S.Hrg.119-42

1[Senate Hearing 119-42]2[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]34                                                         S. Hrg. 119-4256                   NOMINATION OF HON. TROY EDGAR AND7                               DAN BISHOP89=======================================================================1011                                HEARING1213                               BEFORE THE1415                              COMMITTEE ON16               HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS17                          UNITED STATES SENATE1819                    ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS2021                             FIRST SESSION2223                               __________2425               NOMINATION OF HON. TROY EDGAR TO BE DEPUTY26            SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,27            AND DAN BISHOP TO BE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF28                         MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET2930                               __________3132                           FEBRUARY 25, 20253334        Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov3536                       Printed for the use of the37        Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs3839[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]4041                                __________4243                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE4459-999 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 20254546-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------4748        COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS4950                     RAND PAUL, Kentucky, Chairman51RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin               GARY C. PETERS, Michigan52JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma             MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire53RICK SCOTT, Florida                  RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut54JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri                JOHN FETTERMAN, Pennsylvania55BERNIE MORENO, Ohio                  ANDY KIM, New Jersey56JONI ERNST, Iowa                     RUBEN GALLEGO, Arizona57TIM SCOTT, South Carolina            ELISSA SLOTKIN, Michigan5859                William E. Henderson III, Staff Director60                  Christina N. Salazar, Chief Counsel61                      Andrew J. Hopkins,  Counsel62              Kendal B. Tigner, Professional Staff Member63               David M. Weinberg, Minority Staff Director64              Claudine J. Brenner, Minority Senior Counsel65                     Laura W. Kilbride, Chief Clerk66                   Ashley A. Gonzalez, Hearing Clerk6768                            C O N T E N T S6970                                 ------71Opening statements:72                                                                   Page73    Senator Paul.................................................     174    Senator Budd.................................................     275    Senator Peters...............................................     476    Senator Johnson..............................................     677    Senator Lankford.............................................     878    Senator Kim..................................................    1479    Senator Ernst................................................    1780    Senator Slotkin..............................................    1881    Senator Gallego..............................................    2182    Senator Scott................................................    2483    Senator Hassan...............................................    2684    Senator Hawley...............................................    2885    Senator Moody................................................    3086Prepared statements:87    Senator Paul.................................................    3588    Senator Peters...............................................    388990                               WITNESSES91                       TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 20259293Dan Bishop, to be Deputy Director, Office of Management and94  Budget95    Testimony....................................................     396    Prepared statement...........................................    4097    Biographical and professional information....................    4198    Letter from U.S. Office of Government Ethics.................    5999    Responses to pre-hearing questions...........................    62100    Responses to post-hearing questions..........................    84101Honorable Troy Edgar, to be Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of102  Homeland Security103    Testimony....................................................     6104    Prepared statement...........................................    98105    Biographical and professional information....................   100106    Letter from U.S. Office of Government Ethics.................   122107    Responses to pre-hearing questions...........................   123108    Responses to post-hearing questions..........................   148109    Letter of support............................................   166110111                             NOMINATION OF112                     HON. TROY EDGAR AND DAN BISHOP113114                              ----------115116                       TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2025117118                                     U.S. Senate,119                           Committee on Homeland Security120                                  and Governmental Affairs,121                                                    Washington, DC.122    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m., in123room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Rand Paul,124Chair of the Committee, presiding.125    Present: Senators Paul [presiding], Johnson, Lankford, Rick126Scott, Hawley, Moreno, Ernst, Moody, Peters, Hassan,127Blumenthal, Kim, Gallego, and Slotkin.128129              OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PAUL\1\130131    Chairman Paul. The hearing to consider the nomination of132Troy Edgar to be Deputy Secretary of the Department of Homeland133Security (DHS) and Dan Bishop to be the Deputy Director of the134Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will come to order.135---------------------------------------------------------------------------136    \1\ The prepared statement of Senator Paul appears in the Appendix137on page 35.138---------------------------------------------------------------------------139    For far too long, Federal spending has increased unchecked,140amassing over $36 trillion in debt that our children and141grandchildren will one day inherit. Here in Washington, the142default mindset seems to be just write another check, as though143each new dollar of debt somehow does not matter. In the last144four years, we have added nearly $6 billion a day, or $241145million per hour to our national deficit for a running total of146$8.5 trillion over the last four years.147    The unchecked and reckless spending spree in Washington148over the last four years has put every American family on the149hook for another $67,000 in debt. Yet despite this150unprecedented level of spending, agencies continue to ask for151more funding, more authority, more staff--while doing less and152less for Americans.153    Unsurprisingly, Americans across the country have taken154notice and voted for a change in the status quo. One month ago,155President Trump, behind the wheel with a clear mandate from the156American people to steer this country in a different direction,157and he has not let off the gas since.158    The Trump Administration, along with the new Department of159Government Efficiency (DOGE), has been hard at work identifying160waste, fraud, and duplicative or outdated programs. Their161efforts have revealed just how many billions of taxpayer162dollars are slipping through the cracks, and they are moving163fast to identify flagrant waste, fraud, and abuse across the164Federal bureaucracy. That is good news. The bad news is that165unearthing waste is only half the battle. Real reform will166require a complete disruption of Washington, how Washington167operates, including Congress, and ultimately, an affirmation of168the savings by a congressional vote.169    Accountability cannot be outsourced. Real, lasting change170demands leaders who are not afraid to push back against171business as usual, leaders who will stand up and say we cannot172spend our way out of every problem.173    Which brings us to the two nominees appearing before us174today. First, we have Mr. Troy Edgar, who has been nominated to175serve as the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Homeland176Security. If confirmed, Mr. Edgar will take on the role of177Deputy Secretary, serving as the Department's Chief Operating178Officer (COO). DHS is a massive agency, employing nearly179260,000 people across more than 20 components. Having180previously served as DHS' Chief Financial Officer (CFO), Mr.181Edgar has first-hand knowledge of where the Department can make182cuts and streamline operations.183    Second, we have Representative Dan Bishop, nominated to be184Deputy Director of OMB. OMB is supposed to be the bulwark185against overspending. We rely on OMB to carefully scrutinize186agencies' budgets and identify redundancies. It is OMB's job to187ensure that Federal agencies are not rubberstamping costly new188programs subsidized by the American taxpayer. If confirmed,189Representative Bishop will have a front-row seat to the entire190Federal budget process and a chance to say no when agencies191continue to demand endless expansions in authority and192unchecked spending.193    Both of these nominees have come forward at a time when194Americans are fed up with government overreach and runaway195debt. Mr. Edgar and Representative Bishop, we appreciate your196willingness to serve and the experiences you bring to the197table. If confirmed, you will each wield influence that can198truly shape how this government operates and how it spends the199public's money. The American people deserve an honest,200efficient government that respects our hard-earned dollars.201Thank you for joining us this morning to share how you plan to202meet these responsibilities.203    The Committee has received several statements in support of204the nominees. Without objection, these letters of support will205be made part of the hearing record.\1\206---------------------------------------------------------------------------207    \1\ The letters of support appears in the Appendix on page 166.208---------------------------------------------------------------------------209    It is the practice of the Homeland Security and210Governmental Affairs Committee (HSGAC) to swear in witnesses.211Mr. Edgar and Mr. Bishop, please stand and raise your right212hand.213    [Witnesses sworn.]214    Mr. Bishop is being introduced today by Senator Budd.215Senator Budd, you are recognized for your introduction.216217               OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BUDD218219    Senator Budd. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the220Committee. It is my honor to be here to introduce a good friend221and colleague, Dan Bishop. Long before I was ever in Congress,222when Amy, Kate, and I lived in Charlotte, North Carolina,223everyone would tell me, if you want to meet a great leader, get224to know County Commissioner Dan Bishop. At that time, I was225helping run a landscaping and janitorial business. I was in my226late 20s, and I was probably a little too nervous to reach out227and call him. It was a big county. Who knew then that, years228later, I would have the privilege to serve with Dan in the229House of Representatives.230    I have seen firsthand his thoughtfulness, his deep231understanding of the issues, his love for our country, his care232for people, and his commitment to stopping runaway spending and233getting the Federal budget under control. I have no doubt that234Dan will bring the same tenacity to the job at OMB that he has235shown throughout his career, both as a litigator in his time236serving the people of North Carolina in public office.237    Dan, God speed, and best of luck. To the Members of the238Committee, you all be nice.239    Thank you, Senator.240    Chairman Paul. Representative Bishop, you are recognized241for your opening remarks.242243 TESTIMONY OF DAN BISHOP,\1\ TO BE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF244                     MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET245246    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Chairman Paul, Ranking Member247Peters, and Members of the Committee for this hearing. It is my248first time on this side of the dais, after five years in the249House of Representatives, where I had the pleasure of working250with several of you. If I am confirmed, it would be an honor to251serve our nation in a new capacity to implement President252Trump's vision and agenda.253---------------------------------------------------------------------------254    \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Bishop appears in the Appendix on255page 40.256---------------------------------------------------------------------------257    I want to thank my wife, Jo, and my life partner, and my258son, Jack, who is working hard in law school today for all that259we have seen over the last decade, including my tenure in260Congress, and now this nomination process. It is a testament to261Jo's much greater popularity that a number of congressional262spouses are here with her today. My thanks to them for their263kindness to Jo. Thanks also to my former congressional office264staff, several of whom have come today as my dear friends.265    It is a tremendous honor to be nominated by President Trump266to serve as the Deputy Director of Office of Management and267Budget. Unknown by name to many, it does what the name implies,268craft the President's budget, manage and coordinate among269Federal agencies, implement the President's regulatory agenda,270and so on. It is a critical part of ensuring that the271government responds to the democratically elected President in272order to respond to the will of the American people and not to273entrench Washington interests and the political establishment.274    Something I always noticed in Congress when I was out275meeting folks in North Carolina is that the American people are276way ahead of us in Washington. They know what is going on. They277are smart, resourceful, resilient, and hardworking. They want278accountability, transparency, and an end to the waste and the279Washington status quo. They recognized in this past election280that our nation was at a crossroads on the precipice of either281renewed greatness or ruin. In that precarious moment, they282placed their confidence in President Donald Trump to usher in a283new golden age for America. I am here on behalf of that mission284and the trust placed in President Trump by the people.285    Our children and grandchildren are being crushed under the286massive burden of an out-of-control Federal debt. For too long,287we have been spending money we do not have on things we do not288need. Our government has been self-absorbed, inefficient,289unaccountable, and mal-administered. The good news is we can290fix all of those things, and if confirmed, I will be laser291focused on doing so, along with Director Russ Vought and the292superb public servants at OMB.293    It is finally time for a government accountable to the294people. I have fought to deliver that my entire public service295career, from county commission to State legislature to296Congress, and it will continue to be my north star. Whether297elected or appointed, we must never forget the right of the298people to decide. I know that I will never forget it, and299neither will Director Vought. I was thrilled to see Director300Vought confirmed by the Senate, and I can assure you, he is the301man to get management of the Federal Government back on track.302If confirmed, I look forward to serving as his Deputy.303    Thank you for considering my nomination. I look forward to304your questions.305    Chairman Paul. Thank you, Representative Bishop.306    I also wanted to recognize our current Department of307Homeland Security, Kristi Noem. Thank you for joining us today.308    At this time, I am going to recognize the Ranking Member.309We are kind of going out of order because he had another310commitment at another Committee, but--for his opening311statement.312313             OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETERS\1\314315    Senator Peters. Thank you for that accommodation, Chairman316Paul. Thank you, Mr. Edgar and Congressman Bishop, for being317here today.318---------------------------------------------------------------------------319    \1\ The prepared statement of Senator Peters appears in the320Appendix on page 38.321---------------------------------------------------------------------------322    The Department of Homeland Security and the Office of323Management and Budget, where you have each been nominated to324fill very key positions, plays a critical role in strengthening325our national security and ensuring that the Federal Government326is operating effectively, efficiently, and in accordance with327law.328    Mr. Edgar, as the Committee considers your nomination,329there are several questions about recent actions the330Administration has taken with respect to the Department of331Homeland Security, where you are already serving, I understand,332as a Senior Advisor to the Secretary. I am concerned about the333troubling reports of key DHS personnel getting fired334indiscriminately, including staff at the Federal Emergency335Management Agency (FEMA), the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure336Security Agency (CISA), as well as the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG),337and I am going to want to know more about the individuals who338have been terminated, those who have been placed on339administrative leave, and the reasons for the Department's340action. Specifically, I want to know what impact these341terminations will have on DHS' ability to execute its vital342national security missions, including disaster response and343efforts to prevent cyber attacks.344    I am also alarmed that Elon Musk and DOGE personnel have345been granted access to potentially very sensitive DHS data,346which could violate cybersecurity and privacy laws. DHS holds347some of the most sensitive data about Americans and American348companies of any government agency, including their biometric349information, as well as private companies' proprietary350information. Congress, the American people need to know what351data was accessed, how that data will be used, and, more352importantly, why. We need to know what kind of legal and353security analysis was conducted before sharing this very354sensitive personal information. We also need to know whether355this data was properly managed and not at risk of being stolen356by any of our adversaries.357    Mr. Edgar, I hope that you will address these concerns and358will demonstrate how you will work with Congress, the359Secretary, and the Administration to rectify these issues if360confirmed.361    Today, we are also considering the nomination of Dan Bishop362to serve as the Deputy Director of the Office of Management and363Budget. The Office of Management and Budget is a critical364office in the Executive Office of the President (EOP) with365significant responsibilities ranging from developing and366executing the Federal budget to improving agency performance,367as well as reviewing regulations. This role not only requires368expertise in budgetary processes, fiscal policy and government369management, but a fundamental understanding and appreciation370for the Constitution and the law, including spending laws371passed by Congress on a bipartisan basis.372    Congressman Bishop, given your record and your views on373allowing OMB to withhold Federal funds, I certainly have374serious concerns about your ability to carry out this very375important role.376    As we saw recently with the funding freeze ordered by377President Trump, communities across our country are counting on378the funds appropriated by Congress to upgrade their roads and379bridges, pay their first responders, and provide a host of380other services. We need leaders at OMB who are committed to381following the laws on the books, which includes the Impoundment382Control Act (ICA). I am concerned, if confirmed, that you will383not carry out the laws of Congress that we pass that is funding384our communities, and that is simply unacceptable.385    I also have serious questions about your positions on the386Federal workforce. As I have said before, our nonpartisan civil387service employees play a vital role in protecting our national388security, caring for our veterans, and ensuring safety of our389transportation system. Your record and views, including support390for legislation that would make all Federal employees at-will,391give me serious pause about how you would manage the Federal392workforce.393    Finally, I have questions about your record of disregard394for independent oversight, including retaliatory actions by395revealing the name of a whistleblower.396    I appreciate you being here today, both of you, to answer397these questions and how you intend to manage the operations and398the budget of the Federal Government if you are confirmed to399this role.400    Chairman Paul. Mr. Edgar is being introduced today by401Senator Johnson. Senator Johnson, you are recognized for your402introduction.403404              OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHNSON405406    Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chair.407    It is my pleasure this morning to introduce Troy Edgar,408President Trump's nominee to be the Deputy Secretary of the409Department of Homeland Security. Mr. Edgar is from Los410Alamitos, California, where he served as Mayor and a county411official for over 12 years. Troy is also a U.S. Navy veteran412with more than 30 years of business and executive experience413providing leadership and advisory services to companies across414a range of industries, including in aerospace and defense, the415government sector, high tech, software, and telecommunications416industries.417    Troy first came before this Committee when President Trump418nominated him to serve as Chief Financial Officer at DHS. In419that role, he was responsible for the fiscal management,420integrity, and accountability of the Department's $90 billion421budget supporting 240,000 employees. Prior to DHS, he was an422executive at International Business Machines (IBM), running a423part of their Federal consulting business. I also want to424acknowledge a letter of support from the CEO and Chairman of425IBM, Arvind Krishna, and ask that it be entered in the426Committee record.\1\427---------------------------------------------------------------------------428    \1\ The letter of support appears in the Appendix on page 166.429---------------------------------------------------------------------------430    Chairman Paul. Without objection.431    Senator Johnson. Troy spent nearly a decade in the432aerospace industry at Boeing, where he was the CFO of the433Military Aircraft Logistics Division. He has held many key434positions within manufacturing, logistics, information435technology (IT), and procurement, which makes him an ideal fit436for the position of Deputy Secretary of DHS.437    Mr. Edgar earned his bachelor of science (B.S.) and a438Master of Business Administration (MBA) from the University of439Southern California (USC) in Los Angeles. He is joined this440morning by his wife, Betty.441    His business and government work experience and strong442support from President Trump would help Troy find success as443Deputy Secretary of DHS. I encourage all on this Committee to444swiftly confirm him to this position. Thank you, Mr. Chair.445    Chairman Paul. Mr. Edgar, you are recognized for your446opening statement.447448   TESTIMONY OF TROY EDGAR,\2\ TO BE DEPUTY SECRETARY, U.S.449                DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY450451    Mr. Edgar. Thank you. Chairman Paul, Ranking Member Peters,452distinguished Members of the Committee, it is an honor for me453to appear before you today as the President's nominee to be the454Deputy Secretary for Homeland Security. I want to also455recognize and thank Senator Johnson for that very kind456introduction. Thank you, sir.457---------------------------------------------------------------------------458    \2\ The prepared statement of Mr. Edgar appears in the Appendix on459page 98.460---------------------------------------------------------------------------461    I am grateful to President Trump and to Secretary Noem for462the trust and confidence that they have placed in me, and I463thank the Committee for considering my nomination. I am honored464that Secretary Noem has taken time out of her busy schedule465today to be here with me in support of my nomination. Thank you466for being here, Madam Secretary. I appreciate it.467    The process has enabled me to better appreciate the high468honor bestowed upon me to serve the American people and better469understand the critical expectations that the Committee may470have for me if confirmed to be the Deputy Secretary. Thanks to471my Lord for His grace on my life and the opportunity to serve472my country.473    My family is very important to me, but they are not here. I474would like to recognize them. Matt, Tyler, and Ethan are my475sons. My brother is Tracy. I honor the memory of my mom and476dad, Ralph and Maxine.477    I would like to introduce my precious wife, Betty. Betty478embodies the American dream in a manner that enables me to479understand the hopes and aspirations of millions of people who480come to America. Her story helps me understand the true weight481of public service. I have not only come to this nomination with482technical skills and business experience, but with the483conscience informed through my personal experience with my484wife.485    Betty is an immigrant from Iran who spoke Farsi, Aramaic,486and French growing up in Tehran. Her family fled to the United487States after the Shah was overthrown in 1979. When she arrived,488she learned English and Spanish and then attained a bachelor's489and master's degree in French. She has been a French teacher in490La Quinta High School in Orange County for over 25 years. Betty491rises every morning believing that she has the ability to492change another student's life for the way that this country has493changed hers. Thank you, Betty, for being here to support me.494    I have had the honor of previously working with this495Committee in the first Trump Administration, as Senator Johnson496said, in my Senate confirmation for being the DHS Chief497Financial Officer. When I left being the CFO of DHS on January49820, I was managing a $90 billion budget and over 250,000499employees. That role allowed me to learn and resource the500entire department, not just the important border security and501immigration components. It is with this unique knowledge and my502significant business experience that if I am confirmed I intend503to honorably serve President Trump, Secretary Noem, and the504American people to the best of my ability.505    The DHS Deputy Secretary serves as the Chief Operating506Officer, as Senator Rand Paul said. If confirmed, I will stay507focused on supporting the Secretary and ensuring that we are508effectively and efficiently using the policies and resources509provided to meet the President's goals on immigration, border,510and other national security missions of DHS.511    Furthermore, I will fully support the hardworking512professionals at DHS by helping provide the resources they need513to fulfill the critically important missions. If confirmed, I514look forward to working with this Committee and other Members515of Congress to assist you in the important role of oversight in516support of the Department. I am committed to investing the time517to build the critical working relationships needed to help518significantly advance DHS.519    Finally, I would like to thank Mr. Arvind Krishna, Chairman520and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of IBM; the National Sheriffs521Association; and the Major County Sheriffs for their letters of522support for my nomination.523    Thanks again for the opportunity to appear before you, and524I look forward to answering your questions. Thank you.525    Chairman Paul. Thank you, Mr. Edgar.526    We will now proceed to questions where each Member will527have five minutes. I want to be clear from the outset that the528Committee will not tolerate any disruptions. I will direct the529Capitol Police to immediately remove any member of the audience530that disrupts the hearing.531    Mr. Edgar, Mr. Bishop, do you agree, without reservation,532to comply with any request or summons to appear and testify533before any duly constituted Committee of Congress if you are534confirmed?535    Mr. Edgar. Yes.536    Mr. Bishop. Yes, with advice of counsel, yes, sir.537    Chairman Paul. Thank you. While the Secretary is still538here, I want to put in one plug for both of you. At the DHS,539there is a National Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures540Center (NBACC). They do gain-of-function (GOF) research in a541highly supposedly very safe lab, but we want more oversight as542to what specific experiments are going on there. We have sent543requests, and we just hope that you will keep complying. I do544not need an answer necessarily for that.545    With that, I am going to pass my time to Senator Lankford.546547             OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LANKFORD548549    Senator Lankford. Mr. Chair, thank you. Thank you to the550witnesses for being here, for what you have walked through551already, and the million forms you have already filled out and552the details that you have already done on this. Mr. Edgar, I do553have to say, though, after your introduction of your wife, I am554open to actually moving her to that seat rather than you in555that seat----556    Mr. Edgar. Yes.557    Senator Lankford [continuing]. To have her to be able to558take charge of this as well, so it is very kind of you both559introducing your families and your wife to be able to come in.560    Secretary Noem, good to see you. Thanks for what you have561already done and the engagement that is here.562    Let me walk through a couple of things on this as quickly563as I can on this. Mr. Edgar, you have done a lot of the work564behind the scenes. This Committee, in the days ahead, will work565a tremendous amount on trying to get the funds to DHS that they566need to actually implement the border security that is567desperately wanted by the American people on that. Without568question, additional dollars are needed, but without question,569there is also waste in the structure. You and I have talked570about $20 million a month that is being spent on soft-sided571facilities, and there is multiple of those, $20 million a month572for giant tents that are up there.573    We have talked about General Services Administration (GSA)574and the frustration with Customs and Border Protection (CBP)575and GSA facilities that are organized where GSA has put in a576$14,000 urinal or they have sold a parking lot for $1 to the577local community, only to a couple years have to buy it back for578a million dollars on it, the challenges they have had where CBP579has said we need more lanes, and then GSA designs a building580that actually has fewer lanes of entry, saying this is based on581their design. We have to be able to figure out how to be able582to deal with the waste, but also to be able to implement policy583quickly.584    What would you do to be able to help the communities on the585ground and the leadership on the ground efficiently be able to586do the mission?587    Mr. Edgar. Thank you, Senator. I would start, first of all,588having the opportunity to be the CFO for DHS and looking at all58923 components, the two that you are talking about mainly--or590the one main one you are talking about, CBP, I think right now,591the organization is very focused on an immigration and border592security mission. I think, if confirmed to be the Deputy593Secretary, I would work not only with CBP but U.S. Immigration594and Customs Enforcement (ICE). I think that the facilities that595you are talking about potentially could be leveraged in the596same vein that ICE is going to need about 100,000 detention597beds. CBP has, like you said, potential availability within598soft-sided tents.599    My job as being the previous CFO and now, if confirmed to600be the Deputy Secretary, to make sure that we are not being601wasteful, that we are being responsible with our spending, that602we are leveraging all the contracts across the government to be603able to get to our mission and really execute on President604Trump's agenda.605    Senator Lankford. That would be helpful, and we will walk606through that process together. We do not mind allocating the607dollars, as long as they are spent wisely in the process on it,608and the American people can go, that is where all my tax609dollars are going on this.610    Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), Drug Enforcement611Administration (DEA), and the Federal Bureau of Investigation612(FBI), great letters around here, but they are a challenge at613times to be able to cooperate together on it and try to be able614to keep from mission creep. Your oversight and Secretary Noem's615oversight in this process, over Coast Guard, over all things616border, over FEMA, over Secret Service, there are a lot of617tasks that are out there, but a lot of coordination that has to618happen as well.619    What needs to be done, in your view at this point, to make620sure that we are actually on mission and that we are actually621working with other agencies to make sure that, for instance,622Secret Service is doing what it can do well and not getting623into other areas; HSI is doing what it can do well and not624getting into DEA areas, for instance?625    Mr. Edgar. I think what has happened at the very beginning626is President Trump set the agenda. He created the executive627order that created the Homeland Security Task Force. We follow628the leadership of Secretary Noem--joint task force has a629combination of the Department of Justice (DOJ) with all the law630enforcement agencies that you are talking about and within HSI,631Enforcement and Removal Operation (ERO) of ICE and CBP. We will632have the whole of government that we will bring to that. That633task force will take on cross-government type activity, and not634only just being able to do border security, but actually bring635the full power of enforcement out to law enforcement. It has a636steering committee that they will appoint people to. It will be637chaired by Attorney General (AG) Bondi and Secretary Noem and638will follow their direction going forward.639    Senator Lankford. OK. We look forward to that coordination,640make sure we are actually cooperating together as efficiently641as we can.642    Mr. Bishop, it is good to see you. Thanks for your643leadership and what you have done for the country already and644the sacrifices you have already made on that. You and I have645talked a little bit about there are Federal agencies and a646Federal law already, I should say, that requires E-Verify for647Federal contracts. We have now learned that is actually not648being enforced, so we don't know how many people are not649legally present in the country that are also executing Federal650contracts or at work for the Federal Government on this. That651is Federal law already. And you and I have already spoken on652this, and your assurance to me was we are going to actually653make sure we are implementing the law in that area, that we are654doing the oversight that is needed to be done. Is that true?655    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Senator. Absolutely, Senator.656    Senator Lankford. That is terrific. We have something657called the Federal program inventory that is new. That is one658of those areas that we passed a law actually six years ago659called the Taxpayers Right-to-Know that is still being660implemented, but for the first time will give this body the661ability to be able to see in duplication, and we look forward662to the full implementation. Thank you.663    Mr. Bishop. Yes, sir. Thank you, Senator.664    Chairman Paul. Senator Peters.665    Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chair.666    Gentlemen, I have sent numerous oversight requests to both667DHS and OMB since the start of this Administration, and668unfortunately, have received little or no response or669responsive documents or information as a result of these670requests. For example, two weeks ago, I asked OMB about the671Administration's illegal funding freezes. This Committee is672responsible, as both of you know, for oversight of all of these673agencies.674    My question for each of you is, if confirmed, do you commit675to ensuring that OMB and DHS promptly answers requests for676information as we fulfill our oversight role here in this677Committee, information for me, all of my colleagues, as well as678my staff? I hope this is not a hollow promise. Mr. Edgar.679    Mr. Edgar. Yes, if confirmed, I will follow any lawful680requests from you, sir.681    Senator Peters. And you understand our role as the chief682oversight Committee, that is we need to work together on that,683but we have to have information?684    Mr. Edgar. Yes, sir.685    Mr. Bishop. As do I, Senator, subject to the advice of686counsel and direction of Director Vought, of course, that687Director Vought has already made clear we want to maintain688transparency at the Office of Management and Budget and that he689will personally be aware of every request made by a Member of690Congress, and I will see to it that I am as well.691    Senator Peters. I appreciate that. Can both of you commit692to providing the information within two weeks of assuming your693office? Mr. Bishop.694    Mr. Bishop. Sir, I am not certain what the processes at OMB695will permit. I certainly think they need to be provided in an696expedited way and will certainly work to that end within the697Department according to its processes.698    Senator Peters. If it cannot be done in two weeks, you will699tell us exactly why it cannot be provided in two weeks?700    Mr. Bishop. Sir, I would certainly commit to following the701processes at OMB to that effect, yes, sir.702    Senator Peters. Let us know, I appreciate that. Mr. Edgar.703    Mr. Edgar. Yes, same thing. I will follow the processes,704and I hope that we are able to maintain a very transparent705relationship with this Committee. Thank you.706    Senator Peters. Good. I am now hearing from several707agencies that this Administration has instructed its staff to708not communicate with Members of Congress and our staff. My709question for each of you, are either of you aware of this710directive that is coming from the Trump Administration to not711talk to Members of Congress? Congressman Bishop, that should be712pretty outrageous to you.713    Mr. Bishop. Senator, I am unaware of that. I did encounter714such instructions by the prior Administration when I was a715Member of Congress, but I cannot speak to it. I am serving as a716Senior Advisor. I have not been involved in anything of that717kind, sir.718    Senator Peters. But you would push back against anything719like that?720    Mr. Bishop. I certainly would want to ask questions about721it and learn what the reasons are and the processes that have722led to that, sir.723    Senator Peters. Thank you. Mr. Edgar.724    Mr. Edgar. Yes, same thing, I am not familiar with what you725are specifically talking about, but I would be open to taking a726look at that if confirmed.727    Senator Peters. And you understand how wrong that is?728    Mr. Edgar. Yes.729    Senator Peters. To have that kind of directive would be730wrong?731    Mr. Edgar. Yes.732    Senator Peters. Yes, is that for the record----733    Mr. Edgar. Yes, like I said, I am not familiar with that734directive. If that was a directive, we would look at it. I735would work with the Secretary----736    Senator Peters. You would look at it and say that is wrong.737    Mr. Edgar. I do not know what the directive is738specifically.739    Senator Peters. OK. The Trump Administration is currently740indiscriminately firing civil service servants across the741Federal Government. These actions, in many ways, are harming742public services across the country. But it appears the743Administration has not done any analysis about how this impacts744customer service and, even more importantly, national security.745Congressman Bishop, do you support--and this is just a yes or746no answer, pretty easy. Do you support the Administration's747recent efforts to indiscriminately remove civil servants from748their positions?749    Mr. Bishop. I cannot answer yes or no, Senator, because I750believe the premise is wrong. I do not believe the751Administration is proceeding in an indiscriminate way to752terminate employees.753    Senator Peters. You have seen the analysis that has gone754for each employee as to why they have been terminated?755    Mr. Bishop. No, I certainly have not, but I----756    Senator Peters. But how can you make that statement if you757have not seen that analysis?758    Mr. Bishop. Because I know that President Trump and the759folks who are working hard in the White House every day to do760the will of the American people are not proceeding in a way761that is indiscriminate, Senator.762    Senator Peters. When you get in, if we ask for information763as to why these particular individuals were, you will be able764to provide it to show that it was not indiscriminate?765    Mr. Bishop. Certainly, Senator, subject again to the766processes at OMB, the deliberative processes and the advice of767counsel.768    Senator Peters. Mr. Edgar.769    Mr. Edgar. Yes, same thing. I think the process that we are770going to go through, I also believe that it has been a lawful771process that is followed by President Trump, and I look forward772to continuing to work with President Trump and Secretary Noem773to carry out these----774    Senator Peters. So you are at DHS now, as we talked about775when you came into the office, and we know we have layoffs that776could definitely impact national security operations, firings777of personnel at CISA, at FEMA, at Transportation Security778Administration (TSA). These are indiscriminate, or have you779actually seen detailed analysis before each individual is780fired?781    Mr. Edgar. No, I have not. I am serving as a Senior782Advisor, so I have not seen that. I would say that these are783legal orders coming through the Executive Order (EO) process784with the President. I am sure that he is duly informed and785knows exactly what he is focused on and has got the right786protection with his general counsel.787    Senator Peters. If confirmed, you will then be in a788position to analyze both the impact, as well as the criteria.789Will you do that, and will you be transparent about that?790    Mr. Edgar. Yes, I will work with the Secretary. We will791make sure that we can continue our mission while we are trying792to also get to the objectives of trying to save money, waste,793fraud, and abuse from the government.794    Senator Peters. We all want to save money, waste, fraud,795and abuse, everybody here in this Committee is all about that.796We do not want to jeopardize national security. We want to make797sure that thoughtful decisions are being made before folks are798terminated, not indiscriminately. Clearly, you can meet the799objective of fraud, waste, and abuse in a thoughtful manner and800not indiscriminate, but you need to be transparent about that801in order to have trust in the process.802    Mr. Edgar. Yes, I would agree with that.803    Senator Peters. So I look forward to working with you if804confirmed.805    Mr. Edgar. Thank you.806    Chairman Paul. Senator Johnson.807    Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chair.808    Mr. Edgar and Mr. Bishop, I think you are both aware of the809fact that I have been talking quite a bit about returning to810some pre-pandemic level of spending. Mr. Edgar, you obviously811have experience as the CFO of DHS and an awful lot of private812sector experience. What drives me nuts around here, coming from813the private sector, is nobody seems to use a budget the way814families use a budget and the way businesses use a budget. I815use the analogy, I do not think any family, if they have a816serious illness, they have to borrow $50,000 to pay for medical817bills, that family member gets well, they continue to borrow818$50,000 and spend at that level.819    But that is exactly what we have done here in the Federal820Government. We went from $4.4 trillion in 2019 to averaging821$6.5 trillion over the next five years. Last year, we spent8226.9. This year, we are on course to spending $7.3 trillion.823    First of all, both you gentlemen, do you think there is any824justification for us to be spending, after the pandemic has825wound its way down, at $7.3 trillion, 61 percent above where we826were in 2019? Mr. Edgar.827    Mr. Edgar. First of all, I think that what we are going828through right now and what you are talking about is potentially829a reconciliation bill that would be spending up to a higher830level than what we would normally spend. I think at this point,831if you look at what the focus is for the agenda for President832Trump, this is truly money that is needed to be able to get833through and make sure that we can make good on the promises of834sealing the border and interior enforcement.835    I think over the long term, my commitment to you and to836this Committee, as the previous CFO, is that this spending837level is not sustainable. My focus would be to work with the838Secretary and our staff to look at the longer-term839sustainability. Once we are able to get through the agenda, get840numbers down, continue our partnerships with the Department of841Defense (DOD), we will get to a spending profile that long term842will be more sustainable and responsible.843    Senator Johnson. Mr. Bishop, we have had number of844conversations along this line. You are smiling. As a candidate,845did you ever talk about zero-based budgeting by any chance?846    Mr. Bishop. I certainly did, Senator.847    Senator Johnson. Do you know a lot other members who talked848about zero-based budgeting?849    Mr. Bishop. Yes, absolutely.850    Senator Johnson. Do you think they were serious about it?851    Mr. Bishop. The result hasn't gotten there, has it,852Senator? You have struck a consistent theme in making this853point, which is, I would say, somewhat inescapable, that there854is no reason for the government to have grown permanently in855the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) era.856    Senator Johnson. So just to review, I have looked at a857number of pre-pandemic baselines. One was 1998, Bill Clinton,858where we actually had a surplus. That was voted for by people859like Senator Durbin and Schumer and McConnell and Grassley and860Collins and John Thune in the House, a very bipartisan bill. If861we increase that $1.65 trillion by population growth and862inflation, leaving today's Social Security, Medicare, and863interest in place, that would give us $5.5 trillion worth of864baseline spending. That is what President Biden projected as865revenue. That is how close we are to balancing a budget if we866would return to that baseline.867    If you go to Clinton, 2014, do the same thing, plus it up868for population growth, inflation, use this year's Social869Security, Medicare, and interest, it would be $6.2 trillion.870Now, I do not even like talking about 2019 because that gives871us a figure of $6.5, but there is the range, $5.5-$6.5 trillion872as a pre-pandemic baseline spending. My question, how do we873return to that? The House is obviously having a really hard874time and I appreciate their efforts. I keep talking about death875by a thousand cuts. If you start at $7.3 trillion, you can't876cut that.877    But again, it is entirely reasonable to say, let's return878to a pre-pandemic-level baseline, plus it up for population879growth and inflation, and again, if you have to add some for880defense or for, obviously, border security, which we are trying881to do in this first reconciliation package, how do we882accomplish this? How do we turn what DOGE--and I do not883necessarily agree that the Ranking Member says we all want to884prevent waste, fraud, and abuse. The way they are howling about885the outrageous waste, fraud, and abuse that DOGE is uncovering886does not seem like they are real serious about eliminating887waste, fraud, and abuse. But how do we translate what DOGE is888finding into real spending savings? How do we return to that889pre-pandemic using reconciliation? Mr. Bishop, you seem ready890to answer.891    Mr. Bishop. Senator, certainly, it is something that892requires, obviously, actions in Congress, ultimately. What is893going on in the House, what you guys have begun in the Budget894Committee here in the Senate--and I appreciate the point that895you have made, Senator, a lot about this fundamental idea about896getting spending back to a pre-COVID sort of concept.897    I would say that over at OMB, there is a deliberative898process going on. Director Vought is very serious about the899topics you are focusing on here, and there is a deliberative900process ongoing. Now, it would be inappropriate to get ahead of901it about how the President weighs in on the process that has902gone on here in Congress toward reconciliation.903    Senator Johnson. If confirmed, I just count on both you904working very closely with me to try and accomplish exactly905that, return to some reasonable pre-pandemic baseline of906spending. Thank you, Mr. Chair.907    Mr. Bishop. I look forward to having those conversations.908Thank you, Senator.909    Chairman Paul. Senator Kim.910911                OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR KIM912913    Senator Kim. Thank you, Mr. Chair.914    Mr. Bishop, I wanted to start with you. I guess I was915concerned by what I just heard in terms of your previous916response. So you believe that the firings that have happened917and the layoffs that have happened, you said that they are not918indiscriminate?919    Mr. Bishop. Yes, Senator Kim, I do not believe that920President Trump or the people at Presidential Personnel Office921(PPO) or the folks who are around--or in the White House922policymaking operation would proceed in a way that is923indiscriminate with respect to Federal employees.924    Senator Kim. We are seeing firing based off of status of925being probationary, both in terms of new hires, as well as926probationary also includes those that have been recently927promoted, and they are new in that position because they have928been promoted into that. We have seen mass layoffs of that929status because frankly, I guess it is easier to be able to fire930them. You do not consider that to be indiscriminate?931    Mr. Bishop. Senator, I do not. The folks who are advising932the President has made points about believing that the Federal933employee workforce is not at the right size.934    Senator Kim. When we were seeing the National Nuclear935Security Administration, we are seeing hundreds fired there,936later to be reinstated, I mean, did that not seem like that was937indiscriminate initially, and then they realized, hey, look,938that actually probably the nuclear functions of the United939States is important, you know? We are seeing just the level in940which this is happening, do you think that was an appropriate941move to initially fire them?942    Mr. Bishop. I think the President has spoken directly to943that or spokespeople for the President have, that in the course944of making changes, you may find that you need to then move in945the other direction to make an adjustment after you have made946the first change. In my view, Senator, that does not make it947indiscriminate.948    Senator Kim. Mr. Edgar, I guess I would love to turn to you949and just get a sense, what was the reasoning for the firing of950130 employees at the Cybersecurity Infrastructure Security951Agency?952    Mr. Edgar. Yes, as the Senior Advisor, I was not953responsible for that, but I guess what I would say just as a954response is, if you look at this outside of Federal Government,955the process that you are talking about, about whether we are956being indiscriminate or not, I mean, this is something that all957Fortune 500 companies do. To me, this does not seem out of the958norm. You would normally go to reflect on more junior people,959especially if you had to make a head cut reduction and you960needed to be able to go through a process to be able to get to961that. To me, this seemed totally logical and not962indiscriminate.963    Senator Kim. I am just trying to think that we have964incredibly important procedures going forward. For instance,965the Cyber Safety Review Board under DHS was revoked, the966membership there revoked.967    Mr. Edgar. Yes.968    Senator Kim. Do you think that was a good idea?969    Mr. Edgar. I do. I think that was a great idea.970    Senator Kim. You think that was a great idea, even though971that is the board that is overseeing the investigation on Salt972Typhoon?973    Explain that to me.974    Mr. Edgar. Like I said, I did not make the decision to do975it, but I think it was a great idea. I think that CISA has976overstepped its boundaries and authorities. I think it needs to977be reeled in, and it starts with that steering committee.978    Senator Kim. So who is conducting the investigation on Salt979Typhoon right now at DHS?980    Mr. Edgar. CISA.981    Senator Kim. CISA is doing it?982    Mr. Edgar. Yes.983    Senator Kim. So they have taken over the review of the984Cyber Safety Review Board?985    Mr. Edgar. At this point, that review board will be986reconstituted at the right time, but as an organization, it987continues with its priorities set by the Secretary.988    Senator Kim. If it is going to be reconstituted, why was it989decommissioned to start with? At least, why were the members990taken off?991    Mr. Edgar. Like I said, I thought it was decommissioned992because it was going in the wrong direction. It starts with the993leadership there.994    Senator Kim. I wanted to just switch gears here, Mr. Edgar.995I guess I wanted to just get your response, just have you on996record when it comes to the temporary protected status (TPS).997We have seen the revoking of that for Haiti, for Venezuela. I998guess I just want to ask you, do you not believe that999consideration of safety of individuals is something that we, as1000the United States, should take into account when we are1001thinking about how to proceed with legal pathways to1002immigration?1003    Mr. Edgar. I think temporary protective status is just1004that, temporary. I think the Secretary reserves the right and1005the opportunity to go in and look at what the policies are,1006either from Venezuela or Haiti, and I think the Secretary has1007taken appropriate action to make sure that she reserves her1008opportunity that Secretary Mayorkas had really pushed up and1009really kind of overdid what his authority was. I think we are1010just putting more options on the table for the Secretary to1011make her decision.1012    Senator Kim. When it comes to FEMA, in the past, you have1013called it a great organization, great people. Their mission1014drives their organization at all levels. What we are seeing at1015U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and other1016aspects of the Federal Government, should we expect that at1017FEMA, or are we going to see a rapid abolishment of FEMA?1018    Mr. Edgar. I think I would agree with the President. I1019think we need to reevaluate what the direction is that we are1020going to go with FEMA. It has got a lot of issues that need to1021be dealt with structurally. As you know, it is structured in1022two different ways, the disaster recovery fund and the non-1023disaster recovery.1024    Senator Kim. Yes, so just here at the end, I guess I just1025want to say--and we talked about this--is like I think everyone1026here understands there needs to be reforms when it comes to1027FEMA. What has been happening has not been working. I say this1028from New Jersey, crushed by hurricanes, problems on that front.1029But I really do urge you and the Secretary--and I have talked1030about this before with her--try for us to have a bipartisan1031approach to this, work with this Committee to try to address1032it. If we see just a quick gutting of it, it is just going to1033leave American people unsafe, insecure when it comes to1034disasters that can affect every aspect of this country.1035    With that, I will yield back.1036    Mr. Edgar. Thank you.1037    Chairman Paul. Senator Ernst.10381039               OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ERNST10401041    Senator Ernst. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to1042the nominees for being here today. We truly do appreciate your1043service.1044    Congressman Bishop, I am going to go ahead and start with1045you, sir.1046    Mr. Bishop. Yes, Senator.1047    Senator Ernst. As Chair and Founder of the Senate DOGE1048Caucus, I am very laser focused on making sure our government1049is responsive to our taxpayers and ensuring our Federal1050workforce is actually serving the American people. Today, I1051want to focus on taxpayer-funded union time, OK, which requires1052Federal agencies to pay employees for time spent working for1053their union, not the American people.1054    The Biden Administration took several steps to hide the1055costs of taxpayer-funded union time from the American people,1056including rolling back President Trump's Executive Order to1057prevent union time abuses and increase agency oversight,1058pulling down annual reports on the cost of taxpayer-funded1059union time off of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM's)1060website, and hiding annual reports OPM had previously1061published.1062    Meanwhile, as part of my investigation into telework, I1063learned teleworking Department of Housing and Urban Development1064(HUD) employees were reportedly paid for performing union1065duties, despite one being in an Oklahoma jail for drunk driving1066and another in Puerto Rico vacationing during duty time. Even1067more alarming, HUD told me it was not even aware of this1068because there was no way to verify when or even if employees1069are engaging in union duties.1070    Congressman Bishop, will you commit to working with1071Director Vought and OPM to restart those annual reporting1072requirements?1073    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Senator. I followed closely the work1074you have done in that area, chairing the DOGE Caucus and also1075concerning the back-to-work issue with Federal employees, and1076so thank you for that.1077    And OMB and OPM do have a close working relationship. I am1078coming to learn about it as a Senior Advisor, not yet1079confirmed, but certainly I will take that back to Director1080Vought. I think the issues you are speaking to are quite1081significant. I won't be Deputy Director and implement my1082policies but the policies of President Trump and follow the1083direction of Director Vought, but certainly--and look forward1084to looking into the issue and communicating with you about that1085and making sure the information you need is readily available.1086    Senator Ernst. That is great. Thank you. In 2019, some of1087those agencies refused to provide OPM with data. Will you1088ensure all agencies are responsive to OPM when it solicits1089information on taxpayer-funded union time?1090    Mr. Bishop. It is very important that Congress receive the1091oversight information it needs, and there is a deliberative1092process that I will work with, of course, at OMB, but certainly1093want to, subject to the advice of counsel and direction of the1094Director of OMB, provide everything we can. Thank you.1095    Senator Ernst. Thank you. Briefly, is there something we1096can do to make sure agencies are appropriately reviewing1097taxpayer-funded union time payments?1098    Mr. Bishop. I cannot make a specific commitment on that1099Senator because there are deliberative processes at OMB, of1100course, to follow, but certainly, I think it is an issue that1101needs to be front and center, and we will look at it hard.1102    Senator Ernst. Assuming your confirmation, I hope that we1103work together on this issue.1104    Mr. Bishop. I guarantee it.1105    Senator Ernst. It is a big one for our taxpayers.1106    In the time that I have left, politicians and bureaucrats1107in Washington seem to be a lot more upset that DOGE is finding1108waste, fraud, and abuse than about the nonsense that we have1109funded in the first place. You can hear all of these big1110spenders squealing all the way from Iowa. Every taxpayer should1111have the ability to look and find the same ways DOGE is1112exposing, but there are nearly 50 Federal agencies right now1113that are not reporting their spending on USAspending.gov,1114accounting for more than $5 billion each year.1115    Congressman Bishop, every American can be one of our DOGE1116deputies just out across the United States, but they actually1117need OMB's help to do that. Will you require all agencies1118provide timely, accurate, and complete reporting of their1119spending?1120    Mr. Bishop. I can tell you, Senator, that with the scope of1121USAspending and the items that are not on there is something1122that I have learned a great deal about since being nominated1123and researching that. It is a very significant issue to me. I1124will be paying very close attention to it, should I be1125confirmed as Deputy Director.1126    Senator Ernst. Absolutely. Thank you. My time has expired,1127but thank you. I think we have a lot of issues here, and I look1128forward to working with both of you on these issues.1129    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Senator.1130    Senator Ernst. Thank you.1131    Chairman Paul. Senator Slotkin.11321133              OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SLOTKIN11341135    Senator Slotkin. Thank you. Thanks for being here,1136Congressman Bishop, good to see you. We were neighbors for a1137short time in Longworth when we were both Members of Congress.1138And separate from being good officemates, I am really concerned1139about the view that you and Director Vought and the President1140have expressed on the Executive Branch and the President having1141the unilateral ability to spend Federal dollars, despite what1142Congress appropriates. I will skip the irony of a Congressman1143who ran for office and was deeply involved in appropriating1144dollars and voting on those things for years and years and1145years, now being seemingly willing to give up that authority.1146    It is a fundamental principle of the Constitution. The1147Supreme Court, starting back in 1975, has said that, as the1148Constitution says, this body, which Republicans now control1149both houses of, appropriates the dollars, and the Federal1150Government spends them accordingly. This has been reiterated by1151the courts. Can you tell us your position? As Deputy Director1152of OMB, do you believe that President Trump has the ability to1153spend appropriated dollars in different ways than they were1154appropriated?1155    Mr. Bishop. Thank you for the question, Senator Slotkin.1156President Trump has run on the issue of impoundment, and there1157will be a process in the Administration the decisionmaking1158involving lawyers. I will not be serving as Deputy Director in1159a legal capacity, but there will be folks who are looking at1160the legal issues you describe.1161    Senator Slotkin. But it is just your view. I understand1162lawyers, but your personal view, like, just be open with it.1163Vought was very open about it. Do you believe that if this1164Chairman appropriates dollars that are voted on by this Senate,1165that you and President Trump have the ability to spend those1166dollars in a different way than your Republican Chairman has1167appropriated?1168    Mr. Bishop. Senator, I support the views of President Trump1169and Director Vought on the subject.1170    Senator Slotkin. OK, so yes. Mr. Vought owned it. You just1171own it. Let me ask this question. If you believe that to be1172true, do you believe that you have the right to unilaterally1173take money out of Social Security, not that you will, but that1174you have the right?1175    Mr. Bishop. Senator, the President has made very clear that1176they are not going to touch Social Security, but--and you are1177speaking to hypotheticals. I would say, I do not think that the1178President has----1179    Senator Slotkin. It is not a hypothetical if every single1180Michigander that I talk to is worried about you cutting their1181Social Security benefits, their Medicare benefits, their1182veteran's benefits, the post office, right? I was just up in1183very red, conservative upper peninsula of Michigan, right? I am1184the only Democrat there and they are, like, happy. As you said,1185there are people who are perfectly happy with cuts that are1186going on, but they are desperately worried that you are going1187to cut their Social Security, their Medicare, their veteran's1188benefits, and the Postal Service. Despite everyone saying they1189are not going to touch it, you are smarter than that and know1190that the big cuts that you are calling for need big chunks out1191of these programs.1192    Mr. Bishop. Senator, I do not hesitate to say that I do not1193believe that the President can stop Social Security benefits1194being paid. I don't think so.1195    Senator Slotkin. You do not think he can pull money out of1196Social Security, Medicare, veteran's benefits and the Postal1197Service.1198    Mr. Bishop. I don't.1199    Mr. Bishop. Of course, the reason I say the President said1200he is not going to is because that is what he has consistently1201declared, so I do not think it is an issue.1202    Senator Slotkin. But if you look behind the numbers, and1203you guys are looking for $6 trillion, DOGE is looking for that,1204you guys have been open about it, which I appreciate. Six1205trillion dollars does not come from a million here and a1206million there. It comes from cutting big programs. What you are1207saying is, despite what everyone says here, you proudly support1208this idea that you can move money even though it has been1209appropriated for a certain reason.1210    I do not think any American, red, blue, purple, the whole1211thing, should trust that these programs that they have worked1212their entire life for are safe if you believe you can do1213anything that you want.1214    Mr. Bishop. There are distinctions to be made, Senator. To1215the point you suggested hypocrisy about serving in Congress and1216taking this position, Harry Truman exercised the impoundment1217power to cancel a squadron of I believe it was bombers that he1218had vetoed and Congress had passed over his veto. These things1219have happened across history by Presidents.1220    Senator Slotkin. OK, I would just say I feel very strongly1221that, again, it is not about red America or blue America or any1222of those things. I am from a purple State. It is that people1223watch this chaotic cutting, right? Let's just be fair. You fire1224people and then hire them the next week. That is1225indiscriminate. That is acknowledging you have made a mistake.1226That is not some review that normal private sector companies1227would do. I do not know a damn private sector company that1228would fire someone on Friday and hire them back on Monday1229because, whoops, they made a mistake.1230    But let's just be honest that this approach is scaring the1231crap out of people on the benefits they have worked their1232entire life for. I know I am out of time. I yield back.1233    Chairman Paul. Thank you. Probably we should try to put1234aside some of the fearmongering. To my knowledge, no one in the1235Trump Administration has advocated for taking Social Security1236money and using it for another purpose, so that is a1237hypothetical that is not only untrue, it is promoting fear. We1238should be telling everyone in America, no one is promoting1239that. No one is asking for that.1240    There are some debatable points, though. Nobody is1241advocating it from the post office either. Plus, the post1242office has no money. They are $9.5 billion in the hole every1243year now.1244    But there are some real questions. The other side has1245called these illegal funding freezes. I do not think pausing1246spending for a month, which is what we have had so far, will be1247interpreted even as impoundment. There is a debate when1248something is actually impounded. I think if you went through a1249fiscal year (FY) and you get beyond a fiscal year and you have1250not spent money, it is going to be classified by anybody as1251impoundment. There will be a legal debate over it at that time,1252but that will be a legal discussion.1253    This is a separation-of-powers issue. It is an important1254one. I actually voted against repurposing money for the wall,1255for building the wall last time because I thought it was1256congressional perspective. I share some of the concerns, but I1257think it is unfair to leap to sort of conclusions of this is1258illegal, or this is being done, and democracy is in turmoil,1259and the world is going to end. When they stopped the money1260flowing at USAID, they found $2 million for sex changes in1261Guatemala.1262    If the other side wants to stand up and argue that that is1263really wrong that we are going to stop $2 million for sex1264changes in Guatemala, they can, but instead, they just say1265everything is illegal and Elon is terrible and Elon has all1266this data and Elon was not elected. These gentlemen were not1267elected either. Their bosses won't be elected. Trump was1268elected. He is appointing them. So nobody in the Administration1269is elected other than the President. They are all going to be1270appointed.1271    But there is a question, when you elect a President, should1272they get to execute their policy? Did we elect a change, or is1273there some sort of bureaucracy that is so huge and inert that1274we cannot move it? That is what many of us have complained1275about for a long time. Some call it the deep State, and the1276other side says, oh, they are all conniving. Well, no, the deep1277State is essentially the bureaucracy that is unmovable and has1278a perspective, and their perspective is skewed toward spending1279more money, not less.1280    We should debate not whether Elon Musk is Satan, but maybe1281whether or not we should spend $3 million out of State1282Department funds on girl-centric climate change in Brazil,1283whether you spend $30,000 on a trans operation in Colombia,1284$25,000 on a trans comic book in Peru, $660,000 on1285microaggressions among obese Latinx. When you say that, most1286people do not even know what that means, and most people who1287are Hispanic are just frankly offended by the whole thing,1288whatever it is supposed to mean.1289    All these racial sort of things and sort of left wing sort1290of causes, we can debate that, whether we should keep spending1291money on it, but we would not know it. Had Elon Musk not1292stopped things, we would not even know it was being spent.1293    I for one think scrutiny is good, but I am not a blank1294check. I have told both of the nominees today, and I have told1295Russ Vought when it comes down to a year from now, if the money1296is being impounded, I am probably going to be saying, send it1297back and let Congress vote on it. It is also a way of making1298permanence. I love all the stuff he is finding, all the waste.1299I want it to be permanent. I want it to have real value, and we1300get that through a decision. It won't be easy, but it can be1301done through simple majority.1302    My guess is that the minority party, while they are1303squawking about Elon looking at their Social Security number or1304something, they are probably not any of them interested in1305cutting the $2 million for sex changes in Guatemala. That will1306be part of a rescission package. My guess is that there will1307not be anybody on the Democrat party that will vote for1308rescission of any kind of cutting. If we give them a billion1309dollars for an aircraft carrier, and they can do it for $8001310million, shouldn't we be happy to get the $200 million back and1311do a rescission package?1312    I will say publicly, though, giving it back to the taxpayer1313when we have a $2 trillion deficit, let's fill up the hole of1314the $2 trillion deficit, and then we can talk about sending1315some back to the people. But I think it is premature to send1316any of that money back. It is also premature to say it is saved1317until we actually have a spending bill.1318    I think next in line we have Senator Gallego.1319    Senator Gallego. Thank you, Mr. Chair.13201321              OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR GALLEGO13221323    Mr. Edgar, thank you for joining us for your nomination1324hearing. I have heard concerns from numerous law enforcement1325officials in Arizona, including elected Republican sheriffs,1326about the deep strain some of these ambitious deportation1327operations have on their resources and the ability to keep1328violent criminals off their streets, whether they are here1329legally or not. The State and local enforcement departments1330across the country are already operating very tight budgets and1331are facing personnel shortages just trying to get new cops to1332come in.1333    Can you commit that DHS will not deputize State and local1334law enforcement and personnel devoted to combating violent1335crime? Essentially, what they are concerned about, these police1336officers, is that they do not mind if DHS says, hey, we are1337going to go and there is this criminal, let's say, whatever,1338gang or cartel member, we have a deportation order, could you1339come help us, city of Phoenix police to do a cordon and1340everything else like that, they are fine with that because that1341helps them.1342    What they are not fine with is being deputized and made to1343do everyday deportation or deportation processes for people1344that are nonviolent offenders, people that have overstayed1345visas, things of that nature because in terms of fiscal dollars1346and time, they just do not have the time for that, nor do they1347want to engage in that. That is what these police officers,1348police unions, as well as sheriffs are asking, that they are1349not engaged in that kind of day-to-day stuff that the Federal1350Government should be focused on.1351    Mr. Edgar. First of all, the program that you are talking1352about, 287(g), which would go through and basically deputize1353the State and local law enforcement officials, is voluntary.1354The sheriffs' organizations, the different county sheriffs sign1355up for that and they----1356    Senator Gallego. Yes, I am aware of the 287(g) program. As1357long as it is voluntary, that is one thing.1358    Mr. Edgar. Yes.1359    Senator Gallego. Largely, the best use of 287(g) programs1360are in the prisons so that way, ICE checks and ICE detainer1361holds, so then ICE will come and do that. That does not1362actually put a strain on the police because the person's1363already in custody. What they are worried about is a forced1364287(g) program where they have to actively be doing street1365enforcement of immigration laws, and that is what they do not1366want to do because they just do not have the money, more1367important than anything else. They may even have the will, they1368just do not have the money and time to do it.1369    Mr. Edgar. Part of this process I went through, I met with1370the Major County Sheriffs of America and the National Sheriffs1371Association, and I did talk a lot about this issue. I would1372just say maybe we are a little bit at mixed purposes here, as I1373know that the President's perspective of this and Stephen1374Miller, who helps us coordinate across all law enforcement1375across the government, 287(g) and the relationships with the1376sheriffs are very important. I think what you are talking about1377is discretionarily whether it is just in prisons or in jails1378where we are actually serving in that sort of a function in1379detention.1380    But I think if you start to look at whether we are looking1381for the 300,000 lost children in America, I think that1382partnership with the sheriffs will be really critical and1383important to not only just in immigration, but in helping1384locate and find those 300,000 that were lost under the Biden1385Administration.1386    Senator Gallego [continuing]. 300,000 is not where the1387sheriffs are worried about. Again, they are worried that they1388are going to be deputized to go after the local taco vendor.1389They do not want to be going into farms to look for1390undocumented migrant workers. It is not worth their time. It is1391not worth the public citizens' money to do that. If you want to1392go after these hardcore criminals, that is where there is1393alignment with the Arizona citizen who is willing to pay the1394money to go after the rapists, go after these drug dealers, go1395after these horrible people. But it is when you are going after1396the nana and the tata that has been here for 10 years and has1397kids in the United States, they do not want the local beat cop1398doing that.1399    Moving on kind of into that same vein--there is a lot of1400fear about also the question about some of our students in1401schools, particularly public schools, being questioned about1402their status or their family status. Could you give us some1403commitment that we are not going to essentially turn our1404schools, our, principals, our teachers into deputized ICE1405officers by asking the status of these students under the age1406of 18?1407    Mr. Edgar. Yes, you know what, I do not see that being the1408situation. I see what President Trump has put in place through1409Executive Order to be able to allow law enforcement to go to1410schools and churches, but I grew up in southern California. I1411grew up in an area that had a gang problem, and I would have1412welcomed as a use to be able to make sure that I felt safe at1413my school, and as my kids grow up, to make sure they feel safe.1414I think that is what we are doing----1415    Senator Gallego. Sure, and this is why you should support1416local police officers. It is why I am for getting police1417officers in school. But there is also a lot of kids that are1418actually good, innocent kids, and not all gang members are1419illegals, just in case you were wondering. And so, being able1420for them to go to school, receive services, learn because a lot1421of them will eventually become citizens one way or the other1422legally, and by making it a place that is not safe to go, you1423are going to have kids skipping school, which we are already1424seeing all over this country where kids are skipping school,1425even some that are here legally, that were born in the United1426States, because they are afraid that they are going to be1427followed home by ICE, and their parents are going to be taken1428away. This is why I am concerned about our schools not being1429kind of a safe zone for kids, not for drug dealers or anything1430else, but for actually kids.1431    Mr. Bishop, good to see you. I think we served at least1432four years together for a little bit.1433    Mr. Bishop. That is right, Senator.1434    Senator Gallego. If confirmed, you will serve alongside1435Director Vought, who said he wants Federal employees to be1436traumatized, and we have seen that. I am hearing horrible1437stories, especially some of the veterans that I served with in1438the Iraq war, they do feel traumatized. They have actually1439served their country. These guys are actually Trump supporters.1440They have been doing different types of work for the1441government. Some of them have now been laid off, so mission1442accomplished along that route.1443    Can you explain the thinking behind intentionally targeting1444people dedicated to serving their country? How can we trust1445that you are going to have the best interest of the American1446people at heart if the stated goal of OMB's leadership is to1447traumatize the very people who provide, often, some lifesaving1448services to the public? My concern too for some of these1449veterans is that they are not going to come back and work or we1450are not going to be able to recruit a lot of these veterans to1451come back and work for the Federal Government at some point1452when we are going to need to have more support.1453    Mr. Bishop. Senator, one of the things that is very1454interesting is that Federal workers say in surveys that they1455have frustration that low performers cannot be moved out, they1456see problems in their own workplace that is the result of the1457way the bureaucracy operates. This quote that Director Vought1458is often talked about, about putting workers in trauma, and1459sort of taken out of context. I watched the way he works with1460folks at OMB. He has the greatest regard for the professionals1461at OMB who are really stellar.1462    Change is difficult. There is going to need to be change to1463the Federal Government. I mean, we can all look at it and see1464the $36 trillion of debt, the spending that is $2 trillion a1465year in deficit roughly, and going in the wrong direction, it1466has to be dealt with. It is going to require change to the1467Federal Government, including the Federal employee situations.1468But I just disavow and do not believe the ideas many have said1469that it is indiscriminate or it is designed to harm anybody. It1470is designed to put the Federal Government back on the side of1471the American people.1472    Senator Gallego. I mean, when you are firing employees that1473we need for stuff it clearly is indiscriminate.1474    Chairman Paul. Time has expired.1475    Chairman Paul. Senator Scott.14761477               OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SCOTT14781479    Senator Scott. Sure. First off, congratulations to both of1480you for your nominations. I know you are both going to do an1481outstanding job.1482    Starting with you, Mr. Edgar, what is success? What do you1483want get done?1484    Mr. Edgar. I define success in supporting President Trump.1485I think he ran on the agenda to seal the border and to make1486sure, for the interior enforcement, that we are able to deport1487over a million people. As the Chief Operating Officer, I think1488there are two things, be able to execute that agenda, but there1489are also 22 other components within DHS that have missions that1490need to be executed, and we need to be making sure that we are1491responsible, whether it is the Coast Guard, the Secret Service1492(USSS), TSA, et cetera, we need be able to walk and chew gum.1493So my opportunity of being the previous Chief Financial Officer1494will allow us to make sure that we get the most for the1495taxpayers' money for the amount that they are paying here.1496    Senator Scott. Congressman Bishop, what would you like to1497accomplish?1498    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Senator. I think you would say that1499we can implement President Trump's vision to put government1500back on the side of the people, to get government to function1501more efficiently and effectively, certainly to get the out-of-1502control spending under control to begin making headway on the1503massive debt that we otherwise will be handing to our children1504and grandchildren.1505    Talking about Elon Musk and what Elon Musk is seeking to1506accomplish, they want to see actual change, not the same status1507quo, the same stagnation that we have seen--that you and I both1508experienced in our service in Congress where we know we have to1509solve these problems, but yet nothing ever seems to happen.1510President Trump means to make it happen, and OMB is going to be1511a critical tool in seeing to it that it does.1512    Senator Scott. Congressman Bishop, so you are a staunch1513supporter of getting rid of wasteful spending. Do you think we1514can actually balance the budget?1515    Mr. Bishop. I think the budget can be balanced. I certainly1516do. When and under what circumstances and how that comes out,1517that is the President's decision, not mine. My priorities don't1518weigh in this balance. I am serving his program. But I know1519that we can bring the Federal leviathan under control so that1520the American taxpayer can afford it again.1521    Senator Scott. Yes. Mr. Edgar, have you spent much time1522with regard to FEMA? My experience, I was Governor, so I can1523just tell you, FEMA wasted billions of dollars. There was no1524logic to it. They are involved in so many things that it never1525was anticipated that they would be involved in. How would you1526try to fix FEMA? And they are wonderful people.1527    Mr. Edgar. Yes.1528    Senator Scott. I do not know. I dealt with mostly the1529Southeast with FEMA. Gracia Szczech ran it, and now Robert1530Samaan does, and they are wonderful people, but, I mean, they1531are involved in so many things that does not make any sense.1532    Mr. Edgar. The President came out and said one of his first1533directives is we need to rethink about FEMA. When you start1534taking a look at that, a couple different mechanisms, I think1535the funding process, I started my public service while I was a1536corporate guy in the local government. If you talk with1537Secretary Noem, as a Governor, she definitely knows how the1538disasters are related to at the State level. She would tell you1539that if she was here, that a lot of this is best done by the1540local government. I think what ends up happening is FEMA gets1541in the way of the process. They do not know the total1542priorities, and I think that is what the President sees.1543    I think it also is going to require a legislative fix. I1544look forward to the opportunity not only working on one side of1545the aisle, but both sides of the aisle. I think we need to take1546a look at it very systematically and look at the authorities1547that were given to FEMA during the DHS stack of 2002 and1548evaluate what would be structurally the best way. I know you1549and I have talked about this privately. I would love to be able1550to work with you to do that.1551    Senator Scott. Congressman Bishop, inflation is out of1552control. It is impacting the poorest families in our country.1553How much is that tied to wasteful spending?1554    Mr. Bishop. I think what Americans are seeing now revealed1555every day, frankly, unfortunately, to the consternation of1556some, is that there is jaw-dropping waste in the Federal1557Government. Senator, I think about what you did as Governor of1558Florida. You sat down, took your budget, went through it at1559great pain, line by line and began moving to solve it. You and1560the fiscal results you achieved there, we can do the same thing1561in the Federal Government.1562    I think what President Trump is demonstrating in first1563several weeks in office, with the help of DOGE, is that there1564is going to be action on multiple fronts all at the same time.1565There is going to be significant change. I think Americans are1566enthusiastic to see someone finally take hold of it the way1567that you did when you were Governor of Florida.1568    Senator Scott. You are both going to be great, so I look1569forward to voting for your confirmation so you can get to work.1570    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Senator.1571    Senator Scott. Thanks, Mr. Chair.1572    Chairman Paul. Senator Hassan.15731574              OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HASSAN15751576    Senator Hassan. Thanks, Mr. Chair, and welcome to both of1577you, and congratulations on your nominations.1578    I want to start with a question to both of you, and it is a1579simple one. If directed by the President to take action that1580would break the law, would you follow the law or follow the1581President's directive? Mr. Edgar.1582    Mr. Edgar. I would follow President Trump because I know he1583is advised and he is doing a lawful job, and so I would be1584following the President.1585    Senator Hassan. That is disappointing because no one is1586above the law in the United States of America, and your1587obligation and the oath you will take is to the Constitution1588and to the law, not to President Trump.1589    Mr. Bishop.1590    Mr. Bishop. Senator Hassan, I am confident that President1591Trump will issue lawful orders. It would not be up to me,1592serving in a non-lawyer capacity, to decide what is lawful and1593not lawful.1594    Senator Hassan. Excuse me. If you are advised by a lawyer1595in your agency that it is against law or if it is clearly1596against the Constitution, as some of the things that President1597Trump has already done in this term and in his last term were,1598I would expect you to follow the law. Your unwillingness to say1599that--other members of the Administration, by the way, who I1600voted for, have come forward and said, yes, I will follow the1601law. So it is disappointing.1602    If a court issues an order requiring the Department of1603Homeland Security or the Office of Management and Budget,1604respectively, to take or refrain from taking specific actions,1605will you follow the court's order? Mr. Edgar.1606    Mr. Edgar. Yes.1607    Senator Hassan. Mr. Bishop.1608    Mr. Bishop. Yes.1609    Senator Hassan. That is great. I will turn to another1610question now, and this is to you, Congressman Bishop. Last1611month, the President unilaterally cutoff nearly all Federal1612grants before multiple Federal courts determined that doing so1613illegally harmed Americans all across the country. This funding1614cut created chaos and disruption in my State of New Hampshire.1615For example, one of our hospitals had a Federal grant to1616replace its sewer system. It is a small rural hospital. It1617applied for the grant. It got it. It was a contract with the1618Federal Government. While this funding cut was in effect, this1619hospital was stuck with a $300,000 outstanding bill that was1620due to contractors, and the job was halfway done.1621    Congressman Bishop, if you are confirmed, what will you do1622to ensure that Federal grants are reinstated and that OMB and1623the Trump Administration follow the law?1624    Mr. Bishop. Senator, I will follow the deliberative process1625and its outcome at OMB. I think in that case, there was a1626memorandum that said some items that were implicated by the1627President's Executive Orders were paused. The thing that you1628are describing, I don't think, was.1629    There was a media reaction that was alarmist----1630    Senator Hassan. No, it was not a media reaction because1631when I talked with people on the ground in New Hampshire, the1632money was not flowing because the freeze was overwhelming1633because nobody understood the Executive Orders, which, by the1634way, were very poorly drafted. They were so general and so1635imprecise that everything stopped.1636    I will just note that you talked about President Truman1637impounding funds. That was before the Impoundment Control Act1638was passed in the 1970s, an act that was deemed constitutional1639by the Supreme Court of the United States. So what previous1640Presidents did before the Impoundment Control Act is one thing,1641but if you are going to follow the law, you are going to follow1642the Impoundment Control Act. It is highly disappointing to hear1643you, Mr. Vought did it too, this sleight of hand. Oh, previous1644Presidents have done it, as if the law was never passed.1645    I just want you to understand that the freeze has had real1646impacts, they are not hypotheticals, and they are impacts on1647money that not only was appropriated by this body, Article I,1648the Congress of the United States, but signed into law by a1649President of the United States.1650    Now, Mr. Edgar, I am going to follow up on FEMA. FEMA is1651responsible for coordinating the Federal response to disasters,1652and it recently fired hundreds of employees. Reporting suggests1653that the fired employees included not just new employees, but1654also some longtime employees who had recently been promoted,1655including some with more than a decade of experience. I am1656concerned that these indiscriminate firings done in a really1657sloppy manner will harm the ability of FEMA to do its job. Mr.1658Edgar, can you explain how these firings will do anything other1659than destabilize an agency that the American people rely upon1660when disasters strike?1661    Mr. Edgar. Yes, at my current role, I am the Senior Advisor1662to the Secretary. I did not make the decisions to fire the1663people in FEMA. My commitment, if confirmed, I will continue to1664work with FEMA and make sure that we get to an operational1665posture that will be successful, be able to carry out the1666mission for the American people.1667    Senator Hassan. Will you stop indiscriminate firings?1668    Mr. Edgar. I will go through and see what the data is that1669we are looking at, what our objectives are, and like I would do1670in any situation, whether it would be in Federal Government or1671the corporate world----1672    Senator Hassan. I will just note a couple of other points,1673I am a former Governor too. I have worked with FEMA closely. I1674have had this discussion with the Secretary, whose nomination I1675supported. It is really important to understand that when you1676say a local government should do it, I have 234 towns in New1677Hampshire, some of them are fewer than 1,000 people. They do1678not have the staff or the budget to handle major disasters. It1679is going to be really important that, if you are all talking1680about right-sizing FEMA and making sure that it can do its1681work, that the investments in resilience continue so that we do1682not have the same natural disasters impacting the same1683infrastructure over and over again. It is going to be important1684that we have people on the ground who can do the mission of1685working hand-in-hand, as they do with local governments.1686    I look forward to trying to work up with you on that, but I1687hope very much that you will find out what actually happens and1688works with FEMA, come to us with concrete plans, and actually1689do some analysis before you start firing people because it is1690really destabilizing, and it is going to be hard for the agency1691to recover because who is going to want to go work there? Thank1692you.1693    Mr. Edgar. Thank you.1694    Chairman Paul. Senator Hawley.16951696              OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HAWLEY16971698    Senator Hawley. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.1699    Congressman Bishop, Mr. Edgar, congratulations on your1700nomination. Thanks for being here.1701    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Senator.1702    Senator Hawley [continuing]. It is great to see you both1703here. Congressman, let me start with you. The agency that you1704are going to be the Deputy Director of--and I believe you will1705be confirmed. I look forward to supporting your confirmation--1706--1707    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, sir.1708    Senator Hawley [continuing]. Is a key agency, as you know,1709and it includes--among its many components, it includes a very1710key component, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs1711(OIRA). It is a mouthful.1712    Mr. Bishop. It is.1713    Senator Hawley. But that little agency, that mouthful,1714OIRA, does a lot, as you know. It reviews basically every1715agency regulation, reviews it, vets it, provides1716recommendations on it, does cost-benefit analysis in some1717cases, every agency regulation that comes through the Federal1718Government. So that office is a key node in the Federal1719Government----1720    Mr. Bishop. No doubt.1721    Senator Hawley [continuing]. For assessing regulations.1722With that in mind, I just want to ask you some questions that I1723also asked Director Vought that I think are so important. For1724those of us who are pro-life, serving in an Administration that1725is avowedly pro-life, just on Title X, this is the Title X1726grant program that currently provides money--under the Biden1727Administration, has been providing money for abortion1728providers.1729    Now, I talked with Director Vought about this. I have1730talked with Robert F. Kennedy (RFK) about it. RFK committed to1731me that he would end Title X funding for abortion providers.1732There will be a rule that will be necessary for that. My1733question to you is, will you be an advocate within OMB for1734seeing that RFK's commitment, which is also the President's1735commitment, is carried through, that we stop Title X funding1736for abortion providers?1737    Mr. Bishop. Senator, as you know, my role as Deputy1738Director is to implement the President's policy, not my own,1739but certainly, I have taken note of what you have articulated1740on the subject. It has been the source of discussion, and so1741there is a deliberative process at OMB and OIRA that it would1742be inappropriate of me to get ahead of or to foretell or1743forecast the result of. But thank you for articulating it into1744something that I will take back.1745    Senator Hawley. Good. I just want to drill down on this,1746though, because this is very important, and I do not think this1747is in doubt. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)1748Secretary, now confirmed and sitting, has said under oath that1749he will overturn the current rule and put back in place1750President Trump's rule on Title X funding. The President1751himself has said he does not support Title X funding going to1752abortion providers. I guess another way to ask you this1753question is, let me put it to you this way, do you support the1754President's policy implemented into law in his first term,1755articulated again since then, articulated again now by his1756current HHS Secretary, that Title X funding should not flow to1757abortion providers? Let me ask it that way.1758    Mr. Bishop. In my view, the purpose of OMB and my purpose1759as Deputy Director will be to implement the President's policy.1760    Senator Hawley. OK, good. Let me ask you about the Hyde1761Amendment. Will you work to ensure that all Federal agencies1762fully comply with the Hyde Amendment, which, as you know, is1763statutory law and has been since 1977?1764    Mr. Bishop. OMB does play a role in ensuring consistency1765and observing law across the Federal agencies. Certainly,1766Senator, it will be an issue we will give attention to.1767    Senator Hawley. Great. Just to be clear, that that includes1768the Hyde Amendment, which is in place and has been governing1769law since 1977? Is that fair to say?1770    Mr. Bishop. Yes, sir, it is.1771    Senator Hawley. OK, good. The Weldon Amendment, similarly,1772the Weldon Amendment prevents discrimination against healthcare1773providers who have a conscience objection to abortion. The last1774Administration essentially ignored it. It is the law. Again, in1775your position at OMB, as you review these regulations, as you1776advise on the implementation of the law, will you advise every1777component of the government to comply with the law, which1778includes the Weldon Amendment.1779    Mr. Bishop. Senator, it will be my purpose as Deputy1780Director of OMB to comply with the law and see to it that other1781agencies and personnel within the Federal Government do so to1782the extent of my responsibility.1783    Senator Hawley. Good. That includes the Weldon Amendment,1784correct, Congressman?1785    Mr. Bishop. Yes, sir, Senator.1786    Senator Hawley. OK.1787    Mr. Bishop. That is part of the law, so yes, sir.1788    Senator Hawley. Yes, that is good. It is. It is part of the1789law. The last Administration seemed to forget this.1790    Last thing, when it comes to pregnancy resource centers,1791pregnancy care centers, so important, provide, in many cases,1792completely free medical care to mothers, many of whom are1793facing an unexpected pregnancy, everything from health1794screenings to diapers, baby food, consultation, all, again,1795often completely free. The last Administration conducted an1796incredible effort to attempt to persecute and shut down these1797pregnancy care centers. The President, in his first1798Administration, allowed Federal funding to be available in1799Federal grants to pregnancy care centers. He said he wants to1800do that again.1801    Here again, my question to you is, as you look at these1802grants, as you look at these regulations, will you be an1803advocate for the President's policies allowing Federal funding1804to flow to these pregnancy care centers?1805    Mr. Bishop. I will be an advocate for the President's1806policies on that subject, Senator. I would say one advantage1807that my service in Congress, alongside you and working together1808with you on some things, Senator, provides is I did witness the1809evidence that you are describing about the official posture and1810neglect or hostility toward pregnancy resource centers in the1811past Administration, and so I carry that experience with me1812into the role I seek to be confirmed to.1813    Senator Hawley. That is fantastic. I am glad to hear you1814say that. Just to put a fine point on that, you know these1815statistics as well as I do. In the last Administration after1816the Dobbs decision, hundreds of pregnancy care centers were1817vandalized, were firebombed, were the subject of criminal1818activity. While the last Administration abused Federal statutes1819to go persecute pro-lifers who demonstrated peacefully1820according to their religious beliefs, they did nothing to1821protect pregnancy care centers, nothing, hung them out to dry,1822allowed them to be firebombed, vandalized, criminalized, and1823the rest. It is absolutely outrageous, all while denying them,1824in many cases, grants for which they qualify under Federal law.1825So your experience on this will be important, I think, and I1826look forward to you being a strong advocate in the1827Administration.1828    Mr. Bishop. Thank you.1829    Senator Hawley. I see my time has sadly expired, and as1830Senator Paul knows, I always adhere to my time limits, so I1831will have some questions for the record for you, Mr. Edgar, or1832maybe a few more for you, Congressman. Again, thank you both1833for being here. I look forward to supporting your nominations.1834    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, sir.1835    Chairman Paul. Senator Moody.18361837               OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MOODY18381839    Senator Moody. Thank you, Chairman Paul, and great to be1840with you. As you see, I am four weeks in and still do not know1841which way to go in my Committee room.1842    Mr. Bishop. I did not even notice, Senator, but I was five1843years in and did not know which way to go.1844    Senator Moody. But I will tell you what I do know, and that1845is what we need to accomplish under this Administration to get1846this country on the right track, and a lot of it is because I1847served as the Attorney General in the free State of Florida and1848saw the ramifications of some of the policy choices of the last1849Administration and how that affected the stability and safety1850in our communities. I am glad to be here with you today, and I1851am grateful that I am given the chance to speak to you about1852your upcoming duties.1853    I do not have a ton of questions for you, Mr. Bishop. I1854know you very well. I know we both thought that you would be in1855a different position right now, as Attorney General in North1856Carolina, and I will pray for you in your new role. I know you1857are going to do a great job, and, as I can attest, God has a1858way of messing up our plans that we make so diligently----1859    Mr. Bishop. No doubt about it, and I am thankful for it.1860Thank you, Senator.1861    Senator Moody. Congratulations on your nomination, sir.1862    Mr. Bishop. Thank you.1863    Senator Moody. I would like to turn my attention to Mr.1864Edgar. When I was the Attorney General in Florida and President1865Biden first got in office, one of the first things he did was1866rescind the longstanding practice of both Democratic and1867Republican Administrations of deporting serious felony1868offenders that were here illegally committing crimes back to1869their countries of origin. That was never something that was1870kind of argued. In that first month, they said we are not going1871to do that anymore, issued completely different directives to1872law enforcement, in fact, started canceling detainers that1873sheriffs were using in jails to hold people who had committed1874felonies that were in our country illegally and needed to go1875back. So you can imagine the outcry from law enforcement when1876those detainers were being canceled by the Biden1877Administration.1878    One of the first things I did as Attorney General was sue1879on that practice. I believe that was one of the most dangerous1880things that they could have done, one of the things that put1881our citizens at risk, and it was not necessary.1882    What they also started doing was taking prisoners that were1883in Federal prisons that were brought here from other countries1884or picked up in the middle of the ocean for Federal prosecution1885and put in our prisons because they were prosecuted here only,1886they were sending them back to the places where they were1887prosecuted within the United States, and releasing them into1888the communities. Their only connection to the United States was1889that they were prosecuted here.1890    Those practices have to stop immediately. Many of those1891groups and organizations within DHS will be under your purview.1892I know we had some time to talk about this. Do I have your1893commitment to go back--I sued on that practice as well to get1894as much information that we could to see who was being released1895into the State of Florida because, of course, they were not1896telling us. Do I have your commitment to go back and look at1897both of those practices and make sure that State and local law1898enforcement, No. 1, can detain, pass over to ICE so they can be1899deported, and that those Federal prisoners are deported back to1900their countries?1901    Mr. Edgar. Absolutely. As you can see, President Trump came1902out of the chute very hot with not only just making sure that1903that ICE ERO and all the law enforcement that we would focus on1904at DHS is really trying to get this back on track. But he has1905also started, through his diplomatic relationships, through1906State, to get countries to receive those citizens or those1907migrants back into their country, and they are criminal folks.1908We have started to unlock a lot of different types of1909capabilities to be able to get those folks and get them out of1910the country in almost a nonstop method. It is a really1911significant part of our process within DHS to hit that, be able1912to get a million people deported, especially----1913    Senator Moody. So much of that, however, to correct course1914is going to be someone in your position going back, digging1915down through the directives, the emails, the guidance memos,1916all of those things that were done to make sure that everything1917is rescinded so that all of those relationships, all of those1918agreements, everything that the President is doing so well can1919be promoted and propped up by what you are doing as an agency.1920I think truly, and all the things that you do, getting people1921that are known to commit crimes against our citizens out of1922here as fast as possible, that has to be our No. 1 priority.1923    In that vein, the 287(g) program, I know one of my prior1924colleagues mentioned that maybe some sheriffs were saying they1925do not want to do that, they do not want to be a part of it. Do1926I have your commitment to look into additional funding for1927salaries, training, equipment for those agencies that either1928want to cooperate with you and be part of the 287(g) program,1929or maybe in States like Florida, where we have supported them1930and, statutorily, we want them to be partners with you?1931    Mr. Edgar. Yes, you absolutely have my commitment, and you1932will probably hear in the next week or two, Secretary Noem has1933been working aggressively with the State of Florida. I think1934you guys are going to be the first ones coming out with us. It1935is pretty major initiatives. Your delegation of sheriffs have1936come and actually had an opportunity to meet with the Secretary1937and her staff, and we are really looking forward to working1938with the State of Florida.1939    Senator Moody. Thank you.1940    Chairman Paul. Mr. Edgar, we talked a little bit about our1941records request. We have done these both with the minority and1942the Chair when we were in reverse roles last year, through1943letters. Then we finally sent subpoenas in January. Our hope is1944that you will show these subpoenas to the career officials who1945we believe have been obstructing us and let them know, I mean,1946there are repercussions for resisting a court order. I think1947you will be very helpful, but I think you need to make sure1948that all the people that are the bureaucracy are obeying the1949law and will get that information to us.1950    We are interested not only in all the dual-use research1951that could be gain-of-function or might be dangerous,1952classified or unclassified. We need to look at it. There are1953certain things that really just probably should not be done. I1954give the example of Ebola. It is spread like acquired1955immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) through bodily contact and1956fluids. If you are doing an experiment to see if you can get it1957to spread through the air, I do not think we ought to be1958funding that. That is just too dangerous, and we need to look1959at all that research to make sure people are not doing things1960like that. If you want to recreate the Spanish flu there are1961things that we probably should not be doing that we can do now,1962but we probably should not be doing.1963    We also want to meet with the scientists. like at the1964National Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures Center is DHL1965lab. It is a biosafety level (BSL-4). We would like for a1966public hearing, we would like the head of that agency or that1967laboratory to come in and talk to us, be prepared to tell us1968about all the different gain-of-function or dual-use research1969of concern are things we are going to want.1970    We know that the government actually does a little bit of1971this through the Executive Branch, and the National Institute1972of Health (NIH) coordinates it and sends it to the Office of1973Science and Technology Policy. We have not been privy to any of1974it. I have been trying for three years to get it. This is not1975the atomic secrets. This is not personal data. This is the1976deliberations over this, and we should have a role. We are1977sending the money over to the Executive Branch, and I hope you1978will help us in that. In fact, I think you could actually1979assign somebody within your department that their job is to1980look for information concerning dangerous type of research. I1981do not think DHS was involved with funding the Wuhan research.1982It was coming out of NIH primarily, but State Department had1983some of this, so just looking around and being inquisitive on1984this will help us.1985    Another area that we are interested in, and we have sent1986letters and will probably resend letters and maybe subpoenas,1987if necessary, is on the CISA censorship. I am pleased that you1988all have already announced you are not going to do it. No more1989government officials showing up at publications and saying,1990take this down, I think that was offensive to the First1991Amendment. They wrote a lot about it in the Twitter Files. Matt1992Taibbi and others when Elon Musk gave them access to the1993private half, everybody in the Twitter Files was talking to1994somebody in the government.1995    There is a government file, so I hope you will assign1996somebody to look at that because if you have people in1997government discussing, conspiring, colluding to take down1998politically protected speech such as ``Cloth masks do not1999work,'' which I do not think they do, and I think it is a2000disservice actually to tell people something works that does2001not work. Even if you disagree, it is an opinion. It is my2002opinion. It is a politically protected statement, and we should2003not have the government on the other side.2004    I hope you will assign somebody to look at the other side2005of the Twitter Files and see if there are people who are2006working within government still. They say they are firing2007everybody. Maybe we can get rid of some of the people who do2008not appreciate the First Amendment or respect the First2009Amendment.2010    One final thing is just for Mr. Bishop on the impoundment2011versus rescission. I hope you will bring in constitutional2012scholars. There are a bunch of respected constitutional2013scholars and at least--I know it is not particularly your job,2014but the OMB will look at that. We really want to send the2015message to the public that we are actually going to cut this2016spending.2017    I am already predicting the public is going to be2018disappointed come September because what is going to happen is,2019every day we have the news of firings and savings, but the2020deficit this year is still going to be $2 trillion because we2021have not structurally done something. Now, people will say it2022is hard, Congress is not any good at their job, they are2023feckless. All of that is true, but we still have to try.2024    We are in the majority, and rescission, you sending us back2025money that we say we are no longer going to spend it, we are2026sending it back to the Treasury, a simple majority vote. We2027have simple majorities in both Houses. It is not easy, but we2028ought to really try, and the Administration should come back to2029us and lobby us and get some of those who are equivocal on this2030and let them know how important it is to the country because2031many of them are saying, and many over here are saying, well,2032you are doing it improperly, it is illegal. But will they vote2033to cut any of the spending? Not one of them will vote to cut2034any spending through rescission, but we have to really work2035hard to see if the majority, almost all of us, will vote. We2036have to get everybody to vote for rescission if it does.2037    I think it is an important debate. I do think for a couple2038of months you have a window of it being a pause and not an2039impoundment. I think the judges are overreaching that are2040trying to stop you from firing people or pausing. I think all2041those things are within the realm, and it is a jump to say they2042are illegal. You can find one liberal judge to try to stop2043stuff, but ultimately, decisions between our power and the2044executive power probably are going to work its way up to the2045Supreme Court.2046    But I appreciate both of your willingness to serve, and we2047are going to conclude it there unless you have--my questions2048were pretty just general. I just wanted to give you some2049advice? I know you wanted some advice. But we appreciate your2050willingness to serve.2051    The nominees have filed responses to biographical and2052financial questionnaires,\1\ answered pre-hearing questions2053submitted by the Committee.\2\ They have had their financial2054statements reviewed by the Office of Government Ethics (OGE).2055Without objection, this information will be made part of the2056hearing record with the exception of the financial data, which2057are on file with the Committee.2058---------------------------------------------------------------------------2059    \1\ The information for Mr. Bishop appears in the Appendix on page206041.2061    \2\ The information for Mr. Edgar appears in the Appendix on page2062100.2063---------------------------------------------------------------------------2064    The hearing will remain open until 5 p.m. today for2065submission of statements and questions for the record.2066    With that, the hearing is adjourned.2067    [Whereupon, at 11:05 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]20682069                            A P P E N D I X20702071                              ----------20722073[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]20742075                                 [all]