Dan Bishop Confirmation Hearing

Mr. Graham (06:24):

Good morning, everybody. I told them you're still clapping over in the chamber, but thanks for coming. We're going to do the Deputy Director of OMB. I'm going to make a short opening statement and turn it over to Senator Merkley. Here's my short opening statement. I am for eliminating waste and relooking at the government, but I'll be honest with you, if PEPFAR is shutdown, that's bad. There are 83 girls in Oman from Afghanistan that we're supporting that are going to run out of money for their support in the middle of March. Nobody, I think, wants to send them back to Afghanistan. So what we're going to do is we're going to work with the administration to the point that we can to give the government a good once over, but in the process of eliminating programs that make no sense, making them more efficient, I think it's important we realize there are some things in this world we need to do and find out what's wrong with the system because Rubio gives a waiver and the money still doesn't come and that's not acceptable. Senator Merkley?

Mr. Merkley (07:46):

Yeah, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and welcome Mr. Bishop. And today we're considering your nomination for Deputy Director of OMB, and that's a very important post. OMB has been at the center of many consequential decisions in a very short period of time. It's canceled programs, it's suspended grants, it's reorganized departments, it's fired federal employees and many of these actions are in violation of the law and certainly when it comes to impoundment, in violation of the constitution. The executive branch has existing ways to reorganize the federal government and to cut spending. They can work with Congress to pass a new law. President can reorganize the department by asking Congress to put forward such legislation, but also the president has rescission powers. He can send a request to change an existing program that's already been in the law, that was put into the 1974 Act because Congress wanted to give a fast track for a president to be able to ask for changes for the existing law.

(08:53)
It's subject to a simple majority in both sides, 45 days. But that recision power has not been used by this administration and the president, of course can influence the budget to come. We're only months away from the start of the next year, and the president has a lot of ability through putting forward an initial budget to lobby, in this case his own party that controls both chambers to implement that vision into law. And if he doesn't like it, he can veto it. He can veto the bill, so he has tremendous power going forward. But here we are at this moment in a situation where instead of using the legal tools, the president is illegally acting. And part of what members of this committee are interested in is are you going to be party to these illegal actions? Are you going to be party to violations of the constitution?

(09:45)
Are you going to be a different influence that says, "Hey, let's use these tools. We're months away from FY26, starts on October 1st. Let's build this vision for the future. Let's work with the majority in both chambers to make it happen." I can tell you in my town halls back home and I do a town hall in every county every year, most of my counties are very red so it's a wide diversity of opinion is brought to bear. There is extreme concern that the very foundations on which this country operates, respect for the law and respect for the Constitution are in deep trouble. Today I want to find out if you're going to be part of that trouble or you're going to be part of restoring the vision of the foundation of law and the Constitution. There'll also be questions today, I'm sure from members regarding your specific viewpoints, that's normal in a hearing, to understand better the talents and qualifications that you bring to the post. Look forward to that conversation.

Mr. Graham (10:43):

Thank you. So it's my pleasure to introduce the nominee Dan Bishop, who I've known for a long time. I think you're an excellent choice. You and Mr. Vought vote will be a good team. He's currently a senior advisor at OMB, he was the North Carolina Attorney General Campaign in 2024, so he knows what it's like to campaign throughout a big state. House of Representatives from 2019 to '25, he's on the Judiciary Homeland Security Committee and now North Carolina State Senate, North Carolina State House, County Commissioner, went to UNC, nobody's perfect. So I just think you're the right guy at the right time and welcome to the committee, Senator Budd.

Mr. Budd (11:31):

Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Ranking Member. I'm proud to introduce my friend, Dan Bishop, who I've known quite a long time. It's good to see his wife, Jo, here and a lot of other great North Carolinians, almost South Carolinians, if you will, Chairman. So, long before I was ever in Congress when Amy Kate and I lived in Charlotte, North Carolina, everyone would tell me if you want to know a great leader, if you want to get to know a great leader, get to know County Commissioner Dan Bishop. So I was in my 20s at that point and I was just getting started in business, I think I was a little too shy or a little too nervous to even give him a call because after all, Mecklenburg was a really big county.

(12:06)
So I've got no doubt that Dan will bring the same tenacity of the job at OMB that he's shown throughout his career, both as a litigator and his time serving the people of North Carolina Public Office through his role in the US Congress. So Dan, best of luck and Godspeed. When I introduced Dan, this has two hearings and when I introduced Dan at the Homeland Security Conference that I ended with, "Y'all be nice." Well, I say that again, I want to leave the budget committee with this. If we're serious about shrinking our national debt and deficit, Dan is the man for the job of Deputy OMB Director. Dan, good luck and thank you.

Mr. Graham (12:49):

Thank you, Senator Budd. Would you please stand. Raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear the testimony you're about to give for the budget committee is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. Bishop (13:01):

I do.

Mr. Graham (13:04):

Thank you. All right, the floor is yours.

Mr. Bishop (13:08):

Thank you, Chairman Graham, Ranking Member Merkley and members of the committee for this hearing. Thank you also to my dear friend, Ted Budd, I think he was rubbing it in how much younger he is than me, but I want to thank him for his kind words of introduction at both hearings. Our friendship is a great personal privilege for me and the people of North Carolina should know, they do know that they have a great champion in Ted Budd. After five years in the House of Representatives where I had the pleasure of working with several of you, I now find myself facing you on the other side of the dais. If I am confirmed, it would be an honor to work with you once again to serve our nation in a new capacity to implement President Trump's vision and agenda. I want to thank my wife, Jo.

(13:54)
She's also my partner in life in every respect, and my son Jack, who's working hard in law school today for their endless strength and support over my entire career, including this nomination process. Thanks also to my former congressional office staff who've come to show their support at these hearings as my dear friends. And of course, I want to thank Director Vought for his support and for his extraordinary gesture of attending today. I was thrilled to see Director Vought confirmed and I can assure you that he is the man to get management of the federal government back on track. If confirmed, I look forward to serving as his deputy. It's a tremendous honor to be nominated by President Trump to serve as the deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget, unknown by name to many, it impacts every American household through crafting the president's budget, managing the federal government, reforming regulation, and much more.

(14:54)
It's a critical part of ensuring that the government reflects the will of our democratically elected president in order to respond to the will of the American people. That's who government is for, not entrenched Washington interests and the political establishment. Something I always noticed when I was in Congress, when I was out meeting folks in North Carolina is that the American people are way ahead of us in Washington. They know what is going on. They're smart, resourceful, resilient, and hard-working. They want accountability, transparency, and an end to the waste and the Washington status quo. They recognized in this past the election that our nation was at a crossroads, on the precipice of either renewed greatness or ruin. In that precarious moment, they placed their confidence in President Donald Trump to usher in a new golden age for America. I'm here on behalf of that mission and the trust placed in President Trump by the people.

(16:02)
Our children and grandchildren are being crushed. Their futures are being crushed under the massive burden of an out-of-control federal debt. For too long, we've been spending money we don't have on things we don't need. Our government has been self-absorbed, inefficient, unaccountable, and mal-administered. The good news is that we can fix all of those things and if confirmed, I will be laser-focused on doing so at the side of Director Russ Vought and the superb public servants at OMB. It's finally time for a government accountable to the people, I fought to deliver that my entire public service career from County Commission as Ted mentioned, to state legislature, to Congress, and it will continue to be my North star. Whether elected or appointed, we must never forget the right of the people to decide. I know that I will never forget it. Thank you for considering my nomination. I look forward to your questions.

Mr. Graham (17:05):

Thank you very much. I'll start off here. DOGE, do you believe that's a good exercise in terms of trying to find out what makes sense in terms of spending and what doesn't?

Mr. Bishop (17:18):

I think it's an absolutely outstanding effort, Senator, and I think the president's made it clear that's what he wanted to do, Elon Musk's contribution to the effort, it is changing the status quo.

Mr. Graham (17:31):

I agree, and let me tell you why, somebody should have done it a long time ago. What percentage of the federal budget is entitlements plus interest?

Mr. Bishop (17:43):

I can't give you the exact percentage. When you get the interest added on, which now exceeds the defense budget, we're talking well over 50% of the federal budget.

Mr. Graham (17:52):

Yes, I think it's north of 75, but Ron would know that.

Mr. Bishop (17:55):

Right.

Mr. Graham (17:56):

I think it's like 78.

Mr. Bishop (17:58):

Right.

Mr. Graham (17:58):

The way I've always approached this, you're never going to get people to work together to reform entitlements until you first go through the budget and get waste and stupid stuff out. Do you agree with that?

Mr. Bishop (18:10):

I totally agree, Senator.

Mr. Graham (18:11):

Well, that's going on and I applaud that. The list of things that the president read last night was pretty funny and at the same time, obscene, what your money's being spent on, right?

Mr. Bishop (18:22):

Right.

Mr. Graham (18:23):

So I applaud all that, but there are some things in the process of finding out what works and what doesn't, let's don't kill the things that are absolutely necessary. The president wants 5% of GD on defense, that's what he says. Does that make sense to you?

Mr. Bishop (18:40):

Well, Senator, if the president says it…

Mr. Graham (18:43):

Well, that's what he said, yeah. I'm not trying to pitch against him. I'd like that too, let's see if we can get there. He wants to balance the budget, I know I do too. So about 25% of the budget is non-entitlements, non-interest, and let's give it a once-over, defense is in that, eliminating the Department of Education, fine with me, all that good stuff. But there are 83 girls in Oman that we got out of Afghanistan that we're supporting, that the money runs out in the middle of March. Do you think it's in our interest to make sure they don't have to go back to Afghanistan?

Mr. Bishop (19:21):

Well, Senator, I think I'd have to know the rest of the details, you made reference to it in your opening comments. I'm not familiar with the story you're talking about. Undoubtedly, when you make change, you're going to see some things that are dislocated and they may have to be put back.

Mr. Graham (19:33):

Well, I want to talk to you about that because doesn't advance the ball at all. Are you familiar with PEPFAR?

Mr. Bishop (19:39):

I am.

Mr. Graham (19:40):

A few things, generally been a good program.

Mr. Bishop (19:42):

As a general proposition, absolutely. I've heard some news about PEPFAR in the last couple of days and the things from which PEPFAR money is going that were stunning to me, if true.

Mr. Graham (19:52):

Yeah.

Mr. Bishop (19:52):

So I think even that, every program no matter how valuable ought to be looked at very carefully.

Mr. Graham (19:56):

100%, yeah. I'm a big fan of PEPFAR, the concept of helping people not pass AIDS on to unborn children and all that good stuff, but it could be looked at too. Mother-child AIDS transmission's gone down by like 70% in the last 20 years. All that's good stuff, but everything should be looked at. So count me in for that, including the defense department. I hope the DOGE people will give the defense department a good once over. Does that make sense to you?

Mr. Bishop (20:27):

It does, Senator, very much.

Mr. Graham (20:29):

Now here's the problem I've got. I support what you're doing, but I've talked to Secretary Rubio a bunch about programs that are now very much in limbo or have actually been shut down that I don't think most Americans would want that to happen. And he's granted waivers, he has a waiver authority. You familiar with that?

Mr. Bishop (20:51):

I am, Senator.

Mr. Graham (20:52):

When he grants a waiver, the money doesn't flow. Do you know what causes that?

Mr. Bishop (20:58):

I do not, Mr. Chairman, obviously…

Mr. Graham (21:01):

Well, I don't either. I'm not blaming you. Can we, me and you and Mr. Vought get together and try to figure out, the only way this works, you're not going to get the American people to do what Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill did, which is save Social Security by making some common sense adjustments until they have confidence you have really cleaned the underbrush of the government out. And the process of doing that, all things are not the same. Does that make sense to you?

Mr. Bishop (21:28):

It does.

Mr. Graham (21:29):

So if you go too far, you're going to lose trust in terms of actually cleaning up the place. So this is a historic moment, what's happening should have happened a long time ago and let's get it right to the point that we can, if we have to adjust because we overshot the runway, do it. If you do, need to go around, let's get this right. I really do believe you and Mr. Vought are the right two to be able to convey to the Congress and to the president what works and what doesn't. Most people don't know about this job you two have, but it's one of the most important jobs in town. Good luck.

Mr. Bishop (22:08):

Well, thank you, Senator.

Mr. Graham (22:14):

All you.

Mr. Merkley (22:15):

Thank you very, very much, Mr. Chairman. A key point of conversation has been the Impoundment Control Act and back when Nixon decided to start impounding funds, two things happened. One is there were appeals to the courts, which eventually made it to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court reinforced that in a separation of powers embodied in our constitution, Congress makes the law, the executive has to follow the law and that means to spend the money in the way that Congress has laid out. The second thing is that Congress said, "But you know what? We should create a fast track for a president to undo or propose undoing spending that the president considers inappropriate called a rescission." That rescission power was used in the early years after the 1974 budget and Impoundment Control Act, but not used much since. And you have a law degree, you practice law, correct?

Mr. Bishop (23:14):

That's correct.

Mr. Merkley (23:15):

You have a fundamental education in the understanding of the US Constitution, do you not?

Mr. Bishop (23:19):

I do.

Mr. Merkley (23:20):

Do you understand the importance of law being applied as written?

Mr. Bishop (23:24):

Certainly.

Mr. Merkley (23:25):

And so how do you feel about this situation in which funds are being impounded currently, which the Supreme Court has said is unconstitutional?

Mr. Bishop (23:36):

Senator, President Trump ran on impoundment. I've heard Director Vought in his hearing speak about impoundment. I've studied the issue, but I am seeking a position, seeking to be confirmed to a position that is not a lawyer position. I won't be making the legal determinations for OMB or for the administration. In terms of the legal positions that it decides to take, I am persuaded though that there was history in the United States before the 1974 Impoundment Control Act, former Senator Harry Truman as President of the United States, impounded funds to prevent the funding of a squadron of strategic aircraft. Ulysses S. Grant exercised impoundment power, Thomas Jefferson exercised impoundment power. And I think Senator, when you dig in, it's a compelling argument that there is power in the executive in the nature of impoundment. Exactly what its contours are, I don't know. I won't be deciding those things, but I support the president's plan to use impoundment to get federal government spending in line.

Mr. Merkley (24:43):

Well, sitting behind you is your future boss, who very much advocates that he doesn't care what the Supreme Court decided before because he disagrees and he thinks the president disagrees. He was very honest and upfront about that. But in our system of government, we don't get to decide the constitutional issue and say individually, "We disagree with the Supreme Court." Now, if the Supreme Court now re-litigates this and comes to a different conclusion, then there would be the additional powers granted by the court. And I understand that that's the plan. But at this point, every consideration has been that this is illegal and unconstitutional.

(25:28)
And I'm sorry to hear that with your training in the law, you're inclined to simply say, "Well, President ran on it." You didn't give a lot of speeches about impoundment, by the way. And he didn't give a lot of speeches about the plan to cut $2 trillion from fundamental programs for families to give $2 trillion in tax giveaways to the richest Americans and he didn't talk about it last night either. But when there's a fundamental question of law and you, as a trained lawyer say, "Well, I'll just follow whatever the president says", that concerns me because we need to have people of integrity who are willing to follow the law in key positions like this. Are you going to be a person with integrity to follow the law?

Mr. Bishop (26:10):

Senator, you've put words in my mouth that I did not say, and you've put words in Director Vought's mouth that he did not say, with respect. And I certainly am a person of integrity, but it is not a question of not following the Supreme Court. For example, you say the Supreme Court has decided the constitutional questions of the Impoundment Control Act, that's just misinformed.

Mr. Merkley (26:33):

Oh, really?

Mr. Bishop (26:34):

That's correct.

Mr. Merkley (26:34):

Why don't you inform us all on how, given that they made that decision…

Mr. Bishop (26:39):

Well, they didn't, sir. Train versus New York and does not consider Impoundment Control Act and it does not consider the president's power of impound. Neither one.

Mr. Merkley (26:47):

Well, we'll continue that conversation because others disagree with you. I'm not a lawyer myself, so I will take this under advisement, but that's certainly my understanding from other legal scholars that this has been well adjudicated. I am concerned also about your flip-flopping. You proceeded to say in a letter back in 2021 when you were concerned about whether or not President Biden was proceeding to not execute the law exactly as written. You said "This action is an abuse of the executive branch's authorities and appears in violation of the Impoundment Control Act of 1974." Here you are, a champion of the Impoundment Control Act back in 2021 and now you're saying you're not so sure, you just want to follow the president and the president doesn't believe that he needs to follow it. I'm a little concerned about that flip-flopping. Can you explain why your opinion has changed so dramatically in just a couple of years?

Mr. Bishop (27:52):

Well, first, it hasn't changed that dramatically. In that instance, what was being discussed was President Biden's three- year by then refusal to spend money that the Congress had appropriated for border wall construction. GSA had earlier said at an earlier point that his suspending funding for programmatic review was not in violation of the Impoundment Control Act, by the way. And so it is something that had continued almost in the entire administration at that point in time. And furthermore, as I said, Senator, I've spent time studying Train versus New York that you made reference to. I've spent time studying the history of impoundment and the presidents who've used it and the circumstances, and I'm disinclined to believe that the Congress could fundamentally alter the balance of authority between the executive and the Congress when they decided to pass the statute in 1974.

Mr. Merkley (28:47):

My time is up, but I'll just say you were very firm in attacking President Biden for impoundment. Now you're very firm in granting license to impoundment. That seems like a massive flip-flop to me.

Mr. Graham (00:00):

Mr. Graham (29:01):

I don't tend to be a legal scholar, but if you look at the case, it really doesn't address the issue of the scope of the Impoundment Act. You're right about that in my view. I think the court will take that up, and it'll probably be good for the country.

Speaker 1 (29:16):

Senator Johnson.

Mr. Graham (29:17):

Okay, Senator Johnson.

Senator Ron Johnson (29:17):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Vought, Mr. Bishop, welcome back to the committee. I look forward to working with you closely in your important role. I didn't want to disappoint anybody, so I thought I'd bring at least one chart.

Mr. Bishop (29:29):

You have some famous charts, Senator, so I'm-

Senator Ron Johnson (29:31):

This is, again, not a surprise. You realize I've proposed a number of pre-pandemic levels of spending. They've all been prepared the exact same way. I've taken actual total outlays from 1998 under Clinton, 2014 under President Obama, and then 2019 under President Trump. I've exempted Social Security and Medicare, I've used 2025 numbers for those and interest, but all other spending, I've increased the total outlays by population growth and inflation.

(30:04)
So these are three options ranging from 5.5 trillion up to 6.5 trillion. It's interesting if President Trump or President Biden projected revenue for 2025 at 5.5 trillion, if we'd used the Clinton baseline, we'd have a balanced budget, so it's within our grasp if we know how to do it. And that's what I want to really talk about.

(30:28)
Yesterday, at Senate lunch with the Republicans, I just asked a question, did any of our colleagues think that in 2019, we spent too little? Nobody did. And anybody think it wouldn't be a reasonable control to take that spending level, increase by population and inflation and put that as a baseline? Nobody disagreed. Then I pointed out this year, we'll spend 7.3 trillion. That baseline is 6.5. That's an almost trillion-dollar delta. $800 billion. So how do you get there?

(31:02)
A couple dozen of us, Republican senators, met with Elon Musk last week, and I thought what was noteworthy is he was talking to me. We're not talking about two or three big items. We're talking about thousands and thousands of contracts, a few million dollars, just unbelievably wasteful and abusive of the taxpayer money or the borrowed money that's a mortgage on our children's future. President Trump had some great examples, some embarrassing, some outrageous examples last night.

(31:32)
So I handed you a variant sheet, 17 pages comparing that baseline to project 25 by function and sub-function. I've also got hundreds of pages of five to six thousand line items of every outlay, again, plussed up for population growth and inflation, compared to about 2025 within the variance.

(31:58)
And that's what I'm trying to get across to my colleagues who've never been in business the way the private sector would do this. Line by line, asking the manager to come and say, "We never gave you the permission to increase your budget beyond the number of people we're working with or inflation. Explain yourself." And then basically demand reduce spending to that control.

(32:24)
How do we do this? Is that the right approach? Because what's happening in the house right now, they're starting at 7. 3 trillion, they're looking into a couple big programs, they're get attacked, so they say, "We can't cut that. Can't cut that. Can't cut that," as opposed to start from a baseline that everybody on our side thinks more than reasonable.

(32:44)
I don't think we should be looking at anything over 6.5. I'd be starting at 5.5 and probably plussing up for defense. But isn't that the way we need to do this, line by line, the way the private sector would approach outrageous overspending? Mr. Bishop?

Mr. Bishop (33:00):

Well, Senator, I would say a couple of things. I've heard you speak of this topic and lay this out in this very persuasive way in a number of different forums, as you know, public ones and private ones. And first, I would say, I think the conversation, the point that you are making absolutely should be at the forefront of the discussion at all times, and I'm grateful to you for making it so. I have seen that.

(33:27)
I think most Americans would wonder why the massive growth in the federal government spending at COVID, at that event, why would that be completely irreversible? Why would we now be on a permanent track at a higher percentage of GDP as expenditures in federal government than ever in the history of the country? It's untenable. And you can look at those numbers and you can see that the debt is already out of control and it's going in the wrong direction so fast, it ought to frighten everyone, so your point's well taken.

(33:58)
I would say also that of course in my role as deputy director, I spent a lot of time in Congress articulating my own views, but now I am working on behalf of the President to implement his policies, and there are a lot of things that are competing for attention. But I think that one, you make the greatest points of anyone I think in Congress about consistently focusing on this issue and making sure this point is in the conversation.

(34:23)
And it certainly has an impact on me, I know it does on Director Vought, and we'll continue to look forward to working with you to see how we can bring the logical conclusion to reality.

Senator Ron Johnson (34:32):

So Mr. Chairman, one more point is one thing, and we have to figure out how do we implement the DOGE exposures? There may be room for impoundment, but in general, we're going to have to codify that, and it's going to be line by line.

(34:45)
So again, I want to work with you and the administration to literally go line by line and build this thing up as opposed to suffering death by 1000 cuts, starting at a grotesquely unreasonable spending level of $7.3 trillion, so-

Mr. Bishop (35:01):

I look forward to join in the endeavor. Thank you, Senator.

Senator Ron Johnson (35:02):

Thank you.

Mr. Graham (35:04):

Senator Merkley, he actually had that one right, I thought. Do a rescission bill. Senator Lee.

Senator Mike Lee (35:12):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Bishop, it's great to see you. I'm so glad that you're willing to stand for this nomination and be considered for confirmation.

Mr. Bishop (35:21):

Thank you, Senator.

Senator Mike Lee (35:22):

As you know, the administrative state has been crushing the American people for some time. This is often perceived as a soft exercise of power, but the way it's experienced by the American people is anything but soft.

(35:37)
In 2024 alone, our administrative agencies promulgated enough regulations that together, they produced a combined net economic impact of about $1.5 trillion. So you add that to where the federal regulations promulgated prior to 2024 stood, which estimates very wildly, but a lot of people have estimated those regulations in effect previous to that time as being somewhere in the range of maybe 2.5 to 3 trillion dollars. We're now looking at a federal regulatory system that imposes costs that more or less rival that which we spend on federal income tax as an entire country.

(36:23)
These are laws made by men and women who as well-educated, well-intentioned, and hardworking and highly trained as they might be, don't work for the American people. They're lawmakers who are never elected.

(36:34)
Now, my copy of the Constitution, in Article 1, Section 1, and then in Article 1, Section 7 makes clear you cannot make a federal law unless you follow the formula, and the formula goes something like this. You got to pass the bill in the house and you got to pass it in the Senate. Most of the time, it doesn't matter what order unless you're dealing with a revenue bill, but you got to pass the same text in both houses and then present it to the President who may sign it, veto it, or acquiesce to it. At the conclusion of that process, the legislative bill has been rung, then and only then may you make a new federal law or change an existing federal law.

(37:05)
But the means by which Congress has since the late 1930s been deferring, been delegating this lawmaking power has completely reversed the equation, such that the American people are now subject to this Byzantine labyrinth of federal regulations. And it brings to fulfillment a warning made by James Madison in Federalist 62 who said, in effect, "It'll be of little avail to the American people that their laws may be written by men of their own choosing if those laws be so voluminous, complex, and ever-changing that they can't be read and understood, anticipated from one day to the next as to what the law actually requires."

(37:41)
Only it's much worse than James Madison's warning because it's not just that they're ever-changing, voluminous, and complex such that you can't know what's happening. They're not even written by men and women of our own choosing.

(37:53)
Now, in my view, this calls out for aggressive reforms, including but not limited to, but definitely including the REINS Act, Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny. The REINS Act would require essentially what Article 1, Section 7 already compels us to do, which is before you create a new affirmative legal obligation applicable to the public, enforceable on the public, at the risk of losing life, liberty, or property for failure to comply, that you've got to run these through the legislative formula prescribed by Article 1, Section 7.

(38:26)
Mr. Bishop, I'd like to know your views on the REINS Act and how the White House and Congress can work together on regulatory reform more broadly?

Mr. Bishop (38:37):

Thank you, Senator, for the question. And I will say that anybody who hadn't had the experience needs to come to sit with you in your office where you see that massive, I guess they call it a bookshelf, filled floor to top with paper that represents the regulatory output last year and then see what Congress passed as a small stack on top.

(38:57)
And I'm not sure I've ever seen anything that, and in fact, it took me by surprise when I met with you, that it well-captures how out of control the regulatory state's massive output of law is. And yet those were regulations. I mean, on top of that, you got guidance and unofficial statements that get out on the websites, all of which can be the source of enforcement by those self-same agencies in which they make the law. They act as the judge and jury also for everybody out in the society. I guess I'd say a couple of things, Senator. President Trump has, as you know, his own plans to reform the regulatory state. He's talked about the take 10 regulations down for everyone that comes along. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OIRA at OMB, will be at the heart of that effort, and I look forward to participating very much in that.

(39:54)
As a member of Congress, I was very much in support of the REINS Act. In fact, we tried to do something similar in North Carolina. We did have a great regulatory reform agenda that was very successful in North Carolina, so I know it can be done. I think REINS has great merit, but of course what the President's priorities are, are where I'll focus as deputy director of OMB.

Senator Mike Lee (40:18):

I appreciate that, Mr. Bishop, but I see my time's expired. I'll add here just that I too cheered last night when President Trump talked about one in, 10 out. That's fantastic. That buys us food for a day or at least four years.

(40:32)
In order to have a sustainable supply of liberty, we need legislative reform, permanent structural reform, and in my view, the best way to make that happen, maybe the only way to make it happen, is to attach it to a must-pass vehicle. I think the most fitting pairing would probably be a debt ceiling bill.

(40:52)
I believe Congress should not enact legislation suspending or increasing the debt ceiling without attaching the REINS Act, and I hope that you and the White House will support that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Bishop (41:04):

Thank you, Senator.

Senator Mike Lee (41:05):

Senator Van Hollen.

Senator Chris Van Hollen (41:06):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Bishop, and it's good to see you. As you know, we only get five minutes, so if you could try to keep your answers short, I'm just going to ask some direct questions.

(41:17)
The first one is, do you commit if you're confirmed for this position to comply with any court orders directed toward the jurisdiction of the Office of Management and Budget?

Mr. Bishop (41:30):

Yes, Senator.

Senator Chris Van Hollen (41:31):

Good. So now let me talk briefly about what Senator Merkley discussed, which is the Impoundment Control Act. I think he referenced the letter you earlier signed to GAO asking whether or not the Biden administration had violated the Impoundment Control Act. You remember that letter, right?

Mr. Bishop (41:47):

I do.

Senator Chris Van Hollen (41:48):

And at that time, you agreed that the Impoundment Control Act was good law. Am I right about that?

Mr. Bishop (41:55):

Well, Senator, my views are more informed now than they were then, but-

Senator Chris Van Hollen (41:59):

At that time-

Mr. Bishop (42:00):

… I didn't draft the letter either, but I signed a letter to that effect-

Senator Chris Van Hollen (42:03):

That's right.

Mr. Bishop (42:03):

… that opposed-

Senator Chris Van Hollen (42:03):

And obviously, the assumption behind that letter was at that time, you believe that was good law?

Mr. Bishop (42:09):

It was a lay opinion, Senator. That's right.

Senator Chris Van Hollen (42:12):

All right. So you've changed your opinion since then, is that right?

Mr. Bishop (42:14):

Well, I've studied it more than I-

Senator Chris Van Hollen (42:16):

All right. So it is the law of the land. I mean, you signed that letter to GAO making that clear. Do you agree that until it's overturned by a court, that you will comply with the Impoundment Control Act if confirmed?

Mr. Bishop (42:31):

Well, Senator, the determinations about how the administration will proceed in a legal strategy or the determinations being made by others than me, I'm not a lawyer. I'm not a lawyer in the administration or to be a lawyer in the administration.

(42:45)
The general counsel's office at OMB makes those determinations, director vote will make decisions in light of their determinations, and there's also a process across the administration.

Senator Chris Van Hollen (42:52):

I would suggest, Mr. Bishop, that you were right when you signed that letter a number of years ago. And to the chairman's comments, I would just point out, if you tear up the Impoundment Control Act, you might as well tear up Article 1, and we might as well pack up when it comes to using the power of the purse. So let me-

Mr. Graham (43:10):

If I may, I don't mean to-

Senator Chris Van Hollen (43:12):

As long as that doesn't come out of my time.

Mr. Graham (43:13):

Oh, yeah. It will not count against you. Take all the time. Biden said the Impoundment Control Act did not require him to build the wall. Do you agree with that?

Senator Chris Van Hollen (43:24):

I believe the GAO looked at that allegation-

Mr. Graham (43:27):

Well, the point is-

Senator Chris Van Hollen (43:29):

No, no, no. GAO is the body that we entrust to make these determinations.

Mr. Graham (43:34):

Well, I mean, okay. But he said the Impoundment Control Act did not require him to build a wall when Congress told him to do it.

Senator Chris Van Hollen (43:43):

Well, GAO found that that was not an illegal impoundment-

Mr. Graham (43:45):

GAO is not the court here.

Senator Chris Van Hollen (43:48):

Well, GAO is the body that we as Congress have. Well, they are. You get-

Mr. Graham (43:53):

No, they're not. You get two extra minutes.

Senator Chris Van Hollen (43:55):

Actually, they are. If you look at the law, they're the ones that are entrusted in bringing actions to comply with the Impoundment Control Act. Is that right, Mr. Bishop?

Mr. Bishop (44:03):

No, sir. The GAO is an instrument of Congress, so it might set an opinion that binds Congress, but it's not a court.

Senator Chris Van Hollen (44:11):

No, no. But anyway, that's who we empower to bring cases on behalf of Congress with respect to compliance with the Impoundment Control Act. Let me turn to the issue of the firing of probationary employees. You're familiar with the fact that a California federal district court issued a ruling related to this, right?

Mr. Bishop (44:31):

Actually, Senator, there are a lot of stories about a lot of things. I don't know if I've got that one crystal clear in my mind, but yeah. I'm aware there's-

Senator Chris Van Hollen (44:38):

So they just issued a ruling that directly relates to this, and the Merit Systems Protection Board also ruled in favor of six representative federal employees who'd been fired who had been on probationary status. Are you familiar with that?

Mr. Bishop (44:51):

I heard about that. Yes, sir.

Senator Chris Van Hollen (44:52):

All right. And so it's interesting because just yesterday, I believe a spokesperson for OPM said that, quote, "This change was hoped to provide clarity in light of a recent court order." And the change was that the administration conceded that OPM cannot fire people who are probationary employees. Are you familiar with that?

Mr. Bishop (45:15):

No, I am not, actually, Senator.

Senator Chris Van Hollen (45:16):

So these employees were getting these notices from OPM, and some of Elon Musk's folks did inform them that they were being fired. That is not allowable. It has to be done by the agencies. And so I see that OPM had to clean that up, and they claimed it was because of some public misinformation, but there's no public misinformation when somebody gets a directive from OPM.

(45:44)
You are familiar with the standard, and I think you outline it here in this memo, that it's always been up to agencies whether to take performance-based actions against probationary employees. So you agree that it has to be a performance-based reason to fire somebody who's on probationary status. Is that right?

Mr. Bishop (46:02):

Sorry, Senator. I'm trying to remember what memo you're referring to. This it something that I wrote?

Senator Chris Van Hollen (46:05):

No, but this is something that came out of OPM that directly relates to the administration's actions.

Mr. Bishop (46:12):

Well, I'm not in command of everything that OPM has issued, and not even in the same agency obviously, and I'm just a senior advisor.

Senator Chris Van Hollen (46:19):

Well, OMB is sort of the cockpit for the entire federal budget, but let me ask you this. Do you know what the standard is for firing somebody based on who's on probationary status?

Mr. Bishop (46:31):

I do not. I certainly don't profess, for example, to be an expert, a legal expert, on that subject. And a lot of people sort of think, if you're a lawyer, you should know all of the law. I have not been an expert in federal personnel. I'm generally aware of the existence of Title V and so forth, that we're in the-

Senator Chris Van Hollen (46:46):

Well, the bottom line is courts are finding that these were illegal actions taken by the Musk operation, and so I appreciate your answer to my very first question, that if confirmed, you will agree to comply with court orders. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Bishop (47:00):

Yes, Senator.

Mr. Graham (47:01):

Thank you. Have a minute if you want it.

Senator Chris Van Hollen (47:04):

Well-

Senator John Kennedy (47:05):

I'll take it.

Senator Chris Van Hollen (47:05):

Huh? That's all right. I may come back, but thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Bishop (47:12):

Thank you, sir.

Mr. Graham (47:12):

Senator Kennedy.

Senator John Kennedy (47:15):

Congressman, when moms and dads lie down asleep at night and can't, one of the things they're worried about is cost of living, high prices. Isn't that true?

Mr. Bishop (47:29):

Absolutely certainly true.

Senator John Kennedy (47:31):

And those high prices were caused by inflation?

Mr. Bishop (47:33):

Yes, Senator.

Senator John Kennedy (47:34):

Is that right?

Mr. Bishop (47:34):

That's right.

Senator John Kennedy (47:36):

And inflation has come down. That's a good thing, right?

Mr. Bishop (47:40):

It is a good thing, Senator.

Senator John Kennedy (47:42):

But that just means when inflation has gone from 10% to 3%, that prices are rising less quickly. They're still rising, aren't they?

Mr. Bishop (47:50):

Yes. Senator.

Senator John Kennedy (47:51):

That's called disinflation?

Mr. Bishop (47:53):

If they fall, that'd be disinflation. Yes, sir.

Senator John Kennedy (47:56):

No. If the rate of inflation comes down, that's disinflation.

Mr. Bishop (48:00):

Oh, I beg your pardon. Okay.

Senator John Kennedy (48:01):

Well, if prices come down, that's deflation.

Mr. Bishop (48:04):

Yeah.

Senator John Kennedy (48:05):

Now, most Americans, they don't read Aristotle every day. They're too busy earning a living. They don't know the difference between deflation and disinflation, but they sure as hell understand that the high prices have remained, don't they?

Mr. Bishop (48:20):

Yes, Senator.

Senator John Kennedy (48:25):

We've got a lot of work to do around here-

Mr. Bishop (48:28):

Yes, sir.

Senator John Kennedy (48:28):

… and we need four years to do it, and we need a cooperative house and Senate to do it.

Mr. Bishop (48:34):

I agree, Senator.

Senator John Kennedy (48:35):

If we don't get these high prices down, we're not going to have four years. We're going to have a divided Congress. You can write that one down and take it home to mama.

Mr. Bishop (48:45):

Yes, sir.

Senator John Kennedy (48:48):

This election was about the economy, and people are still worried about these high prices. Now, one way to get these high prices down, to reduce prices, would be to reduce the amount of federal spending. Isn't that true?

Mr. Bishop (49:04):

I think so, Senator.

Senator John Kennedy (49:06):

Because that's how we got here was with the massive amount of federal spending that President Biden perfected. So if we can reduce the federal budget, we can reduce prices?

Mr. Bishop (49:21):

Yes, Senator.

Senator John Kennedy (49:22):

That's one thing you and Mr. Vought can do. Number two, if we deregulate, that'll reduce prices, won't it?

Mr. Bishop (49:31):

It will, Senator.

Senator John Kennedy (49:33):

Why is that?

Mr. Bishop (49:34):

Because producers of goods and services in the economy face less costs, particularly less costs that wastes money because they're not really accomplishing anything. They're just sort of chasing the regulatory wheel-

Senator John Kennedy (49:48):

Well, hell yeah. Regulations cost the American business community $2 trillion a year. If we can cut that in half, they can pass and will pass the savings onto the American people.

Mr. Bishop (50:01):

Yes, sir.

Senator John Kennedy (50:01):

Now, the third way we can get these high prices down, is it not, is to grow out of them?

Mr. Bishop (50:08):

Agreed.

Senator John Kennedy (50:08):

To stimulate the economy?

Mr. Bishop (50:10):

Certainly the President intends to do that, Senator.

Senator John Kennedy (50:12):

To raise wages?

Mr. Bishop (50:13):

Yes. Real wage gains.

Senator John Kennedy (50:16):

So this idea that we have to go into a recession in order to have deflation, it's not really true, is it?

Mr. Bishop (50:24):

Not at all.

Senator John Kennedy (50:25):

If we cut spending, if we deregulate the economy, if we stimulate the economy in a way that helps real people, small businesses and large businesses, but mostly real people to increase their wages, we can deal with these high prices, can't we?

Mr. Bishop (50:45):

That's exactly right.

Senator John Kennedy (50:47):

Well, that's what I hope you gentlemen will do.

Mr. Bishop (50:50):

Well, we'll need help in Congress.

Senator John Kennedy (50:53):

I haven't heard enough about deregulation. I mean, I know these other issues that we're talking about are important, but that's the surest way.

Mr. Bishop (51:06):

I can assure you, Senator, that-

Senator John Kennedy (51:07):

In the short term, while we're working on a reconciliation bill, the surest way is to deregulate and reduce the spending.

Mr. Bishop (51:15):

I can assure you that that is a focus that Director Vought is focused on a laser, and the effort's getting ready to get underway.

Senator John Kennedy (51:23):

Yeah. Now, another question quickly. Do you think we ought to be sending government checks to dead people?

Mr. Bishop (51:31):

No, Senator. I think that's poor management.

Senator John Kennedy (51:34):

During the pandemic, we sent out $1.4 billion of checks to dead people, didn't we?

Mr. Bishop (51:41):

I don't have the figure, Senator, but I wouldn't be surprised by that, given everything that-

Senator John Kennedy (51:44):

And they were cashed, weren't they?

Mr. Bishop (51:46):

They generally get cashed whether they're dead or not.

Senator John Kennedy (51:48):

What does that tell you?

Mr. Bishop (51:50):

Somebody's alive.

Senator John Kennedy (51:52):

Yep. Now, Senator Carper and I passed a bill. It took us two years to try to stop that. When you die, the state sends your name to the Social Security Administration. Your name goes on what's called the Death Master File.

Mr. Bishop (52:11):

Yes, sir.

Senator John Kennedy (52:12):

I went to Social Security and I said, "Can I see the list?" They said, "Sure." I said, "Who do you share this with?" They said, "Nobody. We can't. We don't have statutory authority." I said, "You don't share it with the do-not-pay folks at Treasury?" They said, "Nope, it's against the law."

(52:31)
Well, rather than argue with them, Senator Carper and I passed a bill. But believe it or not, to say, "Social Security, share the dead people list with the rest of government for God's sakes. Put down the bong and share it with them." And believe it or not, we had opposition.

(52:51)
So we had to agree to a three-year trial period. That three-year trial, we saved a bunch of money. That three-year trial period is up at the end of 2026. I've got another bill with Gary Peters to extend it, to make it permanent. You guys got any problem with that?

Mr. Bishop (53:11):

Well, Senator, I cannot speak for the President or for Director Vought, but-

Senator John Kennedy (53:16):

Oh, go ahead.

Mr. Bishop (53:17):

… it's hard for me to imagine who would be opposed.

Senator John Kennedy (53:20):

Well, you'd be surprised.

Mr. Bishop (53:21):

No, sir. I wouldn't be surprised as it turns out, but I still can't imagine who would be opposed.

Senator John Kennedy (53:27):

Okay. You going to follow the law?

Mr. Bishop (53:29):

Absolutely. Absolutely.

Senator John Kennedy (53:33):

You going to defy court orders?

Mr. Bishop (53:34):

No, sir.

Senator John Kennedy (53:36):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Bishop (53:38):

Thank you, Senator.

Mr. Graham (53:39):

Dead people have a very good lobby, apparently. So, Senator Murray.

Senator Patty Murray (53:44):

Well, thank you. Thank you very much, Congressman Bishop, I just want to be really clear upfront. You might not like it, but our appropriation bills are not optional. They are actually law. You were just asked if you'd follow the law, appropriation bills are law, and I expect you and the entire administration to allocate funding as Congress intended by law. This is not a theoretical issue. If Congress passes a law that specifies that a hospital in Seattle should receive some amount of federal funding, I expect that hospital to receive every penny.

(54:18)
In this system of government, under the American Constitution, Elon Musk, President Trump can't pick winners and losers. They don't get to pick which laws they follow or what hospitals or schools get funded. They can write a budget, they can lobby all of us for it, I expect them to do it, but they cannot overrule the entire democratically elected Congress and use the American people's taxpayer dollars as a giant slush fund.

(54:44)
Congressman, at a hearing last week, you refused to say that you'd follow that law no matter what illegal directives you're given. As a former preschool teacher, I like to keep things simple. Congress legislates, we write the bills, allocate the funding. After the President signs the bills, he faithfully executes.

(55:03)
So just let me give you another opportunity to say you will follow the law. Appropriations bills are passed. Will you follow the law and use the funds as directed?

Mr. Bishop (55:14):

Senator, thank you for the question. I've said in response to several senators here today that President Trump's run on impoundment, Director Vought's expressed his view that impoundment is within the power of the President in certain ways.

Senator Patty Murray (55:25):

Wait a minute. There's a law that says that impoundment is illegal. You won't follow that law?

Mr. Bishop (55:31):

I'm aware of that, of the Impoundment Control Act, Senator.

Senator Patty Murray (55:33):

Right. You just don't agree with that law?

Mr. Bishop (55:37):

I believe that I joined Director Vought's view that that's-

Senator Patty Murray (55:40):

You just answered Senator Kennedy-

Mr. Bishop (55:40):

… an unconstitutional law.

Senator Patty Murray (55:40):

… that you would follow the law, but you're going to pick out one exception that you won't follow?

Mr. Bishop (55:44):

Well, Senator, the Budget Control Act requires a budget process be completed every year. The Senate hasn't done that in decades.

Senator Patty Murray (55:51):

That's not a law. That is a process here. But the law, when we write appropriations bills-

Mr. Bishop (55:58):

It is a law, Senator.

Senator Patty Murray (55:59):

Well, appropriations bills are lost, correct?

Mr. Bishop (56:02):

They are.

Senator Patty Murray (56:03):

Signed by the president.

Mr. Bishop (56:04):

That's correct.

Senator Patty Murray (56:04):

Will you follow those laws or not?

Mr. Bishop (56:07):

Senator-

Senator Patty Murray (56:07):

Do you have a law-

Mr. Bishop (56:07):

Certainly-

Senator Patty Murray (56:07):

… you disagree with?

Mr. Bishop (56:08):

… we'll follow the law. It's a little more complicated than your question lets on.

Senator Patty Murray (56:12):

Yeah. I can see you're not going to follow that one. Okay. Perhaps you can help me understand something else. As I understand it, Elon Musk and DOGE are saying they are conducting mass firings to help save taxpayer dollars.

(56:25)
Out in the Pacific Northwest, we have the Bonneville Power Administration. It's actually a self-sustaining agency. It provides millions of dollars of power, sorry, power to millions of people in states like mine and the Pacific Northwest. It's actually funded by ratepayers, not by taxpayers. We don't use a dime of taxpayer money to pay BPA salaries. So do you have any idea why Elon Musk thinks firing people, which he did at the BPA, will reduce federal spending?

Mr. Bishop (56:55):

Senator, I am completely unfamiliar with that situation. Would be glad to take it back or look into it and be-

Senator Patty Murray (57:02):

Well, I-

Mr. Bishop (57:02):

… glad to make my number available to you.

Senator Patty Murray (57:02):

… would appreciate because firing BPA employees saves us zero taxpayer dollars. It is completely funded by the users in the Pacific Northwest.

Mr. Bishop (57:16):

Thanks, Senator. And as I said, I'd be happy to take that back and look into it.

Senator Patty Murray (57:19):

Okay. I want to talk about social security for just a minute. Do you think seniors should be able to talk to a real person, other people, when they're trying to get ahold of somebody? Do you think they should talk to a real person or have the possibility to do that?

Mr. Bishop (57:35):

Senator, it might seem like common sense to me, although I will say I'm not a spring chicken anymore, and a lot of things have moved into a direction other than having a live person available for every telephone call. I really can't speak to it.

Senator Patty Murray (57:47):

Well, can you promise every member here that cutting more than 12% of the agency's workforce will improve customer service?

Mr. Bishop (57:56):

I don't know enough about the Social Security-

Senator Patty Murray (57:58):

Well, I just-

Mr. Bishop (57:59):

… Administration's workforce to know

Mr. Bishop (58:00):

… that, Senator, and I think that's one of the issues about where we are today, is there are a lot of assumptions like that that turn out not to be true when they're looked at.

Senator Patty Murray (58:08):

Well, I would just have the premise, when you cut 12% of the people that there will not… and by the way, a number of field offices, there won't be people to answer people's calls or have them come in and understand really challenging situations when a spouse dies or the other many things that they deal with. We'll leave that at that. I just want to ask you one last question for the record. Do you believe the 2020 election was rigged?

Mr. Bishop (58:34):

I join the view Director Vought expressed on the point.

Senator Patty Murray (58:38):

I'm sorry?

Mr. Bishop (58:39):

I joined Director's view of that question. He said it was rigged in his response to you and I join that.

Senator Patty Murray (58:48):

You think it's rigged?

Mr. Bishop (58:49):

Yeah.

Senator Patty Murray (58:49):

Thank you.

Mr. Graham (58:50):

Senator Moreno. Scott. I apologize.

Senator Scott (58:56):

Thank you, Chairman. Well, Congressman, I'm glad you're here.

Mr. Bishop (58:59):

Thank you, Senator.

Senator Scott (58:59):

Good luck with your job.

Mr. Bishop (59:01):

Great to see you.

Senator Scott (59:01):

I love it when the Democrats talk about following the law. When I was Governor of Florida, because I wouldn't expand Medicaid, Barack Obama cut a billion dollars out of my Medicaid program, like that. Not one Democrat said that was a problem. Not one Democrat. He cut a billion dollars and it was a program that went to hospitals that did more uncompensated care. A billion dollars gone, and didn't come back until we got a new president. Congratulations. Why do you want to do this and what are you going to get done in your four years?

Mr. Bishop (59:30):

Thank you, Senator. If I might real quickly to say in response to what you just said, I think there are many such examples. If you think about orders that President Biden issued in the last administration, that were plainly contrary to law. Even after the Supreme Court issued opinions on student debt cancellation, for example, he did more of it. I want to make clear because I think that there is something that needs to be said, which is that I haven't talked about violating the law. I talked about there may be issues about the Impoundment Control Act and its constitutionality, and what exactly the contours are of the historic power to impound. President Trump has made clear that's going to be looked at.

(01:00:13)
That's part of, I think, an answer to the question what I hope to do. I think what President Trump said last night in a speech, I'm not sure I've ever seen a better State Of The Union address, but he said there's going to be action. The American people are so ready for action. I spent five years in the Congress, in the House of Representatives, ready for action that I never saw take place. I don't even know that it's conservative or liberal. It's common sense and it's actual change. The reason I'm looking forward to this job more than any job I've had in my life is because I know Russ Vought, I know what the President of the United States intends to do in terms of action to see change, and I'm thrilled, should I be confirmed by the Senate to be part of it.

Senator Scott (01:00:56):

Do you think you can balance the budget?

Mr. Bishop (01:00:58):

Absolutely. I'm certain that can be done, Senator.

Senator Scott (01:01:01):

Have you done that in your personal life?

Mr. Bishop (01:01:02):

I certainly have.

Senator Scott (01:01:03):

Gosh, how do you do it?

Mr. Bishop (01:01:04):

It's amazing. My wife is the key to so many things.

Senator Scott (01:01:09):

Do you find out what you're going to make and not spend more than that? Man, that must be hard. That must be really-

Mr. Bishop (01:01:12):

And look for opportunities to save and not pay for some things that we paid for at one point in time we find not to be worthwhile.

Senator Scott (01:01:20):

Do you have a credit card?

Mr. Bishop (01:01:22):

I do.

Senator Scott (01:01:22):

Do you review it to see if it's proper?

Mr. Bishop (01:01:26):

The way the review works in our household is that if something's on it that's not supposed to be there, I hear about it from the boss.

Senator Scott (01:01:33):

Have you ever changed your telephone plan to get a better deal?

Mr. Bishop (01:01:37):

That's a constant source of discussion internally. I've got the cheapest plan you can imagine, Senator. I'd be glad to tell you about it.

Senator Scott (01:01:42):

Yeah. We've seen a 2% increase in population five years, and a 53% increase in federal spending. How on God's green earth can we live within this?

Mr. Bishop (01:01:53):

Every American who had an opportunity to focus on that number would say that's absurd.

Senator Scott (01:01:59):

Yeah. My colleague from Ohio and others here, we just went through campaigns. I went through my re-election. I tell people when they come up here, because everybody's in my office now asking for money, and here's what I tell them. I said, you know what, let's say, I don't know, let's say I did a thousand events in the last year. Nobody, not one person in my State asked me about that program. But you know what they did ask me about? Why isn't the border secure and why is the cost of living going up? That's all they asked me about, the whole campaign. I was at a Jimmy John's restaurant the other day and the lady was just saying, "Look, I moved to Florida because you're the governor, I could get a job."

(01:02:39)
But she said, "The cost of living has just skyrocketed. The groceries are out of whack." What are some of the things you think that you can get done? By the way, do you think we can get inflation under control if we don't balance the budget?

Mr. Bishop (01:02:51):

No, sir, I don't think so. Whether you'd have to actually get the balance to get it under control, I think you could get inflation under control probably short of that target. But it still needs to be done to be sustainable over the long term. But I think the plain thing is that President Trump has made it clear over and over in his State Of The Union last night, he made it clear how relentlessly he is focused on that. He's laid out strategies that are plausible in terms of, for example, unleashing American energy production, lower the cost of energy. You not only reduce the cost every time somebody makes an energy-related transaction, but energy goes into everything that is done in the goods and services across the economy.

(01:03:28)
That's a businessman's judgment, if I can say that to you. Seeing Senator Moreno next to you, I'm thinking about Senator Johnson, Senator Ricketts. I think that's so refreshing to the American people to hear, but those are the things that are affecting their lives, what prevents them from getting to the end of the month successfully. I think that's right, Senator, that's got to be-

Senator Scott (01:03:48):

When I was in business. I read the lines of my budget. I had 342 hospitals, went through their budgets. Surgeons went through their budgets. Every manufacturer companies went through their budget. When I was governor of Florida, 4,000 lines of the budget. I went through every line every year, they had a written purpose. You think we ought to do that with the Federal Government?

Mr. Bishop (01:04:05):

I think there's no substitute for it. It requires a preparedness to confront a tedium and work through it because it has to be done. As a job, it must be-

Senator Scott (01:04:14):

If we can't find a purpose or it didn't do it, should we just keep doing it because we did it before?

Mr. Bishop (01:04:18):

That one doesn't sell for me, Senator, ever. I think we ought to consider everything I knew every time.

Senator Scott (01:04:24):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Bishop (01:04:24):

Thank you, sir.

Mr. Graham (01:04:25):

Senator Warner.

Senator Warner (01:04:27):

Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Bishop, it's good to see you. We don't know each other. I have a dramatically different view of the President's discussion last night. I've never heard, frankly, one that was less bipartisan, less willing to acknowledge we ought to be in this together. Like, actually, Senator Scott, and I'll match my business credentials against anybody, I balanced the budget, metal work, payroll. When I was Governor of Virginia, it got named Best Managed State and Best State for Business. Matter of fact, we even did it in a way where we also got named, Senator Cain and I were colleagues and he was governor afterwards, we got named best state in the country with public education.

(01:05:13)
We realized you couldn't just balance the budget on one side of the ledger. Again, I only got five minutes, but I am flabbergasted by some of your comments. The last time I had hearing here, we had Russell Vought in this chair, and your willingness to be obsequious to him, which I infer from some of your comments, frankly scares the hell out of me. Mr. Vought, one thing he's done remarkably in 40 some odd days is terrorize the federal workforce. I know you were a lawyer, I was actually a business guy, so I can read a balance sheet. But by terrorizing your workforce, you don't get better production. Matter of fact, you destroy production.

(01:05:56)
The haphazardness of the DOGE boys firing people without warning, not letting them come back to work, then realize, "Oops, we screwed up." I think is the absolute opposite of any kind of solid business credentials. Now, I will acknowledge some consistency on voting against every federal funding bill under the Biden Administration, but now, you're going to be charged with helping to fund the Trump Administration. I don't know whether you're going to vote against or encourage your congressional colleagues to vote against everything put forward. You also flipped-flopped on the basic notion of whether nation should default on its debt. Again, I know you are a lawyer, I was a business guy.

(01:06:43)
But if you default on our nation's debt, that is not something the markets are going to be willing to reverse on right away. To add insult to injury, you accused Biden of illegally withholding federal funds. The Trump Administration is doing this at an unprecedented level, yet your peers are willing to go in and simply support those policies. I don't get it. I know you're from our neighboring State in North Carolina. Maybe you have not heard the economic disruption that's being caused. I frankly don't even know whether the Trump Administration's going to honor its commitment under disaster relief. Lord knows you guys, and we in Virginia, got hard hit. But I guess in my last two minutes I want to talk about Social Security.

(01:07:41)
We got 1.6 million Virginians on Social Security benefits. Now, Mr. Musk, who appears to me to be the actual czar of the budget and management or lack thereof, has called Social Security the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time. Now, I know President Trump says he's not going to touch it, but I have no confidence that, so I got a couple, just if you don't mind, sir, yes-no questions. Are you aware that the Social Security Administration currently has fewer staff at this time than any point in the last 50 years?

Mr. Bishop (01:08:17):

No, I don't know that, Senator. I'm not familiar with that, that Social Security Administration-

Senator Warner (01:08:19):

All right, thank you. Are you aware that Social Security and DOGE plan, and I believe your new boss, Mr. Vought, is planning to actually fire half of that existing staff. Are you aware of that?

Mr. Bishop (01:08:32):

I'm not aware of such plan.

Senator Warner (01:08:36):

You said you and your wife manage your budget and I appreciate that. Have you ever made a call to a Social Security representative and ever been put on hold or waited a long time to get an answer?

Mr. Bishop (01:08:51):

Have I done that?

Senator Warner (01:08:53):

Yes, sir.

Mr. Bishop (01:08:54):

No. In fact, I've had some interactions with Social Security Administration and I did not have that experience.

Senator Warner (01:08:58):

Okay, so you never had any constituents that complained that they got put on hold? You must have to be a remarkable district because-

Mr. Bishop (01:09:06):

Oh, I didn't say that.

Senator Warner (01:09:07):

All right, sir. Do you actually think that Social Security seniors who rely on those funds ought to get them on time?

Mr. Bishop (01:09:16):

Absolutely.

Senator Warner (01:09:17):

Okay. We're at the lowest staffing levels in 50 years, your plan is to cut half that staff additionally, I don't know how that's going to get done. My time has run out, Mr. Chairman, but I was just saying, I didn't even get to the questions around concerns of Chairman of the Intelligence Committee now Vice Chairman, the damage that's being done to our intelligence and national security issues. Mr. Bishop, I want to try to give all nominees a fair shot. I voted for many of Mr. Trump's initial nominees, but your alignment with Mr. Vought and some of these Musk principles really concerns me greatly, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to hearing the rest of his answers.

Mr. Ricketts (01:10:05):

Great. Well, I am sitting in for Chairman Graham, and so I get to go next on questions as well, so I'll pick it up from there. But I want to thank the ranking member here and the chairman for holding this hearing, and Mr. Bishop, for your willingness to serve in this role for our country. We had a great discussion when you were in the office last week and when Director Vought came before this committee, we talked a lot about the consequences of Biden Administration's flood of federal regulations and the reckless spending. I think you've talked a little bit about that. Last week, I actually joined Elon Musk and a number of my colleagues getting an update about what the DOGE has been doing.

(01:10:44)
One of the things that he talked about was making sure that we were doing what you said a little bit earlier, is if we got things we don't need, we shouldn't pay for them. For example, you used the fact that in one of our agencies we have 13,000 employees and 37,000 software licenses. The Senator from Virginia just referenced Social Security, but I think Mr. Musk in that meeting said, we have 22 million people that are on Social Security that are too old to be alive. I think that's what the President was highlighting last night in his State Of The Union address, and the fact that we've got 4.6 million credit cards out there, but not that many people work for the federal government.

(01:11:19)
All those things leave open the opportunity to be able to find ways to do a better job. In fact, it's that kind of business approach and frankly, common sense, that I think is so refreshing about having Elon Musk and the DOGE there. One of the things we discussed was Lean Six Sigma, which is what I implemented at the State of Nebraska, and it's a process improvement methodology. We discussed about how you can actually have fewer people and do a better job providing services because you leverage better process and better technology. That's what we did to be able to reduce about, we did about a thousand projects, saved about 900,000 hours of our teammates' time. We got a hundred million dollars in hard savings that way.

(01:11:58)
Now, part of the DOGE caucus, I'm excited to bring some of those process improvement ideas to how we run the Federal Government. The bottom line is this, we need to make sure that we're doing a better job providing services, that we're doing it more effective and that we're increasing the efficiency and saving taxpayers dollars. To get that goal that President Trump laid out last night, of balancing the budget, which as you pointed out earlier, very, very important that we get to a balanced budget. It's not sustainable what we're continuing to do. When your interest payments are more than what you spend on national defense, you've got a problem.

(01:12:32)
We need to acknowledge that and we need to address it. Elon Musk, in our meeting, said he wants to cut a trillion dollars out of the federal budget by fiscal year, on a run rate of fiscal year 2026. I look forward to continuing to work with Elon Musk and President Trump and the Senate DOGE Caucus and you, Mr. Bishop, to replicate what we did in Nebraska at the federal level. Mr. Bishop, are you committed to increasing government efficiency and saving American taxpayer money?

Mr. Bishop (01:12:59):

I certainly am, Senator.

Mr. Ricketts (01:13:00):

Great. That was an easy question.

Mr. Bishop (01:13:00):

It was easy.

Mr. Ricketts (01:13:01):

That was my question. All right, good. Will you commit to working with me on bringing process improvement methodologies like the one I described with you, Lean Six Sigma, to the Federal Government so we can improve our services while keeping our costs down?

Mr. Bishop (01:13:13):

Yes, Senator, and in our meeting I was intrigued by the Lean Six Sigma idea. One of the things that I can say quickly is that you hear a lot of ad hominem attacks on Elon Musk, but people rarely want to engage with the merit of what he's actually saying, what makes sense. By the same token, the Lean Six Sigma recognizes that you're actually empowering employees when you elevate them to make process improvement recommendations. There's a notion that they're trying to set up an antagonism between Elon Musk and employees. What Musk has done in his businesses, if you read his biography, is he has shown that by being ready to make significant change you actually bring out the superlative employment or performance out of people, and they actually can improve things beyond that you might expect by just adding numbers. I think it's a similar concept.

Mr. Ricketts (01:14:11):

Yeah, you're exactly right there, Mr. Bishop. At the State of Nebraska, Lean Six Sigma engages frontline people in making their jobs better because they see the waste, the number of steps that we try to cut out, they see that duplication and wonder why we do it. They don't feel empowered to change it. Lean Six Sigma actually give them the opportunity to be able to change those processes that not only do a better job providing services, keep our costs down, but actually make their jobs easier as well. Quickly, since I'm running out of time here as well, when Director Vought was here, I asked them about his commitment to helping ensure the timely issuance of renewal volume obligations or RVOs. The biofuel industry is very important to Nebraska's farmers.

(01:14:49)
It's our number one industry in the State of Nebraska, and of course, to the energy industry as well. The 2026 RVOs were obligated to be filed by November 1st, 2024, but will not be filed until December of 2025, so a year late. Timely RVOs are critical, not only because it's the law, because our nation's farmers rely on RVOs to inform planning decisions. Of course, as you know, businesses want certainty. Mr. Bishop, will you make the same commitment to me today to help expedite this process and ensure the timely issuance of RVOs?

Mr. Bishop (01:15:18):

Yes, Senator. Director Vought makes clear that he wants to move processes on time, and that's the discipline he brings, and so I can't speak with great specificity to that particular situation. I don't have the knowledge of it yet, but I certainly look forward to working with you and with Director Vought to accomplish that objective.

Mr. Ricketts (01:15:35):

Great. Thank you, Mr. Bishop. Mr. Padilla.

Mr. Padilla (01:15:38):

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Colleagues, I am not alone in saying that it's extremely unfortunate where we find ourselves today. President Trump has made it clear that the OMB's sole mission, at least as he wishes it under his administration, is to cut programs, the very programs that so many Americans rely on in order to pay for another massive round of tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. In fact, during his address to Congress just last night, he doubled down on DOGE's wildly unpopular agenda of chaos and corruption. Proudly listing the ways he has and will continue to devastate communities. Today, we're asked to consider the next nominee, preparing to further eliminate funding and jobs from our constituents.

(01:16:41)
Mr. Bishop, I'd like for you to speak to the Californians that I represent for a minute here. I want them to hear how you'll justify ripping away important services and programs while raising the cost of everything. That's the impact that we're seeing from this administration. My constituents deserve to know exactly who to thank for these reckless cuts in the last six weeks. That's all the time that it's taken for President Trump and the Office of Management and Budget to wreak havoc across critical government programs. During your confirmation hearing in the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee last week, I heard you insist multiple times that President Trump's firing of civil servants was not indiscriminate. Is that correct?

Mr. Bishop (01:17:29):

That's correct, and I continue to hold that-

Mr. Padilla (01:17:31):

All right, so was it not indiscriminate or was it intentional when President Trump fired scientists fighting the bird flu outbreak while the cost of eggs continues to soar?

Mr. Bishop (01:17:41):

We'd have to look at the details of that, Senator. I'm not aware of the specific point you're making.

Mr. Padilla (01:17:44):

You're a smart man. You're a smart man. I know you've seen the details. Was it indiscriminate or intentional when President Trump fired military veterans operating the veterans crisis line?

Mr. Bishop (01:17:56):

I'd have to look at the details of that, Senator.

Mr. Padilla (01:18:00):

Was it not indiscriminate or was it intentional when President Trump fired thousands of seasonal employees at the National Park Service?

Mr. Bishop (01:18:07):

Yeah, I do not think that the dismissals that have occurred are indiscriminate, Mr. Senator.

Mr. Padilla (01:18:11):

I'm asking this question because you seemed to be applauding Elon Musk's efforts and this DOGE strategy and chaos.

Mr. Bishop (01:18:17):

I certainly am.

Mr. Padilla (01:18:18):

Was it not indiscriminate or was it intentional when President Trump fired thousands of nuclear weapons safety and security workers at the National Nuclear Security Administration?

Mr. Bishop (01:18:28):

We'd have to look into the details of that, Senator. I'd be glad to do that. Get back to you.

Mr. Padilla (01:18:33):

Because all of this is just to disappoint. To make matters worse, in so many areas of these indiscriminate firings they've had to scramble to hire them back shortly after they realized their colossal error. I could go on and on with additional examples, but let's be clear, this is not a one-time adjustment as Mr. Bishop has characterized. Here's actually a real question and I'm interested in your response. What corrective measures has OMB taken to undo and limit indiscriminate firings of federal employees by an unelected bureaucrat?

Mr. Bishop (01:19:15):

Well, I don't think any of the premise of the question is accurate, Senator, but of course, OMB is not the agency within the department or within the executive office of the president that deals with personnel. That's a different office. Moreover, I'm not yet serving as deputy director and do not have management responsibility, nor am I aware of some of the details that you've made reference to, so I can't speak to the question, what have you.

Mr. Padilla (01:19:47):

OMB's involvement, Russell Vought's involvement, the director now, there'll be evidence to the contrary of direct involvement in those personnel decisions. Maybe let me add with this and say, reference Director Vought when he was before this committee. One of the questions I asked is if he stood by his previous statements of a mission, a goal, an agenda to put federal employees into trauma. There's example after example of exactly that happening given the activity of the last six weeks and especially since Mr. Vought was confirmed. Is that what you're signing up for, to help facilitate that, to help further that, putting federal employees into trauma?

Mr. Bishop (01:20:30):

Senator, that comment in one of his writings that's been taken or in one of his speeches have been taken out of context.

Mr. Padilla (01:20:36):

It's pretty clear and direct.

Mr. Bishop (01:20:37):

No, it's been used in a misleading way. What he means is that federal employees, the American people need federal employees to perform, that federal employees themselves on surveys-

Mr. Padilla (01:20:50):

How do they perform when they're in trauma, when they're traumatized by their employer?

Mr. Bishop (01:20:53):

Yeah. I think, again, the answer is that federal employees, there must be change in the workplace. Federal employees are making the comment that they see underperformers continuously among their colleagues that they cannot see, that the processes will not allow to be removed. Those are federal employees. I've seen the way Russ Vought works with the people at OMB, the career officials there. He has extraordinary respect for their skill, but he expects them to perform and they do.

Mr. Padilla (01:21:24):

Don't mistake their trauma for respect. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Graham (01:21:38):

[inaudible 01:21:31]. Who's up? You're up.

Mr. Moreno (01:21:40):

We had a little shuffle. Well, thank you, Mr. Bishop, for agreeing to serve your country again. I think the American people appreciate your willingness to put yourself into the battlefield. I want to ask you, you've been around, how long have you been around government? I've been here, I've been around government for eight entire weeks. How about you?

Mr. Bishop (01:22:05):

Senator, a little longer than that, but I do think of myself as a private sector career person. I spent 30 years practicing law in a small firm serving people whose lives were on the line, frankly, in commercial matters. It might be their business ownership or something that was-

Mr. Moreno (01:22:21):

But how long as an elected official?

Mr. Bishop (01:22:23):

As an elected official, I've been about 10 years.

Mr. Moreno (01:22:26):

10 years, so in that time, especially your time here in Congress, have you ever seen an appetite to actually reduce the size and scale of government, like a really meaningful effort to make that happen?

Mr. Bishop (01:22:40):

Senator, it has been a constant presence. I've seen a lot of really great people who have pursued the objective and yet it doesn't ever seem to come to pass. You would have to conclude that there are a lot of people who are not doing that.

Mr. Moreno (01:22:53):

When you were in a private sector, did you ever run into any organization that didn't fire anybody? Did you ever run into a company that said, "We haven't fired a human being in 50 years." Or, is it more natural that you have to constantly evaluate your workforce and say, "This group of people just isn't getting the job done." Maybe they didn't have the right training, maybe there was a bad hire, whatever reason. But I've found in my private sector experience that when you do that, when you reduce and get rid of and eliminate poor performers, the whole enterprise rises. Did you find that?

Mr. Bishop (01:23:31):

I think that's exactly right, Senator. It's never a pleasant task perhaps, one we'd like to avoid, but it's one of the tasks that's necessary in order to perform.

Mr. Moreno (01:23:41):

Just to clarify some misinformation that's out there online, does Elon Musk personally have the authority to fire anybody in the United States government?

Mr. Bishop (01:23:51):

That is not my understanding. I will say I'm not involved with the DOGE effort directly yet in any way. But everything that I've understood about it and followed is that he does not exercise that power directly.

Mr. Moreno (01:24:04):

That's in the job of the people who actually do that, but he can certainly recommend. For example, I get a lot of calls from constituents, so if somebody's a person who works for the VA and her job is to greet veterans at the door, make sure that they got the resource they need, we look at it and say, "That's a good job. We should have somebody there greeting the veterans, making certain they know what their needs are." If that person lives five hours away and never shows up to the actual VA, would you think that that's a job that should be eliminated?

Mr. Bishop (01:24:35):

That ought to be looked at pretty seriously.

Mr. Moreno (01:24:36):

But what if they're a really nice person? What if they're a really nice guy? What if they're a veteran themselves and still live five hours away and never show up for work? Should we just keep that person on?

Mr. Bishop (01:24:49):

That's the kind of thing that doesn't make any sense, Senator, and the American people are ready for something to be done about it.

Mr. Moreno (01:24:54):

If you have a company, for example, and we're going to get to the bottom of it, but if you have companies that have sales reps that call on the government and yet allow something like what's happening at SBA, with 37,000 software licenses for 13,000 employees, does that seem normal to you?

Mr. Bishop (01:25:14):

That would never happen in a private business where you're trying to make ends meet, Senator.

Mr. Moreno (01:25:19):

I would just urge my Democrat colleagues, I plead with them, argue with us on things that actually are common sense and reasonable, but to argue the counterpoint that we should absolutely not root out waste, fraud, and abuse and the counterargument would be, "Oh, all we're all for rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse." I've been here eight weeks, they've been here centuries combined, centuries, like literally centuries combined, and it's never been done. Maybe sit this one out and allow this effort to go forward and not defend insanity like what we're seeing. Look, the DOGE effort is being done. I want to say how I think history's going to judge this moment.

(01:26:03)
You have the world's most successful entrepreneur, a guy who has zero reason even to go to work. He could literally point to anything on Earth and say, "I'll take it. I'm going to take that 500 foot yacht and go sail away." He's sleeping at the executive office building, going through line by line of the federal budget and recommending things like that to be cut, 4.7 million credit cards out in the hands of government workers. I ran a company with 1100 employees, so a minuscule comparison. I had five corporate credit cards and I had anxiety over all five of them. How do you defend that?

(01:26:41)
Why not be on the side where you say, "This makes sense. We got this incredible entrepreneur, a generational talent, the Thomas Edison of our time, and he's willing to serve our country to help us." The guy who you once loved. The left loved Elon Musk and

Mr. Moreno (01:27:00):

… now they hate him. This is the subject of a Taylor Swift breakup song. I've never seen anything like it, but I want healthy competition from the other side. I think we should have a healthy exchange of debate and ideas, but watching them humiliate themselves last night at the State of the Union address was just too much. You can't applaud for a 13-year-old Black kid who has brain cancer? Is this where we're at, Mr. Chairman? Where we're sitting here as a body that's supposed to be the deliberative body of the world, and instead we can't even get them to applaud for a 13-year-old kid. We can't get them to say rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse is a good thing.

(01:27:48)
I urge my Democrat colleagues don't be like that team that played the University of Miami and got beat 97 to zero. We need a healthy, vibrant Democrat Party to challenge us, but challenge us on the things that make sense. And don't put out misinformation, like we're going to go out there and randomly cut 50% of Medicaid. Those messages on TV affect real people. Real people who think, "My God, if this happens, I don't know what I'm going to do." That's not what we're doing. Attack us when you think we're wrong on real information.

(01:28:23)
My time is way expired. I used my minute and a half it took me to get to my chair, but thank you, Mr. Bishop, for serving. I look forward to you serving with Director Vought. It was great to see him here today and I yield the negative amount to my time back to you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Graham (01:28:39):

Thank you. Senator Lujan.

Speaker 2 (01:28:41):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to accept the challenge of my colleague. I'm going to read you a note, Representative Bishop, from a constituent that was fired. "I am an FBI victim specialist, a civil servant, a career government employee. I am there when your loved one is killed by an actual shooter, when your child is sexually exploited online, when your family member is kidnapped and held for ransom, when your mother, sister, daughter is the victim of interstate domestic violence or stalking, when a federal agent is injured or killed in the line of duty, when your elderly parent is defrauded of their life savings, when your child is kidnapped by their other parent, when you or someone you love is victimized in so many ways. I am not waste, fraud and abuse. I am not the enemy. I am not expendable."

(01:29:34)
"For more than 22 years, it has been my greatest honor to be with people in their darkest hour to bring light into the darkness of the cost of my own well-being. I do not deserve to be forced out under fear or duress or discarded, for if I am, you and those you love will have to walk in that darkness alone." She continues, "There are so many of us throughout the United States with stories just like this examples of how they've responded to crime victims." I agree. Let's root out waste, fraud and abuse, but we should both agree that when there's a victim of a sexual crime or someone from across the border that is going to kill someone or do something to them, they don't deserve to be fired. That's the nonsense going on here. I accept this responsibility, but I'll tell you what, I'm not sitting this one out, not on behalf of my constituents. There's a better way for us to do these things. Representative Bishop, you served at a time in the House of Representatives where there was a policy that wasn't in place and it's because Republicans got rid of it, but Democrats never put it back in place. I hope this is something we could actually agree on. I know Senator Graham supported this once upon a time as well. He used to talk about this in a way that would convince more people to do it. Under President Clinton, when there was a balanced budget, there was something called PAYGO, and Congress restrained itself. In the same way that you described balancing your checkbook, if Congress moved a piece of legislation that costs money, they had to either cut or they had to create revenue. Led us to balanced budgets. I believe Congress needs to bring this policy back in place, so everyone can restrain themselves and I think things will be better. I'll let that sit.

(01:31:20)
As deputy secretary of the Office of Management and Budget representative, it seems like you'll be working in lockstep with Elon Musk and DOGE. I appreciate the conversations that we've had on both sides of the aisle speaking about what Elon Musk and others are doing here. Now, over the weekend, Elon Musk said something. I think it was brought up by one of my colleagues. He said, "Social Security is the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time." Do you believe that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme?

Mr. Bishop (01:31:48):

It really isn't my place… What I'm doing as sitting to be the deputy director of OMB is to implement President Trump's policies. I really am not in position to comment on every comment that Elon Musk makes, but I know that President Trump has said he's not touching Social Security or Medicare, he's going to ensure those benefits and that is the policy that I'm going to be seeking to work with Director Vought to implement.

Speaker 2 (01:32:15):

President Trump says to do this, but Elon Musk says to do something else. He's not just someone. Elon Musk was described as President Trump last night at the address to the American people as being in charge. There's been a lot of questions over the last eight weeks if he is in charge or not, but Elon Musk is calling the shots right now. President Trump's going to Daytona, Super Bowl, golfing, doing some good things. I believe in finding balance in your life. I had a stroke three years ago. Thank God I got better. I believe in finding that balance, but I think that the president's able to do though things because the other president's actually calling the shots.

(01:32:53)
So, when Elon Musk is passing things down to Director Vought and to others, some of which were actually documented and these ideas came from Director Vought, which are part of Project 2025. And you have someone that's calling the shots, firing people across the country, cutting budgets, cutting programs, putting people on the chopping block, using a chainsaw as a tool, who says, "Social Security is a Ponzi scheme," I think that requires us just to take notice, that's all I'm saying.

(01:33:18)
Your responsibility, sir, as you know, is going to be making decisions with Director Vought to the president about these budgets. You've said you want to get to a balanced budget, that's going to require cuts. This notion that Medicaid and Medicare are not on the chopping block, I would just ask voters, Democrats, Republicans, independents, [inaudible 01:33:38], go look at the votes that were cast in the House of Representatives last week. Read the document. Go back and read the document that Speaker Paul Ryan put together when he was speaker of the House, 50-page document that described going after this program. Go back when Paul Ryan was the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee and went after that program. Go back and look in 2017 when Republicans were trying to eliminate all aspects of Medicaid, eliminating Affordable Care Act and it took John McCain coming to the forum, may he rest in peace, the great hero that he is and said, "No," fighting brain cancer.

(01:34:11)
This is not new. It's not some secret. These are the facts. Go look them up. I invite that and I challenge my colleagues, let's come up with a fact sheet that we can get back to a place the way Congress once deliberated. Here are the facts. Let's agree and disagree based on the facts that are in front of us, that doesn't exist anymore. We need to get back to those times. So, Representative Bishop, it's good to see you again.

Mr. Bishop (01:34:37):

Thank you-

Speaker 2 (01:34:37):

We didn't vote the same a lot, but I appreciate you being here and stepping up and I pray for you. I pray for the president because we've got to do better for the American people. And I'll close the way I started, I'm not sitting this one out. I'm going to stand up and fight for my constituents. I yield back.

Mr. Bishop (01:34:49):

Thank you, Senator.

Mr. Graham (01:34:51):

Thank you. Senator Merkley has a couple of questions and I believe we'll be done.

Mr. Merkley (01:34:55):

Well, thank you so much. Congressman, when you were in the House of Representatives you were fierce opponent of raising the debt ceiling. Are you now planning to encourage the House? The House has put raising the debt ceiling into their plan on the House side by $4 trillion? Do you now support raising the debt ceiling?

Mr. Bishop (01:35:16):

Well, Senator, the premise is not complete. I was an opponent of raising the debt ceiling without reforms to spending that would change the fiscal path. But the really significant thing and what I'm acutely aware of as I sit here as a nominee of the president is that I'm not being nominated to serve my own views or interests. I'm being nominated to implement the policies that President Trump wishes to have implemented. He certainly has different ideas than me precisely about the debt ceiling and how that should be administered and so forth, but I support and I'm going to be implementing President Trump's priorities.

Mr. Merkley (01:35:55):

Let's clear up a couple of points that have come up in this hearing. One is I noted that the Supreme Court had weighed in about the illegality and unconstitutionality of impoundments. You then noted that the Supreme Court had not ruled on the Impoundment Control Act. Both you and I were both right. That is the summary of Train V. City of New York, the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the presidents did not have the unilateral power to impound enacted funding, but the ruling wasn't on the Budget Control Act. It was on the constitutionality of impoundments, impoundments that Nixon had done. So, wanted to clear up that point.

(01:36:32)
And I've already asked you if you would follow the constitutional ruling of the court and you made the point, "Well, they didn't rule on the Impoundment Control Act," but they did rule on impoundments and that's the point I want to emphasize. And they said that they're unconstitutional. So, I hope when you go away from here, you'll have a moment when you go, "Hmm, am I going to take an oath to President Trump or Russell Vought? Or am I going to honor the constitution?" Because that is the challenge of you as a public servant and in our republic you have you take an oath to the constitution, not to an individual.

(01:37:10)
Second point I want to make is there's been a lot of conversation here about a plan for a balanced budget. Actually, the president's plan, as put forward by the House, increases the deficits that total up to an additional $2.5 trillion in additional debt on top of what was already forecast. So, increasing the deficits and increasing the debt. There are a lot of happy talk about a balanced budget, but that is a big lie. The plan is to increase the deficits by $2.5 trillion of total debt over the 10 years.

(01:37:49)
Third point I'm concerned about is in your previous testimony before another committee, Ranking Member Peters asked, "Do you know about any federal ground or loan programs that are frozen?" And you said, "I am unaware of any funds being frozen." While some of the headlines of the news were things like this, "Climate environmental justice programs stalled by Trump freeze despite court orders," and, "Trump team finds loophole, defies spirit of court orders, blocking spending freezes," "Trump administration is," another headline, AP headline, "flouting an order to temporarily lift a freeze on foreign aid." Another headline, " Emergency food TB tests, HIV drugs, vital health aid remains frozen." Another, "Trump administration stalled scientific research, despite court ruling."

(01:38:40)
And yet, you testified you were unaware that any funds have been frozen. Now, you took an oath to tell the truth right before this committee when this hearing started. Are you telling me you never heard of any story about funds being frozen as you testified last week?

Mr. Bishop (01:38:54):

Senator, I first of all, deeply resent the assignation that something that I said was not true in the committee to which I testified. I certainly-

Mr. Merkley (01:39:04):

This is your chance to clear it up right now.

Mr. Bishop (01:39:05):

I'm happy to do that. I certainly am reading the same newspapers that you are. The question was about, as I recall, was about my personal involvement in something in the course of serving as senior advisor at OMB. And as you know, Senator, until I'm confirmed as deputy director, it would be inappropriate for me to exercise the authorities of that office, and I have not done so. So, I have not been involved in any decisions or actions by OMB to manage spending or to cease spending in any way and that's what the testimony was about. And you may count on me always to be truthful, even-

Mr. Merkley (01:39:36):

Well, this is great chance to clarify that because I think you maybe didn't answer the question Peters asked because he asked, and I quote, "Do you know if any federal grant and loaned funds are still frozen?" And you said, "I am unaware of any funds being frozen." Those are direct quotes. I hear you saying that that's not the context in which you meant, that you are aware that funds have been frozen.

Mr. Bishop (01:39:58):

Senator, you said you're a lawyer, I think. So, you know-

Mr. Merkley (01:40:01):

I actually said I'm not a lawyer.

Mr. Bishop (01:40:02):

You're not a lawyer-

Mr. Merkley (01:40:02):

And I'm thankful for it.

Mr. Bishop (01:40:05):

Then, it might escape that if someone's asking me in testimony about something that for me to speak, I'm speaking about my personal knowledge. I can talk to you all day about things that are in the media and if you want to know whether I'm aware of something that's in the media, I'm glad to talk about that, but the questions were what about I knew, my personal knowledge.

Mr. Merkley (01:40:25):

All right. I'm going to try to help you out here, trying to give you an opportunity to clear that up, since your statement that, "I am unaware of any funds being frozen," you are clarifying that based on your personal experience and service, you were unaware and we'll just accept that for the record. Because I'm glad you are aware of it and I hope that in the context of the challenge of the number of court rulings now saying that these actions are illegal and the Trump team has been told, "You need to reverse what you've done."

(01:41:08)
My colleague mentioned in the context of AID programs that many of them do important work, and I don't mean to put words in your mouth, but essentially, I think we've all had a lot of support for some of the programs affecting disease around the world.

Mr. Bishop (01:41:22):

I agree.

Mr. Merkley (01:41:22):

We don't want Ebola coming back here on the airplane. And we also see it as a vision of helping people around the world thrive, which gives us a lot of soft power. So, several of us on both sides of the aisle have been concerned about the difficulty of getting the funds moving again, even after the court said they should be unfrozen. I hope, in your work at OMB, you will help in whatever part of the administration where the gears need turn a little faster to follow the court orders that you'll be helpful in doing so.

Mr. Bishop (01:41:54):

I think that's certainly a central function of the job, Senator. I'm glad for you to have my cell number and to be in touch with anyone from here or around your staff at any time to see to it. We can solve problems that that have cropped up-

Mr. Merkley (01:42:06):

All right. We're going to take you up on that, I'm sure. You maybe blocking my number very soon, but I certainly do feel like we need to advocate for when the court says, "Unfreeze the funds," they actually get unfrozen.

Mr. Graham (01:42:21):

Senator Whitehouse.

Speaker 3 (01:42:23):

Thank you, Chairman. Mr. Bishop, have you discussed with anyone at OMB plans for firings or freezes?

Mr. Bishop (01:42:34):

Senator, it would be inappropriate for me to talk about the details of deliberative processes at OMB. I will say to you, Senator, as I've said otherwise, I'm serving as a senior advisor now, not exercising management authority as though confirmed. So-

Speaker 3 (01:42:47):

So, you have had those discussions and you assert that the content of them is protected by a deliberative process?

Mr. Bishop (01:42:54):

I'm not saying that I have had such conversations, Senator. I'm simply saying it would be inappropriate to me to speak to the details of deliberative processes at OMB.

Speaker 3 (01:43:01):

Well, why would you refrain from giving me the details of the deliberative process if you weren't a part of it? Wouldn't the simple answer then be, "No, I have not had those discussions"?

Mr. Bishop (01:43:10):

Well, if that were true, that would still be an indication of what processes are at OMB and my role-

Speaker 3 (01:43:17):

That's actually not true. That's actually not the way the law works. You can assert a privilege as to the substance, but as to whether or not you've been involved in conversations, that is not protected by the deliberative process privilege. And are you actually asserting the deliberative process privilege here?

Mr. Bishop (01:43:35):

I am not asserting a privilege, Senator. I'm simply saying there's an accommodation process and people who come up to The Hill don't talk about the details of internal deliberations.

Speaker 3 (01:43:44):

And my question was have you discussed, not what are the details. Will you answer that question?

Mr. Bishop (01:43:50):

I'm sorry. Have I discussed-

Speaker 3 (01:43:51):

Have you discussed with people at OMB the plans for firing and freezes?

Mr. Bishop (01:43:58):

No, Senator, I have not had discussions of that sort.

Speaker 3 (01:44:00):

Okay. How about with respect to plans for taking advantage of a long-term continuing resolution?

Mr. Bishop (01:44:13):

Senator, I am trying to recall. I don't know if there's been a specific discussion or not, but again, I think that's the reason you don't sit and try to give out details of the internal deliberations at OMB.

Speaker 3 (01:44:23):

Which is why I'm not asking for the details, although I believe I'm entitled to ask for the details, but that was not my question. So, my question was simply, have you had discussions on that topic?

Mr. Bishop (01:44:32):

About long-term continuing resolution-

Speaker 3 (01:44:33):

Planning for long-term continuing resolution and how to take advantage of it.

Mr. Bishop (01:44:37):

Senator, I do not think so.

Speaker 3 (01:44:39):

All right. And how about plans in the event of a government shutdown?

Mr. Bishop (01:44:45):

Senator, I do not think so.

Speaker 3 (01:44:46):

All righty. What role, if any, have you had in-

Mr. Graham (01:44:52):

Can I ask a question? Do you support a government shutdown?

Mr. Bishop (01:44:55):

I don't think we should have a government shutdown, Senator. I think that'd be a bad idea. The president thinks it should be a bad idea, which is more important than what I think.

Mr. Graham (01:45:01):

Thank you.

Speaker 3 (01:45:02):

Well, have my doubts about that tell you the truth, but we'll see. I got to pretty strong impression that Mr. Vought thinks that we should have a government shutdown and he would relish the opportunities that it provided him. Project 2025, have you had any role dealing with Project 2025 or Heritage while it was running Project 2025?

Mr. Bishop (01:45:23):

Well, to Senator Merkley's point, I certainly read and heard a lot about Project 2025 in the media, Senator. I've had no personal involvement with Project 2025.

Speaker 3 (01:45:31):

Okay, that's good to hear. Are you aware of any ongoing administration strategy to defy court orders regarding the freezes by refusing to give direct answers or refusing to answer phone calls or even suggesting that the funding has been freed up, while at the same time not releasing the funds?

Mr. Bishop (01:46:05):

No, Senator.

Speaker 3 (01:46:05):

Okay. That seems to be the strategy we're seeing. I call it the fog bank strategy, where everybody who's under a court order to comply with the order saying that there shouldn't be a freeze refuses to actually comply with the court order and unfreeze the money. But when you try to pin them down on it, email's not answered, call's not returned, vague answers, general sense is that, "Don't worry, we'll get there," or even actual, "Yes, the funding is clear," and then the funding is not cleared. It's like there's somebody in the room at the agencies who's saying, "No, no, no, the funding won't go out," even though everybody else is saying that it's cleared to go or that we're ready to obey court orders. Just in terms of conflict of interest, ProPublica reported that you've been living until recently in a Capitol Hill townhouse owned by a wealthy Republican donor named Lee Beaman, that Speaker Johnson has also been living in what was described as a four-level, second empire-style townhouse of impeccable elegance and exceptional scale. Did you pay fair market rent in that townhouse of impeccable elegance and exceptional scale?

Mr. Bishop (01:47:17):

Yes, Senator.

Speaker 3 (01:47:19):

And how was that fair market rent determined?

Mr. Bishop (01:47:22):

It was determined by the landlord. I rented a room, so I don't know the details of the determination, merely that it was done.

Speaker 3 (01:47:31):

Yeah. So, if for instance, he offered you highly-favorable terms because he wanted you in the house because you are an important potential policymaker, same reason he might want the speaker in the house, you would have no idea whether that actually was fair market rent? It was just you paid what you were asked to pay?

Mr. Bishop (01:47:50):

Well, I have my own experience to rely upon what seems proportional, so I'm pretty sure it's about right.

Speaker 3 (01:47:58):

Okay, my time has expired.

Mr. Graham (01:48:00):

Thank you. Two minutes to Senator Moreno and we're going to wrap it up.

Mr. Moreno (01:48:05):

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the extra little followup. Look, we could spend 15 hours if we had to rebut this information from the other side, but let me just do it real quickly. Again, I've been here eight weeks. The ranking member's been here 16 years. You said you've been here 10 years. Is a budget resolution a budget?

Mr. Bishop (01:48:25):

No, Senator, it's not. It's not the whole plan in other words. Yeah.

Mr. Moreno (01:48:28):

But wait a second, I just heard my colleague who's been here a long time as well say that we're cutting Medicaid because the House passed that. Did they pass a budget?

Mr. Bishop (01:48:37):

No, Senator, they didn't. They passed just the first step in the direction of a spending plan.

Mr. Moreno (01:48:43):

So, when you spew nonsense, it's not helpful. And that's the point I was trying to make to my colleagues earlier. Look, don't try to win arguments by just making nonsensical points. I just urge my colleagues not to do that. Senator Lujan also gave a very… And I think he's a good man. I don't know him that well. Again, been here eight weeks. Gave an impassioned speech about some federal employee, who is a very good writer. I mean that guy should be a fiction writer, for sure. Do you think that it's possible that he was an employee that had disciplinary actions?

Mr. Bishop (01:49:12):

That's the thing, we've got a secondhand account of someone's perception about their own employment situation. More has to be taken into consideration, not only whether-

Mr. Moreno (01:49:21):

But he wrote a really impassioned email, doesn't that make him automatically a good employee?

Mr. Bishop (01:49:26):

He might be. Even all the same-

Mr. Moreno (01:49:27):

But he might not be.

Mr. Bishop (01:49:28):

… but he still might not be the right person for the job or it may be those jobs [inaudible 01:49:33].

Mr. Moreno (01:49:33):

Maybe he didn't show up for work, maybe he had disciplinary action, maybe there he was a troublemaker in the office. But I think this idea that, oh my God, a constituent wrote me a letter. We're doing terrible things. Last quick, quick, quick point. This body tried, with my Democrat colleagues, to pass student loan relief. Is that correct? We tried to say, "Hey, if you went to college somehow you're better than all the other Americans and your debt should be forgiven." That got voted down. Joe Biden said, "Well, too bad what Congress said," and relieved student debt. The Supreme Court said, "Absolutely not." And yet, Joe Biden still forgave student debt. My colleagues, crickets. So, they love the constitution when it serves their point, but in reality, they shredded the constitution over the last four years. And again, I would urge them, please come back to the side of reality and common sense. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Graham (01:50:31):

Senator Merkley.

Mr. Merkley (01:50:34):

Since my colleague isn't here and since you made comments about his presentation, I just want to throw out a little bit more information, which is the Energy and Commerce Committee in the House has basically two accounts. They have Medicaid and they have Medicare. The president said, "We're not cutting Medicare." That means that instruction basically can only go towards Medicaid and there were many, many conversations that I had with House members saying, "Well, we think our plan is to cut about $800 billion in Medicaid." Certainly, some of those conversations were reported. It's a simple math in the committee. You are correct, technically, that the instructions don't say cut Medicaid, but the conversation in the House was that that was the plan. And so, I'd just like to acknowledge you are technically right, but my colleague is also right that the intention of that instruction was cuts to Medicaid. So, I just wanted to clarify that.

(01:51:34)
I also wanted to clarify the dialogue about the border wall that came up earlier. In 2021, Biden announced a pause in border wall construction and that pause was based on following the environmental rules for pre-clearance. And GOO looked at it and said, "Yep, you got to follow the law on environmental side." Then, by two years later, a Texas court decision said Biden has to start obligating funds. He then began dispersing those funds. And he made a comment and this comment acknowledges that he was going to follow the law. He said, "The money was appropriated for the border wall. I tried to get Congress to reappropriate it and to redirect it, but they didn't." And then, he proceeded to allocate the funds for the border wall construction, a whole series of projects along the way.

(01:52:29)
So yes, he didn't like the idea, he resisted it, but when the court said, "No, you got to follow the law," he followed the law. And that's the point we're trying to make here is that the law is not a suggestion and a president is not a king. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Graham (01:52:50):

Well, we can end on a note of commonality. President Biden believed he had the authority to not follow Congress's direction here. The Empowerment Act, the contours are yet to be determined by the court, there will one day. The War Powers Act. Whether you're a Republican or Democratic president, I believe you have the authority to commit troops and use military force as an inherent authority under Article II. Congress is trying to limit that. I think it's unconstitutional. But having said that, because we declare war and that's all we do. All these things are nuanced. The court did say, Senator Merkley, that the president does not have unlimited authority to ignore Congress, I agree with that. Where the balance is, I think we'll find out soon.

(01:53:47)
As to you, you did a really good job. I appreciate it. I want to thank you for appearing before the committee. Your full statement will be included in the record. The hearing record will remain open until noon tomorrow for the submission of statements and questions for the record delivered to the committee clerk. And if President Trump's team loses in court, I expect them to follow the court. The hearing is adjourned.