FINANCIAL SERVICES AND GENERAL 

GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2010 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE A 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT 

APPROPRIATIONS 

JOSE ́ E. SERRANO, New York, Chairman 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

ROSA L. DELAURO, Connecticut 

CHET EDWARDS, Texas 

ALLEN BOYD, Florida 

CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania 

BARBARA LEE, California 

ADAM SCHIFF, California 

JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri 

JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas 

MARK STEVEN KIRK, Illinois 

ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida 

NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Obey, as Chairman of the Full Committee, and Mr. Lewis, as Ranking 

Minority Member of the Full Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees. 

DAVID REICH, BOB BONNER, LEE PRICE, 

KARYN KENDALL, and ANDRIA OLIVER, 

Subcommittee Staff 

PART 8 

Page 

Internal Revenue Service ...................................................... 1 

Office of Management and Budget ...................................... 71 

Treasury Department ............................................................. 115 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
Part 8 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
FINANCIAL SERVICES AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2010 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
FINANCIAL SERVICES AND GENERAL 

GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2010 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE A 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT 

APPROPRIATIONS 

JOSE ́ E. SERRANO, New York, Chairman 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

ROSA L. DELAURO, Connecticut 

CHET EDWARDS, Texas 

ALLEN BOYD, Florida 

CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania 

BARBARA LEE, California 

ADAM SCHIFF, California 

JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri 

JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas 

MARK STEVEN KIRK, Illinois 

ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida 

NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Obey, as Chairman of the Full Committee, and Mr. Lewis, as Ranking 

Minority Member of the Full Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees. 

DAVID REICH, BOB BONNER, LEE PRICE, 

KARYN KENDALL, and ANDRIA OLIVER, 

Subcommittee Staff 

PART 8 

Page 

Internal Revenue Service ...................................................... 1 

Office of Management and Budget ...................................... 71 

Treasury Department ............................................................. 115 

( 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

53–601 WASHINGTON : 2009 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin, Chairman 

JOHN P. MURTHA, Pennsylvania 

NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington 

ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia 

MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio 

PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana 

NITA M. LOWEY, New York 

JOSE ́ E. SERRANO, New York 

ROSA L. DELAURO, Connecticut 

JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia 

JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts 

ED PASTOR, Arizona 

DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina 

CHET EDWARDS, Texas 

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California 

SAM FARR, California 

JESSE L. JACKSON, JR., Illinois 

CAROLYN C. KILPATRICK, Michigan 

ALLEN BOYD, Florida 

CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania 

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey 

SANFORD D. BISHOP, JR., Georgia 

MARION BERRY, Arkansas 

BARBARA LEE, California 

ADAM SCHIFF, California 

MICHAEL HONDA, California 

BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota 

STEVE ISRAEL, New York 

TIM RYAN, Ohio 

C.A. ‘‘DUTCH’’ RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland 

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

CIRO RODRIGUEZ, Texas 

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee 

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado 

JERRY LEWIS, California 

C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida 

HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky 

FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia 

JACK KINGSTON, Georgia 

RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New 

Jersey 

TODD TIAHRT, Kansas 

ZACH WAMP, Tennessee 

TOM LATHAM, Iowa 

ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama 

JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri 

KAY GRANGER, Texas 

MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho 

JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas 

MARK STEVEN KIRK, Illinois 

ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida 

DENNIS R. REHBERG, Montana 

JOHN R. CARTER, Texas 

RODNEY ALEXANDER, Louisiana 

KEN CALVERT, California 

JO BONNER, Alabama 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

TOM COLE, Oklahoma 

BEVERLY PHETO, Clerk and Staff Director 

(II)


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
(1) 

FINANCIAL SERVICES AND GENERAL 

GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2010 

TUESDAY, MAY 19, 2009. 

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE 

WITNESS 

DOUGLAS SHULMAN, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE 

Mr. SERRANO. The subcommittee will come to order. Good morning to all. Today the subcommittee meets to discuss the Internal 

Revenue Service and its budget request for fiscal year 2010. 

The IRS is by far the largest budgetary item within the subcommittee’s jurisdiction, and the administration’s budget request 

for the IRS for fiscal year 2012 is $12.1 billion, an increase of $603 

million, or 5.2 percent, above 2009. 

We welcome the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Douglas 

Shulman, back for his second appearance before our subcommittee, 

2 for 2. 

As we all know, the IRS helps collect 96 percent of the Federal 

Government’s revenue, helping to ensure funding for every important government function imaginable. Each year the IRS processes 

more than 140 million tax returns. The IRS assists millions of taxpayers each year over the phone, at walk-in sites, and via the IRS 

Web site. The IRS does all of this while continuing its Business 

Systems Modernization program to modernize the information 

technology systems that make all of this possible. 

The issue of the tax gap; that is, the difference between the 

amount of taxes owed and the amount actually collected, has grown 

in prominence in recent years. The most recent estimate of the tax 

gap is $290 billion, which the IRS Taxpayer Advocate has described 

as a surtax of more than $2,022 per taxpayer to subsidize the noncompliance of others. 

I am pleased that the administration has put forward a plan to 

hire additional IRS enforcement personnel to pursue, for example, 

individuals seeking to avoid U.S. taxes by parking cash overseas. 

At the same time, the Taxpayer Advocate has noted the recession 

has brought increased hardship to a great many taxpayers of more 

modest means, rendering many unable to pay overdue tax debts. 

The balance between these two priorities, closing the tax gap 

while at the same time exploring special accommodations for taxpayers facing economic hardship, is an ongoing issue with the IRS. 

We also would like to continue to emphasize my strong support 

for expanding IRS efforts to provide quality services for taxpayers. 

As noted in last year’s IRS progress report on the Taxpayer Assistance Blueprint, a portion of the tax gap is attributable to errors by 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
2 

individual taxpayers, errors that IRS service programs should be 

designed to prevent and correct. While volunteer organizations 

have done terrific work in providing free or low cost assistance to 

taxpayers all across the country, volunteers alone cannot be expected to provide these important services. 

The importance of IRS services and the continued high demand 

for such services is particularly illustrated by the experience of the 

IRS toll free hotline last year. Because the IRS received a higher 

than expected volume of phone calls with questions related to the 

2008 economic stimulus checks, the IRS did not have the capacity 

to assist millions of taxpayers in a timely manner, though the Commissioner and the IRS are to be commended for making every accommodation to assist as many taxpayers as possible. 

Commissioner Shulman has served as IRS Commissioner since 

March of last year. Prior to that he served as Vice Chairman of the 

Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. Earlier in his career, he 

served as Senior Policy Advisor and Chief of Staff to the National 

Commission on Restructuring the IRS. 

Commissioner Shulman, thank you very much for your service, 

and we very much look forward to your testimony and to discussing 

the challenges faced by the IRS. And while my opening statement 

does seem critical of some of the work, I know that you are really 

trying to turn this agency around. 

It is just that there are two agencies in this country that bring 

fear into the hearts of people. One is IRS and in some neighborhoods it is I-C-E, ICE, the immigration department, and the IRS. 

And both at times have had a reputation for being a little rough 

on folks. And so in our desire to balance things out, we know that 

you play a major role, and our private conversations have shown 

that to me. So I stand ready to assist you in every way possible 

and ready to listen to your testimony today. 

And now I turn to a woman who is obviously allergic to the IRS. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Or something. 

Mr. SERRANO. Or something. My colleague and my friend and my 

sister, the ranking member, Ms. Jo Ann Emerson. 

Mrs. EMERSON. I thank you. I seem to have gotten an allergy 

once I walked in this room. Thanks so much for being here, Commissioner Shulman. I really appreciate it, and I appreciate the 

hard work that you are doing in getting things turned around at 

the IRS. I believe, too, that fairness in our tax administration is 

critical. 

Back in February the IRS Oversight Board released a survey indicating that 89 percent of those asked think it is not at all acceptable to cheat on their taxes, the highest level ever recorded for this 

question on the survey. 

The tax gap is estimated to be $290 billion, and this undermines 

the idea that everyone is paying their fair share. The budget request proposes an enforcement increase of $332 million to address 

this gap. While I support increased enforcement efforts, I don’t believe that you can eliminate the tax gap through enforcement 

alone. The tax system is very complex and IRS needs to provide 

sufficient services to the public to help honest taxpayers file their 

taxes correctly. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
3 

I do agree with the vast majority of Americans that it is not at 

all acceptable to cheat on your taxes, and I will work very hard to 

ensure you have the necessary resources to educate consumers on 

how to comply and have the necessary resources to identify those 

who haven’t paid their fair share. With the fiscal 2009 deficit approaching $2 trillion in deficit 

spending, expected to continue for the foreseeable future, it is real 

obvious that effective tax administration is critical. So we recognize 

that you are leading the IRS during very challenging times. 

I am grateful for your service. I am sure it is not fun when people say, hey, what do you do? And you say I run IRS. As my dear 

friend Joe Serrano said, it is one of the most, or at least it used 

to be, one of the most feared agencies. But once people meet you, 

I don’t know how they can fear you because I think that you are 

really doing a very good job and appreciate so much the work of 

you, Commissioner, as well as 100,000 IRS employees around the 

country. 

We look forward to hearing your testimony. 

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you. Please, we always ask that you keep 

your testimony to 5 minutes, the whole statement will go in the 

record, and this will give us time to grill you to a point where you 

will resign and leave. Only kidding, don’t get nervous. Please proceed. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER SHULMAN

Mr. SHULMAN. Thank you, Chairman Serrano, Ranking Member 

Emerson. I appreciate the kind words of support, and I appreciate 

all the support this Committee has given me, and the time the two 

of you personally have spent learning about the agency and supporting us. 

I appreciate the opportunity to appear today to talk about the 

President’s fiscal year 2010 budget request for the Internal Revenue Service. Over the past year I think that the agency has demonstrated both performance improvements, as well as the ability to 

be agile and respond quickly to rapidly changing situations, particularly the economic downturn. 

This budget, the goal of this budget, is to build on our strategic 

foundations and invest in the Nation’s tax system. The IRS, and I 

have talked to both of you about this, must excel at both service 

and enforcement. It is not an either/or proposition. This budget will 

help us to continue along the path of continuous improvement 

around service and enforcement, along with the critical 

underpinnings of those, which are technology and our workforce. The budget requests an increase of $332 million for investments 

in compliance programs. This includes a robust portfolio of enforcement for the International Enforcement Initiative that the President, Treasury Secretary, and I unveiled on May 4th. I have made 

international issues a top priority of the IRS, and this budget will 

give us unprecedented tools, resources, and people to make sure 

the overall coverage in that area is appropriate. 

We also know that increased resources for compliance programs 

have a direct return on investment. I think that is incredibly important in a difficult budget situation and with the deficits we 

have. The initiatives that we have asked for will account for $2 bilVerDate Nov 24 2008 04:04 Dec 16, 2009 Jkt 053601 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A601P2.XXX A601P2

dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
4 

lion a year of direct additional revenue once they are fully implemented in a couple of years, once we staff up and get the programs 

in place. That doesn’t take into account the indirect revenue effects. 

When people know that the IRS is watching certain behaviors, it 

also increases voluntary compliance. 

We have also asked for significant resources to make sure that 

we have quality and effective taxpayer service, and we are looking 

for support for our in person, our telephone, and our Web based 

tools for service. We think this is incredibly important with a voluntary tax system, making sure that when people come to the IRS 

they get their questions answered. Getting their issues resolved is 

just as important to us as bringing in the $2.5 trillion that it takes 

to run this country and as enforcement programs. 

I am also pleased to report that I think this agency has really 

stepped up in implementing the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, known as the stimulus program or the Recovery Act. 

This budget gives us continued resources to implement that vital 

piece of recovery for the economy. 

Let me talk for one minute about the modernization of our core 

account database. I believe that the IRS has consistently delivered 

over the last several years and proven that it can run technology 

programs. This year alone 40 million taxpayers were processed 

through a modern database. 

We have adopted what I think is a much more focused strategy 

going forward. We have gradually shifted course from simultaneously developing a database and the software applications that 

plug into that database to a very streamlined focus on completing 

the database first and then working on the applications a step behind. I think it is going to be an accomplishment in itself to have 

all the taxpayer accounts on a modernized database. It will also position the IRS well for future online services and new compliance 

and enforcement systems. 

Let me mention two more things. One is efficiency. This budget 

reflects efficiency savings from increased electronic filing and other 

innovations that we have put in place. Just for electronic filing, 

this budget accounts for a 5-year savings of $100 million. So 

ramping down some of the processing sites to account for more 

electronic filing. 

And finally, I would ask you to pay some attention to the legislative proposals that are in our budget, which complement the direct 

expenditures. Three that I will mention quickly: one is there is a 

suite of offshore tax evasion proposals that will be very important 

to us executing our mission. Two, there is a proposal to require tax 

preparers who have a certain volume of tax return filings to file 

electronically. This is quite important to us. And three is a proposal that we drop the down payment requirement when you are 

applying for an offer in compromise with the IRS, which is someone 

coming in who is usually in a hardship situation. Right now you 

have to put down a 20 percent down payment, which we think can 

discourage people from using offers in compromise. We have a legislative proposal to drop that, to increase the use of this program. 

So Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Emerson, thank you, 

again, for allowing me this opportunity to testify. I very much urge 

the passage of this budget. It is going to give us the tools we need 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
5 

to provide high quality taxpayer service, as well as a robust enforcement portfolio, and also to invest in our technology and our 

people, which are key underpinnings. I am happy to answer any 

questions that you have. 

[The statement of Mr. Shulman follows:] 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
6 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 12 here 53601A.001
7 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 13 here 53601A.002
8 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 14 here 53601A.003
9 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 15 here 53601A.004
10 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 16 here 53601A.005
11 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 17 here 53601A.006
12 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 18 here 53601A.007
13 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 19 here 53601A.008
14 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 20 here 53601A.009
15 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 21 here 53601A.010
16 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 22 here 53601A.011
17 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 23 here 53601A.012
18 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 24 here 53601A.013
19 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 25 here 53601A.014
20 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 26 here 53601A.015
21 

ELECTRONIC FILING

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you. As you were speaking, something came 

to mind—I don’t know if you mentioned it in your testimony—how 

many people are now filing electronically? What is the percentage? 

Do you know? 

Mr. SHULMAN. This year we had quite an uptick, we hit the 90 

million mark. To date, that amount has been just under 70 percent. 

People who file extensions, though, a lot of times come in on paper, 

so we expect that percentage to drop a little bit. But last year we 

were just around the 60 percent mark. So we have seen a big jump 

this year. 

Mr. SERRANO. Now electronically if you don’t have a checking account or a bank account, what can you do using the electronic filing? If you owe, you can still file electronically, right? 

Mr. SHULMAN. Right. 

Mr. SERRANO. But if you are getting a refund then you have another issue altogether. 

Mr. SHULMAN. Yes. The best thing for people to do is file electronically and get direct deposit. In general, we get deposits back 

in about 5 to 10 days. If you get a paper check, it takes longer. We 

actually are quite interested, this Administration is interested and 

we are interested, in the whole issue of the unbanked and people 

who do not have bank accounts. And we have done some innovative 

programs around automatic debit cards and ran a pilot with a bank 

this year around debit cards. We are going to keep exploring that 

option because we have a problem with a lot of people not being 

banked and we have a problem with people getting taken, sometimes, using refund anticipation loans. And so we are very interested in electronic filing, getting it in to us, getting it into a bank 

account, being part of the whole savings mechanism of the whole 

country. 

Mr. SERRANO. I would encourage you to continue to do that. 

Those loans have been a problem, and I think they will continue 

to be a problem unless we stay on top of them. 

OFFSHORE TAX EVASION

As you know, earlier this month the President announced a 

major initiative to target businesses and wealthy individuals who 

avoid U.S. taxes by putting their cash overseas. Part of the $332 

million in enforcement initiatives in the budget request would go 

towards staffing in support of this initiative. My question is, in addition to that, other than the increased appropriation, is there anything else you need from Congress in order to make this initiative 

work? Because we want it to work. We are considering the amount 

of money, but in addition to that is there legislation or anything 

else that you need that has to happen? 

Mr. SHULMAN. Yes. First, let me say Secretary Geithner and the 

President and the whole Administration has been incredibly supportive of our efforts around international tax administration, and 

it is something that the President brought to the job with him, a 

real interest in curbing offshore tax abuse. 

The proposal that we announced last week had a set of legislative proposals and increased resources for IRS enforcement. The reVerDate Nov 24 2008 04:04 Dec 16, 2009 Jkt 053601 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A601P2.XXX A601P2

dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
22 

sources we have requested are ones that we think we can prudently put to work, because every time we go and hire new people, 

we have to take our best people off-line to train them. And so keeping current performance while investing in the future is a challenge. So the resources needed are great. 

There is a suite of international proposals that are part of the 

President’s budget, and they were also released in detail in the 

Treasury Green Book last week. The proposals vary—some are targeted at deferral of expenses. These are much more broad tax policy. There is a set, though, of administrative proposals. For example, we count on the banks who transfer money in and out to be 

our eyes and ears, and to be good citizens in tax administration. 

We have a program called the Qualified Intermediary Program, in 

which people report information about people who are investing in 

the U.S. or U.S. citizens who have money overseas. There are proposals in there to increase those banks’ due diligence, to make sure 

if you set up a foreign trust that you are actually not a U.S. person. 

There are pieces in there that make them report their worldwide 

income, and then there are disincentives for any bank that does not 

sign up and agree to give us information; there is withholding at 

the source. Those are critical to our enforcement efforts around individuals. 

So that in creating that whole suite of international legislative 

proposals, the IRS had a seat at the table. I was intimately involved in those and I really encourage the passage of all those. If 

we don’t get, especially, the administrative pieces together with our 

requested enforcement folks, it is going to be much harder for us 

to do our job. 

Mr. SERRANO. What kind of cooperation do you get from overseas? I mean, is this something that you understand they want to 

work with you on? 

Mr. SHULMAN. Yes. In the business context, sometimes it is a 

zero sum game. Either one country gets taxes or the others get foreign tax credits. And so there are some debates with what we call 

the competent authority process. We have a pretty well-defined 

procedure to work out where someone is paying taxes. 

When it comes to individuals, people who are cheating the U.S. 

Government are usually going to be cheating other governments, 

and there is a lot of commonality of interest and coordination. Over 

the last 5 years, we have set up international communication and 

dialogue forums with foreign tax administrators and us. We have 

something called JITSIC, which is Joint International Tax Shelter 

Information Centre, where we collocate people. We have a group of 

the 10 leading countries’ tax administrators get together informally 

each year, something called the Leeds Castle Group. And we have 

the Forum on Tax Administration, commissioners from 35 countries. 

I believe our international efforts are us doing it alone, us using 

information better, us coordinating with our partners overseas. And 

so I am personally quite invested in that coordination. I would say 

we get good cooperation with most countries. We have a lot of information exchange treaties. The countries with which we don’t 

have good cooperation and don’t have treaties, feel a lot of interVerDate Nov 24 2008 04:04 Dec 16, 2009 Jkt 053601 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A601P2.XXX A601P2

dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
23 

national pressure on them right now through the G–20 and 

through our enforcement efforts and others. 

Mr. SERRANO. Ms. Emerson. 

INTERNATIONAL TAX GAP

Mrs. EMERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me ask a couple more questions if I could on this issue. Of the $3 billion tax gap that exists today, do you know what percentage would be attributable to international tax evasion schemes? 

Mr. SHULMAN. We don’t. It is very hard to estimate. The tax gap 

research—just to put it in context—a lot of it is extrapolated numbers from the 1980s and 1990s, and so these are big, broad general 

numbers. It is generally broken down by corporations, individuals, 

et cetera. A lot of the international information we get comes from 

a return with a piece of the return that has an international component and a piece that has a domestic component. 

What I will say is there have been some wild estimates thrown 

out by academics with which we certainly don’t agree. People have 

talked about $100 billion and other numbers. Those numbers are 

pretty broad numbers that don’t have much basis. The way you 

really get these numbers, in a way that we feel confident talking 

about, is through random audits of people and corporations that we 

usually wouldn’t do. Usually we do an audit when we think there 

is an issue. We do random audits to figure out the difference between what those people should have paid but didn’t, and go from 

there. And so there is not a good estimate for the international tax 

gap. 

With that said, with the focus we have put on the international 

tax gap and with the focus the President has put on it, I have challenged our research team to get creative about quantifying that 

number. 

ENFORCEMENT RETURN ON INVESTMENT

Mrs. EMERSON. Do you have—let me ask this a different way. Do 

you believe that just through increased discussion of new enforcement mechanisms, if you will, that businesses and individuals will 

change their behaviors and perhaps be less likely to engage in tax 

fraud, internationally specifically? But I mean is it enough of a 

hammer; do we really have to do the legislation to back it up? 

Mr. SHULMAN. Well, I think there is clearly direct revenue. We 

send people out, they bring money in. That is the direct revenue 

effect. The indirect revenue effect that I was referring to in my oral 

testimony is really about when people know we are watching certain segments and they become more compliant. 

I think for many years some people have felt relatively safe taking these risks, and some financial institutions have marketed, 

‘‘come hide your assets over here, the IRS won’t find them.’’ And 

so I think we need to back up our words and have a comprehensive 

program to keep going after and finding people who are hiding assets overseas. 

What I will tell you is that it is my belief that during the last 

year this net is tightening, we are finding more people. We also 

have a voluntary disclosure program which, if people come in and 

voluntarily—truly voluntarily, not because they know we are about 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
24 

to knock on their door—they can avoid going to jail, because a lot 

of these people are criminally evading taxes. We have seen a significant uptick in our voluntary disclosure program. And so I think 

we are going to need to stay at it. Frankly, us just having more 

people without some of the legislative pieces that I talked about, 

like the Qualified Intermediary Program, like withholding at the 

source if you don’t report income, will significantly water down our 

efforts. 

COOPERATION WITH ENTITIES ON ENFORCEMENT

Mrs. EMERSON. Let me ask you one last question with regard to 

this. Back in February an international bank headquartered overseas entered into a deferred prosecution agreement in which they 

admitted to helping U.S. taxpayers hide income from you all, the 

IRS. Tell me what process you used to get that bank to agree to 

do that so in turn they would end up—you know, as part of the 

agreement they would end up helping us in the United States identify people who were in fact hiding income? 

Mr. SHULMAN. Yes. So first let me just state, any specific taxpayer I can’t talk about. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Right, right. 

Mr. SHULMAN. And the matter you are talking about is one in 

which the criminal settlement has been done. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Right. 

Mr. SHULMAN. But there is ongoing civil litigation. So the Justice 

Department has asked me not to speak specifically about that. But 

let me talk in broad terms. We have informants who come in. Part 

of your voluntary disclosure and not going to jail is telling us who 

your advisers were and others. When we find out there are institutions facilitating or selling offshore tax accounts, we will then go 

after both individuals who are evading taxes, and institutions that 

are facilitating them. And we have got a range of tools to do that. 

We have a very close relationship with the Justice Department. 

They are committed because this whole Administration is committed to combating offshore tax evasion, and so there are criminal 

tools. There is settlement potential like you are talking about, and 

then there is us continuing to pursue the individuals. 

I always like to make clear, and my staff reminds me of it often, 

that there is a lot of leverage going after institutions because you 

get big swaths of taxpayers. But at the end of the day, it is each 

citizen’s and taxpayer’s responsibility to pay their taxes dollars, so 

we will continue to pursue both. 

Mrs. EMERSON. I appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

PARTICIPANTS IN OFFSHORE EVASION

Mr. SERRANO. Another thought comes to mind, I know you can’t 

tell us individuals’ names or corporations, but what kind of individual or group hides money overseas to avoid taxes? Is it underworld people, is it individual taxpayers or corporations or all of the 

above? 

Mr. SHULMAN. I would split it up—I think of offshore tax evasion 

and offshore tax non-compliance in two very distinct categories. 

One is individuals and one is corporations, and we have different 

problems and different programs for both of them. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
25 

With individuals you have legal source income issues, which is 

where I make money legally, but then I go hide it overseas and 

don’t pay taxes on it. There is also illegal source income: people 

who are doing things illegally here and pushing the income overseas. We pursue both, criminally and civilly. 

With corporations, I think it is more as the world becomes more 

globalized, some of the statistics are startling. In 1990 there were 

3,000 global multinational corporations in the U.S.; today there are 

63,000. And there are a lot of very honest taxpaying citizens and 

there is a lot of very legal tax planning going on. What I tell people 

is if you are going to push the envelope, you are usually going to 

do it where there is complexity. We have seen that in our capital 

markets, from the world I come from, in some of the derivatives. 

And you see the same thing in tax administration. And so corporations are pushing intangibles, like patents, overseas. We need to 

make sure they are allocating the expenses and the income to 

those. They are doing cost sharing. And people who want to push 

the envelope and push into gray areas will do it in the international arena and with global capital flows. 

And so what we are doing in the corporate arena is making sure 

we can match the sophisticated lawyers and accountants and advisers that people have, and we are going to try to keep people who 

are within the gray zone on the right side of the law and not pushing the envelope, to make sure they are not overpaying their taxes, 

but they are not underpaying their taxes to the U.S. 

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you. Ms. Lee. 

Ms. LEE. Thank you very much. Good to see you and thank you 

for being here and thank you for your testimony. 

Mr. SHULMAN. Thank you. 

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION AND TAX EQUITY

Ms. LEE. Well, I guess I can say the IRS is really a very, very 

important entity now within our government in terms of just cracking down on white collar crime, which has been I think allowed to 

just run amok in the last 8 years. I was on the Financial Services 

Committee and watched the whole deregulation of the financial 

services industry take place and also had great concern about the 

skyrocketing pay of the executives in the financial services sector. 

And of course many of us believe that it is time now to fix the Tax 

Code, to stop taxpayer subsidies of these outrageous bonuses and 

compensation packages. 

I want to just mention one bill that I have introduced as a result 

of this. That is the Income Equity Act, H.R. 1594. What that does 

is limit the tax deductibility of executive compensation packages 

that are larger than 25 times the annual pay of the lowest paid 

worker in the company. 

Currently, as you know, companies are allowed to deduct up to 

$1 million in wage income to pay their top execs, and because of 

this, noncash executive compensation, which is fully deductible 

under the Tax Code, has really exploded. 

So how do you see the current tax law and how might we address 

this growth of the executive compensation? 

And secondly, do you think that reasonable limits on the deductibility of the highest paid employees would bring some of the most 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
26 

egregious pay packages down to earth? Do you think we need to 

look at ways to address tax equity at this point? 

Mr. SHULMAN. Let me say a couple things about your questions 

and comments. One is the Treasury Secretary, I know, has been 

very focused on the dual issues of stabilizing the economy during 

this tough time for the benefit, ultimately, of taxpayers, including, 

sometimes, stabilization of the financial services sector, and looking 

to the future to make sure we have a sustainable economy. I would 

refer you to the President’s budget and the tax proposals that this 

Administration has submitted to address some of the issues of income inequality and some of the issues concerning the gap that has 

been growing between the rich and poor in the country. 

Clearly the President has, through the Making Work Pay Credit, 

tried to get money into people’s pockets. Where there are limits, it 

has been to restrict some of the deductions that are taken by higher income individuals. So I think this Administration is trying to 

get there. I won’t comment on executive pay specifically. 

Ms. LEE. Sure. I understand that and I believe this administration, the President is moving very assertively in the right direction. 

I also just for the record, Mr. Chairman, want to say that taxpayers need to recognize that they are subsidizing these huge executive compensation packages by allowing the deductibility by these 

corporations. I mean that is a direct subsidy. And so hopefully 

sooner or later we will be able to address this in a very systemic 

way. 

TROUBLED ASSET RELIEF PROGRAM

Let me ask you also with regard to TARP and the TALF initiatives as it relates to the IRS. Are you involved in any of the accountability mechanisms to make sure that these funds which have 

been sold as assets to any of the Treasury programs, like the commercial paper funding facility, are you, is the IRS involved in any 

of this monitoring and accountability effort with respect to those 

funds. 

Mr. SHULMAN. Beyond our ongoing work that we do with—you 

know, every major corporation in the U.S. has ongoing dialogue 

with the IRS around tax issues. We are not involved specifically in 

accountability. 

Ms. LEE. You are not? 

Mr. SHULMAN. That is not part of the mandate. 

Ms. LEE. Okay. 

Mr. SHULMAN. We are not. Philosophically, the IRS tries to be 

nonpartisan, and traditionally has been, and this Administration 

has asked me to be a very nonpartisan, nonpolitical institution. 

You know, we have TARP recipients, multiple years of lots of different issues, credits and debits on the books. And I instructed our 

staff to keep doing their job, as they always have, so we have longterm stability in tax administration. 

HIRING AND DIVERSITY

Ms. LEE. And diversity in hiring, how are you in terms of your 

workforce? 

Mr. SHULMAN. We are very focused. One of the first things I did 

was start the Workforce of Tomorrow Task Force. We, like the rest 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
27 

of the Federal Government, have a lot of people eligible to retire, 

some potential turnover. We have a lot more turnover in the boom 

times than you have in bust times. We serve every single American 

and because we serve every American and are the face of the government, we have been very focused on diversity for a long time. 

I have been very public with our employees. I see having a diverse 

workforce as far as gender, background, race, et cetera, not as only 

a requirement, but also as a strategic imperative for us as we serve 

all the American people. 

Ms. LEE. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let 

me just thank you again, because I know all of our offices have 

many, many constituents who have IRS cases and you know we appreciate your response to our case work efforts, also. 

Mr. SHULMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. SERRANO. Yes, we do. Thank you. 

Mr. Boyd. 

Mr. BOYD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner, thank you 

for your service. 

Mr. SHULMAN. Thank you. 

COLLECTION

Mr. BOYD. I know all of us want the fairest tax system and tax 

administrative agency that we can have. One of the things that 

makes that difficult is the people that do owe or scam a system or 

don’t pay it and I know there has been a lot of talk about that. I 

have been really intrigued by this conversation over how you collect 

some of the debts that people owe, and particularly on the issue of 

the ones that the IRS and the taxpayer both agree that the taxpayer owes, but because of a lack of resources or lack of technology 

you are unable to collect those debts, and there has been some attempt in the past to do that in some other ways through the private sector. 

I know that there has recently been a decision by the administration to not do that anymore. Can you tell me what the analytical 

basis for that is and talk a little bit about that and how we might 

do better? 

Mr. SHULMAN. Sure. Look at our whole pipeline. We go out and 

we look at taxpayers. If they have an adjustment made, we assess 

more tax, or sometimes they voluntarily come in, but that is just 

the beginning, Some pay and some don’t pay, like any place else, 

and then we have a collection process. Collection is a big deal to 

us and it is obviously where the rubber hits the road because in 

our enforcement efforts, it is where we actually bring cash into the 

government. 

2003 is when this first discussion came up around using private 

debt collectors versus our people—what makes sense, what doesn’t. 

And back then we had about $7.3 billion of agreed upon debt, 

which we call potentially collectable inventory. So, that is the inventory of debt to collect that we put on the shelf because we didn’t 

have the resources. If we sent out a collection letter, we needed to 

make sure we had the necessary service and the phone resources 

to answer that phone call when someone calls back. As the Chairman said, not everybody is not excited to see the IRS’s return adVerDate Nov 24 2008 04:04 Dec 16, 2009 Jkt 053601 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A601P2.XXX A601P2

dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
28 

dress, and so we want to make sure we give them good service 

when they get to us. 

Through our very focused efforts on collection over the last 5 

years, we have cut that potentially collectible inventory in half. The 

analytics around the private debt collectors and why we decided 

not to renew the contract is, one: we ran an apples-to-apples study 

of agreed upon debt of a certain size. And we found that on average, we were bringing in three times more dollars for every dollar 

we spent on our people than spent on the private debt collectors. 

Two: in this difficult economic environment, I gave our people a 

lot more authority to waive debt, put things in the back of the 

queue, do an offer in compromise. By statute, the private debt collectors didn’t have all the tools that our people had. And so I wanted to make sure every taxpayer who was dealing with someone trying to collect their tax debt had the same opportunity for the flexibility of the resources. 

And three: this President has made a multiyear commitment to 

our enforcement efforts. 

I do want to make clear this, obviously, became a relatively polarizing and political issue. I made the decision based on analytics. 

I believe that the private sector individuals doing the job were not 

abusive; there weren’t incentives for abuse, and we could have 

overseen them just fine. It was really that I thought that the dollars we invested in our people, in our systems, A: would have a 

greater return; B: that we would get those dollars under this Administration; and C: that taxpayers should all have access to the 

same options. It is no fault of the private debt collectors. It is by 

statute. We couldn’t give them all the powers of our people, and I 

figured we should run a uniform collection program. 

Mr. BOYD. So it becomes an issue of who will finance the debt 

collection effort. Are we as a Nation, as an agency willing to do 

that? We have not—obviously that was part of the problem in the 

past. We weren’t willing to do it and so we went out to the private 

sector to ask them to do it on some sort of commission basis, I assume. Is that fair? Are you—based on what you said, you sound 

comfortable that we as a government now are willing to finance 

that collection effort? 

COLLECTION

Mr. SHULMAN. I guess I would phrase it a little bit differently. 

I would say you need to spend money, regardless, to oversee the 

program, manage the inventory, kick the inventory back to the IRS 

when there is an issue a private debt collector can’t take care of. 

And so, I feel comfortable now that we are going to fund even more 

robust collection and we are going to be able to do our job even better. Even barring that, my analysis is the money we spent on private debt collectors was better spent with us doing the programs. 

Again I want to be very clear, I did not participate in the demonization on either side of the issue. At the end of the day, it is 

because some of the inherently governmental functions that, by 

statute, the private debt collectors couldn’t perform we ended the 

program. I think running a uniform program so every taxpayer 

gets a call with somebody who, on the enforcement side, can put 

a levy on their account, which private debt collectors can’t, and on 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
29 

the service side can actually give them relief when they have a real 

hardship is important. And so philosophically, that is where we 

landed. 

TYPES OF DEBT

Mr. BOYD. Can you quickly review what some of those numbers 

are, outstanding debts in different categories; for instance, the ones 

that the taxpayer concedes he owes versus some of the other numbers? 

Mr. SHULMAN. Well, I can get you all the numbers, so I don’t get 

them wrong, but let me give you a couple of very relevant facts. 

One is, by statute, we have to keep debts on our books for 10 years. 

When you look at all the debt packed on, there is no private sector 

comparison to a 10-year old debt for somebody who has gone 

through multiple jobs and gone through bankruptcies; it stays on 

the books with the IRS. And so some of our numbers are inflated. 

So when you see our overall numbers, that is not real money that 

you go and get. Unlike corporations, we can’t write it off because 

we have statutory requirements. 

The most relevant number that we track is our potentially collectible inventory, and that is what we determined really could, potentially, be collected. That amount has decreased from 2003. That 

number was $7.3 billion. It is down to $3.6 billion. In this budget 

there is money for us to go after some of that debt. And some of 

it is as simple as using our automatic collection system, where we 

send out a letter to you. We won’t send out letters to people unless 

we know we can man the phones to answer those questions. 

I would be happy to get you all the statistics. I just don’t want 

to get them wrong. 

Mr. BOYD. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The information follows:] 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
30 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 47 here 53601A.016
31 

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you. Mr. Culberson. 

COLLECTION

Mr. CULBERSON. Commissioner, thank you very much for coming. 

Mr. Boyd has already covered the area I really wanted to focus in 

on. From a personal perspective I have always been a coauthor and 

supporter of the fair tax. I hope you don’t take it personally whenever I talk about we need to I think shift tax collection back to the 

State level, let them collect retail sales tax, and send that on to the 

Federal Government. I am a big 10th amendment Jeffersonian. So 

if I ever talk about putting the IRS out of business, I hope you will 

forgive me. It is nothing personal. 

Mr. SHULMAN. I take very few things personally, especially at the 

witness table. 

Mr. CULBERSON. It is a matter of deep philosophical commitment 

on my part to try and restore the 10th amendment and get back 

to what Mr. Jefferson and Madison intended. 

Actually you have covered most of areas that I wanted to talk 

about. So I don’t have any questions, Mr. Chairman. Thank you 

very much. 

Mr. SERRANO. That is a first, a historic moment. 

STIMULUS AND DECLINES IN CUSTOMER SERVICE

Commissioner, last year the IRS was tasked with helping to administer the stimulus checks in addition to the tax filing season 

duties. Congress appropriated additional funds for this purpose, 

and the IRS implemented both the filing season and the stimulus 

payments successfully, except that the level of service on the IRS 

1–800 help line declined from 82 percent in fiscal year 2007 to 53 

percent in fiscal year 2008. In addition, as you know, more than $500 million in enforcement 

revenue was not collected as a result of the need to shift IRS personnel to customer service related to the stimulus checks. Looking 

back at that experience of last year, what might the IRS do to prevent similar problems in the future? Could the decline in customer 

service and the foregone enforcement revenue problem have been 

avoided? Did the IRS simply underestimate the volume of phone 

calls and what, if any, changes have been made to IRS internal 

processes as a result of lessons learned by the experience of last 

year? 

Mr. SHULMAN. I tell our employees all the time, we were hit with 

stimulus last year, Recovery Act this year. We are working with 

the Department of Education around income verification for student loans, all sorts of things. I tell people that we execute quite 

well, which is the good news. The bad news, which is also in my 

view good news, is we are going to be asked to do a lot more. And 

so as you said, we implemented stimulus last year on top of regular 

filing and it wasn’t just regular filing, it was regular filing with 

really late, like late December, changes to the AMT and other tax 

laws that had us scrambling and behind the 8-ball already. 

Can I give you my perspective on filing season and tell you some 

of the things we are doing differently, to give you a sense of phone 

calls? In 2007, from January 1 to May 1st, we had 48 million phone 

calls come into our toll free line. Last year, during the stimulus 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
32 

checks, we had 64 million phone calls come through. So from 48 

million to 64 million. This year it increased again, to 74 million. 

Part of it is Recovery Act, part of it is people truing up stimulus. 

As far as estimating, I have looked at this. I wasn’t there when 

legislation and plans were put in place, but I have asked the question. The only experience we had were the 2001 stimulus checks 

and 2002, and we didn’t get that volume of phone calls. So I am 

not sure what we would have known. Once all the high number of 

calls started coming in, we did a few things that are ongoing. One 

is we have changed our scripts on our phone lines to try to direct 

more people to get automated service and to go to the Web. We 

have worked on just the science of call routing. 

Two is we are investing in the Web. Let me give you an example 

from this year. This year one of the big questions is, ‘‘what was my 

adjusted gross income last year’’ because you need it for all sorts 

of Federal aid, but you also need it if you are going to true up your 

stimulus from last year. Because we are so serious about information security on our Web site, we have an authentication process 

which includes you having your adjusted gross income. We couldn’t 

provide that on the Web this year. Next year we are working towards having ‘‘what is my AGI?’’ on the Web, so you can go in and 

get that information on the Web to push more people to the Web. 

The other thing we now have implemented is estimated wait times 

for almost all of the calls. And so some of that lower level of service 

is hang-ups. So you call in and it says, ‘‘it will be 15 minutes,’’ and 

you hang up the phone and call back at a time when there will be 

less of a wait. We don’t consider that all bad, because at the end 

of the day we have a limited number of resources and we need to 

make choices around those resources. But we are very focused on 

that. 

BACKLOG OF PAPER PROCESSING

The last thing I would say is one of the biggest backlogs we had 

last year was from paper piling up. So amended returns, questions 

from taxpayers, responses to questions we sent out, et cetera. We 

peaked at over 2 million pieces of paper sitting there. We usually 

peak at about a million and we work it down to half a million by 

the end of the year. We, in that area, have now created lots of flexibility and cross-training of our workforce, so when paper comes in 

we can triage people on the phones, on the paper. Different units 

that used to be specialized can do more things. So we are very focused on this. 

I stay focused. You were talking about level of service, which is 

one thing, phone level of service. I want to be very clear. If you 

have a 60 percent level of service, that does not mean 40 percent 

of people walk away unhappy. Some people hang up and some go 

to the Web. That level of service is just the people who actually get 

through and get their questions answered by a live assister. 

I also focus on our American Customer Satisfaction Index scores, 

which have been steadily going up since 2000. So there are all of 

our specific measures, but then the big measure for me is when 

taxpayers are surveyed about their experience with the IRS, how 

they are feeling about it in a service context. Those numbers reVerDate Nov 24 2008 04:04 Dec 16, 2009 Jkt 053601 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A601P2.XXX A601P2

dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
33 

mained flat last year. We are going to have to keep working at it 

and we are very focused on it. 

I don’t want you to misinterpret and think we are happy with 

where we were. Any taxpayer who makes a call that doesn’t get a 

good, quick response from us, I want to get better. But with all the 

resources, we are going to triage resources and make tradeoffs. 

TRANSACTIONAL RECORDS ACCESS CLEARINGHOUSE

Mr. SERRANO. There has been some information and some of this 

obviously happened before you came on the job, but we want you 

to comment on these anyway. The Transactional Records Access 

Clearinghouse at Syracuse University had some data, and for fiscal 

year 2008 the audit rate for the largest corporations, those with assets greater than $250 million, was 27.4 percent, down from 44.1 

percent in fiscal year 2005. 

In addition, according to IRS data reported by the Transactional 

Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University, the audit 

rate for millionaires dropped by at least 19 percentage points between fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2008. By contrast other categories of individual taxpayers and corporations experienced the 

same or even higher levels of audit coverage in fiscal year 2008 

compared with fiscal year 2007. 

Why do you think we are seeing these trends? Why have the 

audit coverage rates for millionaires in the largest corporations 

gone down while other audit coverage rates have remained steady 

or increased? And will the fiscal year 2010 budget request help to 

change that disparity? 

Mr. SHULMAN. I am well aware of the statistics. We dispute, and 

I have gone deep into these numbers, the way that TRAC came up 

with some of those numbers. So, we think some of that is just 

wrong, and then some of it is looking at somewhat unfair comparisons. 

We have doubled our coverage rate of large corporations in the 

last 5 years. We have seen a steady trend increase of audits of millionaires, or people with income over a million dollars, in the last 

several years, and you are going to see those trends continue. 

As Commissioner of Internal Revenue with 100,000 employees 

and a $12 billion budget, I kind of think of myself the way I would 

hope America’s CEOs think about themselves: they shouldn’t be 

managing quarterly results in snapshots. They should be managing 

long-term trends and where the agency is headed. 

The millionaires, that number did not decrease by 19 percent. 

There was actually a statistical error that we put out the fall before, and so we put the numbers out wrong before and everybody 

knew about this. We were very clear when those numbers came 

out. They came out wrong before I was there, but I stand behind 

them. There was not a 19 percent decline. There was a slight decline because the denominator grew. So the number of audits was 

relatively steady but the denominator grew. 

Similarly with large corporations, the number of audits was 

steady, but the denominator grew. So that you know the general 

statistics, average taxpayers have about a 1 percent chance of 

being audited. If you have over a million dollars of income, you 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
34 

have a 5.51 percent chance of being audited. So we have much 

higher coverage rates of million dollar folks. 

The other thing that contributed, frankly, to some of these numbers is continuing to be under continuing resolutions where we 

freeze hiring. People have to cut back, we are not adding and filling 

bodies. In both those years we were under continuing resolutions. 

As head of an agency and seeing what that is like this year, I did 

some things with high income audits and international, to continue 

our hiring and take a bet, and saying I was going to cut other 

places if the appropriation wasn’t passed, which it was, but that 

creates some issues. 

So, I guess what I would say is the long-term trends are going 

to be continued focus on large corporations, high net individuals, 

flow-through corporations and international. Those are my priorities. Those are on enforcement and that is where the 2010 budget 

is giving us more resources. These numbers are going to fluctuate 

in certain years. And as I said before, we are hiring a lot of people 

this year and next year. We are going to take some of our best people off to train them. You may see fluctuation in numbers as they 

are training, but our long-term investment is to have a trend where 

we make sure wealthy individuals and large corporations, who 

have really benefited from being in the U.S. and from all our rules 

and economy, pay their taxes. We are also going to have coverage 

in all spectrums, so that everybody knows that their neighbor is 

paying taxes if they are paying taxes. 

USE OF STATISTICS

Mr. SERRANO. In your answer just now in disputing these numbers you used the phrase or word ‘‘unfair.’’ What was unfair? 

Mr. SHULMAN. Well, we put out enforcement statistics and then 

we put out our statistics of income. Some of those use different 

measures. I mean, we hold the data for all the income in the U.S. 

and for the taxpayers. It is a very important data set for this country. I am a big fan of people watching our numbers and reporting 

on our numbers and having a public debate. I think that keeps us 

on our toes and leads to a vibrant democracy. 

I think on large corporations we had a slight decline of actual 

audit closures, but most of those large corporations are under audit 

anyway, so we just didn’t close out audits. The denominator grew. 

The way I would look at it is, with the resources we had, we did 

as many audits. They chose to look at percentages instead, which 

is what I mean when I say unfair. Everyone decides what their 

headline is going to say. They chose to have a different headline. 

And I think picking the period, I think you said 2005 to 2008 was 

the number that was picked. 

Mr. SERRANO. Right. 

Mr. SHULMAN. That may be a correct number or it may not be, 

but we doubled the coverage in the last 5 years. And so one trend 

says we have gone down and one says it has gone up. When I used 

the word ‘‘unfair,’’ that is what I was talking about. 

SERVICES FOR LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY TAXPAYERS

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you. Before I turn it over to Ms. Emerson, 

I want to delve into one area here. Can you tell me what is the 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
35 

status of the services you render to limited English speaking folks. 

I know you made some serious progress, for instance, in putting together the ‘‘Where’s My Refund?’’ feature on the IRS Web site in 

Spanish. What can you tell me about where you are heading? And 

do you see more and more need for these services? 

Mr. SHULMAN. When we had a chance to talk before, I told you, 

directionally and conceptually, where we are headed in service is 

to move as many people as we can to self-serve on the Web. But 

we will also continue to have a robust suite of in-person phones, 

volunteer sites, grants for low income people and for underserved 

populations. I view the limited English proficiency population as 

often underserved by us. We can always do better. We have done 

a whole set of things, for example, around trying to have a Spanish-language Web site, having publications translated, making sure 

when we are working in an area of the country that has nonEnglish speaking or people for whom English isn’t their first language, we are staffed with people with appropriate language skills. 

Our media department has a special outreach to non-English 

media outlets around the country. 

So we have had a focus. I am not going to sit here and tell you 

we are as far as we need to go. So we are going to keep pushing 

in that direction on getting as many people on the Web as we can. 

If there are specific targeted populations that need to be served, we 

are going to keep trying to serve them better. 

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you. Ms. Emerson. 

NARCOTICS TRAFFICKING

Mrs. EMERSON. Thank you. I am switching the subject here. Back 

in I guess fiscal year 2009 the IRS Oversight Board recommended 

that Congress provide $24 million above the budget request to enhance financial investigations of narcotics trafficking organizations. 

Mr. SHULMAN. Yes. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Estimates are that over 7,000 people have been 

murdered in Mexico as a result of the ongoing drug war between 

cartels and Mexican authorities since January 2008, and we all 

know that there has been spillover violence in Georgia, Alabama, 

and Arizona, not to mention all of the drugs that enter into the 

United States, whether it is cocaine, methamphetamine, heroin. 

We have too much of it in my home State of Missouri. 

Is the IRS Oversight Board correct, should we dedicate additional resources to financial investigations of drug traffickers? That 

is my first question. And then how do you all interface or work 

with the Departments of Homeland Security and Justice to address 

violence? I don’t know that you would actually do that specifically. 

And does the IRS typically generate a significant amount of enforcement revenue from taking down drug trafficking organizations. 

Mr. SHULMAN. It is a great question. We have a very strong 

Criminal Investigation Division, who, obviously, specialize in finance. Taxes is their roots. But I think they are well known as, 

probably, the best forensic accounting criminal investigators there 

are, worldwide. 

We have very close working relationships with the FBI, with the 

Justice Department, with lots of local law enforcement and others. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
36 

And we are brought in, often, when there is a tax matter. But our 

people also assist on nontax matters relating to all sorts of criminal 

activity. 

And so I think this is always just a balance. It is always recognizing we are all the Federal Government trying to aim in the 

same direction, but we all have our jobs to do. So there has been 

an ongoing dialogue about how much of IRS agents’ time is spent 

on nontax matters, because criminal tax enforcement is vital to the 

tax system. You know, the ultimate hammer is you go to jail if you 

evade paying your taxes in a criminal method; so people need to 

be reminded of that, and we balance that time. 

So I have actually kept the number relatively steady. I have good 

relationships with the head of other bureaus that are involved in 

crime, the head of the FBI and others. And we are going to pitch 

in where we can, but recognize we have limited resources. 

Regarding the Oversight Board’s specific requests, the Oversight 

Board is incredibly thoughtful. I can’t speak for the Oversight 

Board, but I interact with them quite a bit. They view their job as 

recommending what we need to do our job without the constraints 

of an overall budget. And obviously the Administration has education, health care, energy, the economy, lots of things to wrestle 

with. 

So I am supportive of what we have here. We are going to make 

do. It is very similar to some of the questions about service, and 

our service levels. It is always my job to advocate for the agency, 

get all the resources we need. But in doing so, we have got to make 

choices. And I think the choices we have made in this budget are 

very prudent. I think they are ones that are going to lead us to 

good enforcement, good service, good investments in the future. 

Mrs. EMERSON. I appreciate that. 

TROUBLED ASSET RELIEF PROGRAM

Switching gears yet again, the Special Inspector General for the 

TARP has stated in written testimony, and I will quote: ‘‘We stand 

on the precipice of the largest infusion of government funds over 

the shortest period of time in our Nation’s history. History teaches 

us that an outlay of so much money in such a short period of time 

will inevitably attract those seeking to profit criminally. If, by percentage terms, some of the estimates of fraud in recent government 

programs apply to the TARP programs, we are looking at the potential exposure of hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer 

money lost to fraud,’’ end quote. 

Are you all detailing staff to the Special Inspector General to 

provide experienced financial auditors and examiners to support 

this critical mission, particularly since I know he is short-staffed? 

And secondly, what are the tax implications for the banks receiving 

TARP funds? I mean, how do they report the income received from 

the TARP and the dividends paid to the government? And that is 

more of a process question. I am very curious how that happens or 

how they report that. 

Mr. SHULMAN. Let me start at the broadest response to this and 

then get to your two specific questions. 

In the broadest sense, I think the President has been very clear 

about this in his speech before Congress, which is there is the deciVerDate Nov 24 2008 04:04 Dec 16, 2009 Jkt 053601 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A601P2.XXX A601P2

dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
37 

sion by the Administration that this extraordinary economic times 

needed, a very powerful response. Obviously Congress, through a 

combination of approving the TARP, approving the Recovery Act, 

agreed with that. 

At the same time, there are unprecedented outlays. There is 

going to be leakage, there are going to be mistakes, and there is 

going to be fraud. So what this Administration has tried to do is 

respond appropriately and forcefully and aggressively with cash 

outlays to get the economy moving again, but at the same time 

make sure that we try to account for every dollar spent and try to 

minimize leakage. 

It is not going to be perfect on either end, right? With TARP, yes, 

we detailed people to TARP to help with their efforts because we 

know it is so important to the economy. Regarding the tax treatment of TARP funds, we have put out a lot of guidance. Some of 

it is loans, some of it is equity, some of it is convertible equity. It 

is hard to speak in broad generalizations because the money has 

been used in different ways. But because the government has been 

doing innovations, we have had to be very clear about our interpretations, and we have worked closely with Treasury to make sure 

that the proper tax treatment under the law is what has happened 

with TARP recipients. I would be happy to go through all the details with your office. 

Mrs. EMERSON. That would be terrific. Thank you very much. 

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you. 

I only have a few more questions. 

Mrs. EMERSON. I have a few more, or I can submit them for the 

record, whatever you prefer. 

Mr. SERRANO. We will keep him here until 3 o’clock. No, I am 

only kidding. 

FLEXIBILITIES IN IRS ACTIONS

Your main role—well, one of your main roles is definitely to collect taxes, and we all support that, the fact of that mission. But 

these are difficult economic times, and we read daily about people 

losing their homes, people not being able to buy groceries, people 

not being able to pay tuition. And I am sure there are people who 

at the end of the year owe money, who didn’t intend to owe money, 

who didn’t do anything improper to owe money, but they do. Does 

the IRS in any way take that into consideration, and how do you 

deal during this very difficult time with the fact that there are 

some people who owe money that can’t pay it right now? 

Mr. SHULMAN. That is a great question. I am quite proud of the 

Agency for the way we have responded to this this time. 

Last August and September I sat down with our senior staff and 

said, I think all the experts agree, the people we work with, my colleagues at the senior levels of government, that we are headed into 

an uncharted territory with the economic time, and it ended up 

being true, unfortunately. And we said, we are going to find taxpayers for the first time who are in incredibly difficult, dire straits, 

making choices between paying for their mother’s medicine or paying tuition for their kid or paying their taxes, and what can we do 

to respond within our administrative authorities? We need to keep 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
38 

in mind the tension. More than ever we need to fund the government because the government has, through a whole set of circumstances, very large deficits, and so we need to collect the 

money. So if you can pay, you have to pay; but if you can’t pay, 

we need to be fair and compassionate as an agency. 

We put in place a whole number of programs, shifted some resources. One is for small businesses and businesses generally, we 

recognize that expedited refunds would be a lifeline for cash with 

frozen-up credit markets. We actually shifted resources to deal 

with people who are coming in and asking for expedited refunds. 

There is a procedure that allows you to do that. So we made sure 

we were staffed up there. 

We work closely with individuals, especially our collection personnel. What I did was raise the limits. The number is not public, 

and we are not going to make it public, but under a certain threshold, if you are out doing collection, our frontline employees have 

lots of discretion about what they do with people. So we can suspend collection for 6 months to let people get through a rough time, 

and we gave people more authority to do that. 

With housing, a lot of times in offering compromise, the reason 

you don’t get an offer in compromise is because you have home equity. But the way we know you have home equity is we see your 

appraisal, we see your mortgage, we know you have home equity. 

We recognized that the housing market was in dire straits, and 

that actually a lot of these appraisals weren’t the true value of the 

home because the value was plummeting so rapidly. We set up a 

specialized unit of real estate specialists who work in coordination 

with realtors’ associations around the country. So normally we 

would reject an offer in compromise because the documentation 

didn’t show decreased home value. Any time an offer in compromise is rejected during this period—and it is still ongoing—because of home equity, it gets kicked to our specialized unit to have 

a second look. 

We also set up expedited levy release; so if we were levying your 

bank account, and you were released, you would get the money a 

lot quicker. We set up a section on our Web site which is called 

‘‘What If’’—What if I lose my job? What if I lose my home? What 

if I lost one of my jobs? What if my income declines?—those kinds 

of things. All of it is geared towards doing right by the American 

people and being compassionate. We deal with every single taxpayer, and they need to have faith in their government, but it also 

helps for just the pure collection of taxes. 

We are in this for the long haul, and the last thing we want to 

do is be unfair with someone, have them drop out of the system. 

What we want to do is keep them in the system for the long run. 

We want to make sure we have as much flexibility as possible to 

help them through this difficult dip in the economy, where there 

are people who have been paying their taxes their whole life and 

for the first time can’t pay their taxes. 

So as an agency we responded to this. We pushed a lot of judgment into the hands of our people, and we gave them the authority 

to work with taxpayers during a difficult economic time. I think the 

response has been good. I think we have hit the balance right. We 

are always going to be fine-tuning this balance, but it is an examVerDate Nov 24 2008 04:04 Dec 16, 2009 Jkt 053601 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A601P2.XXX A601P2

dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
39 

ple of how we are trying to fine-tune this agency so when surprises 

come at us, we can respond rapidly. 

FLEXIBILITIES IN IRS ACTIONS

Mr. SERRANO. And I am glad you are doing that, because when 

you watch the news, when you read, you see, you hear the horror 

stories of people not being able to pay their mortgage or all the 

other issues that I mentioned before, but you never hear about people paying their taxes, because that is always assumed that you 

have to or else, and only a bad person will not pay their taxes. But 

the fact of life is if a person hasn’t been able to pay their mortgage 

or their rent for the last 4 or 5 months, and then owes $2,000 to 

the IRS through no fault of their own, just the math, I mean it 

happens to all of us, that is a tough thing to deal with, whereas 

paying—as sad as not paying the mortgages and the rent, there is 

nothing illegal about that, whereas not paying your taxes, owing 

taxes, there are laws against that; so that just adds to the stress 

level. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Can I add something really quickly? 

Mr. SERRANO. Sure. 

Mrs. EMERSON. It is interesting particularly how you have 

changed or been a little more flexible on the equity issue in the 

house, because even if there is equity in the house, it doesn’t mean 

necessarily that the homeowner would be able to qualify during 

these economic times to even grab out any of that equity to pay off. 

So I appreciate the fact that flexibility, which probably has not traditionally been the hallmark of the IRS, seems to be an important 

part of how you are working with people who are under terrible 

stress right now. 

Mr. SERRANO. I can see the new IRS Web site: ‘‘We Have a 

Heart.’’ 

Mrs. EMERSON. ‘‘We Are Flexible.’’ 

Mr. SERRANO. ‘‘We Are Flexible.’’ 

THE IRS WORKFORCE

I have one more question for you, Commissioner. The operating 

plan for fiscal year 2009 notes that ‘‘as early as fiscal year 2010, 

20 percent of the total IRS workforce, including 30 percent of all 

IRS managers and 47 percent of IRS executives, are eligible to retire. The operating plan further notes that 2009 funding will be 

used to enhance recruiting and training programs and help attract, 

develop, and retain an outstanding workforce.’’ That is the quote. 

Please describe for us some of the ways in which the IRS is preparing to cope with this coming wave of retirements. 

Mr. SHULMAN. As I mentioned earlier, my view as the leader of 

IRS, is there is nothing more important that I do than focus on our 

workforce. I pulled one of our senior operating executives out of the 

field, had her report to me directly for the last year, to focus with 

our HR department on workforce issues. I am a big believer that 

workforce isn’t just an HR problem, it is actually a leadership problem. People look to their managers and they look up their chain of 

command to the people running the agency for leadership. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
40 

RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION

We, like every Federal agency, have this impending retirement 

boom. We are using this recession, in which fewer people are retiring because their retirement savings have shrunk. A Federal job is 

actually a great, well-paying, stable job, and so some of our attrition numbers have fallen off. But we are not going to rest on our 

laurels, because as the economy rebounds, we could have a cliff of 

retirement. So, people who are eligible to retire this year don’t retire, the ones who are eligible to retire next year don’t retire, and 

then the year after, all three of those waves actually decide to retire. And so we are laying the groundwork to really invest in the 

workforce of the future. 

One thing we have done is centralized recruiting. As we are 

doing recruiting now for revenue agents, revenue officers, and lawyers, we are running it centrally out of a group that is reporting 

to my two Deputy Commissioners, who are involved in this every 

week. I get an update every week. In the past, it was very decentralized. So it allows us to leverage hiring, see candidates across 

the whole organization. So we have made this an enterprise priority. 

Two, we are focusing on fewer institutions for recruiting. Instead 

of having a scattershot approach to 1,000 colleges and universities 

around the country, without deep relationships, we are going to 

target 100 and have much deeper relationships. We want to get to 

know the heads of the accounting departments, the deans of the 

law schools, the different professors, so that we are doing recruiting as we go. And so we are using this current hiring wave as an 

experiment around more focused centralized recruiting. 

We are also making senior executives responsible for recruiting 

in geographic areas and developing relationships with the schools. 

If the head of an accounting department goes to meet somebody 

who runs a business unit, it is a much more engaging conversation 

than meeting an HR specialist who just does recruiting. And not 

to denigrate—I mean, we have a great HR group and they have an 

important role to play—but it is a partnership role. So we have a 

lot of focus on recruiting. 

RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION

We are also focusing on making the IRS a great place to work. 

And some of the examples of the things we are doing is trying to 

get rid of what I call ‘‘administrivia,’’ where managers spend more 

time filling out forms and not as much time mentoring and developing people. So we have a very focused effort on trying to knock 

down some of the paperwork burden of our frontline managers so 

that’s an attractive job, and so people can spend time managing, 

leading, motivating, coaching, and not spending as much time on 

non-value-added administrative work. And my belief is these things 

kind of build on each other. 

So we are also working on just training our leaders and managers to be great leaders and managers. We are driving a culture 

and a set of values through the organization that I am trying to 

teach by example, values like respect, continuous improvement, 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
41 

valuing diversity, personal accountability. People aren’t seeing me 

promote people who don’t live up to that set of cultural values. 

I am challenging managers and the senior people. You have a 

subject matter expert who maybe doesn’t exhibit the long-term behavior you want, but those people sometimes get promoted in large 

organizations. We are trying to be very focused on the future, because I believe if everyone shows up to work feeling respected, feeling they know what their job is, feeling that they are rewarded if 

they hit their goals, feeling that they are coached, mentored, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. If they don’t, the dead weight is 

moved out. People stay longer. People recruit their neighbors to 

work there, and the agency grows and flourishes. So I am very passionate and very focused on people issues, as is our whole senior 

team. 

TAXES AND PROFESSIONAL BASEBALL

Mr. SERRANO. In closing my part, let me just tell you that there 

is an ongoing joke in the committees I serve on is how long before 

I bring up Puerto Rico or Cuba. But it doesn’t fit in this hearing. 

So I will bring up something related that I am always curious 

about. 

You have folks here who come to play baseball, professional ballplayers, and they come from other countries. Do the Major League 

teams withhold their taxes just the way all other Americans get, 

or are they on their own with their business manager to pay their 

taxes? And, you know, you have States that have these arrangements where if you live in one State and work in another, you pay 

in one, and the other one recognizes the fact that you are living 

here and working there. There is no arrangement between countries; right? These millionaires pay in both the place where they 

have a legal residence and where they play ball; am I right? 

Mr. SHULMAN. Is this a baseball question or a tax question? 

Mr. SERRANO. A tax question. 

Mr. SHULMAN. Let me get back to you. I mean, I think you have 

different arrangements with—— 

Mr. SERRANO. So the question was not as silly as I thought. 

Mr. SHULMAN. No. I don’t want to give you the wrong answer, 

especially around a baseball question. 

Mr. SERRANO. Around a millionaire question. See, it always 

causes a problem. Okay. Thank you. 

SECURITY INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY WEAKNESSES

Mrs. EMERSON. I have two IT questions, and then I will put the 

rest in the record, Mr. Chairman, if you like. 

Over the past several years, GAO and Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration have been critical of the IRS’s IT security weaknesses, and so I am really very pleased that the budget 

proposes an increase to address that issue. 

Three questions with regard to this: What processes are in place 

to inform taxpayers if their personal information has been compromised? Number two, what will the additional $90 million included in the budget request provide? And number three, if this request is funded, and I am assuming it is going to be, can we expect 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
42 

the IT security criticisms from the GAO and others to be either 

minimized or eliminated totally? 

Mr. SHULMAN. I have been very clear that we have a sacred 

trust. The American people send us their financial information, and 

we need to be very focused on information security. I came into the 

job about a year ago, sat down with both GAO and our Inspector 

General, looked at those reports, and directed our team to take the 

findings very seriously. Start telling me what budget they need to 

knock down some of these security weaknesses and, pay attention 

to it and not always prioritize new functionality against security 

weaknesses. 

I will say you are never going to get to zero potential security 

weaknesses, and I will also say these reports have not talked about 

security breaches. They have talked about places where they could 

potentially be. So the American citizen should feel very confident 

that their information is protected at the IRS, but as the world 

changes, as people trying to do bad things with computer systems 

change, we need to stay ahead of that curve. 

For the processes for informing people, we have a privacy office 

that is very focused on identifiable information: Social Security 

number, name, dates of birth, the kinds of things you can use for 

identity theft. We have not had incidents of leakage out of the IRS 

in the area of identity theft, but we are very focused on that. 

We have a joint operations committee from which, literally, every 

morning I receive an e-mail that shows all sorts of physical security, information security issues, et cetera. It goes out to all our executives. I receive it and review it daily. Any time that there is a 

potential loss of data—of taxpayer data—that could harm a taxpayer, it goes to our head of Information Security and Disclosure. 

There is a committee that meets, looks at what the breach is, looks 

at the Federal standards about notification. If there is a need for 

notification, we do notification, and we err on the side of caution. 

So we notify lots of taxpayers that we found a security weakness, 

or a letter went out with your address to the wrong person. As we 

are dealing with 130 million taxpayers, mistakes happen, and we 

send letters out to them so they can double-check and make sure 

things are fine. 

The other thing is we set up an identity theft specialized unit 

last year. It used to be decentralized. Identity theft usually comes 

to the IRS not because you lost your identity through the IRS, but 

because someone steals your identity, and then they file a tax return with a fraudulent refund, or you are having a hard time getting your return because something happens. So we now have special indicators, a whole program to work through that issue. Again, 

when an American citizen has a devastating financial situation 

with identity theft, we want to be part of the solution. 

INFORMATION SECURITY

Your second question about what we will do, I think it is very 

important and lobbied hard to get the $90 million that we put in 

for security and material weaknesses. It is going to knock down not 

the whole list of everything that the IG and the GAO have ever 

shown, but a lot of the ones that we have decided are important. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
43 

One of the most important things that will happen is new systems. And on some of the old systems, we are going to put in audit 

logs, because there are always threats from the outside, but we 

have 100,000 employees, so we need to make sure we can track 

what people inside are doing. So a lot of that funding is to audit 

logs and addressing the weaknesses that were in those reports. 

As to your last question, what I will tell you is some of the longterm investments, such as in modernizing our data accounts, will 

help us to get a fully modernized data system. That is, a relational 

database for taxpayers, to knock out some of the material weaknesses that have been ongoing with GAO, like tracking accounts receivable at the entity level in our general ledger. So, some of that 

will take more time. This $90 million won’t take care of it all. A 

lot of things will be knocked down. 

I certainly hope that the GAO and the TIGTA will see progress, 

but I can’t speak for them. But what I will tell you is I believe in 

a balanced IT portfolio that invests in the future, that shores up 

current systems, and that invests in infrastructure. I think before 

I got here, there was a lot of emphasis on modernizing. Modernization is in the eyes of the beholder. But I have been very focused, 

and this budget reflects my handprint around a balanced portfolio 

of technology that sustains the good work already done, shores it 

up, focuses on security, builds the new database. 

BUSINESS SYSTEMS MODERNIZATION

Mrs. EMERSON. The thing that makes me so nervous about doing 

new IT or business modernization systems is just the history that 

we have seen from other departments within the government and 

the billions and billions and billions of dollars that have just been 

wasted. Are you comfortable with the processes you have in place 

to ensure that whichever contractor you hire can execute all of the 

changes that you need made, and that you can stay on track with 

those changes? 

Mr. SHULMAN. Let me say a couple things about my views on 

technology. One is in my life before this, I have built big infrastructure for the securities industry of the country, high-speed trading 

networks. Building big technology is difficult. Technology is changing. Expectations of the users are changing, American taxpayers’ 

expectations about the technology can change. It is also a nonlinear 

process. You don’t say, ‘‘right here, for the next 5 years, this is the 

plan,’’ because the world changes, and you learn as you go, and expectations change as you go. 

So it is usually best to breed technology when you do development. Usually it throws away about 30 percent of the code. So if 

you’re at a big corporation, the board of directors looks at it and 

says, ‘‘we are going to spend a million dollars,’’ but about $700,000 

of that will actually get implemented. That is not $300,000 of 

waste. That is the cost of operations, and that is what it takes to 

iterate through the process. 

Sometimes in government people have bungled it and wasted 

money, and sometimes people have characterized some of the 

throwaway, which is natural in a big IT program, as waste, when 

in reality that is just the way that IT works going forward. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
44 

I am quite confident in the IT leadership. I brought in a new 

Chief Technology Officer who had been Chief Technology Officer of 

Boeing, which had old systems that had to be revamped. He had 

been Chief Technology Officer of EDS. He had been Chief Technology Officer of Visa International. That person now runs our IT 

department, oversees contractors. So he has been a big contractor 

at EDS. He knows you need to hold people accountable, partner 

with them appropriately, but not absolve your responsibility for 

oversight. 

BUSINESS SYSTEMS MODERNIZATION

We are very focused on having the right combination of drive to 

get it done with tight processes and controls along the way. What 

I have told you privately, and I will say publicly, is I believe you 

put projects in place that you can get done on your watch. Success 

is a combination of the systems and the processes and the people, 

but it is also the leaders staying focused on the project. And so the 

modernization portfolio we are putting forward finishes our e-file 

project, which allows the whole 1040 series to be electronically filed 

not on our current standard, but on XML technology that can be 

used by everyone who e-files. So it is a lot more user friendly and 

stable. And the main thing we will get done is our account database—the goal is on my watch—which then allows us to really 

move forward into Web services and internal use of data for enforcement purposes. 

And so I am confident we are going to stay focused on it. My 

track record is that when I stay focused on it, things get done. I 

never promise that everything is going to be done perfectly, but we 

know that we are asking for money, and we are asking for people 

to believe we can get it done. I think I have got as good a team 

as I have seen in private-sector or government, so we have a good 

chance of getting it done, and we will keep running tight processes 

to maximize the chances of good, strong delivery. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Hopefully you can serve as an example to the 

rest of government then. Thank you very much. 

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you. I will submit the rest of my questions 

for the record. 

You have questions. 

Mrs. EMERSON. I have questions I would like to submit as well. 

Mr. SERRANO. It shall be. 

CLOSING STATEMENT

We thank you for your testimony. We stand ready to assist you. 

We fully understand the role that you play, how important it is. I 

was very appreciative of your comments that the agency will be 

sensitive to the fact that during difficult economic times, people 

who intend to be good citizens that pay their taxes run into issues, 

situations just like they did with their mortgage or their rent or 

the children’s tuition. They didn’t intend to, it just happened that 

way. And it is very important for us to hear that. 

It is important for us also to hear that you will continue to reach 

out to those folks who have limited proficiency in English to help 

them walk through the system and the fact that you are reaching 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
45 

out to the taxpayer to try to help them. We stand ready to assist 

you in every way. So we congratulate you on that work, and, as I 

say, we understand how difficult this job is, but you seem to continue to want to do it and do it right. 

Let the record show, however, that the Commissioner did come 

here unable to answer just one question: How baseball players pay 

and where they pay their taxes. And that is one that I think we 

will get quite a bit of study and analysis. 

But we thank you for your service, and we thank you for your 

testimony here today. 

Mr. SHULMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. SERRANO. The meeting is adjourned. 

QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED BY CHAIRMAN JOSE E. 

SERRANO 

TAXPAYER SERVICES

1. With regard to the budget request for Taxpayer Services, the overall Taxpayer 

Services request is one percent below 2009, while the Filing and Account Services 

budget activity, which includes both submission processing costs and the cost of running the IRS 1–800 help line, among other things, is 2.2 percent below last year. 

If the IRS falls short of its electronic filing goals next year—and submission processing costs rise as a result—is there a risk that the IRS will be left with insufficient resources to staff the 1–800 help line service, and that taxpayer service will 

suffer as a result? 

2. The fiscal year 2010 IRS budget submission shows that the IRS is planning 

a 71.2 percent Level of Service on the IRS 1–800 help lines for fiscal year 2010. This 

is lower than the 82 percent Level of Service achieved in fiscal year 2007. What is 

the IRS currently doing to improve the Level of Service on the phone lines, and why 

isn’t the IRS aiming for a higher Level of Service on its phone lines for fiscal year 

2010? Would a higher appropriation for Taxpayer Services, above the budget request, ensure a higher Level of Service on the 1–800 help lines? 

AUDITS OF LARGE FINANCIAL SERVICES COMPANIES

3. IRS data, as reported by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at 

Syracuse University, show that only 15% of large financial services companies were 

audited in 2008, compared with 64% of all other large corporations. Why are large 

financial services companies less likely than other large companies to be audited? 

Is the IRS budget request for Enforcement designed to help boost the number of audits of large financial services companies? 

BUSINESS SYSTEMS MODERNIZATION

4. With regard to Business Systems Modernization, I understand the IRS is embarking on a new direction with regard to the Customer Account Data Engine, the 

project aimed at modernizing the taxpayer database. Please describe for us exactly 

what BSM schedule changes the IRS is envisioning, and why. What was wrong with 

BSM’s previous schedule? Are you confident that full modernization is still on track, 

and that delays and cost overruns will be avoided? 

HEALTH COVERAGE TAX CREDIT

5. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act included changes to the Health 

Coverage Tax Credit program, designed to expand the numbers of taxpayers who 

are eligible to participate in the program. To help the IRS handle the increased volume in fiscal years 2009 and 2010, $80 million in supplemental appropriations was 

provided to the Health Insurance Tax Credit Administration. Does the IRS have a 

reliable estimate at this point as to how many additional taxpayers are participating 

or will participate in this program? Is the $80 million in additional supplemental 

appropriations sufficient to allow the IRS to effectively administer this program this 

year and next year? 

6. The budget request assumes $13.7 million in savings as part of a ‘‘Governmentwide Reduction for Productivity Improvements.’’ Please describe the current types 

of expenditures and inefficiencies in which the IRS expects to achieve cost savings. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
46 

Why are a disproportionate amount of these savings—$10.6 million—expected to 

come from the Operations Support account? 

AUDIT RATES

7. For each of fiscal years 2007 and 2008, how many correspondence audits were 

conducted of taxpayers with adjusted gross income between $100,000 and $200,000? 

8. For each of fiscal years 2007 and 2008, how many face-to-face audits were conducted of taxpayers with adjusted gross income between $100,000 and $200,000? 

9. For each of fiscal years 2007 and 2008, how many correspondence audits were 

conducted of taxpayers with adjusted gross income greater than $200,000? 

10. For each of fiscal years 2007 and 2008, how many face-to-face audits were conducted of taxpayers with adjusted gross income greater than $200,000? 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
47 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 86 here 53601A.017
48 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 87 here 53601A.018
49 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 88 here 53601A.019
50 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 89 here 53601A.020
51 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 90 here 53601A.021
52 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 91 here 53601A.022
53 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 92 here 53601A.023
54 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 93 here 53601A.024
55 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 94 here 53601A.025
56 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 95 here 53601A.026
57 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 96 here 53601A.027
58 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 97 here 53601A.028
59 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 98 here 53601A.029
60 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 99 here 53601A.030
61 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 100 here 53601A.031
62 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 101 here 53601A.032
63 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 102 here 53601A.033
64 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 103 here 53601A.034
65 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 104 here 53601A.035
66 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 105 here 53601A.036
67 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 106 here 53601A.037
68 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 107 here 53601A.038
69 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 108 here 53601A.039

dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
(71) 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 20, 2009. 

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET 

WITNESS 

PETER R. ORSZAG, DIRECTOR 

Mr. SERRANO. The subcommittee will come to order. We apologize 

for the delay. We were on the House floor voting on the credit card 

bill that had a gun in it. It is very strange; I don’t know if that 

means from now on, when you go to an ATM machine, you need 

to be packing. 

Mrs. EMERSON. It is just Federal parks, Joe. 

Mr. SERRANO. Oh, I see, only for Federal parks. 

We welcome you to our annual hearing with the Office of Management and Budget. We again apologize for the delay. 

OMB, of course, plays the lead role in formulating the President’s 

budget, which we spend so much time studying and debating. On 

that subject, I would like to say how refreshing it is that this year’s 

budget gives the Appropriations Committee some fairly realistic 

numbers to work with rather than continuing the previous approach of pretending that we don’t need to adequately pay for all 

the important things the government does in areas like public safety, education, science, and health. 

But while OMB does the Nation’s budget, we do OMB’s budget, 

which is one of the reasons we are having this hearing today. 

Last year we decided it was time to help OMB out a bit. Over 

the years their funding has not kept up with rising costs, and as 

a result, the size of the OMB staff has been shrinking. In the 2009 

appropriations bill we tried to help reverse that trend by adding 

money to restore some staff and also to deal with problems in 

OMB’s computer system. At today’s hearing we will be interested 

in learning how OMB is using those funds. 

Our subcommittee also crosses paths with OMB in the general 

provisions carried out in our bill dealing with matters of government-wide policy. For example, one issue that we have been concerned about is the rapidly rising volume of government contracts 

as the previous administration increasingly turned to private contractors to take over functions previously performed by public employees. Some of that activity may have been beneficial, but much 

of it has been wasteful, inefficient, and demoralizing to the Federal 

workforce. 

Further, far too many contracts are being awarded without full 

and open competition. And there has been inadequate management 

and oversight to make sure that contractors actually perform and 

provide good value. 

To help deal with these problems, we have been carrying various 

requirements and restrictions in our annual bill, and we are gratiVerDate Nov 24 2008 04:04 Dec 16, 2009 Jkt 053601 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A601P2.XXX A601P2

dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
72 

fied to see that policy change is on the way in the executive branch 

as well. President Obama has asked the OMB Director to study 

various issues regarding Federal procurement in cooperation with 

other senior government officials and to make recommendations for 

change. We look forward to the results of that effort. 

OMB also deals with government-wide policy in a number of 

other areas, including the regulatory process, information, technology, and statistical policy. We are likely to explore some of these 

areas in the course of this hearing. 

Our witness today is Peter Orszag, who was appointed Director 

of OMB by President Obama. Dr. Orszag is an economist by training. During the Clinton administration, he served as Special Assistant to the President For Economic Policy and in various positions 

at the Council of Economic Advisors. He has been a Senior Fellow 

and Deputy Director of Economic Studies at The Brookings Institution and, most recently, has worked in the legislative branch as Director of the Congressional Budget Office during ’07 and ’08. 

Welcome, Dr. Orszag. 

And we really do welcome you to today’s hearing. I must say that 

in reading some things about you, I should have been impressed, 

but I was troubled by the fact that while I try to run at 7:15 in 

the morning, you run at 6:00. And you should never try to—take 

advice from Mayor Fenty. Every time I see him running or he sees 

me running, he slows down to make it look like I am fast because 

he knows who handles his budget. 

So if you see me out there, just look like you can’t keep up with 

me. I would appreciate that. 

But welcome today. And I turn now to my colleague and friend, 

Jo Ann Emerson, from St. Louis Cardinal territory. 

Mrs. EMERSON. St. Louis Cardinal territory it is, but I am very 

pleased, Director Orszag, to know that you are a Toby Keith fan, 

and so am I. As a matter of fact, I recently went to one of his concerts with some radio guys from my district. It was quite interesting, but it was lots of fun. 

Anyway, I can’t begin to tell you how much we appreciate the 

hard work that your staff of, what, just about 500 does, and the 

dedication that all of you have in serving the American public. It 

is not an easy job, and obviously you are always made out to be 

the bad guy—by us appropriators, particularly—but nonetheless, 

thank you. Because of those enormous responsibilities that you all 

have in assisting the President—any President, Republican or 

Democrat—it is very important that we give you the tools you need 

to do your job, and I am very appreciative. 

However, I am also, and it would be expected, I think, of my 

party that I am not too excited about the Federal budget for fiscal 

year 2010. I know that the American public knows how tough 

things are, and they also believe, at least my constituents believe, 

in shared sacrifice. 

But I can’t tell you—every time I am home they want to talk 

about the budget and the, you know, $1.84 trillion projected deficit 

for 2009 and those deficits well into the future. And when I say, 

well, in the tenth year things will go down to, you know, the billions, they look at me and they just can’t comprehend that. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
73 

So this is worrisome. It is worrisome to me. It is worrisome to 

my very frugal constituents who are not at all wealthy. As a matter 

of fact, I have the 20th poorest district in the country. But nonetheless they are very worried, and they ask me all the time, Where 

are we borrowing this money from, China or Saudi Arabia, even 

sovereign wealth funds. So I am worried that this public borrowing 

will crowd out investment in the private sector, which could potentially slow recovery. 

They are asking me who is going to ultimately pay for this borrowing; is it our children, our grandchildren, or their grandchildren? And what will this budget do to the country’s long-term 

health? Are any tough funding choices being made? 

And I know it is not easy. So while we may not agree on all of 

the budget policies, I really do recognize the challenges that you all 

face, and I hope that you know that we want to work as closely and 

as collaboratively as we possibly can. 

So thanks so much for being here. 

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you. 

Just for the record, she mentioned 20th. I represent the poorest 

congressional district in the Nation, located within the richest city 

on Earth, within walking distance of the wealthiest congressional 

district in the Nation, which is the East Side of Manhattan. My 

constituents don’t like to get into that either, but they know that 

spending money on education and health care and making their 

lives a little better is a good expenditure. So they are as frugal as 

anybody else, but they also know that government can’t stay totally 

away from their future. 

We once again thank you. We ask you to keep your testimony 

down to 5 minutes. Your full statement will go in the record and 

that will give us time to grill you to death before us today. 

Mr. ORSZAG. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Emerson, members of the committee. 

Actually, before I begin, let me just say two things briefly. One 

is with regard to running. I did make the mistake of going running 

with Mayor Fenty and realized after 2 or 3 minutes my sole objective was not to come in last because they are way too fast. 

In September, I will be attending the Toby Keith concert at the 

Nissan Pavilion. So maybe we can get together to go out and listen 

to Mr. Keith. 

Thank you very much for having me here today. We did important work together with regard to the Recovery Act to get the economy back on the path towards economic growth, and there is much 

more to be done. 

The fiscal year 2010 budget, overall, is intended to move the 

economy, help push it out of the worst recession that we have experienced since the Great Depression and bring down medium-term 

and long-term deficits. We do that by investing in key areas like 

in education and clean energy, and in—especially with regard to 

the fiscal path that we are on, I have said repeatedly that the most 

important thing we can do is bring down health care costs. If 

health care costs over the next four decades grow at the same rate 

as they did over the past four, Medicare and Medicaid will go from 

5 percent of the economy today to 20 percent by 2050. That is 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
74 

unsustainable and that needs to be changed, and changing that has 

to be at heart of our health care effort this year, working with you. 

I could go on about education and clean energy, but perhaps we 

can leave that for the question-and-answer period and just turn to 

the work that OMB does. 

One of the things that we are trying to accomplish is putting a 

significant emphasis on evidence-based policy making, looking at 

specifically what works and what doesn’t. I was particularly heartened by the fact that the Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy recently commended the administration for emphasizing evidence in 

making our decisions; and I would be happy to talk about, for example in education, the way that we are trying to reorient some 

of the programs that have been demonstrated not to work as well 

towards those that do to get as much as we can from taxpayer dollars. 

Part of what we are trying to do also involves managing the Federal Government better. The President has put forward and nominated Jeff Zients as his first Chief Performance Officer and Deputy 

Director for Management at the Office of Management and Budget. 

If he is confirmed, he will lead the overall administration effort in 

trying to make government work better. And that has multiple 

components; a key component is improving and motivating the 

quality of the Federal workforce. 

This morning I attended the award ceremony for the best places 

to work in the Federal Government. I was very pleased that OMB 

and CBO, they actually tied for third, which is good. We are going 

to look to beat the tie next year. 

But there is much that can be done to promote the Federal workforce, because that is at the heart of what we are trying to do. And 

that speaks in part to contracting, it speaks to acquisitions. It is 

very difficult to get anything done in government without a highperforming workforce. 

So we have a robust agenda to try to shorten the hiring process, 

provide better training, provide better mentoring, provide better incentives for high performance, working with John Berry, who 

heads up the Office of Personnel Management. 

There are other components to the management agenda which I 

could speak to also, but let me, in my brief remaining time, turn 

to OMB itself. 

OMB could not succeed without its cadre of highly qualified and 

just outstanding staff, but in recent decades OMB has taken on 

more responsibilities including in financial management, procurement oversight, E-Government, to name just a few. 

Staffing levels have actually steadily declined. If you look at 

around 1990, for example, OMB staffing was in excess of 600 budgeted full-time equivalent staff. By 2008, budgeted staffing levels 

had fallen to 489, and this was during a time in which OMB was 

asked to do more. 

As the chairman already noted, in the fiscal year 2009 budget 

appropriations, Congress recognized that staffing at OMB had become insufficient; and we appreciate the funding that you provided 

that will allow us to raise our staffing to 528 FTEs, still significantly below where we were 20 years ago, but nonetheless above 

where things had been in 2008, for example. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
75 

Largely as a result of annualizing the cost of those additional FTEs, the President’s budget requests $92.7 million for OMB in fiscal year 2010. So I thank the subcommittee for having funded the 

additional staffing in the fiscal year 2009 appropriations cycle. I believe it represents an important investment in being able to make 

government work better and look for more effective programs; and 

I look forward to working with you. I hope you will fund the 2010 

request at the level that we have submitted. 

And I would welcome your questions. Thank you. 

Mr. SERRANO. Well, thank you. In 2009, this subcommittee provided OMB with a $10 million increase, a decision made before you took office. What priorities have 

you set for using that increase and why? To the extent you are 

using the funds for increased staff, what functions within OMB 

would the additional staff be assigned to? 

Mr. ORSZAG. The majority of the increase does go for additional 

staff, as I just mentioned. That reflects the decline that had occurred, and I think, coming into OMB, a clear need for additional 

staff in some areas. 

One of the changes we made, for example, was to create—recreate what had existed during the 1990s, which is a PAD, or Principal Associate Director for Health Care, given the importance of 

health care policy not only this year but on an ongoing basis. So 

one important area is health care. 

But, in addition, I mentioned Jeff Zients, who will be the Deputy 

Director for Management. We have some additional staffing on the 

management side of things, even though I don’t like that separation between budget and management. If you just look at the org 

chart, at least, on the management side there are additional staffing. 

The majority of the additional funding went for personnel, which 

is not surprising given that roughly 80 percent of OMB’s overall 

budget goes for personnel. That is also where we put the bulk of 

the additional resources. But in addition to that, there was funding 

provided for some additional improvements to the MAX system, 

which is the computer system that we use for budgeting, and other 

IT investments including in a—I have to say there was a mixed reaction to requiring OMB staff to have BlackBerrys so that we could 

reach them all during—any time of the day or night. 

Mr. SERRANO. Maybe they can give us their pin number so we 

can reach them. 

So obviously there is going to be an emphasis on the health care 

issue, government-wide actually, but certainly at OMB. 

Mr. ORSZAG. Absolutely. I would say I am personally probably, 

depending on the week, spending a half to two-thirds of my time 

on health care right now. 

Mr. SERRANO. You mentioned MAX system. What else can you 

tell us? How much of the 2009 appropriation are you using for that 

and where are we at? 

Mr. ORSZAG. Sure. 

Of the 2009—let me just give you—in total, the MAX funding for fiscal year 2009 was $4.1 million. There was some additional funding that is being provided, $435,000, in fiscal year 2009, so that 

would bring the total to about 4.5. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
76 

Let me just say, there is a strategic question that we are working 

our way through with regard to upgrading and improving the MAX 

system. One of the complaints that I get from OMB staff and from 

agency staff is—involves the operations of the MAX system. So we 

are in the process of evaluating the best way forward in improving 

it. 

Mr. SERRANO. Well, our information is that it is over 20 years 

old; is that correct? 

Mr. ORSZAG. It is old, yes. I can’t give you the exact date. I may 

be able to get it, but it is something like 20 years old, yes. 

Mr. SERRANO. You buy a computer, and a couple years later it 

is not working properly. So how the heck did you get all those 

numbers? Was that the reason why we were saying throughout the 

year that those numbers were not correct? 

Mr. ORSZAG. Well, it is an old system. It still works. I think the 

issue is not whether it works or not, but rather how cumbersome 

it is and whether it could be made more efficient. And so one of 

the complaints that is issued is just how long it takes to enter 

things into the MAX system, that it is not as effective as it could 

be in—so it is not a question of sort of quality or accuracy. It is 

more, I think, a question of degree of difficulty of inputting and 

processing the information. 

Mr. SERRANO. In addition to your regular budget request this 

year, the President’s budget is seeking 1.75 million for a Partnership Fund for Program Integrity, which would be administered by 

OMB. What is the purpose of that fund and how would it be used? 

And under the partnership proposal it looks like OMB would actually be administering a substantial grant program. Is it appropriate for OMB to be running programs itself? Does OMB have the 

expertise to do so? 

Mr. ORSZAG. No. And we won’t. So let me try to be clear about 

what this is intended to do and how it would be administered. 

There are many government programs that are the joint responsibility of the Federal Government and State and local governments. Consider Medicaid, for example. The SNAP program, which 

used to be called food stamps, has some joint Federal-State roles 

also in terms of processing applications. 

One of the problems that we have is, because of the lack of adequate IT infrastructure in many States, someone applying for this 

program, information about that person, may not be usable for 

some other program. What we are trying to do is see if we can become more effective. This is a general theme, making sure that the 

right person gets the right benefit at the right time and not otherwise. 

If you are on this system and you don’t qualify for this benefit, 

then we need to be able to kind of crosswalk that better. And similarly if you are over here and it does look like you qualify for this 

other benefit, we might want to notify you of that. 

What we are trying to do through this program is conduct some 

pilot projects that would allow better IT integration across different 

platforms, across different programs. So what will happen is, these 

pilot projects would be administered by agencies. 

We will not be administering them. But in the examples I was 

just giving, either HHS or the Department of Agriculture, or you 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
77 

can imagine the Department of Labor in other settings, administering a grant for a pilot project to see if we can better integrate 

and provide an IT backbone for some of the programs that are the 

joint responsibility of the Federal Government and the State government. Our role would just be to help evaluate the submissions 

for those pilots, the sort of grant applications, if you will. 

Mr. SERRANO. So it would be clear to us that you would not be 

running a grants program as such. 

Mr. ORSZAG. No. The grants pilot programs—the grant would 

run from a Cabinet agency with a State or locality. We would play 

some role in helping to choose which pilot projects to fund. 

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you. 

Mrs. Emerson. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am going to ask you a policy question. I will get to the other 

issues, budget issues afterwards. 

Recently you made three points that health care—on health care 

reform, one, that health care reform would have to be deficit-neutral, self-financing, and work to keep the overall costs of care low. 

I think you said, quote, ‘‘You are not going to see a deficit increasing health care reform.’’ 

In the House, I am actually working on several different reform 

measures including a program to initiate tax credits for insurance 

expenditures up to about $17,000 for a family of four. And obviously any plan that requires a personal mandate for health insurance, with which I agree, or a public option that gets the Federal 

Government into the insurance business, with which I don’t agree, 

at least at this moment in time, is going to cost the taxpayers 

money. 

I also appreciate the fact that the various stakeholders in the 

health care system have come to the White House offering concessions, which you all ball-park at about $2 trillion, I think. I also 

appreciate the fact that you all have budgeted for a down payment 

on reform of about $634 billion. But I don’t see that down payment, 

if you will, being part of a self-financing health care reform because 

the savings aren’t necessarily going to be taken from the health 

care system, with perhaps the exception of Medicare Advantage. 

So my first question is, why does a self-financing health care reform require a $634 billion down payment from the U.S. taxpayer, 

who has seen no reform in the system to this point? First question. 

Second, can you tell me how the administration plans to control 

costs in the private sector despite the serious problem of medical 

inflation which, outside the scope of Medicare and Medicaid, has a 

particularly severe effect on America’s seniors? And if the big pharmaceutical companies and insurance giants can afford to voluntarily offer $2 trillion in savings—which, to me, should really be 

about $3 trillion—as a consequence of just being asked, doesn’t that 

signal then the existence of other meaningful regulatory reforms 

that could be achieved in Medicare and Medicaid? 

So what measures are you all taking to create savings in existing 

government health care programs without cutting benefits to citizens and seniors? 

And last, how do you—this is the part that is probably the most 

complex. How do you plan at OMB to measure the savings genVerDate Nov 24 2008 04:04 Dec 16, 2009 Jkt 053601 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A601P2.XXX A601P2

dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
78 

erated by the private sector for Medicare and Medicaid and other 

government programs, whether it is SCHIP or the like, in an effort 

to leverage health care reforms? And how are we going to hold the 

private sector to its commitments? 

I am sorry. There are several questions. 

Mr. ORSZAG. That is okay. Thank you. Let me try to answer that 

in two steps. 

The first involves whatever happens within the next 5 or 10 

years within the Federal budget. We have been clear that over the 

next 5 or 10 years we are insisting that health care reform be deficit-neutral with hard, scorable savings—that is, with savings that, 

for example, CBO would score, including through changes to Medicare Advantage, but including through changes in reimbursement 

rates for hospital readmissions and home health agencies and a 

whole host of other proposals that we have put on the table. 

The second piece involves changes that we call ‘‘game changers,’’ 

changes in the way that health care is practiced in the United 

States that are unlikely to be scored by CBO, but that are crucial 

to, A, the long-term fiscal path that we are on, and B, that require 

the involvement of the private sector in order to work. 

So what do I mean by that? I mean four things in particular. 

And let me back up. We have huge variation across the United 

States in health care costs for a beneficiary that you can’t explain, 

based on—— 

Mrs. EMERSON. Region. 

Mr. ORSZAG. Across regions, across hospitals within a region, 

across doctors within a hospital, which is perpetuated by a lack of 

specific information about what is best for a particular patient, and 

a payment system that just says always do more rather than do 

better. 

So what do we need to change? We need health information technology so that we reduce redundancy and we eliminate the need to 

fill out that form every time you go to a doctor. We need more research into what specifically works, so your doctor is armed with 

better information. We need prevention and wellness so that we 

are oriented towards health and not just health care. And, by the 

way, all three of those steps were—there was significant progress 

made in the Recovery Act. 

And, finally, we need changes in financial incentives so that hospitals and doctors are not penalized for more effective care. That 

is what happens today. If you have a hospital that is really good 

at avoiding readmissions, for example, they are financially penalized relative to some other hospital that is not as good as that, 

which makes no sense. 

So what we are trying to do is in the first case, hard, scorable 

savings; and in the second case, change the set of incentives in the 

way that health care is practiced, so that we get to a more efficient 

system, because there are so many indicators that substantial efficiency improvements are possible. To do that second piece, you 

need the private sector involved. 

And that was what was so significant, I think, about what happened last Monday, which was that you had insurance companies, 

doctors, hospitals, device manufacturers, pharmacists saying, Yes, 

we can get more efficiencies out of the health care system. That 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
79 

will be crucial to helping to drive down premiums for consumers 

and sustaining the changes in Medicare and Medicaid, because if 

we just ramp down Medicare and Medicaid growth over here and 

the underlying rate of health care costs continue unabated, these 

changes would not be sustainable. 

Mrs. EMERSON. With regard to administrative costs for the insurance companies, can you actuarially—I mean, do you know how 

much padding is in, on average, the 21 percent overhead costs that 

is claimed today? 

I mean, is there a way to get at that, so that if you have insurers 

saying, We will do a guarantee issue, we will have maybe a community rating, blah, blah, blah—all of which will help get costs 

down, because you can expand the number of people who are insured; but it is that administrative cost that is kind of tough to 

pinpoint. 

Is there a way to get at that? 

Mr. ORSZAG. Well, there have been some attempts. The 

McKinsey Global Institute, for example, tried to examine the administrative loadings or the administrative costs in our system relative to the other systems, to see what the differential is. 

One of the complexities, just for whatever it is worth, is, many 

of the things—for example, I mentioned prevention and wellness. 

Some of the things that insurance companies do to promote prevention and wellness will count as administrative costs in a sense or 

as nonmedical loss expenditures, which is typically what the category of administrative costs include. 

So, there is an example of—I don’t know that we would want to 

be discouraging that kind of cost as opposed to unnecessary duplication and lack of the complexity in forms and what have you. 

So I think that is the challenge. But it is clear that there are efficiencies that are possible, which is why the insurance association, 

AHIP, was part of that group last Monday and said, ‘‘Yes, we can 

do better on our internal administrative costs.’’ 

Mrs. EMERSON. Well, and even, you know, we have been able to 

get the administrative costs for crop insurance down substantially 

in the last 4 or 5 years. So, I mean, there is wiggle room. 

And one final question on this. Is it conceivable or can you 

score—maybe this is a better way of putting it—if, in fact, we took 

all Americans, regardless of whether they are Medicare, Medicaid, 

whether they are dual-eligible, whether they are uninsured, underinsured, we took all Americans and put them together in a plan 

like the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program and gave options—and, obviously, one would be okay for everybody, and then 

you could buy up—I mean, would that not be less expensive overall, perhaps, than having different types of programs and creating 

disparities? Like, if you have Medicaid, obviously Medicaid, for a 

lot of people, isn’t nearly as good as our basic BlueCross 

BlueShield. I mean, is it possible to even figure out how much 

something like that would cost? 

Mr. ORSZAG. Yes, it is possible. I mean, there are a couple of different dimensions to that. One is whether the individuals already 

have coverage and you are picking up additional costs, so there is 

sort of a displacement effect. The second is administrative savings 

from unifying and getting economies of scale into—you know, you 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
80 

put more people into a plan, the cost per beneficiary of fixed overhead can be lower. 

Although, the evidence suggests that you reach an efficient scale 

pretty quickly, so it sort of flattens out, and there is probably not— 

at level of the size of things like Medicaid, there is probably not 

very much additional efficiencies that are possible. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Okay. All right. I appreciate that. Thanks. 

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SERRANO [presiding]. Thank you. 

We will now begin our questioning under the 5-minute rule by 

members of the committee. And we will first go to the gentleman 

from Pennsylvania, Mr. Fattah. 

Mr. FATTAH. Thank you, Mr. Director. 

Now, the budget that OMB produced this year was $3.6 trillion. 

What was the budget last year? $3.1 trillion? 

Mr. ORSZAG. Well, actually, it depends exactly how one does the 

calculation. But it was actually, for fiscal year 2009, $4 trillion, 

under our proposals. Under current laws, $3.8 trillion. 

Mr. FATTAH. Okay. And, well, you added in the costs for the war 

effort, so you took that off the—rather than go through the supplemental route, which became the normal way to proceed, those costs 

are now included in the budget? 

Mr. ORSZAG. Correct. 

Mr. FATTAH. And you also included other items that somehow 

have been listed in supplemental efforts in the past, including responses to weather, hurricanes and the like, right? So you put 

those in, and that was preferable because it gives a better sense 

of what the real spending of the needs of the government may be, 

right? 

Mr. ORSZAG. Correct. 

Mr. FATTAH. Now, you also set aside—is it $636 billion for health 

care, this downpayment? 

Mr. ORSZAG. $635 billion. 

Mr. FATTAH. $635 billion. So when this final proposal comes forward, you expect that, even if it costs more or costs less, that you 

have at least allotted some dollars to try to phase in a health care 

solution? 

Mr. ORSZAG. Well, yes. And, in particular, that was intended to 

be a downpayment on whatever the ultimate reform looks like. We 

have been clear, though, that, to the extent that the ultimate reform involves any additional costs beyond that, they will need to 

be offset through either savings within the health system or revenue from outside the health system. 

Mr. FATTAH. Now, inside OMB and your budget, as you allocate 

your 500-plus employees—you talked about the percentage of your 

time focused on health care. What percentage of this FTE complement is focused on health care now? 

Mr. ORSZAG. I will look it up in a second, but it is more evenly 

distributed than my own time. And that is, frankly, the way it 

should be, because we have lots of other things going on at the 

same time. And while I can swing from one area to another quickly, it is hard to take a health analyst and put them on, you know, 

the defense budget. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
81 

So the allocation, though, in particular for fiscal year 2009, on 

health programs, we have roughly 50 staff. And that is, again, pretty evenly deliberated across national security, general government, 

natural resources, education, and then there are a few other offices. 

But in health care we have about 50 people. 

Mr. FATTAH. Now, it may be difficult for you to, as you go forward, to rationalize some of the critics—you know, I noticed when 

the $100 million savings was announced, people said, ‘‘Well, that 

is nothing.’’ And then you got to the $17 billion, and they said, 

‘‘Well, that is a drop in the bucket.’’ And then the health care announcement last week of $2 trillion in savings over 10 years from 

the various participants, people said, ‘‘Well, somehow it is still— 

you know, we are not on target.’’ It is kind of a moving target 

around here. 

But what is important, I think, from the committee’s standpoint, 

is to make certain that you have the resources at OMB to do the 

work that you need to do. And your budget calls for a small increase, 4 or 5 percent? 

Mr. ORSZAG. Five percent, yes, sir. 

Mr. FATTAH. Five percent. But at the same FTE complement as 

last fiscal year? 

Mr. ORSZAG. Yes. And, indeed, a bulk, a significant part of the 

requested increase takes—the fiscal year 2009 appropriations was 

passed in the middle of the fiscal year, and so we need to annualize 

the costs of the additional FTEs. And so a significant chunk of the 

increase from 2009 to fiscal year 2010 request reflects that 

annualization process. 

Mr. FATTAH. Right. Well, my only point is that, given the effort 

of the administration on a number of fronts, obviously it creates a 

significant challenge for OMB. 

Mr. ORSZAG. Yes. 

Mr. FATTAH. And, you know, the job of our committee is to make 

sure that you have the resources you need to serve the country and 

to serve the administration in the vital role that OMB plays. 

Mr. ORSZAG. I appreciate that. I would come back again, this 

morning, on the best places to work in the Federal Government, we 

did very well, ranked third overall. But on work-family balance, we 

were not so good. So, you know, the folks at OMB are working very 

hard. 

Mr. FATTAH. Well, I want to thank the chairman, but I think the 

chairman’s question about your 20-year-old computer system illustrates some of the concerns. And as we deal with health care and 

energy and balancing this budget and tax reform, which is also on 

the President’s agenda, we want to make sure that you have all the 

resources that are necessary. 

Mr. ORSZAG. I appreciate that. Thank you. 

Mr. FATTAH. And I have one question for the record on one of 

your program integrity efforts around erroneous payments, and I 

will submit that for the record, and I would like to get a response. 

Mr. ORSZAG. Sure, of course. Thank you. 

Mr. FATTAH. Thank you. 

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Culberson, the gentleman from Texas. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
82 

I appreciate your testimony here, Director. And, of course, the 

committee is going to do everything we can to help support the 

work of OMB. But I want to focus, if I could, your attention on 

what David Brooks on Friday in his column called approaching financial national suicide. 

In my opinion, the administration is not being realistic. And, by 

the way, I don’t play favorites here. I voted against $2.3 trillion 

worth of spending under President Bush. I represent his parents. 

And I have voted against $1.6 trillion in spending so far under this 

administration. 

I am deeply concerned, as Mrs. Emerson’s constituents are, with 

the financial path the country is on. And I, frankly, don’t see the 

estimates coming out of OMB as being grounded in reality. To 

have, for example, the President’s—where did I see that? You all’s 

budget this year, I think your term for it was that—I am sorry, I 

don’t have it right in front of me, but you would refer to the President’s budget this year as trying to return to being responsible. Yet 

the deficit that we are running is at record levels. It looks like, this 

year, OMB just increased your budget deficit estimate this year to 

$1.8 trillion. Estimates are that it is going to stay over a trillion 

dollars for the foreseeable future. 

We, according to David Walker, the comptroller of the currency— 

and I mean this very sincerely—this is not—I mean, forget—I have 

actually quit referring to the political parties. I would like to focus 

on what is fiscally responsible and what is fiscally irresponsible. 

And I really believe that we really need a little bit of Dave Ramsey 

in the way that the Federal Government approaches things and do 

everything we can to save money, even if it is a little bit at a time. 

And I really wanted, if I could, Mr. Chairman, to have the director talk to us about what the administration intends to do to try 

to—for example, let’s take one bite at a time. Medicare, the trustees tell us, is out of money in 2017. That is only 8 years away. 

Bankruptcy, there is no more money, no more checks. 

What is the administration specifically proposing to do to prevent 

Medicare from becoming bankrupt in 8 years? 

Mr. ORSZAG. Several things. 

First, we have already put forward in the budget—there was reference before—more than $300 billion in Medicare and Medicaid 

savings, including roughly $175 billion in Medicare Advantage savings, which would help to extend the life of the Part A trust fund 

to which you were referring. 

More important than that, though, is, if you look out over time, 

nothing else that we could possibly do will matter as much as 

whether we can reduce the rate at which health care costs per beneficiary are growing relative to income per capita, which has averaged 2 to 2.5 percentage points per year. If we can get that down 

to 0.5 or 0.75 or 0.25 or something significantly below its historical 

level, that has such monumental effects. 

So, for example, Medicare and Medicaid savings in 2050, if you 

reduce the growth rate by 1.5 percentage points per year, which is 

difficult to do—it comes back to some of the things we were talking 

about—but if you succeeded in doing that, gets reduced by 10 percent of GDP. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
83 

Mr. CULBERSON. Right, but we may not even get there. I am 

talking 8 years. This is, like, immediate. What do you recommend 

we do in the next—— 

Mr. ORSZAG. Well, again, we have put forward $177 billion in 

Medicare Advantage savings, significant additional savings in 

Medicare, and then more that will be part of an overall health care 

reform effort. That is moving the trust fund in the right direction. 

Mr. CULBERSON. So you believe, if we adopted—let’s just say, for 

the sake of argument, that Congress adopted all of those proposals, 

Medicare will not be bankrupt, then, in 2017? 

Mr. ORSZAG. No, it would extend the life of the trust fund by a 

couple of years. More important than that is to reduce the longterm growth rate. If—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. Bankrupt in 10 years? 

Mr. ORSZAG. Just to give the number for a second, if you reduce 

the growth rate by 1.5 percent per year, you reduce the long-term 

imbalance in Medicare by two-thirds. It doesn’t eliminate it; there 

is more that would need to be done. But you would reduce the longterm imbalance within Medicare by two-thirds, which is the key 

fiscal problem that we face. 

Mr. CULBERSON. That is the long-term outlook. So you think you 

would extend the bankruptcy by maybe—prevent it by about 2 

years? 

Mr. ORSZAG. If you then also build in slower growth rate in 

health care costs overall, which would help on Medicare and Medicaid, it is an additional couple of years. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Do you disagree with—and my time is limited— 

David Walker, who is the comptroller for the United States, our 

auditor until about 18 months ago, is now head of the Peterson 

Foundation because he got so concerned. And this is really straight 

from my heart, and party labels are irrelevant when it comes to 

protecting the country’s solvency. Moody’s has now warned us formally that we could lose our AAA bond rating. That is extraordinary. 

David Walker points out in an editorial he ran, Mr. Chairman, 

in the Financial Times that it costs more to buy credit default insurance on U.S. Government debt than on debt issued by McDonalds. It is really scary that the—and he points out, how can one 

justify bestowing a AAA rating on an entity, the United States, 

with an accumulated negative net worth of more than $11 trillion 

and off-balance-sheet obligations of $45 trillion, and an entity that 

is set to run $1.8 trillion-plus deficits for the current year and trillion-dollar deficits for the years to come? 

The chairman has been very generous with his time. But I want 

to, if I could, Mr. Chairman, just urge OMB to be realistic. And you 

have kids, I bet. 

Mr. ORSZAG. I do. I have two. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Let’s focus on what is good for them. And forget 

political party, and let’s make sure America is going to be solvent 

first. 

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you so much. 

Ms. Lee. 

Ms. LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
84 

Good afternoon. Well, first of all, let me say how happy I am to 

meet you. This is my first year on this subcommittee, and I know 

that OMB faces many challenges. And so I look forward to working 

with you on many of these challenges. 

One I wanted to just reference is the rising unemployment rate, 

as well as the harsh reality of living in poverty. The national rate 

now is about 9 percent. In my own State—I come from California— 

it is a little over 11 percent. Money that was invested in the economic recovery package hopefully will spur the growth of a green 

energy independent economy and will save countless jobs and create countless more. 

But many economists are projecting now that over 10 million 

more Americans will fall into poverty due to this recession. And so 

I am wondering if OMB has looked at poverty rates per se and is 

looking at policies, programs, and initiatives on behalf of the President to kind of make some suggestions on what we need to do to 

keep families out of poverty and those living in poverty, to help lift 

them out of poverty. That is the first part of my question. 

The second part is, last year, we passed, and it was signed into 

law, the legislation that repealed the international HIV travel ban. 

I believe OMB is responsible for reviewing the rule that HHS has 

put together. I think, if my information is correct, that that was 

submitted to OMB April 20th of this year. 

So I would just like an update on this rule and if there are any 

specific issues that OMB may have with regard to this, any budgetrelated issues, and how long do you think this is going to take. Because we passed this last year, it was signed into law by President 

Bush in our global HIV/AIDS initiative, and it is really time to lift 

this travel ban and to move on. And so, I am wondering about the 

bureaucracy in all of this and what your time frame is on it. 

Thank you again. 

Mr. ORSZAG. Okay, let me deal with the second question first. I 

need to be careful not to comment on things that are in the middle 

of the regulatory review process. But I am sure we can get back 

to you in writing with a date for a timetable for when the next 

steps will occur. 

With regard to unemployment and poverty, I guess I would say 

several things. First, one of the reasons that the President has put 

forward, and embodied in the Recovery Act we have, a progressive 

change in the tax system is, in terms of immediate impact, that, 

along with strengthened unemployment insurance benefits and 

other things, provides the most immediate relief to households. So, 

for example, the Making Work Pay Tax Credit, which is refundable, the American Opportunity Tax Credit for higher education, 

which also has refundability components, provides relief to lowand moderate-income families. 

Beyond that, and as you get out of immediate relief and into the 

not just providing the fish but learning how to fish, education and 

health are absolutely essential. And that is one of the reasons why 

the administration has focused so much on improving our educational system, not only in early childhood but throughout the 

process, and trying to get more college enrollment and more college 

graduation through an expanded Pell grant program; through simplifying the application form for Pell grants, which are too comVerDate Nov 24 2008 04:04 Dec 16, 2009 Jkt 053601 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A601P2.XXX A601P2

dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
85 

plicated right now; through reorienting the Perkins loan program; 

through a college access and completion fund that we are trying to 

create. 

And, finally, one of the things that I think has not received 

enough attention—we talk a lot about income inequality in the 

United States. The growing gap in life expectancy inequality has 

received very little attention. Most people know that life expectancy 

is going up. Many people know that better educated, higher-income 

people live longer than less educated, lower-income people. The fact 

that that gap between better educated, higher-income people and 

less educated, lower-income people is literally exploding in life expectancy I don’t think has received as much attention. 

One of the motivations—it is not the only one, but one of the motivations for reforming the health care system, not only to reduce 

costs but to expand coverage, is to get at that growing gap. 

Ms. LEE. Thank you very much. And let me just add to that, 

within that growing gap, though, you are looking at a large percentage of that growing gap being with communities of color, in the 

African American, Latino, and Asian Pacific American communities. Part of the health care reform debate has to include closing 

those health care disparities. 

And I just want to say for the record, Mr. Chairman, the TriCaucus, the Black, Hispanic, and Asian Pacific American caucus, 

have been trying to communicate what you just said to those who 

are beginning to write this health bill so that we can have a provision in the health care reform bill that really addresses this widening gap in disparities. And a large percentage, as I said, are 

based on race and ethnicity. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. SERRANO. I thank the gentlewoman from California, and I 

just want to piggyback on that statement. 

I think any health care approach that we take has to deal with 

the disparity. I mean, studies have taken place all over this country, and it just goes right along. It is not just housing, it is not in 

jobs, it is not how much people make, but it is in the health care 

delivery and what people get in return within that system. 

And so, if we are truly going to deal with health care, we have 

to make sure that the middle-class gets protected, absolutely, and 

we have to deal with the disparities in the system. 

Mr. ORSZAG. Absolutely. 

And, by the way, one other aspect of this is not just health care, 

but there are other aspects of health behavior that influence that 

life expectancy gap. For example, one of the things that I think we 

are hoping for, just as an example, in school nutrition reauthorization is to move the system towards providing healthier meals to 

kids so that you are on a better path, even apart from the health 

care system. 

Mr. SERRANO. And, with that in mind, a place that produces 

great food, the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Crenshaw. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. You will have a bag of oranges on your doorstep. 

Mr. SERRANO. And it is totally allowed under the rules. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Exactly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you for being here today. I just have a couple of policy-type questions to help me understand. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
86 

I know you used to work in a different agency, the Congressional 

Budget Office. And they just, as I understand it, they just came out 

and said that the red ink is going to be about $9.3 trillion over the 

next 10 years. And I think the White House, the original number 

was, I think, maybe about $2 trillion less. So that is about an, I 

don’t know, 18, 20 percent difference in terms of projection, what 

those numbers are. 

I was going to ask you, like, who is right? You are not there anymore, so—but I imagine there are some different criteria or different ways they calculate that. But just help me understand that 

accounting discrepancy, if you could. 

Mr. ORSZAG. Yeah, a lot of it is driven by very small differences 

in assumptions. One of the things, when you focus on the deficit, 

the impact gets magnified, because it is a difference between two 

very large numbers, revenue and outlay. So, for example, if spending is $1,000 and revenue is $950, the deficit is $50. If revenue 

then falls by 10 percent, the deficit will go up by almost $100, so 

it will go from $50 to $150. It will triple, the deficit will triple in 

response to a revenue decline of only 10 percent. 

And I think that is often what goes on in differences in out-year 

numbers, which is, don’t make it 10 percent, make it a 1 or 2 percent difference in the revenue number or the outlay number and 

you get these very dramatically different deficit numbers as a result. Because the deficit is very sensitive to even small changes in 

assumptions. 

And so, CBO itself will say, okay, the 2014 deficit is projected to 

be X, but our confidence interval is plus or minus $500 billion or 

$600 billion. So there is a significant amount of uncertainty as you 

go out over time, and that is because the deficit is so sensitive to 

small changes in the rate of growth, in capital gains realizations, 

in the ratio of taxes—lots of variables that feed into it. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. But, I guess, is it easy to manipulate what those 

numbers might be? If they are so sensitive, it is pretty important 

what the assumptions are, because you can, obviously, make it look 

better or make it look worse. And everybody is concerned about it. 

Does that bother you, or is that just kind of part of it? 

Mr. ORSZAG. What I think it suggests is being careful about the 

degree—while you do have to make your best guess, being careful 

about the degree of reliance that you are placing on, you know, a 

deficit forecast for 2019, because it is highly uncertain, and the 

probability that you are right is very, very small. 

But, as an example, CBO has a different pattern of economic activity than OMB does. They have, in a sense, slower economic 

growth for the next year or 2 or 3—I am sorry, faster economic 

growth, and then slower. 

If you look at the out-years, we are at about 2.7 percent in terms 

of GDP growth. The blue chip is at about the same rate. The Fed 

is at about the same rate. CBO is below that, and not for any— 

I don’t think they are trying to bias the numbers. I think they just 

have a different perspective on what the underlying productivity 

growth rate is, for example. But there is an example where we are 

in line with blue chip and the Fed and they are below it. And there 

are going to be others where we are on the other side. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
87 

These are done by professional forecasters both at CBO and at 

OMB. It is unfortunately the case that the art and science of economic forecasting is not as good as we would like. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. I got you. 

One other question, and this has to do with the big debate when 

we did the stimulus about Keynesian economic theory. There is a 

lot of discussion about that. And one of the studies I read, Christina Romer had done a study that kind of indicated, when you are 

talking about taxes, if you—I think she said tax increases are 

contractionary and tax decreases are, kind of, expansion-oriented. 

When you sit around talking about how to raise revenue, obviously there are some tax increases that are anticipated down the 

road. One of the things I saw in one of her studies is that if you 

raise taxes, like, 1 percent of GDP, then it decreases GDP by 3 percent. And, contrarily, if you decrease taxes by 1 percent of GDP, 

then you raise GDP by 3 percent. Kind of a 3-to-1 ratio. 

So, I mean, how does that jibe—when you all are sitting around 

talking, does she talk about that study that would lead you to believe that, if you reduced taxes, you could actually grow the economy? But there are a lot of proposals to raise taxes that come out 

of your shop. So, I mean, is she right or wrong, or is that— 

Mr. ORSZAG. Let’s separate a couple of things. 

First, it is traditionally the case that folks will argue, if GDP goes up by $3, you get something like a dollar, or maybe a little 

bit less than that, but a dollar in extra revenue. That is different 

from saying that the causality goes in the opposite direction. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. But did her study show that if you decreased 

taxes—— 

Mr. ORSZAG. I don’t think the multiplier was anywhere near that 

large. 

And what I would also say is, in terms of short-term economic 

impact, she has been very clear, which is consistent with traditional macroeconomic analysis, that if you are if a situation like we 

have today, where the capacity to produce is much higher than 

what we are actually producing, and you need to increase aggregate demand, that while tax relief can help—which is one reason 

why we included that in the Recovery Act—additional spending, 

that is, investments in infrastructure and direct spending, actually 

has a bigger per-dollar impact in closing that gap in the short 

term. And she has been clear about saying that also. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you. 

The gentlewoman from Florida. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. 

We have Florida bookends for you, Mr. Orszag. 

Mr. ORSZAG. There you go. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Good to see you. 

I wanted to turn to the issue of child pornography and the pursuit of individuals who are engaging in child exploitation on the 

Internet. 

I was the sponsor, along with our wonderful Vice President, Joe 

Biden, when he was in the Senate last year, of the Protect Our 

Children Act. That legislation was passed into law. It was designed 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
88 

to expand our ability to reach the 500,000—no exaggeration, 

500,000—known individuals that are trafficking in child pornography on the Internet. In at least one of three of these pornography 

trafficking suspects, we have a hands-on abuser who is abusing a 

real, local child. 

So we have been spending, in the previous administration, a colossally irresponsible amount of money. I mean, we were at something like $15.9 million. It was less than 2 percent of the cases— 

the FBI and the ICAC, our Internet Crimes Against Children task 

force, was able to investigate less than 2 percent of those cases. So the Protect Our Children Act authorized up to $60 million a 

year, for several years, for us to be able to strengthen the ICAC 

backbone and be able to allow them to investigate more cases. We 

know that, in 30 percent of the cases, when they investigate them, 

they rescue a child. So, at the end of the day, we only had $70 million included in NCMEC’s budget this last year, 2009. It went down to $60 million 

in fiscal year 2010. $21 million of that, in 2009, was budgeted by 

the Justice Department for the ICAC program. And, obviously, 

with less money for NCMEC, I assume that there would be less 

money for the ICAC. I don’t have a full breakout on that. 

I mean, the resources that we don’t spend are the children that 

we don’t save. And what I would like to know is, is the administration committed, through OMB actually including the request in the 

Protect our Children Act in your budget request next year, as we 

develop the components of the legislation, to fully funding the Protect Our Children Act and making child exploitation a priority? 

I also serve on the Judiciary Committee and had an opportunity 

to question the Attorney General, who did specifically tell me that 

he would seek full funding, fight for it, make child exploitation a 

priority, but also noted that he hoped he had a responsive OMB listening. And I said, ‘‘Conveniently, I sit on the Financial Services 

Appropriations Committee, and I am going to be able to ask him 

this week.’’ 

Mr. ORSZAG. Well, a couple comments. First, as you noted, there is $60 million in a broader fund, the 

missing and exploited children programs fund, that can be used for 

this purpose—part of it can be used for this purpose. In addition, 

there was $50 million in the Recovery Act that can also—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. But that is the whole NCMEC budget. 

Mr. ORSZAG. I understand, but that could be used for this purpose. So, the combined resources need to be sub-allocated, but there 

are resources there. 

I would be happy to work with the Attorney General, as we develop new budget proposals, to ensure adequate funding for this activity. And, you know, I haven’t received anything from him. We 

are in the midst of—we will be, over the next several months, be 

in the midst of putting together next year’s budget. And I would 

work with you in the appropriations process for fiscal year 2010 to 

ensure adequate funding. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. That would be great. Thank you very 

much. 

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you. 

Mr. Kirk. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
89 

Mr. KIRK. Senor estimado. 

Mr. SERRANO. Un placer para mi tambien. 

Mr. KIRK. We have spent so much time in this hearing talking 

about your situational awareness on what we have spent and how 

money is being spent. But a great part of your job is how we raise 

money. Your second source of funding is borrowed. So I wanted just 

to see what your situational awareness is, as the director of the Office of Management and Budget, on your current financial situation. 

Do you know the answers to these questions: One, how much 

have we borrowed since you have become OMB director? Two, who 

is your top provider of funds? Three, have any Treasury auctions 

gotten into trouble since you took office? Four, have any sovereign 

governments failed to sell debt since you took office? 

Mr. ORSZAG. I am sorry, could you repeat that one? 

Mr. KIRK. Have any sovereign borrowers failed to sell debt since 

you took office? 

And lastly, do you know how much the Fed has printed to cover 

U.S. debt? 

Mr. ORSZAG. Okay, so let’s just go in order. 

I can get you the precise figure, but, given that we are in May, I would be betting that roughly $800 billion to $900 billion in deficit financing and somewhat more than that, given the way that 

some of the credit transactions are occurring in the Federal budget, 

have been issued. I can get you the exact number. 

Mr. KIRK. Here is why I am worried. Do you know who raises 

your money on the borrowing side? 

Mr. ORSZAG. The Treasury Department does. 

Mr. KIRK. Where? 

Mr. ORSZAG. Bureau of Public Debt. 

Mr. KIRK. Have you ever been to that office? 

Mr. ORSZAG. No, I have not been. They report to the Secretary 

of the Treasury. 

Mr. KIRK. Since it is responsible for over 40 percent of the money 

that you raise, do you think you might want to take a visit there? 

Mr. ORSZAG. I would be happy to do so. Again, that bureau reports to the Secretary of the Treasury, and I have full confidence 

in the internal operations of the Treasury Department. 

Mr. KIRK. You may not have that. Actually, you borrowed $3.2 

trillion, because, remember, you have to roll over debt. 

Mr. ORSZAG. Okay. In terms of net issuance. 

Mr. KIRK. Correct. Who is your top lender? 

Mr. ORSZAG. The top lender, at this point, would likely be foreign 

creditors. And within foreign creditors, in terms of cash flow, China 

probably tops the list. 

Mr. KIRK. Has that changed probably in the last 2 months? 

Mr. ORSZAG. To my knowledge, I don’t know whether that has 

changed in the last 2 months. 

Mr. KIRK. I would hope that you would know the answer to that 

question, because this is the top provider of external funds to you. 

Mr. ORSZAG. Okay, again, though, responsibility within the Federal Government for issuing debt rests with the Treasury Department. 

Mr. KIRK. But this is 40 percent of the funds coming into you. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
90 

Mr. ORSZAG. I understand that. 

Mr. KIRK. Okay. Any problems in selling debt recently? 

Mr. ORSZAG. There were rumors of a potential issue with regard 

to one Treasury auction, but all Treasury auctions have been completed smoothly. 

Mr. KIRK. Actually, you had a big problem with a 30-year note. 

You had to lift the interest rate up 50 basis points. And the interest rate that you assumed for next year, which a lot of you budget 

projections hinge on, is actually a full half a point below where it 

is today. So I am worried about your situational awareness. 

What about—any other governments, western democracies having trouble borrowing money lately? 

Mr. ORSZAG. There have been various concerns in financial markets. I wouldn’t want to make a definitive statement without going 

through the numerous countries that issue debt all the time, especially if you are including just simply rolling over debt as opposed 

to net issuance. 

Mr. KIRK. The U.K. and Germany both failed to auction debt 

since you have become director. How much money has the Fed 

printed and then used that printed money to purchase U.S. debt? 

Mr. ORSZAG. Expansion of the—I would have to get you the exact 

numbers, but the expansion of the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet 

has been significant. And I don’t have off the top of my head the 

additional purchases of Treasury securities. 

Mr. KIRK. I am worried about that, because this printing of 

money—— 

Mr. ORSZAG. I understand the concern. 

Mr. KIRK [continuing]. Is $126 billion, so far, of printed money 

used to cover U.S. debt. If you were a creditor to the United States, 

would you be worried about that? 

Mr. ORSZAG. The particular concern being future inflation? 

Mr. KIRK. Correct. 

Mr. ORSZAG. No, I—again, look, the Federal Reserve is among 

the most credible financial institutions—or, central banks in the 

world. 

Mr. KIRK. Let me back up. Has the Fed ever used printed money 

to purchase U.S. debt at this level, ever, before the Obama administration? 

Mr. ORSZAG. My understanding—well, actually, you have to go 

back to the—in the modern era, after the 1950s, when the Fed and 

the Treasury went their separate ways, I don’t believe that that is 

the case. 

One of the reasons that the Federal Reserve changed policy, however—and I will refer you to Chairman Bernanke—is concerns 

about whether they were being as effective as they could be in 

doing their own job. And, beyond that, I am going to defer to Chairman Bernanke, who is, as you know, responsible for the Federal 

Reserve’s portfolio. 

Mr. KIRK. Right. Because this authority didn’t exist until last 

year, but now we have basically $126 billion in completely invented 

cash being used to cover Treasury auctions. It is no wonder that 

Treasury auctions are succeeding, because you can just print 

money to cover what you don’t sell. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
91 

Mr. ORSZAG. There are still significant, as you know, private entities—in fact, frankly, one of the striking aspects—— 

Mr. KIRK. Let me get to that. When you say significant—— 

Mr. FATTAH. Excuse me. Could the witness answer the question, 

please? 

Mr. KIRK. All right. Well, I just—— 

Mr. FATTAH. Chairman, could the witness answer the question? 

Mr. KIRK. I actually wasn’t—— 

Mr. FATTAH. We want to be able to hear what he is saying. You 

asked an important question. I would like to hear him. 

Mr. KIRK. You know, I haven’t interrupted you. 

Mr. SERRANO. Okay, let’s have some order in the committee. 

Mr. KIRK. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would just say, when you say there has been significant demand, what has happened to the demand for Treasuries since you 

have been director? 

Mr. ORSZAG. Bond yields have increased slightly, which would reflect—— 

Mr. KIRK. Actually, what I am talking about is the bid—— 

Mr. SERRANO. But the Chair would note that there is a desire to 

have the members hear the witness answer the question. 

Mr. KIRK. I am actually—let me refine the question. What is 

your bid-to-sale ratio since you have become—— 

Mr. ORSZAG. The best indicator of demand for Treasuries is the 

bond yield. And the bond yield is actually, if anything, remarkably 

low relative to history. It has increased somewhat. Over the past 

several weeks, it has increased by, let’s say, 30 basis points or so 

on the long end of the Treasury market. But if you look back over 

history, both in real and nominal terms, U.S. Treasury debt still 

has yields that are, if anything, very low by historical standards. 

That reflects, again, flight to safety and the view that the U.S. 

Government is still—that U.S. Treasury securities are still among 

the safest investments in the world. 

Mr. KIRK. So when we see a falling bid-to-sale ratio, which we 

have seen now, from a 7-to-1 ratio to a 2-to-1 ratio, you would be 

completely not—— 

Mr. ORSZAG. No, no, in other words—no, but the yield is a sufficient statistic. So there are various inputs that go into the yield, 

one of which is the one that you are referring to. 

But, ultimately, if you wanted to pick one thing reflecting the 

confidence or state of demand for Treasury securities, changes in 

the yield are the best single statistic, in my opinion. 

Mr. KIRK. Thank you. 

Mr. SERRANO. Time has expired. 

With Mr. Edwards’s permission, I would like to ask you a question. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Any time, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you. 

What was the outlook for the deficit in January 2001, and what 

was the outlook for the deficit in January 2009? 

Mr. ORSZAG. The outlook for the deficit in January 2001 was significant surpluses. The outlook for the deficit in January 2009 was 

a deficit well in excess of $1 trillion. 

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Edwards? 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
92 

Mr. EDWARDS. I thank the chairman for getting into my questions. 

And, obviously, every member has a right to ask questions. I 

think Mr. Kirk’s questions touch on important issues. I would say, 

for the record, I am little surprised we are getting into a Jeopardy 

situation today. And, for the record, let me say, many of the responsibilities addressed by Mr. Kirk’s questions are under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Treasury Department and other Federal agencies. 

But as long as we are going to play Jeopardy, let me just ask: 

Is it correct that, prior to the George W. Bush administration, the 

previous largest annual deficit in American history occurred in 

1992, under the administration of former President Bush, President George H.W. Bush? 

Mr. ORSZAG. Although, as a share of the economy, there were 

larger deficits in the early 1980s under the Reagan administration. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Right, but in terms of total dollars. Then, so, previously, as a percentage of the total GDP, there were larger deficits 

during the Reagan administration. 

Mr. ORSZAG. Right. And before that, during World War II. 

Mr. EDWARDS. And then, in terms of total dollars, the largest def- icit was in 1992 of about $292 billion, is that correct? 

Mr. ORSZAG. I can get you the exact figure. It will just take me 

a second. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. 

Mr. ORSZAG. 1992, total deficit was $290 billion. 

Mr. EDWARDS. $290 billion was the largest numerical deficit in 

any one year in the history of the country? 

Mr. ORSZAG. That is correct. 

Mr. EDWARDS. And then did President Bush, just to clarify, 

George W. Bush, when he was sworn into office, did he inherit a 

deficit or a surplus? 

Mr. ORSZAG. He inherited a surplus. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. And, at that time, it was projected those 

surpluses would continue for a number of years, is that correct? 

Mr. ORSZAG. That is correct. 

Your version of Jeopardy is pretty easy. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Yes, I am trying to make it balance out with my 

colleague. But the points are certainly serious ones. 

And am I also correct in understanding that, after the philosophy 

was pushed—and during the 8 years of the Bush administration, 

Bush 43, I think 6 of those 8 years Republicans controlled the majority in the House and the Senate. So these were essentially their 

budget proposals. We went from $292 billion in 1992 being the largest single deficit 

in American history to—do I understand the fiscal year 2009 budget, without a dime of deficit being added by President Obama, was 

going to be over $1 trillion? Is that correct? 

Mr. ORSZAG. $1.3 trillion. 

Mr. EDWARDS. $1.3 trillion. So that deficit for fiscal year 2009, 

put in place by former President Bush, again, with 6 of the 8 years 

of his administration—— 

Mr. ORSZAG. I am sorry, that was for fiscal year 2010. The fiscal 

year 2009 was even higher, $1.6 trillion. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
93 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. But prior to any additional debt being 

added by the Obama administration? 

Mr. ORSZAG. Correct. Well, actually, we would have to take out the Recovery Act. Let’s say well in excess of $1 trillion. 

Mr. EDWARDS. So about four times larger than any numerical 

deficit in the history of the country is what the Obama administration faced when he walked into the Oval Office on day one, is that 

correct? 

Mr. ORSZAG. That is correct. He faced a very significant deficit 

when he walked into office. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Now, if I could then go on to the question that I 

intended to ask. 

Although I do want to make a comment. I do want to thank the 

administration for its record increase request for veterans health 

care and benefits. It is the largest increase in 30 years, on a percentage basis, ever asked by a President. Just in nominal dollars, 

it is the largest increase, I believe, ever asked by any President for 

veterans. And, given the sacrifice made by America’s veterans and 

the continuing sacrifice of our service men and women, I salute the 

President for his effort in backing our veterans once they come 

home and face the consequences of their service and love of country. 

I just want to quickly ask you about a general sense of what a 

current services budget would entail. If we assume the same number of FTE, we assume no additional population served, whether it 

is a veterans program or whether it is a Health and Human Services program, what kind of an increase for fiscal year 2010 do we 

have to have just to maintain current services? If you make whatever broad and fair assumptions that you have to make. Is it 1 percent, 2 percent, 3 percent? 

Mr. ORSZAG. It is several percentage points. And, in particular, 

are you focused on appropriations in particular? 

Mr. EDWARDS. Yes, on appropriations in general. 

Mr. ORSZAG. So, in appropriations, it is about $100 billion on a 

$1.3 trillion base. So let’s call it 6 percent or so. 

Mr. EDWARDS. So, 6 percent just to maintain present services? 

Mr. ORSZAG. Yes. 

Mr. EDWARDS. So if one proposed a freeze in a budget—given 

that there are salary increases, health care cost increases, you are 

actually cutting present services, is that correct? 

Mr. ORSZAG. That would be one interpretation. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. 

And, finally, I want to thank you for practicing what you preach. 

You have a difficult job. From most of us, you hear that the deficit 

is too large but the spending programs that we support are underfunded, and that is a difficult job to take responsibility for. 

But you asked for a 5.4 percent increase, and that, according to 

the number you just gave me, would typically be close to or less 

than current services. And given all the new responsibilities you 

have, I respect you for putting limits on your budget request for 

OMB this year. 

Mr. ORSZAG. Thank you. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SERRANO. I thank the gentleman from Texas. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
94 

And now the gentleman from California, Mr. Schiff. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Orszag, I wanted to ask you about three issues, and I will 

just put them on the table as quickly as I can to give you a chance 

to respond. 

The first is the L.A. Courthouse, which I am deeply familiar 

with. I was an assistant U.S. Attorney in the building for 6 years. 

It has been the Judiciary’s highest priority, in terms of courthouse 

construction. It is old, it is insecure, it is inadequate in size. 

Congress appropriated the funds to build a new courthouse years 

ago, but many delays have now raised the cost pretty dramatically. 

And we just need to resolve this. And it will have to be part of an 

administration budget, because the numbers are just too big to do 

an add-on. So I would ask you to work with me and try to find a 

way that we can finally agree on a plan for the courthouse and 

meet the Judiciary’s number-one courthouse construction priority. 

The second issue I wanted to raise is NASA. I was delighted to 

see that we are starting this year with a budget increased to double physical science funding over the next decade. But I am concerned with the budget for NASA after 2010. In fiscal year 2011 

and over the 5 years that follow, the NASA budget is essentially 

flat. With inflation, that means a cut. 

As the world leader in science, planetary science, earth science, 

astrophysics, heliophysics, NASA has some of the foremost experts 

on climate change. I am deeply concerned about a flat budget for 

5 years and how that will affect the agency. So if you could talk 

a little bit about the administration’s plan for NASA’s future and 

whether that is just a temporary placeholder because we have new 

leadership coming in in NASA or whether there is really an intention to hold the budget flat. 

Finally, on SCAAP, this is enormously important for border 

States like California, and it has been zeroed out by the administration. OMB, a few years ago, made a finding that reimbursements do not reduce the incidence of crime committed by criminal 

aliens, which I think—it says, the program lacks goals and cannot 

measure such an outcome. 

This is an argument that is really, sort of, beside the point. First, 

by incarcerating illegal immigrants who have committed crimes, 

you are reducing crime by incapacitating them. So it is effective. 

Is it more effective because Federal money is used as opposed to 

State and local money? If that is the barometer, then there will 

never be support for the program. 

But that wasn’t the purpose. The purpose of the program and the 

language authorizing SCAAP basically said, it is the Federal Government’s responsibility to get immigration, illegal immigration, 

under control. Failing to do that, we need to help to defray some 

of the costs that are being imposed on the State through no fault 

of their own. 

So that is really the purpose of SCAAP. And you can’t measure 

it by saying, has it changed outcomes? So I would like to get, in 

your own words, an explanation for why the budget doesn’t include 

funding for SCAAP and whether that is an appropriate barometer 

of success for the program. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
95 

Mr. ORSZAG. So, in reverse order, with regard to SCAAP, two or 

three things. First, we do have $27 billion in border enforcement and related 

activities funding—20,000 Border Patrol agents, 33,000 detention 

beds. We are trying to take seriously the responsibility of enforcing 

border security. In addition, we have support for local law enforcement through the COPS program, which was funded in the Recovery Act and in the fiscal year 2010 budget. 

With regard to the SCAAP program in particular, the concern 

has involved the degree to which the funds are actually being used 

for the intended purpose as opposed to other purposes—purchasing 

vehicles, other either related or unrelated expenses. 

And so the primary concern—or I guess my primary answer is, 

we want to try to mitigate the problem in the first place, but then, 

to the extent that there still are unauthorized immigrants who do 

need to be detained, making sure that programs are as targeted as 

possible and not used for auxiliary services. That is the main concern. 

Mr. SCHIFF. And, Mr. Orszag, we are happy work with you, if 

there is further language necessary, to make sure the funds are 

targeted to the costs of incarceration. I am sure the States are 

happy to do that, because that is where the funds were both intended and my understanding is that is where they are used. But 

we will follow up with on you that points. 

Mr. ORSZAG. With regard to NASA, there is a 5 percent increase 

for fiscal year 2010. 

The out-year numbers will involve an ongoing discussion. As you 

know, we are transitioning from the space shuttle to other vehicles. 

There is a gap that arises in the meanwhile. And we have been in 

active discussions not only with the incoming leadership of NASA 

but John Holdren, who is the President’s science advisor, about the 

shape of the future NASA activities. 

It is one reason why we have asked a panel to take a closer look 

at how we can get the most from the dollars that we are investing 

and what the appropriate funding level is. And as that panel reports back, we would hope to work with you to ensure adequate 

funding for NASA. 

Mr. SCHIFF. And on the courthouse? 

Mr. ORSZAG. Oh, and on the courthouse, again, we can follow up, 

and look forward to working with you on that. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Great. Because that has been almost two decades in 

the making, and it just has to be resolved. 

And I had wanted to add to my colleagues’ acknowledgment of— 

I am really quite amazed at your encyclopedic knowledge of all the 

variety of programs you have to deal with. So, thank you for your 

good work. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you. 

Director Orszag, let me ask you a more general question about 

the role and the proper function of OMB, as you see it. 

Most folks, and certainly most people in Congress, understand 

the core role that you play in putting together the Federal budget. 

But you also have other roles that you play in reviewing agency 

policy, regulations, and management. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
96 

The question is, does that then create a problem? You are not a 

very large agency, and if you are going to review a lot, if not most, 

of what happens in government and people have to wait for you to 

give them clearance on a lot of these things, aren’t you then running the risk of being the bottleneck, the problem in the Federal 

Government, holding things up? 

In addition to that, in the last administration, there was a feeling that, more and more, you were ignoring—not you, but the 

OMB—was ignoring the desires, the vision, of people who were appointed by the President and cleared in different forms by the Senate, who had to wait for OMB to basically allow them to do what 

they wanted to do. 

How do you see the function of OMB? And do you think that we 

have to go back to a time when there was less of this desire to concentrate all that power in one office? 

Mr. ORSZAG. Thank you for the question. And I do appreciate 

that there have been concerns raised about the way in which OMB 

exercised its role in recent history. 

Let’s take the regulatory process as an example, though. It is 

clear that the regulatory agencies have responsibility for regulation. What OMB’s role is is severalfold. One is to make sure that 

what this department is doing is not inconsistent with what this 

department is doing and, sort of, forcing some coordination and collaboration and internal consistency across the various agencies, to 

the extent possible. 

The second is to suggest and to try to preserve some consistency 

in the methodology. It would be undesirable to have this agency 

over here conducting a cost-benefit analysis or some other analysis 

in one particular way and then another agency doing it in a completely inconsistent way. 

And then, finally, in addition to upholding the law and the statutes, there is a role for OMB in preserving the role of the President 

and the President’s priorities. 

All of which is to say, OMB plays what I would describe as a coordinating and, kind of, internal consistency check role, but the ultimate responsibility for the regulatory process rests with the relevant agencies. 

With regard to the size of OMB and whether we are a bottleneck, 

I have heard such complaints. I heard such complaints about CBO 

when I was there. What I would urge is that, to the extent that 

there are concerns, that people get in touch with me. We try to 

keep things moving and try to be on the ball as much as possible. 

And if there are particular concerns, I have encouraged other Cabinet officers to let me know or, if you have concerns, to let me know, 

and we can try to speed things along. 

The basic point, though, is there is always this question between 

the size of an agency and other dimensions. In other words, I would 

be concerned about OMB getting too big and then losing some of 

the—if one of the roles you are trying to do is a coordinating and 

internal consistency check, if you are, yourself, so big that it is difficult to coordinate internally, that is self-defeating. 

Mr. SERRANO. You made an interesting point, though. You say 

that part of the role of OMB is to, sort of—if I heard you correctly—check to make sure that everyone else is carrying out the 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
97 

President’s vision. But, certainly, to me and to most Americans, 

when the President sits around with his Cabinet, those are all folks 

that he believes will carry out his mission. 

Mr. ORSZAG. I agree. 

Mr. SERRANO. So, at what point does OMB—and please understand that these are questions that have been asked for a long time 

before you were the director. 

Mr. ORSZAG. I understand. I am not taking it personally. 

Mr. SERRANO. Right. At what point does OMB become a problem 

for an administration carrying out? 

It just seems to us that during the last 8 years, especially, there 

was a lot of concentration in there. And it is almost like most people were, at times, almost nervous about speaking to appropriators 

because OMB hadn’t cleared it. 

Mr. ORSZAG. Well, again, I hope you can understand the underlying rationale, which is—let me speak directly to your point. Even 

in the first Cabinet meeting, the President was very clear with the 

various secretaries assembled there that they were appointed not 

only because they were talented and qualified but also because 

they seemed to share, in their particular domain, his vision for how 

to move forward, which is exactly how it should be. 

It is also the case that, when you get to specifics, that sometimes 

questions will arise that the Department of Labor has a particular 

vision for how to proceed and then the Department of Transportation has a different vision. And that then again raises the question of, how do you make sure that the various agencies are being 

consistent with one another and what the President is hoping to 

do? 

So I want to again say, primary responsibility—and I should 

have been even clearer on this—primary responsibility rests with 

the Cabinet agencies and the other regulatory agencies, and OMB’s 

role is simply to coordinate and make sure that there is a rigorous 

and consistent methodology. 

And then, let’s hope this never happens, and I don’t think it 

should, but if there are divergences between what some agency is 

trying to do that is not required by the law—and let me again 

make it clear, if something is statutorily required, that obviously 

dominates all else—but is not required by the law and is inconsistent for whatever reason, through oversight mistake, different 

interpretation, confusion, what have you, with where the President 

is, then it is OMB’s role to collate comments from other agencies 

and from White House offices and pass that back or share that information with the relevant regulatory officials. 

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you. 

Ms. Emerson. 

Mrs. EMERSON. I want to come back at the Federal debt issue. 

Mr. ORSZAG. Okay. 

Mrs. EMERSON. So I am going to start—— 

Mr. ORSZAG. By the way, we are checking with—because I think 

there may be some other factual questions. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Well, I am starting from fresh. 

Mr. ORSZAG. Okay. Although, I do want to again note, I am trying to be cognizant if there are different responsibilities with regard to making sure that we are all executing well on what we 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
98 

have to do. Most of the questions that Mr. Kirk had do rest with 

the Treasury Department. And just like Tim Geithner has things 

that he needs to do, I have things on a daily basis that I need to 

do, and I do rely, I think appropriately, on the Treasury Department to do its job well, which I have full confidence in. 

Mr. SERRANO. And Mr. Kirk will have an opportunity tomorrow. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Indeed, because we have Secretary Geithner tomorrow. 

Mr. ORSZAG. Excellent. You could ask him about, you know, the 

SCAAP program. I am kidding. 

Mrs. EMERSON. I am not getting into all of that. 

All right. So the fiscal 2010 budget estimates a current-year deficit of $1.8 trillion and projects deficits to continue through 2019, 

when the deficit would be about $779 billion. 

Your analytical perspectives document states that the Federal 

debt held by the public will be—I will wait and let you get that. 

Mr. ORSZAG. But I am listening. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Okay—68.5 percent of GDP in 2014. And, according to the document, this is the highest percentage of Federal debt 

to GDP since 1950. 

So, given the size of the Federal debt, is Treasury crowding out 

investment in the private sector? In other words, to what extent 

are investors buying Treasury bonds instead of investing in U.S. 

businesses? 

Mr. ORSZAG. Not very much now. In fact, one of the things that— 

so the traditional model, if you were in a closed economy and there 

was no access to international capital markets, a budget deficit 

would mean crowding out of private investment. But what you instead see is, it has to come from somewhere, and what is occurring—you know, what has occurred over the past decade now is 

that additional borrowing doesn’t seem to be crowding out private 

domestic investment. Instead, it is showing up in additional borrowing from foreigners. 

There still is a cost to doing so. And that is why, although it is 

important to address the economic downturn, we don’t want to be 

on a path where we are not addressing our medium- and long-term 

fiscal challenges, because continuing to borrow significant amounts 

from foreigners does impose a cost on our future. 

Mrs. EMERSON. So when you make the decision that the government should borrow more funding for additional spending, how do 

you balance—and I am not an economist, and you are, that is why 

I am asking you this question—how do you balance the desire for 

short-term benefits to the economy versus the long-term risks to future generations of increasing debt? 

You know, are we being greedy at the expense of our children 

and grandchildren, who may end up having to pay? I mean, I am 

asking that question. I just really want to know. 

Mr. ORSZAG. Let me separate that answer into two parts. The 

first is, what do we need to do to fight off the worst recession since 

the Great Depression? So, part of that involved the deficits that we 

were inheriting, but—— 

Mrs. EMERSON. And believe me, I admit it. You inherited it from 

my party. I agree. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
99 

Mr. ORSZAG [continuing]. But then additional efforts were necessary. The Recovery Act, for example, was intended to get right 

at the root of that problem by boosting demand again back up towards—— 

Mr. SERRANO. You know, you spoke over a great statement, but 

I am not going to ask you to repeat it. 

Mr. ORSZAG. I am sorry. 

Mr. SERRANO. No, it is okay. 

Mrs. EMERSON. I took responsibility. 

Mr. ORSZAG. You did. 

Mrs. EMERSON. I did. 

Mr. ORSZAG. As the economy recovers, the situation changes, and 

the steps that are necessary to address an economic downturn no 

longer become necessary. And, at that point, continuing to borrow 

substantial amounts of money beyond what is sustainable poses 

risk both to economic performance and to the wellbeing of our children, grandchildren, what have you. 

So, from my perspective, the key thing is not what is happening 

this year but, rather, what happens in 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, and 

what have you. 

Now, under our budget and under the budget resolution, the deficits come down sharply. And one of the reasons that we are, again, 

focused on health care reform, coming back to the point earlier, is, 

if you look out beyond that, it explodes, and we are trying to, you 

know, I guess I have started to say ‘‘bend the curve,’’ bend the 

curve on health care costs to bring that down. Because, if not, we 

are on a path that is not affordable. 

Mrs. EMERSON. No doubt about it. And so I applaud you for 

doing that and truly believe that it is imperative that we do health 

care reform. 

When Mr. Kirk asked you about who our largest—who owned, I 

guess—who held, of foreign countries, the most in Treasury securities and you said it was China, is there a risk of one country owning so much debt? What happens if China stops buying our securities? 

Mr. ORSZAG. What I would say is there is a risk from continuing 

to have to borrow very substantial amounts of money after the 

economy has recovered. There is no indication that any of our foreign creditors, you know, have a different perspective on that matter than I do, which is to say, right now—let me come back again 

to the point about yields on Treasury securities. 

If there were concerns among creditors about the path that we 

were on or about changing their mind with regard to purchasing 

Treasury debt, what you would see is the yield on Treasury securities going up. The yield on Treasury securities will also go up as 

economic performance improves, which tends to drive up interest 

rates because the credit markets get tighter. 

We have seen some increase in Treasury security yields over the 

past several weeks, 20, 30 basis points, something like that. So it 

is something, but it is not the kind of change that you would associate with a dramatic shift in investor sentiment. And I, at this 

point, don’t anticipate any such shift. I think the key thing, again, 

is, as we recover, we need to bring deficits down. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
100 

Mrs. EMERSON. And even though we are going to have a shortterm spike in health care costs if we bring in all Americans into 

some kind of insurance product—let’s just call it that—but simultaneously we will reform Medicare, Medicaid, other government types 

of programs, do you feel that there is a way to design this program 

so that we will be able to at least have control over the growth, if 

you will, rather than the uncontrollable 11.1 percent increase every 

single year in health care? 

Because, obviously, Social Security is another issue which is worrisome down the road. But, I mean, I don’t know how to—unless 

you grab hold of everybody in the country and get them into—design some health care system that we can then manage better, I 

don’t know how we otherwise control the growth of health care. Do 

you? 

Mr. ORSZAG. Again, four key steps, in my opinion, are the most 

auspicious. If you ask—you know, I am a member of the Institute 

of Medicine. If you go there, that is what folks talk about. I spoke 

to the Business Roundtable maybe a month or so ago—similar perspectives. 

So I guess what I would say is, if other folks have ideas for what 

will help reduce the growth rate over time, we would welcome 

them. Because I think we believe we are sort of dialing that up as 

much as possible in a way that will help restrain the growth rate 

of health care costs. And if there are other ideas—and I know some 

of your colleagues are putting forward ideas today, and we welcome 

that. We want more ideas about what might help. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Yeah. I guess I just worry since we are worried 

about health care costs growing even within the Medicare and 

Medicaid systems. And if we have a new public plan, if you will, 

and it doesn’t supplant but it, rather, supplements Medicare and 

Medicaid, I worry that that also might fall victim to the same situations facing Medicare, and Medicaid to a lesser extent. 

Mr. ORSZAG. Okay. 

Mrs. EMERSON. But, you know, there might be a way to design 

it otherwise. 

Thanks. 

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you. 

Mr. Edwards. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Orszag, regarding the operations of OMB, itself, it obviously 

plays a critical check and balance, balancing and checking Congress and the various Federal agencies, as you mentioned. 

Does OMB have its own inspector general? 

Mr. ORSZAG. No. 

Mr. EDWARDS. It does not. 

Mr. ORSZAG. No. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Is there a reason for that? 

Mr. ORSZAG. Well, I mean, inspector generals are usually looking, again, at internal operations. And we are, at least on the scale 

of a Cabinet agency, an extraordinarily small, 500-person entity. 

Mr. EDWARDS. All right. Who, then—I think that the brilliance 

of our Founding Fathers was to set up a system of checks and balances within our government. There should be. The House can 

check the Senate; the Senate can check the House. We can check 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
101 

the White House. The White House can veto a bill. We can override 

a veto. 

Let’s just assume—I believe the general perception is that OMB 

runs its business professionally. That is probably reflected in the 

high job approval ratings of those who work there. But assuming 

there were a problem at OMB, if we don’t have an inspector general at OMB, who is to be the check and balance on OMB to see 

that it is doing its job well? 

Mr. ORSZAG. Well, there are several—I mean, first, we have several statutory, Senate-confirmed officials. So one check is obviously 

the legislative branch, because we can be called to testify. 

In addition, we are very integrated into the White House. And, 

to the extent—it depends, I guess, on exactly what the nature of 

the concern would be. Inspector generals are often looking for either fraudulent behavior or lack of application of guidelines and 

what have you—much more appropriate to agencies that are administrating large programs. We are not operational, and inspector 

generals are typically focused on operational issues. 

Mr. EDWARDS. But yet you are influencing multibillion-dollar decisions, what goes into the President’s budget. When a four-star 

general or a secretary of a military service testifies before the subcommittee I chair, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, I 

believe OMB has to approve their testimony. 

If undue political considerations were influencing decisions, if 

that happens on earmarks, even though ‘‘earmark’’ has become a 

four-letter word now, the public and press have access to that. It 

is a very transparent process. The OMB process, for many of us, 

including those of us in Congress, is a black box, and we are not 

sure how decisions are made within the OMB, and I doubt the public and the press really know. 

I am not suggesting there is anything going on at OMB that deserves an inspector general review. But I think, in general, the 

principle our Founding Fathers of checks and balances within our 

system has served our Nation well. And given the incredible power 

of OMB, both on the regulatory side—let’s just say, for example, 

OMB—OMB, just for the record, has considerable input on regulatory processes, right? 

Mr. ORSZAG. In a coordinating kind of way, yes, as I mentioned 

before. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. So, if in—— 

Mr. ORSZAG. But let me even note there, I mean, for example, the 

office responsible for that process, OIRA, has a Senate-confirmed 

official at the head of it. We are actually awaiting Senate confirmation for the President’s nominee for that office. That official can, 

therefore, be called to testify and, you know, frequently would be 

if there are concerns. I also want to—— 

Mr. EDWARDS. But the question is, how would you find out—if 

we had concerns we were aware of, yes, we would call that person 

to testify. But—— 

Mr. ORSZAG. That is a great example where almost everything is 

in the public domain. In fact, last week, there was a question— 

OMB tends to take comments that come in and collate them and 

send them back to the relevant agency. That is in the public domain. And there were media reports attributing to OMB comments 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
102 

that came from one of the agencies where we just simply collect the 

comments and pass them back. That is in the public domain. 

But I think, more broadly, I am very committed to transparency, 

in a variety of dimensions. I mean, I don’t want to make it too trivial, but I started a blog at OMB, in part because I thought we could 

better explain what we were doing, and have gotten a good response to that. 

In the regulatory sphere, there are legal requirements, in terms 

of disclosure. And I am hoping that we can not only meet those 

statutory requirements, obviously, but go beyond that to the extent 

that it is feasible. 

So I think, in most areas, you will see transparency with regard 

to OMB’s operations. And, beyond that, again, we can be called to 

testify, which is a helpful discipline. And, beyond that, we also 

have a White House operation that is clearly very attentive, which 

is to say, if there were a concern about OMB’s operations that an 

agency had, not only have you heard about some of those concerns, 

which I think is as it should be, but, frankly, the President and the 

White House would hear about them also. And that is a—I think 

we all need to be clear about—you know, that provides a discipline 

to OMB’s own operations, which I think is healthy. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Well, my time is up. I will finish by saying I think 

it is a great compliment to the professionalism of the OMB staff, 

the professional staff that work there year-in, year-out, decade-in, 

decade-out, that it hasn’t had its own inspector general and yet 

there have not been the kind of scandals that we have seen 

throughout other Federal agencies. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you. 

You know, even health care—the health care issue is obviously 

a very serious issue, but even during discussion of very serious 

issues you can have a chuckle. And I remember during the campaign, every time candidate Obama would say, ‘‘We have to give 

the American people the same health care plan the Members of 

Congress have,’’ I couldn’t help but think, ‘‘I wonder if Senator 

Obama knows that we don’t have vision or dental, that we have to 

add that on.’’ And so, we hope that you give the American people 

the full plan, not the one we have. 

Although I am not complaining about anything that I have as a 

Member of Congress, for the record, especially the opportunity to 

meet folks like you who come and testify and instruct us as much. 

And I read that exactly the way Mr. Edwards wrote it for me. 

Let me ask you—I have just one more question to ask you, and 

that is, during the previous administration, OMB pressured Federal managers to do more and more contracting out of functions 

being performed by Federal employees. Some of these contracts 

may have made sense and increased efficiency. In many cases, 

though, the main effect seems to have been a lot of money and effort wasted on doing studies, demoralization of the workforce, and 

disruption of agency services. 

Our subcommittee included language in 2009 government-wide 

appropriations provisions placing a moratorium on further outsourcing studies. And I am pleased to see that you propose to continue that moratorium. This is only a temporary step, though, 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
103 

pending a comprehensive review of contracting-out practices and 

implementation of new policies that can separate sound practices 

from others. 

Some have suggested that the government really doesn’t know 

how many contract employees it has working for it, knowledge that 

would seem an important first step in getting a handle on this 

problem. Therefore, in the 2009 appropriations bill, we asked for a 

report on the size of the workforce as of the end of 2008, by agency 

and by number of civilian, military, and contract employees. 

Can you tell us how that study is coming? Can we expect to receive it on schedule this September? 

Mr. ORSZAG. Two things. One, we have been developing appropriate methodologies for reporting back by September. I think 

progress is good. In addition to that, we are looking into—there is 

a separate requirement, and we are looking into conducting pilot 

projects with particular agencies to get a more nuanced and accurate count of contractors. 

One of the frustrations, as you may know, the Army took 5 years 

or so to do a full enumeration of the number of contractors. That 

takes longer than would be useful, and so we are looking at ways 

of piloting with different agencies, a way of getting a timely and 

accurate count. 

For the September report, we are going to have to rely on approximations and methodologies that are not a direct enumeration 

but rather a statistical guess at what the number of contractors 

are. 

Mr. SERRANO. We also included language in the 2009 bill encouraging studies of where it might make sense to do some insourcing—that is, replacing contractors with Federal employees. 

Can you tell us what OMB is doing to encourage agencies to implement that policy? 

Mr. ORSZAG. Well, I think you have seen a significant announcement, for example, by Secretary Gates, suggesting that much of the 

activity, including in the acquisition field, that had been contracted 

out will be brought in-house. And that is exactly as I think it 

should be. 

So across the government, as you know, the President issued a 

memorandum in early March on this topic. We are cognizant of the 

concerns about the line between Federal activity and contracting 

out having gotten blurred, if you will, over the past several years 

and the need for better clarity about what is inherently governmental and should be done by Federal employees. 

Mr. SERRANO. Right. 

And the last part is, I am sure you are aware of this whole understanding by some people that you have people that are being 

contracted making policy decisions that really should be made by 

civil servants. What can you tell us about that? What concern is 

there that this is getting a little out of hand? 

Mr. ORSZAG. Well, again, the concern is that the line has become 

too blurred, and things that are inherently governmental, including 

making policy decisions, belong to be made by Federal employees. 

And we are aware of the concern. We are working to implement a 

set of changes. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
104 

I will, again, point to the Defense Department as being one of the 

key actors in which that line is being redrawn. But beyond that, 

we will be redrawing the line and providing more clarity that Federal employees need to be conducting inherently governmental activities. 

Mr. SERRANO. One last point. Let’s say that, of the three people 

that are sitting in that front row, two are Federal contractors and 

one is a civil servant. Are they then—and a lot of people are not 

clear on this—are they then covered by the same ethics rules of 

that agency and everything? Or is one person covered by whatever? 

Mr. ORSZAG. Not always. And one of the reasons in getting—— 

Mr. SERRANO. The answer was no? 

Mr. ORSZAG. One of the reasons in even the difficulty of counting 

is, you know, you sign a contract for something, and that entity 

then has a bunch of people working on it. They often will not be 

necessarily reporting the number of employees directly. And one of 

the reasons the Army found such difficulty in obtaining the number 

of contractors is that reaching down to getting all the people who 

are working on a contract is not necessarily the easiest thing in the 

world. 

So there are a variety of concerns involved in the contracting out 

that has occurred, and we need to be much more disciplined about 

it. 

If I could also, by the way, just because I can’t help attention to 

detail, just for the record: As of the end of March, which is—I don’t 

know why I am obsessed with this, but I will nonetheless report 

back to the committee—as of the end of March, which is the latest 

data that we have, China remained the largest holder of Federal 

debt, with $768 billion in Federal securities; Japan was the second 

largest. 

The flow since Inauguration has flipped slightly, with China pur- chasing roughly $60 billion in debt and China $40 billion. But 

nonetheless, China remains the largest foreign holder of U.S. securities. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Can you repeat that? It flips, so is Japan is number one and China number two? 

Mr. ORSZAG. No, no. So the one question is—— 

Mrs. EMERSON. Well, you said China and China in the last one. 

I got confused. 

Mr. ORSZAG. Oh, I am sorry. China remains the largest holder 

of Federal securities. Japan is second. But if you look at new purchases, there has been a slight change since Inauguration, with 

Japan purchasing $60 billion and China purchasing $40 billion. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Yeah, that is what I thought you meant. Okay. 

I just wanted to clarify that. 

I have three questions, and they are little questions. 

One of the things that you all have done tremendously well, I 

think, is to try to call on each of the departments of the government to be more efficient. And one example would be the Department of Homeland Security, with regard to its office supplies, saving $52 million, which is quite shocking. I am sure you were as 

shocked as I was about that. 

Are you working with all of the other departments to do the 

same? 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
105 

Mr. ORSZAG. Yes. And, as you know, the President has asked the Cabinet to report back on at least $100 million in savings. I am 

hoping we will exceed that threshold. The Cabinet officers are currently conducting—they are, sort of, looking through and seeing 

what they can save. This is not in terms of policy proposals, nonlegislative, just in terms of internal administrative functions where 

they can save money. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Well, let me say, because I know that DHS saved $52 million by not going through the GSA, but, just for fun, we 

took three items that are on the GSA schedule. One was one pack 

of pens, and another was a pack of something else, and another 

thing was a stapler, just a regular old stapler, an old-fashioned stapler that we have on our desks. 

The stapler at Staples or Office Depot, one of the two let’s just say, was $6.74. And the same stapler with the exact same VIN 

number on the GSA acquisition was $10 and some cents. Now, 

keep in mind the millions of staplers we buy. All right, that just 

annoyed me. Plus, it took 17 days for the stapler to get from the 

GSA place to your agency, OMB, and it took 3 days from Staples. 

The pens, a little bit of—not so bad. Maybe one was 60 cents 

more a box and the other was 50 cents more a box. 

But when you consider the magnitude of a number of these items 

that every single department has, I mean, you—I guess my point 

is, I would like to you take a look at the GSA acquisition table and 

really see if they are getting bargains. I mean, heaven knows you 

would need a trillion interns, practically, to go through everything 

and make comparisons, but we just did three and it was shocking 

that there would be a $4 difference in the same exact stapler. 

So, anyway, I really am pleased that you are doing that. 

Another thing that is kind of a pet peeve of mine, and it has to 

do—and you brought up the child nutrition bill. And the child nutrition bill is not at all a pet peeve of mine; it is the process. In 

other words, here we are, we have the Labor and Education Committee handling child nutrition, but yet, really, child nutrition per 

se is an agriculture function. And I realize that both agencies work 

together, but are you also looking at—you know, you say, well, it 

is important that we are forcing collaboration among the agencies 

where they have, perhaps, a joint jurisdiction. 

Are you looking at anything to try to consolidate some of these 

functions? Like, food safety, I guess, would even be a better one. 

Mr. ORSZAG. Food safety is a classic example. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Classic example. I mean, somebody, one or the 

other, ought to have it. But to have two sets of policies, one for 

poultry and meat, one for dairy, I mean, it is just craziness. And 

it ought to be done—and I hope that is part of the process, too. 

Mr. ORSZAG. I believe that both Secretary Vilsack and our FDA 

commissioner, Peggy Hamburg, who were just confirmed last night, 

if I remember correctly, are both interested in finding more efficient ways to consolidate the food safety regime in the United 

States. Because it is clear that the current system has flaws that 

the National Academies and others have pointed out and inconsistencies that don’t make sense. 

Mrs. EMERSON. And I dare say—and this probably will ruffle 

some feathers, but I am going to say it anyway—there are comVerDate Nov 24 2008 04:04 Dec 16, 2009 Jkt 053601 PO 00000 Frm 00105 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A601P2.XXX A601P2

dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
106 

mittee chairpeople who wish not to lose jurisdiction over things 

that I know kind of hurts the process of trying to become more efficient. But it seems to me, particularly on the food safety issue, that 

is one place. 

And even on child nutrition—I mean, my Ag Subcommittee on 

Approps ought to be dealing with child nutrition as much, quite 

frankly, as Education and Labor, but we don’t deal with it at all. 

To me, it seems crazy. So, anyway, hopefully you will look at those 

kinds of things, too. 

And my last question, Mr. Chairman, has to do with the Recovery Act. And you have stated—and I don’t remember when, maybe 

it was even today—that the government right now is spending 

about a billion dollars a day in stimulus funding. 

So if you all are able, at OMB, to account for the expenditure of 

the stimulus funds for internal purposes, when is it going to be 

possible for the consumer, our constituents, to get that same information all the way down to the contractor level? In other words, 

we know that Missouri got X amount of money, and we know X 

amount of that went to the transportation department and perhaps 

X went to somewhere else. But, beyond that, nobody knows anything. 

And I know that Earl Devaney has also said that he is worried 

about—you have the money to let us know all that information, but 

he is worried about, you know, your time frame. Is there anything 

else that we can do to help you so that you can speed the process 

up, or is it just a physical impossibility? 

Mr. ORSZAG. Two comments. One is, as you know, responsibility 

for recovery.gov, which would be the portal or the Web site through 

which that information is provided, does rest now with Earl 

Devaney and the oversight board. 

In addition, one of the challenges is the underlying financial 

plumbing or financial architecture of the Federal Government does 

unfortunately involve some delays in aggregating information. It 

has been a frustration with USAspending.gov and with other related activities. 

We are working to accelerate the timelines as much as possible, 

but it is true that there are still lags involved in the process that 

seem surprising to outsiders. 

Mrs. EMERSON. But is there anything that we can do to help you? 

I mean, I realize that there is some inherent lag that is always just 

going to happen, but—— 

Mr. ORSZAG. Yeah, I appreciate the concern. I could perhaps 

come back to with you specific suggestions. But my understanding 

and my impression is that we are being as aggressive as we can, 

and I don’t know that there are any additional things that you can 

do for us right now that would help speed it even further. But I 

will come back to you even in writing. 

Mrs. EMERSON. I would appreciate that. Just let us know, okay? 

Mr. ORSZAG. Sure. I appreciate that. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Thanks. 

Mr. SERRANO. Well, we only have one last question, but just an 

observation, listening to you go back a couple of times to the China 

issue. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
107 

You are not going to find a Chair and a ranking member who 

agree on an issue as much as Jo Ann and I agree on the fact that 

we should have a better relationship with the Government of Cuba. 

And yet we hear all of this talk about China. And it begs the question, so how is Cuba a threat to us? But that is not for you to answer. 

Mr. Edwards. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Dr. Orszag, if you could give a quick answer, 

maybe I could stretch this into two quick questions—— 

Mr. ORSZAG. All right. 

Mr. EDWARDS [continuing]. Maybe the first one being quickest. 

Congressional earmarks as a percentage of the total Federal 

budget, including discretionary and mandatory spending, give me 

a ballpark. 

Mr. ORSZAG. Way under 1 percent. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Way under 1 percent. Okay. 

And since that was so quick, if I could stretch the chairman’s 

goodwill, one last question. 

This discussion—it came up earlier in this hearing today—the 

sense that you can cut taxes by $1 and that will generate $1.05, 

$1.10, or $1.20 in extra Federal revenue. If that were the case, this 

would be an easy problem to solve. Let’s cut all the marginal tax 

rates to 1 percent, and we will have almost an infinite amount of 

Federal revenue. So it doesn’t even pass the commonsense test. 

But as a Budget Committee member, back when you were wearing the nonpartisan hat as director of CBO, you did a study on the 

impact of tax cuts and dynamic scoring. As I recall—if you could 

just quickly tell us some of the results of that. 

As I recall, it said that, on average, many economists, most 

economists would say, if you cut taxes by a dollar, maybe at most 

it might raise 20, 22, 23 cents back, so you have a net loss of revenue to the Federal Government of 75 to 80 cents. But then if you 

are actually paying for tax cuts by borrowing money, which is what 

we have done over most of the last 8 years, it actually could reduce 

economic growth. 

Mr. ORSZAG. That is correct. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Could you summarize? Address the issue, does a 

dollar in tax cuts pay for itself? 

Mr. ORSZAG. No. There is no credible evidence that tax cuts pay 

for themselves. 

You correctly summarized the CBO study, which I think reflects 

the consensus in the economics community, which is that deficitfinanced tax cuts, not only do they not cause a boom in economic 

activity over the medium or long term, the net effect may well be 

a negative. And that is because any benefit you get from lower 

marginal tax rates or better incentives to work and to save can be 

offset by the drag from a larger deficit. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you. 

And we thank you, Director Orszag, for your testimony today, for 

being with us. We stand ready to assist you, to be your partner. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
108 

If this chairman has a concern, I have already voiced it, and that 

is that there is plenty for OMB to do and OMB will always be an 

important agency, but the last 8 years allowed OMB to take on a 

role that we think does not go with the job description, if you will. 

Nevertheless, we are here to be supportive and to help our country move forward. And we thank you. 

Mr. ORSZAG. I appreciate it. Thank you. 

Mr. SERRANO. The meeting is adjourned. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
109 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 200 here 53601A.040
110 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 201 here 53601A.041
111 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 202 here 53601A.042
112 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 203 here 53601A.043
113 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 204 here 53601A.044
114 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 205 here 53601A.045
(115) 

THURSDAY, MAY 21, 2009. 

TREASURY DEPARTMENT 

WITNESS 

HON. TIMOTHY GEITHNER, SECRETARY 

Mr. SERRANO. Today the subcommittee meets to discuss the work 

of the Treasury Department and its budget request for fiscal year 

2010. I am pleased that the request includes funding for expanded 

IRS enforcement efforts targeted at individuals and businesses 

seeking to park cash overseas in order to escape U.S. taxes. I am 

also pleased to see the strong funding increase for the Community 

Development Financial Institutions Fund to provide capital and financial services for underserved low-income communities throughout the country, communities that are suffering most from the current state of the economy. 

At the same time, however, I am dismayed that the Department 

is refusing to abide by a key provision of the fiscal year 2009 Appropriations Act relating to agricultural and medical sales to Cuba. 

This is totally unacceptable, and I will have more to say about this 

today. Of the Treasury Department’s many responsibilities, none 

has attracted the attention and concern of the American public as 

much as the Department’s role in responding to the financial crisis, 

and in particular, the Department’s implementation of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. Its success or failure is 

just too important to the country and to all our constituents. 

There are several key questions we must ask. First, are the Department actions helping to restore confidence in the financial markets? Are credit markets opening up again? And is lending increasing again? Second, are the Department’s actions helping to stem 

the tide of home foreclosures in this country? Last month alone, 

more than 340,000 properties received a default or auction notice 

or were seized. As highlighted by a study released last week by the 

Pew Research Center, 85 percent of the neighborhoods worst hit by 

foreclosures are minority neighborhoods. Other research has found 

that tenants make up a large percentage of those who lose their 

homes in foreclosure because their new landlords do not have to respect the leases signed by the old landlord. 

While I am encouraged that the Department has unveiled a plan 

to prevent foreclosures, and while it is reasonable to expect that 

the plan will take some time to see results, this problem is of utmost urgency to millions of Americans. A third question is whether 

the American taxpayer is getting a good deal. Will the taxpayer recoup the massive public investments that are being made in financial institutions? I have said in the past that when Wall Street was 

doing great and these guys were giving each other $50 million bonuses, I could not see anything happen to my district in the Bronx 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
116 

that made me say, ‘wow, there is some good from what is happening on Wall Street.’ 

Now Wall Street is not doing as well, bonuses have still been 

paid, and many of the problems in my district, especially the foreclosure problem, are getting worse. I hope that the Department will 

keep in mind the needs of all Americans and all communities, and 

not just Wall Street, as we attempt to solve the crisis. 

I expect that we will have a very healthy and vigorous discussion 

this morning. Secretary Geithner knows more about these issues 

than most anyone else in the country, having previously headed up 

the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. 

Secretary Geithner has also played a lead role in the Treasury 

Department’s responses to the global financial crises of the late 

1990s. We welcome you today, Mr. Secretary, and look forward to 

your testimony today. You were supposed to be our first hearing. 

As it turns out you are our last hearing. But somehow you were 

either going to start it or end it, and you are closing the hearing 

season. So we welcome you today. We look forward to your testimony. 

And I would like to recognize our ranking member and my colleague, Jo Ann Emerson. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Thank you, Chairman. Welcome, Secretary 

Geithner. I am glad you are able to be with us this morning, and 

welcome to the committee. In the Nation’s current economic condition, you, as we all know, have a very challenging task that includes reinvigorating bank lending to consumers and small businesses, stabilizing the housing markets, saving the American auto 

industry, and most importantly, protecting the American taxpayer, 

their investments, and preserving the long-term financial health of 

the Federal Government. I know that you and your staff have been 

working extremely hard on these issues, and we appreciate the 

dedication of all of you. Like many of my Republican colleagues 

who voted for the TARP last fall, I am disappointed with the 

former administration’s allocation of the funds. 

Providing banks with hundreds of billions of dollars, borrowed 

dollars I might add, with little accountability or transparency was 

not what the Congress thought it was authorizing when we passed 

the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act. And let me tell you that 

I come from a very rural district in southeast, south central Missouri, and it is quite difficult to explain to my constituents why 

banks have received billions of dollars without being required to increase lending, account for the funds they received, or take meaningful steps to limit executive compensation. In February you released the new administration’s plan for using the remaining TARP 

funds. At the time, this plan had few details and was not met with 

great confidence by the American people or the markets. 

Many questions and concerns still remain about your plans to address issues such as growing home foreclosures, limiting executive 

compensation, the Federal Government’s ownership of common 

shares of banks, the future of the American auto industry, finding 

ways to increase small business lending, and eliminating toxic assets from balance sheets. In addition to administering the TARP 

programs, you all at Treasury have many other responsibilities, including acting as the government’s bookkeeper, producing the counVerDate Nov 24 2008 04:04 Dec 16, 2009 Jkt 053601 PO 00000 Frm 00116 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A601P2.XXX A601P2

dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
117 

try’s coins and paper money, administering the government’s debt, 

assisting citizens in filing their taxes, and pursuing those who do 

not pay their fair share, as well as performing important work involving terrorist financing and money laundering. 

Regarding the administering the government’s debt, yesterday 

we discussed with Director Orszag the same issue. And I am concerned with the administration’s fiscal year 2010 budget, because 

it projects a deficit in 2009 of $1.8 trillion, and projects continuing 

deficits for the foreseeable future. My concern and the concern of 

so many of us is where will these funds come from? China, Saudi 

Arabia, sovereign wealth funds. Will this public borrowing crowd 

out investment in the private sector, slowing the recovery? Who 

will ultimately pay for this borrowing? Our children, your children, 

our grandchildren? What are we doing to the future of the financial 

health in the long term for this country? 

In conclusion, you do face great challenges in managing the Federal Government’s finances and in attempting to reinvigorate the 

economy. I look forward to working closely and collaboratively with 

you, Chairman, and the rest of this committee to address these difficult matters. So thanks for being here. 

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you. The committee is honored to have with 

us our chairman and our ranking member, Mr. Obey and Mr. 

Lewis, notwithstanding the fact that they bring about butterflies in 

Emerson’s and Serrano’s stomach, because we have to sound smart 

and look good, and they take notes and they report back to themselves. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You always look good. 

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you. So I would like to recognize our chairman, Mr. Obey. 

Mr. OBEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is getting a little deep 

in here. Let me simply, Mr. Secretary, let me just put it to you this 

way: Two points. Number one, I watched Senator Tester yesterday 

in an exchange with you about the auto industry. And he is a 

plain-spoken man. And I admire that greatly. And essentially, 

what he said, and it is something I totally agree with, I am very 

interested in seeing a healthy auto industry remain in this country, 

but I am not interested in providing one damn dime to any company like General Motors who decides that as part of their reorientation operation, they are going to be closing plants in this country 

and moving them to Mexico or any other foreign country. 

There is a limit to the toleration of taxpayers and voters when 

it comes to accepting the realities of globalization. And one of the 

realities that the auto industry is going to have to accept is that 

if they expect to receive taxpayer support and government solicitude, they need to demonstrate their loyalty, if you will, to American workers and to the American job front. 

Secondly, I chaired the Foreign Operations Subcommittee for 10 

years. And I pushed through this Congress a lot of funding for the 

IMF. But I have to tell you I am very, very reluctant to support 

any additional funding for the IMF in the supplemental as long as 

the Europeans continue to be as modest as they are in terms of 

their actions on the stimulus front. I understand the traditional 

fear of the German Central Bank about inflation. I understand 

what they went through before Hitler came to power. I understand 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
118 

all of that. But it seems to me that if we are being asked to borrow 

money by the worldwide community in order to stimulate our economy that we do not want Uncle Sam to be Uncle Sucker. And I, 

for the life of me, do not understand why the Germans are so reluctant to support a more aggressive stimulus package. Because if 

their economies do not recover, our economies do not recover, because we cannot sell to them what we ought to be selling to them. 

And I would like your honest assessment whether you think they 

are stuck in last century’s fears or whether they are going to recognize this is a new reality again. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you. Mr. Lewis. 

Mr. LEWIS. Welcome, Mr. Secretary. You have taken on, to say 

the least, major challenges. I do not have any opening statement 

that is of a formal nature. They tell me that Alexander Hamilton 

thought you had the most important job in the Federal Government next to the Presidency. And indeed, if challenges are a part 

and parcel of carrying out that responsibility, you have them. I look 

forward to having a chance to ask questions. Thank you. 

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you. Mr. Secretary, we always ask our witnesses to keep their testimony down to 5 minutes. And your full 

statement will go in the record. So please proceed. 

Secretary GEITHNER. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Emerson, and members of the subcommittee, Chairman Obey, it is an honor to be here with you today. I am sorry that 

I was not here first in your list of hearings. That would have been 

an honor too. But I am pleased to be here, and I look forward to 

working with you. We are going to need your support, I hope to 

have that support, and I want to have a close, productive working 

relationship with this committee, this subcommittee. It is very important for the Department. And I hope you give me a chance to 

work with you closely on these issues. 

My opening statement is about our budget, not about the financial system, financial recovery efforts, about the IMF or autos, but 

I would welcome a chance to talk to you about all those questions. 

I am happy to discuss any issue before the country. These are challenging times. President Obama and his administration are working to meet these challenges by getting Americans back to work, 

trying to get our economy growing again, by recognizing the imperative of getting our fiscal house in order, bringing our deficits down 

on time to more sustainable levels, by making long neglected investments in health care, energy, education that are necessary to 

improve the productive capacity of our economy over the longer 

term, and to enhance our competitiveness in this global economy. 

To achieve this, we must repair and reform our financial system 

so that it works in favor of recovery rather than against recovery. 

We need to support growth and meet our long term fiscal goals. We 

must redesign and bolster enforcement of our Tax Code so it is 

both fairer and more efficient. To advance our interests globally, we 

have to work with other nations to promote economic recovery and 

to ensure more open markets for U.S. businesses, a more balanced, 

sustainable global recovery over the longer term. And to protect our 

national security interests, we need to continue to use all the tools 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
119 

at our disposal to exclude terrorists, proliferators, other illicit actors from using our financial system to advance their interests. 

The fiscal year 2010 budget before you today will allow the Treasury to pursue these core missions. The $13.4 billion request 

includes a 676 million, or 5.3, percent increase over enacted 2009 

levels. Of this, and let me just give you a few brief highlights: 14 

million would go to bolstering and increasing the staffs of our domestic finance and tax policy offices, which are at the center of, as 

you know, the challenges facing our country in the financial system 

and on the fiscal front. 

We included a $137 million request to more than doubling our 

CDFI fund to ensure that the benefits of financial repair reach beyond our major banks and to businesses in economically distressed 

communities. These communities were underserved by our financial system even before the current crisis, and they have been deeply hurt by the job losses, foreclosure crisis, business failures that 

the crisis has spawned. We propose a total of $332 million devoted 

to the new Internal Revenue Service enforcement efforts, including 

128 million to add nearly 800 new IRS employees to combat offshore tax evasion and improve compliance with U.S. international 

tax laws by business and high income individuals. 

Another 130 million would go to bolster the security of IRS information technology, to improve the efficiency of its business systems, and to upgrade its fraud detection capabilities. Although not 

directly under the jurisdiction of this subcommittee, our budget 

also includes funds to meet our international obligations in the 

international financial institutions, again to help us mount an effective global response to the crisis, which is so important to our 

recovery. As we seek these additional funds to respond to our Nation’s troubles, we have cut back on some programs that are either 

ineffective or can be safely delayed. As to just one example, even 

as we seek to increase capital investment for the IRS, our budget 

would reduce the Department-wide capital investment account by 

65 percent, for a savings of $17 million. 

Now before I conclude, I just want to say a word about the Treasury Department staff. I have had the honor now of leading a team 

of smart and dedicated individuals who are working exceptionally 

hard to make our government more effective, our society more just, 

who are following a long tradition of debating policies openly and 

courageously on their merits, doing what is right, not what is expedient, and drawing on the best ideas and expertise available across 

the nation. They are performing a great service for the country 

under very challenging circumstances, and I am grateful to them. 

As I said, it is an honor to serve with them again. 

Treasury is, of course, responsible for promoting the Nation’s 

prosperity and protecting its financial security. We advance our interests around the world through the strength not only of our economy, but the quality of ideas, by the commitments we demonstrate 

through our actions. At other times in our history, when the economy was growing on its own and markets seemed capable of regulating themselves, these duties might have seemed comparatively 

routine, but these are not such times. The President and the Treasury Department have already begun the hard work of recovery and 

reform. Our budget will help us pursue these critical goals, and we 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
120 

hope to earn your support and cooperation as we go forward. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to answer your questions. 

[The information follows:] 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
121 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 221 here 53601A.046
122 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 222 here 53601A.047
123 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 223 here 53601A.048
124 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 224 here 53601A.049
125 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 225 here 53601A.050
126 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 226 here 53601A.051
127 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 227 here 53601A.052
128 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 228 here 53601A.053
129 

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Mr. Secretary, prior to 

your written statement you mentioned the fact that you needed to 

have a good working relationship with this committee. And I certainly understand the need to have a good relationship with every 

Member of Congress, with this committee, and this subcommittee 

in particular. So what I want to do now, before I move onto a discussion with you, is just to get out of the way the one unpleasant, 

perhaps unpleasant question I had, and that was in the 2009 omnibus bill, there was language that this subcommittee included jointly with the Senate, Senator Durbin, which spoke to agricultural 

and medical sales to Cuba. And in a desire to get two Senators to 

vote for that bill, you issued a letter, unbeknownst to me, or to this 

committee, basically saying that what we intended to do was not 

going to take place, and that they could rest assured that that was 

not going to take place. 

That was not good. That was not a good way to start a relationship, because I take very seriously article one of the Constitution 

that says that Congress dictates what the law will be, and it is 

your role to carry it out. And so I was distressed to see that you 

basically were telling two senators if you vote for this, I promise 

you this is not going to take place, when I had intended, and Senator Durbin had intended, for it to take place. So my question to 

you was, was it that you did not understand the intent of what 

Congress was trying to do? After all, this was a bill agreed to by 

the Senate and the House, and was on its way to the President’s 

desk. Or was this an administration’s desperate need to pick up 

two votes? 

Secretary GEITHNER. Mr. Chairman, thank you for raising this. 

I understand how strongly you feel about this. And thanks for giving me a chance to respond to your concerns on this. I know you 

have worked on these issues for many, many years, and I admire 

your leadership on these issues. And I think you are finding we are 

at a time now where we have a chance to move together on many 

of the things you worked very hard for. 

Now, in this particular context, with respect to the concerns you 

raised about this letter, what I did was explain how the Department interpreted the law, clarified our interpretation, same interpretation we have had for some time. It was a consistent statement 

of how we interpreted the law, and that is my obligation, as you 

know. 

Now, I understand your concerns with this. And I want to say 

today before you, we would be happy to work with this committee 

and with the authorizers to seek changes in the law that would 

allow us to meet the concerns you have supported and pursued for 

some time. I do not know what is going to be possible in that context, but I would be happy to work with this committee and the authorizers on ways to figure out a way to move forward and to address your concerns in this area. 

But what I did in this letter is just simply explain what has been 

Treasury’s interpretation of what the law requires. And we came 

to that judgment very carefully. We were very thoughtful in doing 

it, but it was a consistent interpretation. 

Mr. SERRANO. And I understand that. And even on this committee not everyone agrees with me or with Ms. Emerson, who 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
130 

agrees with me, on how we should go forward. But I think we all 

agree that if any Member here gets the committee to accept language or dollars that then you have to carry out that. And so my 

concern at that time, and I will drop the subject because I am not 

interested in pursuing it any further, at that time was that the administration was basically saying it does not matter what the Congress said, we, in order to pick up two votes to pass this bill, will 

tell these two Senators that that issue is dead. 

And that troubles me, because it could happen on any of the 

issues that Mr. Obey brings up, on any issues Ms. Emerson or Mr. 

Lewis brings up, and that is not the practice. So you said—you answered the next question I was going to ask you, was on any issue 

when you feel that there is a difference, please discuss it with us 

before you issue letters and embarrass the heck out of me in the 

Spanish press. 

Let me move on to more pleasant things. We understand that the 

financial services authorizing committees and the administration 

are giving serious consideration to creating a new agency to address consumer problems with financial services. Such a commission might be started in the next fiscal year, and it would fall within the jurisdiction of our Financial Services Subcommittee. Can you 

share with us your thoughts about what a commission might look 

like, how much it would cost to run, how large a staff would be required, and how it should be funded? 

Secretary GEITHNER. Mr. Chairman, as you know, the President 

is committed to working with the Congress this year to enact comprehensive reform of our financial system, to put in place a much 

stronger form of protections for consumers and investors, and a 

range of other reforms to make our system more stable in the future, less vulnerable to this crisis. And as part of that, we have 

outlined in the public a series of substantive proposals in the areas 

of reducing systemic risk, bringing oversight to derivatives markets, improving credit card protections for consumers, now enacted 

into law pursuant to the work of your colleagues in the Congress. 

And we are going to lay out to the public and to the Congress 

in the next several weeks a broad set of comprehensive reforms. As 

part of that, we will make some proposals for how we change the 

oversight structure. This country has lived for some time with a 

very complicated, very segmented, archaic framework of oversight 

over our financial system. And that is one reason why this crisis 

was so severe, one of the reasons why consumer protections were 

evaded so easily. And that is something we are going to have to 

change. As part of that, you are correct, we are examining the merits of setting up a new independent commission or agency to help 

provide stronger rules to protect consumers and better enforcement 

of those rules. We are not at the point yet, though, where we have 

made a judgment on what precise structure or form this should 

take, how broad its authority should be, how it relates to the existing authorities that exist across agencies now. But we look forward 

to a chance to laying out our proposals for you when we are ready. 

And I think it will probably take us a little longer to address the 

questions you raised, which is how to fund it, how large is it going 

to have to be. We are starting to think through those questions 

now, but as you know, those very complicated, consequential quesVerDate Nov 24 2008 04:04 Dec 16, 2009 Jkt 053601 PO 00000 Frm 00130 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A601P2.XXX A601P2

dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
131 

tions. The funding in particular is difficult because of the complications created by some of the existing funding mechanisms for supervisory authorities. 

So we are beginning to work through this. But the objective is, 

which is the most important thing, is that we have better designed 

rules to protect consumers, that are enforced much more effectively 

and evenly across the entire financial system. 

Mr. SERRANO. And what is your timetable to come to us? 

Secretary GEITHNER. We are, of course, working closely with the 

banking committees, other relevant committees in this context. But 

we expect to lay out in public within the next several weeks a 

broad set of proposals not just for the substance of the rules of the 

game, but for the oversight structures to enforce those rules. 

Mr. SERRANO. Well, thank you. We have great attendance at the 

committee today, so I will stop now and turn to Ms. Emerson. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me just put in my 

one bit of comment on the original issue that Mr. Serrano brought 

up with you, particularly in light of your comment about the desire 

to open up markets. And certainly Cuba has been a market that 

has great potential and has served us well so far. But I just want 

to point out, and this has bothered me for some time, and unfortunately you are now the recipient of this, having worked over the 

last several years with the Treasury Department on this issue, and 

having been one of the authors of the original bill, some folks at 

the Treasury Department have told me that they were interpreting 

the intent of Congress. 

And when they are telling me that they are interpreting my intent, and it is not being interpreted properly, it is really rather 

problematic. So I just say that. And hopefully, we will be able to 

work on this issue and get it done. But now I will talk about other 

Treasury things. The fiscal 2010 budget estimates that banks will 

return about 25 billion in TARP funds this fiscal year. And I think 

you all made a statement about that sometime earlier this week. 

And that the funds would or could be used to make investments 

in community banks. 

When Congress authorized the TARP program, we were led, as 

I said earlier, to believe that the program would purchase troubled 

assets. And I believe that members did not think that the proceeds 

from the sale of assets would then be used to purchase additional 

assets. So my three quick questions are these. One, do you believe 

that the Treasury has the authority to use funds returned by the 

banks to purchase new assets rather than perhaps to pay down our 

debt or pay down our deficit? 

Number two, if you believe Treasury does have the authority to 

purchase new assets with returned funds, is the TARP going to go 

on forever? And the last question I have is will this administration 

or future administrations have the ability to recirculate the TARP 

funds over and over again in order to nationalize or partially nationalize additional businesses and industries beyond banks, insurance companies, or the auto industry? 

Secretary GEITHNER. To go in reverse order, then I will do details, no, no, and yes. So let me try and go through them. We believe as the law is written, and we spent some time thinking 

through exactly how the law is structured, and I addressed this in 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
132 

some detail in public yesterday, that a dollar that comes back to 

the Treasury repaid by a bank goes into the general fund, available 

to reduce our debt. But it also increases the head room available 

under that authority and gives us the flexibility, if we think there 

is a strong case for doing so, to use that additional resources to 

support the programs we put in place. That flexibility is designed 

in the law. And I think it is a prudent, important thing to retain, 

because we are still in a, you know, a very challenging economic 

and financial situation. 

It is very hard to know what is going to be necessary and possible going forward. We would like nothing better than to have all 

those resources go into general fund, reduce the debt. But I think 

prudence requires that we use the flexibility the law provides to reinforce these programs, which are designed to get credit available 

to businesses and families across the country. Now, the law does 

sunset. I believe the Secretary of the Treasury has the ability 

under the law to extend it beyond its initial expiration for an additional 9 months. But I do not have the authority to extend it beyond that. So it is not a permanent program. So we cannot permanently recycle these programs. And it is not our objective, and I 

would never support a program designed to, as you questioned, a 

program designed to allow us to nationalize banks or other businesses as a matter of policy. I would never support that. 

It never should be the objective of the United States Treasury to 

do that kind of thing. What our obligation, though, is, is to try to 

make sure we get this economy back on track as quickly as possible 

and we get this financial system repaired and working again so it 

is not damaging the fortunes of American businesses and people 

who want to borrow to put their kids through college. And these 

programs are designed carefully to try to get credit flowing again 

where it is necessary, so again, we have recovery come as quickly 

as possible. That is our reading of the statute, though. And I know 

there is some questions about the way it was designed, but we 

have looked at it very carefully. 

We checked that interpretation with independent people. And we 

think that is the way the law is written. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Thank you. 

Mr. SERRANO. Before I recognize Mr. Obey, let me just say that 

I agree with his comments about bailing out corporations that are 

then going to use some of that money, if not all of that money, to 

go elsewhere. You know, no one bails out little grocery stores. In 

my district, we have something, as you know, called bodegas. And 

bodegas were opening up on every block. Now for the first time in 

all my years in New York they are closing down. If you were to bail 

them out, they would open up in the same place, down the block, 

rehire the same people. But to bail out major corporations who 

then go to Mexico or elsewhere is a major problem. And I join Mr. 

Obey in that concern. Mr. Obey. 

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Secretary, I would just like to talk to you for a 

bit about the general role of Treasury in the government and in the 

economy. And I raise this because I am very concerned that over 

the long haul, our long-term debt situation is simply not sustainable. I fully supported, and in fact, I think we need an even more 

aggressive effort at stimulating the economy short-term than we 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
133 

have engaged in. But I am very concerned that in the long-term we 

are simply not going to be able to get our debt into manageable levels as long as we do not have a healthy increase in the earning 

power of average American workers. And so that is what leads me 

to ask. I do not know if it is a question or simply making a point. 

We do not normally think of capitalism as being a system under 

which the government shovels money into the banks and shovels 

money into corporations. It is an emergency situation. And we have 

to do it, but we do not like it. But I would urge you to look at the 

Treasury Department and its responsibilities in a far more expansive way than has been the case in the past. Workers are being 

asked to swallow the idea that the government is going to shove 

billions of dollars into the high rollers in this economy. And they 

are being told that that is necessary to save the system. But unfortunately, some of the same beneficiaries of that in our society, 

when people talk about trying to shield workers from some of the 

more nasty consequences of globalization, their response is, ‘no, no, 

no, we have got to let the free markets work.’ 

Well, with all due respect, right now we are not experiencing the 

free markets on Wall Street or other high places, but we certainly 

are on Main Street. And so I would simply ask that you, during 

your tenure, use the Treasury Department as an agency that 

serves as a spokesman for everybody in this society, not just the 

top dogs. And that means we have to be just as aggressive in looking for ways to stabilize the wage situation, the family security situation, the pension situation for private average families as we are 

for the biggest guys on the block. I know that is heresy to some 

of the establishment in this economy, but I think Treasury has— 

it is not just the Labor Department that is supposed to give a 

damn about average workers in this place. And I would simply say 

that unless we get a better balance, the idea that workers simply 

have to take what is going to come in the globalized market, while 

big guys are too big to fail and so they can get help, that is not 

a sustainable economic model because it is not a sustainable political model. 

And so I just urge you, for whatever it is worth, to take that kind 

of view of your agency’s responsibility. Other than that, I would 

simply like to have a comment from you on my comments on the 

German Central Bank and the IMF and the Europeans’ reluctance 

to go as far as I think they should do with respect to their own economic stimulus. 

Secretary GEITHNER. Mr. Chairman, let me just say at the beginning that I completely agree with what you described as the appropriate role of the Treasury in thinking about laying the foundation 

for a more sustainable, more balanced, more productive economy 

where the gains are broadly shared across the spectrum. When I 

last served in the Treasury, which was in the 90s, we had a period 

where we had very responsible fiscal policies help induce a large 

sustained increase in private investment, strong productivity 

growth, and much more broadly shared gains of that growth across 

the American economy. 

And I think that shows how important it is to look more broadly 

at how you design economic policy, because you are going to get 

more sustained, more productive growth, more evenly shared if you 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
134 

bring that mix of long term fiscal responsibility, investments in 

things that will make our economy more productive over time. 

Now, just to underscore our commitment to this, the Senate confirmed 2 weeks ago Alan Krueger, Princeton economist to be Assistant Secretary of Economic Policy at the Treasury. And Alan’s 

life’s work is in the areas you referred to, in labor market policies, 

a range of things in that area. And so we are very much in support. 

I know the President, as you know, the President is very committed to trying to make sure that we create the conditions for a 

more balanced, more sustainable economy over time as we address 

this crisis. And you are right that we have this huge obligation to 

work with the Congress to bring our fiscal deficits down over time 

to a more sustainable level. Now, right now the most important 

thing we could do towards that objective is to fix the crisis we inherited. That requires in the short term more stimulus, more support to prepare our financial system. But that is the only way to 

get growth back, the only way to make sure deficits are lower, not 

larger in the future. But that has to come with a very clear commitment to bring those deficits down over time. Now, on the important thing about the international imperative, absolutely our efforts to promote recovery here will be less effective if we do not get 

other countries moving with us to support demand and growth in 

their economies. And the President went to London about 6 weeks 

ago and got broad agreement among the major economies, including the Europeans, to provide the largest, most coordinated support 

in terms of fiscal policy that we have ever seen. And as part of 

that, the major European economies are doing very substantial 

stimulus in 2009. What distinguishes their approach today from 

ours is the stimulus package that the Congress designed with the 

President provides for more support sustained over a 2-year period 

of time. The Europeans have a somewhat different system. And 

they have been reluctant to commit at this stage to lock in now additional stimulus for 2010 partly because their systems are different. 

But my sense is the whole context has changed. A year ago, 6 

months ago people were debating whether this is a crisis or not. 

They thought it would be contained to the United States. The 

world would be insulated from it. No one takes that view now. 

Their economies are going through as challenging periods, in many 

ways more challenging in some things than ours, and I think that 

has led to greater recognition about the imperative in Europe for 

more aggressive action. You are seeing it. We want to make sure 

it is sustained and strong enough so that it is reinforcing our efforts. And you are right to underscore that point. 

So I think it is slightly better than you think. But what is important is that it be sustained and that all governments are watching 

carefully about the impact of their policies and see if they will need 

to reinforce them. 

Mr. OBEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you. Mr. Lewis. 

Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, 

I read with some interest Treasury’s response initially to what 

around this place was our mutual bipartisan desire to have the average American family have access to the American dream, that is 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
135 

the opportunity to own a home. Everybody knows that is a part of 

a family’s solid future, et cetera. We allowed that over the years 

to get so out of control that we may very well have undermined 

that dream being available for the average family. Indeed, over the 

years I supported that idea, I am sure my colleagues supported 

that idea. In turn, we found ourselves in a circumstance in one 

neighborhood close to my own a fellow who wanted to live in Oregon, got the bank to provide him with a $600,000 loan. 

He and his wife took that to Oregon and walked away from the 

house, in the neighborhood of which I speak. Next door to that 

same house another fellow saw an opportunity, because obviously 

house prices are going to continue going up forever, and he had a 

home on the marketplace shortly for $2.1 million in a neighborhood 

where next door it was going to be $600,000. I do not know, have 

any idea what that bank sold the latter house to two physicians 

from Loma Linda for, but I am clear, I am absolutely certain they 

took a heavy loss in connection with that. The fellow who went to 

Oregon simply walked away. 

It seems to me that somewhere we have missed it as we try to 

make sure the American dream is available to that average family. 

Now, I read with some interest Treasury’s response to all this. And 

it sounds to me like you may be proposing policies that would take 

us right back to the track that got us here in the first place. It really seems to me that we ought to be examining whether the family 

that wants a piece of the American dream should not also have 

some skin in the game. If people do not put 10 percent down or 20 

percent down—it was not that long ago it was 20 percent expected—then they will not have skin in the game. I would like to 

hear what your thinking is about that as we go forward. 

On another level, I would like to ask a question, if I have time, 

about our governor’s suggestion that perhaps Treasury should be 

involved in helping the California economy with its American 

dream. 

Secretary GEITHNER. Thank you, Congressman. On the housing 

thing, I think you are actually right that basic failures in underwriting standards, in consumer protection, in lending behavior 

helped exacerbate the unsustainable boom in housing prices, which 

has put at peril or put at risk the dreams of many other Americans 

who are much more responsible in their lives from being able to 

participate in owning their home, staying in their home. And I 

think that one of the tragic things about financial crises is when 

they end, the pain is indiscriminate. It affects people who were 

careful and responsible, it affects people in neighborhoods who did 

not borrow too much, did not live beyond their means, had a lot 

of equity in their house. 

And that is what is basically unfair about crises. And that is one 

of the reasons why it is important that we put in place reforms 

that will make sure there is going to be more conservative underwriting standards in the future. And that is going to require 

change to the rules of the game and better enforcement among 

other things. Now, the proposals in the President’s housing initiative I do not believe carry the risk you described. But let me just 

describe what those are. They have three key parts. The first is 

working with the Fed to help bring mortgage interest rates down 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
136 

to levels that will help stabilize, reduce the risk of further declines 

in house prices. And they have come down now to historic lows. 

Second is to make it possible for millions of Americans, who under 

previous programs could not refinance their mortgages, to take advantage of them, to have the opportunity to do that. And that you 

have seen refinancing rates surge. And that program again will be 

very helpful to a lot of people who would not have had the opportunity to take advantage of lower interest rates. And that will 

bring meaningful reductions in their monthly payments that will 

help the economy as a whole as well. 

Third piece of the President’s program is to allow eligible homeowners to modify their loans to bring down their monthly payments 

to a more affordable level for a period of time. But those programs 

will not benefit Americans who really just went too far. They will 

not benefit speculators or people who bought second homes. So they 

are carefully designed to have maximum benefit for the people who 

are most affected by this crisis for reasons beyond their control. 

And I think they are an important, very important part of recovery. 

Housing is not the only cause of this crisis, but it is the center of 

the crisis. 

And I think these programs are necessary, and I think will be 

helpful in those parts of the country that were most affected by the 

crisis. And very briefly on the question you raised about the ability 

of state governments and municipal authorities to borrow to finance the programs, meet the basic needs of their communities. 

Mr. Chairman, can I go on on this? 

Mr. SERRANO. Sure. 

Secretary GEITHNER. Okay. The municipal market was dramatically affected by the broad pressures this crisis unleashed. And it 

caused a very, very sharp increase in borrowing costs for governments, for government authorities. And things are getting better, 

though, on that front. The cost of borrowing has come down a lot. 

Those markets are starting to find some new balance and equilibrium, and they are significantly better. But there are many 

States, including your State, where States are facing much higher 

deficits than they thought, and they are going to face a challenging 

period ahead still. They are working very hard, as they are in your 

state, to try to bring those deficits down, take actions that are 

going to help make it possible for them to meet their borrowing 

needs. 

And we are open to working with the Congress on ways to help 

address those constraints. A lot of proposals are on the Hill for 

helping in that context, and we are working with some of the authors of that legislation to see if we can help. But the primary burden is going to rely on governors and mayors to try and make sure 

that they are taking the steps necessary to bring their deficits 

down and they can earn back the confidence of the people they 

need to invest in their securities. We may be able to help in some 

ways, but they are going to carry the primary burden of trying to 

manage through this very challenging period. 

Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Secretary, you know very well that California, as 

the Golden State, could go to the marketplace, and indeed—— 

Secretary GEITHNER. It is actively going now. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
137 

Mr. LEWIS. Correct. They can issue bonds, the marketplace will 

respond. 

Secretary GEITHNER. They will. 

Mr. LEWIS. They will respond in one way if there is a Federal 

Government guarantee, Uncle Sam backing those guarantees. And 

it is hard for me to quite imagine my colleagues from Wisconsin or 

one of my friends from Kansas want to—it is hard for me to imagine their encouraging Treasury to say, sure, we will back your 

bonds, and we will pay part of the price, indeed because we know, 

we are absolutely certain you are going to reduce your spending 

patterns, and thereby get your economy in order. But it sure leaves 

a lot of questions in my mind as to whether that is real world. 

Secretary GEITHNER. Well, I mean, again, we are prepared to 

work with Members of Congress who have ideas for how we can 

help address this. But I just want to point out that a lot of the burden, as all those officials recognize I think, is going to be on them 

to lay out a path that gets their deficits down to the point where 

they are going to be able to fund themselves comfortably. 

Mr. LEWIS. I will be very interested in your decisions about marketplace versus what might be a new government-backed beginning 

for a State like California. Thank you. 

Secretary GEITHNER. You know, I should say, Congressman, that 

the Build America bond program that Congress legislated as part 

of the recovery is a very effective, successful program. It does have 

the government provide, share some of the burden of borrowing 

costs of states and municipal authorities, but it is, I think, a welldesigned program at a time like this where the country is going 

through the deepest recession in decades. It is important that 

States are able to meet their basic needs, that they are able to, you 

know, keep policemen and firemen, teachers on the job, and they 

not have to do things that are going to deepen the recession. So I 

that is good example of things the government has done that can 

be very effective in this area without raising some of the risks that 

you alluded to. 

Mr. LEWIS. Thank you. 

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you, Mr. Lewis. We will now begin to recognize members of the committee under our beloved, but strict 5– 

minute rule. And we start with the gentleman from California, Mr. 

Schiff. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I wanted to follow up 

where my colleague left off. Mr. Secretary, as you know, California 

has one of the highest unemployment rates in the country. Unemployment in California rose to 11.2 percent in March, the highest 

level since the State began keeping records in 1976. What is more, 

the number of people out of work for almost a year rose by 9.4 percent, double the amount in 2008. 

A recent budget review by the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s 

Office estimated that the California budget—if the budget propositions failed, as they did yesterday, the State will face over a $100 

billion deficit over the next five years. A hundred billion dollar deficit. Due to these cash problems, Standard & Poor’s lowered its rating on general obligation bonds in February, making California, its 

bond rating lower than any other State in the country. The shortterm municipal bond market conditions are freezing liquidity, sapVerDate Nov 24 2008 04:04 Dec 16, 2009 Jkt 053601 PO 00000 Frm 00137 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A601P2.XXX A601P2

dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
138 

ping investor confidence, shrinking the market for investor municipal issuer bonds, which burden taxpayers with substantial costs 

and worsen the State’s budget woes. These dire financial circumstances have left the State with few options. And the governor 

is now contemplating just radical cuts in education, health care, 

and other essential services. 

The State estimates it will need to borrow 13 to $15 billion in 

short-term bonds this year, compared to 3 to 5 billion in a normal 

year. They will need money in January or face even more severe 

cuts. It is unlikely the financial markets in the current State could 

even bear such a large short-term need. And if the State cannot 

find the money somewhere, it will likely be forced to stop all public 

work projects, which will have completely counterstimulative impact, cutting critical infrastructure jobs, stop paying its contracts, 

cut off cash flow to localities that perform State services, could 

force municipal bankruptcies around the State. 

Given the centrality of California in the national economy, and 

the impact this could have economically for all of us, I am very interested in what you can do. And my sense is, given the enormous 

flexibility and authority you have already demonstrated, that you 

probably already have the power even without legislation to help 

the State of California. The simplest, quickest way to support cash 

flow borrowings would be a Federal guarantee under TARP or 

TALF to provide stand-by purchase guarantee to banks, providing 

credit enhancement for their cash flow borrowings. In the unlikely 

event that a State or locality could not repay its obligation at maturity, it would draw on the bank line of credit supporting the cash 

flow, borrowing to repay investors. The Federal Government could 

then purchase nonperforming assets from the bank under TARP or 

TALF, and would ultimately be repaid by the State or locality. It 

presents I think very little risk in the long run to the Federal Government. 

On the other hand, allowing California to go belly up presents a 

great risk to our hoped for continued economic recovery and turnaround. Another solution might be for the Federal Reserve to establish a program to provide liquidity to the short-term municipal 

bond market by either purchasing variable rate bonds that are sold 

to banks or loaning banks the money so they can buy municipal 

variable rate bonds. No solution is perfect. I think the guarantees 

are the quickest short-term solution, and I think you may have the 

authority to do that already. And assuming, Mr. Secretary, that 

you do have the authority to do it, and I understand you may not 

be prepared to accept my assumption, but assuming that you do, 

are you willing to exercise it? Because I think the downward drag 

on the economy that will result if California founders, and we are 

going to make massive cuts, so it is not like we are asking for a 

pain free solution, but are you willing to use the authority, if indeed it can be shown that you have it? 

Secretary GEITHNER. Congressman, let me just start by saying I 

think you described the challenges well, and those challenges are 

not unique to California. They are acute in California, but many 

States across the country are facing very similar challenges both in 

terms of level of unemployment, substantial increase in borrowing 

needs, incredibly difficult choices ahead. And I think you are absoVerDate Nov 24 2008 04:04 Dec 16, 2009 Jkt 053601 PO 00000 Frm 00138 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A601P2.XXX A601P2

dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
139 

lutely right that if States and cities are forced to cut back too much 

in this context that could deepen the recession and lengthen the 

point at which—deter and weaken recovery. And that is why the 

Congress has moved so quickly to put in place very, very substantial support for States. That is why the Build America bond program is so important. And that is why it is so important we get 

this economy back on track and the financial system working better. And the improvements we have seen in the muni market are 

partly a reflection of the strength of those broader efforts. But they 

are not yet back to normal, still a challenging environment. 

Now, on your specific question about the authority, let me do this 

very carefully. We do not believe that TARP, as currently designed 

and legislated, provides a viable solution to this specific challenge. 

And let me cite three reasons why that is the case: We are not allowed under TARP to guarantee issues, securities issued after 

March 2008. We are restricted to giving assistance to financial institutions. The way TARP is designed, every dollar we guarantee 

is charged against the limited funds Congress authorized. And for 

those reasons and others, it does not appear to us to provide a viable way of responding to that challenge. And I think that is one 

reason why your colleagues in the House are considering legislation 

to address that problem. 

And as I said, we are, you know, of course we are prepared to 

work with Congress on ways to think through how to address this 

problem, ways that would not make some other problems worse in 

the future. It is a difficult, complicated balance. We are in very 

close touch with officials in your State and many other States as 

they navigate through this. And we are going to keep on watching 

very carefully. And of course we will work with Members of Congress if they have ways that they think they can mitigate this 

through legislation. 

Mr. SCHIFF. If I could make one last comment, it will be very 

brief. 

Mr. Chairman, I just want to respond to my colleague from California, and your point, which is correct, that there are many other 

States that are in the same boat, maybe not sinking as fast as California. So there may be broader interests in this idea because of 

that. 

But my concern is, we don’t have the time. And we already 

saw—California already demonstrated—we had to put a halt to all 

the construction projects in the State. We don’t want to do that 

again. It would run completely counter to what you are trying to 

do and what we are trying to do with the stimulus. 

We will continue to explore with you whether you have the authority already, and if you don’t, we will certainly work to give you 

that ability. But I appreciate any help that you can provide the 

State. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you. 

Before I recognize Mr. Kirk, I want to apologize to Ms. Lee for 

a little mix-up there. However, just the apology. You don’t get any 

extra time when I recognize you. 

Ms. LEE. I know you, Mr. Chairman. You are trying to calm me 

down and give me time—— 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
140 

Mr. SERRANO. You are going to be angrier now because Mr. Kirk 

goes first. Mr. Kirk. 

Mr. KIRK. I very much appreciate your service to President Bush 

and to President Obama. And I think that you reappointed Stuart 

Levy on Iran. 

I am concerned that when we have talked to the World Bank, 

they have refused to tell this committee who the financial intermediaries are between the World Bank and Iran. Over the last calendar year, the World Bank has provided checks from 18th Street 

in Washington, D.C., to the Central Bank of the Islamic Republic 

of Iran of $125 million. 

I suspect—or previously, the intermediary was Bank Melli then 

cited by the Treasury Department as a proliferator. I suspect that 

the intermediary is now the Central Bank of Austria, then paying 

the Bank of Markaz; and I am wondering if you could commit to 

us that you would let us know who these intermediaries are that 

the World Bank is using to pay the Iranians. 

Secretary GEITHNER. Congressman, I would be happy to commit 

to you to come back to you and see if we can be responsive. I can’t 

respond now in that context. I would be happy to have Stuart or 

his colleagues come up and speak to you. 

And thank you for what you said about Mr. Levy. He is an exceptionally capable official, and he has led the design of a remarkably 

successful program. 

Mr. KIRK. Exceptionally capable. And he really has strong bipartisan support up here. 

My main concern is about our official borrowing. And I would 

hope that you would commit to visit Commissioner Van Zandt and 

the Bureau of Public Debt and the trading floor yourself, because 

there is a reality check that you will go through once you talk to 

your team there, since they are responsible for over 40 percent of 

the funds raised by the United States. 

If I look at the charts from the Bureau, you are borrowing—given 

that so much of your debt is just 4–week debt and rolling over, you 

are borrowing at a rate of $160 billion a week. So far, since the administration took off, we have borrowed $3.2 billion and we have 

a new authority that is being used by the Fed in which they are 

basically printing money and then buying U.S. debt which is now 

about $126 billion has been used in printed money to purchase U.S. 

debt. 

Now, we have received official concerns from the European Central Bank, from the premier of China and the Chinese central bank 

on this policy and the growing perception of weakness of the dollar. 

We have also seen two major industrialized borrowers collapse in 

their ability to sell debt to the public. The German Government collapsed in an effort in January and the United Kingdom has now 

failed in two major efforts. Today—and I hope you will take the 

time to read it—the Wall Street Journal reports that S&P and 

Fitch have announced that next July, they will strip Britain of its 

AAA credit rating. 

Now, Britain invented what I would call the ‘‘guilt standard.’’ 

When we have some people pressuring European countries to increase their deficit spending, we have a reality check that the marVerDate Nov 24 2008 04:04 Dec 16, 2009 Jkt 053601 PO 00000 Frm 00140 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A601P2.XXX A601P2

dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
141 

kets are already saying to Prime Minister Brown, You are collapsing your ability to raise money. 

My question is this: Is the European Central Bank, central bank 

of China, premier of China, Fitch and S&P all wrong about the 

concerns about the dollar and the creditworthiness; and you are 

right, that this is not a completely irresponsible borrowing policy 

on behalf of United States? Or should we begin to be concerned 

about a new Treasury debt bubble that is being created under the 

Obama administration? 

Secretary GEITHNER. Congressman, we don’t know each other, 

but I want to say that I welcome your interest and concern about 

these proposals. And we are going to need your support and the 

support of the Congress because we are going to face the most challenging fiscal environment in a long period of time. And it will be 

as critical for this economy, for confidence in our financial markets, 

for the basic health of recovery, that we work with the Congress 

to put in place credible commitments to bring our deficits down to 

a sustainable level over the medium term. 

Mr. KIRK. As a Republican moderate, let me say, the message 

that I am picking up right now from the American people is two 

messages, one difficult for Republicans to hear and one difficult for 

Democrats. 

The message from the American people that I am getting is, Get 

out of Iraq and don’t raise my taxes. President Bush really didn’t 

want to listen to the first message and President Obama doesn’t 

want to listen to the second. But the message is clear: Leave Iraq 

and don’t raise taxes. 

Now, in that environment, which we just heard from the voters 

in California overwhelmingly, it leads to a downward pressure on 

spending because the borrowing that you are doing is—the markets 

are rapidly telling other sovereign borrowers that their plans are 

not sustainable. 

Secretary GEITHNER. Congressman, what I am saying is, you are 

absolutely right. And as the Secretary of the Treasury, I want you 

to know that my basic obligation is to make sure that we put in 

place policies that sustain confidence in this economy, in our currency, that we sustain a strong dollar, we retain what is a great 

strength and asset of this country, which is the most deep and 

most liquid markets for Treasury securities in the world. 

And we will work very hard to make sure that we bring these 

deficits down once we put in place a recovery and we fix this crisis 

that we inherited. Remember, we start with an—we started with 

an exceptionally high deficit. The cost of the crisis required additional costs up front. There is no way we could solve this crisis 

without the temporary necessity of higher short-term deficits; and 

if we did not do this, again we would face higher deficits in the future. 

Now, I spent the last 5 years being President of the New York 

Fed. One of the Fed’s responsibilities, as you know, is to help the 

government fund itself. I am deeply aware of the complexity and 

importance of that basic task of making sure we are preserving 

that great asset, which is the most—the deepest liquid markets in 

the world. And we will work very hard at that. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
142 

Now, you are right to say that the Fed has embarked on a very 

unconventional, exceptional program for buying treasuries. 

Mr. KIRK. Which is—basically they are printing money and buying treasuries. 

Secretary GEITHNER. I wouldn’t think about it that way. 

But I think you are right; it deserves an amount of care and reflection and evaluation. But we have a very strong Fed, independent Fed, whose basic obligation to the Congress and the American people is to keep inflation low and stable over time. And they 

have been exceptionally good at doing that, and they will be good 

in the future. 

And as the chairman has said in public, they are very committed 

to make sure they have the ability to unwind and reverse the exceptional measures they have taken, once we have achieved the 

necessary stability in our financial markets and economic priorities 

are back on track. 

Mr. KIRK. I want to close with one technical point, which is this. 

You were sent a message by the market when the 30-year-note 

auctions nearly collapsed and you had a large Fed purchase of that 

and you had to raise the interest rate by 50 basis points to get it 

sold. 

When I was on the trading floor—— 

Secretary GEITHNER. Congressman, I am sorry. You are right 

that we are going through a—— 

Mr. SERRANO. We are running out of time here, folks. 

Secretary GEITHNER. That is not an accurate characterization of 

the events of that day. 

Mr. KIRK. But let me just ask this. When I was on the trading 

floor—— 

Mr. SERRANO. Your time is up. Can you save that for your second 

round? 

Mr. KIRK. I would have finished in 30 seconds, but—— 

Secretary GEITHNER. I would be happy, by the way, when we 

come back in the second round to keep—this is a very important 

issue, and I would be happy to keep talking about it. 

Mr. SERRANO. The Chair is now going to recognize the charming, 

debonair, charismatic Member from California, Ms. Lee. 

Ms. LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I accept your apology 

for jumping over me today. You gave me time to calm down. 

Because I am telling you, Mr. Secretary—first of all, I am delighted to see you, glad that you are here; but I am fuming at your 

response to the chairman with regard to what happened on the 

medical supply and ag provisions that occurred on Cuba. 

First of all, let me just say this: This administration is an administration of change. The President campaigned based on a campaign of change in direction. And we have seen the President 

mount a major effort, and I fully support what he is doing. 

What you said to the chairman in response—with regard to interpreting this provision that was in the law that we passed, consistent with prior interpretations, to me flies in the face of, first of 

all, what congressional intent was until two Members of the Senate 

decided it was not congressional intent. And secondly, when you 

said you want to work with the authorizing committee to try to 

move forward, how in the world can I accept that? Because the 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
143 

same two Senators may weigh again as we pass whatever changes 

we may want to pass. 

So that is unacceptable to me, because if that is the only reason 

that you all moved against—violated congressional intent based on 

what we wanted to do, then I don’t know how you are going to do 

it in the future. That has not changed any interpretation of any 

laws based on the past 8 years; when we are trying to change those 

laws, to go back and say you are interpreting it consistent with the 

last administration, to me, is just downright outrageous. 

Secondly, Chairman Rangel and myself, we asked GAO to conduct a report on OFAC and its expenditure of tax dollars as it relates to enforcing the embargo against Cuba. You all were instructed—again, under the last administration, which we never received—to conduct a risk-based assessment, which GAO recommended. Cuba-sanctioned enforcement for many years was unbelievable in terms of the dollars that it took, tax dollars, to enforce. And we believe in GAO in that they have recommended that 

those resources could be used for efforts to such as protection and 

homeland security, rather than enforcing and finding individuals 

who are bringing in Cuban cigars. 

Thirdly, Mr. Chairman, let me just ask you about the TARP 

funding as it relates to minority and women-owned businesses— 

also minority media outlets. We have written to you and to Vice 

President Biden. I chair the Congressional Black Caucus, and we 

have not seen the banks respond at all in terms of advertising dollars. They are not being fair with our tax dollars. And we want to 

see how the Treasury Department—yourself, Mr. Secretary—can 

make sure that the banks provide for a level playing field and use 

some of these TARP dollars, when they are advertising in major 

media outlets, that they also play fair and provide advertising in 

black and Latino and Asia Pacific American media. 

And we have written to you. We have written to the Vice President. We are going to stay on this until there is some justice in this 

whole effort. Thank you. 

Secretary GEITHNER. Would you like me to respond? 

Ms. LEE. Yes, I would. 

Secretary GEITHNER. On your first point, I understand your concerns. We are applying the law as we believe it reads. But as I 

said, we are willing to work with the appropriations and authorizing committees to find a way to move forward in this issue and 

meet your concerns and the chairman’s. I don’t know if that is 

going to be possible, but we would be happy to try. 

Ms. LEE. We tried to do that in the legislation. 

Secretary GEITHNER. I understand. And I know that I am not addressing your concern today. 

Ms. LEE. No. But I mean, we tried to do that is what I am saying. 

Secretary GEITHNER. We are going to have to try again, because 

I think that we don’t believe it is—again, we are interpreting the 

law as we believe it is written. 

Ms. LEE. But we were trying to change that as it is written, Mr. 

Secretary. 

Secretary GEITHNER. I understand. 

Ms. LEE. So what I am saying to you is that is disingenuous. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
144 

Secretary GEITHNER. No. It is not—I will never be disingenuous 

before you. I am stating exactly why I wrote the letter as I did, 

what its rationale is for. And I am committing to work with the authorizing appropriators on how to move forward on this question. 

We would like to find a way to try to address this, and we have 

a chance to try and do that. 

Ms. LEE. I look forward to working with you on that. I want to 

see exactly how we are going to do that. 

Secretary GEITHNER. That is reasonable. You should judge us by 

our actions and give me a chance to try and meet your concerns 

on this issue. I don’t know if we can do it, but we will try. 

On enforcement resources for OFAC sanctions, for Cuba related 

sanctions, if I understand the numbers correctly, we have roughly 

10 full-time equivalent slots in Treasury now devoted to this enforcement challenge. That is 10 against 155. 

I am not completely sure we have got the balance right, but we 

will keep looking at that and trying to make sure we are not 

overdoing it and we are not misallocating resources. But we have 

got a whole set of obligations we have to meet. We have to meet 

those as carefully as we can and as responsibly as we can. 

Your question about minority—— 

Ms. LEE. The GAO study and the recommendation, the riskbased assessment, are you in the process of conducting it? 

Secretary GEITHNER. Of course, as in any case, we look carefully 

at what the GAO does. And my general view on these things is, of 

course, how you allocate resources should be guided by a risk-based 

approach, and we should be looking at where we get the highest 

return on the marginal resources. That approach is something I believe in deeply. 

Ms. LEE. We are looking forward to the report. 

Secretary GEITHNER. Now, on the TARP question, I will give 

you—I hear you. I understand your concern. I understand your interest in this issue. Let me just give you one example where we are 

trying to be responsive. 

We outlined as part of our effort to try to fix the financial system, clean up the financial system, a set of new funds that provide 

a market for real estate-related loans and securities that were at 

the heart of the crisis, still gumming up the financial system. And 

as part of soliciting interest applications for participation by asset 

managers in these funds, we encouraged firms to partner with 

small veteran-owned, minority women-owned businesses; and the 

application—a lot of interest in this program. 

I am pleased to say that most applications and certainly the 

strongest applications have come with very substantial partnerships, and we expect to announce in the next couple of weeks our 

decisions on the selected asset management companies; I hope you 

will see in that context evidence that we are trying to be responsive 

to your concerns in this area. 

Ms. LEE. How about minority media? 

Secretary GEITHNER. I can’t respond to you today on the media 

question you raised. But I heard you, and I will be happy to get 

back to you on that question. 

Ms. LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And if we have a second goround, I have some more. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
145 

Mr. SERRANO. Yes. Thank you. 

And for the gentlewoman’s information, we want to just clarify— 

and I don’t want to drive this subject to death, but the Senate— 

the House bill had passed full committee. As you know, it was an 

omnibus bill, so things did not pass the floor. 

It passed committee, and spoke to cash-in-advance sales to Cuba. 

The Senate bill had the same language. 

The Senate had an addition to allow businessmen to travel to 

Cuba. We accepted that. That is part of the negotiating between 

the two houses, whether you pass a bill on the floor or you do it 

in an omnibus situation. 

It was then that the issue came up of just trying to go around 

those agreements between Mr. Durbin, myself and Mr. Regula, and 

the ranking member on the other side. And that is what created 

the difficulty and the tension. 

Mr. Culberson. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Geithner, the question that my colleague, Mr. Kirk, 

asked is so important, I would like to—if I could, Mr. Chairman— 

yield a minute to Mr. Kirk to follow up. 

Mr. KIRK. I just wanted to follow up on situational awareness of 

the auctions that you have. 

You are selling debt about four times, five times a week now. In 

general, an auction is between 12:30 and 1:00, with all of the action 

happening about 6 minutes out from 1:00; and the Bureau of the 

Public Debt is very proud that they report the results of these auctions within 90 seconds. 

Coming out of my reserve duty in the war room of the Pentagon, 

I said, if you have a collapse of an auction, as now has happened 

in Germany and the United Kingdom, can you get the President of 

the United States on the phone right away? Because MSNBC will 

know before the White House. 

And they said, No, we actually don’t have that procedure. We 

would call our assistant secretary who would call the under secretary who might get it. 

So I am wondering technically, when you visit the office, can you 

set up a procedure where Commissioner Van Zandt has your cell 

phone? 

Secretary GEITHNER. Sure. 

Mr. KIRK. Because I am very worried as we have now seen other 

sovereign borrowers begin to collapse, Van Zandt is going to have 

to get you on the phone as he is telling the media because he has 

a 90-second reporting requirement. 

Secretary GEITHNER. I would expect him to call me and, of 

course, would ensure that he could 

Mr. KIRK. Thank you. Thank you. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Geithner, 

one of the biggest concerns that my constituents have, the people 

of Texas—I know taxpayers do nationally—is, they consider actually the debt deficit burden faced by the United States is the greatest threat to the Nation. In fact, Peter Heart—the Peter Heart Survey organization just did a survey that the Peterson Foundation released showing that 85 percent of the American public rank as the 

greatest threat to our national security—ahead of terrorism and evVerDate Nov 24 2008 04:04 Dec 16, 2009 Jkt 053601 PO 00000 Frm 00145 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A601P2.XXX A601P2

dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
146 

erything else, they rank growing budget deficits and the national 

debt as the greatest threat to the Nation’s long-term security. And 

I absolutely have to agree, when you look at the level of borrowing, 

the level of spending. I voted against $2.3 trillion worth of spending under President 

Bush. I am a dedicated fiscal conservative. I have always described 

myself as a Jeffersonian, first and foremost, and have so far voted 

against 1.6 trillion here. So I don’t play favorites. 

And my concern is—I don’t know if you have ever seen one of these. This is a $50 billion bank note from Zimbabwe. It is the real 

McCoy. Do you have one of these? Do you have one that you carry 

around? Yeah? Good for you. 

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Secretary, is there a rule about having foreign 

currency at an appropriation hearing? 

Mr. CULBERSON. Thank you. I am glad to see it. Thank you. You 

obviously are thinking about it a lot, too. I am really thrilled to 

hear it because that is very important. 

And I have, in the brief time that I have got—and I hope there 

will be a follow-up. I wanted to ask on behalf of my constituents— 

and I asked them to send me some questions on Facebook and 

Twitter. 

I got a couple of terrific questions, and I want to ask on behalf 

of several of my constituents—Mark Langford asked this question 

on Facebook and Robert Gremillion asked the same thing. Mark 

Langford asked, Mr. Secretary, will you categorically rule out bailing out California or any other States with our tax dollars? 

Secretary GEITHNER. I don’t know if this is going to be responsive, Congressman. Let me tell you how I always answer that question. 

I have a set of important obligations to the American people. The 

most important of those is to help this President get this economy 

back on track, repair this mess, put us on a path where we are 

going to be growing again, and get our fiscal house in order. And 

everything we do we view through that prism. 

And we will have to do exceptional things, as we have done already, to fix this mess, because the only way we are going to get 

the economy back on track, a more sustainable, balanced recovery 

to get our fiscal position back to a sustainable level is to fix this 

crisis. 

Now, that is not saying that—that is not putting on the table or 

taking off the table any specific thing like that. But I just want you 

to know there are things that we have had to do I never would 

have contemplated doing and that we are doing it only because we 

inherited and started with such a traumatically damaging recession. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Right. And added to that debt and deficit at a 

pace that is unprecedented—I know you inherited a lot of debt and 

deficit, but you have added to it at an unprecedented clip. No Congress has ever spent this much money in this little time in the history of the United States. 

Secretary GEITHNER. We haven’t had—again, this Congress and 

this administration started in January with a $1.2 trillion deficit 

and a deeply damaged financial system and a recovery—a recession 

that was still deepening and intensifying. And the only responsible 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
147 

way and the only fiscally conservative way to address that challenge was to put in place programs that would help get growth 

back on track. 

And if we did not act, Congressman—and I am a fiscal conservative too. And I think, again, the only responsible fiscal policy this 

country can adopt is to make sure we are taking actions to fix this 

crisis. If we did not do that, you would have had much more damage done to the productive capacity of the American economy, to 

our future revenue base—deficits would be higher in the long term, 

much greater risk of loss of confidence in this economy. 

That doesn’t mean we are going to agree exactly on—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. We obviously have a deep philosophical disagreement. 

Secretary GEITHNER. I suspect that we don’t, actually. 

Mr. CULBERSON. The debt level is just unsustainable, and I think 

that is where Mr. Kirk was going. 

The concern is, we will reach a point—Moody’s has already 

warned us we may lose our AAA bond rating. 

Secretary GEITHNER. But, Congressman, understand—I think we 

disagree less than you think. 

You are absolutely right that the fiscal position of the United 

States is now on a path where, if we do not bring those deficits 

down, it will be unsustainable. A really important obligation we 

share—and we can’t do it alone; we need the Congress with us on 

this—is to make sure we have the will to put in place policies that 

will bring those deficits down credibly to the point where our debt 

stabilizes at an acceptable level as a share of our economy. 

If we don’t do that, then recovery will be delayed, it will be weaker and we are going to face much deeper challenges. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Without raising taxes and cutting spending? 

Secretary GEITHNER. It is going to require bringing our resource 

expenditures back into balance. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Tax increases? 

Secretary GEITHNER. It will require us doing what it takes. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Is that what you are saying? 

Mr. GEITHNER. No. I am going to say it takes what it takes. 

Mr. SERRANO. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

I am not a doctor, but if anybody can help me out, later, Google 

it, or something, and find out what is the mental condition that 

only begins a memory recollection from January 20th to now and 

ignores everything that happened before. 

Mr. CULBERSON. I voted against all that spending under Bush. 

I really did. 

Mr. SERRANO. Nobody supported Bush now, it seems. 

Ms. Wasserman Schultz. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, it is great to be with you again. I think you are 

probably pretty clear on what I am about to say, and that is, not 

everybody on the subcommittee agrees that that letter was inappropriate. I, in fact, agreed with your interpretation of the law and 

thought that your issuing that letter was the correct decision. 

I think it is important to note that the fiscal year 2009 appropriations process was done outside of regular order to the dismay 

of all of us. But the fact that you needed to even issue a letter like 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
148 

that and that we had to go through the process of wrangling with 

two Senators and going back and forth in a very internal, instead 

of regular order, way was demonstrative of why your letter became 

necessary. 

So before you go too far out on a limb committing to move in a 

dramatically new direction on the Cuban policy, with great respect 

to my colleague on the right and the two on the left—who, I know, 

do not agree with my views on the matter—please understand that 

it is very likely, if we tested it, that a majority of the Congress supports leaving the sanctions in place—particularly because have a 

regime in Cuba that has not reformed, that in spite of President 

Obama’s overtures and the administration’s overtures has not 

made any concessions on human rights, on democracy, on abusing 

its people, on recognizing political parties. 

So let us not go too far out on a limb before we commit to working with the authorizing committees and the appropriators on dramatic change. And in that vein, I want to ask you, because when 

President Obama made an announcement about the change in policy and relaxed the travel policy for family members traveling to 

Cuba, as well as rolling back the remittance, the limits on remittances, he also issued a very important statement in sending a 

message to the Cuban regime that the 30 percent in taxation that 

comes right off the top of any remittances that are sent to Cuba 

should end. 

Initially, Cuba has—takes—Cuban law takes 20 percent of every 

dollar that is sent to a relative on the island; that is confiscated 

by the Castro government. And then they are required to convert 

U.S. dollars to a convertible—to a CUP, a convertible U.S. peso; 

and that is an additional 10 percent exchange fee. 

What I would like to know is, what steps are you taking to pursue President Obama’s urging of the Castro regime to roll back 

those remittance fees? 

Secretary GEITHNER. By the way, just to emphasize how complicated this is, how complicated a question it is, we are working 

very hard to put in place regulations to apply these new changes 

in Cuban policy. And as part of that, we would be happy to come 

talk to you about how to address the separate concern you raised. 

I don’t know really—I can’t do it justice now, but it is important. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. It is. Because if the idea is to get the 

remittances to family members on the island—— 

Secretary GEITHNER. Of course. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ [continuing].—30 percent off the top— 

which is, by the way, the second largest source of income for the 

Castro government, second largest source of income—that is absolutely wrong. 

And I might add, before any more steps are taken by the administration to ease sanctions, we should at least be insisting on the 

Castro regime’s responding in kind, as Raul Castro strongly indicated everything is on the table. So far, not one thing has been on 

the table. In fact, reiterated and underscored by the former President, Fidel Castro, that his brother was misguided and incorrect, 

and nothing has occurred. 

So I just wanted to be very, very clear that if we tested it, which 

one day soon we will, the majority of this Congress does not supVerDate Nov 24 2008 04:04 Dec 16, 2009 Jkt 053601 PO 00000 Frm 00148 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A601P2.XXX A601P2

dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
149 

port rolling back sanctions against Cuba, particularly unless there 

is a response in kind in easing human rights abuses and making 

sure that the Cuban people have an opportunity truly to be free. 

In my remaining time, I want to ask you a completely separate 

question related to the visually—the blind and the visually impaired. The American Council of the Blind won a Federal lawsuit 

against the Treasury, prior to the Obama administration’s taking 

over, about making currency more accessible to the blind and visually impaired. The injunctive relief that was ordered by the court 

requires Treasury to make changes to paper money; as the currency is redesigned, they will make it accessible to the blind. And 

I actually had a fourth grader who, when I went and spoke to a 

class in my district, didn’t know about the lawsuit, but raised the 

issue and said why don’t we have Braille on paper money because 

how are blind people supposed to know what denomination the 

money is. And I just thought that was the neatest idea and looked 

into it and found out that this lawsuit occurred. 

So can you let us know what progress there is towards making 

sure that the blind and visually impaired have access to paper 

money? 

Secretary GEITHNER. I can’t do justice to that today. I would be 

happy to come back and give you a more thoughtful response, either in writing or have our staff—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I would really appreciate that very 

much, and I will see you on the next round. 

Mr. SERRANO. Time has expired. 

Just a quick comment. That omnibus bill was not regular order; 

I agree with you. But it also had a lot of things that members liked 

and members of this committee asked for that were included. So 

there are some things we liked, some things we don’t like. That is 

the process. 

Secondly, Mr. Secretary, I don’t disagree with the gentlewoman 

that you should ask for things in return. I hope you just do it also 

with China, Vietnam, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, on and on, all these 

countries we deal with that behave in certain ways, not just Cuba 

for another 50 years. 

Mr. Crenshaw. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And for the record, 

I would like to associate myself with the remarks of the gentlewoman from Florida. 

Mr. SERRANO. Are you from Florida by any chance? 

Mr. CRENSHAW. I am from north Florida. 

Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here today. I think you have 

given new meaning to the term ‘‘baptism by fire’’—certainly the 

work that you have done early on here. And I wanted to give you 

a chance to comment on some good things and some not-so-good 

things. 

You have used just about every tool in your bag to deal with the 

economy. Rates are as low as they can be for a while. You have 

spent a lot of money with financial institutions, automobiles; people 

are asking for money now for the States. 

But there are signs, I think—you hear a lot of bright, smart people talking about a potential recovery. You hear words like ‘‘rays 

of hope.’’ I think you said the economy may be ‘‘starting to heal.’’ 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
150 

And I would like you to comment, number one, on what you see 

as some of those encouraging signs that lead people to begin to say 

we are seeing the stock market, we are seeing unemployment, we 

are seeing some positive signs. 

But as you comment on that, I would like you to include the area 

of the average American because you can say, yeah, the big banks 

are going to the capital markets and raising money, but if the little 

guy is 70 percent of our economy, is he seeing some of this positive, 

and how does he fit into this potential recovery? 

And on the other side, as you comment on the encouraging, I 

would like you—on the not-so-good, what are your concerns? 

You have been criticized over time, maybe for having an ad hoc 

approach or piecemeal; but I imagine you have learned a lot of 

things in a very quick period of time. And so I would like you, after 

you say some of the—what are the things that you think you have 

learned? What are the concerns you have? 

For instance, if, God forbid, we take a turn for the worse, what 

are you prepared to do then? 

So those two things, if you could just give us your thoughts. 

Secretary GEITHNER. Let me do the encouraging signs first. 

The economy is showing signs of stabilizing, the rate of decline 

in growth has slowed, financial markets are starting to heal, it is 

easier for businesses to borrow in the capital markets, interest 

rates have come down quite a bit. Costs of credit has come down, 

the asset-backed securities market is starting to open up again, 

cost of borrowing by banks has come down a bit. Those are signs 

of somewhat greater confidence and stability. 

But I agree with you that it is very early still; this is really just 

the beginning. And businesses and families across the country are 

still going through, again, the most challenging period that this 

country has seen in decades. The companies are still laying off people. The labor market has not yet stabilized; unemployment is still 

rising. And even as growth starts to recover—and it will—unemployment is likely to continue to rise for some period of time. 

So this is just the beginning. But I—you know, we need to be 

candid about the encouraging stuff, just as we are candid about the 

challenges. These are necessary conditions for recovery, and you 

are not going to get recovery without the financial market functioning better. 

And it is important to point out, the positive effect of what the 

executive branch and the Congress and the Fed have done is to 

help bring a bit more confidence, lay a bit better foundation for repair of this financial system. And I think that is an important beginning. 

But I think you are absolutely right that it is still a very challenging period across the economy, and it is going to stay that for 

some time because this took a long time to get us into this mess, 

and it is going to take a while to get us out of it, progress is not 

going to be even and steady. And I—it is going to feel fragile and 

uncertain, I think, for a significant period of time. 

Now, on the latter question you raised, which is a very complicated question, let me just step back for one second. What I did 

when we came was to lay out a very broad, general framework of 

reforms to our financial programs and laid out the specific areas 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
151 

where we thought additional action was going to be necessary—in 

housing, in getting small business and consumer lending going 

again, in recapitalizing and cleaning up the banking system. And 

we have moved at an incredibly rapid pace to put in place very 

complicated programs within that broad framework. And we are— 

we made a lot of progress. 

We have some programs that are still not operational, but they 

will be operational in the next couple of months. And I think that 

basic framework, that basic strategy, is the most effective mix of 

policies that we believe are available for us to fix this at least cost 

the taxpayer over time, maximum benefit, to get credit flowing 

again to small businesses. 

Now, people will disagree about whether we got the design exactly right. And we may have to adapt these policies, but it will not 

be an ad hoc approach. That basic framework, which is to make our 

banks strong enough that they can lend and fix these broken securities markets is a necessary condition for any recovery in the financial system. 

That suite of programs that we put in place are showing important initial signs of positive effect. And what our commitment is, 

though, is to make sure we are going to do what it takes, and we 

are going to keep at it until we fix it. Because the cost of us doing 

too little, being kind of tentative or slow or holding back would, I 

think, be a deeper recession and more damage to viable businesses, 

more risk of failure that could have been avoided. 

We talked to a very broad range of experts in the financial community and the academic community to make sure we are taking 

consideration for any good pragmatic idea in this area. But at its 

core, any effective strategy will be to make sure banks are strong 

enough to get through a bad recession, they can get lending going 

again; and we fix these broken securities markets and housing 

markets. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you. 

We have three votes going on. We have about 5 minutes on this 

first vote, but a lot of Members are now voting. So we have time 

to take Mr. Boyd. 

And then, after that, we are going to have to take a break, Mr. 

Secretary. But everybody is eager to speak to you, and you are welcome to stay in an office nearby that will provide for you to look 

at pictures of my children and things. Undisclosed location. 

Mr. Boyd. 

Mr. BOYD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Secretary, Mr. 

Chairman, I want to follow up on an issue that some others have 

raised, including Chairman Obey and Mr. Culberson, relative to 

short-term recovery versus long-term fiscal stability. 

And I want you, if you would, try to put a little meat on the 

bone, Mr. Secretary, for us. 

Before I do, I want to, for the sake of Mr. Culberson, before he 

leaves, put us back into historical perspective and go back to 2001 

after we had come out of the 1990s, cutting spending and trying 

to get everything in order. And we had revenues and expenditures 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
152 

as a percentage of GDP both in the 19.5 percent range, with revenues actually being a little bit higher, thereby creating a surplus. 

Many of us encouraged the then-new administration to use that 

money for entitlement reform, tax cuts and debt payment. You 

know the rest of that story; it was all crammed into tax cuts and 

even that, you didn’t deal with the problems of AMT and estate 

tax, which even now create a problem where it—it is going to make 

it very much more difficult for us to come out of this recession because we have to deal with those issues. 

Can you talk to me and the committee a little bit about shortterm recovery versus long-term fiscal sustainability, and try to put 

a little meat on the bones about what we have to do to get those 

numbers back even. 

Secretary GEITHNER. You are right about the history. I think it 

is important to remember that when I left the Treasury in 2001, 

we had significant budget surpluses in existence and projected. 

And it is then that we started—this Congress started this year 

with the largest deficit in decades, $1.2 trillion, a very expensive 

problem to fix. 

I don’t believe there is any conflict in the near term between 

those basic objectives. The only way to get the long-term fiscal position in better shape is to make sure we get growth back on track. 

That requires—and there is no other way, it requires significant 

support for demand and it requires again fixing a damaged financial system. And the Recovery Act would not work unless we got 

the credit flowing again and banks and the capital markets healed. 

And—but the opposite was true too. You couldn’t fix the economy 

just by fixing the financial system. 

What the President laid out in his first budget was a commitment to bring those deficits down so that 5 years from now, they 

were at 3 percentage points of GDP. And if sustained at that level, 

that would leave our debt as a share of GDP at stable and acceptable rates. 

If we are unable to do that or convince people, make them feel 

confident that we are going to do that, then we have the risk that 

interest rates will be higher, recovery will be choked off, investment will be squeezed out by public borrowing. To achieve that, it 

is going to require, first, fundamental reform of the health care system so the costs are growing at a much slower pace. That is the 

most powerful weapon we have to bring this fiscal vision back in 

order. As you know, it is the President’s highest priority; and we 

believe we are making a lot of progress towards that basic objective. 

That is going to be necessary, but not sufficient. We are also 

going to have to look at a full range of other entitlement programs, 

including Social Security. And we are going to have to bring about 

much slower growth in a range of other commitments this government makes. 

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Secretary, if I might just follow up briefly, all of 

the projections under the previous administration after 2001 

showed a systemic deficit under the current law relative to revenue 

and to spending. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
153 

You obviously have to change both of those to do what you have 

just talked about. That is where I would hope you would put a little meat on the bones for us. 

Secretary GEITHNER. Again, we have to bring our revenues and 

our expenditures back into balance, closer to balance; and it is 

going to require movements in both. And you saw in the President’s budget a range of proposals, both on the revenue and expenditure side to help achieve that objective. We laid out paths 

consistent with that imperative. 

And there may be other ways to do it, but I think our obligation 

is to make sure that the people understand that we have to commit 

to do that. We have to make sure we do enough to get there and 

build whatever consensus we can. 

And I think what is encouraging, just to find hope in this, is that 

I think there is broader support now, broader recognition on both 

sides of the aisle of the magnitude of these challenges. I think that 

will help provide a basis for a consensus that has alluded us for 

the last many years. 

Mr. BOYD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I just want you to 

know I am not a Johnny-come-lately fiscal conservative. 

Mr. CULBERSON. We are all on the same page. 

Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. SERRANO. His time is up. 

I am a big spending liberal and proudly so now. 

Mr. Secretary, we will break now and we will come back as soon 

as these votes are over. We appreciate your understanding. 

Sorry for the delay, but we had a drawn-out voting process. Democracy gets in the way at times. 

The Secretary must leave the hearing at 1:15, so we will try to 

get in as many of the Members as possible, but certainly the two 

members who have not participated yet. 

And we will start off with Mr. Fattah. 

Mr. FATTAH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, welcome. 

At the beginning of the last President’s term, we had hearings 

like this. We had Alan Greenspan testifying, and the subject matter, if you go back to the transcript, the discussion was the projection that the Bush administration could pay off the entire national 

debt by the conclusion of that administration, given the surplus 

and the projected surpluses over time. 

And we were literally having a discussion, an academic discussion about whether it would be good for the country to be completely out of debt or whether or not, as the chairman was asked 

at the time, Chairman Greenspan, whether or not—and he was 

jousting about maybe leaving some small amount of debt on the 

books, that it may have some economic utility. 

So now we are 8 years later, and it is a very different reality. 

This administration comes in at a time in which the revenues generated don’t meet the country’s needs, and we have an economic 

challenge that you are, in an extraordinary way, trying to address. 

And there is good news today from the Philly Fed—I represent 

Philadelphia, so—in terms of the leading economic indicators report, up 1 percent. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
154 

But my question is more about something that is in your testimony, which is this question about tax reform and tax policy. You 

recommend an increase in the Office for Tax Policy, one that I am 

very enthusiastic to support. Because I think, at the end of the day, 

we really have to have a system that generates the needed revenue 

to protect our national security, to deal with the challenges that 

our citizens face. And this income tax system we have had for over 

100 years I am not sure is what is going to take us over the next 

100 years. 

The Treasury Department, under Reagan, did some studies of 

fundamental tax reform, found the notion of a flat tax fundamentally flawed, I think in the words of the report, and that a national 

sales tax wouldn’t work. 

The Bush administration, without a lot of publicity, did—the 

Treasury Department for Bush did two studies on the same two 

ideas and found them not to be workable. 

I am interested in whether or not this Office of Tax Policy is 

going to look at fundamental reform. Because I am supportive of 

the notion that we need to have a system that is reliable so that 

we don’t have, as much as the President and you talk about this 

bust-to-boom economy, that we don’t have in our national budgeting and governmental responsibilities a system that can’t generate the revenues the country needs at any particular time, 

whether it is in face of war or in face of a need for economic stimulus, and that we don’t have to have a circumstance in which we 

are using a system of generating revenues that may have outlived 

its usefulness. 

So I would be interested in your comments about fundamental 

reform and this Office of Tax Policy and where your thinking may 

be on the subject. 

Secretary GEITHNER. Thank you, Congressman. 

I think I would define the hierarchy of priorities this way: We 

need to do a much better job of enforcing the existing tax laws we 

all live with. And you see in the budget substantial additional resources for the IRS into enforcement activities, which we think will 

generate substantial revenue. That is fair, it is important to do, 

and that is where we start. 

The second thing I would say is that, across the entire economic 

policies of the President that we are working towards, there are 

very important tax provisions that we will have to confront. Health 

care is a good example. And, in that context, we are going to have 

to look for ways to make sure that, as we work to bring down costs 

and reform this health care system, that we are finding revenues 

to pay for the commitments we all think we need to make. 

We also believe that there is going to be a substantial opportunity to simplify the Tax Code. The President made some very important proposals in his campaign to begin that process. And we 

will begin to examine ways we can simplify this very complicated 

Tax Code we have. 

Looking beyond that, we hope and expect we will have the opportunity to look at a broad range of other aspects of the Tax Code. 

In the corporate tax area, there is a lot of opportunity for reform 

that would help make U.S. business more competitive and close 

some gaps and loopholes, make that whole system more fair too. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
155 

So that would be an initial list of priorities. 

The Office of Tax Policy is one of the great resources of the 

Treasury and the country. And we are proposing some significant 

additional resources so that they can discharge what is a much, 

much more demanding burden than I think their predecessors had. 

And we would welcome the support of this committee and the Congress for that objective. 

Mr. FATTAH. Well, let me just say, you are going to have my support and, I believe, the committee’s support. You now have 44 

economists and some 30 lawyers there that you will take on and 

making a significant investment there. 

I am interested in something you didn’t list in that outline you 

listed, which is looking at fundamental reform, new ideas that may 

have utility, you know, in terms of improving the economic capacity, job-creating capacity, and not just making what we have now 

work a little bit better, which is in everyone’s interests, but looking 

at whether or not what we have meets the needs of the country 

going forward and whether there are some other ideas that should 

be reviewed by your Tax Policy Office. 

Secretary GEITHNER. Yeah, I just wanted to start with the initial 

list of priorities, but, as you know, in the Recovery Act in the President’s budget there is a very long list of important provisions that 

are designed not just to make the Tax Code more fair and more 

balanced, but to make sure we are putting in place incentives to 

encourage savings and investment over the longer term. 

And, absolutely, as any Secretary of the Treasury would, we are 

always looking at broader opportunities for reform in the Tax Code. 

And we may have the opportunity in this Congress, this administration, to go beyond that initial list of priorities I laid out. 

Mr. FATTAH. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. 

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Edwards. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, there is still a lot of frustration and anger among 

everyday citizens and families regarding TARP 1 and TARP 2. The 

sense persists that, why should my hardworking tax dollars go to 

bail out people and corporations that made terribly irresponsible 

decisions? Why should that happen? 

So I would like to ask you two questions. In your opinion, what 

would have been the possible negative consequences to our economy if TARP 1 and TARP 2 had not been approved? And, secondly, 

what could have been the specific impacts upon average working 

families if AIG had not been given Federal funding? 

Secretary GEITHNER. Congressman, let me try to respond to that 

very important question. 

I believe that what the Congress authorized at that time, in September, was absolutely necessary to prevent the catastrophic failure of the U.S. financial system. And without that authority and 

without those actions to put capital in banks, we would have risked 

seeing much greater failure and much more damage to pension values, to cost of credit, much larger business failures, higher rates of 

growth in unemployment even than we saw. 

This recession was going to be a challenging recession no matter 

what, because it followed a long period of over-borrowing, overleveraging. We were living beyond our means as a country; many 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
156 

Americans were as well. So it was going to be a difficult recession. 

But it was made dramatically worse because this country came into 

the crisis without the tools to limit the damage to Main Street from 

some of those excesses. 

So I would just say, the starkest way to say it is, people saw a 

version of this in the last few months of last year, where you saw 

the economy decline at a remarkably rapid rate, here and around 

the world. You saw pension values decline dramatically; Americans 

are going to have to work longer because of this. You saw interest 

rates rise dramatically, businesses fail who didn’t need to fail, because of damage to the financial system. And that was even with 

dramatic action. If that authority had not been provided by the 

Congress, those actions not taken, it would have been dramatically 

worse. 

Now, important difference between TARP 1 and TARP 2. So, 

when I came into office, the President came into office, we made 

some very, very important changes in priorities and direction in response to the legitimate frustration and concern people had about 

how that program had been administered. 

So we put in place much higher standards for transparency. So 

all the detailed conditions, terms that were provided to banks 

across the country were put on the Web site. People could see who 

was getting assistance across the country. 

We put in place much more stringent reporting requirements so 

people could see where lending was rising, how people were using 

that money. We put in place stronger conditions on compensation, 

on dividends, so that the money was going to benefit lending. 

But, as important as that, we redirected the whole program, so 

we were directly focusing on fixing the housing crisis, getting small 

banks capital, getting small business and consumer credit going 

again. And those are the things we have done. 

Now, we had to take some additional action to help stabilize AIG, 

help stabilize Fannie and Freddie. Those are complicated problems 

we inherited. And, without action to do that, then, again, you 

would have faced the risk that you would have another wave of collapse in confidence that people see in their monthly savings when 

they open up those pension accounts, and you would have seen 

much greater damage to capacity of businesses to borrow, higher 

rates of growth and unemployment. And that is the starkest way 

to present it. 

But I am not sure people are aware of this. The only assistance 

that we have provided since this President and this Secretary came 

into office to banks is for banks—under the program my predecessors put in place, the only additional assistance was to small 

community banks across the country and, of course, to help stabilize AIG. What we have tried to do is to try to make sure that 

the major banks are going into the markets to raise capital and are 

restructuring so they need to do that. 

So these are big changes in the direction of the program, and I 

think they are helping, as we have discussed earlier, helping to 

bring some measure of healing and stability to the financial system. And you see that reflected in somewhat greater confidence 

numbers. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
157 

Mr. EDWARDS. Could you just very briefly address the AIG issue? 

To talk to an individual family, what could this have meant to 

them? Would they have lost their life insurance value? Would they 

have lost their pension? Why should the Jones and Serrano families care about AIG going under? 

Secretary GEITHNER. Well, there is a direct risk to people across 

the country who bought insurance products from AIG—— 

Mr. EDWARDS. By ‘‘direct risk’’—and I want to put this in everyday terms. A ‘‘direct risk’’ doesn’t mean something to the everyday 

person. Does that mean they paid in for 20 years into life insurance 

or a pension and they were going to lose that pension or a big part 

of it? 

Secretary GEITHNER. Well, there is some risk of that, but, you 

know, people bought a whole range of products from AIG. They 

bought protection that guaranteed savings values. Those could 

have been at risk. 

But it is bigger than that. It is not just that direct risk, which 

could have been significant. Again, the greater risk is that you 

would have had broader loss of confidence, greater failures to other 

businesses, other financial institutions, that would have produced, 

again, this dynamic we saw in the fall of higher unemployment, 

more businesses failing, pension values hurt by the fallen equity 

prices, credit not available. 

So it is not just the direct, immediate consequences people can 

see; it is the more indirect consequences that people sort of lived 

with in the last half of last year. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. I will finish by saying I think we need to 

make a better effort, all of us, Members of Congress included, that 

supported TARP 1 and 2, to explain in everyday terms in a way 

that the average person who is not into Wall Street finance can understand the consequences had we not had TARP 1, TARP 2, had 

AIG gone under and Citibank gone under. 

Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

And thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary GEITHNER. I agree with you, Congressman. You said it 

well. 

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you. 

As we stated before, the Secretary has to leave at 1:15, so we are 

going to try to get as many more questions as possible. 

Mr. Secretary, this week it was reported that Goldman Sachs 

and Morgan Stanley have asked to repay $20 billion in TARP payments. Press reports have indicated that they are eager to remove 

themselves from the Federal restrictions that were attached to the 

use of these funds. 

What criteria will you be using to determine whether these large 

financial institutions will be allowed to repay this money or get 

out? Does your criteria go beyond the ability to repay? Does repayment by large institutions create a disincentive to invest in or work 

for institutions that have not yet repaid the funds? 

In addition, when the TARP was created, all the financial firms 

were at risk. Congress insisted that, when TARP funds were provided, the taxpayer gets some upside benefit in required stock warrants. If some financial institutions repay their TARP money, what 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
158 

will you do to make sure the taxpayer gets full benefit from those 

warrants? 

Secretary GEITHNER. Mr. Chairman, under the law, as modified 

in the Recovery Act, the judgment about whether firms can repay 

is a judgment left with the Federal banking agency that is responsible. I would be happy to describe what I believe the policy will 

be, but I want to emphasize that it is their responsibility to approve these repayments. 

The two basic conditions are, to say them simply, that you need 

to have more capital than the Fed’s recent capital assessment said 

you needed, you need to have that additional capital. And you need 

to demonstrate that you can issue debt in the markets without an 

FDIC guarantee. That is sort of an additional protection to make 

sure these banks are not taking advantage of other programs the 

government has laid out to help stabilize the system as a whole. 

If they meet those two conditions, then my expectation is that 

they will get approval to repay. And that is a positive sign about 

how far the system has come to a greater foundation of stability. 

Now, on the warrants, the way it works now is firms have the 

ability to come and repurchase. And if they do that, we have an 

elaborate process in place to try to make sure we use outside, market-based pricing to judge the appropriate value to the taxpayer in 

that context. 

If they don’t want to repurchase, we still have the right to sell 

those warrants into the market. And we would use an auction procedure, if we do that, to make sure, again, we are getting the best 

price for the taxpayer. We have to make a careful judgment about 

what the right time frame in which to dispose of those warrants, 

and that is something we are thinking through carefully now. 

Mr. SERRANO. Well, I hope that that becomes something that we 

pay a lot of attention to. As Mr. Edwards stated, there is still—and 

you can’t get a single Member of the House or the Senate, 535, that 

have not heard from a group of people saying, ‘‘Who is bailing me 

out?’’ 

So, we did this. Now we have to make sure that we get back 

what is ours. And we have to make sure that people don’t squirm 

out of it and get away with what they shouldn’t be getting away 

with. 

Secretary GEITHNER. Oh, absolutely. 

And remember, you know, these initial indications that a number 

of major institutions will be able to repay will allow the American 

taxpayer to see that there is money coming back that the government earned a return on. 

And I am not sure this is exactly the right number, so give me 

a chance to adjust this, correct it for the record. But the number 

of payments already that have come into the Treasury from those 

capital investments made in the fall, I think, now exceed $2.5 billion already. So that is resources back into the government, back 

in the taxpayers’ hands, reflecting a return on that initial investment. 

Mr. SERRANO. Okay, I just have one—I am going to put the rest 

of my questions in for the record. Your testimony discusses scrapping the early EITC program because of problems with fraud. But 

that program is of value to low-income, working families. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
159 

The last administration made a big deal out of fraud in the 

EITC. And when I say ‘‘big deal,’’ they made it sound like the program was horrible and it was the only program in the country that 

had a problem. But it was not committed to making the EITC program work well. 

No one can defend fraud. But before you scrap the program, are 

you sure that you cannot eliminate the fraud so that the program 

can continue? And can’t the program be promoted for wider usage? 

Secretary GEITHNER. Mr. Chairman, this is a very important program, a remarkably successful program. And this President and I 

certainly am committed to making sure that a broader EITC program is sustained and working and doing what it is supposed to 

do. 

This particular part of that program, though, has been troubled 

in implementation. And our judgment is that we need to modify 

this program the way we have proposed to eliminate that risk, and 

we think its impact will be modest. 

The vast bulk of this existing EITC program will remain in place 

and will continue to do what it needs to do. But, of course, we will 

reflect on your suggestion and concern, and, of course, share your 

commitment to making sure we are eliminating any opportunities 

for fraud in this program. And we will do it without causing too 

much damage to the other broader objectives of the program. 

Mr. SERRANO. Right. And I think the key word here is modify, 

not eliminate. 

Like I said, I will submit the rest of my questions, in a desire 

to give everybody at least one crack before you leave at 1:15. 

Mrs. Emerson. 

Mrs. EMERSON. I would like to submit questions for the record, 

as well. 

Mr. SERRANO. Without objection. 

Mrs. EMERSON. One very, very quick, quick AIG question, and 

then I have another one to ask you. 

As Chet was saying, and Joe, too, to a certain extent, I mean, 

our constituents were up in arms about the whole AIG thing. And 

one of the other problems—and I am not quite sure how to explain 

this; perhaps it was a process thing—would there have been any 

way for you all at Treasury to have said to AIG, ‘‘Okay, we are 

going to give you X amount of dollars; however, you can’t use some 

of that money to then pay your counterparties like Societe 

Generale and any of those’’? That would not have been possible? 

Secretary GEITHNER. No. Again, we came into this crisis without 

the tools and authority to manage, prevent the potential failure of 

a large institution like this that could cause a lot of damage to the 

financial system. And, without that authority, we had limited options. 

And when you choose to act to prevent failure and defaults, you 

are making a choice to help make it possible for that firm to meet 

all its commitments to people who brought an insurance product 

from it, of any sort. And you can’t selectively allow the institution 

to default on particular types of creditors without risk that the 

whole thing comes unwound, comes crashing down at risk of great 

damage. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
160 

And, again, the American people lived with, the last few months 

of last year, the consequences of failure of large institutions. A big 

part of what made the recession so deep and so damaging in this 

country was the damage caused by the default and failure of other 

significant institutions. That would have been much worse if AIG 

also had gone. 

But the short answer to your question is, no, not possible without 

greater authority. And that is why we are working with the Congress to put in place resolution authority to give us a little bit more 

flexibility in handling these things more early, more quickly, and 

more effectively. 

Mrs. EMERSON. I appreciate that. Thanks. 

The special inspector general for the TARP has stated in written 

testimony, basically he says, quote, ‘‘We stand on the precipice of 

the largest infusion of government funds over the shortest period 

of time.’’ And then, just to save time, ‘‘We are looking at the potential exposure of hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer money 

lost to fraud.’’ 

So, my question is, number one, how closely are you all working 

with the special IG for the TARP, GAO and others, in the formulation of your TARP programs to prevent this vulnerability to fraud? 

And I am assuming that you are doing everything possible to ensure that the IG has full cooperation from you all, but are you also 

detailing staff? Because I know that they were very short-staffed 

when I met with him earlier. 

Secretary GEITHNER. We are working very closely with him. And 

I want you to understand, it is exceptionally important to me that 

we do everything we can to reduce the risk of fraud in any of these 

programs. 

I think, as you said, the confidence of the American people that 

we are using the taxpayers’ money as wisely and as carefully as 

possible is deeply important to the overall effectiveness of our programs. Part of that is about making sure we are reducing risk of 

fraud. 

We are working very closely with the SIG-TARP, with the GAO, 

with the congressional oversight panel. I think my second day in 

office, I met with them as a group. We look at all of their recommendations, and we will make sure they resources and access 

necessary to do their jobs. And where they have suggestions and 

ideas that we think work, we will take them on board. And I found 

their recommendations, in general, very valuable. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Do you have any way of trying to determine how 

much of the TARP funding could be lost to waste or fraud, or is 

that something that kind of has to come back after the fact? 

Secretary GEITHNER. Well, we are going to reduce the risk to the 

extent we can. My own sense is—but, again, this is something we 

have to keep looking at—that the programs that we inherited were 

actually quite carefully designed to limit that risk. And I am sure 

that the programs we put in place since I came into office will be 

very well-designed to help limit that risk. 

It won’t be perfect. You know, these are substantially complex 

programs with substantial resources in place. But we have put a 

lot of protections in place at the front end, and we have the great 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
161 

virtue of having SIG-TARP and GAO and the congressional oversight panel looking at everything we do. 

And one of the greatest protections we have is to make sure that 

there is transparency across all of these programs. That allows everyone to see what the terms are, where the resources are going 

to, and that is a good protection too. 

Mrs. EMERSON. All right. Thank you. 

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you. 

Ms. Lee. 

Ms. LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Good afternoon again, Mr. Secretary. 

Let me go back again to my colleague from Florida, who is a good 

friend of mine, who I respect tremendously, and who knows I am 

discussing this with you, because we discussed this as we walked 

down. 

First of all, with regard to any possible movement on legislation 

as it relates to Cuba moving through the House, I just have to remind you that over 70 percent of the American public wants the 

embargo ended. Over 60 percent of the Cuban-American community wants the embargo ended. Okay? So that should tell you something about public opinion and about the possibilities of any actions 

that we may take here on the House side and on the Senate side. 

Secondly, let me just say, she mentioned the issue of remittance. 

I wanted to clarify this, because the percentage of remittances is 

20 percent, and then there is a 10 percent surcharge, FYI and for 

the record. And my colleague from Florida understands that also. 

And I would suggest to you to look, as you have these talks, if 

you are, with the Cuban Government, understand that some of us 

believe that taxes on income is appropriate. The more income we 

make, the more we are taxed. Now, the structure and the tax fairness of the issue has to be addressed. Now, whether that is consistent with Cuban policies as it relates to taxes, who knows. But, 

for the record, most countries charge a tax on additional income. 

Secretary GEITHNER. Including this country. 

Ms. LEE. Including our own country. And so I think we have to 

be fair as we approach any types of discussion on remittances and 

have to know what we are dealing with. 

Secondly, let me just go back to the issue of the involvement of 

the banks. And I asked you this earlier, and I want to pursue it 

with you a little bit, because we want the CEOs of the banks that 

receive TARP money to tell us how much money they are investing 

in minority-owned newspapers and media outlets. I want to see 

those numbers, I want to see what they are doing. 

And then we need to talk about a strategy to commend them for 

their approach and the dollar amount and the percentages, or tell 

them they are going to have to do better. So we need the numbers, 

though, first, Mr. Secretary. And that is what we have communicated to yourself via letter and also to Vice President Biden. 

Secretary GEITHNER. I will take a careful look at that. 

Ms. LEE. Okay. I would appreciate that. And members, I know, 

of the Congressional Black Caucus would appreciate that. 

And thirdly and finally, Congressman Waters, in our economic 

recovery efforts, has been really looking at minority hiring at the 

Treasury. And we have passed—and this was Congressman 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
162 

Waters’s effort, and she actually worked to create an office of minority affairs within the GSEs. The Federal Reserve, Chairman 

Bernanke, is looking at that model also. We are not sure if he 

needs legislation or not. 

But we wanted to know if you would consider, or are you considering, any efforts within Treasury to establish an office of minority 

affairs or something similar to what the GSEs are doing? And we 

would like some information on your minority hiring, in terms of 

the diversity of your staff and also the contracting out of your office. 

Secretary GEITHNER. I would be happy to give you any information on hiring and on contracting. And I have not considered it before, but I will consider, as the GSEs and the Fed are considering, 

your suggestion on an office. As any suggestion, I will consider 

carefully that suggestion. 

Ms. LEE. Thank you very much. 

And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving us the time for a second go-around, because we are going to consider to pursue these 

issues. 

Mr. SERRANO. And we are getting down to that time. 

Mr. Fattah. 

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Secretary, you have said that the revised RFP, 

in terms of the packaging, was getting ready—I know the deadline 

was originally April 10th. It was then moved back, right? So it is 

getting ready to happen soon. 

Secretary GEITHNER. You are talking about for our investment 

funds? Our public-private investment program? 

Mr. FATTAH. Yes, correct. 

Secretary GEITHNER. Actually, I think the initial deadline was— 

well, we put out the request for applications, and I think our initial 

expectation is we would announce appointees in mid-May. We have 

pushed back for a couple weeks that announcement. But we are 

now in the process of going through the strongest applicants, the 

more detailed due diligence on their applications. But we are close 

to announcing. 

Mr. FATTAH. And one last point, which is not a point of controversy with me, but I do want to raise it nonetheless since it has 

some currency. 

TARP, as you receive either earnings on those investments or repayment, your intention is to have those dollars available in case 

there are other needed interventions as we go through this process 

of trying to get the economy back on track, is that correct? 

Secretary GEITHNER. Well, just to clarify, the way the law is 

written, a dollar of repayment comes back, goes into the general 

fund to reduce the debt, but it creates a dollar of authority we can 

use to make new investments if we think there is a strong case for 

doing that, under the terms of the act. 

For income, the dividend coupons on the preferred stock, I believe those go directly into the general fund. I don’t think we can 

use those. But that is something I have to clarify. 

Mr. FATTAH. Thank you very much. 

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Secretary, before we end, I just want to let 

you in on something. If you were to attend the Democratic caucus 

meetings, you would see that every time our leadership comes up 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
163 

with a program that they are presenting to us, a new law, possible 

new law, I get up and I ask, ‘‘will the territories be included equally? ’’ And it is happening more and more every day. 

Your predecessor participated in doing something that had never 

been done before, and it had the support of Leader Boehner, at the 

insistence of our Speaker, as I presented it to her, and that was 

that, regarding the stimulus checks that were sent to 50 States, 

the territories were included. And the issue of whether or not they 

pay certain taxes or not—which, you know, that is all a fallacy; 

they do pay taxes—was not an issue, because it is the same economy. You send a check to Puerto Rico, where do they spend it? At 

Sears, at K-Mart, Circuit City when they were in existence. It is 

the same places—McDonald’s, whatever. 

So it is important for many of us that, as you look at your policies in the future, that we remember that it is not just 50 States, 

it is also people who live under the American flag and American 

citizens and American nationals. And we include them in everything else. As we speak, you know, there are hundreds, if not thousands of them, thousands of them in Iraq and Afghanistan. We 

should include them at other times, too. 

Secretary GEITHNER. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted—I agree with 

you. And when I was president of the New York Fed, which I was 

for 5 years, I had the privilege of having as part of my district 

Puerto Rico, and agree very much with what you said. 

Mr. SERRANO. Yes. And, you know, that is a little inside joke in 

the Puerto Rican community, which is, some years ago, when the 

Puerto Ricans were the lead group, Latino group, in New York, 

someone decided at the Federal level, whatever the New York region was, it included the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico. And so 

the director of the New York region for HUD, for FDA, whatever, 

got to travel to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands as well as Manhattan. 

Secretary GEITHNER. Just for the record, I did travel to Puerto 

Rico but not to the Virgin Islands, even though the Virgin Islands 

was also part of the New York Fed’s district. 

Mr. SERRANO. Well, we are going to take care of that now. 

So we thank you. And we want you to keep these things in mind. 

As you can see from the questioning, this committee is very much 

interested in the work you are doing. We are all on the same side 

in bringing back our economy and taking care of the American people and making sure that the taxpayers don’t get ripped off as we 

take care of other people. So we stand ready to work with you. 

Our opening comments on Cuba—and you heard many other 

comments on Cuba—only mean that we have to keep in touch. And 

isn’t it interesting or ironic that, 52 years later, Fidel Castro is still 

an issue in the U.S. Congress? It is amazing. You are gone from 

this place a month and they don’t remember you, and he is still an 

issue 52 years later. 

We thank you, sir. 

Secretary GEITHNER. Thanks for having me. I appreciate your 

support, and we will work very closely together. 

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you. 

The meeting is adjourned. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
164 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 317 here 53601A.054
165 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 318 here 53601A.055
166 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 319 here 53601A.056
167 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 320 here 53601A.057
168 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 321 here 53601A.058
169 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 322 here 53601A.059
170 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 323 here 53601A.060
171 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 324 here 53601A.061
172 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 325 here 53601A.062
173 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 326 here 53601A.063
174 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 327 here 53601A.064
175 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 328 here 53601A.065
176 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 329 here 53601A.066
177 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 330 here 53601A.067
178 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 331 here 53601A.068
179 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 332 here 53601A.069
180 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 333 here 53601A.070
181 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 334 here 53601A.071
182 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 335 here 53601A.072
183 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 336 here 53601A.073
184 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 337 here 53601A.074
185 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 338 here 53601A.075
186 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 339 here 53601A.076
187 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 340 here 53601A.077
188 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 341 here 53601A.078
189 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 342 here 53601A.079
190 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 343 here 53601A.080
191 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 344 here 53601A.081
192 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 345 here 53601A.082
193 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 346 here 53601A.083
194 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 347 here 53601A.084
195 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 348 here 53601A.085
196 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 349 here 53601A.086
197 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 350 here 53601A.087
198 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 351 here 53601A.088
199 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 352 here 53601A.089
200 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 353 here 53601A.090
201 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 354 here 53601A.091
202 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 355 here 53601A.092
203 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 356 here 53601A.093
204 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 357 here 53601A.094
205 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 358 here 53601A.095
206 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 359 here 53601A.096
207 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 360 here 53601A.097
208 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 361/500 here 53601A.098
(i) 

W I T N E S S E S 

Page 

Geithner, Hon. Timothy .......................................................................................... 115 

Orszag, P. R ............................................................................................................. 71 

Shulman, Douglas .................................................................................................... 1 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING