HEARING: PN-03 Nomination of Danielle J. Bu as Vice President of the United States

[Jack]

Levi Koenig

bangs gavel

The Senate shall come to order for the hearing of Congresswoman Danielle J. Bu, nominee for Vice President of the United States. The hearing will have a 48 hour clock starting after the Congresswoman delivers her opening statement. After such time has expired, the Senate shall debate on the nomination until such time cloture is invoked.

[Jack]

Danielle Bu, Nominee for Vice President

Mr. President, members of the Senate, and my fellow Americans,

Before I begin, I would like to thank President Van Horn on him choosing me for a role such as this one. Many people say Vice Presidents do nothing but stay alive in case their president dies, and we recently saw that happen; but, the role of a vice president is much more than that. We have a duty to the American people and that duty reigns supreme above all else. Someone who knew and understood that perfectly isn't only President Van Horn, but also the late President Allred. President Allred, I thank you for your service to this nation. You will always be remembered for the sacrifices you have made to make the lives of millions of Americans better. Thank you both, President Van Horn and Allred.

It is the honor of my life to stand before you today, representing the hardworking men and women across this great country who feel their voices have gone unheard for too long. Like so many of you, I come from a place where hard work, grit, and family are the backbone of everything we do. Raised in Pennsylvania’s steel country, by a father who toiled in the mills and a mother who served our community as a nurse, I learned early what it means to give your all, to fight for every dollar, and to look out for your neighbor. That’s what drives me now and what drives me every day in public service.

I didn’t enter politics for power or for praise—I entered it because our communities are facing real struggles. Jobs shipped overseas, healthcare costs out of reach, schools and infrastructure crumbling; these aren’t just statistics; they’re issues affecting the people I grew up with, the families and workers who have always been the heart of this nation. That’s why, in 2009, I launched Keystone Communities Initiative, breathing new life into Pennsylvania towns that had been written off. By 2017, we had created over 5,000 jobs and put businesses back on their feet, not because of empty promises but because of real action.

I’ve seen, too, the ravages of the opioid epidemic firsthand, watching friends fall victim to a crisis that spread through our towns like wildfire. In 2012, I got involved with Opioid Crisis Solutions, determined to be part of a solution. And in Harrisburg, I fought for bipartisan support to address this epidemic head-on, because this is not about party lines; it’s about life and death, about our communities reclaiming hope.

In the State Senate, I worked on issues that matter most to us—making healthcare more affordable, fixing our roads, and giving our kids real choices with job training and vocational education, because not every path looks the same. And in Congress, I became known for calling out policies that left American workers behind and fighting for trade deals that protect our industries. I believe in an America that defends its own, that puts its workers before special interests and prioritizes its people over profits.

As Vice President, I promise to keep fighting for all of you—working families, small business owners, and every American who’s ever felt sidelined or sacrificed. I’m here to put people first and to build a future our kids can believe in. Thank you, and I’m ready to answer any questions this body may have.

[Jack]

Levi Koenig

Thank you, Congresswoman. With that, Senators have 48 hours to ask questions. Any outstanding questions will be answered by the nominee. Time starts now.

Edited November 14 by Jack

[Alaskansockeyepuffs]

Thank you, Congresswoman for being here, my first question.

When Dan Quayle was running for Vice President, many questioned his ability to lead due to his lack of experience in politics. You happen to have much less experience than even Quayle did when he became Vice President. Now, I am not insinuating that you are not qualified for the job, but it is certainly something that will come up, due to the hyper-political state of politics in this day and age. My question to you is this, What do you feel makes you qualified to be one heartbeat away from the Presidency, and how do you confront concerns about your lack of political experience?

[Avner]

My congratulations, Congresswoman, on your nomination.

As mentioned earlier, you have minimal experience and an extreme lack of experience concerning foreign policy. Vice presidents have often been tasked with foreign policy by the president. How would you help President Van Horn on foreign policy, when you have little to non experience? How would you go about advising the president if he asked you for counsel? 

[Alaskansockeyepuffs]

To further speak on the point made by Senator Mofaz,

The Vice President often times is required to take up a position of ambassador of spokesperson for the United States abroad. Right now we have a pressing war in Europe, that a growing threat posed by Russia. My question is in two parts. First, how do you feel about continued United States membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. My second, what should the United States do in the ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine?

[Blake]

I congratulate you on your appointment and thank you for taking time to answer our questions. 

I want to start with a simple question, in 2022 you voted against changes to the merger filling fees, including a proposal to increase the fees by the consumer price index. Can you explain why you do not believe multinational corporations should have to pay additional fees when buying other large companies? 

[Jack]

1 hour ago, Alaskansockeyepuffs said:

Thank you, Congresswoman for being here, my first question.

When Dan Quayle was running for Vice President, many questioned his ability to lead due to his lack of experience in politics. You happen to have much less experience than even Quayle did when he became Vice President. Now, I am not insinuating that you are not qualified for the job, but it is certainly something that will come up, due to the hyper-political state of politics in this day and age. My question to you is this, What do you feel makes you qualified to be one heartbeat away from the Presidency, and how do you confront concerns about your lack of political experience?

Thank you, Senator. It's a privilege and an honor to be here.

Let's get straight to the point on this: I'm not here to be a career politician, and that's exactly what makes me qualified. I come from the real world, from a working-class family, and I've spent my life fighting for people who don't have a voice in the political sphere. I didn’t start out in some Washington think tank, and I don’t see the world from the bubble of career politics. I’ve been on the front lines of real issues—creating jobs, tackling the opioid crisis, pushing for healthcare reform that doesn’t sink families into debt, and fighting tooth and nail for the middle class. I know what it’s like to work hard and see so little come back. That’s why I entered public service—to fix what’s broken, not to be another cog in a broken machine.

Experience in the political arena doesn’t mean a damn thing if you’re not in it for the right reasons. Want to know my experiences, Senator? Being an American. Being an American means you stand for America, you live for America, and you are free to live the American Dream. I’m here because I believe in the power of this country’s people to take back control from the elite. I’ve proven that I can make real changes, stand up for what’s right, and fight for the hard-working Americans who make this country what it is. So if experience is just a word for years spent sitting in a cushy seat, I’ll pass. I’m here to get things done, not play politics, and that’s exactly why I’m the right person for this role.

Thank you for your time.

53 minutes ago, Avner said:

My congratulations, Congresswoman, on your nomination.

As mentioned earlier, you have minimal experience and an extreme lack of experience concerning foreign policy. Vice presidents have often been tasked with foreign policy by the president. How would you help President Van Horn on foreign policy, when you have little to non experience? How would you go about advising the president if he asked you for counsel? 

Thank you, Senator. The pleasure is mine.

Let me be clear, though: I’m not a conventional career FSO in our foreign apparatus, and that’s the whole point. My career hasn’t been spent in D.C. cocktail parties or chasing committee assignments. I’ve been on the ground, shoulder to shoulder with people who want a government that actually works for them. And when it comes to foreign policy, my approach is simple: I stand for America, period. You don’t need a lifetime of fancy diplomatic dinners to know that our country deserves respect, our workers deserve protection, and our allies deserve loyalty. I’ve spent my career fighting for the people at home, and that’s exactly the spirit I’ll bring to the global stage.

If the president asks for my input, he’ll get it straight and unfiltered. I believe in surrounding myself with experts, not “yes” men, because at the end of the day, I don’t care about looking impressive; I care about keeping America safe and strong. I’m going to learn everything I can, listen to the people who know the ins and outs, and when I make a call, it’s going to be based on what’s right for the people back home.

Here’s the thing, I’m not here to blend in with the Washington crowd. I’m here to be a voice for everyone out there who’s tired of being told that you need decades of “experience” to have common sense. I’ve spent my life protecting our interests on the home front, and that’s the experience I’ll bring to the White House.

Thank you for your time.

15 minutes ago, Alaskansockeyepuffs said:

To further speak on the point made by Senator Mofaz,

The Vice President often times is required to take up a position of ambassador of spokesperson for the United States abroad. Right now we have a pressing war in Europe, that a growing threat posed by Russia. My question is in two parts. First, how do you feel about continued United States membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. My second, what should the United States do in the ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine?

First, on NATO: our membership in NATO isn’t just a formality; it’s a commitment to our allies and a stance against anyone who threatens global stability, especially our own. I firmly believe that the United States must stand strong in NATO because it sends a clear message: we don’t back down, and we don’t stand alone. But that doesn’t mean we’re a blank check. We need to hold our allies accountable, too, making sure every member country pulls its weight. America shouldn’t bear the whole burden. We’re in this together, and we expect commitment in return.

When it comes to the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, I believe the United States must take a measured approach that aligns with our own national interests and values. Our role should be thoughtful and strategic, working with our allies and international organizations to seek a solution that prioritizes stability and minimizes further harm. While it’s important to monitor the situation closely, we also need to be mindful of our responsibilities here at home.

Ultimately, I believe in a policy that’s focused on maintaining global stability without compromising American resources or security. It’s a complex situation that deserves careful consideration, and our approach should reflect that balance between supporting global peace and protecting American interests.

Thank you for your time.

[Jack]

6 minutes ago, Blake said:

I congratulate you on your appointment and thank you for taking time to answer our questions. 

I want to start with a simple question, in 2022 you voted against changes to the merger filling fees, including a proposal to increase the fees by the consumer price index. Can you explain why you do not believe multinational corporations should have to pay additional fees when buying other large companies? 

Thank you, Senator. I'm glad to be here.

When I voted against the proposal to increase merger filing fees, it wasn't about protecting large corporations or to make myself or anyone rich. My vote was about maintaining a stable business environment. Mergers and acquisitions, especially when done responsibly, can help drive economic growth, create jobs, and support competition. Additional fees, which is actually another for tax, even if adjusted to the CPI, could impact business decisions and create barriers that might unintentionally harm smaller companies trying to grow.

I believe we need to ensure that any fees or regulations we impose are carefully balanced to support both economic growth and fair competition. My priority is to keep the system fair for businesses of all sizes while considering the impact on consumers.

Adam Smith would have been proud of my vote.

[Blake]

Do you support legalization of and/or further research into medical marijuana? 

[Blake]

11 minutes ago, Jack said:

Thank you, Senator. I'm glad to be here.

When I voted against the proposal to increase merger filing fees, it wasn't about protecting large corporations or to make myself or anyone rich. My vote was about maintaining a stable business environment. Mergers and acquisitions, especially when done responsibly, can help drive economic growth, create jobs, and support competition. Additional fees, which is actually another for tax, even if adjusted to the CPI, could impact business decisions and create barriers that might unintentionally harm smaller companies trying to grow.

I believe we need to ensure that any fees or regulations we impose are carefully balanced to support both economic growth and fair competition. My priority is to keep the system fair for businesses of all sizes while considering the impact on consumers.

Adam Smith would have been proud of my vote.

 

Congresswoman, why do you believe Adam Smith a man famous for his opinions of promoting competition would be proud of your vote to make it easier for businesses to form monopolies or cartels? 

[Alaskansockeyepuffs]

Given the ongoing debate over election integrity specifically contained to your party, do you believe the 2020 presidential election was conducted fairly, or do you think it was 'stolen', as some in the Republican party have claimed for 5 years? And as Vice President, a role responsible for certifying the results in 2028, can the American people trust that you would certify the outcome impartially, regardless of which party wins?

[Alaskansockeyepuffs]

Now Congresswomen Bu, as you know, given the current administration’s recent plans to cut funding to certain foreign aid programs—particularly those aiding Ukraine in its defense against Russian aggression—there has been widespread bipartisan concern regarding the impacts on both international stability and America’s strategic alliances, especially when considering the historical ramifications of similar actions. For instance, the lack of American intervention in certain conflicts prior to World War II is widely considered a precursor to larger global destabilization, a perspective that has shaped bipartisan foreign policy doctrines for decades. So, in light of this, I have a multi-part question that I’d appreciate a detailed response to:

1. Given that history has shown us that pulling back on support for allies can embolden aggressors as many foreign policy experts argue was the case with Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement of Hitler do you believe the administration’s choice to defund Ukraine’s defense initiatives sets a similar precedent? If not, could you elaborate on what specific aspects make this situation different, specifically within the current geopolitical context where Russia’s influence has spread in regions like Syria and is exerting pressure on Eastern Europe?

2. Furthermore, if the administration’s stance is that Ukraine can stand on its own, how do you reconcile this with our defense commitments to NATO allies, many of whom are geographically and strategically vulnerable to Russian expansionism? Specifically, I’d like to know which NATO principles you believe are being upheld or potentially jeopardized by this stance and how that aligns with our commitments under Article 5.

3. Lastly, in your response, I’d appreciate if you could clarify the administration’s perspective on how this policy aligns with historical American values of supporting democratic governments against authoritarian forces—a stance that has been fundamental to U.S. foreign policy since the Cold War. Given these historical precedents, what assurances can you give that this decision doesn’t undermine our position as a defender of democratic values worldwide, even as we scale back aid to Ukraine?

Thank You for your Response!

[camilodeso]

Congresswoman Bu, thank you for joining us today. As a fellow public servant, I recognize and appreciate your commitment to representing your constituents and your dedication to the issues you hold dear. Today, as we consider your nomination, I’d like to discuss a few key areas that impact millions of American lives.

First, let’s talk about your stance on trade policies. Your record shows a strong alignment with protectionist measures. Could you elaborate on how you envision these policies supporting our economy in an increasingly globalized world?

Next, on the topic of education, I’ve noted your emphasis on vocational training as an alternative to traditional college pathways. Can you speak to how you’d balance this focus with the need to maintain strong support for higher education, ensuring our workforce remains competitive and versatile?

Finally, I’d like to hear more about your work on the opioid crisis. While I commend your dedication to addressing this pressing issue, I’m interested in understanding how you’d expand beyond enforcement-based approaches to support community-driven, long-term recovery solutions.

Thank you for your time today, Congresswoman. We’re looking forward to a robust conversation on these critical matters.

[Alaskansockeyepuffs]

Congresswomen, as we assess your qualifications to serve as Vice President, I'd like to ask for clarification on a matter that has stirred considerable debate among the American public and within the VanHorn administration's base. Specifically, with respect to vaccines and public health, Americans need reassurance. Recently, there was a concerning incident at the VECTOR laboratory in Russia, one of only two known facilities globally housing smallpox—a virus once eradicated yet still recognized as a potential bio terrorism threat. This breach raises legitimate fears about the virus’s weaponization and the severe implications it could have, not only on public health but also on public morale and global stability.

Now, given that prominent voices in your party, including some close to the VanHorn administration, have fueled skepticism around vaccines, espousing theories that undermine scientific consensus and the importance of vaccination, there’s a question of how Americans, and indeed the global community, can trust this administration’s approach to vaccine distribution, public health safeguards, and honest communication. How do you intend to align the administration with science-based, transparent policies that protect Americans against such risks, while overcoming skepticism fostered by your own party? In short, how can the American people rely on the VanHorn administration to stand as a credible force for public health in the face of this potential threat?

Edited November 14 by Alaskansockeyepuffs

[Avner]

50 minutes ago, Jack said:

Let me be clear, though: I’m not a conventional career FSO in our foreign apparatus, and that’s the whole point. My career hasn’t been spent in D.C. cocktail parties or chasing committee assignments. I’ve been on the ground, shoulder to shoulder with people who want a government that actually works for them. And when it comes to foreign policy, my approach is simple: I stand for America, period. You don’t need a lifetime of fancy diplomatic dinners to know that our country deserves respect, our workers deserve protection, and our allies deserve loyalty. I’ve spent my career fighting for the people at home, and that’s exactly the spirit I’ll bring to the global stage.

If the president asks for my input, he’ll get it straight and unfiltered. I believe in surrounding myself with experts, not “yes” men, because at the end of the day, I don’t care about looking impressive; I care about keeping America safe and strong. I’m going to learn everything I can, listen to the people who know the ins and outs, and when I make a call, it’s going to be based on what’s right for the people back home.

Here’s the thing, I’m not here to blend in with the Washington crowd. I’m here to be a voice for everyone out there who’s tired of being told that you need decades of “experience” to have common sense. I’ve spent my life protecting our interests on the home front, and that’s the experience I’ll bring to the White House.

Congresswoman, a few follow-up questions,

You emphasize your “on-the-ground” experience and connection with everyday Americans. How do you plan to translate that background into effective foreign policy, especially in complex global negotiations where protocol and long-standing diplomatic relationships play a crucial role?

You talk about being straightforward and unfiltered with the president. How do you balance this honesty with the need for tact in situations where delicate diplomacy may be more effective than bluntness?

You highlight the importance of “common sense” over years of experience. In situations requiring technical expertise, such as arms control or international trade agreements, how will you account for the depth of knowledge often required to navigate these areas effectively?

Finally, you mention a desire to avoid “blending in” with Washington’s conventional style. How will you ensure that your unique approach allows for productive relationships with U.S. foreign service professionals and international diplomats, who may rely on traditional diplomatic protocols and practices?

[Alaskansockeyepuffs]

55 minutes ago, Jack said:

Thank you, Senator. It's a privilege and an honor to be here.

Let's get straight to the point on this: I'm not here to be a career politician, and that's exactly what makes me qualified. I come from the real world, from a working-class family, and I've spent my life fighting for people who don't have a voice in the political sphere. I didn’t start out in some Washington think tank, and I don’t see the world from the bubble of career politics. I’ve been on the front lines of real issues—creating jobs, tackling the opioid crisis, pushing for healthcare reform that doesn’t sink families into debt, and fighting tooth and nail for the middle class. I know what it’s like to work hard and see so little come back. That’s why I entered public service—to fix what’s broken, not to be another cog in a broken machine.

Experience in the political arena doesn’t mean a damn thing if you’re not in it for the right reasons. Want to know my experiences, Senator? Being an American. Being an American means you stand for America, you live for America, and you are free to live the American Dream. I’m here because I believe in the power of this country’s people to take back control from the elite. I’ve proven that I can make real changes, stand up for what’s right, and fight for the hard-working Americans who make this country what it is. So if experience is just a word for years spent sitting in a cushy seat, I’ll pass. I’m here to get things done, not play politics, and that’s exactly why I’m the right person for this role.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Senator. The pleasure is mine.

Let me be clear, though: I’m not a conventional career FSO in our foreign apparatus, and that’s the whole point. My career hasn’t been spent in D.C. cocktail parties or chasing committee assignments. I’ve been on the ground, shoulder to shoulder with people who want a government that actually works for them. And when it comes to foreign policy, my approach is simple: I stand for America, period. You don’t need a lifetime of fancy diplomatic dinners to know that our country deserves respect, our workers deserve protection, and our allies deserve loyalty. I’ve spent my career fighting for the people at home, and that’s exactly the spirit I’ll bring to the global stage.

If the president asks for my input, he’ll get it straight and unfiltered. I believe in surrounding myself with experts, not “yes” men, because at the end of the day, I don’t care about looking impressive; I care about keeping America safe and strong. I’m going to learn everything I can, listen to the people who know the ins and outs, and when I make a call, it’s going to be based on what’s right for the people back home.

Here’s the thing, I’m not here to blend in with the Washington crowd. I’m here to be a voice for everyone out there who’s tired of being told that you need decades of “experience” to have common sense. I’ve spent my life protecting our interests on the home front, and that’s the experience I’ll bring to the White House.

Thank you for your time.

First, on NATO: our membership in NATO isn’t just a formality; it’s a commitment to our allies and a stance against anyone who threatens global stability, especially our own. I firmly believe that the United States must stand strong in NATO because it sends a clear message: we don’t back down, and we don’t stand alone. But that doesn’t mean we’re a blank check. We need to hold our allies accountable, too, making sure every member country pulls its weight. America shouldn’t bear the whole burden. We’re in this together, and we expect commitment in return.

When it comes to the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, I believe the United States must take a measured approach that aligns with our own national interests and values. Our role should be thoughtful and strategic, working with our allies and international organizations to seek a solution that prioritizes stability and minimizes further harm. While it’s important to monitor the situation closely, we also need to be mindful of our responsibilities here at home.

Ultimately, I believe in a policy that’s focused on maintaining global stability without compromising American resources or security. It’s a complex situation that deserves careful consideration, and our approach should reflect that balance between supporting global peace and protecting American interests.

Thank you for your time.

I and everyone else in this room are Americans Congresswomen, you are dodging my question. If being American qualifies you for being Vice President, than we would have 346 million Vice Presidents. Why do you feel you need to be Vice President?

[Blake]

Congresswoman in 2022 you voted against a bill that provided funding and resources for the department of Justice to provide Active Shooter Communications and a bill that provided additional funding for the mental health resources, stricter background check requirements, and expanded the definition of domestic violence. After the King of Prussia Mall shooting has position on gun control changed at all?

[Blake]

Additionally, Congresswoman you voted against restoring pensions to General Motors employees who lost those pensions due to their bankruptcy in 2009. Can you explain why you decided to vote against restoring those pensions? 

[Alaskansockeyepuffs]

Congresswoman Bu, in light of the deeply polarizing history surrounding abortion legislation, it's well-known that both the late President Allred and President VanHorn have been vocal proponents of a national abortion ban, framing it as a cornerstone of their political legacies. Given the divisiveness of this issue, which spans fundamental ethical, legal, and individual rights concerns, I’m interested in understanding not only your stance but also your commitment to upholding the wishes of millions of Americans who may feel disillusioned by sweeping federal mandates on personal healthcare choices. If confirmed as Vice President, would you adhere to the policies championed by your predecessors in imposing a national ban, which some claim better reflects the moral compass of the nation? Or would you instead look to ensure that reproductive healthcare remains accessible for those who believe in a woman's right to choose, acknowledging that states, rather than the federal government, might be better suited to determine such sensitive matters? And, if I may add, how do you reconcile your position with the potential need to bridge a bitterly divided public on this issue, given the precedents already set by the administration?

Edited November 14 by Alaskansockeyepuffs