[Senate Hearing 111-440]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 111-440
NOMINATION OF ROBERT L. NABORS II
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
of the
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
NOMINATION OF ROBERT L. NABORS II TO BE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF
MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
JANUARY 14, 2009
__________
Available via http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
49-486 WASHINGTON : 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman
CARL LEVIN, Michigan SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
JON TESTER, Montana
ROLAND W. BURRIS, Illinois
MICHAEL F. BENNET, Colorado
Michael L. Alexander, Staff Director
Lawrence B. Novey, Senior Counsel
Kristine V. Lam, Professional Staff Member
Brandon L. Milhorn, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Jennifer L. Tarr, Minority Counsel
Trina Driessnack Tyrer, Chief Clerk
Patricia R. Hogan, Publications Clerk and GPO Detailee
Laura W. Kilbride, Hearing Clerk
C O N T E N T S
------
Opening statements:
Page
Senator Lieberman............................................ 1
Senator Collins.............................................. 2
Prepared statements:
Senator Lieberman............................................ 11
Senator Collins.............................................. 11
WITNESSES
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Hon. David R. Obey, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Wisconsin................................................... 1
Robert L. Nabors II to be Deputy Director, Office of Management
and Budget:
Testimony.................................................... 3
Prepared statement........................................... 13
Biographical and financial information....................... 14
Responses to pre-hearing questions........................... 21
Letter from the Office of Government Ethics with an
attachment................................................. 52
NOMINATION OF ROBERT L. NABORS II
----------
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 14, 2009
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:57 p.m., in
room 342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Joseph I.
Lieberman, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Lieberman and Collins.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN LIEBERMAN
Chairman Lieberman. The Committee is reconvened for the
hearing on the nomination of Robert Nabors to be the Deputy
Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Perhaps in deference to Mr. Obey's schedule, before either
Senator Collins or I speak, Mr. Obey, we would be happy to hear
from you. First, we thank you for coming over to introduce Mr.
Nabors, and we would be happy to hear your opening statement at
this time.
TESTIMONY OF HON. DAVID R. OBEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN
Mr. Obey. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Senator
Collins.
Yesterday, when I appeared before another committee to
introduce Mr. Nabors, I noted that I had one concern with the
incoming Obama Administration, their great concentration of
power in the hands of Chicago White Sox fans, with both the
incoming President and the Chief of Staff and Mr. Nabors. I was
willing to overlook that, but as a Green Bay Packers fan, I
discovered last night that all three of them are also Chicago
Bears fans. That is almost too much to bear.
Chairman Lieberman. Enough is enough. [Laughter.]
Mr. Obey. But having said that, I am sure that you know
what Mr. Nabors' background is. He went to Notre Dame for his
undergraduate degree, got his master's degree at the University
of North Carolina, served at OMB as a Program Examiner. He then
served as Senior Advisor to the Director and then became
Assistant Director for Administration and the Executive
Secretary of OMB. He joined the staff of the House
Appropriations Committee, serving in various capacities for
several years. He then served 2 years as Minority Staff
Director and for the last 2 years has served as Chief of Staff
for the House Appropriations Committee.
I have never met a person who works harder. It is really
with mixed feelings that I appear before you because he has
been my right arm for the last 4 years and he is a tremendous
asset to this institution of the Congress of the United States.
We are losing a very valuable asset, but the Executive Branch
is gaining one, and I think that is the country's gain, as
well.
He is a person of solidity and wisdom. I said yesterday
that, as we know, mathematics is the universal language, but
budgets, even though they are a compilation of numbers, also
represent what can happen to human beings behind those numbers.
Mathematics is a universal language, but so is pain and so is
the human desire for opportunity, and budgets certainly can
provide both. I think Mr. Nabors understands that and
recognizes the human dimension of everything we do in the
budgeting area.
I would also simply note that he brings a special quality
because I think he understands both branches of government and
I think he will help bring a degree of respect between the
Executive and Legislative Branches, which has all too often
been absent in recent years. I think while he will provide
tough-minded service to the Executive Branch and to the
Congress, he will also bring a deep and profound understanding
and respect for the opposite institution, and that never hurts
around here.
With that, I appreciate your hearing me, and I will leave
and go back to my roll calls and leave you to your business.
Chairman Lieberman. Thanks, Mr. Obey. That was a very,
obviously, heartfelt and thoughtful introduction and
endorsement. We appreciate it very much. Mr. Nabors, I don't
think you could have had a better start. Thank you. Safe
travels.
Mr. Obey. Thank you.
Chairman Lieberman. I officially welcome you, Mr. Nabors,
to the Committee. Since I gave an opening statement on the
issues facing OMB in Mr. Orszag's hearing, I am going to simply
enter that into the record, as well, for this hearing.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Chairman Lieberman appears in the
Appendix on page 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The discussion we have just had with Mr. Orszag was, I
think, both illuminating and sobering. For any Administration,
directing OMB is one of the most important jobs, even though in
some sense it is little known outside of Washington, but being
second in command, being Deputy Director, is no less demanding,
and particularly so at this unique hour, this really
unprecedented time in our Nation's economic history.
As Mr. Obey illustrated, you have an impressive background.
I think your previous experience at OMB will be very useful as
will, of course, the service you have given the Legislative
Branch of our government.
So I thank you for being here, and I am eager to hear your
views. Senator Collins.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COLLINS
Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I, too, outlined in my opening statement from the previous
hearing the general issues, as well as welcomed our witness
today.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The prepared statement of Senator Collins appears in the
Appendix on page 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I will note that both of the nominees today have had the
wisdom to bring adorable children with them, thus making it
very difficult for the Members of this Committee to ask the
kind of hard-edged questions for which we are known.
[Laughter.]
So I think that, too, indicates a certain skill and savvy
on the part of the witnesses today. But welcome.
I had a very good meeting with Mr. Nabors in my office
yesterday, and I look forward to exploring a few issues with
him during the questions.
Chairman Lieberman. Thanks, Senator Collins.
I will say for the record that Mr. Nabors has filed
responses to a biographical and financial questionnaire,
answered pre-hearing questions submitted by the Committee, and
had his financial statements reviewed by the Office of
Government Ethics. Without objection, this information will be
made part of the hearing record, with the exception of the
financial data, which are on file and available for public
inspection in the Committee's offices.
Mr. Nabors, our Committee rules also require that all
witnesses at nominations give their testimony under oath, so I
would ask you to please stand and raise your right hand.
Do you swear that the testimony you will give before the
Committee is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth, so help you, God?
Mr. Nabors. I do.
Chairman Lieberman. Thank you. Please be seated. As Senator
Collins has indicated, I understand your family is here with
you, and I ask if you would like to introduce them at this
time.
Mr. Nabors. I would be very happy to. My wife, Theresa, my
son, Jude, and my daughter, Georgia.
Chairman Lieberman. Welcome to all of you, and thank you
for supporting your husband and dad in serving our country, as
he is about to do in a very significant way.
I would ask you now to proceed with any opening statement
that you have.
TESTIMONY OF ROBERT L. NABORS II\1\ TO BE DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
Mr. Nabors. In the interest of time, I will try to keep my
statement brief and try to follow the Spratt model by reading
the first and last paragraph of my prepared remarks.
[Laughter.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Nabors appears in the Appendix on
page 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Collins, I am honored by the
opportunity to come before you as President-Elect Obama's
nominee for the Deputy Director of the Office of Management and
Budget.
I would like to take an opportunity to thank Mr. Obey for
introducing me to the Committee. As anyone who knows Mr. Obey
knows about him, he has a deep-seated respect for Congress.
This is a gift that he has imparted in me and a gift that I
plan on taking with me to my new position, if confirmed.
Mr. Chairman, these are extraordinary times. If confirmed,
I am committed to working with the Director, the Deputy
Director for Management, and other members of the
Administration to find the best ways to reform our budget,
eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse, put in place oversight
mechanisms to ensure that we wisely allocate Federal resources,
and manage those resources as effectively as possible.
With that, I thank you for the opportunity to testify
before you and am prepared to answer any questions you might
have.
Chairman Lieberman. Thank you very much.
Let me start with those standard questions we ask of all
nominees. First, is there anything you are aware of in your
background that might present a conflict of interest with the
duties of the office to which you have been nominated?
Mr. Nabors. No.
Chairman Lieberman. Do you know of anything, personal or
otherwise, that would in any way prevent you from fully and
honorably discharging the responsibilities of the office to
which you have been nominated?
Mr. Nabors. No.
Chairman Lieberman. Do you agree without reservation to
respond to any reasonable summons to appear to testify before
any duly-constituted committee of Congress if you are
confirmed?
Mr. Nabors. Yes.
Chairman Lieberman. Thanks. Let me proceed.
Let me ask you first how you see the role of the Deputy at
OMB, and as part of that, whether you and Mr. Orszag have
discussed how you might divide responsibilities.
Mr. Nabors. We have had those types of discussions. I think
part of the way I view the role of the Deputy Director is
influenced by my previous tenure at OMB.
I think especially to the outside world, much has been made
about the distinction between the management side of OMB and
the budgetary side of OMB. From my experience, that distinction
between the two parts of OMB are very much exaggerated, and I
will just give you one example.
In my previous tenure at OMB, I served as the Census Bureau
Examiner in what is traditionally thought of as the budget side
of OMB. But I was as likely to interact on a daily basis with
my colleagues from the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, the Office of Federal Financial Management, or the
Office of Federal Procurement Policy as I was to interact with
other budget people. It is because the issues that I was
dealing with, with the decennial census in particular, were so
complex that it actually took a team of experts to help think
through some of the problems.
So I come to the position with a predisposition that there
is no distinction between budget and management at OMB. It is
one institution. I see that my primary role as the Deputy
Director of OMB is to make sure that all of these different
perspectives within the institution--the management components,
the statutory office components, the budgetary issues--are
brought together so that when a recommendation is made to the
Director, all of the different facets of a particular problem
are brought to the forefront.
Chairman Lieberman. Very good. There was some talk with Mr.
Orszag of the line-item veto or enhanced rescission. We are
going to be looking at reform of current budget rules and
procedures in this Committee and in Congress. I wonder if you
have any suggestions yourself about how we might reform our
budget rules and procedures here in Congress based on your
experience, again, in both branches, to advance the cause of
fiscal responsibility.
Mr. Nabors. I think that there are a couple of things that
the Committee could look at and that OMB could be a helpful
partner in. I think that the first thing that I would point to
is transparency. I think that the budget and financial systems
of the Federal Government are among the most complex and obtuse
systems that exist anywhere, and I think anything that we can
do to bring increased transparency both to the budget itself
and to the budget process is a positive step in the right
direction.
I think the second thing that can be done is--any efforts
to better integrate the performance aspects of program
management with the budget processing components would be, once
again, a very positive step. I think right now, and once again,
based on my previous experience at OMB, too much of the program
analysis and the budget development are separated.
The example that I would use is previously at OMB, we had a
very long and detailed process that really began in October and
extended all the way through February to put the budget
together. After that, the examiners sort of catch 40 hours of
sleep and go back to work starting on something called the
spring reviews, and those spring reviews were opportunities to
focus on the management components. That tended to be book-
ended in between the budget creation process and the
congressional budget process and appropriations process. So
often times, that spring management review got short shrift.
I think that one of the things that needs to occur is that
throughout the budget process, from budget formulation all the
way through budget execution, there needs to be a strong focus
on the management component so that, as much as possible, these
pieces are not disrupted, and I think the same thing can be
said of the OMB and the Administration's working relationships
with the Congress.
Too often, our conversations with regard to budgetary
issues are limited to either the Appropriations Committee or
the Ways and Means Committee or the Senate Finance Committee. I
think more attention needs to be paid to incorporating the
findings of oversight committees into the deliberations that go
into crafting the annual congressional budget and the
appropriations bills.
Chairman Lieberman. Very thoughtful. I appreciate it.
Let me go to the stimulus package and ask for a reaction to
an idea. The President-Elect has set down three standards for
the stimulus package. Let me see if I can recall them. One was
that they create jobs; two, that they are able to be
implemented fairly rapidly; and three, that they support sound
national policy.
So consistent with that, we are obviously looking at a
major infusion of money, for instance, into transportation by
the States. We are looking at other more innovative sort of new
economy ideas, like investments in health information
technology (IT) and the smart grid.
Probably because I am on the Armed Services Committee, it
struck me that another possibility would be to accelerate the
funding of defense programs that we know we are going to have
to buy in the next 3 to 5 years and to do them this year or
next year. I am not talking about using this as an excuse to
sort of find money for controversial programs. I am thinking of
programs that everybody agrees would be a high priority for
funding and are just going to be spread out over 3 years, and I
am thinking that this would create jobs quickly. I think the
question is, can you find them? I am sure you can. They are
ready to be funded rapidly. And they do support sound national
policy, which is our national defense.
I wonder if you have a reaction to that thought.
Mr. Nabors. Well, we have spent some amount of time looking
at what can be done through the Department of Defense. In
particular, we have been looking at efforts that could both
stimulate the economy and make the lives of our military
families and soldiers more satisfactory.
We will go back and take a look at whether or not there are
other defense programs that we think could be executed quickly
and could provide a stimulative bolt to the economy.
Chairman Lieberman. Good for you. I appreciate that. I take
it you are thinking, when you think about the families, perhaps
of military construction of housing and the like.
Mr. Nabors. We are thinking about military construction and
housing, but we will expand that perspective to look at other
issues, as well.
Chairman Lieberman. That is one of the areas I was thinking
about, military construction of facilities on bases that
everybody agrees we are going to have to do in the next 3 to 5
years, including housing, but also perhaps the purchase of some
systems that we know we can actually gain a cost benefit if we
fund up front with the defense manufacturers.
I appreciate that answer, and I look forward to a response
after you take a look at it.
Mr. Nabors. Yes, sir.
Chairman Lieberman. Thank you. Senator Collins.
Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Nabors, I am particularly interested in your experience
with the census. As we discussed yesterday and as I indicated
in my previous questioning, I am very concerned about the total
failure of a major IT contract at the Census Bureau that was
absolutely critical to improving the effectiveness and
efficiency of the 2010 census. It is extraordinary to me in
this time and age that we are going back to such a primitive
system for trying to count people and carry out the
constitutional responsibility of conducting a census.
Do you think, given OMB's responsibilities to oversee IT
contracts, that OMB should have been able to avert that
disaster at the Census Bureau?
Mr. Nabors. I think the way I would answer that question is
that because of the responsibilities that OMB has been given by
the Congress and by the President on many issues, OMB is
ultimately responsible, and this is one of those issues where
so many components of the decennial census, both the funding,
contracting issues, information technology issues, sort of
reside ultimately at OMB for appropriate oversight, but yes, I
believe that some amount of responsibility should be borne by
OMB in terms of whether or not an appropriate amount of
attention was placed at a high enough level to catch these
types of things.
I think that one of the lessons that this brings out is
that we need to spend more time doing the type of oversight
that is necessary to ensure that the major dollars that we are
investing in things like the decennial census are spent wisely.
Senator Collins. Should OMB have a stronger Chief
Information Officer or Chief Technology Officer who sets
standards across the government?
Mr. Nabors. I think, as Mr. Orszag laid out, the issue
overall of IT and the importance of IT within the Federal
Government at this point really is causing us to step back and
take a look at whether another type of position, maybe a Chief
Technology Officer or a Chief Information Officer, is something
that is worthwhile. I think the decennial census provides a
prime example of why we might need to consider that. I think
over the next couple of weeks, I would expect to have further
conversations with Mr. Orszag about that.
Senator Collins. Along with technology concerns arises the
greater concern about privacy of personal information that is
held by Federal departments. In part due to the work that our
Committee did when we passed the Intelligence Reform Act in
2004, we created privacy officers in a number of agencies. Many
agencies have designated privacy officers as a result. However,
within OMB, there is no single official designated as the lead
on privacy policy despite OMB's responsibility in e-Government,
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), and
procurement issues.
I understand that when you were working at OMB, for a
period of time, there was a Chief Counselor for Privacy, a
position that has been vacant since 2001. Based on your
experience, do you believe that this position was a valuable
part of OMB that should be restored? Should Congress mandate
that the position be created?
Mr. Nabors. Well, when I was at OMB, we did have a Chief
Counselor for Privacy, and I think he was very effective at the
time. I think it was because of two reasons. One, he was
recognized as one of the foremost experts in the country on
privacy, so when he spoke, he carried a lot of weight. And I
think, second, the Director, the Deputy Director, and the
Deputy Director of Management all made it a point to ensure
that whenever we were having broader information technology
types of conversations or broader policy conversations, that
our privacy person was in the room and participated, so that
privacy was always part of the conversation that we were
having.
I think as we go forward, there are reasonable discussions
that we can have about what the best way to achieve that type
of goal is again. Perhaps it is having a person, but I think
there is general agreement that we need to ensure that privacy
is in the room and that people that we have talking about
privacy are among the best, brightest, and most thoughtful
people considering the issue.
So I would very much like to work with you and your
Committee to determine, in your opinion, how would you think
the best way to structure that to ensure that privacy gets the
appropriate level of attention during the OMB decisionmaking
process.
Senator Collins. I look forward to working with you on that
issue.
Finally, I want to talk to you a bit about performance of
Federal programs evaluation and assessment. So much of OMB's
functioning is focused, as you indicated, on the budget that at
times we lose sight not only of the management side of OMB, but
the importance of evaluating the effectiveness of Federal
programs. The current Administration tried to tackle this issue
by establishing what is known as the Program Assessment Rating
Tool (PART) program, yet Congress did not find that to be as
useful as we might have hoped.
I know that when I looked at various programs, oftentimes I
very much disagreed with the ratings that OMB assigned, and
often giving a program the red light in a PART program
evaluation really seemed to be a way to try to kill a program
or reduce or eliminate its funding rather than truly being a
fair assessment of its effectiveness. Yet there is no doubt in
my mind that there are programs that are not effective and
either should be eliminated or restructured so that they better
achieve their goals.
What are your thoughts on a possible successor to the PART
program that would help both the Administration and the
Congress more effectively evaluate the worth of Federal
programs?
Mr. Nabors. Well, I think that the first step is recreating
the process that led to PART, and I say that for the following
reason. When I was on the Appropriations Committee, I was
routinely asked by OMB analysts and by agency officials what I
thought about various PART scores, and I had to be honest with
them and say, we on the Appropriations Committee don't really
look at PART, in part because we don't think it is a useful
tool. It is not crafted in a way that was useful to the types
of decisions that appropriators were making.
From talking to my colleagues on various authorization
committees, I got the same reaction from them, that while the
concept of PART, the concept of measuring performance, is
something that should be universally beneficial across the
Congress, the way it was done was not terribly helpful.
So I would step back, and the first step in the process is
actually identifying the appropriate measures by which a
program's success or failure can be determined, and programs
have very different levels associated with them. It can't be as
simple as cost per student. There are more fundamental issues
at play with some education programs than just something as
simple as cost per student.
I think that one of the things in evaluating PART that I
would want to do is sit down and determine with congressional
stakeholders and with outside stakeholders, what is the best
way to measure the performance of particular programs?
I think that the second thing that I would want to do is
evaluate exactly what are we going to do with the information
once we have collected it? As you have noted, oftentimes, a bad
PART score is a justification to eliminate a program. I think
oftentimes those proposals were made without a consideration
for how integral such an activity might be to the Federal
Government or to society at large. Just because something gets
a bad PART score doesn't mean that we shouldn't do it. It means
that we should do it better, and I think that this is one of
the things that I would like to look at as part of a PART
review process.
Senator Collins. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Lieberman. Thanks very much, Senator Collins.
Senator Collins was kind enough to say before she gave her
opening statement that I had said a lot in my opening statement
that she had intended to say. She has now asked all the
remaining questions I had wanted to ask, so unless you have
others----
Senator Collins. I don't.
Chairman Lieberman. Mr. Nabors, thanks very much for your
willingness to serve. You and Peter Orszag are really a great
combination. I think you will serve the country and the
President and Congress really well because we have a lot of
work to do together. I look forward, honestly, to getting to
know you better, and I appreciate very much your testimony here
today.
Without objection, the record of this hearing will be kept
open until 12 noon tomorrow for the submission of any written
questions or statements for the record.
We hope that the Senate will be able to confirm you as soon
after the inauguration next Tuesday as possible.
With that, I thank you, your family, and your staff. The
hearing is adjourned.
Mr. Nabors. Thank you very much.
[Whereupon, at 4:25 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR LIEBERMAN
Welcome, Mr. Nabors. Due to Committee procedures, we are holding a
nomination hearing for you separate from Dr. Orszag's. Since I just
delivered a lengthy opening statement on the issues facing OMB, I will
not repeat it, but I would like to enter it into the record for this
hearing since we will be covering much of the same ground.
The discussion we have just had during Dr. Orszag's hearing was
both fascinating and very sobering. For any administration, directing
the Office of Management and Budget is one of the most important jobs--
albeit little known or understood outside of Washington. And being
second in command will be no less demanding.
You have an impressive background, and your previous experience at
OMB will be very useful, if you are confirmed.
Mr. Nabors has been Democratic Staff Director for the House
Appropriations Committee for the past two years and was Minority Staff
Director for two years before that. He joined the Committee in 2001.
Before joining Congressional staff, he served in several positions
at OMB--as a senior advisor to the Director from 1998-2000 and as
Assistant Director for Administration and Executive Secretary from
2000-2001. From 1996-1998, he was an OMB program manager.
I am eager to hear your views and plans for the difficult times
ahead. But first, please feel free to deliver an opening statement.
__________
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR COLLINS
Seldom have nominees for director and deputy director of the Office
of Management and Budget come before this Committee at a more critical
time.
The federal budget is under tremendous stress from the impacts of a
deep recession and the costs of rescue and stimulus packages. Spiraling
entitlement costs are driving long-term budgetary imbalances. And the
next few years will also see the cresting waves of Baby Boom
retirements, with enormous impacts on Social Security and Medicare
expenditures, as well as on our federal workforce.
Pointing to these trends and to the estimated $1.2 trillion deficit
for the current fiscal year, the President-Elect has prudently warned
that unless strong measures are taken, the outlook is for ``red ink as
far as the eye can see.''
Our nation's public debt has reached $6.3 trillion--about 45
percent of gross domestic product. According to the Congressional
Budget Office, federal spending will climb to an astonishing 25 percent
of GDP this year--more than any time in American history outside of
World War II. With a stimulus package worth another $800 billion or
more, our nation's debt as a percentage of GDP could rise to 60
percent, the highest level since World War II. That is, of course, an
unacceptable and unsustainable scenario for the government, for the
economy, and for the households and business owners who pay the
government's bills.
OMB will be the leading player as the incoming administration
formulates policy to deal with a grim present and uncertain future. OMB
will also be an indispensable link to Congress as the executive and
legislative branches work toward consensus on a sustainable path
forward.
Dr. Orszag comes before the Committee with an impressive set of
skills and experiences. As a former director of the non-partisan
Congressional Budget Office, he is familiar with the legislative
branch, as well as with the intricacies of budgets and policy analysis.
His earlier service as an economic advisor, as a scholar, and as a
consultant has given him other important perspectives that will prove
valuable if confirmed as OMB director.
I take special interest in several issues for which the OMB
Director is a key player.
The overriding concern, of course, is the federal budget. Dr.
Orszag has already indicated that the economy and stimulus measures
portend a near-term rise in the deficit. But as he knows--and as we
have heard from former Comptroller General David Walker and other
experts--recent years' outlays and the growth of unfunded entitlements
are unsustainable.
The recession will not last forever, so we desperately need a
realistic plan to avoid having the federal budget become a mammoth drag
on opportunities for job growth and higher personal income--and for
people's ability to decide what to do with their own money. And let me
add that the public expects far better oversight of the Troubled Asset
Relief Program and of any future economic-recovery package.
Another major OMB responsibility falls under the general heading of
Executive Branch management. This Committee has documented a voluminous
record of shocking waste of taxpayer dollars by the federal government
in virtually every program and department.
Many of these examples have arisen in the realm of contracting.
This Committee has successfully passed legislation to improve the
federal acquisition process, but additional reforms, including
revitalization of the federal acquisition workforce, must be high on
OMB's list of targets for critical improvements.
Effectiveness and equity are other key management concerns.
Homeland Security Grants, for example, are essential to ensure that
every state can achieve a baseline level of readiness and response
capability for natural or man-made disasters. OMB needs to examine
budget plans carefully to ensure that they consistently support our
nation's first responders and help achieve our national goal for all-
hazards emergency preparedness.
Other special concerns--which Dr. Orszag recognizes in responses to
pre-hearing questions--include transparency in government operations,
metrics for agency performance, close attention to GAO's High-Risk
List, and the need to tackle the escalating costs of health care.
Today the Committee will also consider the nominee for one of the
deputy directors at OMB, Robert Nabors.
I look forward to learning more about Mr. Nabors' background,
particularly his experience as a program examiner at OMB during the
Clinton Administration. That past OMB service included oversight of a
previous Census and of agency technology investments, both areas of
considerable concern today.
Our exploration with these nominees of the financial and management
hurdles facing the federal government makes this a critically important
hearing. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9486.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9486.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9486.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9486.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9486.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9486.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9486.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9486.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9486.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9486.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9486.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9486.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9486.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9486.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9486.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9486.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9486.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9486.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9486.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9486.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9486.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9486.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9486.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9486.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9486.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9486.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9486.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9486.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9486.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9486.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9486.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9486.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9486.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9486.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9486.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9486.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9486.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9486.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9486.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9486.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9486.041