[Senate Hearing 119-42]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 119-42
NOMINATION OF HON. TROY EDGAR AND
DAN BISHOP
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
NOMINATION OF HON. TROY EDGAR TO BE DEPUTY
SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,
AND DAN BISHOP TO BE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF
MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
__________
FEBRUARY 25, 2025
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
59-999 PDF WASHINGTON : 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
RAND PAUL, Kentucky, Chairman
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire
RICK SCOTT, Florida RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri JOHN FETTERMAN, Pennsylvania
BERNIE MORENO, Ohio ANDY KIM, New Jersey
JONI ERNST, Iowa RUBEN GALLEGO, Arizona
TIM SCOTT, South Carolina ELISSA SLOTKIN, Michigan
William E. Henderson III, Staff Director
Christina N. Salazar, Chief Counsel
Andrew J. Hopkins, Counsel
Kendal B. Tigner, Professional Staff Member
David M. Weinberg, Minority Staff Director
Claudine J. Brenner, Minority Senior Counsel
Laura W. Kilbride, Chief Clerk
Ashley A. Gonzalez, Hearing Clerk
C O N T E N T S
------
Opening statements:
Page
Senator Paul................................................. 1
Senator Budd................................................. 2
Senator Peters............................................... 4
Senator Johnson.............................................. 6
Senator Lankford............................................. 8
Senator Kim.................................................. 14
Senator Ernst................................................ 17
Senator Slotkin.............................................. 18
Senator Gallego.............................................. 21
Senator Scott................................................ 24
Senator Hassan............................................... 26
Senator Hawley............................................... 28
Senator Moody................................................ 30
Prepared statements:
Senator Paul................................................. 35
Senator Peters............................................... 38
WITNESSES
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2025
Dan Bishop, to be Deputy Director, Office of Management and
Budget
Testimony.................................................... 3
Prepared statement........................................... 40
Biographical and professional information.................... 41
Letter from U.S. Office of Government Ethics................. 59
Responses to pre-hearing questions........................... 62
Responses to post-hearing questions.......................... 84
Honorable Troy Edgar, to be Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security
Testimony.................................................... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 98
Biographical and professional information.................... 100
Letter from U.S. Office of Government Ethics................. 122
Responses to pre-hearing questions........................... 123
Responses to post-hearing questions.......................... 148
Letter of support............................................ 166
NOMINATION OF
HON. TROY EDGAR AND DAN BISHOP
----------
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2025
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m., in
room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Rand Paul,
Chair of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Paul [presiding], Johnson, Lankford, Rick
Scott, Hawley, Moreno, Ernst, Moody, Peters, Hassan,
Blumenthal, Kim, Gallego, and Slotkin.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PAUL\1\
Chairman Paul. The hearing to consider the nomination of
Troy Edgar to be Deputy Secretary of the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) and Dan Bishop to be the Deputy Director of the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will come to order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Senator Paul appears in the Appendix
on page 35.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For far too long, Federal spending has increased unchecked,
amassing over $36 trillion in debt that our children and
grandchildren will one day inherit. Here in Washington, the
default mindset seems to be just write another check, as though
each new dollar of debt somehow does not matter. In the last
four years, we have added nearly $6 billion a day, or $241
million per hour to our national deficit for a running total of
$8.5 trillion over the last four years.
The unchecked and reckless spending spree in Washington
over the last four years has put every American family on the
hook for another $67,000 in debt. Yet despite this
unprecedented level of spending, agencies continue to ask for
more funding, more authority, more staff--while doing less and
less for Americans.
Unsurprisingly, Americans across the country have taken
notice and voted for a change in the status quo. One month ago,
President Trump, behind the wheel with a clear mandate from the
American people to steer this country in a different direction,
and he has not let off the gas since.
The Trump Administration, along with the new Department of
Government Efficiency (DOGE), has been hard at work identifying
waste, fraud, and duplicative or outdated programs. Their
efforts have revealed just how many billions of taxpayer
dollars are slipping through the cracks, and they are moving
fast to identify flagrant waste, fraud, and abuse across the
Federal bureaucracy. That is good news. The bad news is that
unearthing waste is only half the battle. Real reform will
require a complete disruption of Washington, how Washington
operates, including Congress, and ultimately, an affirmation of
the savings by a congressional vote.
Accountability cannot be outsourced. Real, lasting change
demands leaders who are not afraid to push back against
business as usual, leaders who will stand up and say we cannot
spend our way out of every problem.
Which brings us to the two nominees appearing before us
today. First, we have Mr. Troy Edgar, who has been nominated to
serve as the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Homeland
Security. If confirmed, Mr. Edgar will take on the role of
Deputy Secretary, serving as the Department's Chief Operating
Officer (COO). DHS is a massive agency, employing nearly
260,000 people across more than 20 components. Having
previously served as DHS' Chief Financial Officer (CFO), Mr.
Edgar has first-hand knowledge of where the Department can make
cuts and streamline operations.
Second, we have Representative Dan Bishop, nominated to be
Deputy Director of OMB. OMB is supposed to be the bulwark
against overspending. We rely on OMB to carefully scrutinize
agencies' budgets and identify redundancies. It is OMB's job to
ensure that Federal agencies are not rubberstamping costly new
programs subsidized by the American taxpayer. If confirmed,
Representative Bishop will have a front-row seat to the entire
Federal budget process and a chance to say no when agencies
continue to demand endless expansions in authority and
unchecked spending.
Both of these nominees have come forward at a time when
Americans are fed up with government overreach and runaway
debt. Mr. Edgar and Representative Bishop, we appreciate your
willingness to serve and the experiences you bring to the
table. If confirmed, you will each wield influence that can
truly shape how this government operates and how it spends the
public's money. The American people deserve an honest,
efficient government that respects our hard-earned dollars.
Thank you for joining us this morning to share how you plan to
meet these responsibilities.
The Committee has received several statements in support of
the nominees. Without objection, these letters of support will
be made part of the hearing record.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The letters of support appears in the Appendix on page 166.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is the practice of the Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs Committee (HSGAC) to swear in witnesses.
Mr. Edgar and Mr. Bishop, please stand and raise your right
hand.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Bishop is being introduced today by Senator Budd.
Senator Budd, you are recognized for your introduction.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BUDD
Senator Budd. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the
Committee. It is my honor to be here to introduce a good friend
and colleague, Dan Bishop. 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 meet a great leader, get
to know County Commissioner Dan Bishop. At that time, I was
helping run a landscaping and janitorial business. I was in my
late 20s, and I was probably a little too nervous to reach out
and call him. It was a big county. Who knew then that, years
later, I would have the privilege to serve with Dan in the
House of Representatives.
I have seen firsthand his thoughtfulness, his deep
understanding of the issues, his love for our country, his care
for people, and his commitment to stopping runaway spending and
getting the Federal budget under control. I have no doubt that
Dan will bring the same tenacity to the job at OMB that he has
shown throughout his career, both as a litigator in his time
serving the people of North Carolina in public office.
Dan, God speed, and best of luck. To the Members of the
Committee, you all be nice.
Thank you, Senator.
Chairman Paul. Representative Bishop, you are recognized
for your opening remarks.
TESTIMONY OF DAN BISHOP,\1\ TO BE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF
MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Chairman Paul, Ranking Member
Peters, and Members of the Committee for this hearing. It is my
first time on this side of the dais, after five years in the
House of Representatives, where I had the pleasure of working
with several of you. If I am confirmed, it would be an honor to
serve our nation in a new capacity to implement President
Trump's vision and agenda.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Bishop appears in the Appendix on
page 40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I want to thank my wife, Jo, and my life partner, and my
son, Jack, who is working hard in law school today for all that
we have seen over the last decade, including my tenure in
Congress, and now this nomination process. It is a testament to
Jo's much greater popularity that a number of congressional
spouses are here with her today. My thanks to them for their
kindness to Jo. Thanks also to my former congressional office
staff, several of whom have come today as my dear friends.
It is a tremendous honor to be nominated by President Trump
to serve as the Deputy Director of Office of Management and
Budget. Unknown by name to many, it does what the name implies,
craft the President's budget, manage and coordinate among
Federal agencies, implement the President's regulatory agenda,
and so on. It is a critical part of ensuring that the
government responds to the democratically elected President in
order to respond to the will of the American people and not to
entrench Washington interests and the political establishment.
Something I always noticed 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
are 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 am here on behalf of that mission
and the trust placed in President Trump by the people.
Our children and grandchildren are being crushed under the
massive burden of an out-of-control Federal debt. For too long,
we have been spending money we do not have on things we do not
need. Our government has been self-absorbed, inefficient,
unaccountable, and mal-administered. The good news is we can
fix all of those things, and if confirmed, I will be laser
focused on doing so, along with Director Russ Vought and the
superb public servants at OMB.
It is finally time for a government accountable to the
people. I have fought to deliver that my entire public service
career, from county commission 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, and
neither will Director Vought. I was thrilled to see Director
Vought confirmed by the Senate, and I can assure you, he is the
man to get management of the Federal Government back on track.
If confirmed, I look forward to serving as his Deputy.
Thank you for considering my nomination. I look forward to
your questions.
Chairman Paul. Thank you, Representative Bishop.
I also wanted to recognize our current Department of
Homeland Security, Kristi Noem. Thank you for joining us today.
At this time, I am going to recognize the Ranking Member.
We are kind of going out of order because he had another
commitment at another Committee, but--for his opening
statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETERS\1\
Senator Peters. Thank you for that accommodation, Chairman
Paul. Thank you, Mr. Edgar and Congressman Bishop, for being
here today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Senator Peters appears in the
Appendix on page 38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department of Homeland Security and the Office of
Management and Budget, where you have each been nominated to
fill very key positions, plays a critical role in strengthening
our national security and ensuring that the Federal Government
is operating effectively, efficiently, and in accordance with
law.
Mr. Edgar, as the Committee considers your nomination,
there are several questions about recent actions the
Administration has taken with respect to the Department of
Homeland Security, where you are already serving, I understand,
as a Senior Advisor to the Secretary. I am concerned about the
troubling reports of key DHS personnel getting fired
indiscriminately, including staff at the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA), the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure
Security Agency (CISA), as well as the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG),
and I am going to want to know more about the individuals who
have been terminated, those who have been placed on
administrative leave, and the reasons for the Department's
action. Specifically, I want to know what impact these
terminations will have on DHS' ability to execute its vital
national security missions, including disaster response and
efforts to prevent cyber attacks.
I am also alarmed that Elon Musk and DOGE personnel have
been granted access to potentially very sensitive DHS data,
which could violate cybersecurity and privacy laws. DHS holds
some of the most sensitive data about Americans and American
companies of any government agency, including their biometric
information, as well as private companies' proprietary
information. Congress, the American people need to know what
data was accessed, how that data will be used, and, more
importantly, why. We need to know what kind of legal and
security analysis was conducted before sharing this very
sensitive personal information. We also need to know whether
this data was properly managed and not at risk of being stolen
by any of our adversaries.
Mr. Edgar, I hope that you will address these concerns and
will demonstrate how you will work with Congress, the
Secretary, and the Administration to rectify these issues if
confirmed.
Today, we are also considering the nomination of Dan Bishop
to serve as the Deputy Director of the Office of Management and
Budget. The Office of Management and Budget is a critical
office in the Executive Office of the President (EOP) with
significant responsibilities ranging from developing and
executing the Federal budget to improving agency performance,
as well as reviewing regulations. This role not only requires
expertise in budgetary processes, fiscal policy and government
management, but a fundamental understanding and appreciation
for the Constitution and the law, including spending laws
passed by Congress on a bipartisan basis.
Congressman Bishop, given your record and your views on
allowing OMB to withhold Federal funds, I certainly have
serious concerns about your ability to carry out this very
important role.
As we saw recently with the funding freeze ordered by
President Trump, communities across our country are counting on
the funds appropriated by Congress to upgrade their roads and
bridges, pay their first responders, and provide a host of
other services. We need leaders at OMB who are committed to
following the laws on the books, which includes the Impoundment
Control Act (ICA). I am concerned, if confirmed, that you will
not carry out the laws of Congress that we pass that is funding
our communities, and that is simply unacceptable.
I also have serious questions about your positions on the
Federal workforce. As I have said before, our nonpartisan civil
service employees play a vital role in protecting our national
security, caring for our veterans, and ensuring safety of our
transportation system. Your record and views, including support
for legislation that would make all Federal employees at-will,
give me serious pause about how you would manage the Federal
workforce.
Finally, I have questions about your record of disregard
for independent oversight, including retaliatory actions by
revealing the name of a whistleblower.
I appreciate you being here today, both of you, to answer
these questions and how you intend to manage the operations and
the budget of the Federal Government if you are confirmed to
this role.
Chairman Paul. Mr. Edgar is being introduced today by
Senator Johnson. Senator Johnson, you are recognized for your
introduction.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHNSON
Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It is my pleasure this morning to introduce Troy Edgar,
President Trump's nominee to be the Deputy Secretary of the
Department of Homeland Security. Mr. Edgar is from Los
Alamitos, California, where he served as Mayor and a county
official for over 12 years. Troy is also a U.S. Navy veteran
with more than 30 years of business and executive experience
providing leadership and advisory services to companies across
a range of industries, including in aerospace and defense, the
government sector, high tech, software, and telecommunications
industries.
Troy first came before this Committee when President Trump
nominated him to serve as Chief Financial Officer at DHS. In
that role, he was responsible for the fiscal management,
integrity, and accountability of the Department's $90 billion
budget supporting 240,000 employees. Prior to DHS, he was an
executive at International Business Machines (IBM), running a
part of their Federal consulting business. I also want to
acknowledge a letter of support from the CEO and Chairman of
IBM, Arvind Krishna, and ask that it be entered in the
Committee record.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The letter of support appears in the Appendix on page 166.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman Paul. Without objection.
Senator Johnson. Troy spent nearly a decade in the
aerospace industry at Boeing, where he was the CFO of the
Military Aircraft Logistics Division. He has held many key
positions within manufacturing, logistics, information
technology (IT), and procurement, which makes him an ideal fit
for the position of Deputy Secretary of DHS.
Mr. Edgar earned his bachelor of science (B.S.) and a
Master of Business Administration (MBA) from the University of
Southern California (USC) in Los Angeles. He is joined this
morning by his wife, Betty.
His business and government work experience and strong
support from President Trump would help Troy find success as
Deputy Secretary of DHS. I encourage all on this Committee to
swiftly confirm him to this position. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chairman Paul. Mr. Edgar, you are recognized for your
opening statement.
TESTIMONY OF TROY EDGAR,\2\ TO BE DEPUTY SECRETARY, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Mr. Edgar. Thank you. Chairman Paul, Ranking Member Peters,
distinguished Members of the Committee, it is an honor for me
to appear before you today as the President's nominee to be the
Deputy Secretary for Homeland Security. I want to also
recognize and thank Senator Johnson for that very kind
introduction. Thank you, sir.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The prepared statement of Mr. Edgar appears in the Appendix on
page 98.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am grateful to President Trump and to Secretary Noem for
the trust and confidence that they have placed in me, and I
thank the Committee for considering my nomination. I am honored
that Secretary Noem has taken time out of her busy schedule
today to be here with me in support of my nomination. Thank you
for being here, Madam Secretary. I appreciate it.
The process has enabled me to better appreciate the high
honor bestowed upon me to serve the American people and better
understand the critical expectations that the Committee may
have for me if confirmed to be the Deputy Secretary. Thanks to
my Lord for His grace on my life and the opportunity to serve
my country.
My family is very important to me, but they are not here. I
would like to recognize them. Matt, Tyler, and Ethan are my
sons. My brother is Tracy. I honor the memory of my mom and
dad, Ralph and Maxine.
I would like to introduce my precious wife, Betty. Betty
embodies the American dream in a manner that enables me to
understand the hopes and aspirations of millions of people who
come to America. Her story helps me understand the true weight
of public service. I have not only come to this nomination with
technical skills and business experience, but with the
conscience informed through my personal experience with my
wife.
Betty is an immigrant from Iran who spoke Farsi, Aramaic,
and French growing up in Tehran. Her family fled to the United
States after the Shah was overthrown in 1979. When she arrived,
she learned English and Spanish and then attained a bachelor's
and master's degree in French. She has been a French teacher in
La Quinta High School in Orange County for over 25 years. Betty
rises every morning believing that she has the ability to
change another student's life for the way that this country has
changed hers. Thank you, Betty, for being here to support me.
I have had the honor of previously working with this
Committee in the first Trump Administration, as Senator Johnson
said, in my Senate confirmation for being the DHS Chief
Financial Officer. When I left being the CFO of DHS on January
20, I was managing a $90 billion budget and over 250,000
employees. That role allowed me to learn and resource the
entire department, not just the important border security and
immigration components. It is with this unique knowledge and my
significant business experience that if I am confirmed I intend
to honorably serve President Trump, Secretary Noem, and the
American people to the best of my ability.
The DHS Deputy Secretary serves as the Chief Operating
Officer, as Senator Rand Paul said. If confirmed, I will stay
focused on supporting the Secretary and ensuring that we are
effectively and efficiently using the policies and resources
provided to meet the President's goals on immigration, border,
and other national security missions of DHS.
Furthermore, I will fully support the hardworking
professionals at DHS by helping provide the resources they need
to fulfill the critically important missions. If confirmed, I
look forward to working with this Committee and other Members
of Congress to assist you in the important role of oversight in
support of the Department. I am committed to investing the time
to build the critical working relationships needed to help
significantly advance DHS.
Finally, I would like to thank Mr. Arvind Krishna, Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of IBM; the National Sheriffs
Association; and the Major County Sheriffs for their letters of
support for my nomination.
Thanks again for the opportunity to appear before you, and
I look forward to answering your questions. Thank you.
Chairman Paul. Thank you, Mr. Edgar.
We will now proceed to questions where each Member will
have five minutes. I want to be clear from the outset that the
Committee will not tolerate any disruptions. I will direct the
Capitol Police to immediately remove any member of the audience
that disrupts the hearing.
Mr. Edgar, Mr. Bishop, do you agree, without reservation,
to comply with any request or summons to appear and testify
before any duly constituted Committee of Congress if you are
confirmed?
Mr. Edgar. Yes.
Mr. Bishop. Yes, with advice of counsel, yes, sir.
Chairman Paul. Thank you. While the Secretary is still
here, I want to put in one plug for both of you. At the DHS,
there is a National Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures
Center (NBACC). They do gain-of-function (GOF) research in a
highly supposedly very safe lab, but we want more oversight as
to what specific experiments are going on there. We have sent
requests, and we just hope that you will keep complying. I do
not need an answer necessarily for that.
With that, I am going to pass my time to Senator Lankford.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LANKFORD
Senator Lankford. Mr. Chair, thank you. Thank you to the
witnesses for being here, for what you have walked through
already, and the million forms you have already filled out and
the details that you have already done on this. Mr. Edgar, I do
have to say, though, after your introduction of your wife, I am
open to actually moving her to that seat rather than you in
that seat----
Mr. Edgar. Yes.
Senator Lankford [continuing]. To have her to be able to
take charge of this as well, so it is very kind of you both
introducing your families and your wife to be able to come in.
Secretary Noem, good to see you. Thanks for what you have
already done and the engagement that is here.
Let me walk through a couple of things on this as quickly
as I can on this. Mr. Edgar, you have done a lot of the work
behind the scenes. This Committee, in the days ahead, will work
a tremendous amount on trying to get the funds to DHS that they
need to actually implement the border security that is
desperately wanted by the American people on that. Without
question, additional dollars are needed, but without question,
there is also waste in the structure. You and I have talked
about $20 million a month that is being spent on soft-sided
facilities, and there is multiple of those, $20 million a month
for giant tents that are up there.
We have talked about General Services Administration (GSA)
and the frustration with Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
and GSA facilities that are organized where GSA has put in a
$14,000 urinal or they have sold a parking lot for $1 to the
local community, only to a couple years have to buy it back for
a million dollars on it, the challenges they have had where CBP
has said we need more lanes, and then GSA designs a building
that actually has fewer lanes of entry, saying this is based on
their design. We have to be able to figure out how to be able
to deal with the waste, but also to be able to implement policy
quickly.
What would you do to be able to help the communities on the
ground and the leadership on the ground efficiently be able to
do the mission?
Mr. Edgar. Thank you, Senator. I would start, first of all,
having the opportunity to be the CFO for DHS and looking at all
23 components, the two that you are talking about mainly--or
the one main one you are talking about, CBP, I think right now,
the organization is very focused on an immigration and border
security mission. I think, if confirmed to be the Deputy
Secretary, I would work not only with CBP but U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement (ICE). I think that the facilities that
you are talking about potentially could be leveraged in the
same vein that ICE is going to need about 100,000 detention
beds. CBP has, like you said, potential availability within
soft-sided tents.
My job as being the previous CFO and now, if confirmed to
be the Deputy Secretary, to make sure that we are not being
wasteful, that we are being responsible with our spending, that
we are leveraging all the contracts across the government to be
able to get to our mission and really execute on President
Trump's agenda.
Senator Lankford. That would be helpful, and we will walk
through that process together. We do not mind allocating the
dollars, as long as they are spent wisely in the process on it,
and the American people can go, that is where all my tax
dollars are going on this.
Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA), and the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI), great letters around here, but they are a challenge at
times to be able to cooperate together on it and try to be able
to keep from mission creep. Your oversight and Secretary Noem's
oversight in this process, over Coast Guard, over all things
border, over FEMA, over Secret Service, there are a lot of
tasks that are out there, but a lot of coordination that has to
happen as well.
What needs to be done, in your view at this point, to make
sure that we are actually on mission and that we are actually
working with other agencies to make sure that, for instance,
Secret Service is doing what it can do well and not getting
into other areas; HSI is doing what it can do well and not
getting into DEA areas, for instance?
Mr. Edgar. I think what has happened at the very beginning
is President Trump set the agenda. He created the executive
order that created the Homeland Security Task Force. We follow
the leadership of Secretary Noem--joint task force has a
combination of the Department of Justice (DOJ) with all the law
enforcement agencies that you are talking about and within HSI,
Enforcement and Removal Operation (ERO) of ICE and CBP. We will
have the whole of government that we will bring to that. That
task force will take on cross-government type activity, and not
only just being able to do border security, but actually bring
the full power of enforcement out to law enforcement. It has a
steering committee that they will appoint people to. It will be
chaired by Attorney General (AG) Bondi and Secretary Noem and
will follow their direction going forward.
Senator Lankford. OK. We look forward to that coordination,
make sure we are actually cooperating together as efficiently
as we can.
Mr. Bishop, it is good to see you. Thanks for your
leadership and what you have done for the country already and
the sacrifices you have already made on that. You and I have
talked a little bit about there are Federal agencies and a
Federal law already, I should say, that requires E-Verify for
Federal contracts. We have now learned that is actually not
being enforced, so we don't know how many people are not
legally present in the country that are also executing Federal
contracts or at work for the Federal Government on this. That
is Federal law already. And you and I have already spoken on
this, and your assurance to me was we are going to actually
make sure we are implementing the law in that area, that we are
doing the oversight that is needed to be done. Is that true?
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Senator. Absolutely, Senator.
Senator Lankford. That is terrific. We have something
called the Federal program inventory that is new. That is one
of those areas that we passed a law actually six years ago
called the Taxpayers Right-to-Know that is still being
implemented, but for the first time will give this body the
ability to be able to see in duplication, and we look forward
to the full implementation. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. Yes, sir. Thank you, Senator.
Chairman Paul. Senator Peters.
Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Gentlemen, I have sent numerous oversight requests to both
DHS and OMB since the start of this Administration, and
unfortunately, have received little or no response or
responsive documents or information as a result of these
requests. For example, two weeks ago, I asked OMB about the
Administration's illegal funding freezes. This Committee is
responsible, as both of you know, for oversight of all of these
agencies.
My question for each of you is, if confirmed, do you commit
to ensuring that OMB and DHS promptly answers requests for
information as we fulfill our oversight role here in this
Committee, information for me, all of my colleagues, as well as
my staff? I hope this is not a hollow promise. Mr. Edgar.
Mr. Edgar. Yes, if confirmed, I will follow any lawful
requests from you, sir.
Senator Peters. And you understand our role as the chief
oversight Committee, that is we need to work together on that,
but we have to have information?
Mr. Edgar. Yes, sir.
Mr. Bishop. As do I, Senator, subject to the advice of
counsel and direction of Director Vought, of course, that
Director Vought has already made clear we want to maintain
transparency at the Office of Management and Budget and that he
will personally be aware of every request made by a Member of
Congress, and I will see to it that I am as well.
Senator Peters. I appreciate that. Can both of you commit
to providing the information within two weeks of assuming your
office? Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. Sir, I am not certain what the processes at OMB
will permit. I certainly think they need to be provided in an
expedited way and will certainly work to that end within the
Department according to its processes.
Senator Peters. If it cannot be done in two weeks, you will
tell us exactly why it cannot be provided in two weeks?
Mr. Bishop. Sir, I would certainly commit to following the
processes at OMB to that effect, yes, sir.
Senator Peters. Let us know, I appreciate that. Mr. Edgar.
Mr. Edgar. Yes, same thing. I will follow the processes,
and I hope that we are able to maintain a very transparent
relationship with this Committee. Thank you.
Senator Peters. Good. I am now hearing from several
agencies that this Administration has instructed its staff to
not communicate with Members of Congress and our staff. My
question for each of you, are either of you aware of this
directive that is coming from the Trump Administration to not
talk to Members of Congress? Congressman Bishop, that should be
pretty outrageous to you.
Mr. Bishop. Senator, I am unaware of that. I did encounter
such instructions by the prior Administration when I was a
Member of Congress, but I cannot speak to it. I am serving as a
Senior Advisor. I have not been involved in anything of that
kind, sir.
Senator Peters. But you would push back against anything
like that?
Mr. Bishop. I certainly would want to ask questions about
it and learn what the reasons are and the processes that have
led to that, sir.
Senator Peters. Thank you. Mr. Edgar.
Mr. Edgar. Yes, same thing, I am not familiar with what you
are specifically talking about, but I would be open to taking a
look at that if confirmed.
Senator Peters. And you understand how wrong that is?
Mr. Edgar. Yes.
Senator Peters. To have that kind of directive would be
wrong?
Mr. Edgar. Yes.
Senator Peters. Yes, is that for the record----
Mr. Edgar. Yes, like I said, I am not familiar with that
directive. If that was a directive, we would look at it. I
would work with the Secretary----
Senator Peters. You would look at it and say that is wrong.
Mr. Edgar. I do not know what the directive is
specifically.
Senator Peters. OK. The Trump Administration is currently
indiscriminately firing civil service servants across the
Federal Government. These actions, in many ways, are harming
public services across the country. But it appears the
Administration has not done any analysis about how this impacts
customer service and, even more importantly, national security.
Congressman Bishop, do you support--and this is just a yes or
no answer, pretty easy. Do you support the Administration's
recent efforts to indiscriminately remove civil servants from
their positions?
Mr. Bishop. I cannot answer yes or no, Senator, because I
believe the premise is wrong. I do not believe the
Administration is proceeding in an indiscriminate way to
terminate employees.
Senator Peters. You have seen the analysis that has gone
for each employee as to why they have been terminated?
Mr. Bishop. No, I certainly have not, but I----
Senator Peters. But how can you make that statement if you
have not seen that analysis?
Mr. Bishop. Because I know that President Trump and the
folks who are working hard in the White House every day to do
the will of the American people are not proceeding in a way
that is indiscriminate, Senator.
Senator Peters. When you get in, if we ask for information
as to why these particular individuals were, you will be able
to provide it to show that it was not indiscriminate?
Mr. Bishop. Certainly, Senator, subject again to the
processes at OMB, the deliberative processes and the advice of
counsel.
Senator Peters. Mr. Edgar.
Mr. Edgar. Yes, same thing. I think the process that we are
going to go through, I also believe that it has been a lawful
process that is followed by President Trump, and I look forward
to continuing to work with President Trump and Secretary Noem
to carry out these----
Senator Peters. So you are at DHS now, as we talked about
when you came into the office, and we know we have layoffs that
could definitely impact national security operations, firings
of personnel at CISA, at FEMA, at Transportation Security
Administration (TSA). These are indiscriminate, or have you
actually seen detailed analysis before each individual is
fired?
Mr. Edgar. No, I have not. I am serving as a Senior
Advisor, so I have not seen that. I would say that these are
legal orders coming through the Executive Order (EO) process
with the President. I am sure that he is duly informed and
knows exactly what he is focused on and has got the right
protection with his general counsel.
Senator Peters. If confirmed, you will then be in a
position to analyze both the impact, as well as the criteria.
Will you do that, and will you be transparent about that?
Mr. Edgar. Yes, I will work with the Secretary. We will
make sure that we can continue our mission while we are trying
to also get to the objectives of trying to save money, waste,
fraud, and abuse from the government.
Senator Peters. We all want to save money, waste, fraud,
and abuse, everybody here in this Committee is all about that.
We do not want to jeopardize national security. We want to make
sure that thoughtful decisions are being made before folks are
terminated, not indiscriminately. Clearly, you can meet the
objective of fraud, waste, and abuse in a thoughtful manner and
not indiscriminate, but you need to be transparent about that
in order to have trust in the process.
Mr. Edgar. Yes, I would agree with that.
Senator Peters. So I look forward to working with you if
confirmed.
Mr. Edgar. Thank you.
Chairman Paul. Senator Johnson.
Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Edgar and Mr. Bishop, I think you are both aware of the
fact that I have been talking quite a bit about returning to
some pre-pandemic level of spending. Mr. Edgar, you obviously
have experience as the CFO of DHS and an awful lot of private
sector experience. What drives me nuts around here, coming from
the private sector, is nobody seems to use a budget the way
families use a budget and the way businesses use a budget. I
use the analogy, I do not think any family, if they have a
serious illness, they have to borrow $50,000 to pay for medical
bills, that family member gets well, they continue to borrow
$50,000 and spend at that level.
But that is exactly what we have done here in the Federal
Government. We went from $4.4 trillion in 2019 to averaging
$6.5 trillion over the next five years. Last year, we spent
6.9. This year, we are on course to spending $7.3 trillion.
First of all, both you gentlemen, do you think there is any
justification for us to be spending, after the pandemic has
wound its way down, at $7.3 trillion, 61 percent above where we
were in 2019? Mr. Edgar.
Mr. Edgar. First of all, I think that what we are going
through right now and what you are talking about is potentially
a reconciliation bill that would be spending up to a higher
level than what we would normally spend. I think at this point,
if you look at what the focus is for the agenda for President
Trump, this is truly money that is needed to be able to get
through and make sure that we can make good on the promises of
sealing the border and interior enforcement.
I think over the long term, my commitment to you and to
this Committee, as the previous CFO, is that this spending
level is not sustainable. My focus would be to work with the
Secretary and our staff to look at the longer-term
sustainability. Once we are able to get through the agenda, get
numbers down, continue our partnerships with the Department of
Defense (DOD), we will get to a spending profile that long term
will be more sustainable and responsible.
Senator Johnson. Mr. Bishop, we have had number of
conversations along this line. You are smiling. As a candidate,
did you ever talk about zero-based budgeting by any chance?
Mr. Bishop. I certainly did, Senator.
Senator Johnson. Do you know a lot other members who talked
about zero-based budgeting?
Mr. Bishop. Yes, absolutely.
Senator Johnson. Do you think they were serious about it?
Mr. Bishop. The result hasn't gotten there, has it,
Senator? You have struck a consistent theme in making this
point, which is, I would say, somewhat inescapable, that there
is no reason for the government to have grown permanently in
the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) era.
Senator Johnson. So just to review, I have looked at a
number of pre-pandemic baselines. One was 1998, Bill Clinton,
where we actually had a surplus. That was voted for by people
like Senator Durbin and Schumer and McConnell and Grassley and
Collins and John Thune in the House, a very bipartisan bill. If
we increase that $1.65 trillion by population growth and
inflation, leaving today's Social Security, Medicare, and
interest in place, that would give us $5.5 trillion worth of
baseline spending. That is what President Biden projected as
revenue. That is how close we are to balancing a budget if we
would return to that baseline.
If you go to Clinton, 2014, do the same thing, plus it up
for population growth, inflation, use this year's Social
Security, Medicare, and interest, it would be $6.2 trillion.
Now, I do not even like talking about 2019 because that gives
us a figure of $6.5, but there is the range, $5.5-$6.5 trillion
as a pre-pandemic baseline spending. My question, how do we
return to that? The House is obviously having a really hard
time and I appreciate their efforts. I keep talking about death
by a thousand cuts. If you start at $7.3 trillion, you can't
cut that.
But again, it is entirely reasonable to say, let's return
to a pre-pandemic-level baseline, plus it up for population
growth and inflation, and again, if you have to add some for
defense or for, obviously, border security, which we are trying
to do in this first reconciliation package, how do we
accomplish this? How do we turn what DOGE--and I do not
necessarily agree that the Ranking Member says we all want to
prevent waste, fraud, and abuse. The way they are howling about
the outrageous waste, fraud, and abuse that DOGE is uncovering
does not seem like they are real serious about eliminating
waste, fraud, and abuse. But how do we translate what DOGE is
finding into real spending savings? How do we return to that
pre-pandemic using reconciliation? Mr. Bishop, you seem ready
to answer.
Mr. Bishop. Senator, certainly, it is something that
requires, obviously, actions in Congress, ultimately. What is
going on in the House, what you guys have begun in the Budget
Committee here in the Senate--and I appreciate the point that
you have made, Senator, a lot about this fundamental idea about
getting spending back to a pre-COVID sort of concept.
I would say that over at OMB, there is a deliberative
process going on. Director Vought is very serious about the
topics you are focusing on here, and there is a deliberative
process ongoing. Now, it would be inappropriate to get ahead of
it about how the President weighs in on the process that has
gone on here in Congress toward reconciliation.
Senator Johnson. If confirmed, I just count on both you
working very closely with me to try and accomplish exactly
that, return to some reasonable pre-pandemic baseline of
spending. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Bishop. I look forward to having those conversations.
Thank you, Senator.
Chairman Paul. Senator Kim.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR KIM
Senator Kim. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Bishop, I wanted to start with you. I guess I was
concerned by what I just heard in terms of your previous
response. So you believe that the firings that have happened
and the layoffs that have happened, you said that they are not
indiscriminate?
Mr. Bishop. Yes, Senator Kim, I do not believe that
President Trump or the people at Presidential Personnel Office
(PPO) or the folks who are around--or in the White House
policymaking operation would proceed in a way that is
indiscriminate with respect to Federal employees.
Senator Kim. We are seeing firing based off of status of
being probationary, both in terms of new hires, as well as
probationary also includes those that have been recently
promoted, and they are new in that position because they have
been promoted into that. We have seen mass layoffs of that
status because frankly, I guess it is easier to be able to fire
them. You do not consider that to be indiscriminate?
Mr. Bishop. Senator, I do not. The folks who are advising
the President has made points about believing that the Federal
employee workforce is not at the right size.
Senator Kim. When we were seeing the National Nuclear
Security Administration, we are seeing hundreds fired there,
later to be reinstated, I mean, did that not seem like that was
indiscriminate initially, and then they realized, hey, look,
that actually probably the nuclear functions of the United
States is important, you know? We are seeing just the level in
which this is happening, do you think that was an appropriate
move to initially fire them?
Mr. Bishop. I think the President has spoken directly to
that or spokespeople for the President have, that in the course
of making changes, you may find that you need to then move in
the other direction to make an adjustment after you have made
the first change. In my view, Senator, that does not make it
indiscriminate.
Senator Kim. Mr. Edgar, I guess I would love to turn to you
and just get a sense, what was the reasoning for the firing of
130 employees at the Cybersecurity Infrastructure Security
Agency?
Mr. Edgar. Yes, as the Senior Advisor, I was not
responsible for that, but I guess what I would say just as a
response is, if you look at this outside of Federal Government,
the process that you are talking about, about whether we are
being indiscriminate or not, I mean, this is something that all
Fortune 500 companies do. To me, this does not seem out of the
norm. You would normally go to reflect on more junior people,
especially if you had to make a head cut reduction and you
needed to be able to go through a process to be able to get to
that. To me, this seemed totally logical and not
indiscriminate.
Senator Kim. I am just trying to think that we have
incredibly important procedures going forward. For instance,
the Cyber Safety Review Board under DHS was revoked, the
membership there revoked.
Mr. Edgar. Yes.
Senator Kim. Do you think that was a good idea?
Mr. Edgar. I do. I think that was a great idea.
Senator Kim. You think that was a great idea, even though
that is the board that is overseeing the investigation on Salt
Typhoon?
Explain that to me.
Mr. Edgar. Like I said, I did not make the decision to do
it, but I think it was a great idea. I think that CISA has
overstepped its boundaries and authorities. I think it needs to
be reeled in, and it starts with that steering committee.
Senator Kim. So who is conducting the investigation on Salt
Typhoon right now at DHS?
Mr. Edgar. CISA.
Senator Kim. CISA is doing it?
Mr. Edgar. Yes.
Senator Kim. So they have taken over the review of the
Cyber Safety Review Board?
Mr. Edgar. At this point, that review board will be
reconstituted at the right time, but as an organization, it
continues with its priorities set by the Secretary.
Senator Kim. If it is going to be reconstituted, why was it
decommissioned to start with? At least, why were the members
taken off?
Mr. Edgar. Like I said, I thought it was decommissioned
because it was going in the wrong direction. It starts with the
leadership there.
Senator Kim. I wanted to just switch gears here, Mr. Edgar.
I guess I wanted to just get your response, just have you on
record when it comes to the temporary protected status (TPS).
We have seen the revoking of that for Haiti, for Venezuela. I
guess I just want to ask you, do you not believe that
consideration of safety of individuals is something that we, as
the United States, should take into account when we are
thinking about how to proceed with legal pathways to
immigration?
Mr. Edgar. I think temporary protective status is just
that, temporary. I think the Secretary reserves the right and
the opportunity to go in and look at what the policies are,
either from Venezuela or Haiti, and I think the Secretary has
taken appropriate action to make sure that she reserves her
opportunity that Secretary Mayorkas had really pushed up and
really kind of overdid what his authority was. I think we are
just putting more options on the table for the Secretary to
make her decision.
Senator Kim. When it comes to FEMA, in the past, you have
called it a great organization, great people. Their mission
drives their organization at all levels. What we are seeing at
U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and other
aspects of the Federal Government, should we expect that at
FEMA, or are we going to see a rapid abolishment of FEMA?
Mr. Edgar. I think I would agree with the President. I
think we need to reevaluate what the direction is that we are
going to go with FEMA. It has got a lot of issues that need to
be dealt with structurally. As you know, it is structured in
two different ways, the disaster recovery fund and the non-
disaster recovery.
Senator Kim. Yes, so just here at the end, I guess I just
want to say--and we talked about this--is like I think everyone
here understands there needs to be reforms when it comes to
FEMA. What has been happening has not been working. I say this
from New Jersey, crushed by hurricanes, problems on that front.
But I really do urge you and the Secretary--and I have talked
about this before with her--try for us to have a bipartisan
approach to this, work with this Committee to try to address
it. If we see just a quick gutting of it, it is just going to
leave American people unsafe, insecure when it comes to
disasters that can affect every aspect of this country.
With that, I will yield back.
Mr. Edgar. Thank you.
Chairman Paul. Senator Ernst.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ERNST
Senator Ernst. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to
the nominees for being here today. We truly do appreciate your
service.
Congressman Bishop, I am going to go ahead and start with
you, sir.
Mr. Bishop. Yes, Senator.
Senator Ernst. As Chair and Founder of the Senate DOGE
Caucus, I am very laser focused on making sure our government
is responsive to our taxpayers and ensuring our Federal
workforce is actually serving the American people. Today, I
want to focus on taxpayer-funded union time, OK, which requires
Federal agencies to pay employees for time spent working for
their union, not the American people.
The Biden Administration took several steps to hide the
costs of taxpayer-funded union time from the American people,
including rolling back President Trump's Executive Order to
prevent union time abuses and increase agency oversight,
pulling down annual reports on the cost of taxpayer-funded
union time off of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM's)
website, and hiding annual reports OPM had previously
published.
Meanwhile, as part of my investigation into telework, I
learned teleworking Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) employees were reportedly paid for performing union
duties, despite one being in an Oklahoma jail for drunk driving
and another in Puerto Rico vacationing during duty time. Even
more alarming, HUD told me it was not even aware of this
because there was no way to verify when or even if employees
are engaging in union duties.
Congressman Bishop, will you commit to working with
Director Vought and OPM to restart those annual reporting
requirements?
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Senator. I followed closely the work
you have done in that area, chairing the DOGE Caucus and also
concerning the back-to-work issue with Federal employees, and
so thank you for that.
And OMB and OPM do have a close working relationship. I am
coming to learn about it as a Senior Advisor, not yet
confirmed, but certainly I will take that back to Director
Vought. I think the issues you are speaking to are quite
significant. I won't be Deputy Director and implement my
policies but the policies of President Trump and follow the
direction of Director Vought, but certainly--and look forward
to looking into the issue and communicating with you about that
and making sure the information you need is readily available.
Senator Ernst. That is great. Thank you. In 2019, some of
those agencies refused to provide OPM with data. Will you
ensure all agencies are responsive to OPM when it solicits
information on taxpayer-funded union time?
Mr. Bishop. It is very important that Congress receive the
oversight information it needs, and there is a deliberative
process that I will work with, of course, at OMB, but certainly
want to, subject to the advice of counsel and direction of the
Director of OMB, provide everything we can. Thank you.
Senator Ernst. Thank you. Briefly, is there something we
can do to make sure agencies are appropriately reviewing
taxpayer-funded union time payments?
Mr. Bishop. I cannot make a specific commitment on that
Senator because there are deliberative processes at OMB, of
course, to follow, but certainly, I think it is an issue that
needs to be front and center, and we will look at it hard.
Senator Ernst. Assuming your confirmation, I hope that we
work together on this issue.
Mr. Bishop. I guarantee it.
Senator Ernst. It is a big one for our taxpayers.
In the time that I have left, politicians and bureaucrats
in Washington seem to be a lot more upset that DOGE is finding
waste, fraud, and abuse than about the nonsense that we have
funded in the first place. You can hear all of these big
spenders squealing all the way from Iowa. Every taxpayer should
have the ability to look and find the same ways DOGE is
exposing, but there are nearly 50 Federal agencies right now
that are not reporting their spending on USAspending.gov,
accounting for more than $5 billion each year.
Congressman Bishop, every American can be one of our DOGE
deputies just out across the United States, but they actually
need OMB's help to do that. Will you require all agencies
provide timely, accurate, and complete reporting of their
spending?
Mr. Bishop. I can tell you, Senator, that with the scope of
USAspending and the items that are not on there is something
that I have learned a great deal about since being nominated
and researching that. It is a very significant issue to me. I
will be paying very close attention to it, should I be
confirmed as Deputy Director.
Senator Ernst. Absolutely. Thank you. My time has expired,
but thank you. I think we have a lot of issues here, and I look
forward to working with both of you on these issues.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Ernst. Thank you.
Chairman Paul. Senator Slotkin.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SLOTKIN
Senator Slotkin. Thank you. Thanks for being here,
Congressman Bishop, good to see you. We were neighbors for a
short time in Longworth when we were both Members of Congress.
And separate from being good officemates, I am really concerned
about the view that you and Director Vought and the President
have expressed on the Executive Branch and the President having
the unilateral ability to spend Federal dollars, despite what
Congress appropriates. I will skip the irony of a Congressman
who ran for office and was deeply involved in appropriating
dollars and voting on those things for years and years and
years, now being seemingly willing to give up that authority.
It is a fundamental principle of the Constitution. The
Supreme Court, starting back in 1975, has said that, as the
Constitution says, this body, which Republicans now control
both houses of, appropriates the dollars, and the Federal
Government spends them accordingly. This has been reiterated by
the courts. Can you tell us your position? As Deputy Director
of OMB, do you believe that President Trump has the ability to
spend appropriated dollars in different ways than they were
appropriated?
Mr. Bishop. Thank you for the question, Senator Slotkin.
President Trump has run on the issue of impoundment, and there
will be a process in the Administration the decisionmaking
involving lawyers. I will not be serving as Deputy Director in
a legal capacity, but there will be folks who are looking at
the legal issues you describe.
Senator Slotkin. But it is just your view. I understand
lawyers, but your personal view, like, just be open with it.
Vought was very open about it. Do you believe that if this
Chairman appropriates dollars that are voted on by this Senate,
that you and President Trump have the ability to spend those
dollars in a different way than your Republican Chairman has
appropriated?
Mr. Bishop. Senator, I support the views of President Trump
and Director Vought on the subject.
Senator Slotkin. OK, so yes. Mr. Vought owned it. You just
own it. Let me ask this question. If you believe that to be
true, do you believe that you have the right to unilaterally
take money out of Social Security, not that you will, but that
you have the right?
Mr. Bishop. Senator, the President has made very clear that
they are not going to touch Social Security, but--and you are
speaking to hypotheticals. I would say, I do not think that the
President has----
Senator Slotkin. It is not a hypothetical if every single
Michigander that I talk to is worried about you cutting their
Social Security benefits, their Medicare benefits, their
veteran's benefits, the post office, right? I was just up in
very red, conservative upper peninsula of Michigan, right? I am
the only Democrat there and they are, like, happy. As you said,
there are people who are perfectly happy with cuts that are
going on, but they are desperately worried that you are going
to cut their Social Security, their Medicare, their veteran's
benefits, and the Postal Service. Despite everyone saying they
are not going to touch it, you are smarter than that and know
that the big cuts that you are calling for need big chunks out
of these programs.
Mr. Bishop. Senator, I do not hesitate to say that I do not
believe that the President can stop Social Security benefits
being paid. I don't think so.
Senator Slotkin. You do not think he can pull money out of
Social Security, Medicare, veteran's benefits and the Postal
Service.
Mr. Bishop. I don't.
Mr. Bishop. Of course, the reason I say the President said
he is not going to is because that is what he has consistently
declared, so I do not think it is an issue.
Senator Slotkin. But if you look behind the numbers, and
you guys are looking for $6 trillion, DOGE is looking for that,
you guys have been open about it, which I appreciate. Six
trillion dollars does not come from a million here and a
million there. It comes from cutting big programs. What you are
saying is, despite what everyone says here, you proudly support
this idea that you can move money even though it has been
appropriated for a certain reason.
I do not think any American, red, blue, purple, the whole
thing, should trust that these programs that they have worked
their entire life for are safe if you believe you can do
anything that you want.
Mr. Bishop. There are distinctions to be made, Senator. To
the point you suggested hypocrisy about serving in Congress and
taking this position, Harry Truman exercised the impoundment
power to cancel a squadron of I believe it was bombers that he
had vetoed and Congress had passed over his veto. These things
have happened across history by Presidents.
Senator Slotkin. OK, I would just say I feel very strongly
that, again, it is not about red America or blue America or any
of those things. I am from a purple State. It is that people
watch this chaotic cutting, right? Let's just be fair. You fire
people and then hire them the next week. That is
indiscriminate. That is acknowledging you have made a mistake.
That is not some review that normal private sector companies
would do. I do not know a damn private sector company that
would fire someone on Friday and hire them back on Monday
because, whoops, they made a mistake.
But let's just be honest that this approach is scaring the
crap out of people on the benefits they have worked their
entire life for. I know I am out of time. I yield back.
Chairman Paul. Thank you. Probably we should try to put
aside some of the fearmongering. To my knowledge, no one in the
Trump Administration has advocated for taking Social Security
money and using it for another purpose, so that is a
hypothetical that is not only untrue, it is promoting fear. We
should be telling everyone in America, no one is promoting
that. No one is asking for that.
There are some debatable points, though. Nobody is
advocating it from the post office either. Plus, the post
office has no money. They are $9.5 billion in the hole every
year now.
But there are some real questions. The other side has
called these illegal funding freezes. I do not think pausing
spending for a month, which is what we have had so far, will be
interpreted even as impoundment. There is a debate when
something is actually impounded. I think if you went through a
fiscal year (FY) and you get beyond a fiscal year and you have
not spent money, it is going to be classified by anybody as
impoundment. There will be a legal debate over it at that time,
but that will be a legal discussion.
This is a separation-of-powers issue. It is an important
one. I actually voted against repurposing money for the wall,
for building the wall last time because I thought it was
congressional perspective. I share some of the concerns, but I
think it is unfair to leap to sort of conclusions of this is
illegal, or this is being done, and democracy is in turmoil,
and the world is going to end. When they stopped the money
flowing at USAID, they found $2 million for sex changes in
Guatemala.
If the other side wants to stand up and argue that that is
really wrong that we are going to stop $2 million for sex
changes in Guatemala, they can, but instead, they just say
everything is illegal and Elon is terrible and Elon has all
this data and Elon was not elected. These gentlemen were not
elected either. Their bosses won't be elected. Trump was
elected. He is appointing them. So nobody in the Administration
is elected other than the President. They are all going to be
appointed.
But there is a question, when you elect a President, should
they get to execute their policy? Did we elect a change, or is
there some sort of bureaucracy that is so huge and inert that
we cannot move it? That is what many of us have complained
about for a long time. Some call it the deep State, and the
other side says, oh, they are all conniving. Well, no, the deep
State is essentially the bureaucracy that is unmovable and has
a perspective, and their perspective is skewed toward spending
more money, not less.
We should debate not whether Elon Musk is Satan, but maybe
whether or not we should spend $3 million out of State
Department funds on girl-centric climate change in Brazil,
whether you spend $30,000 on a trans operation in Colombia,
$25,000 on a trans comic book in Peru, $660,000 on
microaggressions among obese Latinx. When you say that, most
people do not even know what that means, and most people who
are Hispanic are just frankly offended by the whole thing,
whatever it is supposed to mean.
All these racial sort of things and sort of left wing sort
of causes, we can debate that, whether we should keep spending
money on it, but we would not know it. Had Elon Musk not
stopped things, we would not even know it was being spent.
I for one think scrutiny is good, but I am not a blank
check. I have told both of the nominees today, and I have told
Russ Vought when it comes down to a year from now, if the money
is being impounded, I am probably going to be saying, send it
back and let Congress vote on it. It is also a way of making
permanence. I love all the stuff he is finding, all the waste.
I want it to be permanent. I want it to have real value, and we
get that through a decision. It won't be easy, but it can be
done through simple majority.
My guess is that the minority party, while they are
squawking about Elon looking at their Social Security number or
something, they are probably not any of them interested in
cutting the $2 million for sex changes in Guatemala. That will
be part of a rescission package. My guess is that there will
not be anybody on the Democrat party that will vote for
rescission of any kind of cutting. If we give them a billion
dollars for an aircraft carrier, and they can do it for $800
million, shouldn't we be happy to get the $200 million back and
do a rescission package?
I will say publicly, though, giving it back to the taxpayer
when we have a $2 trillion deficit, let's fill up the hole of
the $2 trillion deficit, and then we can talk about sending
some back to the people. But I think it is premature to send
any of that money back. It is also premature to say it is saved
until we actually have a spending bill.
I think next in line we have Senator Gallego.
Senator Gallego. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR GALLEGO
Mr. Edgar, thank you for joining us for your nomination
hearing. I have heard concerns from numerous law enforcement
officials in Arizona, including elected Republican sheriffs,
about the deep strain some of these ambitious deportation
operations have on their resources and the ability to keep
violent criminals off their streets, whether they are here
legally or not. The State and local enforcement departments
across the country are already operating very tight budgets and
are facing personnel shortages just trying to get new cops to
come in.
Can you commit that DHS will not deputize State and local
law enforcement and personnel devoted to combating violent
crime? Essentially, what they are concerned about, these police
officers, is that they do not mind if DHS says, hey, we are
going to go and there is this criminal, let's say, whatever,
gang or cartel member, we have a deportation order, could you
come help us, city of Phoenix police to do a cordon and
everything else like that, they are fine with that because that
helps them.
What they are not fine with is being deputized and made to
do everyday deportation or deportation processes for people
that are nonviolent offenders, people that have overstayed
visas, things of that nature because in terms of fiscal dollars
and time, they just do not have the time for that, nor do they
want to engage in that. That is what these police officers,
police unions, as well as sheriffs are asking, that they are
not engaged in that kind of day-to-day stuff that the Federal
Government should be focused on.
Mr. Edgar. First of all, the program that you are talking
about, 287(g), which would go through and basically deputize
the State and local law enforcement officials, is voluntary.
The sheriffs' organizations, the different county sheriffs sign
up for that and they----
Senator Gallego. Yes, I am aware of the 287(g) program. As
long as it is voluntary, that is one thing.
Mr. Edgar. Yes.
Senator Gallego. Largely, the best use of 287(g) programs
are in the prisons so that way, ICE checks and ICE detainer
holds, so then ICE will come and do that. That does not
actually put a strain on the police because the person's
already in custody. What they are worried about is a forced
287(g) program where they have to actively be doing street
enforcement of immigration laws, and that is what they do not
want to do because they just do not have the money, more
important than anything else. They may even have the will, they
just do not have the money and time to do it.
Mr. Edgar. Part of this process I went through, I met with
the Major County Sheriffs of America and the National Sheriffs
Association, and I did talk a lot about this issue. I would
just say maybe we are a little bit at mixed purposes here, as I
know that the President's perspective of this and Stephen
Miller, who helps us coordinate across all law enforcement
across the government, 287(g) and the relationships with the
sheriffs are very important. I think what you are talking about
is discretionarily whether it is just in prisons or in jails
where we are actually serving in that sort of a function in
detention.
But I think if you start to look at whether we are looking
for the 300,000 lost children in America, I think that
partnership with the sheriffs will be really critical and
important to not only just in immigration, but in helping
locate and find those 300,000 that were lost under the Biden
Administration.
Senator Gallego [continuing]. 300,000 is not where the
sheriffs are worried about. Again, they are worried that they
are going to be deputized to go after the local taco vendor.
They do not want to be going into farms to look for
undocumented migrant workers. It is not worth their time. It is
not worth the public citizens' money to do that. If you want to
go after these hardcore criminals, that is where there is
alignment with the Arizona citizen who is willing to pay the
money to go after the rapists, go after these drug dealers, go
after these horrible people. But it is when you are going after
the nana and the tata that has been here for 10 years and has
kids in the United States, they do not want the local beat cop
doing that.
Moving on kind of into that same vein--there is a lot of
fear about also the question about some of our students in
schools, particularly public schools, being questioned about
their status or their family status. Could you give us some
commitment that we are not going to essentially turn our
schools, our, principals, our teachers into deputized ICE
officers by asking the status of these students under the age
of 18?
Mr. Edgar. Yes, you know what, I do not see that being the
situation. I see what President Trump has put in place through
Executive Order to be able to allow law enforcement to go to
schools and churches, but I grew up in southern California. I
grew up in an area that had a gang problem, and I would have
welcomed as a use to be able to make sure that I felt safe at
my school, and as my kids grow up, to make sure they feel safe.
I think that is what we are doing----
Senator Gallego. Sure, and this is why you should support
local police officers. It is why I am for getting police
officers in school. But there is also a lot of kids that are
actually good, innocent kids, and not all gang members are
illegals, just in case you were wondering. And so, being able
for them to go to school, receive services, learn because a lot
of them will eventually become citizens one way or the other
legally, and by making it a place that is not safe to go, you
are going to have kids skipping school, which we are already
seeing all over this country where kids are skipping school,
even some that are here legally, that were born in the United
States, because they are afraid that they are going to be
followed home by ICE, and their parents are going to be taken
away. This is why I am concerned about our schools not being
kind of a safe zone for kids, not for drug dealers or anything
else, but for actually kids.
Mr. Bishop, good to see you. I think we served at least
four years together for a little bit.
Mr. Bishop. That is right, Senator.
Senator Gallego. If confirmed, you will serve alongside
Director Vought, who said he wants Federal employees to be
traumatized, and we have seen that. I am hearing horrible
stories, especially some of the veterans that I served with in
the Iraq war, they do feel traumatized. They have actually
served their country. These guys are actually Trump supporters.
They have been doing different types of work for the
government. Some of them have now been laid off, so mission
accomplished along that route.
Can you explain the thinking behind intentionally targeting
people dedicated to serving their country? How can we trust
that you are going to have the best interest of the American
people at heart if the stated goal of OMB's leadership is to
traumatize the very people who provide, often, some lifesaving
services to the public? My concern too for some of these
veterans is that they are not going to come back and work or we
are not going to be able to recruit a lot of these veterans to
come back and work for the Federal Government at some point
when we are going to need to have more support.
Mr. Bishop. Senator, one of the things that is very
interesting is that Federal workers say in surveys that they
have frustration that low performers cannot be moved out, they
see problems in their own workplace that is the result of the
way the bureaucracy operates. This quote that Director Vought
is often talked about, about putting workers in trauma, and
sort of taken out of context. I watched the way he works with
folks at OMB. He has the greatest regard for the professionals
at OMB who are really stellar.
Change is difficult. There is going to need to be change to
the Federal Government. I mean, we can all look at it and see
the $36 trillion of debt, the spending that is $2 trillion a
year in deficit roughly, and going in the wrong direction, it
has to be dealt with. It is going to require change to the
Federal Government, including the Federal employee situations.
But I just disavow and do not believe the ideas many have said
that it is indiscriminate or it is designed to harm anybody. It
is designed to put the Federal Government back on the side of
the American people.
Senator Gallego. I mean, when you are firing employees that
we need for stuff it clearly is indiscriminate.
Chairman Paul. Time has expired.
Chairman Paul. Senator Scott.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SCOTT
Senator Scott. Sure. First off, congratulations to both of
you for your nominations. I know you are both going to do an
outstanding job.
Starting with you, Mr. Edgar, what is success? What do you
want get done?
Mr. Edgar. I define success in supporting President Trump.
I think he ran on the agenda to seal the border and to make
sure, for the interior enforcement, that we are able to deport
over a million people. As the Chief Operating Officer, I think
there are two things, be able to execute that agenda, but there
are also 22 other components within DHS that have missions that
need to be executed, and we need to be making sure that we are
responsible, whether it is the Coast Guard, the Secret Service
(USSS), TSA, et cetera, we need be able to walk and chew gum.
So my opportunity of being the previous Chief Financial Officer
will allow us to make sure that we get the most for the
taxpayers' money for the amount that they are paying here.
Senator Scott. Congressman Bishop, what would you like to
accomplish?
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Senator. I think you would say that
we can implement President Trump's vision to put government
back on the side of the people, to get government to function
more efficiently and effectively, certainly to get the out-of-
control spending under control to begin making headway on the
massive debt that we otherwise will be handing to our children
and grandchildren.
Talking about Elon Musk and what Elon Musk is seeking to
accomplish, they want to see actual change, not the same status
quo, the same stagnation that we have seen--that you and I both
experienced in our service in Congress where we know we have to
solve these problems, but yet nothing ever seems to happen.
President Trump means to make it happen, and OMB is going to be
a critical tool in seeing to it that it does.
Senator Scott. Congressman Bishop, so you are a staunch
supporter of getting rid of wasteful spending. Do you think we
can actually balance the budget?
Mr. Bishop. I think the budget can be balanced. I certainly
do. When and under what circumstances and how that comes out,
that is the President's decision, not mine. My priorities don't
weigh in this balance. I am serving his program. But I know
that we can bring the Federal leviathan under control so that
the American taxpayer can afford it again.
Senator Scott. Yes. Mr. Edgar, have you spent much time
with regard to FEMA? My experience, I was Governor, so I can
just tell you, FEMA wasted billions of dollars. There was no
logic to it. They are involved in so many things that it never
was anticipated that they would be involved in. How would you
try to fix FEMA? And they are wonderful people.
Mr. Edgar. Yes.
Senator Scott. I do not know. I dealt with mostly the
Southeast with FEMA. Gracia Szczech ran it, and now Robert
Samaan does, and they are wonderful people, but, I mean, they
are involved in so many things that does not make any sense.
Mr. Edgar. The President came out and said one of his first
directives is we need to rethink about FEMA. When you start
taking a look at that, a couple different mechanisms, I think
the funding process, I started my public service while I was a
corporate guy in the local government. If you talk with
Secretary Noem, as a Governor, she definitely knows how the
disasters are related to at the State level. She would tell you
that if she was here, that a lot of this is best done by the
local government. I think what ends up happening is FEMA gets
in the way of the process. They do not know the total
priorities, and I think that is what the President sees.
I think it also is going to require a legislative fix. I
look forward to the opportunity not only working on one side of
the aisle, but both sides of the aisle. I think we need to take
a look at it very systematically and look at the authorities
that were given to FEMA during the DHS stack of 2002 and
evaluate what would be structurally the best way. I know you
and I have talked about this privately. I would love to be able
to work with you to do that.
Senator Scott. Congressman Bishop, inflation is out of
control. It is impacting the poorest families in our country.
How much is that tied to wasteful spending?
Mr. Bishop. I think what Americans are seeing now revealed
every day, frankly, unfortunately, to the consternation of
some, is that there is jaw-dropping waste in the Federal
Government. Senator, I think about what you did as Governor of
Florida. You sat down, took your budget, went through it at
great pain, line by line and began moving to solve it. You and
the fiscal results you achieved there, we can do the same thing
in the Federal Government.
I think what President Trump is demonstrating in first
several weeks in office, with the help of DOGE, is that there
is going to be action on multiple fronts all at the same time.
There is going to be significant change. I think Americans are
enthusiastic to see someone finally take hold of it the way
that you did when you were Governor of Florida.
Senator Scott. You are both going to be great, so I look
forward to voting for your confirmation so you can get to work.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Scott. Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Chairman Paul. Senator Hassan.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HASSAN
Senator Hassan. Thanks, Mr. Chair, and welcome to both of
you, and congratulations on your nominations.
I want to start with a question to both of you, and it is a
simple one. If directed by the President to take action that
would break the law, would you follow the law or follow the
President's directive? Mr. Edgar.
Mr. Edgar. I would follow President Trump because I know he
is advised and he is doing a lawful job, and so I would be
following the President.
Senator Hassan. That is disappointing because no one is
above the law in the United States of America, and your
obligation and the oath you will take is to the Constitution
and to the law, not to President Trump.
Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. Senator Hassan, I am confident that President
Trump will issue lawful orders. It would not be up to me,
serving in a non-lawyer capacity, to decide what is lawful and
not lawful.
Senator Hassan. Excuse me. If you are advised by a lawyer
in your agency that it is against law or if it is clearly
against the Constitution, as some of the things that President
Trump has already done in this term and in his last term were,
I would expect you to follow the law. Your unwillingness to say
that--other members of the Administration, by the way, who I
voted for, have come forward and said, yes, I will follow the
law. So it is disappointing.
If a court issues an order requiring the Department of
Homeland Security or the Office of Management and Budget,
respectively, to take or refrain from taking specific actions,
will you follow the court's order? Mr. Edgar.
Mr. Edgar. Yes.
Senator Hassan. Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. Yes.
Senator Hassan. That is great. I will turn to another
question now, and this is to you, Congressman Bishop. Last
month, the President unilaterally cutoff nearly all Federal
grants before multiple Federal courts determined that doing so
illegally harmed Americans all across the country. This funding
cut created chaos and disruption in my State of New Hampshire.
For example, one of our hospitals had a Federal grant to
replace its sewer system. It is a small rural hospital. It
applied for the grant. It got it. It was a contract with the
Federal Government. While this funding cut was in effect, this
hospital was stuck with a $300,000 outstanding bill that was
due to contractors, and the job was halfway done.
Congressman Bishop, if you are confirmed, what will you do
to ensure that Federal grants are reinstated and that OMB and
the Trump Administration follow the law?
Mr. Bishop. Senator, I will follow the deliberative process
and its outcome at OMB. I think in that case, there was a
memorandum that said some items that were implicated by the
President's Executive Orders were paused. The thing that you
are describing, I don't think, was.
There was a media reaction that was alarmist----
Senator Hassan. No, it was not a media reaction because
when I talked with people on the ground in New Hampshire, the
money was not flowing because the freeze was overwhelming
because nobody understood the Executive Orders, which, by the
way, were very poorly drafted. They were so general and so
imprecise that everything stopped.
I will just note that you talked about President Truman
impounding funds. That was before the Impoundment Control Act
was passed in the 1970s, an act that was deemed constitutional
by the Supreme Court of the United States. So what previous
Presidents did before the Impoundment Control Act is one thing,
but if you are going to follow the law, you are going to follow
the Impoundment Control Act. It is highly disappointing to hear
you, Mr. Vought did it too, this sleight of hand. Oh, previous
Presidents have done it, as if the law was never passed.
I just want you to understand that the freeze has had real
impacts, they are not hypotheticals, and they are impacts on
money that not only was appropriated by this body, Article I,
the Congress of the United States, but signed into law by a
President of the United States.
Now, Mr. Edgar, I am going to follow up on FEMA. FEMA is
responsible for coordinating the Federal response to disasters,
and it recently fired hundreds of employees. Reporting suggests
that the fired employees included not just new employees, but
also some longtime employees who had recently been promoted,
including some with more than a decade of experience. I am
concerned that these indiscriminate firings done in a really
sloppy manner will harm the ability of FEMA to do its job. Mr.
Edgar, can you explain how these firings will do anything other
than destabilize an agency that the American people rely upon
when disasters strike?
Mr. Edgar. Yes, at my current role, I am the Senior Advisor
to the Secretary. I did not make the decisions to fire the
people in FEMA. My commitment, if confirmed, I will continue to
work with FEMA and make sure that we get to an operational
posture that will be successful, be able to carry out the
mission for the American people.
Senator Hassan. Will you stop indiscriminate firings?
Mr. Edgar. I will go through and see what the data is that
we are looking at, what our objectives are, and like I would do
in any situation, whether it would be in Federal Government or
the corporate world----
Senator Hassan. I will just note a couple of other points,
I am a former Governor too. I have worked with FEMA closely. I
have had this discussion with the Secretary, whose nomination I
supported. It is really important to understand that when you
say a local government should do it, I have 234 towns in New
Hampshire, some of them are fewer than 1,000 people. They do
not have the staff or the budget to handle major disasters. It
is going to be really important that, if you are all talking
about right-sizing FEMA and making sure that it can do its
work, that the investments in resilience continue so that we do
not have the same natural disasters impacting the same
infrastructure over and over again. It is going to be important
that we have people on the ground who can do the mission of
working hand-in-hand, as they do with local governments.
I look forward to trying to work up with you on that, but I
hope very much that you will find out what actually happens and
works with FEMA, come to us with concrete plans, and actually
do some analysis before you start firing people because it is
really destabilizing, and it is going to be hard for the agency
to recover because who is going to want to go work there? Thank
you.
Mr. Edgar. Thank you.
Chairman Paul. Senator Hawley.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HAWLEY
Senator Hawley. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Congressman Bishop, Mr. Edgar, congratulations on your
nomination. Thanks for being here.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Hawley [continuing]. It is great to see you both
here. Congressman, let me start with you. The agency that you
are going to be the Deputy Director of--and I believe you will
be confirmed. I look forward to supporting your confirmation--
--
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, sir.
Senator Hawley [continuing]. Is a key agency, as you know,
and it includes--among its many components, it includes a very
key component, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
(OIRA). It is a mouthful.
Mr. Bishop. It is.
Senator Hawley. But that little agency, that mouthful,
OIRA, does a lot, as you know. It reviews basically every
agency regulation, reviews it, vets it, provides
recommendations on it, does cost-benefit analysis in some
cases, every agency regulation that comes through the Federal
Government. So that office is a key node in the Federal
Government----
Mr. Bishop. No doubt.
Senator Hawley [continuing]. For assessing regulations.
With that in mind, I just want to ask you some questions that I
also asked Director Vought that I think are so important. For
those of us who are pro-life, serving in an Administration that
is avowedly pro-life, just on Title X, this is the Title X
grant program that currently provides money--under the Biden
Administration, has been providing money for abortion
providers.
Now, I talked with Director Vought about this. I have
talked with Robert F. Kennedy (RFK) about it. RFK committed to
me that he would end Title X funding for abortion providers.
There will be a rule that will be necessary for that. My
question to you is, will you be an advocate within OMB for
seeing that RFK's commitment, which is also the President's
commitment, is carried through, that we stop Title X funding
for abortion providers?
Mr. Bishop. Senator, as you know, my role as Deputy
Director is to implement the President's policy, not my own,
but certainly, I have taken note of what you have articulated
on the subject. It has been the source of discussion, and so
there is a deliberative process at OMB and OIRA that it would
be inappropriate of me to get ahead of or to foretell or
forecast the result of. But thank you for articulating it into
something that I will take back.
Senator Hawley. Good. I just want to drill down on this,
though, because this is very important, and I do not think this
is in doubt. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
Secretary, now confirmed and sitting, has said under oath that
he will overturn the current rule and put back in place
President Trump's rule on Title X funding. The President
himself has said he does not support Title X funding going to
abortion providers. I guess another way to ask you this
question is, let me put it to you this way, do you support the
President's policy implemented into law in his first term,
articulated again since then, articulated again now by his
current HHS Secretary, that Title X funding should not flow to
abortion providers? Let me ask it that way.
Mr. Bishop. In my view, the purpose of OMB and my purpose
as Deputy Director will be to implement the President's policy.
Senator Hawley. OK, good. Let me ask you about the Hyde
Amendment. Will you work to ensure that all Federal agencies
fully comply with the Hyde Amendment, which, as you know, is
statutory law and has been since 1977?
Mr. Bishop. OMB does play a role in ensuring consistency
and observing law across the Federal agencies. Certainly,
Senator, it will be an issue we will give attention to.
Senator Hawley. Great. Just to be clear, that that includes
the Hyde Amendment, which is in place and has been governing
law since 1977? Is that fair to say?
Mr. Bishop. Yes, sir, it is.
Senator Hawley. OK, good. The Weldon Amendment, similarly,
the Weldon Amendment prevents discrimination against healthcare
providers who have a conscience objection to abortion. The last
Administration essentially ignored it. It is the law. Again, in
your position at OMB, as you review these regulations, as you
advise on the implementation of the law, will you advise every
component of the government to comply with the law, which
includes the Weldon Amendment.
Mr. Bishop. Senator, it will be my purpose as Deputy
Director of OMB to comply with the law and see to it that other
agencies and personnel within the Federal Government do so to
the extent of my responsibility.
Senator Hawley. Good. That includes the Weldon Amendment,
correct, Congressman?
Mr. Bishop. Yes, sir, Senator.
Senator Hawley. OK.
Mr. Bishop. That is part of the law, so yes, sir.
Senator Hawley. Yes, that is good. It is. It is part of the
law. The last Administration seemed to forget this.
Last thing, when it comes to pregnancy resource centers,
pregnancy care centers, so important, provide, in many cases,
completely free medical care to mothers, many of whom are
facing an unexpected pregnancy, everything from health
screenings to diapers, baby food, consultation, all, again,
often completely free. The last Administration conducted an
incredible effort to attempt to persecute and shut down these
pregnancy care centers. The President, in his first
Administration, allowed Federal funding to be available in
Federal grants to pregnancy care centers. He said he wants to
do that again.
Here again, my question to you is, as you look at these
grants, as you look at these regulations, will you be an
advocate for the President's policies allowing Federal funding
to flow to these pregnancy care centers?
Mr. Bishop. I will be an advocate for the President's
policies on that subject, Senator. I would say one advantage
that my service in Congress, alongside you and working together
with you on some things, Senator, provides is I did witness the
evidence that you are describing about the official posture and
neglect or hostility toward pregnancy resource centers in the
past Administration, and so I carry that experience with me
into the role I seek to be confirmed to.
Senator Hawley. That is fantastic. I am glad to hear you
say that. Just to put a fine point on that, you know these
statistics as well as I do. In the last Administration after
the Dobbs decision, hundreds of pregnancy care centers were
vandalized, were firebombed, were the subject of criminal
activity. While the last Administration abused Federal statutes
to go persecute pro-lifers who demonstrated peacefully
according to their religious beliefs, they did nothing to
protect pregnancy care centers, nothing, hung them out to dry,
allowed them to be firebombed, vandalized, criminalized, and
the rest. It is absolutely outrageous, all while denying them,
in many cases, grants for which they qualify under Federal law.
So your experience on this will be important, I think, and I
look forward to you being a strong advocate in the
Administration.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
Senator Hawley. I see my time has sadly expired, and as
Senator Paul knows, I always adhere to my time limits, so I
will have some questions for the record for you, Mr. Edgar, or
maybe a few more for you, Congressman. Again, thank you both
for being here. I look forward to supporting your nominations.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Paul. Senator Moody.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MOODY
Senator Moody. Thank you, Chairman Paul, and great to be
with you. As you see, I am four weeks in and still do not know
which way to go in my Committee room.
Mr. Bishop. I did not even notice, Senator, but I was five
years in and did not know which way to go.
Senator Moody. But I will tell you what I do know, and that
is what we need to accomplish under this Administration to get
this country on the right track, and a lot of it is because I
served as the Attorney General in the free State of Florida and
saw the ramifications of some of the policy choices of the last
Administration and how that affected the stability and safety
in our communities. I am glad to be here with you today, and I
am grateful that I am given the chance to speak to you about
your upcoming duties.
I do not have a ton of questions for you, Mr. Bishop. I
know you very well. I know we both thought that you would be in
a different position right now, as Attorney General in North
Carolina, and I will pray for you in your new role. I know you
are going to do a great job, and, as I can attest, God has a
way of messing up our plans that we make so diligently----
Mr. Bishop. No doubt about it, and I am thankful for it.
Thank you, Senator.
Senator Moody. Congratulations on your nomination, sir.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
Senator Moody. I would like to turn my attention to Mr.
Edgar. When I was the Attorney General in Florida and President
Biden first got in office, one of the first things he did was
rescind the longstanding practice of both Democratic and
Republican Administrations of deporting serious felony
offenders that were here illegally committing crimes back to
their countries of origin. That was never something that was
kind of argued. In that first month, they said we are not going
to do that anymore, issued completely different directives to
law enforcement, in fact, started canceling detainers that
sheriffs were using in jails to hold people who had committed
felonies that were in our country illegally and needed to go
back. So you can imagine the outcry from law enforcement when
those detainers were being canceled by the Biden
Administration.
One of the first things I did as Attorney General was sue
on that practice. I believe that was one of the most dangerous
things that they could have done, one of the things that put
our citizens at risk, and it was not necessary.
What they also started doing was taking prisoners that were
in Federal prisons that were brought here from other countries
or picked up in the middle of the ocean for Federal prosecution
and put in our prisons because they were prosecuted here only,
they were sending them back to the places where they were
prosecuted within the United States, and releasing them into
the communities. Their only connection to the United States was
that they were prosecuted here.
Those practices have to stop immediately. Many of those
groups and organizations within DHS will be under your purview.
I know we had some time to talk about this. Do I have your
commitment to go back--I sued on that practice as well to get
as much information that we could to see who was being released
into the State of Florida because, of course, they were not
telling us. Do I have your commitment to go back and look at
both of those practices and make sure that State and local law
enforcement, No. 1, can detain, pass over to ICE so they can be
deported, and that those Federal prisoners are deported back to
their countries?
Mr. Edgar. Absolutely. As you can see, President Trump came
out of the chute very hot with not only just making sure that
that ICE ERO and all the law enforcement that we would focus on
at DHS is really trying to get this back on track. But he has
also started, through his diplomatic relationships, through
State, to get countries to receive those citizens or those
migrants back into their country, and they are criminal folks.
We have started to unlock a lot of different types of
capabilities to be able to get those folks and get them out of
the country in almost a nonstop method. It is a really
significant part of our process within DHS to hit that, be able
to get a million people deported, especially----
Senator Moody. So much of that, however, to correct course
is going to be someone in your position going back, digging
down through the directives, the emails, the guidance memos,
all of those things that were done to make sure that everything
is rescinded so that all of those relationships, all of those
agreements, everything that the President is doing so well can
be promoted and propped up by what you are doing as an agency.
I think truly, and all the things that you do, getting people
that are known to commit crimes against our citizens out of
here as fast as possible, that has to be our No. 1 priority.
In that vein, the 287(g) program, I know one of my prior
colleagues mentioned that maybe some sheriffs were saying they
do not want to do that, they do not want to be a part of it. Do
I have your commitment to look into additional funding for
salaries, training, equipment for those agencies that either
want to cooperate with you and be part of the 287(g) program,
or maybe in States like Florida, where we have supported them
and, statutorily, we want them to be partners with you?
Mr. Edgar. Yes, you absolutely have my commitment, and you
will probably hear in the next week or two, Secretary Noem has
been working aggressively with the State of Florida. I think
you guys are going to be the first ones coming out with us. It
is pretty major initiatives. Your delegation of sheriffs have
come and actually had an opportunity to meet with the Secretary
and her staff, and we are really looking forward to working
with the State of Florida.
Senator Moody. Thank you.
Chairman Paul. Mr. Edgar, we talked a little bit about our
records request. We have done these both with the minority and
the Chair when we were in reverse roles last year, through
letters. Then we finally sent subpoenas in January. Our hope is
that you will show these subpoenas to the career officials who
we believe have been obstructing us and let them know, I mean,
there are repercussions for resisting a court order. I think
you will be very helpful, but I think you need to make sure
that all the people that are the bureaucracy are obeying the
law and will get that information to us.
We are interested not only in all the dual-use research
that could be gain-of-function or might be dangerous,
classified or unclassified. We need to look at it. There are
certain things that really just probably should not be done. I
give the example of Ebola. It is spread like acquired
immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) through bodily contact and
fluids. If you are doing an experiment to see if you can get it
to spread through the air, I do not think we ought to be
funding that. That is just too dangerous, and we need to look
at all that research to make sure people are not doing things
like that. If you want to recreate the Spanish flu there are
things that we probably should not be doing that we can do now,
but we probably should not be doing.
We also want to meet with the scientists. like at the
National Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures Center is DHL
lab. It is a biosafety level (BSL-4). We would like for a
public hearing, we would like the head of that agency or that
laboratory to come in and talk to us, be prepared to tell us
about all the different gain-of-function or dual-use research
of concern are things we are going to want.
We know that the government actually does a little bit of
this through the Executive Branch, and the National Institute
of Health (NIH) coordinates it and sends it to the Office of
Science and Technology Policy. We have not been privy to any of
it. I have been trying for three years to get it. This is not
the atomic secrets. This is not personal data. This is the
deliberations over this, and we should have a role. We are
sending the money over to the Executive Branch, and I hope you
will help us in that. In fact, I think you could actually
assign somebody within your department that their job is to
look for information concerning dangerous type of research. I
do not think DHS was involved with funding the Wuhan research.
It was coming out of NIH primarily, but State Department had
some of this, so just looking around and being inquisitive on
this will help us.
Another area that we are interested in, and we have sent
letters and will probably resend letters and maybe subpoenas,
if necessary, is on the CISA censorship. I am pleased that you
all have already announced you are not going to do it. No more
government officials showing up at publications and saying,
take this down, I think that was offensive to the First
Amendment. They wrote a lot about it in the Twitter Files. Matt
Taibbi and others when Elon Musk gave them access to the
private half, everybody in the Twitter Files was talking to
somebody in the government.
There is a government file, so I hope you will assign
somebody to look at that because if you have people in
government discussing, conspiring, colluding to take down
politically protected speech such as ``Cloth masks do not
work,'' which I do not think they do, and I think it is a
disservice actually to tell people something works that does
not work. Even if you disagree, it is an opinion. It is my
opinion. It is a politically protected statement, and we should
not have the government on the other side.
I hope you will assign somebody to look at the other side
of the Twitter Files and see if there are people who are
working within government still. They say they are firing
everybody. Maybe we can get rid of some of the people who do
not appreciate the First Amendment or respect the First
Amendment.
One final thing is just for Mr. Bishop on the impoundment
versus rescission. I hope you will bring in constitutional
scholars. There are a bunch of respected constitutional
scholars and at least--I know it is not particularly your job,
but the OMB will look at that. We really want to send the
message to the public that we are actually going to cut this
spending.
I am already predicting the public is going to be
disappointed come September because what is going to happen is,
every day we have the news of firings and savings, but the
deficit this year is still going to be $2 trillion because we
have not structurally done something. Now, people will say it
is hard, Congress is not any good at their job, they are
feckless. All of that is true, but we still have to try.
We are in the majority, and rescission, you sending us back
money that we say we are no longer going to spend it, we are
sending it back to the Treasury, a simple majority vote. We
have simple majorities in both Houses. It is not easy, but we
ought to really try, and the Administration should come back to
us and lobby us and get some of those who are equivocal on this
and let them know how important it is to the country because
many of them are saying, and many over here are saying, well,
you are doing it improperly, it is illegal. But will they vote
to cut any of the spending? Not one of them will vote to cut
any spending through rescission, but we have to really work
hard to see if the majority, almost all of us, will vote. We
have to get everybody to vote for rescission if it does.
I think it is an important debate. I do think for a couple
of months you have a window of it being a pause and not an
impoundment. I think the judges are overreaching that are
trying to stop you from firing people or pausing. I think all
those things are within the realm, and it is a jump to say they
are illegal. You can find one liberal judge to try to stop
stuff, but ultimately, decisions between our power and the
executive power probably are going to work its way up to the
Supreme Court.
But I appreciate both of your willingness to serve, and we
are going to conclude it there unless you have--my questions
were pretty just general. I just wanted to give you some
advice? I know you wanted some advice. But we appreciate your
willingness to serve.
The nominees have filed responses to biographical and
financial questionnaires,\1\ answered pre-hearing questions
submitted by the Committee.\2\ They have had their financial
statements reviewed by the Office of Government Ethics (OGE).
Without objection, this information will be made part of the
hearing record with the exception of the financial data, which
are on file with the Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The information for Mr. Bishop appears in the Appendix on page
41.
\2\ The information for Mr. Edgar appears in the Appendix on page
100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The hearing will remain open until 5 p.m. today for
submission of statements and questions for the record.
With that, the hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:05 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]