U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

31–089—PDF 2006

S. HRG. 109–716

NOMINATION OF HENRY M. PAULSON, JR.

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FINANCE

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON THE

NOMINATION OF

HENRY M. PAULSON, JR., TO BE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

JUNE 27, 2006

(

Printed for the use of the Committee on Finance

COMMITTEE ON FINANCE

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa, Chairman

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah

TRENT LOTT, Mississippi

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine

JON KYL, Arizona

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming

RICK SANTORUM, Pennsylvania

BILL FRIST, Tennessee

GORDON SMITH, Oregon

JIM BUNNING, Kentucky

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho

MAX BAUCUS, Montana

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia

KENT CONRAD, North Dakota

JAMES M. JEFFORDS (I), Vermont

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts

BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas

RON WYDEN, Oregon

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York

KOLAN DAVIS, Staff Director and Chief Counsel

RUSSELL SULLIVAN, Democratic Staff Director

(II)

C O N T E N T S

OPENING STATEMENTS

Page

Grassley, Hon. Charles E., a U.S. Senator from Iowa, chairman, Committee

on Finance ............................................................................................................ 1

Baucus, Hon. Max, a U.S. Senator from Montana ................................................ 3

Schumer, Hon. Charles, a U.S. Senator from New York ...................................... 5

ADMINISTRATION NOMINEE

Paulson, Henry M., Jr., nominated to be Secretary of the Treasury, U.S.

Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC .................................................. 7

ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL

Baucus, Hon. Max:

Opening statement ........................................................................................... 3

Bunning, Hon. Jim:

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 45

Grassley, Hon. Charles E.:

Opening statement ........................................................................................... 1

Paulson, Henry M., Jr.:

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 7

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 46

Biographical information ................................................................................. 48

Responses to questions from committee members ......................................... 62

Schumer, Hon. Charles:

Opening statement ........................................................................................... 5

Smith, Hon. Gordon H.:

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 160

COMMUNICATION

Action Fund Management, LLC ............................................................................. 161

(III)

(1)

NOMINATION OF HENRY M. PAULSON, JR., TO

BE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY

TUESDAY, JUNE 27, 2006

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON FINANCE,

Washington, DC.

The hearing was convened, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in

room SD–106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Charles E.

Grassley (chairman of the committee) presiding.

Present: Senators Hatch, Lott, Snowe, Kyl, Santorum, Bunning,

Crapo, Baucus, Conrad, Wyden, and Schumer.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, A U.S.

SENATOR FROM IOWA, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON FINANCE

The CHAIRMAN. Today our committee meets to consider the nomination of Henry, better known as ‘‘Hank,’’ Paulson, to be the next

Secretary of the Treasury.

Obviously, as we move from one Secretary to another, we ought

to remember the hard work of Secretary Snow and wish him well

as he goes on to other endeavors or retirement, or both, for the job

that he did as Secretary of Treasury.

The Treasury Secretary is an original Cabinet Department position. Institutionally, there has been a very close relationship between the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee, the oldest committee of the U.S. Senate—maybe more accurately, spoken as the

oldest standing committee of the U.S. Senate—and the Treasury,

which happens to be the administration’s second-oldest department.

Since the Treasury Secretary is the top economic policy officer in

the administration and the Treasury Department implements so

much of the policy made by this committee, we have a tradition of

moving with all deliberate speed when a vacancy occurs.

That tradition has held, no matter which party controlled Congress or the White House, and I thank Ranking Member Baucus

and all the members of the committee for helping us to aggressively move this nomination.

I would move so, but the time line is very consistent with past

Secretary nominations, and I will just use one example, that of Secretary Rubin’s time line. The Senate received that nomination January 4, 1995, and that happened to be the first day that the Senate

was in session that year.

2

The official ethics-related paperwork was received on January 5

of 1995. The Finance Committee staff expedited review of the complicated financial details of Secretary Rubin, who also happened to

be a senior official at Goldman Sachs.

The Finance Committee held a hearing 5 days later, on January

10. On that same day, the committee reported Secretary Rubin’s

nomination. On that same day, the full Senate confirmed Mr.

Rubin, and he was then immediately sworn in as Treasury Secretary.

Now, we are moving as aggressively, in a similar manner and on

a similar schedule, with this nomination. I appreciate the cooperation that members have on what I will acknowledge is a relatively

short notice.

I also want to thank committee Tax staff, and that is on both

sides of the aisle, because they put in hard work and long hours

to get here.

My staff examined Mr. Paulson’s complicated financial record,

his tax returns, and the activities of his firm, Goldman Sachs, in

the area of tax planning. I am pleased to say that Mr. Paulson, like

Mr. Rubin over a decade ago, has been transparent with our committee staff and taken all necessary steps to cut his ties with Goldman Sachs.

Mr. Paulson left a lucrative, exciting, interesting, and successful

position as head of one of the most prestigious financial service

firms on this planet. He brings to the table an enviable set of assets.

Mr. Paulson spent a good amount of his youth in the cornfields

of Illinois. As a bright young man with excellent academic credentials, he served in the Pentagon and served in the White House.

After government service, Mr. Paulson rose through the ranks at

Goldman Sachs.

When you look at Mr. Paulson’s story, you come away with an

impression that this is a person—or in the Midwest, as we say, a

guy—that gets the best results at whatever he tackles.

That impression is obviously reinforced for those of us who meet

Mr. Paulson for the first time. I met him for the first time in a very

satisfactory meeting we had on another issue about 3 years ago

when I had an opportunity to host him in the members’ dining

room.

So Mr. Paulson is here at just the right time, when we have a

lot of issues that must be dealt with, in what is a very good economy in the United States, though there are still things that need

to be done.

He will have an opportunity to work with us, by himself, and

with other administration officials on things like tax reform, China

currency, and with a whole host of major economic issues facing

this country, and for that matter, our influence on the world economy and other world issues.

I am pleased that Mr. Paulson has answered the call to return

to public service. I look forward to his testimony and dialogue this

morning and over the next years, as we work between the business

of this committee and the business that he has as Secretary of

Treasury.

Senator Baucus? Thanks, again, for your cooperation.

3

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MAX BAUCUS,

A U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Today we meet to consider the nomination of Hank Paulson to

become the Secretary of the Treasury. Since Alexander Hamilton

took the job 217 years ago, this has been one of the most important

jobs in America. The Secretary has the potential to lead the American economy.

The great Secretaries that we can think of have done just that,

they have dominated their times. One thinks of Bob Rubin, one

thinks of Jim Baker, and remembers our departed colleague, Lloyd

Bentsen, sadly taken from us this past season.

Mr. Paulson, you have the potential to join these ranks. As chairman and CEO of Goldman Sachs, you have led one of the Nation’s

premier financial institutions. You, more than almost anyone, have

seen the effects that the U.S. Government can have on markets,

and you have seen how quickly those markets can judge what we

do.

You have much work to do. The government has run $300 billion

budget deficits for 4 years in a row. The balance of trade has been

on a roller coaster ride to extremes. America faces new economic

competition from China, India, and most places on the globe, and

the Treasury Department has suffered depressed morale and a diminished policy role. I wish you luck.

On the deficit, the government is plainly on an unsustainable

path. The administration’s budget looks through rose-colored glasses. It ignores the cost of war, the cost of fixing the Alternative Minimum Tax, and the cost of realistic growth for the rest of government.

And like clockwork, people born in 1945 will reach age 62 next

year. Baby boomers will begin becoming eligible for Social Security

next year. Through a lifetime of work, they have earned their benefits under Social Security and Medicare.

With the zeal of Captain Ahab, this administration has focused

solely on entitlement programs to bear the burden of balancing our

books. But those numbers do not add up.

Let me suggest another option. The government should collect

the taxes that people owe, but do not pay. The government should

shut down abusive tax shelters, and the government should close

overly generous tax loopholes. The Treasury loses $300 billion a year in taxes owed, but not collected. Three hundred billion dollars a year. The cumulative tax

gap over the last 6 years is $2 trillion. Yet, the administration’s

budget has a plan that it says would raise just $3.5 billion of that

over 10 years. That is one-tenth of 1 percent of the solution.

Mr. Paulson, you will be able to do something about this. Today,

I ask you to pledge to send this committee, in October, a credible

plan to reduce the tax gap. On the same schedule, I also ask you

for a plan to stem the proliferation of abusive tax shelters and offshore schemes.

Chairman Grassley and I have asked the IRS Commissioner, in

consultation with Treasury, to submit such a plan by October 1 of

this year. I expect that we will also have a hearing shortly thereafter.

4

I hope and expect that the Treasury will be ready to tell the

American people how it is going to collect taxes that are owed.

Despite its flaws, our voluntary tax system is a remarkable tribute to the 85 percent of Americans who pay what they owe and

contribute the more than $2 trillion that helps to fund our society’s

commitments, and we owe it to the honest taxpayers to simplify

the tax laws. We owe it to them to lessen its burdens and remove

opportunities for those who want to cheat. That is our obligation;

that is our goal.

The administration promised tax reform, then the administration

stacked its advisory panel. That panel reported to the Treasury,

but we have yet to see the administration’s plan. With your tenure

comes a new opportunity to work together to modernize our tax

system, and I reach out my hand to work with you on this.

On the current account, America is also on an unsustainable

path. As night follows day, our current account deficits are bringing on a weaker dollar. Our growing trading imbalances risk precipitating a dollar crisis. You are an acknowledged expert on international finance, and I will be interested in your plan for how we

can avoid this risk.

You and I share a belief that America must work to maintain its

preeminent standard of living in an environment of increasing competition from China, India, and elsewhere.

As we have discussed, I have introduced legislation addressing

American competitiveness in trade, energy, savings, research; education, tax, and health legislation will follow. I look forward to

working with you to advance this agenda.

You are an acknowledged China hand, having flown there more

than 70 times. I will be particularly interested in your take on how

we should engage China. What is the proper way?

In the wake of China’s much-ballyhooed announcement of its

managed float, China’s currency has not appreciated as much as

many of us had hoped. China’s relatively closed financial services

sector, state-owned industries, and weak local brokerages all add

concerns.

This administration has spoken with many voices on China. With

one voice it talks about China as a military threat. With another

voice, it talks about China as a responsible stakeholder in the

international economic system.

You know China, and I hope that you will be able to play a

greater role in the administration’s China policy formation than

prior Treasury Secretaries. Again, I look forward to working with

you on this.

Mr. Paulson, with great opportunities come great responsibilities.

It is my hope and prayer that your tenure as Secretary will be one

that ranks with the likes of Hamilton and Rubin.

Frankly, the economy that you have been given requires it, and

for the good of the country, we all hope that you are a very, very

lucky man. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Baucus.

It is the tradition of most committees to have either Senators

from the States, or other States, who want to introduce and/or

sponsor nominees, for us to turn to that now. Senator Schumer is

5

a member of this committee, so he will not be sitting down there

beside you, as is traditionally done.

So I would call on Senator Schumer to introduce and to say

whatever he wants to about the nominee.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES SCHUMER,

A U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW YORK

Senator SCHUMER. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to

thank you and Ranking Member Baucus and members of the committee for moving this nomination with alacrity.

I am delighted and proud to introduce to this committee a great

New Yorker, Hank Paulson, former Chairman of Goldman Sachs,

and now nominee to be the 74th Treasury Secretary.

I have known Hank for 15 years. I recommend his nomination

wholeheartedly and without reservation. He is an extraordinary

leader, financial thinker, businessman, and father. Though he is

not a native New Yorker, we consider him to be an adoptive son,

like so many others who have come to our city from all over the

country.

Hank has excelled in every area of life, from the classroom, to

the football field, to the board room, and everywhere in between.

He is a straight shooter and gives direct answers to direct questions. We certainly need somebody like that now.

Hank graduated from Dartmouth College in 1968 and received

his MBA from Harvard. After working at the Department of Defense and then the Nixon White House, he found his true calling

when he joined Goldman Sachs as an associate 32 years ago.

Hank became Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Goldman

in 1999, and, should he be confirmed, which I hope he will be, he

will continue the long history of Goldman Sachs heads, including

former Treasury Secretary Bob Rubin, New Jersey’s John Corzine,

Deputy Secretary of State John Whitehead, serving their country

with great distinction and success.

But the thing that Hank really goes off the charts about is the

environment. I go into a meeting with Hank, thinking we were

going to talk about finance or a banking issue, and he would end

up talking about some bird he had recently seen.

He is an avid environmentalist and a lover of all things natural,

but I hope no one on the committee holds that against him. Actually, he would make a great Secretary of Interior.

However, I am glad the President nominated him for Secretary

of Treasury because financial issues and the health of the global

economy are his passions.

In the world of finance and international markets, there is simply no equal to Hank, and, at this critical point in our economy’s

history, we need Hank’s expertise and experience to lead the way.

I believe that the rise of China and economies in East Asia pose

both the greatest threat and the greatest opportunity for the American economy. Expanding markets abroad can open up enormous

new avenues for trade and business growth domestically, but only

if our international partners play by the rules.

As this committee and Hank know, I have been very concerned

about two issues relating to China, currency and financial services

liberalization. On currency, Senator Lindsey Graham and I have

6

worked closely with your predecessor, Secretary Snow, and I want

to give him praise, tribute and thanks for the wonderful job he did

in this area, working with us closely.

We did not always agree, but we were able to work very well, I

think, towards a good result to push and prod China to allow their

currency to float, based on international market forces. We have

made some progress, as I mentioned, but China has not moved

enough since last July.

Hank’s extensive experience in China, personal relationships

with its government and business leaders, and unique knowledge

of international markets make him the right man, at the right

place, at just the right time to tackle the critical issues involving

the American and Chinese economies and their interrelationship.

I believe that Hank will be able to show the Chinese that it is

not only in our interests, but in theirs as well, to allow the yuan

to float freely. I know that Hank will work to explain to the Chinese that reforming their practices and markets more quickly,

rather than dragging their feet, can lead to a win-win situation for

both countries.

On financial services liberalization, I know Hank will work closely with Ambassador Susan Schwab, who was just confirmed to be

the new U.S. Trade Representative, to make sure that China lives

up to its WTO commitments.

On December 11 of this year, many of the current restrictions

faced by American financial firms that want to do business in

China and purchase Chinese companies will be lifted. Hank is the

perfect person, my colleagues, to monitor China’s progress, and also

to prod the Chinese to go further than it has already promised.

In sum, Mr. Chairman, Hank is a thoughtful, dedicated, and renowned financial leader. All Americans of every political philosophy are lucky that he has decided to spend the next few years in

public service.

I look forward to working with him to tackle significant issues

and perils facing our economy. I fully support his nomination and

urge, Mr. Chairman, that we move this nomination as quickly as

we can so that the Senate can confirm this nomination before we

break on July 4, so Hank can roll up his sleeves as Secretary of

the Treasury and get down to the important tasks that we need

done to move this country forward economically.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. I heard you ask us to move very

quickly.

Senator SCHUMER. I hope so, yes.

The CHAIRMAN. I always confer with the Ranking Member on

that, but since you are also in the leadership of your party, could

you speak to your leadership?

Senator SCHUMER. I have, and we are on board.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

Senator SCHUMER. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. That is good news, Mr. Paulson. Now I will be

embarrassed if some Republican wants to slow this up. [Laughter.]

But I do not think so.

Now is your opportunity. Three things, usually. One, we do not

swear in nominees, so you do not have the opportunity to hold your

7

hand up and get on the front page of the Washington Post with

that sort of posture, but obviously nobody is going to know that you

are guilty of any crime, either, coming before Congress.

The second thing is for you to introduce any family or friends

who are here to support you. The reason I asked you if you want

to introduce them is we have a redacted copy of a statement of information that we received from you.

I do not know who redacted date and place of birth, whether or

not you have a marital status, whether or not you have children.

We get a lot of redacted stuff from the executive branch. I do not

know why they would not want us to know that information. But

if you do not want us to know it, you do not have to introduce anybody. [Laughter.]

Senator BAUCUS. I think we would like to know how old you are,

though. [Laughter.]

The CHAIRMAN. So, would you like to introduce family and

friends? That is a tradition here.

Mr. PAULSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry.

You can see that I am not terrific with technology.

Senator BAUCUS. But that wonderful lady behind you, who I presume is your wife, was trying to indicate to you to turn that on.

Mr. PAULSON. Absolutely. And that is what I wanted to do, is to

introduce that wonderful lady, my wife Wendy. I have made a

number of good decisions in my life, but by far the best was the

decision to marry her almost 37 years ago. So, she is a great partner and a great friend, and I am delighted she is here today.

The CHAIRMAN. Wendy, we would like to have you stand, if you

would, please. Thank you. Thank you.

Anybody else you want to introduce, family or friends?

Mr. PAULSON. Well, in terms of my family, I have a 33-year-old

son who works at the National Basketball Association, and a 31-

year-old daughter who is the Bureau Chief for the Christian

Science Monitor in Chicago. They are both working, so they are not

here today, but they are with me in spirit.

Then I have a number of friends. I have, sitting next to Wendy,

John Rogers, who has worked with me very closely over the years,

and is a friend and works with me at Goldman Sachs. Then I have

three other very good Goldman Sachs friends: Esta Stecher, Lori

Laudien, and Greg Palm.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Now you have an opportunity for an opening statement to say

whatever you want to say, then we will have a series of questions.

STATEMENT OF HENRY M. PAULSON, JR., NOMINATED TO BE

SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE

TREASURY, WASHINGTON, DC

Mr. PAULSON. Thank you very much. Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Baucus, and members of the Finance Committee,

thank you very much for inviting me to testify here today.

I am honored that President Bush has nominated me to serve as

the 74th Secretary of the Treasury, following the distinguished

leadership of Secretary John Snow. I very much appreciate the

time members of this committee have taken to meet with me and

consider my nomination.

8

Frequent communication between the Treasury Department and

this committee is of vital importance, and, if confirmed, I look forward to building on the dialogue that we have already begun. I am

also grateful to my family for supporting my decision to pursue this

opportunity.

The Treasury Department has a critical role to play in helping

to set the direction of the United States’ and the global economy,

a role that reaches back to America’s founding. If confirmed, I will

strive to carry forward the Treasury Department’s rich legacy.

I have admired the work of the Treasury Department throughout

my 32-year career in finance, and particularly during the last 8

years when I led a global financial institution.

As the steward of the U.S. economy and financial systems, the

Treasury has helped lay the groundwork for the American economy

to become a model of strength, flexibility, dynamism, and resiliency.

This is a system that generates growth, creates jobs and wealth,

rewards initiative, and fosters innovation. It is also a system that

offers considerable social and economic mobility. We must never,

never take this for granted, and we cannot allow Americans to lose

faith in the benefits our system offers.

America is the land of opportunity. We need to be vigilant in ensuring that each and every American has the opportunity to acquire the skills to compete and to see those skills rewarded in the

marketplace.

One way we can do this is to maintain a macroeconomic climate

that enables workers, families, and businesses, both small and

large, to thrive. That calls for spending discipline and predictable

taxation, combined with prudent regulation. If confirmed, I will

focus intensely on how the United States can maintain and

strengthen our competitive position.

As the product of a mid-sized town in Illinois, I will, of course,

always remember Chairman Grassley’s succinct description of the

Treasury Secretary’s role: ‘‘to understand how tax policy, capital

markets, international trade, and currency policy affect Main

Street, USA.’’

As we work to promote greater economic opportunity for the

American people, we must always remember that the American

economy is deeply integrated with the global economy. That brings

challenges, but even greater opportunities.

While maintaining confidence in our ability to compete throughout the world, we must be prepared to embrace the change that

will contribute to our long-term prosperity. Open markets help to

boost productivity and drive America’s economic growth, which in

turn creates new and better jobs for American families.

It is also true that the global integration of economies and markets holds the promise of a more prosperous and a more secure

world. In my extensive travels throughout the world, I have seen

countless examples of the benefits of economic reform.

If confirmed, I will be active in affirming America’s leadership

role in the global economy, where we continue to be a constructive

and a stabilizing force. I also look forward to working alongside

other colleagues in the Cabinet to advocate policies and actions

9

which would provide open and level markets for U.S. investments

and for U.S. products.

To close, I will briefly outline some of the steps that might be

taken to achieve a stronger and a more competitive U.S. economy.

First, addressing the long-term unfunded obligations of Social Security and Medicare that threaten to unfairly burden future generations.

Second, keeping taxes low and collecting them in a simpler and

fairer manner that does not distort economic decision-making.

Third, expanding opportunities for American workers, farmers

and businesses, big and small, to compete on a level playing field

with the rest of the world.

Fourth, maintaining and enhancing the flexibility of our capital

and labor markets, and preventing creeping regulatory expansion

from driving jobs and capital overseas.

Finally, the U.S. economy will be stronger if we can continue to

foster an entrepreneurial spirit and culture which generates innovation, risk-taking, and productivity growth that raises living

standards to keep America the economic envy of the world.

If confirmed, I look forward to frequent consultation with members of this committee to advance these, and other, ideas. If confirmed, I also look forward to working with the Treasury Department’s select corps of professionals, who play a critical role in the

stability and the vitality of the U.S. economy.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Paulson.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Paulson appears in the appendix.]

The CHAIRMAN. There are three questions that we ask every

nominee. I want to ask those questions, and only those questions

at this point, then call on Senator Baucus. Then I will go back to

myself for my 5-minute round of questioning.

Then after Senator Baucus and myself, we will have: Conrad,

Wyden, Schumer, and I will go down the list later on, in the order

of arrival.

These are questions that we ask every nominee, not just you.

The first is, whether or not there is anything that you are aware

of in your background that might present a conflict of interest with

the duties of the office to which you have been nominated.

Mr. PAULSON. No, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you know of any reason, personal or otherwise, that would in any way prevent you from fully and honorably

discharging the responsibilities of the office to which you have been

nominated?

Mr. PAULSON. No.

The CHAIRMAN. All right.

Third, do you agree, without reservation, to respond to any reasonable summons to appear and testify before any duly constituted

committee of Congress, if confirmed?

Mr. PAULSON. I do.

The CHAIRMAN. All right.

Then I want to add to that, without your having to respond to

it, an additional request that I have of every nominee, not just you.

10

Anything I have to say about this subject at this point obviously

would not apply to you, because you have not been in office.

In fact, I referred to a meeting you and I previously had, and I

have been very satisfied with the transparency that you evoked as

a result of that meeting, and how cooperative you were several

years ago.

This is an admonition that I give to every nominee, and it involves transparency to some extent. That is, the extent to which we

not only ask you, as I did in that last question, to appear before

our committee as you might be called, but it would be a request

that, when you get letters from us as individuals, that they be fully

responded to, and hopefully fully responded to in the first instance,

not after we have to write two or three times back to get additional

responses, or to make phone calls as to why we have not received

an answer.

Now, I can only speak as one member of a group of 100, but I

think to some extent every member takes somewhat seriously the

responsibility of what I call Congressional oversight, the responsibility of a Senator, once laws are passed, to make sure that the

laws are faithfully executed. We call that Congressional oversight.

Sometimes it is done by an individual member, more often it is

probably done by a committee.

But I want to give you an example of how people previously before this committee, or people who have not been before this committee but might be under my oversight in a manner other than

as Chairman of this committee. This is a series of letters since January 1 that I have sent to various Cabinet people, some of them

in the jurisdiction of this committee and some not, that I have not

either received an answer to, or have not received a full response

to.

So I do not want to say that these have not been responded to

to some extent, but in some instances—maybe not all, but more

often—not fully. It just makes our job very difficult when we have

communication with people like this.

I recently had a communication with a Secretary who said we

could not talk to some line agent. Well, just 2 months before, in

that same department, we talked to line agents.

So I do not get what the game is, except I think that maybe

there is a desire lately to not be fully cooperative with Congress

and its oversight work. We are not doing our constitutional job, and

the administration is not being as transparent.

Now, maybe that comes as a shock that a Republican would say

that, but I think I have had a consistent standard, under five different Presidents, both Republican and Democrat, of doing a job of

oversight. And just because we have a Republican President does

not mean I am going to stop my job of oversight.

The only thing I notice a little bit different is, I get a little more

cooperation from Democrats when we have Republican Presidents

than when I am doing my oversight with a Democrat President.

But regardless, my standard is the same.

So if you would let me admonish, without any criticism whatsoever, because you have not done anything I can be critical of, that

you would help me, if I write you a letter—and hopefully I do not

11

have to write you letters—that you would fully respond, and fully

respond the first time.

Just as one example of what you might not be aware of. Some

official in OMB, at a meeting of some staff people of some committee, said, is this oversight not going just a little bit too far, and

is it not just a little bit too public, and things of that nature, I

think in an effort to dampen Congressional oversight on the part

of Congress.

It happens that my staff was invited to that meeting. We did not

go, because I felt what it was is what it turned out to be. What

we want to do is do what American government is all about.

This is public business. The public’s business ought to be public,

except maybe in two or three areas, national security, personal privacy, and those things that are protected by the President by what

you call executive privilege. I am not a lawyer, so I am not going

to define that.

But outside of those areas, there is nothing you do or nothing I

do that should not be made public. Our efforts to make it public

make everybody in government responsible.

It is perfectly legitimate for you to say, Grassley, I do not agree

with you on this, or something. But that ought to be public information when we make these requests. So, I hope that you will help

us do our job of constitutional oversight. I would appreciate it very

much.

Senator Baucus?

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Paulson, I would like to follow up a little bit on what the

Chairman just said. I did not know he was going to make that

point, but it is a good one.

As we all know in life, first impressions count. You have the opportunity to create the right first impression. The right first impression includes full cooperation with the Congress, that is, working with the Congress—open, accessible, candid, just talking to

us—because we are all on the same team. We are all seeking these

positions to serve our constituents, serve our country as public

servants.

There is a danger in this era that we are becoming a parliamentary form of government, not a constitutional government, that is,

when the government has majority in both bodies, the House and

the Senate, so there is a tendency for there to be insufficient oversight, as is the case in the parliamentary form of government.

There is no oversight to speak of.

I just strongly urge you to create that first impression the right

way, talk to us, and it will go a long, long way, I think, in not only

developing a good sense of cooperation with this committee, but

also, more importantly, serving the public in the right way, and I

know you will do so.

My question, Mr. Paulson, really revolves around your views on

how we get a handle on the fiscal problem that we are facing. That

is, the deficits. You mentioned as one of your five steps the unfunded liabilities and baby boomers about to retire.

How do we get a handle on all that? I would like your sense of

how we approach it, because to get a solution here we have to work

12

together, both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. This really should not

be a partisan issue.

Regrettably, it has, in my judgment, to this point, been a bit partisan in the sense that the administration has proposed various entitlement commissions to clamp down on entitlements. There is the

Medicare Commission, there is the Social Security Commission.

They are both dead on arrival because they were stacked. It was

a stacked deck. They were not perceived to be honest. They were

not perceived to be a good-faith effort for how to handle the problem.

Now we see, Mr. Chairman, the Budget Committee with another

proposal, including the line item veto as another commission proposal that addresses really only entitlements, and addresses, basically, only some entitlements, Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare.

In my judgment, there is no way in the world we are going to

wrap our arms around, get a handle on the fiscal problems that we

are facing now, and face in the future, unless everything is on the

table. That is, all spending. Not just entitlements, but also other

spending.

Revenue is going to have to be on the table, somewhat similar

to what this country did in the early 1980s when Social Security

was in tough shape. President Reagan appointed a commission. It

was bipartisan. Alan Greenspan was the chairman. Members of

this committee, Bob Dole and Pat Moynihan, were on the commission.

It was truly bipartisan, if push came to shove, near the end. I

think it was Secretary Baker, or somebody called up Tip O’Neill

that morning and said, hey, we have to work this out. The Democrats agree to reduce benefits a little bit if we Republicans agree

to raise taxes a little bit. So they did. They joined hands. Nobody

took pot-shots at each other. It was not a partisan, political statement.

In my view, that is about the only way we can honestly, realistically get a handle on the fiscal problem. I would just like your

views on how you think we should set up a process, a way to realistically solve it.

Mr. Paulson. Senator, I do agree that, as we look at the fiscal

issues, that the biggest issues this country faces are out a number

of years. They are related to the entitlement programs, largely

health care, Medicare and Social Security. They are driven by demographics, the aging of our society, and by the fact that health

care costs are going up much faster than the GDP.

As we look out, it is a formidable challenge. As I have traveled

around the world, I have witnessed on a first-hand basis what happens to countries if they do not begin dealing with these problems

in advance, because it is much less costly if you can deal with them

in advance. I believe that is what the President had in mind with

the Social Security initiative.

But in any event, stepping back a minute, I do believe that there

is no way we can solve these problems without approaching them

on a bipartisan basis. One of the things that I look forward to

doing, if confirmed, is spending time with my colleagues in the adVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:56 Dec 19, 2006 Jkt 095484 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 31089.000 SFIN1 PsN: SFIN1
13

ministration, Treasury, spending time with all of you, and talking

with the President about this topic.

Now, as I look at 21⁄2 years, there are certain things that may

be easier to accomplish in a 21⁄2-year period. In some ways, it may

sound naive to think that these problems could be addressed in a

21⁄2-year period, but I really do believe that we do need to begin,

very seriously, the process of addressing them, because the earlier

we step up to these issues, the less costly will be the ultimate solution.

Senator BAUCUS. I appreciate that. But let me just remind you,

when the Social Security Commission was presented to the country, it was perceived, I think, to be a way to privatize Social Security, and therefore it was, as I said earlier, dead on arrival.

That got nowhere because it was perceived to be not an honest,

good-faith effort to address Social Security, in a way where different people keep their minds open and figure out reasonably how

to solve it. Rather, it was more one way: privatize Social Security.

That just does not work in this town, in this country, for an issue

of that magnitude and of that importance. I am concerned that we

are running up against the same kind of approach with the line

item veto. The commission approach is now being heralded in the

Congress.

The bill passed the Budget Committee, by the chairman of that

committee, which is perceived to be a back-door attempt to privatize Social Security. It is not going to work. If we are going to

solve these problems—and we all want to—they have to be in good

faith.

I was approached by the administration 4 or 5 months ago to see

if there was some interest in working out some kind of a process,

whether it is a commission, committee, or something, to try to get

a handle on it and try to cut down on future excessive spending.

I said to the administration, well, gee, I am very interested, but

it cannot just be entitlements only on the table. You also have to

have revenue to make it work. I fully want to make it work. This

is totally nonpartisan. I am an American citizen, first. But you

have to also put revenue on the table.

The response I got back was, yes, that is interesting, now let us

see what we could do about that. I kept talking to them, but they

never came back again. It was my sense that they did not really

want to do it the right way. Again, now we come up with this new

idea in the Budget Commission.

So, I do not want to take too much time here, but I would just

urge you, if you agree that everything has to be on the table—if

you agree, and it is hard to say whether you agree now or not. I

understand that, because the administration has a different point

of view thus far—to make that point known forcefully in the administration so that we can finally solve it.

Your thoughts on that, please.

Mr. PAULSON. Senator, let me say again that I really do believe

that the fiscal challenges that you have identified are significant

ones. They are addressable ones. I am really looking forward, if

confirmed——

Senator BAUCUS. And I urge you to vigorously go after this tax

gap. Some say it is more than $350 billion a year.

14

Mr. PAULSON. Yes, I hear you. As I went around with my various

courtesy calls, beginning with Chairman Grassley, with you, and

with many others, they all emphasized the importance of closing

that tax gap. I will be working very hard to do just that.

Senator BAUCUS. And I might tell you that you have a huge challenge there, too, because unfortunately the IRS has been asleep at

the switch. There are computer programs that have not been developed. Millions of dollars, tens of millions, perhaps, have been spent

allegedly on developing software for computer programs. It is just

down the drain. It is more than tragic, it is more than outrage.

Frankly, they do not want the public to know about those shortcomings, those failures.

So, you have a huge, huge battle ahead of you to work with the

IRS to develop the capability, the resources, and the software to finally address the problem. We are in the Dark Ages. IRS is in the

Dark Ages: insufficient computers, personnel not up to snuff. You

have a huge problem ahead of you. We want to work with you, but

I am just warning you, it is huge.

Mr. PAULSON. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Baucus.

We have notified staff that we will have 10-minute rounds instead of the 5-minute rounds, just so everybody is aware that Senator Baucus and I are not going over our time limit.

Mr. Paulson, I want to get my questions, here, in order. I want

to bring up the issue of the proliferation of tax shelters. I am going

to end my statement with three questions that are long, but I think

my staff gave them to you so you would have them and you will

not have to write notes about what I am saying.

First of all, this committee has been very involved in that activity of proliferation of tax shelters, particularly in the late 1990s

and the early part of this decade. That activity underscored the

need for full disclosure of tax shelters so that the IRS can better

police abuses; I believe sunshine is the best disinfectant.

Unfortunately, the Finance Committee’s proposals in this area

became law in 2004, so it was a long time after this industry developed before we actually legislated in that area.

We had Treasury staff at that time very much helping us with

that effort. Finance Committee staff have reviewed your tax returns and found that you did not participate in tax shelter activities as an officer at Goldman Sachs.

They have also concluded that in your role as senior executive,

you were not active in aggressive tax planning or shelter activities.

I am very pleased with that outcome. I hope that it would be true

of your colleagues on Wall Street.

So, three questions. Do you find tax shelter activity a serious tax

policy problem? If the answer is yes, do you pledge to continue

Treasury’s efforts to combat tax shelter activities?

My second question. Many commentators focus on what they describe as one of the breeding grounds of corporate tax shelters,

meaning management’s desire to maximize book income and minimize tax liability.

A particular role is played by the favorable tax treatment of

debt-over-equity financing. I wonder whether or not you agree with

that view.

15

Then the third question. If there is a link between tax shelter activities and the tax treatment of debt versus equity, are there other

reasons that we ought to examine this policy in the context of business tax reform? We just, within the last week, had such a hearing

before this committee.

Mr. PAULSON. Let me be as brief as I can here. First of all, clearly, with regard to cracking down on tax shelters and abusive tax

shelters, I feel very strongly about that issue. Everything I will do

will be to encourage the IRS to continue with its efforts there. I do

believe, from what I understand, the IRS is making significant efforts.

Second, as I look at corporate activity in the tax area, I think the

very best corporations look to obey the law, the letter and the spirit

of the law, and they look to minimize all of their costs within those

guidelines.

One of those costs is taxes. So, clearly, no corporation is trying

to say, how can I pay more taxes? They are trying to say, how can

we do it right, how can we comply with the law, but how do we

minimize our taxes?

Now, there is a bit of a bias favoring debt over equity. That is

why I was really very positive about the tax reform effort to bring

down the taxation on dividends, equalizing it with capital gains,

because I think that removed part of that bias.

We may have a chance to deal with serious tax reform. Let me

say, as I talked with a number of members of the committee, I

know a number of members on the committee would very much

like the opportunity to deal with fundamental reform. My own view

is, if we are able to do so, that corporate taxes and individual taxes

should all be on the table.

I do believe, again, looking at corporate taxes, simplicity is a

good objective, as is the case in individual taxes. I think an overriding objective with corporate taxation has to be ensuring that our

businesses stay competitive. That is just key to the long-term success of this country. So, those are my comments, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

Now I would turn to an issue that, in reading about you, you find

very close to your heart, and that is the issue of charities, particularly the environment. I want to commend you publicly for your

leadership, as chairman of the Nature Conservancy. I think that

organization had lost its way, and I think you have brought it back

on track.

In addition, your family has its own private foundation that is

well-managed, and you are active in supporting many, many charities.

As we talked privately in my office, you bring good understanding to the importance of the tax-exempt sector to encourage

charitable giving. As Secretary of the Treasury who oversees the

IRS, you are in a unique position to strengthen efforts to ensure

that charities are operated in the best interests of the public good.

As you have seen first-hand with the Nature Conservancy, with

the best of intentions, things can run afoul. Unfortunately, there

are far too many who take advantage of tax benefits of charities

for personal benefit. The IRS has been active in the area of overVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:56 Dec 19, 2006 Jkt 095484 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 31089.000 SFIN1 PsN: SFIN1
16

sight of charities, thanks to the leadership of Commissioner

Everson.

But I want to understand your views in this area and your priorities as Secretary of Treasury to ensure that charities are acting in

the best interests of the community, in other words, protecting the

tax exemption, because the tax exemption is the one that encourages charitable giving, and in turn then protecting all the taxpayers who have to pay the bills when tax exemption brings in less

money.

I believe your background allows you to be a tremendous leader

on the best practices in the nonprofit area. So, your response?

Mr. PAULSON. Yes, Chairman Grassley. Like you, I believe that

charitable organizations play a unique and very, very positive role

in this country. That role, plus, really, the generous tendencies of

U.S. donors, is in many ways a differentiating characteristic of our

society.

I believe that not-for-profits need to be well-run and have good

governance, because ultimately the boards of nonprofits have a fiduciary responsibility to the donors. I think some of the things you

have done to bring attention to this are precisely the right things.

Now, getting to my role, if confirmed, as Treasury Secretary. As

I looked at this issue, it seemed to me that one area of abuse involves situations where donors make gifts in-kind to charities. This

could be automobiles, it could be art, it could be land, where the

donors might take and inflate an appraisal, really under-stating

their taxes.

To me, this is an area for the IRS to focus on because, I think,

at the end of the day, all that will do is make the charitable sector

stronger. People, and many, many good people, give money to charities for the right reasons. I just think, like everything else, it is

important to get the abusers who are inappropriately using the

charities.

Incidentally, the charities often are just unwitting accomplices,

and the donors are using the charities as unwitting accomplices to

rip off the taxpayers. So, it is that area where I think we really

need to focus. I would be hopeful that most of the vast majority of

the donations are done properly.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. I would like to bring up the specific matter

regarding Nature Conservancy. Despite repeated requests by our

committee, we still have not received a copy of Nature Conservancy’s closing agreement with the IRS based on the IRS audit of

the Nature Conservancy.

It is important for the public to understand, what was the resolution of matters raised by the press and the Finance Committee in

the review of the Nature Conservancy? I would ask for your commitment that the Finance Committee receive from the Nature Conservancy today that closing agreement.

Mr. PAULSON. Mr. Chairman, we received the request. I am one

member of the board of the Nature Conservancy. I am the chairman of the board, one member of the board. I am not the CEO.

What the Nature Conservancy would prefer to do would be to have

the IRS give you that closing agreement so it would be kept in confidence.

17

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Well, it is going to work better for our purposes to get it from the organization.

I have more questions of you, but my time is up in the first

round.

Now it is time to call on Senator Conrad, then Senator Wyden.

Senator CONRAD. I thank the Chairman.

Mr. Paulson, thank you for your willingness to serve. As I indicated to you, you come to this town with an outstanding reputation. The trick is, when you come to this town with a good reputation, to keep it. It is not always easy to do, but I have confidence

that you will be able to do that because you are, by all accounts,

a first-rate person.

Let me just pick up on something Senator Baucus said which I

think is very important, and that is the tax gap, now estimated at

$350 billion a year. That is more than the deficit will be this year.

So, if we were collecting the amount of money that this current

tax estimate is supposed to yield, we could eliminate the deficit.

Not the increase in the debt, which, as you know, is much bigger,

but at least we could make meaningful progress. So, Senator Baucus is exactly right to highlight that issue.

The second thing that I also wanted to share is something Senator Baucus mentioned with respect to tackling these massive fiscal shortfalls, really record budget deficits, record increases in debt

that are completely unsustainable.

I want to share the same view that Senator Baucus shared with

you, that is, this is going to have to be done on a bipartisan basis.

Proposals that are before Congress now to have partisan commissions whose results are fast-tracked up here, with limited ability to

debate or amend, are dead on arrival. That is not going to happen.

This is going to have to be done in a partnership. Anybody who

thinks they are going to come up here and run this thing through

with limited debate and limited right to amend, that is not the

American way. That is not the way the Greenspan commission

functioned, and nobody should have an expectation that that is the

way it is going to be done, because that is just unacceptable.

Let me turn to a question that is being asked a lot in this town,

and that is the question of, do tax cuts pay for themselves? I want

to ask you that question. The former Federal Reserve Chairman,

Alan Greenspan, rejected claims that tax cuts pay for themselves.

He said, ‘‘It is very rare, and very few economists believe that you

can cut taxes and you will get the same amount of revenues.’’ That

is Chairman Greenspan.

The current Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Chairman

Bernanke, also believes tax cuts do not pay for themselves. He

said, in testimony this year, ‘‘I do not think that as a general rule

that tax cuts pay for themselves.’’

The current OMB Director, Rob Portman, also believes tax cuts

do not pay for themselves. He said, in a hearing, again, this year,

‘‘As a general matter, most tax cuts do not pay for themselves.’’

Finally, the former Chairman of the Bush Council of Economic

Advisors said he believes tax cuts do not pay for themselves. In

fact, he said in an economics textbook, ‘‘There is no credible evidence that tax revenues rise in the face of lower tax rates. An econVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:56 Dec 19, 2006 Jkt 095484 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 31089.000 SFIN1 PsN: SFIN1
18

omist claiming tax cuts pay for themselves,’’ he said, ‘‘is like a

snake oil salesman who is trying to sell a miracle cure.’’

Let me just, before I ask you directly what your view is, show

you the historical record here, what we have seen since 2000 in

terms of the real revenues of the country. The real revenues in 2000 were over $2 trillion. Then we had the

massive tax cuts in 2001. We were told that would generate more

revenue. At least, some made that claim. We can see what happened in the real world: we did not get more revenue.

We had more large tax cuts in 2003. Again, we were told we

would get more revenue. Again, what we saw in the real world, is

it did not happen.

I would ask you, what is your view? Do you believe that tax cuts

pay for themselves?

Mr. PAULSON. Senator, no. As a general rule, I do not believe

that tax cuts pay for themselves. But I have clearly seen, and I

think some of those people you quoted would say the same thing,

that tax cuts change behavior, there is no doubt.

I can remember very clearly what it was like, running a Wall

Street firm in 2001: the bubble had burst, we were in recession, we

had had the terrorist attack September 11th. I watched the tax

cuts add to consumer confidence, investor confidence, market confidence, CEO confidence, and I watched it change behavior. So,

there is no doubt about that.

Senator CONRAD. Thank you for that. I, for one, agree with your

assessment. I do not think tax cuts pay for themselves. By and

large, they do not. There may be some anomalous situations where,

for a short term, they do. But it is also true that tax cuts affect

behavior. The problem with all of this is sustainability.

Let me go to my next question, which really goes to that question. We have a circumstance in which the debt of the country—

foreign-held debt, our own debt—is skyrocketing. This chart makes

the point with respect to foreign holdings of our debt. I have shown

this several times.

It shows that it took 42 Presidents 224 years to run up $1 trillion

of external debt, U.S. debt held abroad. This President has more

than doubled that amount in 5 years. More than doubled. Most

would say that is a completely unsustainable course.

Let us go to the next. In the midst of all this, we are also running up the debt of the country in a stunning way. This chart

shows what has happened to the gross debt of the United States

since this President took over, and what will happen if the budget

plan that is before Congress is actually enacted and implemented:

the debt will skyrocket to almost $12 trillion, and at the worst possible time, before the baby boomers retire.

Let us put up the final chart that is also, I think, striking. This

chart shows the percentage of world borrowing by country. What

it shows is, the United States is now by far the biggest borrowing

nation. In fact, we have gone from being the biggest creditor nation

in the world to being the biggest debtor nation in the world.

We were the biggest creditors as recently as the 1980s, now we

are by far the biggest debtor nation. Of the borrowing that is going

on in the world, we account for 65 percent of it. We are borrowing

65 percent of what is available to borrow.

19

Let me ask you, do you think this is a sustainable circumstance?

Mr. PAULSON. Senator Conrad, as I look at the deficit, let me

begin by saying that charts are put together in different ways, on

a different basis, with different numbers. I do not understand all

of the numbers you have up there, but let me just comment on the

overall fiscal situation as I see it.

Like all of us, I wish our deficit was lower. But as I look at it,

I am actually encouraged by the fact that, despite the bursting of

the bubble and the recession in 2001, despite the war on terrorism

in Afghanistan and Iraq and the corporate scandals, we are in a

situation right now where our economy has been growing, and it

has been growing for some time.

As I look at the fiscal deficit, roughly 2 percent of GDP, that is

within a realm of historical norm. I think we are better prepared

to do something about it when we have a growing economy. So, I

look at that fact and say, is it an issue? Yes. Would I like spending

to be less? Yes. Would I like the deficit to be less? Yes. But it is

manageable. It is within the realm of historical norm, and we can

attack it from the standpoint of a strong and growing economy.

The issue that I am most concerned about—not that I am not

concerned about the deficit today, but the thing I am even more

concerned about—is what Senator Baucus talked about in terms of

what we have coming, with entitlements, Medicare, Social Security.

Senator CONRAD. Let me just stop you there if I could, because

my time is running out, and just say to you, if you are not concerned about this massive growth of debt before the baby boomers

retire, I will tell you, we have a much more sobering circumstance

once they do.

I would just say to you, this notion that the deficit is manageable

because it is 2 percent of GDP, what that leaves out, of course, is

that the deficit is growing much less rapidly than the debt.

If you look at how fast the debt is growing, the debt is not going to grow by $320 billion this year. The debt is going to grow by $600

billion. We have completely left out of the calculation that you just

mentioned the amount of money that is being taken from every

trust fund in sight to float this boat.

So, I would just say to you, we have to be focused like a laser

on what is clearly an unsustainable course of borrowing from

abroad, borrowing from ourselves in amounts that are unprecedented, and before the baby boomers retire.

I thank the Chair.

The CHAIRMAN. Right now, Senator Wyden. Then after Senator

Wyden, of those who are present now, it will be Snowe and

Bunning, unless Schumer and Crapo come back before.

Senator WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Paulson, welcome. I very much enjoyed our discussion in my

office, and I look forward to your service.

I want to begin by getting your thoughts on what can be done

to improve the economic well-being of middle-class Americans in, I

think, exceptionally difficult times.

The reason I say these are exceptionally difficult times is that

this is the first time in decades, for example, when we have seen

corporate profits up—we are glad to see that—productivity is up—

we are glad to see that—but the middle class just cannot get

20

ahead. Their wages barely keep up with inflation. The Federal Reserve says that their net worth is hardly moving. In effect, those

people are just living paycheck to paycheck, millions of middle-class

folks who, say, make $60,000 a year.

Now, I think what is needed are fresh policies that give everybody in the United States the chance to accumulate wealth. That

is going to be pretty hard to do when Warren Buffett says that he,

as the second-wealthiest fellow in America, paid a lower tax rate

than his secretary. So to try to turn that around, I introduced the

Fair Flat Tax Act. We talked about that.

And I think what I would like to do is set aside my legislation,

or any other bill, but give me your thoughts on what you might be

able to do in your position to improve the economic security, the

economic lot of those millions of middle-class folks who are so hard

pressed now to be able to get ahead.

Mr. PAULSON. Senator Wyden, I, like you, care deeply about the

economic well-being of the middle class in America. As I have

looked at this situation, I see an economy that is, as you said,

strong, with good GDP growth, good growth in employment, good

productivity growth.

I believe that it would not be at all unusual—as a matter fact,

I think it might be expected—to see employment growth and productivity growth lead, but then find wage growth follow that.

So, to begin with, I would be optimistic that if we keep this economy growing, we have good GDP growth, good employment growth,

that we will see wage growth for the middle-class Americans that

you are talking about.

Now, I do recognize that there are other factors. I do recognize

that our economy is more and more connected to the international

economy, and there is no turning back there. I do recognize how

important education and training are to give our workers the skill

sets they need to be successful in today’s world. So, I think that

is part of it, and that is something I know the President has emphasized. It is important.

To get to the issue of taxes and tax reform, I remember very well

our conversation and some of your creative ideas. A number of

members on the Senate Finance Committee expressed their views

that they were hopeful that there would be an opportunity to look

at fundamental tax reform.

That is something that I, if confirmed, really look forward to

thinking about in a lot more detail, spending time with you, with

others on the committee, and colleagues in the administration. But

as I have learned, having good ideas is one thing. Having good

ideas that are doable is another. So, I do not underestimate the

challenge of fundamental tax reform.

Senator WYDEN. I thank you for that. As I indicated to you, my

jump shot is not as good as Bill Bradley’s, but I want to try to play

that same kind of role that we saw several decades ago, about trying to drive down rates for everybody, but also create more fairness

and opportunities for people to accumulate wealth. I think that is

going to be essential for middle-class folks to get ahead.

Let me turn to the second area I want to discuss with you. I also

serve on the Intelligence Committee, and I want to get your assessVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:56 Dec 19, 2006 Jkt 095484 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 31089.000 SFIN1 PsN: SFIN1
21

ment about financial privacy law, particularly as it applies to national security.

Now, as you know, the U.S. statutes, particularly the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, gives the President the

power to investigate, regulate, or prohibit several categories of financial transactions if the President declares a national emergency.

Now, the administration has said that the President declared

such an emergency in September of 2001 and delegated this power

to the Secretary of Treasury. Now, I have looked at the statute.

The statute calls, for example, that you make periodic reports on

this.

But let me begin the discussion by your assessment of what really constitutes an emergency here. Does this mean that the administration can use these powers forever? How do we strike a balance

here between fighting terrorism ferociously and still dealing with

the expectation of privacy? How would you approach it, given the

fact that this statute—and there are others—give you a role in trying to make sure that we strike this responsible balance?

Mr. PAULSON. Senator, I guessed I might get this question today,

after reading all the newspapers. Clearly, I understand, just as you

commented, how very, very important this war on terror is. I do

understand the vital role that the Treasury plays in seeking to cut

off funds from terrorists. I understand that; I realize how important it is.

I have obviously not been briefed on these confidential programs,

so, if confirmed, this will be something that I am going to need to

get my arms around very quickly, learn as much as quickly as I

can.

You have laid out the issues. Financial privacy is an important

objective. Protecting the safety of the American people is essential.

When you really think about it, it is essential to preserving our

fundamental freedoms. So what is the right balance? I am going to

need to learn a lot, and I look forward to learning about this issue

quite quickly.

Senator WYDEN. Does an emergency, though, strike you as something that just goes on indefinitely? Because that is what the President’s authority is, to deal with emergencies. Again, I want to emphasize the need to fight terrorism as aggressively as possible. But

how do you look at the concept of what constitutes an emergency

in this effort to strike a balance?

Mr. PAULSON. Senator, I really would like the opportunity to reflect on that, consult with others, and learn the law. Clearly, an

emergency does not go on forever. But I will tell you, this war on

terror is a very serious matter today, there is just no doubt about

it.

Senator WYDEN. It is, indeed. Your answer is a thoughtful one.

I look forward to working with you on both this committee and on

the Intelligence Committee.

Let me get into one other issue that we touched on in the office,

and that is health care. As you tackle this question of entitlements,

the fastest-growing piece of the entitlement equation, of course, is

health care. There are no costs going up like health care costs in

our country today.

22

What are some of your initial thoughts, again, as you just get

into this, about health care cost containment?

Mr. PAULSON. Senator, there are many areas I am not an expert

in, and you would probably need to put health care at the top of

that list. I see the problem. Of course, as I have often said to people in my current job, do not come to me with just the problems.

What are the solutions, and what are the workable solutions?

Clearly, some of the steps that have been taken, the HSA accounts, which can give the individual consumer a bigger stake in

the outcome, are steps in the right direction. But I have not yet

seen a credible, long-term, comprehensive plan for dealing with

this, and I really look forward to learning more.

Senator WYDEN. My time is up. I would only say, in this health

care area, for those middle-class folks that I was talking about, it

is almost like two sides of the coin. The tax issue and the health

issue go right to the heart of their economic security. I think we

are going to have to have some fresh strategies on the table.

I happen to think that health savings accounts should play a

role, but if we are going to do more in terms of wellness and prevention, one of the problems is, health savings accounts go just the

opposite direction of prevention and wellness.

I look forward to working with you, and I thank you for your

thoughtful answers this morning.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Wyden.

Now, Senator Snowe?

Senator SNOWE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome, Mr. Paulson, to this committee. We appreciate your

willingness to serve our country at this time in the capacity of Secretary of Treasury. Certainly, you will have a leading role to play,

both as principal advisor to the President, as well as key spokesman, on financial and economic matters that are truly at a pivotal

point in our country.

You would be assuming the position of Secretary at a critical economic juncture, at a time of a confluence of events that you have

already cited here today that have contributed to the historic deficits that we are now confronting in this country.

I am well-reminded of back in 2001, when we were projecting

$5.6 trillion in surpluses, and today we are at a point not only of

historic deficits, we have had, the last 3 consecutive years, the

highest deficit recorded in history. So, obviously we are at a troubling point in our Nation’s economy.

I wanted to sort of explore your views with respect to, when do

deficits matter, and particularly, which issues and which policies,

whether it is spending or tax cuts, that contribute to increasing our

deficits.

We have a dichotomy of views here in the Congress; it has been

debated endlessly across America as well. But there are those who

believe that deficits matter in terms of which policies generate the

deficits, whether it is tax cuts versus spending.

Do you ascribe to this policy that deficits only matter when it

comes to spending restraint, but not when it comes to tax cuts?

23

For example, just a few years ago, in 2003 and 2004, the deficit

was at a historic high as a percentage of the GDP. Today it is a

little bit less so; it is within historic norms, as you indicated.

For a few years, the administration was not concerned about addressing the deficit question when it came to tax cuts. Now it is

interested in addressing the deficit question when it comes to

spending restraint. Do you think that both should be considered in

the context of reducing our deficits?

Mr. PAULSON. Senator Snowe, my view is, clearly, that deficits

do matter. They are one of a number of things that matter, but

they clearly matter, number one. Number two, I would say, going

back to what the world was like after the technology bubble burst

when this economy headed into a recession, I really do believe the

right thing to do there was to say what really matters is growth,

getting this economy growing, restoring confidence, getting things

going. So now that the economy is growing and revenues are coming in, we are in a stronger position to focus on deficit reduction

and focus on spending cuts.

Senator SNOWE. Well, do you think that we ought to be considering whether or not we should extend the tax cuts permanently

in the context of that issue? That is one of the debates that is looming on the horizon.

That is what is affecting the estate tax debate when, originally,

frankly, it was not logical to have made that temporary at the

time, but we did. We have had an endless merry-go-round of tax

cuts with sunsets that are scheduled to expire each and every year,

so we have to consider the extension of these tax cuts. So we are

in this perpetual cycle, unfortunately. Frankly, it is not responsible

policy.

So we have had tax cuts in each of the last 5 years. Granted, we

need to do it to stimulate the economy at certain points, but going

beyond that, we are going to be facing, on the horizon, a $2 trillion

extension, essentially, to make these tax cuts permanent.

Do you think that we ought to be considering selectively which

should be made part of our permanent tax code and those that

should not, rather than just extending permanently all of these tax

cuts that are going to have a tremendous impact on the deficit?

Mr. PAULSON. Senator, I appreciate your view there. I would just

say that I think it would be a big mistake to increase taxes. This

economy is growing, and jobs are being created. I think we are

going to be in a stronger position to deal with the deficits when we

have a growing economy.

Senator SNOWE. Well, would you agree with former Chairman

Greenspan who said, last fall, in this whole context of discussing

whether or not to extend tax cuts, that ‘‘we should not be cutting

taxes by borrowing. We do not have the capability of having both

productive tax cuts and large expenditure increases and presume

that deficits do not matter?’’

Mr. PAULSON. Alan Greenspan is a very wise man. I just would

simply say, you are never going to get me to say deficits do not

matter, because I know they do matter. I feel very strongly that we

should not be increasing taxes now.

24

Senator SNOWE. Well, I guess it gets back to the question of permanency, because that does have an impact ultimately and weighs

heavily, and particularly in terms of who these tax cuts benefit.

I mean, if you look at the tax cuts this year, 48 percent of the

deficit is attributable to tax cuts. The top percentile, 73 percent,

are benefitting from the tax cuts that had been passed extending

the capital gains and the dividends.

So, the weight and the burden is going to fall on the low- and

middle-income taxpayer, without question. So you have all of those

issues. But in addition, just simply extending permanent tax cuts

of more than $2 trillion, irrespective of what the impact is on the

deficit, I think, raises serious concerns.

The second issue is the question of sunsets. Should we be engaged in this masquerading the true size of the tax cuts by just

simply sunsetting these tax cuts every 2 or 3 years, and going back

to the drawing board and extending them while we expand the

overall size of the tax cut package?

Mr. PAULSON. Senator, I appreciate your point. You know how

strongly the President feels about permanence and making the tax

cuts permanent as opposed to sunsetting them. I would just tell

you, speaking from my experience on permanence, I am well aware

of how important it is for families to be able, as they make their

projections, to budget.

I have watched the private sector for a long time. I have looked

at investment decisions, and they are forward-looking, whether

they are made by individuals, small businesses, or companies. The

private sector wants permanence.

Again, I just come back to what I said. I watched the role that

the tax cuts played in getting this economy to where it now is, and

I think we should all feel very fortunate the economy is growing.

I believe tax increases would be counterproductive.

Senator SNOWE. Well, I think that some tax cuts certainly do,

and I have certainly supported them for that purpose, and they do

play a role. The question is, to what extent and how much, and

who consistently benefits?

That is the concern, because ultimately the economy may be

growing, but the average income of wage earners in America is not

growing. It is not keeping pace with inflation. If economic growth

is as it was this year, 5.3 percent the first quarter of 2006, 3.5 percent for all of 2005, wages are not keeping up with inflation. That

is a fact. So the average wage earner in America is losing their

purchasing power, and they are feeling it mightily.

That is a problem, because the economy has been growing for

several years and there is a lag time between economic growth and

wage growth. So, if we are in sort of a downturn here, then exactly

when do their wages ever grow? It is further distorted by the picture of those tax cuts, and who they benefit.

When you have the top percentile assuming the greatest benefits

from these tax cuts, that certainly weighs heavily on the average

and middle-income taxpayer in America, not to mention all the

wage earners who are in those categories as well.

Mr. PAULSON. Senator, did you want me to respond to that?

Senator SNOWE. Yes.

25

Mr. PAULSON. I think you raised two questions. The first one was

the question that Senator Wyden had asked about middle-income

taxpayers. I do believe, and I think you made the point, that the

economic growth, job growth, productivity growth hopefully will be

followed by increases in wage income.

You also made the point that rising health care costs and inflation eat into workers’ income. You are right, those are considerations. So, again, I believe if we keep this economy growing and

create jobs and opportunities, have the proper education, training,

and so on, we are going to end up where you want to go.

Now, your second question was on progressivity, whom the tax

cuts affect and how. I have discussed this with a number of you

in the courtesy calls. I know there are different definitions of progressivity. But the U.S. tax code is progressive.

I believe, in looking at it, that the tax cuts have resulted in the

wealthiest taxpayers, the highest-income taxpayers, paying a bigger percentage of taxes than ever before. At the same time, the

lowest-income taxpayers are paying less, largely because we have

the new 10-percent bracket.

So, again, I would not be increasing taxes. I do not think that

is the answer to the issues we are facing. I think what we need

to do is keep this economy growing and keep creating opportunities

for the middle-income taxpayers.

Senator SNOWE. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Senator Schumer is here. After Senator Schumer, then Senator

Bunning. Senator Crapo was here a little bit before, but we will go

according to that, then.

Go ahead.

Senator SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Again, Mr. Paulson, I am glad you are here. I believe you will

be a great asset to the administration, and I think they need you

right now.

My questions are going to focus, first, on China. This cartoon

that my able aide is holding up, if you cannot see it, it appeared

in the Denver Post first, then the Washington Post. There is a gentlemen there saying, ‘‘I am the new Treasury Secretary. Where is

our treasure?’’ The answer is: ‘‘Beijing.’’ That just points out the

importance of the Chinese-American relationship in a whole lot of

ways. It is funny, it is not so funny; you can use your judgment.

But here is what I wanted to talk to you about. First, is about

currency and the currency issues. As I mentioned before, we had

a pretty good relationship, Senator Graham and I, with Secretary

Snow. He did not agree with our legislation, but he made it clear

that something had to be done, and our legislation was helping

move the Chinese.

One other thing. On the trip that Senator Graham and I made

to China, we came to the conclusion that the Chinese know it is

in their interest to let their currency gradually revalue.

They do not like change, they do not like instability. But with

their current problems, currency revaluation, as well as other

things, it would help them because they realize that they cannot

just be an economy that sucks in foreign capital, changes it into exVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:56 Dec 19, 2006 Jkt 095484 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 31089.000 SFIN1 PsN: SFIN1
26

ports, and then accumulates wealth. It is creating discombobulation within China itself.

So could you just give me your general views on the China currency situation and if it will differ in any way from that of your

predecessor?

Mr. PAULSON. Senator Schumer, I have spent a lot of time in

China. I agree with your assessment that the Chinese have made

significant change, and they recognize that it is not only in our interests, that it is in their interests over time to have a more flexible currency. There is no doubt about it.

Now, as I think about the currency issue with China, there is the

intermediate term, where China has a currency that is freely

tradeable, set in the marketplace. This is where they really need

and want to go, and where we and the rest of the world need them

to go.

That is not possible until they have a modern, open, well-functioning capital market system and banking system. They have been

moving in that direction, and they want to go in that direction.

We need to encourage them to move quicker because, in my judgment, they are not going to be as successful as they would like to

be until they open that up to competition, in particular foreign

competition.

If they try to just reform that with the internal players, the domestic players, it is going to take them a long, long time. So, I

think we need to encourage them to do what they want to do anyway, encourage them to move quicker there.

Senator SCHUMER. Glad to hear you say that.

Mr. PAULSON. So, now, dealing with the immediate, I would give

the administration and Secretary Snow a lot more credit than they

are given by some people, because China has moved to accept the

principle of the open capital account and a flexible currency, and

that was a very big step in China. They see the need to show flexibility. So, again, I think we need to encourage them to move

quicker there and show more flexibility.

Senator SCHUMER. No, I agree with you, they have made some

changes. Even more heartening to me was, when we visited, they

realize they have to go further. There almost seems—and I am not

going to ask you to comment on this—to be a division.

The people who know economics and are involved in economics

want them to move more quickly, and the people who are more political, mainly in the Communist Party, slow it down, not so much

from a Communist doctrine, but they do not like change. They

want it very gradually. A lot of these people cut their political eye

teeth during the Cultural Revolution, and they are very much

afraid to change.

On the other hand, they do not like instability. There is a lot of

discontent in the inland of China because of almost the ‘‘two Chinas,’’ and this is something that will importune them to move.

But you brought up this second question I want to relate to,

where we have less experience. On December 11, 2006, China will

have to comply with WTO on financial institutions.

You are exactly right: the best way they can get there, on currency, but on a whole lot of other things—allocation of capital—in

the most rational, efficient way, is to let foreign companies—as you

27

know better than anyone, we lead the world, and I say that proudly

as an American and as a New Yorker—into their country.

I have had some experience with this with Japan, a different

economy, but similarly reluctant until about 15 years ago. They are

very slow. They are very slow. I mean, they agree with it in principle, but will say, well, the Governor of Hubei Province does not

want to let Citigroup open up a branch in whatever the biggest city

in Hubei Province is, or we are not sure that we should let Goldman Sachs come in and be able to freely underwrite or let Chinese

companies bid on that freely.

Tell me your approach in that regard. I think it goes hand in

hand with the currency issue, as you point out. It is brand new for

us. Give me your prognosis, given your knowledge of China, as well

as how willing they are going to be to open up at the beginning and

what we can, as a country, do to increase the speed with which

they do it.

Mr. PAULSON. Senator, one thing I see around the world, which

is sort of an interesting phenomenon, is that every country globally

that has opened itself up to economic reform, market-driven economic approaches, relatively free trade, open markets, has benefitted, and the rest have been left behind.

Yet, in almost every country, there is strong protectionist sentiment, and there is strong protectionist sentiment in China. There

are some people, people you were talking with, who understand

what good economic policy is and believe it makes sense to open

up, yet there is strong protectionist sentiment there.

To me, you are going to find everywhere that the incumbents resist competition. However, competition is a great thing for any society. What we are going to have to do, and have to do it fairly aggressively, is encourage the Chinese to do what not only is in our

best interests, but clearly in their best interests.

While they are a sovereign nation and they are going to make

their own decisions, it is clearly in their best interests because,

until they have a fully functioning financial system, a modern financial system, which they do not have now, they are not going to

be able to have a currency that trades in the competitive marketplace. So that is why this has to be a big part of the focus, the intermediate focus, in addition to the immediate focus of getting

more flexibility with the renminbi.

Senator SCHUMER. A final question on a different issue. This is

a little more parochial. It is on terrorism insurance, something we

have talked about, wearing your other hat, your previous hat as

head of Goldman Sachs.

There are 18 months left in the Terrorism Risk Insurance Extension Act. Many of my constituents, who tend to be in real estate,

financial services, and other issues in New York are concerned that

we will not be able to secure adequate coverage after 2007 unless

Terrorism Risk Insurance is extended. They can get coverage at

some ludicrous price, but it really puts a premium against us.

So one of the first things you are going to have to do, wearing

your hat as chairman of the President’s Working Group on Financial Markets, is to review the future availability of terrorism insurance. I think your working group is going to have to report back

on September 30 of this year.

28

What will be your approach to tackling this vital issue? How do

you see the debate moving forward? Are you of the view that terrorism insurance is not needed any more, which I hope you are

not?

Mr. PAULSON. Senator Schumer, just as a general proposition,

like you—and I think probably everyone on the committee—I believe that wherever possible, the best way to do something is in the

private market. That is the most efficient means, and that is the

best way to do it.

Now, clearly, right after September 11th, it was difficult or impossible to get terrorist insurance, so we clearly needed that. I was

very supportive, as you know, in 2005 when the administration

made the decision to extend it.

Right now, I really look forward, if confirmed, to spending time

with this working group, getting more of the facts, and understanding where things are, because it is not obvious to me that we

need it today, as it was before. But that does not mean we should

not.

So again, I just look forward to learning more and to having an

opportunity to talk more with you before coming up with a view on

this.

Senator SCHUMER. Thank you. Again, as I said, I think you are

going to be an outstanding Treasury Secretary, and I hope we can

move and confirm you this week so you can get right to work next

week on all the issues we care about.

Mr. PAULSON. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Schumer.

Now, Senator Bunning?

Senator BUNNING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, I would like to put my opening statement into the

record, please.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. Let me announce that anybody who had a statement that they wanted included in the record,

it will be.

[The prepared statement of Senator Bunning appears in the appendix.]

Senator BUNNING. Thank you for being here, Mr. Paulson. I really appreciate the fact that you are here. I have some questions, in

follow-up to Senator Schumer’s, on China.

Under the current law, in order to identify a country as a currency manipulator, the Treasury must find that a country is not

only influencing its currency, but also that it is doing so with the

intent to gain an advantage over its trading partners.

Secretary Snow has repeatedly told me, and also this committee

and the Senate Banking Committee which he has testified before,

that the Treasury Department is unable to determine this intent

requirement. Because the Treasury has not found evidence of intent, they have failed to cite China as a currency manipulator.

Can you comment on this intent requirement as it stands in current law?

Mr. PAULSON. Senator Bunning, first of all, I appreciated the opportunity to talk with you about China earlier. I know how strongly you feel about it.

29

I am not an expert on the law. That is one of the things that I

look forward to being briefed on in some detail and, if confirmed,

talking about with my colleagues in Treasury and with you.

But again, to me, the issue here is to encourage the Chinese to

show more flexibility with their currency. You and I share a common objective, and a big part of my job in working with China will

be to help realize the objective that you and I have for there to be

more flexibility with regard to their currency.

Senator BUNNING. All right. In the early 1990s, the Treasury

cited China twice as a currency manipulator. As far as finding intent on the part of China, what was the difference in the 1990s as

compared to today?

Mr. PAULSON. Senator, I cannot answer that question. I know

that in the 1990s there was a far different economy in China than

there is today. There have been tremendous changes in the world,

tremendous changes in China.

Today, China is far along in its economic reform, and China has

recognized the principle of an open capital account, of a flexible

currency. But as I said earlier, I am not an expert on that law or

on what was the basis of the Treasury decision in the 1990s, or

even the more recent one.

Senator BUNNING. Well, let us talk about, since the beginning of

2006, reports on China have been published by the Treasury Department, the Defense Department, and the U.S. Trade Representative. China’s enforced over-valuation of their currency has farreaching impact for the United States, not only in economic terms,

but also for national security.

Yet, these reports leave the impression that these agencies have

not worked closely together to fashion a consistent response to China’s concerted action to under-value its yuan and the activities that

rely on this misalignment.

For example, without the enormous currency reserves China has

amassed, due in large part to its yuan under-valuation, China’s

ability to purchase sophisticated military technology would be more

limited.

Do you believe that our Federal agencies have been working together in a manner appropriate to address the broad and interconnected challenges posed by China?

Mr. PAULSON. Senator, I have not had a first-hand view, so I do

not want to comment on how our agencies have been working together.

Senator BUNNING. All right. Under your leadership, will you, as

the head of the Treasury Department, take further measures to

achieve greater coordination in this regard?

Mr. PAULSON. Senator, I do not know whether measures need to

be taken to achieve greater coordination, but I am a team player,

I am someone who believes in coordination. So, I look forward to

collaborating with my fellow Cabinet members, if confirmed, to

think through the right approach to China.

Senator BUNNING. Well, but see, that is the judgment we have

to make in making the confirmation judgment, whether you will or

whether you will not.

30

Mr. PAULSON. Senator, I tried to answer that question and said

I believe my role, if confirmed, will be to be part of a team, where

I work closely and collaborate with other Cabinet members.

Senator BUNNING. Mr. Paulson, as you know, the Fed is scheduled to meet again this week, and it is anticipated that we will be

facing yet another increase in the Fed fund rates.

If this does happen, it will be the seventeenth straight increase,

over 400 basis points in the last 2 years. Some feel that the effect

of these increases is already starting to become evident in the deflating of the housing market, shaky consumer spending, and

weakening economic growth.

As someone who has been closely involved with markets for

years, can you comment on the effect that interest rates, pushed

too high, too fast, can have on investors and the economy in general?

Mr. PAULSON. Senator Bunning, I have a very high regard for

Chairman Bernanke, so I have strong confidence that he is going

to do what is right to maintain price stability consistent with longterm growth.

Senator BUNNING. Well, see, some of us do not have the same

high regard for his decisions—not him personally, but for the decisions that the Fed has made over the last 2 years.

I am looking at a prime rate very close to 9 percent, if in fact

they do raise the Fed fund rates. We are looking at 8.75 percent

prime. There are not too many Americans that are listening to this

broadcast today that can borrow at prime. It is usually prime plus

1 or prime plus 1.5.

I get worried every time we get near 10 percent, because the

economy does not react well to a 10 percent prime rate. I am sincerely worried that they are going to overstep, like they did in the

early 1990s, like they did right after the bubble burst, or right as

the bubble burst.

Mr. Paulson, as you know, the Treasury Department influences

our export policy with Cuba through the Office of Foreign Asset

Control. I have been very supportive of the positions taken by this

administration in these matters.

Under your leadership of the Treasury Department, do you anticipate major changes in the United States’ policy towards Cuba

and the embargo?

Mr. PAULSON. Senator Bunning, President Bush’s policy and position here is very well known. As Secretary of Treasury, I know

that my job would be to enforce the law.

Senator BUNNING. All right.

In 2001, the Congress enacted several important cuts, including

a package of incentives to encourage retirement savings. The package includes such items as increasing IRA and 401(k) contribution

limits, and allowing catch-up contributions by older workers.

With more than 70 million baby boomers headed into the golden

years, these incentives are an important way of helping them pave

the way for a more comfortable retirement. However, these incentives expire at the end of 2010.

The House-passed Pension Reform bill includes a permanent extension of these provisions. I hope that the conference report we

see on the Pension bill will include these extensions.

31

Mr. Paulson, how important is it to the country’s future that we

find ways to encourage Americans to save and invest for retirement? Is the confusion about the rules from year to year limiting

the effectiveness of these incentives, or is it not important?

Mr. PAULSON. Senator Bunning, as you and I discussed, I think

there are few things that are more important in the economic

sphere than getting our savings rate up and encouraging Americans to save. So, we have no disagreement about that. That is very,

very important.

Senator BUNNING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time has expired.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Lott? Then if nobody else comes, we will

have a second round of 5 minutes each.

Senator LOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will not take the full

10 minutes, hopefully, because I know you have had a full morning.

But I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, for

moving forward with this hearing.

This is a very, very important position for our government and

the President’s Cabinet, and I think we should, barring any problems, which I do not see, get this confirmation done as soon as possible, and hopefully before we go out this week. So, thank you for

scheduling the hearing this morning.

Thank you, Mr. Paulson, for being willing to take on this assignment. I know that perhaps there were some reservations, perhaps

from your family, about this position for a while. But thank goodness, you are doing it. You are doing the right thing. We need you.

I think you are absolutely the right choice for this very critical position at this time.

We will overlook the fact that you obviously were a cradle robber,

having been married 37 years, to such a young lady. That is very

impressive, showing good judgment, once again, on your part.

But I am excited that you have agreed to take this assignment.

It is a very critical one. You know what the issues and the problems are that we face, but your background, your experience in administrations over the years, your experience at Goldman Sachs,

your education: you have everything we need in this very important position, so I congratulate you on your nomination and certainly will vote for your confirmation.

Now, just a couple of issues that I do want to address. Number

one, I am sorry I missed this, but you have identified, I am sure,

some of the priorities you intend to focus on when you are confirmed.

Would you kind of just quickly enumerate that once again, and

maybe expand on it, if you would like to take a couple of minutes

to do so?

Mr. PAULSON. Senator Lott, as I think about this job, I probably

have the same objective you do. I would like my grandchildren—

who, to the best of my knowledge, are not yet conceived, so you can

see I am an optimist here—to grow up in a United States where

they have the same opportunities that I have had.

As I think about that, I would be hopeful that there will be some

things we can find, all of us together, in the next 21⁄2 years that

will be practical and actionable to help maintain and enhance the

competitiveness of the U.S. economy.

32

Then there is a second topic that Senator Baucus brought up,

which is looking to some of the really formidable long-term economic challenges this country faces. Here we are talking about entitlement spending potentially leading to very big deficits, given the

aging of this country’s population, and with health care costs rising

as quickly as they are, when you look at Medicare or Social Security. So, one lesson you can learn in looking around the world is,

if you do not deal with these issues early on, they are more expensive—much more expensive—to deal with later.

There are also other big, formidable issues that we need to address, such as the need for energy security, energy independence.

Again, this is a difficult, long-term, very important issue. The fundamental tax reform, which again is not an easy issue, is another

critical issue that a number of you have talked about.

So when I think about these issues, it would be quite naive to

say that they could be addressed and solved in a 21⁄2-year period.

Nevertheless, I look forward to learning more about them, talking

with my colleagues in the Cabinet, with the President, talking with

all of you, and hopefully making some recommendations to the

President. Then the question is, what is doable? At least beginning

to seriously address some of these issues hopefully will be helpful.

Third, if confirmed, I would plan to be active internationally. I

am looking to work with some of my counterparts around the world

in managing some of the global imbalances. In addition, I see a

need to keep my finger on the pulse of the global economy, and

again advocate reforms, policies, and actions that will create economic opportunity, particularly for U.S. products, U.S. investments.

Senator LOTT. Well, thank you. That was very, very interesting.

I think you touched on all the right subjects. I have four grandchildren, and it does change the way you view things.

I feel very strongly that we are going to have to, at some point,

find the leadership and the courage to address some of these longterm issues like Social Security and genuine tax reform. The odds

are, minutiae are going to gobble you up, just because there are

going to be so many things coming at you.

But I hope that you will make sure that you take the time to also

provide us some visionary leadership and that you communicate

that directly to the President of the United States, because we have

some big issues we do need to try to address. It is so easy in this

city just to get involved in trying to keep paddling instead of taking

the big leap. So, I hope that you will consider that.

You have been a supporter of extending the 15-percent tax rate

on capital gains and dividends. In fact, I think I met with you a

year or so ago and we talked about that. Basically, you said it is

unthinkable that you would not do it, because the markets have already factored that into their thinking, that it was going to happen.

You do still feel that those are very important provisions and

support the importance of getting that done, do you not?

Mr. PAULSON. Yes, Senator. I view those as being very fundamental, because I have just seen biases in the corporate tax system. I think those changes in the tax law eliminated or minimized

some of those biases.

Senator LOTT. Right.

33

One point of personal privilege. I am from Pascagula, Mississippi, the Mississippi Gulf Coast, the area that was devastated

by Hurricane Katrina. You and I had a chance to speak briefly

about that. I think you are looking for some ways to have some

public/private efforts to help in the recovery, and I thank you for

that.

I want to bring to your attention the need to extend the bonus

depreciation provisions of the Gulf Opportunity Zone, the GO Zone.

I think this is going to be very critical as we look to recovery, retention of jobs, and the creation of new jobs.

We need to have the deadlines extended beyond 2007, the end of

2007, and synchronized with the other provisions on the GO Zone

and extended to December 31, 2009. I hope you will take a look at

that and be supportive of our effort.

I look forward to working with you on trying to come up with

some other innovative ideas of how we can have public/private

partnerships to help the New Orleans and the Mississippi Gulf

Coast areas to recover.

Mr. PAULSON. Thank you very much, Senator Lott. I look forward

to working with you on those issues, I really do.

Senator LOTT. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

We will have a second round of 5 minutes each.

To the point that Senator Lott just brought up, that issue is still

in conference between the House and Senate, and it will be something that will be discussed just as soon as we get the conference

on pensions done.

Senator LOTT. When will that be, Mr. Chairman? [Laughter.]

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Paulson, you have talked a lot about China.

I do not want to go back to specific issues on China, but Senator

Baucus and I have introduced a bill that would change the 1988

law that has been our policy, because we feel that the President

does not have sufficient authority to deal with problems like China.

But I do not want to concentrate on China, because I think if our

legislation had been in place 20 years ago we would have been

talking about Japan, and who knows, 20 years from now, what

country we might be talking about other than China.

But there was a 2006 economic report of the President attributing the trade deficit, in part, to China’s foreign exchange regime.

The report said that the President plans to push for greater exchange rate flexibility in Asia, including China, along with financial sector reforms.

Do you have any sense of whether our current legal framework

for oversight of currency exchange rates, which dates back to 1988,

is sufficiently strong enough to help the President to achieve his

stated goal, and do you have any opinion on whether our bill,

meaning to strengthen and improve laws in this area, would be

helpful?

Mr. PAULSON. Senator, I need to learn more, and I look forward

to learning more, about the legal framework, if confirmed.

The CHAIRMAN. All right.

Mr. PAULSON. I look forward to talking with you about that.

The CHAIRMAN. All right.

34

You may not have an opinion on our legislation. Does your answer apply also to our present policy, based on the 1988 law,

whether or not that is adequate?

Mr. PAULSON. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. I would like to ask a question about the backdating of stock options. That has recently been in the news, executives of major corporations doing that.

I would like your general views on this and your commitment

that Treasury and IRS would make it a priority to go after tax due

and owing, as well as applicable penalties, from both individuals

and companies that engage in the transaction.

Besides your opinion, I would like to have kind of an expansion

in the form of some sort of a report 30 days after you are sworn

in on what Treasury and IRS has been, or will be, doing in that

area.

Mr. PAULSON. Senator, if confirmed, we will definitely get back

to you on that topic.

Now, my general view is, as you know, executive compensation

is a very, very sensitive issue. When there are abuses, it undermines confidence in our whole system and undermines confidence

in the corporate sector. So, I have been very disappointed, to say

the least, to read some of these stories.

Now, again, I do not know the facts. I have not investigated

these stories. I have just read the same press stories that everyone

else has been reading in this area, but I have been disturbed to

read them, number one.

Number two, I know—again, from what I have read, not from

first-hand conversations—that the SEC is very involved here, and

I know a number of other enforcement groups are very involved.

So one of the things I will do, if confirmed, is talk with Chairman

Cox at the SEC, talk with others in the administration, obviously

talk with the people at IRS and make sure that I am up to speed

on this topic, that we are dealing with it in an appropriate way,

and that we are discussing it with you and reporting back to you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

On another area, I have been involved with legislation protecting

whistle-blowers over a couple of decades and was the author of the

False Claims Act of 20 years ago. One of the loopholes in the False

Claims Act is that it does not apply to tax matters.

Now, there may be some good reasons why we should be cautious

about having the False Claims Act apply to whistle-blowers in tax

matters. It is clear to me that the government and the people can

benefit significantly by making good use of whistle-blowers in tax

cases.

The IRS already has clear legislative authority to have a broadbased program to reward tax whistle-blowers. What the IRS has

not had, is a clear, cited management that has taken full advantage of the possibility of tax whistle-blowers.

A recent report by TIGTA said that the matter has only made

it all the more clear that there are great benefits to rewarding tax

whistle-blowers, and that the IRS and Treasury have fallen down

on the job of using that.

Based on this report, cases based on whistle-blowers are far more

productive for the IRS than other cases. The return to the Treasury

35

for dollars per hour worked in cases from whistle-blowers is $946,

compared to $548 for IRS regular cases.

In addition, the no-change rate is about a third lower for whistleblower cases, meaning that whistle-blower cases are more likely to

target tax cheats and not bother honest taxpayers as compared to

regular IRS audits.

So, since you are a smart business person, and I mean that from

the heart, does common business sense not suggest that we should

be encouraging a program that is highly productive, more productive than normal IRS exams, and has a lower no-change rate that

is less likely to hit innocent taxpayers? Unfortunately, the exact opposite has happened at Treasury.

Now, this report recommends that there be a centralization of

whistle-blower work at the IRS and other points. But I would say

to you, Mr. Paulson, that this is the tip of an iceberg, that we need

to have leadership committed to moving this along.

So I would like a commitment from you that you will ensure that

there is leadership to make this program a success, and that the

necessary reforms will happen now, right now, to make this a success. This is another one of those things where I am kind of tired

of waiting on the bureaucracy.

So, I would appreciate very much a time line, along the spirit of

Senator Baucus asking for things to get done on time, that this important work be done, and that we have a written response to the

committee in regard to this, and your nomination in regard to this.

Mr. PAULSON. Mr. Chairman, I know how strongly you feel about

this issue and how important closing the tax gap is, and cracking

down on tax cheats. I share all those objectives.

I will just ensure you that, if confirmed, this is an area I will

look into very, very quickly. I will make sure I understand all the

issues. I will follow up with you on it. I just know how much you

care about it. You know more about it right now than I do, and I

look forward to learning.

The CHAIRMAN. All right.

What I would like to have, and you have answered it well, and

I believe in your intent, but if we could just have along the lines

of a previous request that Senator Baucus made, not exactly on the

same thing, but a time line in which certain things might be done

in this area, not that you have to have a complete response to me

on how it be done.

But it is the law, there is factual basis for it, and I think it is

just a point of giving us a plan and how you work it out. This is

not going to close the entire tax gap that Senator Baucus is talking

about, but it is going to help.

Senator Baucus?

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Paulson, this means a lot to this committee, the tax gap.

When Commissioner Everson was before the committee not long

ago, the Chairman and I asked the Commissioner to give a plan

to this committee by the end of this fiscal year, on which we will

have hearings shortly thereafter, the plan which outlined the dates

by which we can achieve certain results in getting this tax gap

closed.

36

I know as the chief executive of a major company, that is the way

executives think. They want a plan; as you mentioned earlier, do

not bring me the problems, but if you do, bring me the solutions.

We are asking for the solutions, and how do we get from here to

there.

You are going to find us very reasonable, but also very firm. My

general view on most subjects is, be fair, but firm. We have set a

firm date, the end of this fiscal year, September 30, by which we

want this plan for the IRS and how they are going to close the gap,

and that plan will include dates by which certain actions have to

be taken to achieve certain numerical results to get this tax gap

down.

So I am asking you, will you commit to this committee to assure

that that plan is put together, and work with us when we have our

hearing?

Mr. PAULSON. Senator, I will sure commit to be on top of this and

to understand the issues and what is doable. I think it is difficult,

and maybe imprudent, for me, before I am confirmed and before I

have had an opportunity to talk with the people at the IRS to understand where they are and what the issues are, to commit to

some plan I do not know all the details of.

Senator BAUCUS. I am asking you, you are going to be confirmed

quickly.

Mr. PAULSON. Yes.

Senator BAUCUS. You are going to have a couple of months to

work on a plan.

Mr. PAULSON. Yes.

Senator BAUCUS. I am asking you just to help make sure that

plan is, in fact, submitted on time. You will use your best judgment

as to what is in the plan, working with the Commissioner, but we

need to get moving.

Mr. PAULSON. Senator, I hear you. I will tell you, I understand

the important oversight role you have, and I believe in working

very closely with you. I am surely going to do everything I can to

be responsive to that.

Senator BAUCUS. But can you commit to have a plan here by

September 30?

Mr. PAULSON. To have the plan here?

Senator BAUCUS. Whatever. You have a big role in what that

plan is going to include.

Mr. PAULSON. The only reason there is any daylight at all here,

is one of the things I have tried to do all my life is, rather than

over-promising and under-delivering, to under-promise and over-deliver.

Senator BAUCUS. Well, we are expecting you to over-deliver on

September 30.

Mr. PAULSON. So I hear you, and I want to be as responsive as

possible.

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you.

Mr. PAULSON. I just would like to have an opportunity to talk to

Commissioner Everson.

Senator BAUCUS. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. You and Commissioner Everson think that we

are expecting you to close the tax gap by October the first. We are

37

not doing that. What we are trying to do is, tell us a plan and time

lines on how you are going to do that. We only want the plan and

the time lines by October 1.

Mr. PAULSON. I got it. I understand that. It is an interesting

thing on the tax gap. I will just say this.

Senator BAUCUS. Briefly, because I have another question.

Mr. PAULSON. All right. Sorry.

Senator BAUCUS. The other question is equally, I think, sensitive

and important, and that is the role of the Treasury in the SWIFT

issue.

It is my belief that there is a pattern and a practice in this administration of challenging the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment

protection against illegal search and seizure; first we had the NSA

tracking phone calls, now Treasury looking at financial records.

Frankly, the first thing I did after reading about the SWIFT program, was write a letter to the President asking whether the same

methods are being applied to the tax records of American citizens.

We have, as you know, procedures in place that make it tough

for the government to troll through our tax returns, to make sure

that their privacy is protected.

This is delicate, but it is extremely important. It gets to the constitutional question of the role between the Congress and its oversight roles and the executive, but also the Constitution, the Fourth

Amendment. What is a prohibition against illegal search and seizure in the Fourth Amendment mean in this case?

I think you will agree that we could fight terrorism properly and

adequately without having a police state in America; frankly, we

are strong because we are not a police state. Other countries have

failed because they were police states. We have to work ever harder, mightily, to find how we strike that balance.

My sense is that it is lopsided now. The executive has just, willynilly, done things it wants to do without sufficient sensitivity to the

Constitution, and I am speaking here about the Fourth Amendment.

So I would like you to do a few things, please, a few simple requests. One, is that you personally review this program if you become Secretary of Treasury. That is, the commitment that you will

personally review it.

Do I have that assurance?

Mr. PAULSON. You do.

Senator BAUCUS. Second, that you ensure every law related to

these inspections is followed, that the law is followed.

Mr. PAULSON. We clearly need to follow the law.

Senator BAUCUS. And I have the assurance that you will ensure,

to the best you can, that that is the case?

Mr. PAULSON. To the best I can, absolutely.

Senator BAUCUS. Do you commit also to regularly brief the Finance Committee about this program? I am not asking about the

full committee, but to brief this committee. Because after all, you

are here because we have oversight over the Treasury.

Mr. PAULSON. Right.

Senator BAUCUS. So will you commit to that?

Mr. PAULSON. And you are talking about which program?

Senator BAUCUS. I am sorry?

38

Mr. PAULSON. You are talking about which program?

Senator BAUCUS. I am talking about SWIFT, and also my request

to look at whether the administration is using the same basic

methods to examine tax returns.

Mr. PAULSON. All right. Let me just make a couple of comments

on that.

As I said earlier, I really understand how important this war on

terror is, and I understand the Treasury Department has a very

major role. If confirmed, I will also have a very major role to understand that and to help drive that. So I think that is very important.

I believe very strongly that you have your oversight role; we need

to communicate, I need to communicate, and the communication

has to be done through the proper channels. I do not know enough

now about the security issues, and others, to say exactly how that

communication should take place. But I will tell you, I understand

it needs to take place through the proper channels.

What I have been told, and I clearly believe this to be the case

with regard to the IRS—and you would know a lot about that law,

because this committee writes the law—there is a strong legal right

to privacy, and my job is to enforce the law there.

Senator BAUCUS. This committee was not informed about the

SWIFT operation, even though we have jurisdiction over the Treasury. The Treasury did not inform this committee about that massive operation, where billions of dollars change hands worldwide

daily. I am asking you to change that and inform this committee.

Now, I am not saying exactly what you tell this committee, but

you can certainly inform us of certain operations, and we can take

the next steps to see what the proper information should be.

The same would apply to IRS material, that is, the degree to

which the administration is also trolling, looking at, surveilling,

IRS records without American taxpayers knowing, and without this

committee knowing.

We have to know because we represent Americans. We run for

office and we seek these positions because we want to do our best

for our people. You do not face the voters, we do. I say that because

it is the voters who are in charge. We are the servants, we work

for them.

I, frankly, sought this position I have, ran for public office, in

many respects because of a deep reverence for the Constitution and

civil liberties, and the Bill of Rights, including the Fourth Amendment.

I believe that the strength of this country very much depends on

adherence to the basic principles in the Constitution. It takes work.

It is difficult.

It is easy for administrations to kind of push some of the protections in the Constitution aside, or to fudge, because it is expedient

to. It is messy, it is difficult, it is hard work to deal with some of

the Constitutional protections, but it is necessary for a strong government.

So I am asking you to just go the extra mile to make sure that

happens and to inform this committee of any operations along the

lines of SWIFT, IRS, or whatnot from the jurisdiction of the Treasury.

39

As I said, we could then get to the point we discussed, and I am

urging you to go the extra mile. We will protect and respect what

you say, because we are all working together for the same purposes.

If that includes any changes in the law that you think are necessary, then we are asking you to tell us that, if times have

changed, new surveillance techniques are necessary, or whatnot.

Whatever you suggest, if you think there need to be changes, let

us know.

I am quite disturbed, frankly, that the administration did not

suggest any changes to this Congress with respect to telephone surveillance, not any changes with respect to the FISA court.

As you know, we have a system—this is not in this jurisdiction—

called the FISA courts, where the executive branch has gone to the

secret court—it is not secret, but its proceedings are secret—and

that court has, 99 percent of the time, agreed to any request that

administrations have made with respect to electronic surveillance.

This administration did not use FISA. It did not go to it at all

with respect to the recent telephone surveillance, I think, basically

because it found it inconvenient. I understand there is a war on

terrorism. It is pretty hard to speak up about protection of American privacy, because people will say, well, you are for terrorism.

Of course we are not for terrorism. Of course we are not. Of

course we are trying to fight terrorism as much as we possibly can.

But this is democracy. It is hard. It is not a police state. We have

to work even harder to make sure it is done properly.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you want to respond?

Senator BAUCUS. Maybe one minute or two, but no more, Mr.

Paulson, if you have any thoughts on what I just said.

Mr. PAULSON. First of all, I understand clearly what you have

said. Second, I will not repeat what I have said before about how

important the responsibilities are, with respect to the war on terrorism, and about the SWIFT case, the details of which I have read

in the newspapers, because it clearly would be inappropriate for

anyone to brief me on that before confirmation. So, I understand

the points you have made.

If confirmed, I am going to get up to speed on this issue quickly

and make sure I learn everything there is to learn, make sure I

understand the law thoroughly. Let me say to you, I appreciate

what you said about our rights and freedoms. I really believe that

there is a very important right to safety, and I really do believe

protecting that right is going to be fundamental to protecting other

rights and freedoms.

So, I am not debating it with you. I am looking forward to learning about it, if confirmed, and I am looking forward to talking to

you about it more in the future.

Senator BAUCUS. I appreciate that. And, as you are learning, you

are agreeing, are you not, that you will regularly inform this committee of actions that Treasury has taken in these areas?

Mr. PAULSON. Yes. I totally agree that we need to communicate,

and we are going to figure out the proper channels to do that.

Senator BAUCUS. I appreciate that. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Wyden?

Senator WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

40

Mr. Paulson, I had asked you earlier about the issue of financial

privacy and national security. Let me pick up on what Senator

Baucus has been talking about as well.

First, I do think it was constructive, in answer to my earlier

question about this question of emergency powers, emergency powers that are granted under the International Emergency Economic

Powers Act, that you had stated that emergency powers do not last

forever.

I think that that is a constructive step and is a key element of

what I and other Senators want to see, and that is striking a balance between fighting terrorism ferociously and protecting privacy.

But there is another issue that has not been addressed, and I

have seen it again and again in my work both here and as a member of the Intelligence Committee, and I want to get your thoughts

on it.

The key statute in this area, the National Security Act of 1947,

states that the executive branch keep Congress ‘‘fully and currently

informed’’ about intelligence activities.

So what that means is, I, as a member of the Intelligence Committee, should be ‘‘fully and currently informed.’’ But what happens

is, usually the Intelligence Committee, and even some of the leadership in the Congress, basically does not hear in a current fashion.

We hear at the last minute, when a program is about to be described in the paper.

So, I think we need to get at this issue, and I would like to hear

your thoughts about what constitutes keeping the Congress—and

in this case it is the Intelligence Committee, on which I serve—currently informed?

Mr. PAULSON. Senator Wyden, let me make a couple of points.

But let me go back, because I do not want you to misread anything

in my statement, which was, I think, a truism. It is intuitively obvious that, by definition, an emergency power cannot last forever,

or then it would not be an emergency power.

But I certainly did not mean to imply that we were not in an

emergency situation right now because, as a matter of fact, I do believe that this war on terror is very serious, very real, and there

is nothing more important. As I said, I think the rights to privacy

are quite important. I think the right to safety here is essential.

But putting that aside, because I just did not want that to be

taken out of context, since a number of people, Chairman Grassley,

Senator Schumer, were gracious in saying that I was an expert on

financial matters. You serve on the Intelligence Committee. I really

have a lot to learn about intelligence.

In other words, I have had no experience there. I have not been

briefed on the law. I am not a lawyer. So I really do think it would

not be a very productive exercise for me to be speculating about

these issues and what the right channels are for communication

under the law, and so on, in this area.

I think, really, the right way for me to leave this, is that this is

the area that I have the most to learn about. I realize how important it is. I look forward to learning about it, and I really look forward to talking with you about it.

Senator WYDEN. Well, I consider you to be very sincere in your

approach to these issues. I would only say, and that was why I

41

asked the question earlier, and come back to it today, this means

a real effort, in a bipartisan way, to look at what is being done

anew to strike the right kind of balance, because this committee,

certainly the Intelligence Committee, wants to ensure that the government has the tools to fight and win the war on terror.

But we also have to comply with the laws of the United States,

and that was why I read the 1947 law that says ‘‘currently keep

the key committee,’’ the Intelligence Committee, ‘‘informed.’’ That

has not been done.

I often joke, the way people find out on the Intelligence Committee about what is going on, is you buy a subscription to the

newspaper. That is unacceptable. You have said you will look into

this, and I appreciate it.

Let us talk about one other issue that I know you are interested

in and have a lot of history in, and that is the environment. I want

to talk about how you could play a real role as Treasury Secretary,

particularly using marketplace forces, using the private sector, to

help green up government and to create good-paying jobs.

The area that I am especially interested in your thoughts on is

the global trading market in carbon credits. This is the market that

allows for the opportunity to reduce pollution and create good-paying jobs, and it is a very fast-growing market, and it is growing

quickly, in spite of the fact that the United States has largely been

on the sidelines.

At this point, it looks like the market will be a $40 billion per

year business worldwide. Because you have consistently, under

your credit, said that good environmental policy is also good business, I would like to hear your thoughts on what you could do as

Secretary of Treasury to help the United States get into this very

large, growing global market for carbon.

Mr. PAULSON. Senator Wyden, when I went around and made

courtesy calls, my interest in the environment came up. It came up

with people on both sides of this issue, those who agreed with some

of my personal views and some that did not.

One of the first things I said, no matter which side someone was

on, is the President of the United States has nominated me to be

Secretary of Treasury. He has not nominated me to be Secretary

of the Interior, and he has not nominated me to be head of the Environmental Protection Agency.

The really big focus I am going to have, if confirmed, will be in

dealing with so many of the issues we have been talking about

today, the economic issues that are on all of our agenda.

Now, as you have said in your comments, I have personally

looked at climate changes as being an issue. This is a very significant issue for this planet. I have said that good economic policies

go hand in hand with good environmental policies. I do not think

they are in conflict; I think they are the opposite side of the same

coin.

As you said, I am a believer in market-driven approaches. I believe that one of the big answers, as the President has said, is

going to be investing in technology, and I believe we are going to

have to invest in technology big time. We are going to have to invest in renewable fuels, alternative energy sources, all of those

things.

42

Now, in terms of trading carbon credits and emission credits,

that was a market-driven approach, and Goldman Sachs had some

experience there, largely in Europe, but to a small extent in the

United States. That is a market that may develop.

I had not actually thought much about what the Treasury Secretary should be doing in that capacity, because that is not going

to be a major focus for me relative to some of these other issues

that are going to require a lot of time and attention.

Senator WYDEN. I understand that. That is why I wanted to save

it for last. But I think that we all understand that, in the international trade arena where you are going to have discussions, this

is a chance to look at businesses that are clean energy business opportunities for American citizens to get high-skilled, high-wage

jobs.

That is something we all understand has bipartisan support

around here. Probably the best way to ensure that you have influence in this area is for characters like me to give you a little

breathing room to have a chance to get at it.

I just hope that you can help green up government using private

marketplace forces as you go about your activities in the international trade arena, because I do think, at the end of the day, this

is about something that is indisputably good for our country. It is

about creating good-paying jobs in an area that all Americans are

looking with great interest at, and at the same time improving our

quality of life.

But I thank you. I have probably given you as many questions

this afternoon as anybody, other than the Chairman and Senator

Baucus, and it is because I very much look forward to working with

you on a variety of fronts. I thank you for the discussion today, and

I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Wyden.

We are done now. I was going to have one more question, but

Senator Wyden really asked it. To repeat your answer, I think it

would have been an answer that would have satisfied my question,

that you are nominated to be Secretary of the Treasury, not to be

head of the EPA, not to be head of the Interior Department. Right?

Mr. PAULSON. Absolutely.

The CHAIRMAN. I think you have such a good environmental interest, record, and reputation that precedes you, that probably the

superintendent of that building you will be in down there is probably right now figuring out how he can gain your favor by having

a bird-watching station built for you by the time you get sworn in,

I would guess. [Laughter.]

Anyway, let me close with just some administrative things in regard to this nomination, some for the committee members, some for

the entire Senate, and some for Mr. Paulson.

Our goal is to report Mr. Paulson out of this committee as soon

as possible, and I think we have already had some indication from

Minority members that we would be able to do that.

I do want to make sure that members have a chance for followup questions, so you may get some follow-up questions in writing.

Those questions should be in by 5 p.m. today, so any members or

anybody that has questions that need to be asked, get those in

right away.

43

Then I am hopeful that you would respond to these questions as

quickly as possible, because that is almost necessary to get to your

nomination, unless, I would surmise, that somebody is writing you

500 questions just to slow down the nomination for some unreasonable reason.

I think we ought to have a seamless transition from Secretary

Snow to Mr. Paulson. A vacancy in the Secretary’s office is something that we should all be concerned about. Since Secretary Snow

has announced that he intends to leave on July 3, we have 6 days

to not have a vacancy in that office, and we should be mindful then

of that calendar.

I appreciate my colleagues’ cooperation to this point, and I ask

that they continue to cooperate so we can help move this important

position along. I would ask all of them for assistance in doing that.

Thank you, Mr. Paulson. You have been very forthcoming, and

we appreciate it very much.

Mr. PAULSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Meeting adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m., the hearing was concluded.]

(45)

A P P E N D I X

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

(161)

COMMUNICATION

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

Æ