
Bird Flu outbreak while the cost of eggs continues to soar.
Hon. Bishop. We'd have to look at the details of that,
Senator. I'm not aware of the specific point you're making.
Senator Padilla. You're a smart man. You're a smart man. I
know you've seen the details. Was it indiscriminate or
intentional when President Trump fired military veterans
operating the Veterans Crisis Line?
Hon. Bishop. I'd have to look at the details of that,
Senator. I don't--as I said----
Senator Padilla. Was it not indiscriminate or was it
intentional when President Trump fired thousands of seasonal
employees at the National Park Service?
Hon. Bishop. Yes, I do not think that--and the dismissals
that have occurred are indiscriminate.
Senator Padilla. I'm asking these questions because you
seem to be applauding Elon Musk's efforts and this DOGE
strategy and chaos.
Hon. Bishop. I certainly am.
Senate Padilla. So was it not indiscriminate or was it
intentional when President Trump fired thousands of nuclear
weapons safety and security workers at the National Nuclear
Security Administration?
Hon. Bishop. We'd have to look into the details of that,
Senator. I'd be glad to do that.
Senator Padilla. All this is just to disappoint and to make
matters worse in so many areas of these indiscriminate firings.
They have had to scramble to hire them back shortly after they
realized their colossal error. And I could go on and on with
additional examples but let's be clear. This is not a one-time
adjustment as Mr. Bishop has characterized it. So here's the
actual real question and I'm interested in your response.
What corrective measures has OMB taken to undo and limit
indiscriminate firings of federal employees by an unelected
bureaucrat?
Hon. Bishop. I don't think any of the premise of the
question is accurate, Senator, but of course, OMB is not the
agency within the Executive Office of the President that deals
with personnel. That's a different office and moreover, I'm not
yet serving as Deputy Director and do not have management
responsibility nor am I aware of some of the details that
you've made reference to, so I can't speak to the question.
Senator Padilla. OMB's involvement, Russell Vought's
involvement, the Director now, will be evidence to the contrary
of direct involvement in those personnel decisions. Maybe let
me end with this since I referenced Director Vought. When he
was before this Committee, one of the questions I asked is if
he stood by his previous statements of a mission, a goal, an
agenda to put federal employees into trauma and there's example
after example of exactly that happening, given the activity of
the last six weeks and especially since Mr. Vought was
confirmed. Is that what you're signing up for, to help
facilitate that, to help further that, putting federal
employees into trauma?
Hon. Bishop. You know, Senator, with that comment in one of
his writings that's been--or one of his speeches that has been
taken out of context.
Senator Padilla. It's pretty clear and direct.
Hon. Bishop. No, it really--it's been used in a misleading
way. What he means is that federal employees--that the American
people need federal employees to perform. If federal employees
themselves, I'm certain----
Senator Padilla. How do they perform when they're in trauma
or traumatized by their employer?
Hon. Bishop. Yes, well, I think that the--again, the answer
is that federal employees--there must be change in the
workplace. Federal employees were making the comment that they
see underperformers continuously among their colleagues that
they cannot see--the processes will not allow to be removed.
Those were federal employees. I've seen the way Russ Vought
works with the people at OMB, the career officials there. He
has extraordinary respect for their skill but he expects them
to perform and they do.
Senator Padilla. But don't mistake their trauma for
respect. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chairman Graham. Who's up?
STATEMENT OF SENATOR MORENO
Senator Moreno. Moreno.
Chairman Graham. You're up.
Senator Moreno. We had a little shuffle. Thank you, Mr.
Bishop, for agreeing to serve your country again. I think the
American people appreciate your willingness to put yourself
into the battlefield.
I want to ask you. You've been around--how long have you
been around government? I've been around government for eight
entire weeks. How about you?
Hon. Bishop. Senator, a little longer than that but I too
think of myself as a private sector career person. I spent 30
years practicing law in a small firm serving people whose lives
were on the line, frankly, in commercial matters that, you
know, might be their business ownership or something that was--
and so----
Senator Moreno. But how long as an elected official?
Hon. Bishop. So as an elected official, I've been about 10
years.
Senator Moreno. Ten years. So in that time, especially your
time here in Congress, have you ever seen an appetite to
actually reduce the size and scale of government, like a really
meaningful effort to make that happen?
Hon. Bishop. You know, Senator, it has been a constant
presence. I've seen a lot of really great people who've pursued
the objective and yet it doesn't ever seem to come to pass. You
would have to conclude that there are a lot of people who are
not doing that.
Senator Moreno. And when you were in the private sector,
did you ever run into organization that didn't fire anybody?
Like did you ever run into a company that said, you know, we
haven't fired a human being in 50 years or is it more natural
that you have to constantly evaluate your workforce and say
this group of people just isn't getting the job done. Maybe
they didn't have the right training, maybe they were the bad
hire, whatever reason, but I've found in my private sector
experience that when you do that, when you reduce and get rid
of and eliminate poor performers the whole enterprise rises.
Did you find that?
Hon. Bishop. I think that's exactly right, Senator. And
it's never a pleasant task perhaps or one we'd like to avoid,
but it's one of the tasks that's necessary in order to perform.
Senator Moreno. And just to clarify some misinformation
that's out there online, does Elon Musk personally have the
authority to fire anybody in the United States Government?
Hon. Bishop. That is not my understanding. I will say I'm
not involved with the DOGE effort directly yet and in any way,
but everything that I've understood about it and followed is
that he does not exercise that power. Correct.
Senator Moreno. That's in the job of the people who
actually do that.
Hon. Bishop. That's right.
Senator Moreno. But he could certainly recommend. So for
example, like I get a lot of calls from constituents. So if
somebody's a person who works for the Veterans Affairs (VA) and
their jobs is to greet veterans at the door, make sure that
they got the resource they need, we look at it and say that's a
good job, right? We should have somebody there greeting the
veterans, making certain they know what their needs are. If
that person lives five hours away and never shows up to the
actual VA, would you think that that's a job that should be
eliminated?
Hon. Bishop. That ought to be looked at pretty seriously.
Senator Moreno. So what if they're a really nice person?
What if they're a really nice guy?
Hon. Bishop. Even then.
Senator Moreno. What are they're a veteran themselves and
still live five hours away and never show up for work, should
we just keep that person on?
Hon. Bishop. That's the kind of thing that doesn't make any
sense, Senator, and the American people are ready for something
to be done about it.
Senator Moreno. And if you have a company, for example, and
we're going to get to the bottom of it in Homeland Security and
Government Affairs Committee (HSGAC), but if you have companies
that have sales reps that call on the government and yet allow
something like what's happening at Small Business
Administration (SBA) with 37,000 software licenses for 13,000
employees, does that seem normal to you?
Hon. Bishop. That would never happen in a private business
where you're trying to make ends meet, Senator.
Senator Moreno. I mean I would just urge my Democratic
colleagues. I plead with them argue with us on things that
actually are common sense and reasonable, but to argue the
counterpoint that we should absolutely not root out waste,
fraud, and abuse and the counterargument would be, oh, we'll
all for rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse. I've been here
eight weeks. They've been here centuries combined, centuries,
like literally centuries combined and it's never been done. So
maybe sit this one out and allow this effort to go forward and
not defend insanity like what we're seeing.
What the DOGE efforts is being done--I want to say how
history's going to judge this moment. You have the world's most
successful entrepreneur, a guy who has zero reason even to go
to work. He could literally point anything on this earth and
say I'll take it. I want to take that 500-foot yacht and go
sail away. He's sleeping at the Executive Office Building,
going through line-by-line of the federal budget and
recommending things like that to be cut, 4.7 million credit
cards out in the hands of government workers.
I ran a company of 1100 employees, so a minuscule
comparison. I had five corporate credit cards and I had anxiety
over all five of them.
Hon. Bishop. Right.
Senator Moreno. How do you defend that? Like why not be on
the side where you say this makes sense. Like we got this
incredible entrepreneur, a generational talent, the Thomas
Edison of our time, and he's willing to serve our country, to
help us. The guy who you once loved. I mean the left loved Elon
Musk and now they hate him. This is a subject of a Taylor Swift
breakup song. I've never seen anything like it. But you know I
want healthy competition from the other side. I think we should
have a healthy exchange of debate and ideas, but watching them
humiliate themselves last night at the State of the Union
address was just too much. You can't applaud for a 13-year-old
Black kid who has brain cancer? Is this where we're at, Mr.
Chairman, were we're sitting here as a body that's supposed to
be deliberative body of the world and instead we can't even get
them to applaud for a 13-year-old kid. We can't get them to say
rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse is a good thing.
I urge my Democratic colleagues don't be like that team
that played the University of Miami and got beaten 97 to 0. We
need a healthy, vibrate Democrat party to challenge us, but
challenge on the things that makes sense and don't put out
misinformation like we're going to go out there and randomly
cut 50 percent of Medicaid. Those messages on TV affect real
people, real people who think, my God, if this happens I don't
know what I'm going to do. That's not what we're doing. Attack
us when you think we're wrong on real information.
My time is way expired. I used my minute and a half it took
me to get to my chair, but thank you, Mr. Bishop for serving. I
look forward to you serving with Director Vought and it was
great to see him here today and I yield the negative amount to
my time back to you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Graham. Thank you. Senator Lujan.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR LUJAN
Senator Lujan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to accept
the challenge of my colleague. I'm going to read you a note,
Representative Bishop, from a constituent that was fired.
I am a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Victims
Specialist, a civil servant, a career government employee. I am
there when your loved one is killed by an actual shooter, when
your child is sexually exploited online, when your family
member is kidnapped and held for ransom. When your mother,
sister, daughter is the victim of interstate domestic violence
or stalking, when the federal agent is injured or killed in the
line of duty, when your elderly parent is defrauded of their
life savings, when your child is kidnapped by their other
parent, when you or someone you love is victimized in so many
ways. I am not waste, fraud, and abuse. I am not the enemy. I
am not expendable.
For more than 22 years, it has been my greatest honor to be
with people in their darkest hour to bring light into the
darkness of the cost of my own wellbeing. I do not deserve to
be forced out under fear or duress or discarded. For if I am,
you and those you love will have to walk in that darkness
alone.
She continues, there are so many of us throughout the
United States with stories just like this. Examples of how
they've responded to crime victims. I agree, let's root out
waste, fraud, and abuse but we should both agree that when
there's a victim of a sexual crime or someone from across the
border that is going to kill someone or do something to them,
they don't deserve to be fired. That's the nonsense going on
here.
I accept this responsibility but I'll tell you what, I'm
not sitting this one out, not on behalf of my constituents.
There's a better way for us to do these things. You know,
Representative Bishop, you served at a time in the House of
Representatives where there was a policy that wasn't in place
and it's because Republicans got rid of it but Democrats never
put it back in place. I hope this is something we could
actually agree on. I know Senator Graham supported this once
upon a time as well. He used to talk about this in a way that
would convince more people to do it.
Under President Clinton, there was a balanced budget. There
was something called PayGo and Congress restrained itself. In
the same way that you described balancing your checkbook, if
Congress moved a piece of legislation that cost money they had
to either cut or they had to create revenue. It led us to
balance budgets. I believe Congress needs to bring this policy
back in place so everyone can restrain themselves and I think
things will be better. I'll let that sit.
As Deputy Secretary of the Office of Management and Budget,
Representative, it seems like you'll be working in lock step
with Elon Musk and DOGE. I appreciate the conversations that
we've had on both sides of the aisle, speaking about what Elon
Musk and others are doing here. Now over the weekend, Elon Musk
said something. I think it was brought up by one of my
colleagues. He said Social Security is the biggest Ponzi scheme
of all time. Do you believe that Social Security is a Ponzi
scheme?
Hon. Bishop. It really isn't my place--what I'm doing is
sitting to be the Deputy Director of OMB is to implement
President Trump's policies. I really am not in a position to
comment on every comment that Elon Musk makes but I know that
President Trump has said he's not touching Social Security or
Medicare. He's going to ensure those benefits and that is the
policy that I'm going to be seeking to work with Director
Vought to implement.
Senator Lujan. President Trump says to do this, but Elon
Musk says to do something else. He's not just someone. Elon
Musk was described as President Trump last night at the address
to the American people as being in charge. There's been a lot
of questions over the last eight weeks if he is in charge or
not, but Elon Musk is calling the shots right now.
President Trump's going to Daytona, Super Bowl, golfing,
doing some good things. I believe in finding balance in your
life. I had a stroke three years ago. Thank God I got better. I
believe in finding that balance, but I think that the President
is able to do those things because the other president is
actually calling the shots. So when Elon Musk is passing things
down to Director Vought and to others, some of which were
actually documented and these ideas came from Director Vought,
which are part of Project 2025 and you have someone that's
calling the shots firing people across the country, cutting
budgets, cutting programs, putting people on the chopping block
using a chainsaw as a tool, who says Social Security is a Ponzi
scheme. I think that requires us just to take notice. That's
all I'm saying.
Your responsibility, sir, as you know is going to be making
decisions with Director Vought to the President about these
budgets. You said you want to get to a balanced budget. That's
going to require cuts. This notion that Medicaid and Medicare
are not on the chopping block I would just ask voters--
Democrats, Republicans, Independent, (unintelligible). Go look
at the votes that were cased in the House of Representatives
last week, read the document, go back and read the document
that Speaker Paul Ryan put together when he was Speaker of the
House, 50-page document that described going after this
program.
Go back when Paul Ryan was the Chairman of the Ways and
Means Committee and went after that program. Go back and look
in 2017 when Republicans were trying to eliminate all aspects
of Medicaid, eliminating Affordable Care Act, and it took John
McCain coming to the floor, and may he rest in peace, the great
hero that he is and said, no, fighting brain cancer.
This is not new. It's not some secret. These are the facts.
Go look them up. I invite that and I challenge my colleagues.
Let's come up with a factsheet that we get back to a place
where Congress once deliberated. Here are the facts. Let's
agree and disagree based on the facts that are in front of us.
That doesn't exist anymore. We need to get back to those times.
So, Representative Bishop, it's good to see you again.
Hon. Bishop. Thank you, sir.
Senator Lujan. We didn't vote the same a lot, but I
appreciate you being here and stepping up and I pray for you. I
pray for the President because we've got to do better for the
American people. And I'll close where I started, I'm not
sitting this one out. I'm going to stand up and fight for my
constituents. I yield back.
Hon. Bishop. Thank you, Senator.
Chairman Graham. Thank you. Senator Merkley has a couple of
questions and I believe we'll be done.
Senator Merkley. Well, thank you so much.
Congressman, when you were in the House of Representatives,
you were a fierce opponent of raising the debt ceiling. Are you
now planning to encourage the House--the House has put raising
the debt ceiling into their plan on the House side by four
trillion dollars. Do you now support raising the debt ceiling?
Hon. Bishop. Well, Senator, the premise was not complete. I
was an opponent of raising the debt ceiling without reforms to
spending that would change the fiscal path, but the really
significant thing in what I'm acutely aware of, as I sit here
as a nominee of the President, is that I'm not being nominated
to serve my own views or interests. I'm being nominated to
implement the policies that President Trump wishes to have
implemented. He certainly has different ideas than me precisely
about the debt ceiling and how that should be administered and
so forth, but I'm going to be administering--I support and I'm
going to be administering President Trump's or implementing
President Trump's priorities.
Senator Merkley. Let's clear up a couple of points that
have come up in this hearing. One is I noted that the Supreme
Court had weighed in about the illegality and
unconstitutionality of Impoundments. You then noted that the
Supreme Court had not ruled on the Impoundment Control Act.
Both you and I were both right. That is the summary of Train v.
The State of New York. The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed
that presidents do not have the unilateral power to impound
enacted funding.
But the ruling wasn't on the Budget Control Act. It was on
the constitutionality of impoundments, impoundments that Nixon
had done, so I wanted to clear up that point.
And I've already asked you if you would follow the
constitutional ruling of the Court and you made the point,
well, they didn't rule on the impoundments, and that's the
point I want to emphasize, and they said that they're
unconstitutional. So I hope when you go away from here you'll
have a moment when you go, hmm, am I going to take an oath to
President Trump or Russell Vought or am I going to honor the
Constitution because that is the challenge of you as a public
servant and in our republic you take an oath to the
Constitution, not to an individual.
The second point I want to make is there's been a lot of
conversation here about the plan for a balanced budget.
Actually, the President's plan as put forward by the House
increases the deficits that total up to an additional 2.5
trillion in additional debt on top of what was already
forecast. So increasing the deficits and increasing the debt.
There was a lot happy talk about a balanced budget, but that is
a big lie. The plan is to increase the deficits by 2.5 trillion
of our total debt over the 10 years.
The third point I'm concerned about is in your previous
testimony before another committee. Ranking Member Peters
asked, do you know about any federal grant or loan programs
that are frozen and you said, ``I am unaware of any funds being
frozen.'' Well, some of the headlines in the news were things
like this. Climate Environmental Justice Program stalled by
Trump freeze despite court orders and Trump team finds loophole
defies spirit of court orders blocking spending freezes.
Trump Administration there's another headline, Associated
Press (AP) headline, flaunting an Order temporarily lift a
freeze on foreign aid. Another headline, Emergency food,
Tuberculosis (TB) test, Human Immunodeficiency Viruses (HIV)
drugs, vital health aid remains frozen. Another, Trump
Administration stalls scientific research despite court ruling.
And yet, you testified you were unaware that any funds had been
frozen. Now you took an oath to tell the truth right before
this Committee when this hearing started. Are you telling me
you never heard of any story about funds being frozen as you
testified last week?
Hon. Bishop. Senator, I first of all deeply resent the
assignation that something that I said was not true in the
committee to which I testified.
Senator Merkley. This is your chance to clear it up right
now.
Hon. Bishop. I'm happy to do that. I certainly am reading
the same newspapers that you are. The question was about--as I
recall, was about my personal involvement in something in the
course of serving as senior advisor at OMB. And as you know,
Senator, until I'm confirmed as Deputy Director, it would be
inappropriate for me to exercise the authorities of that office
and I have not done so. So I have not been involved in any
decisions or actions by OMB to manage spending or to cease
spending in any way and that's what the testimony was about.
And you may count on me always to be truthful.
Senator Merkley. This is a great chance to clarify that
because I think you maybe didn't answer the question Peters
asked because he asked, and I quote, ``Do you know of any
federal grant and loan funds are still frozen.'' And you said,
``I am unaware of any funds being frozen.'' Those are direct
quotes. I hear you saying that that's not the context in which
you meant. That you are aware that funds have been frozen.
Hon. Bishop. Senator, you said you're a lawyer, I think, so
you know----
Senator Merkley. I actually said I'm not a lawyer and I'm
thankful for it.
Hon. Bishop. Oh, you're not a lawyer. Then it might escape
that if someone's asking me in testimony about something for me
to speak I'm speaking about my personal knowledge. I can talk
to you all day about things that are in the media and whether--
and if you want to know whether I'm aware of something that's
in the media, I'm glad to talk about that, but the questions
were what about I knew, my personal knowledge.
Senator Merkley. All right. I'm going to try to help you
help out here, try to give you an opportunity to clear that up
since your statement that I am unaware of any funds being
frozen, you are clarifying that based on your personal
experience and service you were unaware and we'll just accept
that for the record. Because I'm glad you are aware of it and I
hope that in the context of the challenge of the number of
court ruling saying that these actions are illegal and the
Trump team has been told you need to reverse what you've done.
My colleague mentioned in the context of Agency for
International Development (AID) programs that many of them do
important work and I don't mean to put words in your mouth, but
essentially, I think we've all had a lot of support for some of
the programs affecting disease around the world.
Hon. Bishop. I agree.
Senator Merkley. We don't want Ebola coming back here on
the airplane and we also see it as a vision of helping people
around the world thrive, which gives us a lot of soft power. So
several of us on both sides of aisle have been concerned about
the difficulty of getting the funds moving again, even after
the court said it should be unfrozen. I hope in your work at
OMB you will help in whatever part of the Administration where
the gears need to turn a little faster to follow the court
orders so that you'll be helpful in doing so.
Hon. Bishop. I think that's certainly a central function of
the job, Senator. I'd be glad for you to have my cell number
and to be in touch with anyone from here or around your staff
at any time to see to it we can solve problems that have
cropped up.
Senator Merkley. All right. We're going to take you up on
that, I'm sure. You may be blocking my number very soon, but I
certainly do feel like we need to advocate for when the court
says unfreeze the funds they actually get unfrozen.
Chairman Graham. Senator Whitehouse.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR WHITEHOUSE
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Chairman.
Mr. Bishop, have you discussed with anyone at OMB plans for
firings or freezes?
Hon. Bishop. Senator, it would be inappropriate for me to
talk about the details of deliberative processes at OMB. I will
say to you, Senator, as I've said otherwise, I'm serving as a
senior advisor now. I'm not exercising management authority as
though confirmed.
Senator Whitehouse. So you have had those discussions and
you assert that the content of them is protected by
deliberative process.
Hon. Bishop. I'm not saying that I have had such
conversations, Senator. I'm simply saying it would be
inappropriate for me to speak to the details of deliberative
processes at OMB.
Senator Whitehouse. Well, why would you refrain from giving
me the details of the deliberative process if you weren't a
part of it? The simple answer then being, no, I have not had
those discussions.
Hon. Bishop. Well, if that were true, that would still be
an indication of what processes are at OMB and my role----
Senator Whitehouse. That is actually not true, That's
actually not the way the law works. You can assert a privilege
as to the substance, but as to whether or not you've been
involved in conversations that is not protected by the
deliberative process privilege.
Hon. Bishop. Senator.
Senator Whitehouse. And are you actually asserting the
deliberative process privilege here?
Hon. Bishop. I am not asserting a privilege, Senator. I'm
simply saying there's an accommodation process and people who
come up to the Hill don't talk about the details of internal
deliberation.
Senator Whitehouse. And my question was have you discussed,
not what are the details. Will you answer that question?
Hon. Bishop. I'm sorry. Have I discussed----
Senator Whitehouse. Have you discussed with people at OMB
the plans for firing and freezes?
Hon. Bishop. No, Senator, I have not had discussions of
that sort.
Senator Whitehouse. Okay. How about with respect to plans
for taking advantage of a long-term continuing resolution?
Hon. Bishop. Senator, I'm trying to recall. I don't know if
there's been a specific discussion or not, but again, I think
that's the reason you don't sit and try to give out details of
the internal deliberations at OMB.
Senator Whitehouse. Which is why I'm not asking for the
details, although I believe I'm entitled to ask for the
details, but that was not my question. So my question was
simply have you had discussions on that topic.
Hon. Bishop. About long-term continuing resolutions?
Senator Whitehouse. Planning for long-term continuing
resolution and how to take advantage of it?
Hon. Bishop. Senator, I do not think so.
Senator Whitehouse. All right. And how about plans in the
event of a government shutdown?
Hon. Bishop. Senator, I do not think so.
Senator Whitehouse. Alrighty. What role, if any, have you
had in----
Chairman Graham. Can I ask a question with that? Do you
support a government shutdown?
Hon. Bishop. I don't think we should have a government
shutdown, Senator. I think that'd be a bad idea. The President
thinks it would be a bad idea, which is more important than
what I think.
Senator Whitehouse. Well, I have my doubts about that, to
tell you the truth, but we'll see. I've got a pretty strong
impression that Mr. Vought think that we should have a
government shutdown and he would relish the opportunity that it
provided him.
Project 2025, have you had any role dealing with Project
2025 or Heritage while it was running Project 2025?
Hon. Bishop. Well, to Senator Merkley's point, I certainly
read and heard a lot about Project 2025 in the media, Senator.
I've had no personal involvement with Project 2025.
Senator Whitehouse. Okay, that's good to hear. Are you
aware of any ongoing Administration strategy to defy court
orders regarding the freezes by refusing to give direct answers
or refusing to answer phone calls or even suggesting that the
funding has been freed up while at the same time not releasing
the funds?
Hon. Bishop. No, Senator.
Senator Whitehouse. Okay, that seems to be the strategy
we're seeing. I call it the fog bank strategy where everybody
who's under a court order to comply with the order saying that
there shouldn't be a freeze, refuses to actually comply with
the court order and unfreeze the money, but when you try to pin
them down on it, emails not answered, calls not returned, vague
answers, general senses that, you know, don't worry. We'll get
there or even actual, yes, the funding is clear and then the
funding is not cleared. It's like this, you know, somebody in
the room at the agencies who's saying no, no, no, no, the
funding won't go out even though everybody else is saying that
it's cleared to go or that we're ready to obey court orders.
Just in terms of conflict of interest, ProPublica reported
that you've been living until recently in a Capitol Hill
townhouse owned by a wealthy Republican donor named Lee Beamon.
That Speaker Johnson has also been living in what was described
as a four-level, second empire styled townhouse of impeccable
elegance and exceptional scale. Did you pay fair market rent in
that townhouse of impeccable elegance and exceptional scale?
Hon. Bishop. Yes, Senator.
Senator Whitehouse. And how was that fair market rent
determined?
Hon. Bishop. It was determined by the landlord. I rented a
room, so I don't know the details of the determination, merely
that it was done.
Senator Whitehouse. Yes, so if, for instance, he offered
you highly favorable terms because he wanted you in the house
because you are an important potential policymaker, same reason
he might want the Speaker in the house, you would have no idea
whether that actually was fair market rent. It was just you
paid what you were asked to pay.
Hon. Bishop. I have my own experience to rely upon and what
seems proportional, so I'm pretty sure it's about right.
Senator Whitehouse. Okay. My time has expired.
Chairman Graham. Two minutes to Senator Moreno and we're
going to wrap it up.
Senator Moreno. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the extra little
follow up.
Look, we could spend 15 hours if we had to rebut
misinformation from the other side, but let me just do it real
quickly. Again, I've been here eight years. The Ranking
Member's been here--I mean eight weeks. The Ranking Member's
been here 16 years. You say you've been here 10 years. Is a
budget resolution a budget?
Hon. Bishop. No, Senator, it's not. It's not the whole plan
in other words, yes.
Senator Moreno. Well, wait a second. I just heard my
colleague who's been here a long time as well, say that we're
cutting Medicaid because the House passed that. Did they pass a
budget?
Hon. Bishop. No, Senator, they didn't. They passed just the
first step in the direction of a spending plan.
Senator Moreno. So when you spew nonsense, it's not helpful
and that's the point I was trying to make to my colleagues
earlier. Look, don't try to win arguments by just making
nonsensical points. I just urge my colleagues not to do that.
Senator Lujan gave a very--and I think he's a good man. I don't
know him that well--again, I've been here eight weeks--gave an
impassioned speech about some federal employee who is a very
good writer. I mean that guy should be a fiction writer for
sure. Do you think that it's possible that he was an employee
that had disciplinary actions?
Hon. Bishop. That's the thing. You know we've got a
secondhand account of someone's perception about their own
employment situation. More has to be taken into consideration.
Senator Moreno. But he wrote a very impassioned email,
doesn't that make him automatically a good employee?
Hon. Bishop. He might be, even all the things that he
said----
Senator Moreno. But he might not be.
Hon. Bishop. But he still might not be the right person for
the job or it may be that those jobs need to be checked.
Senator Moreno. He didn't show up for work, maybe a
disciplinary action, maybe a troublemaker in the office, but I
think that this idea that, oh my God, a constituent wrote me a
letter. We're doing terrible things. Last quick, quick point,
this body tried, with my Democratic colleagues, to pass student
loan relief, is that correct? Like we try to say, hey, if you
went to college somehow you're better than all the other
Americans and your debt should be forgiven. That got voted
down. Joe Biden said, well, too bad what Congress said and
relieved student debt.
The Supreme Court said absolutely not. And yet Joe Biden
still forgave student debt. My colleague crickets. So they love
the Constitution when it serves their point, but in reality
they shredded the Constitution over the last four years. And
again, I would urge them to please come back to the side of
reality and common sense. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Graham. Senator Merkley.
Senator Merkley. Since my colleague isn't here and since
you made comments about his presentation, I just want to throw
out a little bit more information, which is the Energy and
Commerce Committee in the House has basically two accounts.
They have Medicaid and they have Medicare. The President said
we're not cutting Medicare. That means that instruction
basically can only go towards Medicaid and there were many,
many conversations that I had with House members saying, well,
we think our plan is to cut about 800 billion in Medicaid.
Certainly, some of those conversations were reported. It's
simple math in the Committee. You are correct, technically,
that the instructions don't say cut Medicaid, but the
conversation in the House was that that was the plan. And so,
I'd just like to acknowledge you're technically right, but my
colleague is also right that the intention of that instruction
was cuts to Medicaid. So I just wanted to clarify that.
I also wanted to clarify the dialogue about the border wall
that came up earlier. In 2021, Biden announced a pause in
border wall construction and that pause was based on following
the environmental rules for pre-clearance and GAO looked at it
and said, yes, you've got to follow the law on the
environmental side. Then by two years later, a Texas court
decision said Biden has to start obligating funds. He then
began disbursing those funds and he made a comment. And this
comment acknowledges that he was going to follow the law. He
said the border wall the money was appropriated for the border
wall. I tried to get Congress to reappropriate it and to
redirect it, but they didn't. And then he proceeded to allocate
the funds for the border wall construction, a whole series of
projects along the way.
So yes, he didn't like the idea. He resisted it. But when
the court said, no, you've got to follow the law, he followed
the law and that's the point we're trying to make here is that
the law is not a suggestion and a president is not a king.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Graham. Well, we end on a note of commonality.
President Biden believed he had the authority to not follow
Congress's direction here. The Impoundment Act the contours are
yet to be determined by the court. They will one day. The War
Powers Act, whether you're a Republican or Democratic
president, I believe you have the authority to commit troops
and use military force as an inherent authority under Article
2. Congress is trying to limit that. I think it's
unconstitutional. But having said that, because we declare war
that's all we do.
All these things are nuanced. The court did say, Senator
Merkley, that the President does not have unlimited authority
to ignore Congress. I agree with that. Where the balance is I
think we'll find out soon. As to you, you did a really good
job. I appreciate it. I want to thank you for appearing before
the Committee. Your full statement will be included in the
record. The hearing record will remain open until noon tomorrow
for the submission of statements and questions for the record
delivered to the Committee Clerk. And if President Trump's team
loses in court, I expect them to follow the court. The hearing
is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:53 a.m., Wednesday, March 3, 2025, the
hearing was adjourned.]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
SENATE BUDGET COMMITTEE
BUSINESS MEETING
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 12, 2025
Committee on the Budget,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
The hearing was convened, pursuant to notice, at 2:11 p.m.,
in The Capitol Building, Room S-120, Hon. Lindsey Graham,
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Graham, Grassley, Crapo, Johnson,
Marshall, Cornyn, Lee, Kennedy, Ricketts, Moreno, Scott, and
Merkley.
Also present: Republican Staff: Nick Myers, Majority Staff
Director; Katherine Nikas, Deputy Staff Director and Chief
Counsel; Erich Hartman, Deputy Staff Director; Caitlin Wilson,
Senior Counsel; Walker Truluck, Senior Policy Advisor; Nick
Wyatt, Professional Staff Member.
Democratic Staff: Ben Ward, Minority Staff Director; Mike
Jones, Deputy Staff Director; Jill Harrelson, Deputy Staff
Director; Joshua Smith, Budget Policy Director; Melissa Kaplan-
Pistiner, General Counsel.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN GRAHAM
Chairman Graham. The meeting of the Senate Budget Committee
will come to order. We're going to vote on the nomination of
Dan Bishop to be Executive director of Office of Management
Budget. I'm going to give him an opening statement. I think
he's a good pick.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MERKLEY \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Prepared statement of Senator Merkley appears in the appendix
on page 88.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Merkley. Well, I'm so delighted you all attended to
hear my opening statement. I can see my Democrats really wanted
to hear it. Certainly, OMB has been at the center of a lot of
major decisions regarding the impounding of funds, the
canceling of programs, the firing of employees.
Some of these actions, certainly on my side of the aisle,
we believe violate the law and violate the Constitution. So,
Senator Kennedy, you asked the question of Mr. Bishop, ``you're
going to follow the law?'' end quote. And he responded,
``Absolutely, absolutely.'' And then Senator Murray asked Mr.
Bishop kind of the same question, ``Would he follow the law
under the Impoundment Control Act?'' And he said he would join
Director Vought's view that impoundment was in the power of the
President. He would not affirm that he would follow the law.
So, I'm troubled. Many of my colleagues are troubled by
this viewpoint. And our view is the law is not a suggestion and
the president is not a king. That we swear an oath to the
Constitution, not to the President, not to Mr. Vought. And for
these reasons, all of the Democrats who are now here in the
room, have the viewpoint that we should not confirm this
nomination.
Chairman Graham. Well said. It was almost persuasive
(laughter). We'll now move to the committee vote. We have a
quorum. The clerk will call the roll if you want to. Can we do
it by----
Senator Merkley. Yes, please. No, we can call the roll.
Chairman Graham. Call the roll.
The Clerk. Mr. Grassley.
Senator Grassley. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Crapo.
Senator Crapo. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Johnson.
Senator Johnson. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Marshall.
Senator Marshall. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Cornyn.
Senator Cornyn. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Lee.
Senator Lee. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Kennedy.
Senator Kennedy. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Ricketts.
Senator Ricketts. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Moreno.
Senator Moreno. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Scott.
Senator Scott. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Merkley.
Senator Merkley. No.
The Clerk. Mrs. Murray.
Senator Merkley. By proxy, no.
The Clerk. Mr. Wyden.
Senator Merkley. Can I just keep saying no instead by
proxy.
Chairman Graham. Just a blanket ``no.''
Senator Merkley. Okay. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Sanders.
Senator Merkley. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Whitehouse.
Senator Merkley. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Warner.
Senator Merkley. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Kaine.
Senator Merkley. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen.
Senator Merkley. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Lujan.
Senator Merkley. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Padilla.
Senator Merkley. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Graham. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, ayes are 11 and the nays are 10.
Chairman Graham. Reported out favorably. The record must be
submitted to the committee--A reminder that statements for the
record must be submitted to the committee by 12:00 p.m.
tomorrow. The committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:18 p.m., Wednesday, March 12, 2025, The
Senate Budget Committee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9626.046
[all]