U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

20–563 PDF 2016

S. Hrg. 114–448 

GOVERNING THROUGH GOAL SETTING: 

ENHANCING THE ECONOMIC AND NATIONAL 

SECURITY OF AMERICA 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JUNE 17, 2015 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov/ 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

( 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin Chairman 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

JONI ERNST, Iowa 

BEN SASSE, Nebraska 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

GARY C. PETERS, Michigan 

KEITH B. ASHDOWN, Staff Director 

COURTNEY J. ALLEN, Counsel 

REBECCA NUZZI, Professional Staff 

GABRIELLE A. BATKIN. Minority Staff Director 

JOHN P. KILVINGTON, Minority Deputy Staff Director 

BRIAN F. PAPP JR., Minority Professional Staff Member 

LAURA W. KILBRIDE, Chief Clerk 

LAUREN M. CORCORAN, Hearing Clerk 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

Senator Johnson ............................................................................................... 1 

Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 7 

Senator Ayotte .................................................................................................. 23 

Senator Ernst .................................................................................................... 26 

Prepared statements: 

Senator Johnson ............................................................................................... 43 

Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 45 

WITNESSES 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 17, 2015 

Hon. Joseph I. Lieberman, Co-Chair, No Labels .................................................. 11 

Hon. Jon M. Huntsman, Jr., Co-Chair, No Labels ................................................ 14 

Andrew H. Tisch, Co-Chairman of the Board, Loews Corporation ...................... 17 

Andrea Hogan, President and Chief Executive Officer, Merchants Metals, 

Inc. ......................................................................................................................... 19 

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Hogan, Andrea: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 19 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 56 

Huntsman, Hon. Jon. M. Jr.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 14 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 50 

Lieberman, Hon. Joseph I.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 11 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 47 

Tisch, Andrew H.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 17 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 53 

APPENDIX 

Chart referenced by Senator Johnson .................................................................... 59 

Chart referenced by Senator Johnson .................................................................... 61 

Chart referenced by Senator Johnson .................................................................... 62 

Chart referenced by Senator Johnson .................................................................... 63 

Chart referenced by Senator Johnson .................................................................... 65 

Chart referenced by Senator Johnson .................................................................... 67 

Chart referenced by Senator Johnson .................................................................... 68 

(1) 

1The prepared statement of Senator Johnson appears in the Appendix on page 43. 

GOVERNING THROUGH GOAL SETTING: 

ENHANCING THE ECONOMIC AND NATIONAL 

SECURITY OF AMERICA 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 17, 2015 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:34 a.m., in room 

SD–342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ron Johnson, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Johnson, Ayotte, Ernst, Sasse, Carper, Booker, 

and Lankford. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JOHNSON 

Chairman JOHNSON. This hearing will come to order. 

Good morning. I want to welcome all of our witnesses and thank 

you for taking the time to appear and also for your thoughtful testimony. I see that Senator Lieberman is not here yet, but apparently he missed his first flight or it was canceled, but he is on his 

way, so we will look forward to welcoming him back to his Committee room. 

I would like to first ask unanimous consent to have my written 

statement entered into the record.1

Senator CARPER. Reserving the right to object—no, I am just kidding. [Laughter.] 

Chairman JOHNSON. Yes, he always does that. 

Senator CARPER. Actually, we are getting along better here. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Normally, I ask when his back is turned to 

me. [Laughter.] 

But, I warn the witnesses, too, I want to spend a little bit more 

time than I normally do with an opening statement because this 

is a really important hearing, from my standpoint. I think your efforts are extremely important. I love the fact that you are starting 

with goals, which is—we have got three business people sitting at 

our witness table here. It is just critical. I mean, we will hear that 

in their testimony, how important it is to establish goals, because 

if we do not have an achievable goal, it is pretty hard to develop 

a strategy if it is not directed toward an achievable goal. 

But, let us start out today’s Committee hearing with—because it 

is a political discussion—the way I would always start out my business negotiations. I would imagine you are probably similar to me. 
2 

I did not start my negotiations arguing. I would always spend a lot 

of time on the front end of any negotiation laying out all the areas 

of agreement. So, let us start today the way I would start those 

business negotiations, on a goal that we agree on. We do share the 

same goal as Americans. We all want a prosperous, a safe and secure America. 

We actually, by the way, issued a mission statement for this 

Committee. It is pretty simple: To enhance the economic and national security of America. 

We are all concerned about each other. We all want every American to have the opportunity to build a good life for themselves and 

their family. That is what this hearing is all about, how do you accomplish that goal? How do you accomplish that mission? 

And I see Senator Lieberman here. Welcome, sir. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry for— 

I apologize for U.S. Air. [Laughter.] 

Chairman JOHNSON. I just saw you were on Senate time, sir. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Well, that too. 

Chairman JOHNSON. No. Chairman Lieberman, it is so good to 

have you back here. I will introduce everybody prior to testifying, 

but one thing I am noticing on your introduction, it does not say 

that you were one of the original cast members of the Senate Three 

Amigos—— [Laughter.] 

So you are back here—and, by the way, we have your replacement on the Committee, as well, so now we have Kelly Ayotte. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. There was apparently some agreement that 

my replacement was not only smarter and more able, but much 

better looking. [Laughter.] 

Chairman JOHNSON. I would not confirm that or dispute it. 

[Laughter.] 

But, anyway, let me pick up where I left off, with that shared 

goal. If we concentrate on those shared purposes and shared goals, 

if we do not question each other’s motives, if we engage in a process that you good men and women are engaged in trying to find 

the common ground, to actually solve some of these problems, we 

are going to be in a whole lot better shape. So, again, I want to 

start with that. 

Now, what you are engaged in is a problem solving process, and 

coming from a manufacturing background, I have solved a lot of 

problems, and there actually is a process you go through. In business, and this is borne out in testimony here, there is something 

called a strategic planning process, and in my mind, it has four 

steps to it. 

The first one is you have to ascertain the reality. You have really 

got to understand what the problem is. Then, based on that reality, 

you set achievable goals, which is what your group is trying to do 

here. Based on those goals, then you develop the strategies. And 

then the tactics are just there to support the strategies. 

Now, what I have found in Washington, D.C. is we are always 

at the tactical level. So, if you just engaged in tactics and the tactics are not tied to a strategy, that are not directed toward an 

achievable goal, that are divorced from reality, I think I just described a big part of the problem here in Washington, D.C. 
3 

So, again, I really commend you for your involvement in this 

problem solving process, but I also want to take a step back, because I think you are kind of in the second step, and I want to 

spend a little bit of time on the first step, which, according to—Mr. 

Tisch, you recognize that the first step, you said in your testimony, 

is to identify the problem. I will add to that a little bit. You have 

to define it. 

And, then, I think you—really, the first step, though, in solving 

any problem, once you have defined it and identified it is you have 

to admit you have it. And, I would argue in America, and I think 

this is on a bipartisan basis, we have not leveled with the American public. I do not think we collectively understand the depth of 

the problem. I do not think we collectively have admitted we have 

the problem. And, until we get the public to the point of admitting 

the problem, we are, unfortunately, a long ways from solutions. 

Ms. Hogan, I love the fact in your testimony you talked about 

strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats a (SWOT) analysis. Now, we were talking earlier, that is not a real common term 

here. When I say ‘‘swat’’ in Washington, D.C., people are looking 

for a fly or a mosquito. But, in a business strategic planning process, SWOT is strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. 

Let me just quickly go through a very fast, very abbreviated 

SWOT analysis on the American economy. What are our strengths? 

I would mention two. We are the world’s largest economy. We are 

the world’s biggest customer. I come from a manufacturing background. Manufacturers want to be close to their customers. It 

makes all the sense in the world. It is an enormous competitive advantage in a global economy. We are the world’s biggest customer. 

Also, we have abundant and relatively cheap energy. If you are 

going to manufacture something, you need power, and cheap power 

is a whole lot better than expensive power. So, let us not artificially 

drive the cost of power up. Let us have a strong economy so we can 

certainly spend on keeping our environment clean, but let us keep 

energy cheap. Let us make sure it is abundant. Those are our 

strengths. 

What are our weaknesses? Well, take a look at our tax system. 

It is completely uncompetitive. If you are a global manufacturer 

wanting to come and take advantage of cheap energy and the 

world’s biggest market, are you going to site your plant in Toronto 

with a 15 percent top marginal tax rate or Detroit at 35 percent? 

That is just not competitive. We have to recognize that reality and 

we have to fix our tax system. 

What about our regulatory environment? It is onerous. We have 

had hearings. There are multiple studies that show that the costs 

of complying with Federal regulations on an annual basis are approaching $2 trillion per year. Let me put that number in perspective. Only nine economies in the world today exceed or are larger 

than $2 trillion. That is the burden we are placing on innovators, 

on people that build things, on people who are trying to grow a 

business and create the good paying jobs. We have to reduce that 

burden. 

I will not spend a whole lot of time on our legal system, which 

is also a disaster and also holding our economy back. 
4 

1The chart referenced by Senator Johnson appears in the Appendix on page 59. 

Now, those are our strengths. Those are our weaknesses. What 

are our opportunities? Well, let us fix those weaknesses. Enormous 

opportunities. 

And, of course, threats. Take a look at international issues. Senator Lieberman has been just a real leader in terms of recognizing 

the dangers that this Nation faces. But, I agree with Admiral Mike 

Mullen that our greatest threat to national security is our debt and 

deficit, which gets me to pretty much the last part of what I want 

to talk about here, is the reality. 

So, we have gone through the SWOT analysis. So, let us take a 

look at the reality of the situation in terms of our debt and deficit, 

and I have some sheets out here. I have some charts and I want 

to go through this. 

I really developed this concept, the way to describe the depth of 

the problem to the American people with discussions and the White 

House. I was one of the small group of Republican Senators that 

was working with the White House, trying to find some areas of 

agreement on the debt and deficit. So, sitting down in those talks, 

I started looking at how you define the problem. We do not have 

a 10-year budget window problem. We have a 30-year demographic 

problem. All the Baby Boom generation, who are retiring at the 

rate of 10,000 people per day, on a bipartisan basis we have made 

all these promises and we do not have a way to pay for it. 

Now, a lot of people talk about unfunded liabilities. The problem 

with that definition is it is too far in the future. It is $100 or $200 

trillion and people just cannot get their heads around that. People 

can have some concept of what 30 years is, and unfortunately—as 

I always point out, my little baby girl just turned 32, and that went 

by like that. So, this problem is going to be on us in no time. 

So, let us just take a look at the Congressional Budget Office 

(CBOs) alternate fiscal scenario.1 Now, this is last year’s and they 

are actually going to be holding a hearing today at the Budget 

Committee on their updated version. It is not going to vary by 

much. This is CBO’s alternate fiscal scenario. No, keep it up. The 

first decade, CBO estimates about $9 trillion of deficit. Now, that 

is massive. That is going to take our debt up to $26, $27 trillion. 

I do not know if we get through the first decade without a debt crisis, but it pales in comparison to the second decade, $31 trillion of 

deficit. The third decade, $87 trillion, for a whopping total over 30 

years of $127 trillion of deficit. 

Now, put that in perspective. The entire net private asset base 

of America is $110 trillion. So, that is the problem we are trying 

to deal with. 

Now, a way to try and adequately lay this out so it is comprehendible is a one-page income statement. Again, we get these 

four-inch thick budget binders and it just does not lay it out. You 

can really describe the Federal Government in one page, on a onepage income statement, and I have done it here for the 30-year deficit. You have three columns, outlays, revenue, deficit. The first two 

rows really point us in the direction of what needs to be fixed, and, 

of course, you guys recognize that with your goals. 
5 

1The chart referenced by Senator Johnson appears in the Appendix on page 61. 

2The chart referenced by Senator Johnson appears in the Appendix on page 62. 

3The chart referenced by Senator Johnson appears in the Appendix on page 63. 

Social Security over the next 30 years will pay out about $15 trillion more in benefits than it takes in the payroll tax. Medicare will 

pay out about $35 trillion more in benefits that it takes in the payroll tax. That is $50 trillion of the $127 trillion. The rest of that 

deficit is in interest, $71 trillion that is not doing anything to improve the lives of ordinary Americans. It is paying off our bond 

holders. 

So, this directs our activity. We have to make Social Security and 

Medicare solvent. We cannot run up those deficits, so we do not 

incur the debt, so we do not have to pay that interest. And, of 

course, that is one of your goals. 

Now, this next chart1 in case anybody is thinking this alternate 

fiscal scenario is overstating the case, take a look at the last 20 

years in terms of average spending as a percent of gross domestic 

product (GDP). Now, those are estimated based on actuarial math. 

Defense the last 20 years, we spent about 3.9 percent of our GDP 

on defense. This scenario has us spending about 3.5 percent. Other 

programs, we spent about 6.7 percent. This scenario is only six, 

and interest for the plug. 

Now, next chart.2 I hear all the time that—this is not the right 

one. You have them in your packets. I hear all the time, well, why 

do you guys not just do Simpson-Bowles? We have done about 81 

percent of Simpson-Bowles. We got about $700 billion of tax increases in the fiscal cliff deal. We got about $2.1 trillion of spending constraint in the Budget Control Act. So, we have done about 

81 percent, but it did not really change the trajectory. 

Now, if you really want to solve problems, you have to use real 

information. Again, I do not have the chart, but I have it in your 

pamphlet here. We need to look at real information. We cannot rely 

on demagoguery. You want an example of demagoguery? Paul Ryan 

puts forward a proposal on Medicare, premium support, whatever 

you want to call it. To my knowledge, it has never been scored, but 

there has been a political reaction to it. We had political opponents 

run an ad, a Paul Ryan look-alike pushing Granny off the cliff, and 

it was effective. Where that ad was run, the Republican did not 

win. But, I would argue, how does that do anything to solve our 

problems? Let us start using real information. 

So, I have developed a solutions menu. I hear all the time, well, 

Social Security, that is the easy one to fix. Oh, yes? You try it. I 

have two sheets here.3 This is available on my website. But, we 

have one sheet that shows by decade the score of different solutions 

that have been proposed. How much of that $15 trillion in Social 

Security would something solve? 

Let us just pick one. Let us say we increase the age of retirement 

from 67 to 70. That saves about $1 trillion—oh, by the way, over 

4 years. Now, in today’s political environment, that is a draconian 

change to Social Security. That would only save $1 trillion of the 

$15 trillion deficit. We have to use real information. We have to get 

away from demagoguery. We are only going to solve these problems 

with the truth. 
6 

1The chart referenced by Senator Johnson appears in the Appendix on page 65. 

2The chart referenced by Senator Johnson appears in the Appendix on page 67. 

3The chart referenced by Senator Johnson appears in the Appendix on page 68. 

Here is a truth people do not want to recognize, because I hear 

it all the time, and this is one of the reasons the American people 

do not understand the depth of the problem is because they are 

told repeatedly that Social Security is solvent until the year 2033. 

It is not. It is already paying more out in benefits than it is taking 

in the payroll tax. It is already in a deficit cash-flow situation, except for the fiction of the Social Security Trust Fund, that accounting convention. 

Let me just describe how that is just an accounting convention. You have about $2.77 trillion of U.S. Government bonds in the 

trust fund, so it is an asset to the trust fund. The problem is, a 

U.S. Government bond is a liability to the Treasury. If you consolidate the books of the Federal Government and you are looking at 

this is a liability to the Federal Government, Social Security, that 

transaction nets to zero, and the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMBs) own publication says that. I have two quotes. One is just 

talking about the trust fund is just a bookkeeping convention. It is 

really not any asset that can really pay out those benefits. Next 

chart.1

Basically, that transaction of netting the trust fund asset against 

the Treasury liability, it nets to zero. But, by the way, the trust 

fund does exist. I have a picture of it. Next chart. 

That is it. That is the Social Security Trust Fund.2 It is a fourdrawer file located in Parkersburg, West Virginia. This is what the 

American people are expecting are going to be paying off the cashflow deficit of Social Security over the next 20 or so years. That is 

not being honest with the American public. 

So, the last thing I would just say on this chart3 is a solution 

menu on Medicare. It is pretty sparse. We do not have many solutions to fill a $35 trillion gap. 

So, let me close with one little story. Because unless we are willing to recognize these realities, unless we collectively are willing to 

take that first step in solving any problem, admitting we have one, 

again, I will emphasize, we are not going to be achieving the goals 

that you are courageously setting out here. 

I was in the White House for a 2-hour meeting. President Obama 

joined the meeting for the last half. And, of course, President 

Obama wanted everything on the table for discussion, tax increases, spending restraint. I mean, fair enough. And, I said, Mr. 

President, if you are serious about wanting everything on the table, 

the way to get everything on the table, at least for discussion, is 

use your bully pulpit. Tell the American people the truth. And I 

slid a chart similar to the one I just had up there on the 30-year 

deficit. Show the American people the depth of the problem so that 

we collectively take that first step and know we have the problem. 

You know what he said to me? He said, ‘‘Ron, we cannot show 

the American public numbers that big. If we do, they will get 

scared. They will give up hope. And,’’ he said, ‘‘besides, Ron, we 

cannot do all the work. We have to leave some work for future 

Presidents, future Congresses.’’ Now, that is an almost verbatim 

quote. I have witnesses. Kelly was one of them. 
7 

I think you all realize that without Presidential leadership, we 

cannot do big things in this country. But, again, without recognizing the reality of the situation, without having elected officials 

being willing to tell the American people the truth, we are a long 

way toward being able to agree on and vote on and pass the solutions to the problems to the goals that you set out. 

So, again, I just want to commend all of you for being involved 

in this process. Thank you for your courage. I hope you succeed. I 

am certainly going to dedicate myself to doing everything I can to 

help you succeed. 

And, with that, Senator Carper. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER 

Senator CARPER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for pulling this 

together. It is great to see all of you this morning. 

As Senator Lieberman knows, I oftentimes travel back and forth 

to Washington on the train and catch an early train in the morning. This morning, I sat in the quiet car, and in the very front of 

the quiet car, they have a couple of seats on either side of the aisle 

where they have two seats facing each other, and so as many as 

four people can sit there. And on my right were a family with a 

couple of kids and a mom and another passenger. I sit down in a 

seat, Joe, where there was an adult woman who was, like, all 

curled up asleep, in one of the two seats facing each other, but the 

other seat was empty. And, so, I sat down there and the conductor 

came by and collected my ticket and she continued to sleep all the 

way down to Baltimore. The train stopped in Baltimore and people 

got on board and she continued to sleep. And then the train pulled 

out and kind of jerked a little bit and she opened her eyes and she 

looked at me and she said, ‘‘You look so familiar.’’ I said, ‘‘I am Joe 

Lieberman.’’ [Laughter.] 

She said, ‘‘I thought I was dreaming.’’ 

Senator LIEBERMAN. She called me later that day—— 

Senator CARPER. It was today. 

Senator LIEBERMAN [continuing]. And I said—— 

Senator CARPER. I gave her your card. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. I said, ‘‘It is Carper again.’’ [Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. It is great to see you, my friend. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. It is great to see you. 

Senator CARPER. It is great to see you, my friend. 

Last time I talked with Joe Lieberman—this is forever—I told 

Joe I love him, and I really do. When he ran for President, I think 

you were the best of the Republicans running maybe the last time 

out, Governor. You are the pick of the litter. When Joe ran in 2004, 

I had the privilege of being his Campaign Chairman in the State 

of Delaware. I am trying to remember that night that we had all 

those primaries that night, what State did you—where was your 

best finish in the whole—— 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Senator Carper, there is no doubt, no lack 

of clarity. The best race I ran was in Delaware. [Laughter.] 

That was because of the Chairman that I had in Delaware. 

Senator CARPER. In spite of your Campaign Chair. We beat out 

John Edwards by seven votes, I think, in second place. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Yes. That was important. 
8 

1The prepared statement of Senator Carper appears in the Appendix on page 45. 

Senator CARPER. It was—— 

Senator LIEBERMAN. It was symbolic. 

Senator CARPER [continuing]. A resounding win. And, I was 

about to hold a press conference on election night in Delaware, on 

primary night, and announce that we had a second place finish in 

Delaware, we were on our way, and I got this phone call from Joe 

on my cell phone, he said, ‘‘I am pulling out.’’ I said, how could you 

do that? We are on a roll here. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. In Delaware. 

Senator CARPER. In Delaware. [Laughter.] 

We are the first State, the State that started a Nation. We have 

to get it started somewhere. 

Well, it is great to see you—— 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Thank you. 

Senator CARPER [continuing]. And to be in this room where you 

provided great leadership for all those years, you and Susan Collins. What an example you set for the rest of us. 

Before I get into some serious remarks, I just wanted to ask you, 

Senator Lieberman, do you recognize the young woman behind me 

over my, kind of, like, over my left shoulder? 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Yes, I do. 

Senator CARPER. Yes. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Perpetually young. 

Senator CARPER. Yes, forever young. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. That would be Janet. 

Senator CARPER. Yes. Janet Burrell is leaving us, leaving us this 

week—— 

Senator LIEBERMAN. I heard that, yes. 

Senator CARPER [continuing]. Leaving us this week after 37 

years of service to our country and some 30 years of service to—— 

[Applause.] 

So, we are grateful to her for all that she has done and continues 

to do. 

I have prepared remarks, and what I want to do is just submit 

those for the record.1

But, I want to come back to the four goals that are outlined in 

your testimony, and I have a glass of water here. This is a full 

glass, but I am one of those glass half-full people, and I always see 

a glass, if it is half-full, or even less than half-full, I am a glass 

half-full guy. And, I think, I know several of you are, as well. And, 

I am a glass half-full guy on America, and I wanted to just kind 

of talk about the goals you have set for our country and just give 

you my own thoughts of how we are doing. 

One of the goals is to create 25 million new jobs over the next 

10 years. That is an average that, actually, we came pretty close 

to that during the Clinton Administration, very close to that, as I 

recall. So, it is not an impossible task. In the last, I think, the last 

2 years, we have been going along at about an average of 200,000 

jobs per month, which would add up over 10 years to 25 million 

jobs. So, it is not entirely impossible. But, along the way, you are 

going to have a recession. We had a huge recession, as you know, 

several years ago. 
9 

But, in our jobs, whether you happen to be a Senator or a Governor, a recovering Governor, which is what I am—you probably 

are, too, Governor Jon Huntsman—we do not create jobs. The 

President does not create jobs. Mayors do not create jobs. What we 

do is help to create a nurturing environment for job creation, as 

you know, and that includes a whole lot of different things. It includes access to capital. It includes common sense regulation, access to decisionmakers. It includes public safety, rule of law, the 

ability to defend our intellectual property, our research and development (R&D), from those who would like to steal it and beat us 

to the punch economically. It includes clean air and clean water. 

It includes affordable health care, the ability for people to access 

health care, but to do so in a way that is affordable. It includes access to foreign markets. It includes a budget policy that sort of embodies all of the above. 

And, so, I want to go right down the list that you all have submitted to us of your four major goals. The first one, create 25 million new jobs over the next 10 years. How do we do that? I think 

we do that by creating a nurturing environment. We do not just do 

it here in Washington. We do it all across the country, and it is 

not just government. It is partnership. This is an all hands on deck 

deal and a shared responsibility, so we need a great partnership, 

the kind of partnership that, frankly, you are demonstrating to us 

today and the kind of partnership that Joe demonstrated when he 

served here for 25 years. 

The idea of balancing the budget by 2030, I do not think that is 

a pipe dream. If you go back 61⁄2 years ago, the week that Joe 

Biden and Barack Obama were sworn into office, that week 

628,000 people filed for unemployment insurance. Think about 

that. In one week, 628,000 people; filed for unemployment insurance. Last week, about 279,000. Any time that number is under 

400,000, we are adding jobs. We have been under 300,000 now for 

months. So, we need to sustain that and to keep that going. 

The first year that Joe Biden and Barack Obama were in office, 

we lost 2.5 million jobs. Actually, the 6-months before they took office, 2.5 million jobs. The first 6 months they were in office, five 

million jobs, we lost them just like that in 12 months. And, the 

budget deficit that year spiked to $1.4 trillion dollars, which is 

about 10 percent of GDP. 

This year, we are on path, I think, to realize a budget deficit of 

about one-third that, maybe a little bit less than one-third that is 

still way too much. But, is it an improvement? Sure. Are we heading in the right direction? Sure. It is about 3 percent of GDP. Is 

that too much? I think it is. 

And, I would suggest three things that we need for budget deficit 

reduction. The Chairman has mentioned—I take these in context. 

Full disclosure, I am a Bowles-Simpson believer. I am a true believer in Bowles-Simpson. I think they nailed it. I thought so then, 

and one of my criticisms of the current President, and, frankly, 

Democrat and Republican leadership in the Senate and House, is 

we never really fully embraced Bowles-Simpson and it is unfortunate that we did not. 

But, there are three things to do for deficit reduction. No. 1 

would be entitlement reform that saves these programs for our 
10 

1The chart referenced by Senator Johnson appears in the Appendix on page 62. 

kids, that saves money and does not savage old people or poor people. That is No. 1. 

No. 2, tax reform that lowers the rates on the corporate side, 

broadens the base, and provides some money for deficit reduction, 

or for transportation investments, which is, I think, where we are 

heading right now. International tax reform, some of the money 

that is parked overseas, I think some of it may be deemed appropriate to bring back and I think we may end up doing that and 

that would probably be a good thing. 

The third thing we need to do on deficit reduction is to look at 

everything we do. We had a hearing here just earlier this week focused on just one area where we waste money, and just focus on 

everything we do like a laser, work with the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and OMB and all those folks. And, if it is not 

perfect, make it better. 

And, the last thing that is in—of your goals is make America energy secure by 2024. That is doable, and we are on a march to do 

that. We used to be the Saudi Arabia of coal. We still are. We are 

now the Saudi Arabia of natural gas. We are building four new nuclear power plants, the first time we have built them in years, and 

I think I am a nuclear guy, done safely, and I think that that is 

part of the solution. There is also wind, onshore, offshore, solar, 

geothermal. I mean, there is a great portfolio, energy security—energy conservation, the fifth fuel. 

So, those are all elements that are there. We are actually making 

some progress on these, some pretty good progress. Can we do better? Sure, we can, and I think your support and your example and 

your encouragement, your ideas, will help us do better still. 

You have given us a great agenda for our country and sort of, 

maybe by hook or crook, we are sort of executing it and we are 

making some progress. We need to make more. 

Welcome. Thank you so much for joining us today. Thank you for 

your leadership and for being great citizens. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator Carper. 

I am going to quick just slide over my chart1 that shows we have 

done 81 percent of Simpson-Bowles. 

With that, as Senator Lieberman realizes, it is the tradition of 

this Committee to swear in witnesses, and so if you would all rise 

and raise your right hand. 

Do you swear the testimony you will give before this Committee 

will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so 

help you, God? 

Senator LIEBERMAN. I do. 

Mr. HUNTSMAN. I do. 

Mr. TISCH. I do. 

Ms. HOGAN. I do. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you. Please be seated. 

Now, we will get to the good part, the witnesses. Our first witness is Senator Joe Lieberman. Senator Lieberman spent 24 years 

in the U.S. Senate, retiring in January 2013 following the end of 

his fourth term. He notably served as the Chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs (HSGAC). 
11 

1The prepared statement of Hon. Lieberman appears in the Appendix on page 47. 

He did a fine job and really set a tradition of true bipartisanship, 

which we are trying to follow in your footsteps, sir. Prior to being 

elected to the Senate, Senator Lieberman served as Attorney General (AG) for the State of Connecticut for 6 years. 

Currently, he works with the law firm of Kasowitz Benson Torres 

and Friedman, advising clients on independent internal investigations, as well as public policy and regulatory issues. In addition, he 

is also Co-Chair of the American Enterprise Institute’s American 

Internationalism Project. Senator Lieberman. 

TESTIMONY OF HONORABLE JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN,1 COCHAIR, NO LABELS 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Thanks very much, Chairman Johnson, Senator Carper, Senator Ayotte, Senator Ernst, other Members of the 

Committee who may come and go. 

It is really great to be back in this room. I was privileged to 

serve all 24 years of my time in the Senate on this Committee. I 

have the best memories of the work we did across party lines to 

try to make government more efficient and to try to solve some of 

the people’s problems, and it just seems to me that there could be 

no more fitting place for No Labels to have the first congressional 

hearing on its National Strategic Agenda, or, more generally, the 

topic of governing through goal setting, than here, and I thank you 

both for giving me and my colleagues the opportunity to do that. 

I think in your opening statements, you made pretty clear that you 

get it, and we appreciate it very much. 

As I look back at my 24 years and the things that I am proudest 

of, every one of them involved bipartisan cooperation, and they 

were quite varied. Some were environmental. Some were national 

security. Some were human rights, et cetera, et cetera. But, they 

also involved, although we did not describe it that way, goal setting. That is, we would join together across party lines because we 

shared a goal, to try to solve a problem, to make something work 

better in government, even though we did not agree at the beginning on every little detail of how we were going to do it, and then 

we led to a process of negotiation and, ultimately, a lot of the time 

actually getting something done. 

I want to just go back and give two examples of that. The first 

was early on in my time in the Senate, I was on the Environment 

Committee. In 1990, there was really a quite remarkable agreement, bipartisan agreement, beginning with President Bush 41 and 

Senator George Mitchell of Maine, Democratic Leader of the Senate, about the fact that there was a problem of air pollution and 

there was a problem that was affecting people’s health. There was 

a problem of acid rain that was having a really terrible impact on 

the environment, particularly in the Northeast. So, they set the 

goal, and we on our Committee, with Quentin Burdick, the Democratic Chair, but Pat Moynihan really leading the way, and John 

Chafee, Ranking Republican, worked together to report out a bill 

with bipartisan support. 

But then what happened was really quite remarkable, and 

maybe is a model. President Bush 41 and Senator George Mitchell 
12 

agreed that this was just the beginning of the process and that this 

bill affected so many different regions and interests in the country 

that George Mitchell convened an ongoing series of meetings in his 

conference room at which members of the Environment Committee 

from both parties were there. It was really a thrill for me early on 

in my career. Boyden Gray, the White House Counsel for President 

Bush, Bill Reilly, the head of the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) were there every day, and different groups from outside and inside the Senate, different regions, different points of 

view came in and we negotiated with them. 

We came to an agreement. We all compromised, because it is the 

only way you ever get anything done around here. It is not a compromise of principle, but you have to decide, I am going to accept 

less than 100 percent of what I really want here. And then we 

magically agreed that we were going to stick with the program, 

that we were not going to break on individual amendments. The result was the Clean Air Act passed in 1990. Acid rain was greatly 

diminished. And, people are living longer as a result of cleaner air. 

The second example is from right within this Committee, and 

there, in a way, the goals were—in the example I want to give were 

forced upon us by the terrorist attacks of 9/11, when everybody 

agreed we had to do some really bold things to make sure, to the 

best of our ability, that we would not be as vulnerable as we were 

on September 11, 2001. 

And, first, working with Senator Fred Thompson, who was the 

Chair of the Committee at that time, and then with Senator Susan 

Collins, this Committee led the way in creating the Department of 

Homeland Security and authorizing or creating the 9/11 Commission, the Kean-Hamilton Commission, and then in negotiating this 

remarkable change in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of, I guess it was 2004, which constituted the most significant reforms and realignment of our national security structure 

since the beginning of the cold war in the late 1940s. 

And, the remarkable thing to say here is that we had differences 

along the way, some tough negotiations in the Senate, with the 

House, but they were not partisan. In some ways, they were ideological or they were turf battles about who was protecting what 

part of the Federal Government that we wanted to change. And, it 

was all because we had shared a goal and we decided to negotiate 

and compromise to make it happen, and as a result, I think the 

country has been a lot safer since then. 

I know that many Members of this Committee are frustrated by 

the inability of recent Congresses to summon the same spirit of bipartisan problem solving. It is not for lack of trying. I know that 

on this Committee there are members who are reaching across the 

aisle to try to get important work done, for instance, to reform our 

criminal justice system, to strengthen veterans’ health care, to better prepare students for the workforce, to combat human trafficking. I thank you for this work that is critically important. 

Today, we are here to talk about the urgent work that remains 

to be done to address the festering problems that both you, Mr. 

Chairman and Senator Carper, described that threaten the future 

prosperity and security of our country. You know the nature of 

these challenges. You have described it very well in your opening 
13 

statements. The question, of course, is how we meet them before 

they become crises or catastrophes, which they will. 

Today, my colleagues and I from No Labels aim to provide an answer, but the answer really is a process. It is not a specific answer. 

It is an identification of problems and then a process to solve them. 

We believe it is time for Congress and our next President to embrace a National Strategic Agenda for our country. No Labels National Strategic Agenda is based on this simple premise: to solve 

a problem, any problem, you need first to set goals. You need to 

know where you want to go. And then you need to get people to 

buy into those goals, and then put a process or plan in place to 

achieve them. 

At this time of pervasive partisan gridlock in Congress, this process, which in some ways used to be natural, the goal setting process, may actually be a way to lift Congress and the White House 

out of the partisan morass into a higher ground of goal setting and 

problem solving just as you, Mr. Chairman, described as common 

in the private sector, and, I must say, more common at the State 

Government level than it is here. 

Since last year, No Labels has been working to mobilize Members of Congress and citizens across the country around this idea, 

and their response has been, I would say, astounding. As of today, 

we have an impressive and growing number of Members of Congress who have supported a resolution calling for the creation of a 

National Strategic Agenda. It is over 50 Members of the House, 

and last week, Senator Bill Nelson and Senator Thune introduced 

legislation supporting such a resolution in the Senate. 

We are also organizing a grassroots army of citizens in New 

Hampshire, Iowa, and elsewhere to put the National Strategic 

Agenda on the screen, and hopefully on the agenda of all the Presidential candidates. It is—we have people on the ground in New 

Hampshire and Iowa. It is almost as if this is a national campaign, 

not with a candidate, but for an idea, which is to solve some of 

America’s biggest problems and, basically, stop fighting and start 

fixing what America needs to be fixed. 

Let me just take a moment to say how No Labels settled on these 

four National Strategic Agenda goals, and the answer, I think, is 

significant. Basically, it is what the American people told us they 

wanted the Federal Government to do. Last year, No Labels conducted a number of national polls to ask what problems the people 

most wanted to see Congress and the President solve, and interestingly to me, they basically chose four that came out highest on the 

polls that probably most of us would say are our most significant 

problems. So, this was not something that Jon Huntsman and I 

cooked up. This came from the people. 

Create 25 million new jobs over the next 10 years. Balance the 

Federal budget by 2030. Secure Medicare and Social Security for 

the next 76 years. And make America energy secure by 2024. 

In the next period of time, Governor Huntsman, Andrew, and 

Andrea will explain why we believe it is so important to tackle 

these challenges now, how we believe a new National Strategic 

Agenda can empower Washington to do that, how a few tried and 

true problem solving techniques from the private sector have in-
14 

1The prepared statement of Hon. Huntsman appears in the Appendix on page 50. 

formed our strategy, and, finally, what the implementation of a National Strategic Agenda can actually look like. 

With, again, my personal thanks for giving us the opportunity to 

be heard, and with your permission, I would like to yield to my CoChair of No Labels—although I should give you the opportunity to 

introduce him. I think you are getting ready, Mr. Chairman. I am 

very proud to serve with a dear friend, former Governor, former 

Ambassador Jon Huntsman. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Well, thank you, Senator Lieberman, for 

your testimony, for your efforts, really, for your fine example and 

for your service to this country. 

Our next witness is Governor Jon Huntsman. Governor Huntsman is a former Governor of Utah and National Co-Chairman for 

the No Labels group. Governor Huntsman began his public service 

career as a Staff Assistant to President Ronald Reagan, having 

served four U.S. Presidents since, most recently as U.S. Ambassador to China. He was elected twice as Utah’s Governor and also 

served as the Chairman of the Western Governor’s Association. 

Currently, he serves as the Chairman of the Atlantic Council and 

on the boards of Ford Motor Company, Caterpillar Corporation, 

Chevron Corporation, Huntsman Corporation, the U.S. Naval Academy Foundation, and the University of Pennsylvania. Governor 

Huntsman. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. JON M. HUNTSMAN, JR.,1 CO-CHAIR, NO 

LABELS 

Mr. HUNTSMAN. Thank you, Senator Johnson, and I could very 

well be the only witness you have ever had who could quote you 

the price of polyethylene. [Laughter.] 

Chairman JOHNSON. I appreciate that. 

Mr. HUNTSMAN. Back to your old days in business, of course. 

Thank you to Members of the Committee. It is a real honor to 

be here. And to Joe Lieberman, my thanks to him, my colleague. 

Joe is a modern day hero to a lot of people, and it is a real honor 

and privilege to be able to have him as part of our efforts with No 

Labels and, indeed, to be able to call him a great friend, even if 

he does not return my calls on weekends sometimes. [Laughter.] 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Only on the Sabbath. [Laughter.] 

Mr. HUNTSMAN. I just want to remind you all that we are here, 

Andrew, Andrea, the rest of us, as hard-headed realists. We have 

some experience under our belts. We have run businesses. We have 

run States. We balance budgets. We are raising families. I have 

two kids in the military, one grandchild now. I am looking to the 

future, as we all are, anticipating the kind of world we are about 

to enter. So, we come to you not with just sort of a newfangled set 

of suggestions, but an effort that, indeed, is catching on at the 

grassroots level and that has been given a great deal of thought 

and consideration by people with enormous levels of experience in 

life. 

I am here to answer two key questions. First, why is a National 

Strategic Agenda the right answer for America right now? And second, how would the implementation of this agenda actually work? 
15 

Now, there is clearly agreement in this room, and Senator Johnson, you laid it out beautifully at the very beginning, and I think 

there is in most rooms across the country, that the problems we are 

discussing today are urgent: Job creation, fiscal responsibility, securing our social safety net, and energy security. They all belong 

at the top of Washington’s ‘‘to do’’ list, and yet few believe Washington will be checking these items off any time soon. 

Frustration, as we all know, is running very high. Some say we 

need to rethink our whole system with the formation of a third 

party or a Constitutional Convention. Others are focused on broad 

electoral reforms like reducing the influence of money in politics or 

making primary elections more inclusive with redistricting reform. 

I do not disagree. Some of these ideas have real merit. But many 

are also tough, multi-year, multi-state slogs with uncertain odds for 

success. 

America does not have that kind of time. No Labels believes 

America’s challenges are so urgent that we need to find a way to 

bring the country’s leaders together now, largely within the system 

and with the leaders we already have. The National Strategic 

Agenda is how we do it. 

The National Strategic Agenda is modeled after an approach that 

we know works. Identify problems or opportunities. Set goals to fix 

those problems or seize those opportunities. And commit to a process to reach those goals. 

In a moment, you are going to hear from Andrew and Andrea 

and they are going to talk about how they use this approach to lead 

their businesses. But this approach is just as effective in government. It is how we did it when I was Governor of Utah, when we 

decided to fix a flawed tax code, an inefficient health care system, 

and an outdated educational system, and through it all, Utah was 

ranked as the most competitive State in America by some measurements. 

Embracing big goals and committing to a process to achieve them 

has also been instrumental at the national level, whether it was 

President Reagan and Tip O’Neill bringing their parties together to 

fix the tax code and shore up Social Security, or President Clinton 

and Newt Gingrich doing the same thing when they balanced the 

budget. 

Make no mistake, these bipartisan efforts were often contentious 

and controversial. There was no hiatus from partisanship and politicking. But these leaders hung in there, even when there were 

ample reasons not to, because they were invested in a big goal and 

committed to a process to actually achieve it. 

I believe the National Strategic Agenda can provide the framework to help revive that bipartisan spirit that Senator Lieberman 

so ably talked about and has so ably lived. Let me paint the picture 

for you very quickly as to what this could look like, and it is not 

all hypothetical. This is already happening. 

As Senator Lieberman just noted, some 50 members of the House 

and the Senate have signed onto a congressional resolution calling 

for the creation of a new National Strategic Agenda—50 members, 

half Republican, half Democrat. Meanwhile, No Labels is mobilizing our growing citizen army in New Hampshire, Iowa, and else-
16 

where to make the National Strategic Agenda a priority issue in 

the 2016 election cycle. Here is what the end game looks like. 

A new President comes into office, having called for the creation 

of a new National Strategic Agenda for the country. In the Inaugural Address, this new President promises to fly congressional 

leaders from both parties down to Camp David within the first 

hundred days to start work on the Agenda. At Camp David, the 

President and the congressional leaders pick one of the goals to 

focus on and they commit to a process. They assign working groups 

or congressional Committees to study the issues and suggest solutions. They agree to timelines and metrics for success. They agree 

to be accountable to one another, and above all, to the country. And 

they get to work, knowing that at least 50 Members of the House 

and the Senate, and who knows how many more we will have by 

Election Day, have already gone on record with a resolution saying 

they want to help create a National Strategic Agenda for America. 

Is this idea ambitious? Yes. Is it a total departure from how 

Washington has worked for well over a decade? You bet. Is it impossible? Absolutely not. 

Now, having spoken to many Members of this Committee, I know 

this is exactly where you want to focus your time and efforts. You 

and your colleagues want to tackle the big problems, and I commend you all for it. So, I submit to you today that the National 

Strategic Agenda can be a critical part of getting us there. 

Thank you all so very much for having us. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Governor Huntsman. 

[Scattered applause.] 

You can have applause, I guess. [Laughter.] 

I agree. 

Senator CARPER. Let the record show there was scattered applause. [Laughter.] 

Very scattered. 

Chairman JOHNSON. As opposed to thunderous? 

Mr. HUNTSMAN. Basically, what I used to get as a piano player, 

too, so—— [Laughter.] 

Chairman JOHNSON. Our next witness is Mr. Andrew Tisch, who 

is a Co-Chairman of the Board of Directors of Loews Corporation. 

Previously, Mr. Tisch served as Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of 

Lorillard, Inc., and President of the Bulova Corporation from 1979 

to 1990. Currently, he serves on the Board of Directors of CNA Financial Corporation, Texas Gas Transmission LLC, Boardwalk 

Pipelines LLC, Diamond Offshore Drilling Company, and as Director of K12, Inc. 

Mr. Tisch is highly involved in the New York community through 

civic organizations. In addition, Mr. Tisch is deeply committed to 

education and is involved in leadership Committees at Harvard 

Business School, Cornell University, NYU Tisch School of the Arts, 

and the Young Women’s Leadership Foundation. He is the recent 

past Chairman of the Economic Club of New York, a Trustee of the 

Brookings Institute, and member of the Council on Foreign Relations. 

You are a pretty busy guy, Mr. Tisch, so we appreciate you coming here and look forward to your testimony. 
17 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Tisch appears in the Appendix on page 53. 

TESTIMONY OF ANDREW H. TISCH,1 CO-CHAIRMAN OF THE 

BOARD, LOEWS CORPORATION 

Mr. TISCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you also to Governor Huntsman and Senator Lieberman, and thank you, Chairman Johnson and Senator Carper, for your most supportive opening statements. 

Almost 5 years ago, I helped found No Labels because I believed 

that there had to be an alternative to the relentless partisanship 

that has made it virtually impossible for our Nation to solve big 

problems. There had to be a way to bring our parties together 

around a common vision and common goals. Many of you on this 

Committee have been working tirelessly to find and share that 

common vision with me. 

With No Labels’ National Strategic Agenda, I believe that we 

have found a way by setting ambitious goals in four areas that are 

most important to the American people: jobs, the budget, Social Security and Medicare, and energy. The National Strategic Agenda 

can bring the focus, the discipline, and the accountability that is 

necessary to solve the problems that Senator Lieberman and Governor Huntsman and many of you on this Committee have so aptly 

described. 

Senator Lieberman just said something that bears repeating. To 

solve a problem, any problem, you must set goals, get people to buy 

into those goals, and put together a process or a plan to achieve 

them, and that is what the National Strategic Agenda does, and 

that is what we do every day at Loews Corporation. 

Although running a business is somewhat different than running 

a government, it does require a similar outlook. At Loews, our businesses are constantly changing. What began some 70 years ago as 

a family business with a single hotel is today a multinational corporation spanning hotels and finance, energy, pipelines, and insurance. In a dynamic market, it is easy to get distracted, sidetracked, 

or to let short-term tactics divert you from long-term goals. But, 

that road inevitably leads to disappointment or failure, and it is too 

often the road that is chosen in Washington. 

In business, we tend to work in longer cycles, such as 5-year projections. In public companies, we report results quarterly, and we 

report to our boards of directors monthly, and to our shareholders 

annually. We deal with distractions, but we try to get back to our 

long-range plans as quickly as feasible. 

Our first step is to identify a problem or an opportunity. The second step is to figure out how to solve that problem or how to seize 

the opportunity. Then we set a goal that identifies the metrics and 

the timeline for success. And then we hold the team accountable 

for meeting that goal, and that is how we succeed in our business, 

and that is how government has succeeded in the past, whether it 

is winning a war or sending a man to the moon. 

So, let us start with a few facts and illustrate the problems facing America. It begins with our economy, which despite recent improvements still is not creating enough good jobs that can sustain 

a middle-class living for enough people. When you account for the 

new people entering our labor force, the United States is still 3.6 
18 

million jobs below where we need to be to reach pre-2007 employment levels. Household income is about where it was at the turn 

of the century, meaning many Americans have not gotten a raise 

in 15 years. Meanwhile, small business, which is America’s best job 

creation engine, is sputtering. In the last few years, more new businesses have been dying off than are being born, and that is the 

first time that that has happened since record keeping began in the 

1970s. 

Then there are America’s budget and entitlement challenges to 

which you, Mr. Chairman, alluded earlier. The CBO projects that 

the Federal Government will be paying almost $800 billion in annual interest by 2024, and that number will only grow if interest 

rates rise. Instead of investing in the future, in infrastructure, in 

education and research, more of our resources are going to be paying for profligate spending from the past. 

Of course, the two key drivers of long-term debt are Social Security and Medicare. These are programs that are critical to the security of so many families, and these programs must be preserved 

and protected. But these programs also must be updated, as you 

said, to adjust to the new realities of the 21st Century. Whereas 

there were once 16 workers paying into Social Security for every 

beneficiary, today, there are three. Whereas once retiree benefits 

could be expected to be paid only for a few years, today, they are 

often paid for decades. People are living longer, and in most cases, 

healthier lives, which is one of the most exciting developments of 

our time. But our social safety net programs simply were not built 

to accommodate this new reality or some of the end-of-life costs. 

And, finally, there is energy, where our Nation is still much too 

vulnerable, with an electric grid that is vulnerable, with an economy that is still too exposed to volatility and global energy markets, and with a greater need for cleaner and more efficient use of 

energy. 

These are different challenges, but they all have something in 

common. Each gets harder to solve the longer we wait. I liken 

America’s situation to an airplane heading into a big storm system. 

At several hundred miles out, the pilot need only make gradual adjustments to avoid the thunderclouds. Shift a degree here or a degree there and the pilot can get safely past the thunderclouds without much turbulence. But waiting too long, he or she will need to 

take sudden evasive maneuvers. Otherwise, it is going to be a 

bumpy and dangerous ride. 

Well, America is headed for a bumpy and dangerous ride if we 

do not rise to meet these problems soon, and that is why the National Strategic Agenda is such an essential idea. It identifies our 

most pressing problems, it sets realistic goals and timelines to 

solve them. As Governor Huntsman and Senator Lieberman have 

explained, it provides a rigorous process and a decisionmaking 

framework that could help the Congress do the work of and for the 

people. 

I thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Tisch. 

Our next witness is Ms. Andrea Hogan. Ms. Hogan is President 

and Chief Executive Officer of Merchants Metals. Prior to her current role, Ms. Hogan was with Bridgewell Resources, most recently 
19 

1The prepared statement of Ms. Hogan appears in the Appendix on page 56. 

as Vice President of Business Development. Previously, Ms. Hogan 

served in a variety of leadership roles within WESCO Distribution, 

Inc., where she ultimately led the global distribution of lighting, 

solar, and alternate energy products. Ms. Hogan also served as a 

member of the management team of Strategic Distribution, Inc., a 

leading provider of onsite integrated supply services focusing on 

the indirect material chain for large industrial consumers. Ms. 

Hogan. 

TESTIMONY OF ANDREA HOGAN,1 PRESIDENT AND CHIEF 

EXECUTIVE OFFICER, MERCHANTS METALS, INC. 

Ms. HOGAN. Thank you, Chairman Johnson and Members of the 

Committee, for the invitation to participate in this important discussion. It is truly an honor to be part of this distinguished panel 

and to testify before you today. 

As you introduced, I am the President and CEO of Merchants 

Metals, an Atlanta headquartered company that is one of the largest manufacturers and distributors of fence systems in the country. 

And while I am relatively new to No Labels, I share the resolve of 

Senator Lieberman, Governor Huntsman, and Chairman Tisch in 

urging the adoption of a National Strategic Agenda. 

As Mr. Tisch stated, for those of us privileged to lead great organizations, it is inconceivable that you could run an enterprise successfully without first establishing and communicating the key 

goals and objectives. In fact, I know of no business that can succeed 

long term without a clear vision of what success looks like, a 

shared, goal-driven agenda of strategic imperatives and a defined 

set of tactics aimed at achieving the organization’s goals. And yet, 

remarkably, with the largest enterprise in the world, the United 

States of America, all $17 trillion of it in economic output terms, 

operates precisely this way today. We cannot allow this to be the 

case anymore. 

We are inspired and encouraged by the growing number of committed problem solvers in Congress willing to acknowledge our 

shared challenges and pursue bipartisan solutions, but our message today should be unambiguous. The gridlock in Washington 

has made it much harder for businesses such as Merchants Metals 

to execute against our most basic needs: Finding qualified workers, 

developing cost effective ways to get our products to market, and 

accessing credit. 

Mr. Tisch provided a few facts to illustrate the serious problems 

facing our Nation. At Merchants, we would refer to this as a burning platform, a set of circumstances that, if left unaddressed, will 

severely damage and in some cases destroy an organization. When 

presented with a burning platform problem, our first order of business is to find out what can be known and organize the facts in 

a way that makes sense. 

A useful framework that you referred to is the SWOT analysis. 

Once these elements are defined, a strategy can be developed to leverage strengths, eliminate or neutralize weaknesses, capture the 

top opportunities, and mitigate the threats. This is precisely what 

the National Strategic Agenda is designed to enable. 
20 

From there, we create a plan and move to execution and accountability. Organizations both large and small can accomplish great 

things with great plans. Having been a part of teams with great 

plans, and those with no plan at all, I can tell you the former gets 

results and the latter do not. 

Employers across the country see firsthand each day weaknesses 

and threats to our shared enterprise, an economy that just does not 

work well enough for enough people, and a fiscal situation so uncertain it dampens the entrepreneurial spirit that once made the 

United States the global pacesetter in virtually every critical industry. 

The National Strategic Agenda provides a path to address those 

weaknesses and threats and that alone is good enough reason to 

adopt it. But the agenda can also build on our strengths and empower us to seize opportunities. 

Take just one of the goals on the agenda, creating 25 million new 

jobs over the next decade. This is a goal we all surely embrace. But 

success requires a Federal Government to make meaningful 

progress in a number of policy areas, from creating a simpler, more 

competitive tax code, to reforming our immigration laws and investing in our public infrastructure. 

Last Tuesday, I sat with one of my top customers in Dallas. I 

asked him what I could do to help him grow his business and he 

said, ‘‘You can find me some qualified workers. We have had five 

openings for over a year, and while the folks that we have interviewed can do the work, we have not yet met one that can meet 

the State and Federal requirements.’’ Figuring out a way to help 

fill those jobs will help my customer grow his business and, in 

turn, will help me grow mine. And, remember, it is not a job until 

somebody is in it. 

By adopting the National Strategic Agenda and executing 

against these policy initiatives, Congress would enable us to capitalize on this Nation’s unmatched strengths, our abundant natural 

resources, the world’s most entrepreneurial workforce, and deep 

capital markets, just to name a few. And, it would allow us to seize 

new opportunities in industries like energy, technology, health 

care, and even fence systems. 

Our economy is still not humming, but we have navigated the 

post-crisis era better than most, a testament to our resilience as a 

people and our strength as a Nation. But, we need a plan. A Federal Government that adopts a plan and demonstrates progress toward its goals instills confidence in the population and, in turn, 

fuels new innovation, risk taking, and growth. Absent that firm 

foundation, we wait, we postpone, we take the safer path, or we 

take no path at all. 

The fence industry employs thousands of hard-working people 

from manufacturing through to installation, and in addition to aesthetics, our products provide two things that people value, privacy 

and security. But the industry has been reluctant to innovate because of scars from the Great Recession, seemingly uncontrollable 

health care, insurance, and transportation costs, and a very low 

confidence in the current political environment. 

There is so much untapped potential at Merchants Metals and 

thousands of businesses like ours that can be unleashed by rebuild-
21 

ing a sturdy economic foundation and renewing confidence in a 

functioning Federal Government. If you do your job here, I guarantee American business leaders will do theirs. 

The National Strategic Agenda provides a common sense path 

forward and it is time to get started. Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Ms. Hogan. 

[Applause.] 

Again, thank you all for your testimony, taking the time, and 

just your involvement in what I think is a very worthy effort. 

Let me start my questioning with both Senator Lieberman and 

Governor Huntsman. Going back to the public really understanding 

the depth of the problem, understanding the reality—it is encouraging to me to see the poll results that they are identifying what 

our goals should be, and in a general sense, they understand the 

problem. But, I have given a similar type of Power Point presentation in Wisconsin to audiences generally smaller than this. I have 

given it to about 17,000 people. And, I will guarantee you, those 

17,000 people did not understand really what the 30-year deficit 

was, the real depth of the problem. 

I mean, do you share that evaluation of it? I will start with you, 

Senator Lieberman. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Yes, I must say that I was surprised and 

encouraged by the fact that in this surveying done last year, that 

the public expressed its understanding of what the most urgent 

problems facing our country are and the ones that need to be 

solved. Now, that does not mean that they are ready for everything 

that will have to be done to, for instance, get the Federal Government back in balance by 2030 or secure Social Security and Medicare for 75 years. But, they get it. They get the basic problem. 

But, you said it earlier, Mr. Chairman. Ultimately, this is all 

about leadership. It is about leadership from people in government 

and the private sector. We have two great leaders who testified on 

this panel today to educate the public about the consequences of 

not dealing with our biggest national problems, such as these four. 

So, there is almost an intuitive way in which they get it, the 

American people get it. And then it is up to the people who are 

privileged to be in public office to both lead in taking them through 

a process that Congress and the White House have to go through 

to actually solve some of these problems. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Yes. I think the American people have a 

general sense that this is simply not sustainable. But, for example, 

Medicare, very few people realize that right now, there is a dollar 

going into the problem in terms of payroll tax, three dollars being 

paid out in benefits. They do not realize that the estimate is $35 

trillion of deficits in Medicare alone over the next 30 years. 

Governor Huntsman, do you have that same evaluation in terms 

of people just do not understand the depth, because, let us face it, 

elected officials have not exactly been forthright. I mean, all I have 

ever heard—not to be partisan—President Obama say about Medicare, it just needs modest reforms. I think it needs a lot more than 

that if we are going to save it. 

Mr. HUNTSMAN. I would like to make a comment that gets right 

to the fundamental aspects of understanding numbers and balance 

sheets. You understand them. You have been in business. People 
22 

here at this table understand them. I would have to tell you, while 

serving as Governor of a State, there was a real need to ratchet 

up the financial literacy of young people. Some had a hard time 

balancing a checkbook. Now, if you cannot balance a checkbook, 

how can you understand even your very rudimentary presentation 

of our Nation’s numbers? 

It is an area we need to work on and I think it goes deep into 

our individual States, how we approach education, how we maybe 

tee up financial literacy as something that we all need to recognize 

is an area we need to work on. So, it may not connect directly with 

the policy aspects of what you are talking about, but it is a structural deficiency that we have. 

And I think the second area is the sources of information, where 

we derive our information, are not always trusted in this country, 

and I found that out just on the campaign trail. Everyone has their 

own sources of information and you apply the trust gap, or the 

trust deficit that exists in this country. People simply do not know 

what numbers to believe. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Yes. 

Mr. HUNTSMAN. And, so, where do you go for good, reliable numbers that actually make the arguments where people can hear, everything you have said makes sense, but do I trust the numbers, 

and who crunched the numbers? So, I think we probably need to 

do a better job there. 

Finally, I would just say that there is a natural connection between what you are talking about and the whole National Strategic 

Agenda. While we are out on the road, and where we are soon 

going to be in New Hampshire with the convention, with a whole 

bunch of uncommitted voters, every stop allows us an opportunity 

to frame, as you articulated so well, frame the argument, frame the 

issue, and that, then, takes you to steps two and three, which, of 

course, we are very focused on. So, we would like to think that 

what we are doing is an extension of what you are calling for. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Well, again, my hope is No Labels will be 

the go-to group that will provide that bipartisan truth that the 

American people need to hear. 

Mr. Tisch and Ms. Hogan, I want you to comment on my down 

and dirty SWOT analysis of the American economy. I will start 

with you, Ms. Hogan, because you were the one that brought up 

SWOT that allowed me to talk about that. 

Ms. HOGAN. Sure. I mean, I think it is right on. Maybe it is hard 

for the person on the street to articulate precisely what you articulated, but those are the foundational elements, that if we can set 

some goals and make progress toward those goals, I think you will 

see businesses and people alike responding in kind to those things. 

So, yes, I think you articulated what some of those big issues are 

and also what the strengths and the opportunities are. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Mr. Tisch, did I miss anything there? Again, 

it was pretty abbreviated. The world’s largest economy. We have 

competitive energy prices, uncompetitive tax system, a pretty onerous regulatory climate. 

Mr. TISCH. I think you covered the big issues, and certainly that 

is what we are here to talk about today. These problems are enormous, and the problems are so big that no one party can solve 
23 

them. It has to be solved by both parties together, and that is the 

important thing, message, that I think No Labels is trying to get 

across in its actions. And, your analysis, I think, is very good in 

showing that these are huge problems. These are huge problems 

that America must face and it must face it openly and really go 

after the solutions to them. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Ms. Hogan, I just had to go back, because 

you talked about talking to a business person saying he needed 

qualified workers. He could find them, they could do the job, but 

State and Federal requirements prevented them from being hired. 

Can you talk a little bit more about that? 

Ms. HOGAN. Well, certainly, I think it speaks to immigration reform. The folks that were applying to the jobs that he offered, 

which were yard work and fence installation, quite simply could 

not produce the forms of ID to take the positions. 

Chairman JOHNSON. I also have a general sense, being in manufacturing myself and literally having a hard time finding people 

willing to work in manufacturing for the last 20 years, now that 

I am in this position, I travel over the State, I visit manufacturing 

operations. To a manufacturer, their complaint is they cannot find 

the people to work. So, we no doubt have some skills gaps, but we 

also have a worker gap, and I think there are multiple reasons for 

that, as well. I think we need to address that. Senator Ayotte. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AYOTTE 

Senator AYOTTE. I want to thank the Chair. 

I want to thank all of you for being here and No Labels for really 

elevating the discussion at a national level on how we can solve 

problems together. And, of course, it is great to see Governor 

Huntsman and Senator Lieberman, two great leaders who have 

done so much in the public arena, and, of course, two great business leaders here, Mr. Tisch and Ms. Hogan. So, I am honored to 

be here with all of you, and I wanted to followup. 

I saw in your written testimony, Senator Lieberman, that you 

had said getting big things done in Washington has never been 

easy, of course, but not long ago, it was at least possible, and you 

cited the example, of course, the work that you did on the Clean 

Air Act. So, what has changed and how do we bring it back so that 

we can work together to solve some of these big problems for the 

country, because I think I can speak for many of my colleagues, we 

come here to do that and we want to find ways to get things done 

for the American people. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Senator Ayotte. Thanks for your 

leadership and always eagerness to work across party lines to get 

things done. 

So, the reason I said getting big things done in Washington has 

never been easy is because we are, a big, diverse, sometimes raucous democracy, now about 320 million people, all represented 

here, and bringing very different perspectives. So, to get anything 

done, you really do have to go through the process that we are describing and often either events—awful events like 9/11—forced 

Congress to set goals, work together, negotiate, compromise to 

make things better, or sometimes around other kinds of events. 
24 

We always talk about President Reagan and Tip O’Neill. In that 

case, they were not quite at the precipice about to fall over, but 

they were getting close to the edge and they were both public spirited enough to figure out how to compromise to save, in that case, 

the Social Security system. 

In some ways, now, the divisive forces—I mean, what you just 

said, Senator Ayotte, is so true, and I think about this a lot and 

say it, now that I am looking back at these 24 years I was privileged to be here. The reality is that the people I met as colleagues 

are, by and large, very public spirited. I mean, you did not spend 

all that time doing a lot of things that are not pleasant, like raising 

money to get elected office, to come here and be part of gridlock. 

Almost everybody I know came here to try to get something done 

for their district, their State, their country. And, there are forces 

at work that now pull us apart. 

In some sense, this National Strategic Agenda, the goal setting, 

is an attempt to go back to something that happened intuitively 

around here, often at big moments, and to force it by this process, 

in some ways like—somebody once said to me back in law school 

that if we were all perfect, we would not need law, or to be more 

vivid, somebody said, in heaven, there is no law because you do not 

need it. Everybody behaves. In hell, it is only law. And we are here 

on earth in between—— [Laughter.] 

And, therefore, we need the law to try to bring us to our best behavior and express at least our aspirations. 

Well, in a way, that is what this agenda is about. Through the 

National Strategic Agenda, to build support in Congress, to go out 

in the political process to try to get the Presidential candidates to 

commit to it, so that something different happens in January 2017, 

which is that the new President, whoever it is, knows that he or 

she has a bunch of people in Congress committed to this process 

and they implement it and, in fact, we get something done. 

Senator AYOTTE. Well, I really appreciate what you are doing 

with this National Strategic Agenda, and we are looking forward 

to having you in New Hampshire. And, I think that you are right. 

Something has to change. We all have to be focused, and I hope 

that this election provides us with an opportunity. 

And, one thing that I think, as well, is in this National Strategic 

Agenda, that we look at compromise as a positive attribute for our 

leaders, that we understand that, as a Nation, we would not have 

been formed, and the great compromises that formed this Nation 

are ones that are so important as we look at some of these big challenges—the fiscal state of the country, the economy, and I hope 

that when this dialogue goes forward, that is something that we 

can spend some time on, that that is something that we think is 

positive in our leaders here. 

And, something that you said, Governor Huntsman, I wanted to 

touch upon, and that is our education system. You said that more 

financial literacy. I would fully agree with you on that, and I think 

it would be great to have that be part of this national discussion. 

I also believe civic literacy in terms of—we talk about history in 

the schools, but really engaging it on a much more direct civic 

level, I think, would be helpful, as well, as we go forward. So, I 

wanted to get your thoughts on that. 
25 

Mr. HUNTSMAN. Yes, and I appreciate that, Senator Ayotte. We 

have to have the next generation as full participants in this democracy. Now, I am raising seven kids, so I have a pretty good sense 

of what the Millennials think about—— 

Senator AYOTTE. I would say so. [Laughter.] 

Mr. HUNTSMAN [continuing]. What is on their mind, and, they 

are drifting and peeling off of their political system, generally 

speaking, because they are losing trust and faith in the direction 

of the country. And, I would argue, part of it is they feel detached, 

money and everything else, that their vote does not matter any 

more. But, I also think it has been a while since they saw any 

points on the board. 

So, we grew up and our generation saw the end of World War 

II. We saw space. We saw the end of the Human Genome Project, 

one of the most important scientific goals set by both sides in generations. We saw the end of the cold war, all points on the board. 

And, I would argue that for my kids—and we have this discussion 

a lot—where are the points on the board? Where have I last seen 

an R and a D sitting together at the same table, focused on the 

same goal, and articulating why it is an American goal, not a party 

goal but an American goal? 

And, until we see this kind of thing, where we have strategy as 

opposed to tactics, then until we get to that point, our civics lessons 

are just not going to loom large in the minds of our young people. 

You want those civics lessons delivered by passionate, committed 

teachers, which we have all across this country, but you want them 

to fall onto students who say, I believe in my system, I want to get 

involved in my system, and I want to give back, and what I am 

learning in the classroom now is translatable into my citizenship. 

Right now, there is the disconnect and we have to figure out how 

we reinvigorate this democracy, particularly for the next generation. 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you all. I know my time has expired, but 

let me just say to Mr. Tisch and Ms. Hogan, I am so glad to see 

the private sector engaged in this, because, often, the private sector 

may be engaged on a transactional basis, on a particular one issue 

that impacts their business in this regard or one regulation, but to 

see that you are stepping back and looking at the big picture of 

how we can improve everything that will have a rising tide for everyone, I think is terrific. So, I thank you all for being here. 

Mr. TISCH. I think you would find that there is great depth of 

feeling in the business sector for the success of Washington. This 

has been a relationship that has gone back centuries, and the 

stronger that Washington is, the stronger that business is and viceversa. And, it is a relationship that when we work together, we do 

best. 

Senator AYOTTE. Excellent. Thank you all. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I just want to say, 

one of the reasons that I was so happy to be asked to be Co-Chair 

with Jon Huntsman about 6 months ago is that I knew about No 

Labels, but I looked a little more closely at it. I was really impressed by the depth and number of leaders of the private sector 

who were supportive of this operation. And, now that I have gotten 

involved, this is, except in the broadest patriotic sense, totally self-
26 

less. I mean, nobody is going after a personal business agenda. 

These are people who are just plain embarrassed, frustrated, 

angry, like most Americans are, about the Federal Government and 

they see this as, well, the best alternative right now to try to turn 

it around. 

So, Andrew and Andrea are typical of that and I want to just 

thank them and praise them publicly for the way—this is, in some 

sense, really public service by them. They are running the risk of 

veering more toward the public sector than the private sector, to 

the detriment of their businesses, I am sure. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Trust me, I know their feeling. I am an accountant, I am a plastic salesman, and now I am here. Senator 

Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield my time to 

Senator Ernst. I think she is really good to come and attend, and 

she has other things to go to. I am bouncing back and forth between another hearing on coal ash—you ought to enjoy that one, 

Senator Lieberman—coal ash, how to dispose of that, and maybe 

I can follow after you and ask questions. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Ernst. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ERNST 

Senator ERNST. Thank you. I appreciate that. I do have another 

appointment coming up very soon. 

But, I do want to thank all of you for being here today. I am 

thoroughly impressed with No Labels and your effort for that National Strategic Agenda. It is so important, and it is those things 

that are so contentious when we are out on the campaign trail. 

One of the things that I heard from a number of people all across 

Iowa while I was engaged in the campaign is they are really concerned about where the Nation is going financially. That seems to 

be kind of that overarching theme, and there are so many pieces 

to that. So, I am glad to be here and represent those folks and I 

would like to just briefly share a story that I had heard from one 

of my constituents many years ago when I was serving in the Iowa 

State Senate. 

I had attended a town hall meeting down in Southern Iowa and 

a young lady that was at that meeting gave me her personal story. 

She was a very young mother. She was a single mother coming out 

of high school and she did not have the type of family that would 

be able to watch the children, her child, and send her off to college. 

So, she stayed in that rural community and she eventually got her 

Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) certificate, and she went to 

work for a nursing home. 

Well, she was a very hard worker, very hard worker, and she 

was able to make ends meet through that job and government assistance. And, she worked so hard and they were so impressed with 

her, they wanted to keep giving her promotions or little pay raises 

here and there. And eventually, she got to a point where the nursing home wanted to make her a supervisor. She would get additional schooling. She would get additional pay. 

But when she went home and she had to think about it very 

carefully, she went home and she penciled out what she would 

make with the new position and what she would lose with her Fed-
27 

eral entitlements, and it was really tough. She figured out she 

would have $200 less in her pocket every month if she took the promotion, and that is really tough. Two-hundred dollars in Southern 

Iowa goes a very long way. And, that is a lot of money for a young 

woman with a child. 

She decided to take the promotion, because she knew if she did 

not keep moving up, she would not get any further in life and she 

would not do any better for her and her child. That is a brave 

move, because I will tell you that there are a lot of people that 

would not make that choice and do not make that choice. 

We know that entitlements are a big problem out there, and unfortunately, we are putting the burden on many of these people 

that wish to do better, but they hit that fiscal wall—actually, it is 

a cliff—and they do not want to jump off that cliff because that 

$200 or whatever it happens to be in an individual’s case can mean 

the difference in making ends meet or not. 

What can we do as a Federal Government—what must we do as 

a Federal Government to address our entitlement situation, and 

how do we make it better for those folks so that they can really 

aspire to do better for themselves and their families and break out 

of that cycle? And, I would just love to hear your thoughts on that, 

please, to the entire panel. 

Mr. TISCH. Well, entitlements are supposed to catch you on the 

way down, not stop you on the way up. And, as a business person, 

I would simply try and write the entitlements in such a way that 

you do not penalize people for trying to pursue the American 

dream in the process, just plain and simple. 

Senator ERNST. And I think that is great. I think we struggle on 

the ways to—because it is such a contentious issue, but we struggle 

on finding—and being able to speak realistically about what we 

need to do as a government to help people out of that situation 

rather than keep them down. But, I would agree. It is kind of a 

safety net to catch people and help people when they truly need it 

the most and not stop them from advancing. 

Any other thoughts on that? 

Mr. HUNTSMAN. I would just offer this, Senator. The numbers are 

big and they are mind-numbing when you start looking at the national budget. But when you look at entitlements, we get caught up 

in the R–D, red and blue debate, taking party sides, where it really 

is a discussion of basic math. If you do nothing, here is where you 

will be. And, we do not, I do not think, do a very good job articulating it to the American people, as this is basic math, ladies and 

gentlemen, and here is what we suffer if we choose to maintain the 

status quo, and here is what we will be robbed of. 

Solutions, I think we have all the solutions we need. They are 

sitting in think tanks and in your offices all over this town. What 

we have had is not a failure of ideas. We have had a failure of politics. 

Senator ERNST. A failure of action. 

Mr. HUNTSMAN. We have had human failure, that is where it is, 

and that is—so, we get back to the goal setting. If we set the fundamental goal, after framing it with the right numbers, trustworthy numbers, a process, then, that leads out to a bipartisan solution, the American people would cheer on that effort. Of course, 
28 

you would get people, special interest groups, who would try to 

take it down. But, the American people, by and large, would cheer 

it on, and that is why we are so enthusiastic about advocating this 

process around—— 

Senator ERNST. Absolutely. 

Mr. HUNTSMAN [continuing]. The goal setting and the big issues. 

Senator ERNST. Absolutely. Thank you. Senator. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Senator, I will just say quickly, the situation you describe is clearly a case of unintended consequences. I 

mean, an entitlement program, just as Andrew said, is put in place 

to stop people from falling too far down. Ending up being a disincentive to work is just—an advancement going up—is just wrong. 

I am fortunate I am at a stage in life where I can look far back, 

and this reminds me of debates during the 1990s which led, under 

President Clinton with bipartisan support, to welfare reform, and 

part of the whole deal was we have to make it more attractive to 

work than to be on welfare. We also adopted at that time—it still 

exists—the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), which was another 

way to say, we are going to give you a little tax break here for 

working so nothing happens—so we do not have situations like the 

one you are describing. 

Look, if there is anything I learned over my 24 years here, if you 

do not keep reviewing the impact of government programs on people, let alone on the Nation’s economy and the budget, then it could 

be that they are having too many unintended consequences and 

should be reformed, and maybe that story should lead to a review 

of that particular program. 

Senator ERNST. Yes. Thank you all very much for your input, 

and thank you, Ranking Member Carper, for allowing me to speak. 

Thank you so much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator Ernst. Senator Carper. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Senator Carper is a pretty sweet guy, is he 

not? He is, yes. Surprisingly, really. [Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. I studied at the foot of the master. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Please. [Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. Well, actually, Joni, he actually encouraged me 

when I was elected to try to get on this Committee, and he said, 

you will like the issues, and who knows, you might even get to be 

Chairman some day. He was right. He was right, so thanks for that 

advice. 

I want to go back to what I believe—I think most of us believe— 

one of the key roles of government is to create a nurturing environment for job creation and job preservation. Again, as I said earlier, 

people in our jobs, my job, Ron’s job today, Presidents, mayors, we 

do not create jobs. What we do is help create a nurturing environment. I just want to walk through some of the elements of that 

nurturing environment, and then when I finish, I am going to ask 

you if you disagree with any of those and do you have a couple you 

might like to add, all right. Are you ready? Here we go. It is about 

12. 

First of all, a transportation system that moves people, products, 

goods where they need to go, when they need to go, in a cost effective way, energy efficient way. 
29 

Second, common sense regulation. My dad used to say to my sister and me, always use some common sense. Some common sense 

regulation, which we are actually debating right now in the Environment and Public Works Committee on coal ash. 

Reasonable tax policy that is predictable and that fosters research and development, fosters innovation, plus helps pay the 

bills. 

Access to capital for businesses, large and small. 

Public safety, also rule of law, public safety rule of law. 

Trying to develop a world class workforce that provides the 

skilled workforce for the jobs that are out there. 

Affordable health care that takes good ideas from all over the 

world to deliver health care more cost effectively. 

A clean environment, healthy environment. 

Affordable energy. I have always been a big advocate of energy 

independence, but affordable energy, accessible energy, predictable 

energy. 

And more recently, cybersecurity. This is something Senator 

Lieberman worked on a lot, but the ability to protect intellectual 

property, R&D, those kinds of things, our personally identifiable information (PII). 

Another one we are debating here right now, access to foreign 

markets. The Trans-Pacific Trade Partnership is a good example of 

bipartisan cooperation, probably more—Republicans have given the 

President more support in some cases than our Democrats. 

One of my favorite moments on the Senate floor—you will enjoy 

this—we had just passed Trade Promotion Authorities to help move 

along the President’s agenda on this trade agreement and we had 

about a half-dozen of our Republican colleagues were gathered in 

the well, and I walk up and I put my arms around them, and we 

just passed it with a lot of Republican support, so I just want to 

thank you as Republicans for giving such great bipartisan support 

to this President’s agenda. They said, did we do that? Yes, you did. 

Chairman JOHNSON. We all agreed, did we not. 

Senator CARPER. Yes, we did. 

And, finally, a budget policy that supports all the above, the 

things that I have walked through. 

I am sure I have forgotten some. I do not know if there are any 

that we ought to take off that list, but can you think of some more 

that, I do not know, pretend that it is all inclusive, but is that a 

pretty decent list or not? Anyone. 

Mr. HUNTSMAN. Just having run a State and focused on how you 

succeed in the job creation exercise, which I think is most manifest 

at the local levels of government, and you are absolutely right. You 

create a framework that either attracts capital and brainpower or 

causes it to flee, because capital is a coward at the end of the day. 

It is going to find a safe haven and park. So, I found as Governor, 

if I was not attracting capital and brainpower, I was losing it to 

somebody else, and maybe it was Denver or Los Angeles or Phoenix, and then you start looking at what they are doing to succeed. 

Long ago, I served on the Economic Development Board of a 

country called Singapore, which has the best economic development 

apparatus probably in the world, and I watched with great interest 

in the 1990s after I served in the embassy there at how they went 
30 

about developing their economy, small, five million people, limited 

geography, powerhouse economy. Different than we can do, but 

they had some elements that were pretty successful. 

For me at the State level, it always came down to taxes, schools, 

livability. I do not care whether you are Republican or Democrat. 

People look at the tax code. Investment looks at the tax code. We 

reformed ours to historic levels, and—I mean, you can read the history and see what happened to investment and the attraction of entrepreneurship, which before that were leaving for greener pastures. 

And, I would say, at our major research universities, which are 

key for the brainpower side of things, livability was a big part of 

it. You hit on so many aspects of livability—public safety, affordable health care, the environment, the rest, but I would just throw 

those in. 

Senator CARPER. OK. Thank you. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Senator Carper, thanks. I mean, I think 

that is a great list of ways to stimulate economic growth and job 

creation. I mean, it is exactly what one would hope, if the next 

President chooses the goal of 25 million new jobs, that when that 

President sits down with the bipartisan leadership, those are exactly the kinds of ideas that should be discussed. 

I do want to say that what is impressive, I think, and important 

about what you have said is that these range across. They are not 

narrow. Everything you describe does have a measurable effect on 

economic growth and job creation, and if I can just step—I think 

consistent with No Labels, but simply say it is a cautionary note 

to the candidates, including at the Presidential level this year, because creating jobs, which American people want us to do, is not 

simple and it is not going to come just as a result of, for instance, 

raising taxes on business or a particular group of people at the top 

of the economic level and that is all you do. So, thank you for that 

list. I hope you are at the meeting with the next President. 

Senator CARPER. Senator, I thank you. Ms. Hogan. 

Ms. HOGAN. Senator Carper, when I think about adding jobs or 

adding sales people or opening branches, I do a SWOT analysis, 

and when I get to threats, I divide them up in terms of the things 

I think I can impact, my competitors, what is going on in that market, and the things I do not feel like I have any control over or any 

confidence in. And unfortunately, many of those things are on your 

list. So, from my perspective, real, tangible movement, progress on 

a number of these areas would give me the confidence in those 

areas of threats to invest in my business. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Tisch, before you speak—if I could have 

just another minute, Mr. Chairman—I will never forget, oh, gosh, 

10 years ago, I was hosting a meeting in my office here in the Capitol of CEOs from about a half-dozen or more utilities from all over 

the country and the issue was clean air, multi-pollutant legislation 

which Senator Lieberman was good enough to support with me and 

actually provide a lot of leadership. 

But, one of the CEOs was—and we had been meeting about an 

hour on how to reduce the emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen 

oxide, mercury, carbon dioxide, and at the end of the meeting, this 

one crusty old CEO from one of the Southern utilities said, ‘‘Look, 
31 

Senator,’’ he said, ‘‘here is what you should do. Here is what you 

should do,’’ you being Congress, the government. He said, ‘‘Tell us 

what the rules are going to be. Give us some flexibility, a reasonable amount of time, and get out of the way.’’ That is what he said. 

Tell us what the rules are going to be, give us a reasonable amount 

of flexibility, a reasonable amount of time, and get out of the way. 

I will never forget that. 

Another great thing I will not forget is we were having a hearing 

in the Finance Committee on deficit reduction, and a guy named 

Alan Blinder who used to be Chairman of the Federal Reserve— 

Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve when Alan Greenspan was 

Chairman, and had four or five really smart people to testify on 

deficit reduction, and one of them was Alan Blinder. And he said 

in his testimony, he said the 800-pound gorilla in the room on deficit reduction is health care costs, Medicare and Medicaid businesses. It is just eating us alive. Eighteen percent of our GDP goes 

for health care costs in this country, 8 percent in Japan. They cover 

everybody. They get better results. It is killing us. 

And, he said, health care costs is the 800-pound gorilla. So, when 

it came time to ask questions, I said to him, Dr. Blinder, you said 

health care costs is the 800-pound gorilla in the room. What should 

we do about it? And he thought for a moment. I said, if you were 

in our shoes, what would you do? He thought for a moment. He 

waited. Finally, here is what I would do. He said, ‘‘I am not a 

health economist. I am not an expert in this stuff, but here is what 

I would do. Find out what works. Do more of that.’’ That is all he 

said. And, I said, do you mean find out what does not work and 

do less of that? He said, ‘‘That is right.’’ 

So, with that, Mr. Tisch, and then I will stop. 

Mr. TISCH. Also on the list, I would look to put on the list how 

do you create jobs that will last a long time, and how do you create 

jobs that are going to create more jobs. The best thing you can do 

is put on jobs that—spend money on research that is going to create more jobs for more people to be employed. I think that is missing from the list. 

Senator CARPER. OK. Thank you so much. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator Carper. 

Here is one thing that works. How about we incentivize and celebrate success rather than demonize and demagogue against it. I 

mean, as you are growing your business, I mean, do you find it 

dispiriting, people say you are not paying your fair share or you do 

not care about your workers’ safety. I have been in business myself. 

I actually was trying to build a business, create good paying jobs, 

and I think if more elected officials celebrated those types of successes, I think we would be doing better. 

Mr. TISCH. What works every time, if we can get positive incentives, it works much better than penalties every day. 

Chairman JOHNSON. One business concept that we were kind of 

hinting at, but we have not really named it, it is called 

benchmarking. I mean, if we are going to compete in a global economy—and, by the way, we have to compete, it is not a choice, I 

mean, we have to compete—we have to benchmark, right. So, 

again, is that not what we do in a SWOT analysis and in business, 
32 

you would lay out your weaknesses and you have to benchmark 

those weaknesses against your competitors. 

Again, that is a tax system. That is a regulatory environment. 

The Ranking Member was talking about spending 18 percent of our 

economy on health care. Well, back in 2009, that was about $2.5 

trillion worth. So, there is a lot of concern about we have to get 

those costs under control, but I mentioned in my opening statement, we spend about $2 trillion complying with Federal regulations. Where is the effort to contain and control that expenditure? 

Listen, we all need regulations. We need that rules of the road. 

We want a clean environment. We want worker safety. We want 

product safety. But there is a concept called the law of diminishing 

returns, and I guess I would argue we probably passed the law of 

diminishing returns. We certainly do not have certainty in the legal 

environment, and we have so many laws, so many regulations, and 

those laws and regulations are enforced at the discretion of either 

prosecutors or district attorneys or regulators. 

Do you find you have a lot of certainty in business, Ms. Hogan. 

Ms. HOGAN. I have certainty if I hire a legal team on just about 

every issue to make sure I am covered. 

Chairman JOHNSON. But, that is pretty efficient—— 

Ms. HOGAN. It is not efficient at all. Yes. I mean, I would like 

to spend a much larger percentage of my time with my customers 

and promoting the goods and services that we offer than the time 

that I spend with our attorney. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Mr. Tisch, I certainly talk to business people that legitimately complain about how much time they are 

spending, mental time, physical time, trying to comply with regulations, trying to make sure they are not getting in trouble, as opposed to literally trying to innovate and create and build. Do you 

find that in your business? 

Mr. TISCH. Every one of our businesses has legal issues, regulations that we have to deal with on a national level, on a State level, 

on a local level. Yes, it makes life much more difficult for us. Somehow, we manage to work through it, but if they were reduced dramatically, we would be much more productive. But, we look at it 

as a cost of doing business that—— 

Chairman JOHNSON. A very high cost of business. And again, 

that is costing economic growth, which means that is costing those 

good long-term, self-sustaining—— 

Mr. TISCH. It is a very high—— 

Chairman JOHNSON [continuing]. Jobs in the private sector. 

Mr. TISCH. It is a very high cost. Some of it makes sense. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Well, sure. 

Mr. TISCH. I am not going to say it is all wasted money and it 

is all wasted effort. There are some that make sense. But, there are 

times when we make decisions as to where to do something based 

on the amount of regulation that is involved in doing something in 

a particular venue versus another venue. 

Chairman JOHNSON. There are a lot of regulations that make 

sense, to a point—— 

Mr. TISCH. Right. 

Chairman JOHNSON [continuing]. Again, environmental, worker 

safety, product safety. Those make sense, but—— 
33 

Mr. TISCH. Those are all the first thing—— 

Chairman JOHNSON [continuing]. You go beyond a point of no return. 

Mr. TISCH. We consider those the first thing before we consider 

anything else. But, after that, we make decisions based on where 

it makes most sense for us to conduct the business. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Governor Huntsman, you mentioned financial literacy. Senator Ayotte was talking about that, too. Here is 

the good news. We do not have to wait for necessarily the Federal 

Government to act. One of the reasons I actually decided I could 

afford to leave my business and run for the U.S. Senate is I was 

volunteering a lot of time in education in Oshkosh. Our first initiative was in Oshkosh. We actually had a financial literacy requirement added to our graduation requirements before the State Department of Public Instruction did. I mean, so you can get involved 

in your local school system and prompt the school board to actually 

instill those standards. So, that is actually good news and it is actually critical. 

I also wanted to mention, I was at a lunch No Labels event with 

you. I was on a panel. I do not know if you remember that. 

Mr. HUNTSMAN. Of course, I do. 

Chairman JOHNSON. But, one of the panelists said, it starts with 

compromise, and that is extremely important, no doubt about it. 

But, I made the point, that is the last step in the process. Getting 

back to, then, laying out—it starts with reality, setting an achievable goal, then start developing strategies, and once you start laying out the different strategies, that is where you have to start 

compromise. 

Mr. HUNTSMAN. That is right. 

Chairman JOHNSON. So, the way I like talking about this, and 

this is what I am hoping No Labels can bring to the table, is it 

starts with agreement. It starts with agreeing on the figures. For 

example, in business, if you sit down and negotiate, let us say you 

are buying a business. If the seller has got one set of audited 

books, or just set of books, and the buyer has got another set and 

they are completely different, you will never reach a successful negotiation. You actually have to have that audited set of books that 

everybody agrees on. So, to me, that is an extremely important 

part. 

Let us push the areas of agreement, and this is really what Senator Carper and I have done with the Committee, starting out with 

that area of agreement, our mission statement to enhance the economic and national security of America, laying out some initial priorities, whether it is border security, cybersecurity, regulatory reform, we are going to hopefully report out another at least dozen 

bills on a unanimous basis out of the Committee. They are maybe 

not grand slams—maybe they are bunt singles—but they are an incremental improvement to fixing something. 

And, I think, if we really concentrate on those areas of agreement, I think that is the better way of approach in terms of saying 

we have to compromise right away. Compromise will come, but 

there are a number of steps right before that. 

Senator Lieberman, again, you have been involved in this process. Would you just kind of comment on that. 
34 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Well, I think you are right on in what you 

have just said. Senator Ayotte referred to—about compromise. But, 

compromise is not where it begins. The problem solving process begins with identification of the problem, agreement on goals, which 

are quite generally, usually. And then you get into the strategy, 

some of the negotiating of what you really want to do. To get that 

done, you need compromise. 

So, the successful problem solving process does not begin with 

compromise, but it will not end successfully—— 

Chairman JOHNSON. Without it. 

Senator LIEBERMAN [continuing]. Unless people around the table 

are willing to compromise. As Senator Ayotte said, there is nothing 

wrong about compromise. We are not talking about compromising 

your principles. It is a question of accepting less than 100 percent. 

If you can get 50 or 60 or 70 percent—my dad used to say a successful marriage is one in which both spouses think that their 

ideas are prevailing 80 percent of the time—— [Laughter.] 

And legislating is sometimes like that. Ted Kennedy was sort of 

the leading liberal of his time. He did a series of remarkable agreements with Republicans who were on his Committee, mostly really 

conservative Republicans, and he had what he variously called his 

60, 70, or 80 percent rule, depending on—and the rule was, if we 

can agree on 60 percent of this bill before us—big bill, whatever it 

was, education, health—let us just set aside the 40 percent and let 

us do the 60 percent. That is simplistic, but it led to a lot of significant bipartisan achievements. 

Chairman JOHNSON. No, it is completely accurate. Again, in my 

method of negotiating, when you lay out all the areas of agreement, 

if you spend a lot of time figuring out all the areas of agreement, 

you develop a relationship, you develop a level of trust, so when 

you finally come to those areas of disagreement, it is just a whole 

lot easier finding common ground, and what you may find is, let 

us not even deal with those. Let us just concentrate on the areas 

of agreement and move forward. And, again, that is why I am so 

encouraged about what you are trying to do here, you are trying 

to set up that process of agreement. Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Speaking of marriages, I love to talk to people 

who have been married, like, 50, 60, 70 years, and I always ask 

them, like, what is the secret for being married 50, 60, or 70 years, 

and I get hilarious answers and I get some just terrific answers, 

as well. One of my favorite recent answers was a woman said her 

husband—they had been married almost 50 years, and I said, what 

is the secret, ma’am, and she said, ‘‘He can be right or he can be 

happy.’’ [Laughter.] 

He cannot be both. [Laughter.] 

Another good one, a couple had been married, like, over 60 years, 

and I said to the wife, I said, what is the secret, ma’am, and she 

said, ‘‘He is gone a lot.’’ [Laughter.] 

I said to him, what do you think, sir, and he said, ‘‘She is right. 

I am gone a lot.’’ [Laughter.] 

But, my all time favorite answer is the two Cs—and we have 

been talking about them here, communicate and compromise. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Yes. 
35 

Senator CARPER. Communicate and compromise. And, if you add 

a third C—that would be collaborate—you have a pretty good prescription not just for an enduring marriage between two people, but 

an enduring democracy. To communicate, to compromise, to collaborate. 

And Mike Enzi, who is one of those people that Ted Kennedy collaborated a lot, I remember hearing Mike Enzi speak on the Senate 

floor one day when I was presiding and he talked about the 80/20 

rule. And I talked to him afterwards, what is the 80/20 rule? And 

he talked about he and Ted Kennedy, how much they got done. He 

is one of those conservative Republicans from Wyoming, Ted one of 

the most liberal Democrats from Massachusetts, and as you suggest, Mike Enzi said, ‘‘Ted and I agree on about 80 percent of the 

stuff. We disagree on 20 percent of the stuff. What we do is we 

work on the 80 percent that we agree on and we set aside the other 

20 percent for another day.’’ And, there is great wisdom in that, as 

well. 

I want to come back to Bowles-Simpson. Bowles-Simpson took 

up—they said, among the things we needed to do was entitlement 

reform. We still need to do that. It saves money, saves these programs, does not savage old people or poor people. It is consistent 

with Matthew 25, the least of these, and a moral obligation to 

them. 

But, when I was elected to the House in 1982—before I became 

Governor, I served in the House for a while, and among the first 

things I remember happening, we were sworn in on January 3, 

1983, and we were told at orientation that the Social Security 

Trust Fund was going to run out of money that year—not, like, 20 

years from now, not 30 years from now, that we were going to have 

to reduce payments by 20 or 30 percent. It is going to run out of 

money that year. Well, that is not good news. 

And then we found out that there had been a commission created, chaired by Alan Greenspan, included people like Bob Dole 

and Daniel Patrick Moynihan and others, and they came up with, 

actually, a prescription for solving the problem, restoring the solvency of the Social Security system, not forever, but for maybe 30, 

40, 50 years. And they did hearings all over the country and they 

presented it to us to consider at the beginning of 1983. 

I will never forget, Tip O’Neill bought into it. Ronald Reagan 

bought into it. One, the leader of the House, the other, the leader 

of the country. And, basically, Tip O’Neill said this to Democrats. 

‘‘Any Democrat who attacks another Democrat for supporting this 

compromise, we will disown you, basically cut you off.’’ Ronald 

Reagan said the same thing. ‘‘Any Republican who attacks another 

Republican for supporting this compromise, we will disown you. We 

will essentially cut you off.’’ 

And, in the end, it did not pass by unanimous consent, but overwhelmingly, Democrat and Republican, and we passed it and did 

it again. 

I think the time has come. I am not a big commission guy and 

that sort, but I think the time has probably come to do a similar 

kind of commission for Social Security and maybe to set it up this 

year, to go to work this year, and to be able to report back to the 

new Congress at the end of this Congress and say, these are the 
36 

options. And my guess, at the end of the day, they will look a lot 

like what Bowles-Simpson suggested. 

Here is what Bowles-Simpson suggested, as you may recall. To 

raise the full retirement age, now 67, raise it to 68 by 2050, raise 

it to 69 by 2075. More to a chain consumer price index (CPI), which 

uses a different market basket of goods and services that people 

that are 65, 70, 80, 90 years old actually buy out of that market 

basket as opposed to the CPI. The other thing that was included 

in Bowles-Simpson was the cap. We pay the Federal Insurance 

Contributions Act (FICA) tax up to a certain income cap. I think 

they mentioned—they call for raising it, not eliminating it, but 

raising it further. 

But, they also had things in there to actually help in terms of 

the least of these, the poorest of the elderly, to make sure that we 

actually bumped up their income as they grew older. So, it was actually a pretty good balance, not perfect, but pretty good. But, that 

may be the ultimate solution, something like that. 

But, I think we need a mechanism to get us there, and there are 

a couple Democrats, Republicans, and one feisty Independent from 

a State up in the Northeast that were talking about actually creating a commission and then offering to say, here is one idea for 

the commission to consider. Would you react to that, anybody. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Well, as you know, securing Social Security 

and Medicare for the 75-year period is one of the national goals 

that the people of America told us they want us to deal with, and 

if in the wisdom of Congress or the new President, and maybe if 

you can do it now this would be a head start for 2017 and create 

such a commission, great idea. 

I mean, I think the answers—people are living—this comes back 

to education and facts. I mean, a lot of people-—Social Security is 

so important to people. A lot of people live on it. That is all they 

have. But, really, a surprising number of people still feel that everything they get in the Social Security check is what they put into 

it, and, of course, that is not true. So, we have to convince people 

we are not going to eliminate Social Security or cut what they are 

getting now, but there have to be changes. So, if you can build to 

that on a bipartisan basis with a commission, more power to you. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Does anyone else—— 

Mr. HUNTSMAN. Senator Carper, I think there is great power in 

what you are talking about. Simpson-Bowles fell a little bit flat because the political infrastructure was not in place to carry it very 

far, and what we are doing here is building out a very interesting 

political infrastructure, process-wise, grassroots-wise, the army 

here on Capitol Hill that are the problem solvers caucus. You can 

imagine doing the Simpson-Bowles all over again and dropping it 

into the process that we have spent the last couple of hours talking 

about. I think the result would be quite different. So, let us imagine a world in which we can take that good work again and maybe 

connect it with some of the efforts that are ongoing here. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Tisch, Ms. Hogan, any thoughts? 

Mr. TISCH. I have just one additional thought, and that is that 

so much of the cost of Medicare is going to be tied up in treatment 

as people get older, in neurodegenerative diseases and end-of-life 

costs, and any kind of research that we can do now is going to be 
37 

very important in the future as more and more people reach the 

limits of normal life expectancy. If we can figure out how to postpone any kind of terrible diseases through research and study right 

now, I think we are going to be saving money. 

But, there are plenty of ideas out there as to how to fix Medicare 

and Social Security. I think there is enough brainpower in Washington and enough compromise power that there is no doubt in my 

mind that we can come up with a solution, but it has to be both 

parties working together to come up with that solution. 

Senator CARPER. Big cost drivers in health care: Obesity, end-oflife, dementia. There is a strong effort going on now to really get 

us to do a whole lot more on obesity, a whole lot more on obesity, 

prevention and so forth. But, dementia, AstraZeneca, I think Eli 

Lilly have some actually encouraging results on an early product 

that may help us there, end of life, and I think after what we went 

through with death panels and scare tactics and so forth, I think 

there is a willingness now to see what can we maybe agree on. 

One of the things I think we can agree on is the portability of 

a directive, health directive. Right now, if you move to another 

State or you go from one hospital to another institution, the directive does not go with you and folks end up as care providers and 

they are not sure what they should be doing, what is the will of 

this patient. So, there is—— 

Mr. HUNTSMAN. How about accessing insurance across boundaries? I mean—— 

Senator CARPER. Yes. 

Mr. HUNTSMAN [continuing]. Just take a look at that as an aspect of health care costs. It would be a huge deal. 

Senator CARPER. Good. Thank you. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator Carper. 

One of the things I have learned from my Ranking Member, and 

maybe he learned it from you, Senator Lieberman, at the very end, 

as we are closing out a hearing, I just like to give the witnesses 

kind of one last chance, if something is just bubbling up to the surface, you just had to talk about something. 

So, we will start with you, Ms. Hogan. Is there a final comment 

you would like to make to close out the hearing? 

Ms. HOGAN. Yes. I would like to address the establishment of 

this commission that you just talked about. In the current environment, I cannot get really excited about that, but what I could get 

really excited about is a commission, a bipartisan commission that 

stands up, states what their goals are, establishes a process for 

achieving those goals, and has a stated yardstick. How are we 

going to know when we got there? That would be terrific and I 

could be very supportive of that. Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Mr. Tisch. 

Mr. TISCH. I just want to again thank you, Mr. Chairman, and 

you, Senator Carper, for allowing us to address the Committee 

today and talking about No Labels. I truly believe that the problems that we have in this country are solvable. I would not be here 

if I did not. But, I also believe that they are solvable by everyone 

working together. And, I know that with the spirit within this 

Committee, and I believe that with each individual Senator and 
38 

Congressman, that we have the capability of solving these problems and I am very hopeful. So, I thank you for the opportunity. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Tisch. Governor Huntsman. 

Mr. HUNTSMAN. Thank you, Senator Johnson, Senator Carper. 

This Nation of ours has all the attributes we need to succeed. We 

have everything any nation State would ever want to dream of. We 

have just got to get our act together on the political side and maximize the potential. So, we have laid out a process. We thank you 

for giving us the time. It is not only a good process, good politics, 

the American way, but I think there is an economic dimension, too, 

that is very important, because the marketplace has factored in a 

discount relative to our dysfunction politically. And, you can imagine a process that allows us to work toward a goal that the American people recognize as valid and important in their lives. The 

marketplace would respond, as you know, having been in the marketplace, in ways that I do not think we can even imagine. Thank 

you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Governor Huntsman. Senator 

Lieberman. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If you will allow 

me, on a point of privilege as a former Senator, I thought Senator 

Carper’s stories about marriage were so good, I just wanted to tell 

him—just to respond, to give a gift in response for his gifts. 

I was just reading a great line from George Burns, remember the 

comedian? He once said, ‘‘I was married by a judge. I should have 

asked for a jury.’’ [Laughter.] 

I thought, OK. It is good to be back with you, Tom. 

Listen, Chairman Johnson, Senator Carper, I cannot thank you 

enough. This really is personal. I mean, in some sense, the work 

that I tried to do when I was here on this Committee, and now 

having watched from outside, because I identify so much with this 

institution, and feeling the frustration as I watch problems go unsolved and crises come closer, that I really decided to get involved 

in No Labels as the best movement to try to deal with this. And, 

people do not really know this, but this organization has growing 

grassroots support. We have branches now on more than 100 college campuses across the country. There are teams on the ground, 

and they will stay there right through the caucuses and primaries 

in Iowa and New Hampshire. 

I think we have something going here, and this Committee are 

the natural leaders to take this forward in whatever way it can be 

taken forward. I hope you will work with Senator Nelson and Senator Thune and become co-sponsors of the resolution embracing the 

idea of a National Strategic Agenda. 

I cannot thank you enough for giving us this hearing today. It 

is really a turning point, hopefully a tipping point, for No Labels, 

and we look forward to continuing working with you toward common goals, which is what this is all about. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Senator CARPER. Is it about marriage? 

Senator CARPER. Who was that George Burns? 

Senator LIEBERMAN. George Burns. Remember George—it is a 

little before your time, George Burns and Gracie Allen. [Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. Another person I do remember is Lily Tomlin. 
39 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Yes. 

Senator CARPER. Lily Tomlin once said, ‘‘When I was young, I 

wanted to be somebody. Now that I am older, I realize I should 

have been more specific.’’ [Laughter.] 

A lot of people have wanted to be United States Senators. There 

are only a couple thousand, maybe two thousand in the history of 

our country who have been privileged to serve in these roles, and 

even fewer to be, I think, to be Governors. But, it is a great privilege to be able to serve in these roles. 

And, we get here and the challenges are daunting. But, another 

fellow—not a comedian, although he said a lot of funny things— 

was Einstein, and among the things that he said, I think most 

memorable are in adversity lies opportunity. Is that not true? In 

adversity lies opportunity, and we face plenty of adversity. But, 

also, there is a whole lot of opportunity. I like looking at problems. 

You probably do, too, and say, this is going to be fun to try to fix 

or solve. And, part of what we need is the kind of example that you 

are providing for, really, for all of us. 

We are challenged here. We have some things they did not have 

when Thomas Jefferson was saying things like, if the people know 

the truth, they will never make a mistake. We have a 24-hour 

news cycle. We have a situation where the amount of money that 

can go into campaigns are just unlimited—and we do not know, in 

some cases, where it comes from, where it is going. 

But, all that having been said, I think we have gotten through 

some really tough times, and if we can come through what we have 

come through before—Civil War, Revolutionary War, Great Depression, two World Wars, cold war—and emerge as the preeminent nation in the world, I think we can probably get through this, and 

I appreciate very much your helping to provide that. 

The last thing I am going to say is this. As far as I am concerned—I said it earlier, I have just huge respect for Senator 

Lieberman, former Attorney General, just a great leader for our 

country, and would have been a terrific President. I do not know 

as well Governor Huntsman, but everything I have heard about 

you—Mike Leavitt is one of my close friends, and he has told me 

much about you, and so has Orrin Hatch. 

But, when Joe ran for President, he did not make it past, really, 

the New Hampshire, Delaware primaries, and he is—and the same 

thing with Governor Huntsman when he ran for President. I think 

after, both of you, you stepped down or withdrew from the race. We 

have a situation today in America where we have congressional 

districts that are drawn up—we are pretty good at gerrymandering. 

This is going to be a Republican congressional seat. No Democrat 

will win it. And, the way the nature of primaries is, usually the 

most conservative, in some cases the most Tea Party Republican is 

going to win the seat and go to the Congress. And over here is a 

Democratic seat. It is going to be a Democratic seat. A Republican 

is not going to win this seat. And at the end of the day, the most 

progressive Democrat will end up winning the primary and become 

the Representative. 

When I was elected to the House of Representatives—we will say 

this is the dividing line. This is the center, the political center. We 

will say, Senator Lieberman, you are to the right, this is to the left. 
40 

And, from the center right to center left, there are over 300 members there—over 300 people in the House of Representatives that 

were believed to be center left or center right. Today, the number 

is under 100. That explains a lot about why—but, add to that the 

24/7 news cycle, the incredible amounts of money that can be 

thrown in these races to, really, in a lot of the cases, just to confuse 

people. 

Having said that—I remain optimistic. Who was it, Camus? I 

think it was Camus who said, leaders should be purveyors of hope. 

That is part of our obligation, to be uplifting, enlightening, not to 

beat people down, but to lift people up. And, you have lifted me up 

with your testimonies. 

Churchill once said these words. Two quotes, good quotes from 

Churchill. The one that was most famous was, ‘‘Democracy is the 

worst form of government devised by wit of man except for all the 

rest’’—except for all the rest. And the other is Churchill used to say 

of people on military duty who were actually doing, like, maybe 

with the reserves and they had a day job in their society, or they 

were in the guard and they had a day job in their society, and he 

used to call them twice the citizen. They are twice the citizen. All 

of you are twice the citizen and we admire you and applaud your 

appearance here today and your leadership. Thank you. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. HUNTSMAN. Thank you. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Thank you both. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator Carper. 

[Applause.] 

I think you accurately described the House, and, of course, there 

are obviously some red States and blue States that we have, certainly divisions here in the Senate. But then there are quite a few 

purple States. I represent one. And, so, there is less of that dynamic here in the Senate, which is why I think we can look to the 

Senate to hopefully lead on this issue. 

So, again, I want to thank all of you for being involved, for your 

time you have taken, for your thoughtful testimony. I think the fact 

that we held this hearing should indicate to you certainly my commitment, I think this Committee’s commitment, to do everything 

we can to help you succeed. It is just critical. We have to solve 

these problems. 

In our organizing meeting, after we set that mission statement, 

after we agreed on those priorities, a certain aspirational goal for 

our Committee, and I said, listen, I do not question anybody’s motives. I do believe that every member that ran, certainly in the 

Senate and the House, ran to accomplish something, to do right by 

their constituents, to solve these problems. 

And, the fact of the matter is in the U.S. Senate, in order to solve 

problems, you have to pass legislation. Currently, that requires— 

we have 54 Republicans. We need at least six Democrats to join us 

to pass things. And, so, we have six—seven Democrats on this 

Committee, so the aspirational goal is, let us concentrate on the 

areas of agreement. Let us not worry about things that divide us. 

Let us worry about the things that we agree on, and that is certainly what you are trying to do, and we want to be fully supportive. 
41 

Let me end kind of where I started, reality, because that is 

where it has to start. We have to lay out the reality of the situation. We have to tell the American people the truth. We have to 

have the courage to tell people the truth. From my standpoint, the 

reason nobody—even though I have been talking about a 30-year 

deficit, this massive deficit, for a couple of years, the reason it is 

not picked up on is because if you acknowledge that as an elected 

official, if you acknowledge the depth of the problem, you have to 

do something about it, and doing something about it is not going 

to be particularly fun. It is going to require bipartisanship. It is 

going to require people getting together and coming forward in 

front of the American people and leading. But, we first have to lead 

by telling the truth and laying out the realities. 

A couple comments on some things said. Senator Carper was 

talking about the Commission on Social Security, recognizing if we 

did not do something, benefits were going to be cut. That is the 

current law. If we do not do anything, when this bookkeeping convention runs out on the Trust Fund, benefits will be reduced to the 

level of receipts. So, it is just—you cannot take it off the table. You 

have to address it or we are going to be hitting something that the 

American people are not going to like, and they should not. 

We talked about curing diseases. One reality that I do not think 

is cooked into anybody’s figures—I do not think it is cooked into 

the alternate fiscal scenario—is what is the cost of Alzheimer’s? I 

am a fiscal conservative. I am highly supportive of the Federal 

Government spending money on basic science and research, spending money to cure diseases. We need to take a look at the grant 

writing process so those funds are allocated as best as possible. 

So, again, we have to start with reality. I am looking to your 

group. I am begging your group. As much as I appreciate those 

goals, please work with me, work with this Committee to lay out 

the reality and have the courage, give us the courage as elected officials to use what little bully pulpits we have to tell the American 

people the truth. 

And, let me finish with this last story, because it will tell you 

what my commitment is. Before I took over the Chairmanship— 

after the election, I knew I would be Chairman—we started interviewing people for staff positions. I have been very fortunate, by 

the way, to be able to get some great staff, a lot of them from Senator Tom Coburn, who I think we both—he is a hero to—certainly 

to me, I think certainly Senator Carper respects them. We interviewed one individual, one female staff member, and she said, 

‘‘Senator Johnson, what would success look like a year into your 

Chairmanship?’’ A darn good question. It is the kind of question I 

would ask somebody in an interview. I had not really thought 

about it in those terms, but I had an immediate answer. I said, if 

every Presidential candidate, both Republican and Democrat, were 

forced—I have to—it is kind of sad, I have to say forced—to address the issues we are going to raise in this Committee, that 

would be success. We cannot afford to have an election 2016 run 

on political platitudes and demagoguery. We have to have an effort 

like you are putting forward here with No Labels, where we go to 

the American people and we tell them the truth. That is what I am 

dedicated to doing. 
42 

And, again, I appreciate your efforts. I appreciate your working 

with me on this. 

With that, the hearing record will remain open for 15 days, until 

July 2 at 5 p.m. for the submission of statements and questions for 

the record. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Applause.] 

[Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 
(43) 

A P P E N D I X 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 

Æ