If it weren't for Medicaid, says Hope, I would not be alive today. In Minnesota, Medicaid covers inpatient mental health care. Hope was committed and treated in inpatient care, and she got intensive treatment for her psychosis covered by Medicaid. A diagnosis of psychosis can feel so hopeless, but Hope was able to get the intensive care she needed to learn how to understand and control her illness. Today she is able to live independently and manage her mental health. And today she gets her health insurance through her employer. So colleagues, I am voting no on Dr. Oz because I do not trust him or this administration to follow the law and to protect our health care. I cannot trust him or this administration to run CMS, to protect access to health care for Hope over the 1.2 million Montanans who get their insurance through Medicaid. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Senator Smith. Senator Lujan, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, recently a mom from New Mexico shared the story of her son who was diagnosed with hemophilia at the age of six. A six-year-old should be entering first grade, outside playing with neighbors, watching superhero movies, arguing with their siblings about whose turn it is to do the dishes. Six-year-olds should not have to worry about whether or not they get to see a doctor or whether they will get the medicine they need to feel better so they can do all the things a six-year-old should be doing. That mom from New Mexico told me she is scared, scared that if her son's Medicaid is ripped away, she'll lose her son. Now I know that each of us is hearing similar stories from our constituents, and based on news accounts, there were lots of town halls and gatherings across America this last week. Some were members of the House participated, some were just an empty chair. From the meetings I had with this nominee and from what I've seen so far from this administration, it's clear to me that they plan to gut the Medicaid program that serves 784,000 New Mexicans. That's 784,000 lives that depend on this coverage to survive, get the help they need, and the medical support that is crucial to living happy and productive lives. I will not stand by and watch as families are left behind by this administration. There are better ways to improve our health system, but slashing essential programs like Medicaid to pay for a Trump tax scam is not one of them. I cannot support a nominee who will tear apart a health care system to justify giving millionaires and billionaires more money. You know, folks making $2 million a year, congratulations, I wish them well, I hope they make more. But to the folks across the country making the median income and less, shouldn't they be getting the brunt of this tax cut? That's where this should be going. This isn't about wealthy people or not, this is about who deserves help and support across the country. That's what we're talking about here. So I urge my colleagues to think about the millions of Americans, their constituents, my constituents, who depend on the programs that this nominee will have control over, and I urge them to vote no. I yield back.
Thank you, Senator Whitehouse. Thanks very much, Chairman. First of all, let me express my appreciation to Senator Kwell for her remarks, which I thought pretty well summarized where we are with respect to the looming attack on Medicaid. I just want to point out that in Rhode Island, 60% of our nursing home folks are funded by Medicaid, and nursing homes are not in great shape to begin with. This could be a case not only of people's aunts and grandmothers losing the funding that keeps them in the nursing home, but the nursing home not being able to survive financially. 45% of births in Rhode Island at Women and Infants Hospital, which is a legendarily expert OB-GYN hospital, are funded by Medicaid. But for a variety of reasons, women and infants can't afford to have Medicaid stripped away, and it would put that hospital in financial peril to lose Medicaid. And then many of us lived through the opioid epidemic. Senator Hassan up in New Hampshire experienced the same sort of thing that we did in Rhode Island, and many of the people in Rhode Island and around the country who are on that brave and noble path to addiction recovery are supported by Medicaid. To undercut them would be cruel as well as stupid. I have three topics that I've raised with Dr. Oz that I'd like to get some progress on. It looks like when CMS, in a massive abundance of stupidity, turned on one of its best performing national ACOs and tried to strip it because of a brief and disputed departure below the 5,000 patient minimum, that got thrown out by a court, shows how weak the CMS case was. I hope that CMS doesn't go back for revenge and leaves things as they are, and lets one of the nation's highest performing ACOs continue to be a high performing ACO. Rhode Island suffers from a 20-plus percent differential in payments. Backus Hospital is probably 25 minutes from our border in Connecticut, St. Anne's is probably five minutes from our border in Massachusetts. Neither of those hospitals provide the high level services that Rhode Island Hospital, Women and Infants Hospital, and Hasbro Children's Hospital, all in the same campus, provide. And yet they're paid more, and CMS sits on its hands and couldn't care less about doing anything about that differential, even as it erodes the financial security of Rhode Island's health care base. And last of all, I've been working with CMS since the first Trump administration, and it's been Groundhog Day with people changing and having to get back to square one on trying to let Rhode Island be a model for a better way to treat families and patients. Where individuals nearing the end of their life, we do really stupid things to people because of Medicare rules that don't make any sense in that circumstance, and make even less sense when there's a value-based care model that's in place. So I hope we can make some real progress on those three things. And we have to defend Medicaid. It's just wrong to go after it. Thank you, Chairman.
Thank you, Senator. Senator Welz, did you wish to make a statement at this point? All right, I think Senator Marshall, you are the wrap-up. Okay.
Chairman, thank you so much. And this is such a very important topic. I just want to emphasize that as I talk to President Trump and the administration and my fellow Republicans, we're here to save Medicaid. We're here to save it. We want to strengthen Medicaid for the most vulnerable, and that's our goal. And I look forward to working with my colleagues across the aisle on figuring how to save it. But I think you would also agree with me that what we're spending on Medicaid now looks like a rocket ship. We've increased spending on Medicaid by 50% over the last five years. We'll spend a trillion dollars this year on Medicaid. We want to make sure that Medicaid dollars are spent on the most vulnerable of people, the ones that really, really need it. That should be the focus, is on how we save Medicaid. I think there's opportunities when you're spending a trillion years on Medicaid, when it's gone up 50% in five years, I think there's opportunities to address the fraud, the waste, eligibility issues. I wake up every morning hoping to do what's fair, to do justice. And what's being done in one state with Medicaid is simply unfair to what's being done in Kansas. Some states are manipulating the system, they're gaming the system. If we don't get our arms around it, there'll be no Medicaid left for those who are the most vulnerable. So that would be our goal. I think if we can at least agree on the goal that we want to save Medicaid and want to use it for the most vulnerable, that's a great starting point. And I'll just close with a little thoughts on Medicare Advantage. Like Dr. Oz, I thought Medicare Advantage was a good thing when it came out, but unfortunately it's been manipulated. They found loopholes to manipulate, and now we're spending probably $83 billion more a year on Medicare Advantage patients as opposed to if they'd been on traditional Medicare. And I think similar situations are happening with Medicaid managed care systems as well. So I look forward to working with my colleagues across the aisle, and I hope if there's an amendment or an opportunity to fix that very broken system, that my friends across the aisle who speak so boldly about changing Medicare Advantage will vote for reforming it as well whenever we had that opportunity. So again, just emphasize that Republicans are here to save Medicaid, that we want to make sure that we strengthen Medicaid for the most vulnerable of our society who needs it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Senator Marshall. Now procedurally, so everyone understands what will happen with regard to this nomination, the committee will recess at this point briefly before we then move to our Social Security hearing. And we will reconvene to vote on the nomination of Dr. Oz off the Senate floor at a time to be announced today. When we know when the votes are happening, members will be notified. At the time that we get that confirmed, the committee will be recessed briefly until we begin the next hearing.
The committee will come to order. Today we will consider the nomination of Frank Bisignano to be the commissioner of the Social Security Administration. Mr. Bisignano, congratulations on your nomination and welcome to you and your family. Thank you for your willingness to serve and for your cooperation with this committee throughout our rigorous vetting process. Both sides have generally agreed the Social Security Administration needs a confirmed commissioner to address the ongoing challenges at the agency. I commend President Trump for putting forward a commissioner nominee so early in this administration. Mr. Bisignano has more than 30 years of executive leadership experience at leading financial institutions. He's brought a focus on innovation and operational excellence to his current role as Chief Executive Officer of Fiserv, a leader in payments and financial technology that is responsible for processing more than $2.5 trillion in payments daily. Mr. Bisignano, if confirmed, you will be responsible for leading an agency with a critical mission and numerous operational and customer service challenges, as you will hear this morning. Based on your background, I'm confident you're up to the task. It's hard to overstate the importance of Social Security, which provides monthly benefits to millions of seniors, individuals with disabilities, and their families. The Social Security Administration has the responsibility of overseeing this important program, as well as the Supplemental Security Income program, assigning Social Security numbers, and issuing Social Security cards, among other workloads. In carrying out these significant responsibilities, the Social Security Administration interacts with millions of customers each year, whether in person, by phone, or online. The public expects the agency to provide responsive service and timely decisions on their claims. However, the SSA faces many challenges in meeting these expectations. After years of implementation delays and the ultimate failure of its next generation telepan project, SSA has made some progress with its national 800 number, including introducing a call back option. However, much more is needed. Callers to the national 800 number who want to wait for a representative are still spending too long on hold, and many still struggle to actually get through to a representative when they call. Americans also continue to wait too long for an initial disability decision, particularly in certain parts of the country. SSA's shift to an appointment-focused approach for field office visits underscores the need for SSA to make it easier for customers to schedule appointments online. The Trump administration has been clear that it is focused on addressing waste, fraud, and abuse across government agencies, and I applaud its efforts to maximize government productivity. A Senate-confirmed commissioner should be leading these efficiency efforts. Mr. Bisignano, if confirmed to serve as the next Commissioner of Social Security, this responsibility will be falling to you. I urge you to take a thoughtful, measured, and data-driven approach to evaluating policy and operational changes aimed at improving SSA's efficiency and productivity. If you need additional tools that require statutory changes, I urge you to bring those changes to this committee and our House counterparts. Today's hearing will provide an opportunity to hear more about your vision for Social Security and how we can work together to help ensure that the SSA fulfills its critical mission. Thank you again for your willingness to serve, and congratulations on your nomination, which I intend to support. With that, I recognize Ranking Member Wyden for his opening remarks.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. This morning the Finance Committee gathers to discuss the future of the Social Security Administration and its potential new leader, Frank Bisignano. Today's news brings fresh reports that it is bedlam out there in Social Security. That's what I heard last week from senior Social Security staffers at a town hall meeting I arranged in my hometown of Portland for federal employees. Senior Social Security staff told me that they were short-staffed even before DOGE arrived, how they can't respond on the phone, how the websites are crashing, and seniors are getting lost in the system. It is clear that this is happening around America today, every day. There's more hard evidence of this. So I believe it is time to bring a halt to DOGE's destruction of Social Security before it goes any further. With these developments, the DOGE crowd is breaking a sacred promise to deliver Americans their earned Social Security benefits, and it is time for every member of this committee to step up and commit to rolling back these disastrous actions and bringing sanity back to Social Security. Today's hearing is going to be an opportunity for our nominee to tell the American people whose side is he on. Is he on the side of American workers who paid into Social Security and now are being whipsawed by the DOGE bureaucracy, or is he on the side of Elon Musk and Howard Lutnick, the Donald Trump cronies who think Social Security is a pyramid scheme and that seniors looking for help when their checks don't come on time must somehow be fraudsters? The urgency for today's hearing couldn't be greater. Since Donald Trump took office, Social Security has experienced the most chaos in its history. Mass personnel layoffs, eliminating phone service for basic help, sending seniors to overcrowded and understaffed field offices that have also been put on the chopping block for closure. Political appointees poking around your most sensitive private information, creating a big risk for what I call the mother of all identity thefts. Claims of massive fraud by Donald Trump and Elon Musk. This approach is a prescription for denying earned benefits to seniors and Americans with disabilities. And I want to be clear as we begin this discussion: if Americans lose access to their Social Security because of Trump-spawn chaos, that is DOGE stealing their money. Both Donald Trump and Elon Musk have repeated claims that there are millions of Social Security numbers assigned to people over 150 years of age and they're still drawing benefits. Elon Musk says there's a massive amount of fraud and that Social Security is quote the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time. Donald Trump says that money is being paid to quote many Americans over age 100. Donald Trump thinks more than 1,000 people over 220 years of age are actually being paid by Social Security. Many Americans may be wondering if those individuals are still receiving their Revolutionary War pensions. At this point, these are lies. Here are some facts. Last year the Social Security Inspector General issued a report showing Social Security retirement and disability has a criminal fraud rate of, get this, 0.09%. By the way, as a percentage, that's much lower than the $1.4 billion in assets that reportedly went missing on the Tesla balance sheet just last week. Social Security itself reported 89,000 Americans age 99 and over receiving benefits in December of last year, and Social Security automatically stops paying benefits at age 115 even if a death has not been reported. So don't take it from me. Check this sign: it says why DOGE is struggling to find fraud in Social Security. So what's behind these lies on Social Security? In my view, they're deliberately misleading the public to set the stage for cuts to Social Security benefits that are going to be draped in anti-fraud rhetoric, the same way we're hearing the case being made for cutting Medicaid. Let's be clear again: Senate Democrats are going to fight attempts to cut Americans' earned benefits at every single turn. Our nominee has made a career out of taking over troubled businesses and using what I think is a pretty ominous recipe: gut the company by firing hundreds or thousands of workers, sell off pieces of the business, and merge with another company. That resume and approach ought to concern Americans if somebody is thinking about applying that pattern to Social Security. As I've been saying for weeks now, this approach is a prelude to privatizing Social Security and handing it over to private equity. Every single member of this committee knows that there are ways to strengthen Social Security, but what Social Security does well year after year is to get the checks out the door to seniors that rely on them on time every single month. I'll close by saying improving Social Security doesn't start with shuttering the offices that handle modernization, anti-fraud activities, and civil rights violations. It doesn't start with indiscriminately firing or buying out thousands of workers. And it doesn't start with restricting customer service over the phone and drawing up plans to close field and regional offices. The Musk, Lutnick, Trump plan for Social Security is to take away earned benefits from seniors, hollow out the agency in preparation to hand it over to private equity, and give the savings over to their billionaire friends. The fact of the matter is Social Security could be fully funded for generations to come if you just cracked down on billionaire tax cheats and eliminated the payroll tax cap for millionaires and billionaires. This year alone the Finance Committee has considered multiple Trump nominees that for one strategy or another have figured out ways to avoid paying what they owe into the programs that they are being nominated to actually run. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent paid little to no Medicare tax, and Dr. Oz somehow managed to avoid paying both Medicare and Social Security. So this morning our nominee has an opportunity to share his vision for improving Social Security, not dismantling it. And Americans deserve to hear this individual's vision for making customer service easier, not creating more roadblocks which seem to get more and more strong each day. Americans deserve to hear a clear rejection of Elon Musk's view that Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme perpetrating fraud on the American people. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
In a moment, Mr. Bisignano will share his opening statement. Before doing so, I will provide a short introduction. Mr. Bisignano has more than 30 years of executive leadership experience in banks and global financial institutions. He currently serves as the chairman of the board and chief executive officer of Fiserv Inc., a leader in payments and financial technology. Fiserv serves clients in more than 100 countries and processes $2.5 trillion in payments with over 850 million daily transactions. Fiserv has been recognized as a leading company by Fortune, Forbes, Time, and Newsweek among others. Prior to becoming CEO and chairman of First Data Corp., which combined with Fiserv, Mr. Bisignano was co-chief operating officer for JPMorgan Chase and the chief executive officer of its mortgage banking unit. After the housing crisis, the mortgage banking unit reported 2012 net income of $3.3 billion, a turnaround that reversed a net loss of $2.1 billion in the prior year. Before joining JPMorgan Chase, Mr. Bisignano held several roles at Citigroup that included chief administrative officer for the corporate and investment bank and CEO of Citigroup's Global Transactions Services business, the largest securities and cash management business in the world. While CAO, he served as the firmwide deputy head of technology and operations, a post he held during 9/11 when he deployed and ran Citigroup's business continuity plan. Mr. Bisignano, before you give your opening statement, I have four obligatory questions that we ask all nominees before the Senate Finance Committee. First, is there anything that you are aware of in your background that might present a conflict of interest with the duties of the office to which you've been nominated?
Second, do you know of any reason, personal or otherwise, that would in any way prevent you from fully and honorably discharging the responsibilities of the office to which you've been nominated?
Do you agree without reservation to respond to any reasonable summons to appear and testify before any duly constituted committee of the Congress if you are confirmed?
And finally, do you commit to providing a prompt response in writing to any questions addressed to you by any senator of this committee?
Thank you. Mr. Bisignano, before you begin your opening statement, if you would like, you may introduce your family.
I have my wife here, Tracy, and I have three children at home: Morgan, Alex, and Henry. They all support me very, very much, and they're very, very happy we're here today. Thank you.
We welcome them in person and at home. You may begin your statement.
Chairman Crapo, Ranking Member Wyden, members of the committee, I am Frank Bisignano. I am honored to appear before you as the president's nominee to serve as commissioner of the Social Security Administration. President Trump was elected by the American people to make life better for Americans, and he has made protecting and preserving Social Security an important part of his vision. Social Security touches the lives of nearly every American, whether you're paying into it or receiving benefits. I am grateful for the faith President Trump has placed in me to lead this critical agency. I also want to thank my wife Tracy, who is here with me today, and my three children Morgan, Alexa, and Henry, whose support I rely on every day. I was born into a working class family in Brooklyn, New York. It was a multi-generational immigrant household. My maternal grandfather naturally immigrated and was a World War I veteran. My father, who was an orphan by age 11, was a veteran of World War II. They, with my working mother, were my role models and instilled in me the virtues of service. It was also at home I learned the importance of hard work. My father, a 46-year Department of Treasury employee, worked in Customs Enforcement, boarding ships early in the morning and sometimes not coming home for days. He took pride in his job and he was awarded the Albert Gallatin Award. He was the hardest working person I've known. I view federal workers from that vantage point. I began my professional life on Wall Street in the late 1970s and went on to serve in multiple leadership positions at Citigroup and JPMorgan. In these roles and others, I led large organizations through challenging times. On 9/11, I never left lower Manhattan. As chief administrative officer of Citigroup, I helped ensure the world's largest banking system remained up and running in the face of the unthinkable tragedy. I had responsibility for 16,000 people in lower Manhattan and we managed to evacuate all but six. I will mourn that loss for my whole life. In 2008 at JPMorgan, I played a crucial role in keeping money moving through the financial crisis. And in 2011 and 2012, I worked closely with the government to restart the housing market after the mortgage crisis. More recently, I was the CEO and chairman of First Data, where my team and I worked to transform the company from the world's largest traditional payment processor into a technology innovator, industry collaborator, and commerce enabler for the 21st century. In 2019, I led the merger of First Data and Fiserv, where I'm currently CEO and chairman of the board. Fiserv fundamentally serves every American household. Our company today processes more than 250 million payments totaling more than $2.5 trillion a day. Social Security processes 74 million payments a month totaling $1.5 trillion a year. In 2020 during COVID, I was called on by the government again and stepped up and we served the underbanked. My friend Cardinal Timothy Dolan once said, 'The only just government is government that serves its citizens, not itself.' This is the belief I will bring to the Social Security Administration. I will make the agency a premier services organization, as I have done multiple times with other institutions throughout my career. Fundamentally, Social Security is a payments-based, customer-facing program that delivers benefits to more than 70 million Americans each month. It provides essential financial support for the retired and the disabled. We will meet beneficiaries where they want to be met, whether in person in field offices, on the web, or on the phone. On the phone, I'm committed to reducing wait times and providing beneficiaries with a better experience. Waiting 20 minutes plus to get an answer will be a thing of the past. I also believe we can significantly improve the length of the disability claim process. Importantly, I think a 1% error rate based on the Inspector General report is five decimal places too high. We'll get the error rate down and be more accurate in payments. Working in collaboration with the men and women of the Social Security Administration and you and Congress, we will better serve the American people. Finally, at the core, this is a bipartisan job. Social Security has field offices and serves Americans in every state. In the wisdom of Congress, you made Social Security an independent agency and gave the commissioner a six-year term. In me, you will have an accountable leader. I am thankful to President Trump for considering me for this role and entrusting me with it. I also appreciate the courtesy you have extended by holding this hearing. I'm grateful for being here with you today. I'm happy to answer all questions. Thank you very much.
Mr. Bisignano, my first question is one you've pretty much already answered. I'd just like to maybe give you an opportunity to add any more completeness to what you described about how important it is to be sure that every American is served promptly and efficiently by the Social Security Administration. As you know and as we've talked about for years, individuals seeking assistance from SSA have faced long wait times or even inability to gain access, and the agency is now going under significant organizational changes. Could you just put a little more flavor into what you described as what your objectives are and how you will achieve them to make this agency responsive to the American people?
Yeah, I think first of all, it's an honor to be here and thank you for the time. This is a mission critical function. It's been 89 years where over 200 million Americans have been beneficiaries of payments. Today over 100 million Americans pay into the system, and the ability to receive payments on time and accurate is job one. The ability to process any type of claim we receive is job one, and the ability to be available. I think we're going to focus on what we need to do to drive the 1% error rate down. That's a very high payment processing error rate, and I think the standards more five decimal points that are right, I think that leads to better accuracy. I believe in running an organization with a multi-disciplinary look. We have to deliver great service, we have to run a pristine control environment so we do it right the first time. Efficiency will be the output of those two actions. We must put the beneficiaries first. I think management, this is according to all the public data I've liked, this has been one of the less satisfied workforces for many years within all the government agencies. And I think when you're winning you feel good, and when you're losing you feel bad. My objective is to come in and motivate the workforce we have, 50,000 plus, to be able to get our job right the first time for the American public. I think we have talent all over like any organization, and we have very dedicated people in there. But I think there's been a lot of leadership change. If you look at the history of commissioners, they've turned over quite a bit. I'm committed to a six-year term and to do a great job for the American public and to be here for you. Thank you.
Well, thank you very much. And I'm sure you've noticed the daily news on President Trump's effort with the Department of Government Efficiency or DOGE. You've heard about it today already, and I bet you'll hear about it some more. The Social Security Administration is one of the agencies that has received a lot of media attention regarding these efforts. For the record, are you currently at the Social Security Administration?
I'm not at the Social Security Administration, sir.
Have you been consulted by the acting commissioner about DOGE's work at the Social Security Administration?
I have not had a conversation about anything with this Social Security commissioner who's acting right now.
Thank you. And during a February 5 interview on CNBC, you voiced your support for DOGE's work generally. Is there anything further you would like to add with respect to those comments?
I've run a quality control and efficiency program in companies my whole life. I've always been overseen by the C in the Fed, and control really matters a lot. So I've always considered myself an efficiency expert but also a quality expert. If you look at my rankings when I took over the mortgage company in JD Power, we went from the lowest performing to the highest performing. So my comments really mean that I'm happy to work with anybody who can help us, and I believe that I'm fundamentally about efficiency myself. Thank you.
Thank you. Senator Wyden.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My first question for the nominee is: in the last two months, DOGE has been rampaging through Social Security, and I need to know first if you're responsible for some of this current chaos. So my first question is: between the time you were nominated and today, were you involved in discussions about DOGE or any of the operations, personnel, management decisions with those working at Social Security?
So that sounds like a reassuring response, but unfortunately it's not true, Mr. Chairman. I have a statement from a senior official who worked at Social Security and recently left the agency. And the nominee told my staff, yours, and me in my office that the nominee wasn't involved with any agency operations, personnel, and management decisions. And the whistleblower statement says that the nominee insisted on personally approving several key DOGE hires at the agency among other things, and getting frequent briefings. So Mr. Chairman, the first thing I'd like to do is put into the record the statement from this very high level official at the Social Security, a whistleblower. Without objection. So according to the whistleblower, you personally intervened to get key DOGE officials installed at the agency who have masterminded this shipwreck that we're dealing with today. Did you talk to anyone at Social Security about these changes?
I have never talked to Mr. Dudek. I have talked to Mike Russo, and I've said that to your staff when they asked me. I know Mike Russo. He was the CIO of Shift4, and he was the CIO at Oracle for Mark Hurd, and I know him for 20 years. I don't know him as a DOGE person. I know him as a CIO.
So with respect to anyone else, did you talk to any of these officials who were involved in operations? Because the whistleblower said you personally intervened to get DOGE officials installed, and I understand there's one person who got basically approved in the middle of the night as a result of your insistence. Are you saying that the whistleblower is not telling the truth to the Finance Committee? Because there are a number of very influential officials who have indicated that they will support the position of the whistleblower.
I was not involved in onboarding anybody in the middle of the night.
Well, we've heard some very disturbing comments with respect to some of the officials, and I think we've got to get to the bottom of it. Let me ask you about the role of ushering in key DOGE officials who've been working through agency databases and feasting on the personal information of the American people: their health records, their bank account data, their tax data. DOGE's recklessness there has set off what could be the largest identity theft crisis in history. A federal judge ordered SSA to stop providing DOGE access. In her ruling, the judge said, and I quote, 'DOGE's bogus reason akin to a fishing expedition in search of a fraud epidemic based on little more than suspicion.' So my question to you here is: if you're confirmed, will you lock DOGE out of Social Security databases and stop them from exposing millions of Americans who could be damaged?
Sir, I've spent my career protecting PII in the largest institutions. I think it's of the utmost importance for PII to be protected, and yes, I will ensure it's protected.
So will you lock DOGE out? It's a very specific yes or no question. Will you lock DOGE out of Social Security databases?
I'm going to do whatever is required to protect the information that is private information. So I don't know what 'lock DOGE out' means, but there's way more than DOGE that can't have access to that information.
Sir, I would like that in writing that you will lock DOGE out of the Social Security databases. Will you furnish that in writing?
I don't know what 'lock DOGE out of the Social Security' means. It's a pretty simple concept: when you lock somebody out, you stop them. There's lots of databases, but PII will not be exposed.
Okay. Mr. Chairman, I would like you and I and the committee to follow up on what this whistleblower has told us, because your staff met with them, my staff met with them, I met with them, and I don't believe that this whistleblower would make this up. This whistleblower has said that this is a nominee who will be bad for the agency and has cited specifics, and this nominee says that the whistleblower is wrong. And I think this whistleblower throughout their career has been somebody who's told the truth, and I think we better get to the bottom of it. And they told your staff the same thing they told mine: that this nominee had nothing to do with operations, and certainly some very experienced individuals feel that that was not true. Thank you.
Senator Whitehouse. Thanks very much. Welcome, Mr. Bisignano. Two quick questions. One, I'm concerned on behalf of constituents with Social Security Disability that there are cliffs in the benefit system that create very peculiar behavior around the edge of the cliff. I think we should engage in bipartisan cliff smoothing. Is that something you would work with us on?
I'm prepared to research it if I'm fortunate enough to be confirmed as soon as I get in there and report back to you, sir.
Okay, thank you. If you are confirmed, will you check and make sure that the Musk infiltration of Social Security databases has not damaged those databases or left back doors for private actors to get back into Social Security's data system?
There will be a total review, yes.
Thank you. So here's where I think we are. I think there's a bit of a plot afoot here. Step one is to lie about not intending to damage Social Security and to protect Social Security benefits. The president is a prolific liar: Russia didn't invade Ukraine, the election was rigged and stolen from me, I'm not a criminal, DOJ was weaponized, climate change is a hoax. You just can't stop the lies. And I think 'I'm not going to attack Social Security' is a lie. So that's step one: lie about it. Step two is discredit Social Security. Trump and Musk have been lying loudly about imaginary Social Security fraud, which seems to me to be an effort to lower public confidence in the program. They falsely called it a Ponzi scheme. Well, if those things aren't true, why are they saying them? What is the motive behind those lies? I think the motive is to discredit the system. Then you send in your Musk characters and you start them messing around in the operations of Social Security to damage it. And as we were sitting here, Mr. Bisignano, here comes the breaking news from The Washington Post: headline 'Social Security is breaking down amid long waits, waves of calls, and web crashes. A flood of cuts led by Elon Musk has sent the agency into meltdown as a new commissioner prepares to take charge.' So you also have the billionaire Commerce Secretary saying that an interruption of benefits would be a good way to sniff out fraud, because the only people who would complain when their benefits were interrupted would be the fraudsters, which is idiotic frankly, but it is part of this campaign to disrupt as well as discredit Social Security so that there is then an interruption of benefits. Once there's an interruption of benefits, then Trump can declare an emergency in Social Security and send in the tech bros and the private equity folks, some of whom are already messing around in Social Security, to say 'Oh, to save Social Security, we have to take it over. We got to have the tech bros and the private equity people take over Social Security.' And then that's it: the long-standing Republican goal of getting rid of Social Security as a public program is achieved, under the pretense that they've saved it, broken it in order to save it. Will you, let's just say that that turns out to be the set of facts that you determine to be the accurate case once you get over there, will you participate in or defend against that scheme?
Well, I think my job as a commissioner is to ensure that every beneficiary receives their payments on time, that disability claims are processed in the manner they should be. So my first actions are going to be to get organized around delivering the services. And I've only been given one order, which is to run the agency in the right fashion.
What role will privatizing Social Security, bringing in private equity and tech people, and giving Elon Musk and his little crowd a role have in all of that?
I've never thought about privatizing. It's not a word that anybody's ever talked to me about. And I don't see this institution as anything other than a government agency that gets run for the benefit of the American public.
Let's hope that that is the way this ends. Thank you.
Yeah, my guarantee I'll make it end that way. Thank you.
Senator Cassidy. Good to see you, sir. Good to meet your family in New Orleans at the Super Bowl. Thank you. And I was struck when I asked, okay, how much does Social Security put out per day? And I asked you, you want to take that on? And you said, 'I handle five times that much per day right now.' And I just say I was struck immediately how like, oh yeah, this is what I do, and I do it in a way which improves service. And then you pointed where we were eating, this is one of my machines. By the way, it took my money very quickly for the pizza I bought. So just to thank you for offering that and bringing your kind of incredible skill set to this issue. Thank you, sir.
Part of it we talked about was public-facing service, and particularly among older people who sometimes have a difficult time getting to an office, and they rely upon the phone because frankly they're homebound. How will you manage that? How will you continue to provide services to those folks who are homebound, making sure that they can still access and make changes as necessary even if they have a difficult time coming in physically?
Yeah, today Social Security, according to public information, gets 80 million phone calls a year. And in the organization I currently run, we do 400 million phone calls a year. I see the phone as a mandatory way for people to communicate. I see phone technology as an opportunity, but at some point people want to talk to a live agent also. So we have to provide that. I think it's mandatory. I think it's a part of meeting beneficiaries where they want to get met, whether it's in a field office, whether it's on the web, or whether it's on the phone. And I think it's ripe for enhancement always, but obviously ultimately people like sometimes to get reassurance from a person that they're going to get benefits. There's chronic wait times, I'm told, on the 1-800 number, so much so that people sometimes give up. And there's evidence it's improved, but it's still not where you would have it in the private sector.
Well, I believe that if you look at the Social Security website and you look at the statistics, taking 20 plus minutes to answer the phone is not really acceptable. And that's the reason why only 46% of the phone calls get answered, because people get discouraged and hang up. Using your experience, how could that be improved? Just more people?
I think we could get that to under a minute. I think we can get that to under a minute. I think we can also help the people within the organization answer questions better by bringing artificial intelligence to them to prompt them with the information they need. It enhances their jobs. As I said before, Social Security ranks at the low end of employee satisfaction in our government system today. But I believe technology is a great enabler. We do not need to rewrite every system within Social Security. We do not have to spend lots of money on many of these things. We could do them with basic technology that's out there.
That was one of the things that reassured me: all these things that seem to be insurmountable in the Social Security Administration, you would have done it. And so again, thank you for bringing that expertise to us. One thing that I know is an issue is sometimes beneficiaries are overpaid and then they're contacted later to recoup the money. Now it's one thing for somebody who's well off to pay back, and it's another thing for someone who basically lives on cash flow and then you're asked to repay that which has been spent. Any thoughts about that? How do we stop the overpayments, and then once it's detected, how are we fair to the people who have been overpaid, taking into account their ability to repay?
Thank you. I think there's two things there. One is, as I like to say, the Inspector General report produces a 1% error rate. I think that's much too high. I think it should be decimal points to the right, probably five decimal points. That will eliminate a lot of the overpayments. And then at the end of the day, we need to evaluate the ability to pay back and work it out. I know there was one way to do it, we're implementing another. I'm going to make sure that we recover all the money we should recover, but on the other hand, we have to be humane in the process too.
I have a couple questions I'll do for the record. Thank you very much for bringing your private expertise to benefit the public. Thank you.
Thank you, Senator Lankford. Chairman, thank you. Thank you for stepping into this role, stepping in with the expertise and the experience that you have in the background. What you've done on the technical sides for so many different people, quite frankly, is a real asset for Social Security to be able to step in.
This is a payment system at its core, that's something you've specialized in for a long time. Grateful that you stepped out of the private sector into the public sector to be able to do this in this season. So let me just run several things past you, but I did want to be able to raise one thing that has been in process for a while. My state is one of the few states that has not been able to do the my Social Security portal based on just the ID portion of that. That has been some Social Security and some of the career folks have worked on for a long time, that has finally been checked, and I've been grateful to a lot of the career folks that have been engaged in Social Security for a while to be able to work with my state to be able to get that. That's going to help a lot of the customer service issues in my state in particular on this. But as Senator Cassidy was just raising on this as well, the call times, the response time, getting an appointment. It may be surprising to some people that there are a few 85-year-olds that aren't tech savvy, that they don't like using a computer, they want to actually talk to a person. And the challenge is still how do they get in to be able to visit with somebody, get an appointment number one, get a time, and then get it done in a timely manner. So I know we're working a lot on the technology, that's a good thing for a lot of folks, working on the phone call side of it. What is your plan on the face-to-face portion of Social Security services as well?
I think we have to meet beneficiaries where they want to be. I think that includes field offices, it includes the phone, it includes technology on the phone, and then includes a live agent if they want to talk to somebody. And obviously the web is a place that we can also interact. But I think it's about a multi-channel system and giving the ability to use the channel that one wants to use in order to accomplish the chore they want to get done with us.
That'd be helpful. One of the things that you and I have talked about already in my office, and thank you for stopping by so we get a chance have a longer conversation, is about the disability determination. That process can be two to three years long. There's a lot of aspects of it that end up taking a very long time to just get an answer on it. The reconsideration process is certainly broken in the process and takes a tremendous amount of time on just the reconsideration for something they already know to be able to go through the same hoop again. There are a lot of challenges that are in this process as you walk into this. I'm not going to ask you how you're going to fix it because you're walking in to look at it to see what can be done. I would raise you this as an issue. You said you were already aware of some of those issues as well. How do you begin the process of trying to reform the disability review so that disabled individuals don't have to wait three years to actually get into that process and people that are not qualified can get an answer faster?
First of all, thank you for the time in your office and you enlightened me a lot in your dialogue with me around this process. My first objective would be to process engineer it from front to back, understand really what is taking what amount of time. We also talked, you were kind enough to talk to me about the jobs and the fact that a person who maybe 30 years ago was determined to be disabled and wasn't highly motivated by the system to be able to work, today we could do something different. So one of the first things I'm going to look at when I get there is all of those elements that we talked about in your office. I'm positive when you analyze something from front to back and you think about the age of today versus 30 years ago, that we could get a lot better answer for Americans.
We can. And there are folks that have great needs that qualify for disability that Congress has actually said, hey, the American people are going to stand alongside of them, that it takes years to be able to get through that process. And there are others that are trying to game the system that need an answer faster to say, hey, you're able to work and we want you to be able to do that. We are Americans, that's what we do. Two areas that we talked about briefly, and I'll just bring them up briefly to you. The Death Master File, we've got about 99,000 people still listed in a bit of limbo on that that still need clarification. That's from the Inspector General's report from 2024. And we have on the opposite side of that, multiple people using the exact same Social Security number to apply for a job that then show up just a Social Security number in the process. So we've got some numbers being used multiple times. We've got 99,000 in the Death Master File that just need to be clarified, are they alive or not in the process. So that's again a technology piece that we're going to count on you to be able to go chase down, to be able to figure out how to clearly identify that, make decisions, get it back out. So appreciate your time and your leadership and for your willingness to step in this role. Thank you, sir.
Senator Hassan. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Ranking Member Wyden. Good morning, Mr. Bisignano. It was very nice to visit with you in our office and congratulations to you and your family for your nomination. Before turning to Social Security issues, I want to ask you a simple question that I'm asking every nominee now related to recent events. If directed by the president to take an action that would break the law, would you follow the law or follow the president's directive?
Well, I'd follow the law, but I could never imagine the president asking that.
Well, I am glad you will follow the law. I challenge the notion that you can't imagine this president instructing somebody to break the law. I won't go through the litany, but there are plenty of examples of it since he took office. Now I want to move on to Social Security. Elon Musk and President Trump have set their sights on cutting Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid to pay for tax cuts for corporate special interests and billionaires. Elon Musk has referred to Social Security as a Ponzi scheme, that's in quotes, and he recently called for cutting up to $700 billion from Social Security and Medicare. That could mean cutting one-third of these programs. Social Security operates, as you know, on simple math. To achieve a one-third cut, you'd either have to take away benefits for one-third of the people currently receiving them or cut the payments that they're getting by one-third. So, Mr. Bisignano, which is it? Are you going to throw one-third of the people off of the program or cut their benefits by a third?
That's good to hear. So if the president and the Congress decide to cut these benefits, you're going to stand up for the beneficiaries?
Well, if Congress decides, I mean ultimately these decisions get done in the Senate Finance Committee. It's a collaboration. It's not the commissioner's job to make that decision.
So do you oppose cutting one-third of Social Security benefits?
I think the president has made it very clear that he has no objective, and he's made it very clear, to cut any benefits from Social Security.
Yet he has Elon Musk, who until he was told he couldn't, buying a court running rampant through Social Security. He's laying off staff and making it much more difficult for people to get benefits. That's inconsistent with the president's pledge. If you are confirmed, will you commit to stand up to Elon Musk and DOGE and stop them from cutting one-third of Social Security benefits, which Musk has already said he wants to do?
Well, I've worked for Tony Terraciano, I've worked for Jamie Dimon, I've worked for Henry Kravis, I've worked for Sandy Weill. I've worked with them. I have the ability to lead the agency in the manner that this Senate Finance Committee wants me to do that. And I don't know of any thought that I have about cutting one-third of the benefits of Americans or even entertaining anything of that sort.
Well, I appreciate that. I think I will echo the ranking member's request that we get a commitment from you that you will keep DOGE out of Social Security. Because one of the things we're seeing since this administration took over is steps that are making it harder and harder for people to apply for benefits, get benefits, and really working to slow things down, which is one way of course of slowing benefits, slowing benefit payment, and are reducing costs at the expense of beneficiaries. Let me turn to a New Hampshire issue. One in five Granite Staters receive Social Security benefits that they paid into for their entire lives. Earlier this month, at the direction of Elon Musk and DOGE, the administration announced plans to close 47 Social Security offices, including the one in Littleton, New Hampshire. Shortly thereafter, the Social Security Administration announced plans that would force more applicants and beneficiaries to go in person to offices, while at the same time laying off staff who work in those remaining offices. If the Littleton office is closed, North Country seniors would be forced to travel nearly 100 miles to the next closest New Hampshire field office. If confirmed, will you commit to keeping the Littleton Social Security office open, or will you do what Elon Musk commands you to do on this issue?
I'm going to be running the agency and I report to the president running the agency, so I just want to be very clear on that. I will evaluate the whole situation and I will report back to you.
And for the, Mr. Chair, I'd like with unanimous consent to offer into the record this archived copy of the listing by DOGE that includes the Littleton, New Hampshire Social Security office as one that they would like to close.
Thank you. And last thing for the, I will submit this for the record, but I do want to note that Commerce Secretary Lutnick has suggested that seniors wouldn't mind if the Social Security Administration didn't send out benefits one month and that only fraudsters would complain. And I will ask the nominee to reflect on how long he would be okay delaying Social Security checks to seniors. Thank you.
Thank you, Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. Mr. Chair, Mr. Bisignano, thank you so much. Thank you for meeting with me, I appreciate it. Welcome, congratulations on your nomination, welcome to your family. Let me just get a couple of questions out of the way and hopefully we just have this candid conversation and we carry it through like we did in my office recently. In an interview with Joe Rogan on February 28th, Elon Musk called Social Security the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time. Do you believe that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme?
I believe it's a promise to pay. It's an 89-year institution so far. It will continue.
Yes or no, do you think it's a Ponzi scheme?
In a podcast appearance last week, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick suggested that only fraudsters would complain about missing a Social Security check and that most people wouldn't mind if the government simply skipped a payment. Do you agree with Secretary Lutnick that only fraudsters complain when the government fails to send Social Security checks?
I don't think anyone would appreciate not getting their Social Security check on time.
I'm sorry, say that again?
I said I don't think anyone would appreciate not getting their Social Security check on time.
So you would agree they're not fraudsters?
I'm answering what you asked. I think...
Well, that's the question. His implication is if you're questioning whether you got your check or not, you're probably a fraudster. Would you agree with that?
It'd be hard to get to that conclusion.
It'd be hard to get to that conclusion.
Okay. Now let me ask you this as well. The current Social Security administrator briefly ended a contract that had allowed parents of newborn babies in Maine to sign their children up for a Social Security number at the hospital. Instead, he required them to do so in person at an office. The current administrator, according to a New York Times article, said he had ordered the move after watching Governor Janet Mills clash with Mr. Trump at the White House. He then quickly reversed that decision but said he did it because he felt that the governor of Maine was not being real cordial to the president. Do you think Social Security should be used as a political weapon against individuals in the future?
As I said in my opening comments, it's the most bipartisan thing we have. I believe its job is to deliver for the American population.
I agree. But do you think it should be used as a political weapon at the whim of somebody who wants to show fealty to the president?
I don't think it should be.
Good. That's the right answer. It should not be. Because everything you've said up until now has agreed that we should get the benefits out to individuals, that we should ensure that our focus is making those that need this disability benefits or who worked hard their entire lives and are entitled to these benefits really get them. So I appreciate that comment. Let me also jump back to a couple of questions. The Social Security administrator, let me jump to this. More than 570,000 Nevadans rely on Social Security after paying into it for decades, yet they face long wait times and inaccessible offices, problems that have only worsened under the so-called efficiency measures introduced by DOGE. DOGE has cut staff, they've closed field offices, and they've shifted services online. I'm hopeful that you are going to address this issue. And as you think about moving into this office, what are you going to do based on all of the complaints that we are hearing now, more so than before this administration came into office? How do you expect to in the first 100 days address these issues?
I'm a battle-tested executive. In the mortgage crisis, when I was asked to come in and work shoulder to shoulder with the government, we figured out how to clean up a pretty big mess.
So would you reverse some of the DOGE decisions if you felt that they were inappropriate and they weren't to the beneficiaries the information, the benefits they need?
Any decision I thought was inappropriate would be rectified at all issues.
And you'd be willing to reverse it if you felt it was appropriate?
If something was inappropriate, it would be changed.
Thank you. And then finally, let me ask you this. There's a lot of concern, and rightfully so, about individuals who don't even work in the administration, they are actually rifling through the personal information of Americans. And I am hopeful that you are going to guard that personal information for anybody who has provided it to the Social Security Administration. Are you willing to protect their private information?
I've done it my whole career. That's yes. I've done it my whole career. That would be yes.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And welcome, Mr. Bisignano. Welcome. We appreciate you answering the call. This is a job you don't need. This is a job that you don't covet, but instead you're one of the patriots stepping forward to help save this nation. We heard some fear-mongering this morning, and I just want to reassure Americans that Republicans are the party that wants to save Social Security, that we want to ensure that the folks that have paid into Social Security their whole lives, who've earned these benefits, get the money that they were promised. And I also want to remind Americans that we're the party that wants to stop the taxing of Social Security benefits as well. We want Americans to keep more of their hard-earned money and not have to pay a tax on this benefit that they paid into their whole lives. The Social Security Administration had probably $10 billion of improper payments in 2023. I think it's a lot more than that. Can you explain how you use your past experience in payments processing to bring down these improper payments?
I think my past experience is beyond just payment processing, but I think in this case it's good to talk about in a broader sense. I think every error requires root cause analysis. Why did it happen? There are no one-offs. My lifetime of experience shows there's pattern recognition. And the fact that we produce an Inspector General report that talks about a 1% error rate, that is completely too high for the function we're talking about.
In your past experience, what was your error rate?
Five decimal points to the right.
So 0.00? Got it. And that's what the target would be. So I think if you think about that type of error rate running through the agency, it creates the opportunity for more problems. Ultimately, we're talking about quality of service to our beneficiaries. So I think it's about RCA analysis, I think it's about rigor. I know that there's lots of stats that are produced, but when I go on and look at the stats, they're not at the level that you all should accept or that I will accept or that the American public certainly would.
One way of saving Social Security is by eliminating or decreasing these improper payments. I don't think anyone could argue against that. Let's talk about customer experience a little bit more. How you use your background to improve processing times and customer service?
I think many of this is about what I call process engineering, understanding where we are creating backlogs. Obviously with the amount of time it's taking, I don't know if the standards are appropriate yet. We have a six-month standard on disability, it takes much longer. A lot of things we need to go analyze them. But I don't believe that this is going to take us years. I think there's many things we will solve in year one, and that would be my expectation. I bring a sense of urgency, and I want the people in the agency to feel like they're winning.
Let's talk about Americans' personally identifiable information. All of us, from credit cards to banks, I mean even this week I got another alert from health insurance that our data has been violated. What's your experience been like in the private world to protect people's identifiable information, and how can you improve and protect that? Let me ask you, is this a priority for you?
It's job one. In this job, it's job one. And if you're running a financial institution, it's job one. And if you're running Fiserv, it's job one. You must have the trust. PII needs the highest level of scrutiny and protection, and we need to understand who can access what information and ensure that that information is anonymized so they're not getting data that they could use in a bad way.
Last May, last question. Let's talk about the IT systems that you've used in the past. What can you do from an IT standpoint to improve Social Security's efficiency and improve customer experience?
Well, I think technology is a great enabler. You don't have to throw a system out, you have to figure out how to make it work better. You have to understand how to make yourself more efficient. I think one of the greatest efficiency opportunities we have is using artificial intelligence. That doesn't mean we use it for answering the phone, it means we use it to learn how to do our work better. And I don't think these are monumental economic spends. I think we could do them within the plan.
Thank you, Mr. Bisignano. You're hired.
Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, Mr. Bisignano, thank you for your willingness to serve. I have to compliment President Trump and his team. I can't imagine them finding a more qualified individual for this position. I mean, not kidding, I think it's pretty remarkable. First of all, did President Trump or anybody on his team, in interviewing you and deciding to make this nomination, did any of them ever talk about cutting benefits for Social Security?
No. As a matter of fact, always talked about it's something we win, too. It's doing everything we can to protect Social Security.
Correct. Yes. You mentioned in a previous answered question here that the 1% error rate is too high. I want you to compare the IT systems, the processing, the payment processing that you've done at Fiserv and other companies to Social Security. Just give the committee some sense of your depth of experience in dealing with these things versus Social Security.
Well, we have 13,000 software engineers today at Fiserv. I like to believe we're fundamentally a tech company that provides payments to 100% of American households. A lot I've heard is about the old COBOL system at Social Security. I actually believe that's the system we have, and we know how to build around it. By the way, you have that at Fiserv, it's all over the world, so you'll be able to adapt from that.
Yeah, it could be dealt with. It's not the problem.
