U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

86–523—PDF 2013

S. HRG. 113–166 

NOMINATION OF JACOB J. LEW 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FINANCE 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON THE

NOMINATION OF 

JACOB J. LEW, TO BE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

FEBRUARY 13, 2013 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Finance 

COMMITTEE ON FINANCE 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana, Chairman 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

MICHAEL F. BENNET, Colorado 

ROBERT P. CASEY, Jr., Pennsylvania 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

CHUCK GRASSLEY, Iowa 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

PAT ROBERTS, Kansas 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota 

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

PATRICK J. TOOMEY, Pennsylvania 

AMBER COTTLE, Staff Director 

CHRIS CAMPBELL, Republican Staff Director 

(II) 

C O N T E N T S 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Page 

Baucus, Hon. Max, a U.S. Senator from Montana, chairman, Committee 

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

Hatch, Hon. Orrin G., a U.S. Senator from Utah ................................................. 3 

Schumer, Hon. Charles E., a U.S. Senator from New York ................................. 6 

CONGRESSIONAL WITNESS 

Domenici, Hon. Pete, former U.S. Senator from New Mexico .............................. 8 

ADMINISTRATION NOMINEE 

Lew, Hon. Jacob J., nominated to be Secretary, Department of the Treasury, 

Washington, DC ................................................................................................... 10 

ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL 

Baucus, Hon. Max: 

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

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 63 

Domenici, Hon. Pete: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 8 

Hatch, Hon. Orrin G.: 

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

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 66 

Lew, Hon. Jacob J.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 10 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 69 

Biographical information ................................................................................. 73 

Responses to questions from committee members ......................................... 79 

Schumer, Hon. Charles E.: 

Opening statement ........................................................................................... 6 

(III) 

(1) 

NOMINATION OF JACOB J. LEW, 

TO BE SECRETARY, 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2013 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON FINANCE, Washington, DC. 

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

room SD–215, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Max Baucus 

(chairman of the committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Rockefeller, Wyden, Schumer, Stabenow, Cantwell, Nelson, Menendez, Cardin, Brown, Bennet, Casey, Hatch, 

Grassley, Crapo, Roberts, Enzi, Cornyn, Thune, Burr, Isakson, 

Portman, and Toomey. 

Also present: Democratic Staff: Amber Cottle, Staff Director; Lily 

Batchelder, Chief Tax Counsel; Tiffany Smith, Tax Counsel; and 

Jeff VanderWolk, International Trade Counsel. Republican Staff: 

Chris Campbell, Staff Director; Mark Prater, Deputy Chief of Staff 

and Chief Tax Counsel; Nicholas Wyatt, Tax and Nomination Professional Staff Member; and Aaron Taylor, Professional Staff Member. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MAX BAUCUS, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM MONTANA, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON FINANCE 

The CHAIRMAN. The hearing will come to order. 

Before we begin this morning, I want to recognize 6 new members to the Senate Finance Committee: Senator Sherrod Brown; 

Senator Michael Bennet; Senator Pat Toomey; Senator Robert 

Portman; Senator John Isakson; and Senator Bob Casey. Welcome, 

all. 

We are honored to have you. I think you will find the tradition 

of this committee is one that is very proud. We have worked together. I am just very happy that you are here with us to help 

move that tradition forward at an even deeper, faster, greater rate. 

You are all very talented members of this committee, and we deeply appreciate your attendance. 

Less than 2 miles from where we sit today at the entrance of the 

U.S. Treasury building stands a large bronze statue. One would assume the figure cloaked in colonial garb is Alexander Hamilton, 

America’s first Treasury Secretary. Look again. This 12-foot tall 

statue is of Albert Gallatin, the longest-serving U.S. Treasury Secretary. 

In 1801, Thomas Jefferson asked Gallatin to serve. Gallatin did 

not shy away from the role’s challenges, but he did recognize the 

2 

enormity, and he said, ‘‘The place of the Secretary of Treasury is 

more laborious and responsible than any other.’’ As Treasury Secretary, Gallatin laid the policy framework for the rise of the United 

States as an economic engine. That is Albert Gallatin. 

What did he do? He established fiscal discipline that was necessary to transform a young country into a great world power. Gallatin also helped orchestrate the Louisiana Purchase, doubling the 

size of the United States and bringing my home State of Montana 

into the young Nation. 

His work is commemorated in Gallatin County, MT and the 

beautiful Gallatin National Forest in Montana’s northern Rockies, 

as well as the Gallatin River, one of the tributaries of the Missouri. 

When Gallatin accepted the position, it was noted at the time 

that he was placed in a situation of trust. Today we are here to 

consider the nomination of Jack Lew to be the Nation’s next Secretary of Treasury. We are here to determine if he is worthy of this 

situation of trust. 

Jack Lew has a long and distinguished career focused on public 

service, with experience in both academia and on Wall Street. During one of his stints as OMB Director, he helped guide our Nation 

through one of the greatest periods of economic growth in America’s history. We will learn more about his record from Senators 

Schumer and Domenici in a moment, but there is no doubt that he 

is experienced. 

As Gallatin said, there is no more laborious or responsible position than Treasury Secretary. Mr. Lew will have his work cut out 

for him. Our economy today is on the road to recovery, but it is a 

road with many twists and turns. Last week, CBO released a report showing the deficit, as a percent of GDP for 2012 to 2015, will 

be cut in half, and the debt-to-GDP ratio will be stable for the next 

5 years. 

The Budget Control Act of 2011 and the end-of-the-year fiscal 

cliff arrangement, both bipartisan, have made a difference. Nearly 

$2.4 trillion of deficit reduction has been locked in for the next 10 

years. 

But, while progress has been made, the job is certainly not over. 

We have many tough decisions ahead of us. The first challenge is 

the sequester, the across-the-board cuts to programs starting in 

just over 2 weeks. Then we quickly face the threat of a government 

shutdown. 

The sequester will cut critical programs, including Medicare, 

rural development, and early education. We need to work together, 

Republicans and Democrats, House and Senate, with the administration, to prevent indiscriminate cuts and lasting economic damage. 

The state of the economy is still fragile. The unemployment rate 

rose slightly in January and is projected to remain stubbornly high: 

8 percent in 2013, 7.6 percent in 2014. These numbers are troubling. Combined with the more favorable deficit numbers, the unemployment figures show that we cannot take our eye off the ball, 

that is, the economy and job creation. 

Mr. Lew, you need to concentrate on three areas to provide greater economic growth and certainty for the Nation. First, focus like 

a laser on job creation. Do not get distracted. As a leader of the 

3 

President’s economic team, you must put in place policies that create more jobs and spark economic growth. Unemployment near 8 

percent for the next 2 years is unacceptable. Use your office to develop new ideas to produce job creation and to relieve small businesses of needless regulatory burdens. 

Second, you must help return predictability and stability to our 

Nation’s capital. We have to get off this roller coaster of crisis after 

crisis. These crises are frustrating the American people and harming the economy. You need to help us achieve stability in fiscal policy as the economy continues to repair itself after the financial 

meltdown in 2008. That will help give businesses and families certainty and confidence. 

Finally, we must simplify our tax code for individuals, for businesses. We need to make the system fairer and help make U.S. 

businesses more competitive in the global marketplace. As Treasury Secretary, you will be in a position to help make tax reform 

a reality. We will need not only your leadership, but your solid 

ideas and technical help. We are serious about this. 

We will be counting on your deep experience to help us achieve 

comprehensive tax reform. Over the past 2 years, this committee 

has been moving steadily forward on tax reform. America’s tax code 

has become too complex for both individuals and businesses, and 

the rules have not kept pace with today’s transactions. The last tax 

code overhaul was in 1986. 

Our world economy has changed drastically in the past few decades. Our tax code has not caught up and is now acting as a drag 

on America’s economy. This is not some academic exercise. Tax reform is a real opportunity to spark the economy and create more 

jobs. As Secretary, I expect you to be a partner as we tackle tax 

reform. 

Members of this committee are going to probably, Mr. Lew, ask 

you some tough questions. That is our right, and that is our responsibility. That is our role. In fact, I will ask you to address my 

concerns that the administration is being distracted from what 

should be the main focus, that is, job creation. We will get to that 

in a minute. 

I am confident that, in the tradition of this committee, the questions of course will be respectful, and these questions will focus on 

how we can best move our country forward, representing the people 

whom we serve. 

Mr. Lew, welcome. As you follow in Secretary Gallatin’s footsteps, I encourage you to embrace this challenge as you chart your 

own path forward at Treasury, pending your confirmation. Recognize the great responsibility you have to ensure our government 

and finances are sound and help us remain the great world power 

in this competitive economy. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Baucus appears in the appendix.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Hatch? 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ORRIN G. HATCH, 

A U.S. SENATOR FROM UTAH 

Senator HATCH. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Mr. 

Lew, and our old colleague Senator Domenici. We are so happy to 

4 

see you here, and remember all the great work that you did here 

the whole time you were here. And of course, Senator Schumer is 

one of our great leaders in the U.S. Senate. 

I also want to welcome the new members of our committee on 

both sides. I think you are going to enjoy this committee. It is a 

very, very important one, and we look forward to working with all 

of you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank Mr. Lew for joining 

us here today, and I look forward to hearing Mr. Lew’s testimony 

today and finding out more about his knowledge, his background, 

and his qualifications for this important position in the President’s 

Cabinet. I agree with you: it is an extremely important position. As 

we all know, the U.S. Treasury Secretary is charged with a variety 

of responsibilities. 

Mr. Lew, I know that you are well-versed in budget matters, but 

those are not the main responsibilities of the Treasury Secretary. 

I believe that I already have a good understanding of your budget 

views, including your opinion that we need higher taxes and much 

more revenue to address our Nation’s fiscal problems. 

I also know about the Obama administration’s reluctance, which 

I assume you share, to engage in structural reforms to our entitlement programs, even though they are main drivers of our debts 

and deficits, although I was pleased with some of the President’s 

remarks in this area last evening. 

I do not share your views on some of these matters and neither, 

in my opinion, do the American people. And, as a Social Security 

and Medicare trustee, the Treasury Secretary cannot simply hope 

these problems will go away. 

But the Treasury Secretary has responsibilities that extend far 

beyond the budget. These responsibilities include: implementation 

of financial regulations; oversight of financial stability; debt management; tax collection; oversight of economic sanctions; defense of 

the value of the U.S. dollar; disbursement of payments; implementation of certain housing policies; assisting Congress with its oversight responsibilities; and, to finish with this one, an oversight of 

entitlement trust funds. 

So, while I admire your budget prowess and understand your 

views on fiscal policy, I know far less about your knowledge and 

experience in many of these other areas. I hope to learn more 

today. There remains a large amount of uncertainty in financial 

markets from the as yet unknown aspects of Dodd-Frank. 

Hundreds of Dodd-Frank rulemaking requirements are either 

still in the works or have not even been proposed yet. Meanwhile, 

lobbying continues, with hundreds of meetings having occurred between banks and their lobbyists on the one hand and Treasury and 

other regulators on the other. Whoever becomes the next Treasury 

Secretary ought to have a firm grasp of financial markets and risks 

to stability to our financial system. 

Dodd-Frank assigns responsibility for assessments of, and warnings about, threats to financial stability to the recently created and 

largely non-transparent Financial Stability Oversight Council, or 

the FSOC, which is chaired by the Treasury Secretary. 

In addition, the Secretary of the Treasury plays a key role in the 

international financial sphere. This is an area where we have seen 

5 

a real lack of leadership, in my opinion, from our administration. 

With no real U.S. economic leadership, the world is left with a policy vacuum. If the United States does not lead, other nations will. 

Recent analysis shows that China has now surpassed the United 

States as the world’s largest trading nation. 

Furthermore, the risk of international currency wars—at least it 

appears to me—is rising, which could push the U.S. back into a recession, or worse. Statements by U.S. political leaders at international conferences about currency policy are not enough. Without 

a clear policy and a coherent strategy to advance that policy, the 

international monetary system will continue to be adrift. Our future economic competitiveness depends upon the United States 

leading efforts to establish a fair, stable, and transparent global financial and currency system based on market principles. 

Now, I look forward to hearing your views about these important 

matters before the Treasury and your plan of action if you are to 

be confirmed. In addition, I understand you worked as managing 

director and chief operating officer of two units of Citigroup, but it 

is unclear what your exact roles and responsibilities were there. 

So far, you have indicated that you coordinated operations, technology, human resources, and maybe legal and financial activities, 

but we know very little about your knowledge of the activities and 

practices of the units for which you were the chief operating officer. 

Some of the units’ activities include proprietary trading, along 

with sales and marketing of risky investments. If you knew about 

the marketing and sales of these investments it would be instructive for us to know, or to find out what you knew. 

If you did not know much about them, then it would be instructive for us to find out why and to determine exactly what your responsibilities were during your years at Citi when you were wellcompensated, including times when Citigroup was being propped 

up by American taxpayers. 

Now, these are important questions because, if you are confirmed 

as Treasury Secretary, you will be responsible for overseeing the 

implementation of regulations directed at some of the very practices undertaken by the Citi units that you once operated. For example, as Treasury Secretary you will be responsible for coordinating implementation of the so-called Volcker rule, which is intended to separate proprietary trading from federally insured financial activities. 

You have stated that you support the Volcker rule, yet you were 

the chief operating officer over two units that engaged in the sort 

of activities that the Volcker rule is meant to prevent. Therefore, 

if you were to be confirmed, it could lead to an awkward situation 

in which, in your role as chair of the FSOC, you would be effectively saying to financial firms, do as I say, not as I did. 

Now, these are not trivial matters. Indeed, they bear directly on 

your qualifications to serve as the next Treasury Secretary. If the 

committee was given time to examine your record more thoroughly 

before today’s hearing, I am sure many of these questions would 

have already been answered. As it is, we will have to explore some 

of these matters here today. 

Finally, I just wanted to mention that, when we met to discuss 

your nomination, I told you that I was very dissatisfied with the 

6 

Treasury Department’s level of responsiveness to our letters here, 

both the chairman’s and mine, as well as letters from my colleagues. You pledged to me to ‘‘maintain frequent consultation with 

members of this committee.’’ I do appreciate that promise and want 

you, if confirmed, to be responsive in a timely manner. 

Once again, welcome to the committee. We are pleased to have 

you here. I want to thank you for your willingness to serve. I want 

to thank you for your past service. There is no question in my mind 

you are a very bright and able person. 

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to what I hope will be an informative hearing. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Hatch appears in the appendix.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. Thank you very much. 

Senator Schumer and Senator Domenici have asked to introduce 

the witness, but before they do, Mr. Lew, I would like to give you 

the opportunity to introduce your family. 

Mr. LEW. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would like to 

introduce my wife and my daughter, who are with me here today. 

My wife Ruth, my daughter Shoshana. My son Danny and his wife 

Zahava and my grandchildren could not be here today, but I am 

very happy to have my wife and my daughter with me. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, stand up so we can all recognize you and 

show our appreciation. [Applause.] 

These jobs are a huge sacrifice. It takes a lot of understanding 

and tolerance from the whole family, because they are so timeconsuming. 

Senator Schumer? 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. SCHUMER, 

A U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW YORK 

Senator SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you and 

Ranking Member Hatch, members of the committee, for the opportunity to introduce Jack Lew and for moving this nomination in a 

timely manner. 

I am delighted and proud to introduce to this committee my 

friend and a great New Yorker, Jack Lew. No matter how many 

years he spends in Washington, Jack, who grew up in Queens, the 

neighboring borough from the one in which I live, and Ruth, his 

wife, who grew up in my congressional district, will always have 

New York in their bones. 

I am delighted to endorse Jack’s nomination to serve as the next 

Secretary of Treasury. I do so wholeheartedly and without any reservation. Jack is an accomplished public servant, renowned for his 

economic acumen, managerial prowess, and his common-sense approach to solving tough problems. He is uniquely qualified to take 

the helm of Treasury in these precarious economic times, as you so 

well outlined, Mr. Chairman. 

Jack is no stranger to many of us in this room. He and I first 

met 3 decades ago when I was a wide-eyed freshman Congressman 

and Jack was a top aide to House Speaker Tip O’Neill. We became 

friends. He and his colleague Ari Weiss took me and our little 

group under their wings and taught us a whole lot. 

7 

I know that Tip had a tremendous influence on Jack, and it is 

clear that Jack shares the late Speaker’s indefatigable work ethic 

and sense of duty. He shares another thing with Tip O’Neill: bipartisanship. Speaker O’Neill was renowned for sitting down at 5 

o’clock with President Reagan and trying to work problems out, 

and Jack was heavily involved in that, and continues to be a bipartisan person who wants to, and is successful at, working with both 

parties. 

You mentioned the issue of trust, Mr. Chairman. There is no 

straighter shooter than Jack Lew. He is one of the most honorable, 

honest, and decent men in Washington. When he gives you facts, 

they are backed up with research; when he gives you numbers, just 

the same. 

From the time I knew Jack when he started in Tip O’Neill’s office, he would always outline both sides of the argument and give 

each without bias. He would then tell you where he came down, 

but he always let you make your own judgment. That has propelled 

him to an extremely successful career that so well qualifies him to 

be Treasury Secretary. 

He joined the Clinton OMB in 1994 and distinguished himself, 

not only as a knowledgeable policy wonk adept at navigating the 

intricacies of the tax code and the Federal budget, but also at the 

same time as an agile leader with a knack for operations. He rose 

to become OMB’s Chief Operating Officer and then, in 1998, was 

named Director. 

When Jack left OMB at the end of the Clinton administration, 

it was the last time the Federal Government had a surplus, an unprecedented surplus, of $236 billion. It would not have happened 

without Jack Lew’s leadership, knowledge, and expertise. 

In 2009, Jack once again answered the call to public service and 

returned to DC to become Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources, helping Secretary of State Clinton transform 

the State Department and honing his skills in the international 

arena, skills which I am confident will prove useful as he works to 

address the myriad global economic challenges he will be confronted with in his new role as Treasury Secretary. 

And, as we all know, Jack spent the last 2 years serving the administration in a second stint as Director of OMB and as White 

House Chief of Staff. During his tenure in these positions, he has 

ably guided negotiations on a range of fiscal issues. 

Passage of the bipartisan Budget Control Act while he ran OMB 

brought annual non-security spending to its lowest level as a share 

of the economy since Dwight Eisenhower sat in the Oval Office. 

The recent end-of-year agreement on the fiscal cliff has kept taxes 

low on the middle class and at the same time decreased our Nation’s deficit by more than $700 billion. 

Now, there are many, many subjects a Treasury Secretary must 

cover, and not any Treasury nominee can have expertise immediately in all of them. But Jack has an uncanny ability to delve 

into a subject, learn it, study it, and master it in a factual and nonideological way. So I look forward to working with Jack and the 

rest of the President’s economic team as we continue to focus on 

protecting the middle class and combating our Nation’s long-term 

economic challenges. 

8 

Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I am confident this nominee possesses the expertise and work ethic necessary to excel as the Secretary of Treasury. He will not be an ordinary or just workmanlike 

Treasury Secretary, he will be a great one, in the mold of Albert 

Gallatin and of Alexander Hamilton, another New Yorker, one 

whom I never knew unlike, hopefully, this one. 

I fully support this nomination and urge that we move as quickly 

as possible so that the Senate can confirm this nominee and Jack 

can get on with the important tasks necessary to continue moving 

this country forward economically. 

Jack, I congratulate you on your nomination. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Domenici? 

STATEMENT OF HON. PETE DOMENICI, 

FORMER U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO 

Senator DOMENICI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am, 

likewise, very pleased to be here. I think most of you know I left 

the Senate because I was told I should by an eminent doctor, and 

I have outlived the doctor. [Laughter.] 

In any event, it is very nice to be here and to feel good enough 

to come and talk to you. Senator Schumer, it is nice to be with you. 

Senator SCHUMER. Thank you. 

Senator DOMENICI. And it is also nice that you left me enough 

time to express my views, and I thank you for that. 

In any event, I want you to know that I was sitting up in a little 

restaurant in Santa Fe, NM with some of the members of the State 

House, and I got a telephone call from somebody whom I could not 

understand; there was lots of noise. If he was not such a wonderful 

guy, he probably would have dumped me overboard, because I kept 

insisting, who are you? I can’t get it. What are you doing? 

And finally, after three or four times and exerting himself, he got 

it out that he was trying to tell me that he would like me to come 

here today and introduce him. When it finally came out, I said, 

why didn’t we do this a long time ago? I did not understand, I 

apologized, and he is still my friend. 

I want to say to all of you, Senator Hatch: Mr. Chairman, first, 

that was an eloquent statement. I happen to be a fan of Hamilton. 

The next gentleman after him probably did more in the broad 

sense. He probably had problems. The second one that you alluded 

to had problems like the ones our friend Jack is going to handle. 

But I am honored. I am very honored to endorse his nomination to 

serve as the next Secretary at this critical moment in our Nation’s 

history. 

Currently, I am a senior fellow at the Bipartisan Policy Center, 

established a few years ago by former Leaders Senators Dole, 

Baker, Mitchell, and Daschle. It is bipartisan, not nonpartisan. I 

am a proud Republican. I am also a former chairman of the Senate 

Budget Committee, which many of you also serve on. I completed 

my career here as chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. 

I will say, moving away from my prepared remarks, and saying 

to Senator Bennet, you may not think you are getting old, but 

clearly I am. I remember that we had a Bennet who was Chief of 

9 

Staff of the Budget Committee, and I was very young and on the 

bottom, bottom chair. Guess who that Chief of Staff was? He had 

the same name you do. He happened to be your father. What a terrific thing, to come here and see you today after that experience. 

It is great to be with you. 

This committee, as Senators know full well, has jurisdiction over 

50 percent of the Federal budget. If we are to put the country on 

a sustainable fiscal path for the future, this committee will play a 

critical role in achieving that goal, working with the President and 

particularly with the Secretary of Treasury. 

So, as you confront the fiscal challenges ahead, I cannot think of 

anyone more qualified or more ready for this job than Jack Lew. 

He not only understands the challenges our country faces, he has 

the experience and judgment to confront them. As many here 

know, Jack has been a dedicated servant for many years, a servant 

of the people. 

But what many here may not know is where the dedication that 

he has originates. I think it originated from Jack’s father, who was 

born in Poland and came to America at the end of World War I. 

His mother’s family made this journey from Europe to America just 

a few years later. You would say that Jack’s parents were among 

the fortunate ones: they left Europe before it was too late. With 

that good luck came a deep love for the United States, a country 

that was for them synonymous with freedom, hope, and opportunity. 

The bulk of Jack’s career has been spent in public service, beginning here on Capitol Hill in 1973. I first encountered Jack briefly 

when he was Speaker O’Neill’s liaison to the Greenspan Commission, which negotiated a bipartisan solution to reform Social Security in 1983. Anyone who does not think that was a major, major 

reform, just go back and read it, and go back and look at the facts. 

From that dedication, of which he was part of, a giant step was 

taken to make Social Security solvent for 20, 30, 40 years. That is 

something real, not something just to talk about. He has earned 

the trust of two presidents. He has overseen the budget of the entire executive branch in two administrations. 

I know this firsthand. During long and difficult budget negotiations in the 1990s, we worked together to reach an honorable compromise and balance the budget. I can say without equivocation 

that Jack was always willing to listen, to work with members of 

both parties, to seek and find common ground. 

As my friend and colleague in the Bipartisan Policy Center, Alice 

Rivlin, has said, ‘‘Jack is a very fair person.’’ Former Secretary of 

the Treasury Bob Rubin wrote me to say that Jack has the ability 

to understand complex matters quickly and well, very good judgment, and the ability to work effectively with the administration, 

colleagues, and members of Congress. 

That was told to me by Bob Rubin, qualities all that our next 

Secretary of the Treasury is going to have to have if we are going 

to pull our country out of the fiscal mess we are in. We talk about 

job creation. It is clear to me that we will get real job creation 

when we get real deficit reduction, but I am not here for that. I 

am here on a personal note. I have found Jack to be a man of inVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:11 Feb 06, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 R:\DOCS\86523.000 TIMD
10 

tegrity. He works hard and can be tough. As a negotiator, he is awfully tough. 

But when the time comes to settle, things are settled. He believes in playing it straight. We have had differences of opinion 

over policies, but we have always been able to work through them. 

Again, quoting Alice Rivlin, ‘‘The press keeps asking me for funny 

anecdotes about Jack, knowing that I had worked with him over 

many years.’’ Alice continues, saying this: ‘‘The truth is,’’ she says, 

‘‘Jack isn’t a funny anecdote guy.’’ [Laughter.] ‘‘He’s just an able, 

dedicated, straight shooter. I guess you can’t be both.’’ He definitely, of the two, chose the right one. Congratulations on being a 

straight shooter. 

From my current position at the Bipartisan Policy Center, we 

look forward to working with Jack in the months ahead and share 

views on reigning in the health care costs in a fair way and reforming our tax code to make it a growth-oriented taxation. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I know that Jack 

is a decent man, a serious policymaker who has all the right mixes 

of qualifications, knowledge, and vision to serve as the next Secretary of the Treasury. It is my hope that you will approve his 

nomination swiftly. It is a pleasure to be with you all and with 

him. Congratulations. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, thank you, Senator. Thank you, Senator 

Schumer, thank you, Senator Domenici, very, very much for those 

glowing statements. We all appreciate them. I am sure Mr. Lew especially appreciates it. Thank you very, very much. 

Mr. Lew, as you know, our usual practice here is for statements 

to be submitted into the record but for persons to summarize— 

briefly summarize—their statements for about 5 minutes or so. But 

if you want to speak a little longer than 5 minutes, take your time. 

This is a very important position. Why don’t you proceed? 

STATEMENT OF HON. JACOB J. LEW, NOMINATED TO BE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, WASHINGTON, 

DC 

Mr. LEW. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, 

Ranking Member Hatch, and members of the committee. It is a 

real privilege to be considered by this committee as the President’s 

nominee to be Secretary of Treasury. 

I would like to thank Senator Schumer and Senator Domenici for 

their very gracious and kind introductions. It has been my great 

fortune to work with both of them over many years, and I am honored that they were here this morning. 

I am especially thankful to my family: my wife Ruth and my 

daughter Shoshi, who are here today; my son Danny, my daughterin-law Zahava, and my grandchildren. As you noted, public life demands much from our families, and I deeply appreciate the support 

and sacrifice over many years of long days and missed family time. 

While my parents are only with me in spirit today, I know I sit 

here because they nurtured me in lasting values and an enduring 

commitment to serve our country. I am grateful to President 

Obama for asking me to lead the Treasury Department. It has been 

my honor to serve in his Cabinet and as his chief of staff, and I 

am humbled by his continued faith in me. 

11 

Finally, I want to thank the members of this committee for meeting with me over the last weeks and for sharing your insights. This 

committee plays a singular role in defining our tax, trade, health 

care, and Social Security policies. With a long history of collaboration, this committee is a clear example that bipartisanship can 

thrive and produce real results for all Americans. I pledge that, if 

confirmed, I will maintain frequent consultation with you in accordance with that spirit of respect. 

Forging bipartisan consensus is not an abstract idea for me. It 

is the fundamental thread that spans my professional life. Early in 

my career when I worked for the great Speaker Thomas P. O’Neill, 

Jr., I took part in negotiations that led to the historic agreement 

with President Reagan to save Social Security. Under President 

Clinton, I helped negotiate the groundbreaking agreement with 

Congress to balance the Federal budget. As Budget Director, I 

oversaw three budget surpluses in a row. 

My experience in senior leadership positions outside government 

at New York University—where, I might add, the highest honor 

the university has is the Gallatin Award, after Albert Gallatin who 

also founded NYU, which is the largest private university in the 

United States and its city—has proven to me that working collaboratively to solve problems and drive change is a universal challenge. 

In my return to public service in this administration, I worked 

alongside Secretary Clinton to promote our national security and 

international economic policies around the globe and to reinvigorate America’s leadership abroad. 

At the Office of Management and Budget, I pursued sound fiscal 

policy by working with Democrats and Republicans to pass the 

Budget Control Act, which has reduced Federal discretionary 

spending to historically low levels. 

Finally, as the White House Chief of Staff, I adhere to the principle that we best serve the American people when we find common 

ground to move the country forward. We saw that principle in action most recently when the administration and Congress acted together to protect the middle class from sweeping tax increases that 

could have thrown our economy back into recession. 

Because of my experience, I approach the challenges that lie 

ahead with a clear understanding of their complexity and significance. That has also given me a profound respect for Secretary 

Geithner and for the women and men of the Treasury Department 

whose remarkable record of accomplishment I would like to acknowledge today. 

When President Obama came into office, economic conditions 

were the worst our Nation had seen since the Great Depression. 

The President moved quickly to break the back of the financial crisis, to reignite growth, and because he, along with Congress, responded with great speed and force, our economy is in better shape 

today. 

Over the past 4 years, the private sector has created more than 

6 million new jobs. Taxpayer money that saved the financial system has been mostly repaid. Rules are in place so that the financial 

system is safer and taxpayers are not responsible if a big firm fails 

12 

again. The housing market is recovering, and home values are stabilizing. 

We have isolated Iran from the global financial system and established the toughest sanction regime in history. We have signed 

a series of trade agreements to open the markets for American 

goods and level the playing field for American workers and businesses. Our auto companies are once again growing, innovating, 

and creating jobs, and we have made substantial progress reducing 

our deficit in a balanced way. 

So we are in a better position today, but the work to create a 

sounder economy and a safer world remains unfinished. Our top 

priority is to strengthen the recovery by fostering private-sector job 

creation and economic growth while we make sure our economy remains resilient to the headwinds from beyond our shores. 

That means making it easier to sell American-made goods abroad 

and expanding manufacturing in the United States. It means working with our partners around the globe and through the G–20 to 

bolster the international financial system and promote global economic stability. It means moving forward on financial reforms so 

that the system is less vulnerable to crisis, with greater protections 

for investors and consumers, and it means reforming the tax system so American businesses can thrive and compete. 

At the same time, we must put our Nation back on a path of fis- cal sustainability. Over the past 2 years, we have locked in $2.5 

trillion in deficit reduction through spending cuts and revenue increases, and we can do even more to shrink the deficit over the 

next decade through a balanced mix of spending reductions and tax 

reforms and sensible reforms to Medicare that will help the program stay sound in the future. 

But even as we move forward with deficit reduction, we need to 

make certain there is room for critical investments in education, research, and infrastructure, things that we need to grow and compete globally. We also have to avoid doing anything to degrade our 

national security or derail the economic recovery through abrupt 

moves in the short term. That is why we cannot allow the series 

of harmful automatic spending cuts known as the sequester to go 

into effect. These cuts would impose self-inflicted wounds to the recovery and would put far too many jobs and businesses at risk. 

In closing, I would like to make one final observation. In recent 

years, some have argued that Washington is broken, that our government cannot tackle the Nation’s most serious problems, and 

that bipartisanship is a thing of the past. I disagree. I have 

reached across the aisle to forge honorable compromises my entire 

professional life. 

I have been involved in almost every major bipartisan budget 

agreement over the last 30 years, and I can honestly say that the 

things that divide Washington right now are not as insurmountable 

as they might look. We all share the same goals: we want an economy that is expanding; we want a private sector that is robust; we 

want a vibrant job market that gives anyone who works hard the 

chance to get ahead; we want a financial system that helps families 

save and channels investment to support innovation and entrepreneurs; we want a strong housing market; we want a global economy that is prosperous, inclusive, and secure; we want a vigorous 

13 

manufacturing base and a level playing field for American companies; and we want a government that lives within its means. It is 

going to take a lot of hard work to achieve these goals. We have 

plenty of obstacles, but I have no doubt that we will work together 

to find solutions to today’s challenges. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am grateful to 

you for considering my nomination, and I look forward to answering any questions you may have. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Lew. 

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

The CHAIRMAN. I have several questions here that are obligatory 

questions we ask of all nominees. First, is there anything that you 

are aware of in your background that might present a conflict of 

interest with the duties of the office to which you have been nominated? 

Mr. LEW. No, Mr. Chairman. 

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

discharging the responsibilities of the office to which you have been 

nominated? 

Mr. LEW. No, there are none. 

The CHAIRMAN. Do you agree, without reservation, to respond to 

any reasonable summons to appear and testify before any duly constituted committee of the Congress, if confirmed? 

Mr. LEW. Yes, I do. 

The CHAIRMAN. And finally, do you commit to provide a prompt 

response in writing to any questions addressed to you by any Senator of this committee? 

Mr. LEW. Yes, I do. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

I would like your thoughts on tax reform. As I mentioned in my 

statement, everyone knows the country, the world, has changed 

dramatically since 1986. I believe that we must, and this committee is going to, engage in substantive, comprehensive tax reform. It is our duty, it is our obligation; it is also our opportunity. 

I would like your thoughts on the visions we should focus on, actions we should take. I would like you also to tell us how you are 

going to be working with this committee as we reform the code. 

What would you focus on first and second? Your thoughts on tax 

reform. 

Mr. LEW. Mr. Chairman, I think tax reform is an extremely important priority, and, if confirmed, I would look forward to working 

with this committee on a bipartisan basis to help make it happen. 

I was involved in 1986 tax reform; I know how hard it is. I also 

know how important it is. 

When one leaves Washington, you do not have to talk to very 

many people to learn that the American people want tax reform. 

They want a simpler tax code; they want it to be easier for them 

to comply with the taxes on an individual basis and know that it 

is fair and that everyone is treated in a similar way in a similar 

position. As businesses, they want to be able to go about the business of business without having to worry about complicated tax accountant and lawyer consultations. 

14 

Now, it is hard, because the way to do tax reform is to broaden 

the base and lower the rates. But broadening the base means taking on a lot of very entrenched interests, and lowering rates is a 

benefit to everyone but not concentrated with anyone individually. 

I think we can do it. I think it is important that we do it. It is 

important for competitiveness; it is important for manufacturing 

and job creation. It is important in terms of our international competitiveness. I think it is something that there is a bipartisan consensus that we need to do, but there is an understanding of how 

hard it is. I would pledge to work with this committee to try to get 

that job done. 

The CHAIRMAN. Could you speak a little more about base broadening? What areas do you think are areas that we should focus on? 

Then you also mentioned that the base broadening should be used 

to lower rates. If you could talk a little about that, I would appreciate that—a little more detail. 

Mr. LEW. Senator, I think that, on the individual side, it is a 

very hard thing to do, to broaden the base, because it is taking a 

look at things that are very much part of the fabric of how people 

live right now. But, as in 1986, that is the way you can go about 

tax reform. It is a little harder than in 1986 because we have not 

completed the work on the fiscal plan. 

We need to have some more revenue as part of a fiscal plan, so 

tax reform is going to have to be done in an environment where, 

as we broaden the base, we both contribute to deficit reduction and 

hopefully are able to lower rates. 

On the business side, we have a contradiction in our business tax 

system. Our statutory rate is very high. Our effective rate is not 

as high. So, when you look at the United States competitively 

against other countries, statutory rates make it unattractive to 

look at the United States versus other places, on some occasions. 

For individuals, individual firms, their average tax rate is much 

lower because of all the complicated provisions—deductions, credits—that are part of the code now. It will be a challenge to take 

on those individual deductions and credits, but there is no other 

way to bring the rate down, which is something that I think we 

need to do to maintain our competitiveness abroad. 

The CHAIRMAN. So, even though our effective rate might be different than the statutory, you still believe it is good to proceed, go 

down the road of corporate reform, reduce a lot of those tax expenditures in order to get the rate down? 

Mr. LEW. I do, Senator. I think that, when one looks at a table 

of international tax rates, it stands out that the U.S. statutory rate 

is very high. It is a much more complicated story to tell that the 

average rate is lower. It does not affect all businesses equally. In 

order to get that lower average rate, one has to take advantage of 

complicated special tax provisions. We can have a simpler tax code. 

The CHAIRMAN. I do not have a lot of time here. But if you could 

just briefly comment on something that has been in the press, and 

that is your investment in the Cayman Islands. What was it, how 

did that happen? Why did you choose that investment? What benefits did you receive? 

Mr. LEW. Senator, while I was an employee at Citigroup, I had 

the opportunity to make an investment in a venture capital fund, 

15 

a private equity fund, that was designed to invest in emerging 

economies around the world. It was an opportunity that looked to 

me to be a bit riskier than other investments I had made in the 

past. I have had a very conservative personal investment philosophy. I thought it was an appropriate risk to take, given the possibility of a higher return. 

I invested in the fund as an employee, and I divested from the 

fund when I was confirmed for a position in the Office of Government Ethics and they recommended or directed the divestment. My 

benefit was really very small, in the sense that I took a loss when 

I sold the investment. I always reported all income. I always paid 

any taxes that were due. 

The CHAIRMAN. Why was the investment in the Cayman Islands? 

Mr. LEW. Senator, I actually do not know how it was organized. 

I was not involved in setting up the fund. 

The CHAIRMAN. Did you know at the time it was the Caymans? 

Mr. LEW. You know, at the time I invested, I was aware that it 

was an international fund investing in emerging markets. I knew 

that much of the personnel for the fund was based in London. I actually did not know at the time what the address of the partnership was. 

The CHAIRMAN. And when did you divest? 

Mr. LEW. I divested in 2010, when I became OMB Director. The 

fund was disclosed in all of my prior confirmations and all of my 

SF 278s. I am not aware of any tax benefits that I got from participating in it. It was an investment. 

The CHAIRMAN. But did you pay taxes on that investment? 

Mr. LEW. I reported all income related to the investment on my 

tax forms. I have paid all my taxes. 

The CHAIRMAN. But did you earn taxes on that? 

Mr. LEW. I lost money on the investment. In fact, I lost money, 

so I did not have a great deal of income. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Thank you. 

Senator Hatch? 

Senator HATCH. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. 

Following the financial crisis, many lessons were learned by 

many financial firms, including Citigroup, that have taken actions 

to improve their performance, operations, and responsibilities. 

My questions about Citigroup to you, Mr. Lew, relate to the time 

you were there and not to current Citigroup operations. Frankly, 

I do not believe that I have a good understanding of your responsibilities as managing director and chief operating officer at Citigroup units. 

Now, you have said to our staff, I believe, that you were not involved in investment-level decisions or portfolio management. However, while you may not have selected assets that Citi invested in 

or managed any portfolio, Citigroup organization charts seem to 

identify that you were tied to investment research, investment, and 

other such activities like liquid and illiquid operations. 

During your time on Wall Street, it was not clear to me whether 

risky securities that were alleged to have been misleadingly marketed and sold to investors were handled by the units that you 

oversaw. Those securities include a collateralized debt obligation, 

or CDO, called Class V funding, which the SEC has alleged was 

16 

a product that Citi misrepresented, sold to collect fees, and then 

bet against. 

Other risky securities that may have been marketed and sold by 

a unit that you oversaw include funds called ASTA, MAT, and Falcon, which some allege were misrepresented to have been far safer 

than they were. 

Now, Mr. Lew, you have said that you were responsible for operational activities and management with little or no knowledge of 

investment activities of the very units that you staffed. 

Now, I find that somewhat confusing. Some Wall Street participants have—cynically, in my view—labeled your position at Citi as 

a political trophy position, and I hope we can provide some clarity 

here to disprove that view. 

Now, I have four questions about your Citigroup role at the time 

you were there. Perhaps you should get your pencil ready, because 

I am going to go through all of them, and then you can respond. 

First of all, at Citi, did you have any discussions or participate 

in any e-mail exchanges, including having been cc’d, on any e-mail 

regarding the Class V funding CDO, or the ASTA, MAT, or Falcon 

funds? 

Second, did you get an understanding of bank risk-taking activities from observing activities in the units that you oversaw, or did 

you not know about any risky activities in your units? 

Third, did you have any oversight role with respect to financial 

products that were marketed and sold by your units, and, if so, did 

you do anything to curtail risky activities, or did you not know 

about the marketing and sales products in the units that you managed, in which case I wonder specifically what you did do with regard to them? 

And fourth, while managing to provide efficiencies at the units 

that you oversaw, did you use any services of Citigroup Global 

Services, which Citi’s website calls ‘‘one of the largest providers of 

business process outsourcing services within the banking and financial services sector?’’ Those are the four questions I would like 

to have you answer, if you would take time to do so. 

Mr. LEW. Thank you, Senator Hatch. Let me start with maybe 

answering the part about my role, because everything, I think, falls 

within that. I was chief operating officer, first of the Global Wealth 

Management business—that was for about 2 years—and then for 

about a year, the Alternative Investment Business. 

As the chief operating officer, I was responsible for a number of 

broad-ranging management-of-the-business kinds of activities. I 

had substantial responsibilities in terms of a large national and 

international field organization system. I mentioned to Senator 

Baucus, one of the early trips that I took was to Billings, MT to 

visit our financial advisors, because I went around to make sure 

that our business was working on the ground. 

In New York, I was responsible for the budget of running the 

business, which was a very large, as I say, national and international operation. I was not in the business of making investment 

decisions. I was certainly aware of things that were going on. I was 

working in a financial institution. I learned a great deal about the 

financial products, but I was not designing them, and I was not 

opining on them. 

17 

I take away from that experience a deep understanding that 

there are risks that we need to be very much on guard against, and 

I would be delighted to discuss those policy considerations as we 

go forward. 

With regard to specific e-mails and phone calls, it is quite a number of years. I do not recall specific conversations. There was a very 

bad financial situation going on in that year. There were products 

that were widely understood to be troubled. So, yes, I was aware 

that there were funds that were in trouble. I did not have responsibility for the funds themselves, but I was aware that those difficulties were going on. 

Senator HATCH. My time is up, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Following the early bird rule, the next Senator 

on the list is Senator Schumer. He is not here. 

Senator Grassley, you are next. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Already? 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. After Grassley, it is Stabenow, Crapo, and 

Cantwell. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Mr. Lew, on January 16, 2009, Citigroup announced losses of $18.7 billion, the same day Citigroup received a 

$301-billion Federal bail-out through a loan guarantee on its mortgage assets. One day later, you received a bonus from Citigroup for 

over $940,000 for your work as chief operating officer on the Alternative Investment Unit, which was responsible for much of the 

loss. Were you aware that Citigroup was about to receive a multibillion dollar Federal guarantee when you accepted your bonus? 

Mr. LEW. Senator, I was aware of the condition of Citi and of the 

TARP program, yes. 

Senator GRASSLEY. All right. Explain why it might be morally acceptable to take close to $1 million out of a company that was functionally insolvent and about to receive $1 billion of taxpayer support. 

Mr. LEW. Senator, in 2008 I was an employee in the private sector. I was compensated in a manner consistent with other people 

who did the kind of work that I did in the industry. I was compensated for my work. I will leave it for others to judge. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Now to something that President Obama has 

made a big deal about. On May 4, 2009, President Obama said 

about Ugland House, which is where you invested your money 

overseas, ‘‘On the campaign, I used to talk about the outrage of a 

building in the Cayman Islands that had over 12,000 businesses. 

I have said before, either this is the largest building in the world 

or the largest tax scam in the world.’’ 

You invested more money there than the average American 

makes in an entire year. Do you believe that the President was accurate in referring to the building which housed your investment 

as ‘‘the largest tax scam in the world?’’ 

Mr. LEW. Senator, I am happy to answer questions about my own 

investments. I am also happy to answer questions about tax policy 

regarding the sheltering of income from taxation. I reported all income that I earned; I paid all taxes due. I very strongly believe 

that we should have tax policies that make it difficult, if not impossible, to shelter income from taxation. 

18 

Senator GRASSLEY. Well, there is a certain hypocrisy in what the 

President says about other taxpayers and then your appointment, 

but let me move on. 

You have told Finance Committee staff that you were unaware 

of Ugland House and its association with tax scams. That makes 

me wonder where you have been for the last 8 years. The chairman 

of this committee, as well as a former Budget Committee chairman 

whose chart is behind us, highlighted Ugland House to the Nation 

several times. As I said, President Obama preached about it. It is 

no wonder that maybe you and the President have not proposed 

legislative solutions to what the President considers a tax scam. 

So my question: how can you be the President’s top tax enforcer 

if you have not heard of this offshore loophole? 

Mr. LEW. Senator, this committee has reviewed my taxes for 

many years. I think it is clear that I reported all income that I 

have earned. I have paid taxes, as appropriate. I believe very 

strongly that people should pay taxes on their income. I have very 

strong views on how the tax code should be constructed to encourage investment in the United States, and I am happy to answer 

any policy questions you have. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Do you think Ugland House ought to be shut 

down? 

Mr. LEW. Senator, I am actually not familiar with Ugland House. 

I understand there are a lot of things that happen that are a problem. 

Senator GRASSLEY. All right. Let me move on then. 

Mr. LEW. Yes. 

Senator GRASSLEY. A case filed in the New York State Supreme 

Court in which NYU, New York University, is the plaintiff, states 

that at the same time you were executive vice president, ‘‘New 

York University invested in the Ariel Fund, a Cayman Islands 

open-ended investment company created to be used for United 

States tax-exempt investors and foreign investors.’’ Nonprofits 

sometimes seek to avoid paying taxes on unrelated business income 

through offshore vehicles like funds in the Cayman Islands. 

So, question: while you were the executive vice president, did 

NYU have investments in the Cayman Islands to avoid taxes on 

unrelated business expense, and, if so, how many millions of dollars did NYU have invested in the Caymans? 

Mr. LEW. Senator, when I was at NYU, I was not aware of any 

policy to invest in a manner that you describe. I was in no discussions regarding the Unrelated Business Income Tax. I was involved 

in discussions about making sure that the endowment was invested 

to have as good a return as possible, and the goal of the Investment Committee at NYU was to try to have a diverse portfolio that 

would help the university get income from its endowment. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Well, I will close then with this conclusion 

since you are unaware of it. I take your word for it, but it is certainly a poor reflection on your tenure there if you did not know 

about these investments. You were paid over $800,000 more than 

the actual president of NYU to know what was going on, and I am 

surprised you did not know what was going on. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. 

19 

Next, Senator Stabenow. 

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

Mr. Lew, welcome back. I understand this is your sixth confirmation hearing, so you are certainly a glutton for punishment. But we 

welcome you, and we thank you very much for your service. Mr. 

Chairman, I actually am optimistic, listening to the concerns about 

closing offshore loopholes. 

I think we may have something here that we could do together 

to offset sequestration. I think it would be wonderful to work together on something that would close loopholes that clearly we are 

seeing bipartisan concern about today, which I would love to work 

with members on. 

I would like to talk to you about—no surprise—one of my favorite 

subjects, which is growing the economy with manufacturing. I was 

very pleased to hear the President’s comments last night. We all 

know that, while we would love to have things go faster, manufacturing has been leading the recovery in growth. 

When we look at tax reform and what we need to do to be competitive internationally and so on, I am very interested and concerned to make sure that we continue to make things in America 

and that we innovate in America. 

So I wonder if you might speak to how we, in tax reform, encourage making things in America, American manufacturing, and 

things like the section 199 manufacturing deduction, how could we 

make it more effective, as well as the R&D credit. What would you 

see in terms of being able to continue to innovate and make things 

in America and focus on that in tax reform? 

Mr. LEW. Thank you, Senator. I think that one of the real reasons for taking on tax reform—I would say the major reason for 

taking on tax reform—is to help grow the economy, create jobs, and 

improve the environment for manufacturing in the United States. 

Right now we have a tax code that has a lot of provisions that 

benefit manufacturers of one kind or another, but they are quite 

complicated, they are quite particularistic, and overall we have a 

tax code which, when you look at it, suggests that we have a very 

high statutory rate for income. 

I think that if we approach business tax reform from the point 

of view that our goal is to try to simplify the system, that is immediately going to help businesses, because right now businesses have 

to start by spending money on accountants and lawyers just to get 

started. We can simplify it to lower the bar. 

Secondly, as the President outlined in his proposal last year, we 

ought to have a preference for manufacturing in the reformed tax 

code. I think that the challenge, as I mentioned in my response to 

the chairman, is going to be that we all know that a tax code which 

has a broader base and a lower rate is going to be one that makes 

it more attractive to invest in manufacturing. 

But we also know that it is hard, that each of the individual provisions in the tax code is very important to one or another industry. It is going to require bipartisan consensus; it is going to require working together to do. It is in the greatest good of the economy and the American people, even if it does mean taking away 

some of the particular benefits that go to one or another part of the 

economy. 

20 

In particular, one of the things that we have focused on is, we 

should take away the incentives for things that—oil and gas exploration cannot move offshore. The resources are here. We need to 

look at, what is it that enters into the business decision when you 

choose between locating in the United States or overseas, and have 

the tax code be helpful, not hurtful, in terms of locating in the 

United States. 

One of the things that has been very encouraging in the last few 

years is that, even with the tax code as it is, more and more businesses have been deciding they want to invest in the United States. 

The quality of our workforce, the stability of our system and our 

economy makes the United States a very attractive place to invest. 

If we fix our tax code, there is no limit to how much we can grow. 

Senator STABENOW. Just to emphasize that, we have about 17 

million people who work in this country because of manufacturing, 

16 million because of agriculture. If we focus on making things and 

growing things, that really is the foundation of the economy. 

One final question on the foreclosure crisis. I believe there is 

much more to be done, even though things are improving. What 

would you like to see done? 

Mr. LEW. Senator, we have worked very hard over the last 4 

years, pursuing multiple paths to help homeowners either refinance or modify their loans. One of the things that we very much 

would like to do, which the President addressed last night in the 

State of the Union address, is to enable homeowners who are paying their bills, who are under water through no fault of their own 

because of the financial crisis, to be able to refinance their loans. 

Right now, you have homeowners who are locked into 6, 7, 8 percent mortgages when they should be able to get 3.5 or 4 percent 

mortgages. We ought to be able to do that on a bipartisan basis. 

Senator STABENOW. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator. 

Senator Crapo? 

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

Mr. Lew, I appreciate having you here with us today. I want to 

continue to focus on tax reform, as we did in our private discussions. As I have shared with you, in my work with the BowlesSimpson Commission and in other areas of trying to address putting together a comprehensive deficit reduction package and debt 

reduction package, I view tax reform, as I have heard you say 

today, to be a key part of that, not because of the need to raise revenue, which is where you and I may have some disagreement, but 

because of the need to generate growth and have a pro-growth element in the recovery effort for our country in dealing with our debt 

crisis. 

That is, I think, the first part of the question I want to ask you. 

I think you have already answered it, but I want to get it very 

clearly on the record. To me, in the last few months the discussion 

over tax reform has taken, in some cases, a concerning turn. 

I have heard the term ‘‘tax reform’’ used all too frequently to 

mean a revenue-generating device. I understand it can be utilized 

to generate revenue, but please tell me why, again, you believe tax 

reform is needed in our economy. 

21 

Mr. LEW. Thank you, Senator. As I think we discussed in the 

conversation we had, I considered it a lost opportunity in December 

and January that we did not get to a final agreement on our fiscal 

challenges so that we would be able to debate tax reform after resolving the fiscal challenge. I think that there is still more work 

to be done in terms of the fiscal path, and we need more revenue 

to be part of it. 

I think that, separate from that, there is a need to do tax reform. 

In clearing out the tax code and broadening the base, there is room 

to raise the revenue that we need. Just a few months ago, there 

was a lot of discussion as to whether or not we should raise tax 

rates or raise revenue by broadening the base. 

Well, we did the tax rates. We did not broaden the base. So there 

is room in the conversation for both, and I would look forward, on 

a bipartisan basis, to achieving the goal, both of being on a sound 

fiscal footing and, equally importantly—perhaps more importantly 

in terms of the long-term growth of the economy—having a tax 

code that makes sense for individuals and businesses so that we 

have a thriving investment environment. 

Senator CRAPO. I agree with that. I think that we would have 

been hard-pressed to create a tax code, if we tried, that was more 

unfair, more complex, more expensive to comply with, and frankly 

more anti-competitive to our own business interests, than we have 

now. We need to correct that, and I look forward to working with 

you in partnership on that. 

I would like to get into a little bit more detail. If you look at the 

corporate side—and you have discussed the need to lower the statutory rate, and I agree—do you have a target rate in mind? I know 

a lot of us have talked about 25 percent, at least a level of 25 percent, that we need to reach. 

Mr. LEW. The challenge, Senator, is how far we are willing to go 

in broadening the base. We do not have the ability to lose revenue 

as we go through business tax reform. I think it is challenging to 

get all the way to 25, but I think the more aggressive we are at 

broadening the base, the more progress we will be able to make at 

lowering the rate. 

Senator CRAPO. Do you agree that, on the corporate side, we 

should be revenue-neutral? My understanding is that in the past 

we have focused on at least the corporate rate reform being 

revenue-neutral. 

Mr. LEW. I think the primary goal in business, corporate tax reform, is to have the tax code be simplified and to be consistent with 

a more robust investment environment, particularly as we are in 

a competitive environment with other countries. I think it can be 

done in a revenue-neutral way. I do not believe we have the ability 

to raise the revenue that we need to deal with our fiscal problem 

and have it cost revenue as we go through business tax reform. 

Senator CRAPO. And with regard to business taxation, many have 

made the argument—and I tend to agree with it—that we need to 

pay very close attention to the individual code with regard to its 

impact on business taxation. Do you think we can do corporate reform without also doing individual tax reform? 

Mr. LEW. Senator, I think we could, but I do not think it would 

be the best way to do it. I think the best thing would be for us to 

22 

do both individual and business tax reform. We do have a combination of different forms of business organization. 

The closer we get to a place where the corporate tax system is 

one that is open for more business, the more competitive we will 

be, but we need to keep both in play. I mean, right now the challenges are many, but I think, once we are doing tax reform, we 

should do it right and we should do both. 

Senator CRAPO. I wanted to get into some Dodd-Frank issues, 

but I see my time is running out. One last, quick question on the 

corporate reform side. Are you open to negotiating a competitive 

territorial system in the corporate code? 

Mr. LEW. Senator, I think that, as we lower our rate, we ought 

to be looking at having kind of a minimum world-wide tax rate 

where we are trying to level the playing field. We actually have a 

debate between whether we go one way or the other. We have a 

hybrid system now, and it is a question of where we set the dial. 

I think that there is room to work together on this. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Cantwell? 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Congratulations, Mr. Lew, on your nomination. It is great to see 

your family here today. I definitely have a lot of fiscal/financial 

questions for you. But you spoke in your opening statement about 

Medicare and getting the delivery system right. The President, last 

night, mentioned that in his State of the Union address, as well as 

focusing on quality as opposed to frequency in tests. I was curious. 

Were you involved as chief of staff in the discussion of implementation of the Affordable Care Act? 

Mr. LEW. Senator, both in my time at OMB and as Chief of Staff, 

I did pay attention to the implementation of the Affordable Care 

Act. Enacting the law was a critical step, but implementing it is 

necessary in order for it to be in place. 

Senator CANTWELL. Do you think that if there is a provision of 

the Affordable Care Act that is supposed to be implemented in 

2014, that it should be implemented in 2014? 

Mr. LEW. We have been working very hard to be on schedule 

with getting the exchanges set up and having the Affordable Care 

Act in place in 2014. Many departments have been involved in that 

in addition to the Department of Treasury: the Department of 

HHS, Department of Labor, Office of Personnel Management. It 

was not always easy, because we had to work mighty hard to get 

the funding to implement on schedule, but I feel we are in a pretty 

good place. 

Senator CANTWELL. Well, there is one provision that is not being 

implemented, the basic health plan. I know the President has tried 

to express an opinion to help push things along, but I guess my 

question is, do you think if the Affordable Care Act specifies that 

the basic health plan should be implemented in 2014, that it 

should be implemented in 2014? 

I guess I am also asking, is there a bias somewhere in the administration against lower-cost managed care delivery systems that 

the Act calls for in exchange for the exchanges? Is there a bias over 

there that somehow the Affordable Care Act means implementing 

23 

only those pages related to the exchanges and punting everything 

else, even though they have been more cost-effective delivery systems? 

Mr. LEW. Senator, I am not aware of any such bias. I do know 

that there has been an enormous amount of work to get the exchanges set up and the various parts of the architecture. I would 

be happy to follow up and work with you on that specific issue and 

find out where it is in the queue and follow up on that. 

Senator CANTWELL. I would greatly appreciate that. I think there 

is a very big concern on my part, and several other members’, that 

somehow people may be asking States to forego what have been 

more cost-effective solutions for that population just above the 

Medicaid level and almost maybe even making it more expensive 

and pushing that population onto the exchanges as some Holy 

Grail. I can tell you that we think it should be implemented and 

should be implemented now, so I certainly will take you up on that. 

I want to turn to financial issues. You and I have had a chance 

to talk, and we could talk for hours, but just so everyone understands your philosophy on the regulatory side of things, do you believe in the reimplementation of Glass-Steagall? 

Mr. LEW. Senator, as we discussed when we had this conversation, Glass-Steagall had, over the years, become something of an 

anachronism. Much of the activity in the financial world had gotten 

beyond it. I think the problems we had leading up to the financial 

crisis were evidence that our financial regulatory system did not 

keep pace with the growing complexity of the financial system. I 

think Dodd-Frank was a critically important step to reasserting 

proper regulatory oversight of an industry that is critical to the 

health of our economy. 

I think, as we go forward, we have to ask questions as we complete the implementation of Dodd-Frank. Are there more actions 

that are needed? They have to be actions that make sense in 2013. 

So I think going back—while I am a student of history, and New 

Deal history in particular is of great interest to me—I do not think 

it is just a matter of resuscitating a 1930s statute. It is a question 

of, what do we need to do to manage the financial changes now? 

Senator CANTWELL. So I will take that as a ‘‘no.’’ To that point, 

I do not see how you contain this issue, as we now see the CFTC 

and the treatment of swaps and futures as having different clearing measures. Are you not worried that that is going to provide 

more systemic risk as well? 

Mr. LEW. I think that if you look at the issues, things like margin requirements for swaps, it is very important that we get on top 

of regulating things that create system risk. I did not mean to be 

answering the prior question ‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no.’’ I think it is just a little 

bit more complicated. 

I think the question of, is there a need for any further consideration of financial regulation is one that just comes in sequence 

after implementing Dodd-Frank. I come to the issue open-minded, 

knowing that we cannot let what happened leading up to 2008 happen again. We cannot let a regulatory system become outstripped 

by the complexity and organization of a financial system which our 

economic life depends on. 

24 

Senator CANTWELL. Well, I will look for more discussion on that 

point, then. 

There are two other issues I wanted to bring up. I just do not 

understand the administration’s idea of capping the municipal 

bond tax deduction at 28 percent if we want to encourage more investment. One thing I do believe the Federal Government does is 

provide cheap capital whichever way, and when all these banks are 

putting all these monies into derivatives, you cannot convince me 

that they are really interested in the bottom line here. So to me, 

a policy on capping the municipal bonds at 28 percent, tax-exempt 

bonds—I am curious as to whether you are going to continue that 

policy. 

Also, on the Foreign Investment and Real Estate Act, I am curious whether you think the Treasury Department is going to complete that IRS notice and take action that would help jump-start 

private investment. 

Mr. LEW. Senator, the administration’s proposal, which would 

have limited the value of deductions in the top tax bracket to 28 

percent, was designed to try to restore some equity in the tax code 

and to generate revenue that we need for meeting our fiscal targets. It was not specifically directed at municipal bonds or at other 

specific areas of tax activity. 

It was also meant to be a place holder, that we really should 

have tax reform, and we should make specific policies deciding 

what is in and what is out and what the proper tax rates are. But 

we put it in as a fall-back, saying that, if tax reform does not happen, this is something that would help us to get to the revenue targets we need. 

I would be happy to follow up with you on these issues of the individual component parts of tax reform, but I would say, as a general proposition, that the hard decisions in tax reform will in many 

cases put us in places where there are things that many of us are 

sympathetic to where we have to curtail tax benefit if we are going 

to broaden the base. I think as a general rule, if there were a lot 

of easy decisions, tax reform would have happened a long time ago. 

I think there are going to be hard choices to make. 

Senator CANTWELL. And so, on the foreign investment, is that 

something you are going to take action on? Are we going to have 

to act here? 

Mr. LEW. My understanding is that those rules are progressing. 

If confirmed, I would pay attention to them and work on them and 

work with you to get them completed. 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

The next two are not here, so, Senator Thune, you are next. 

Senator THUNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Lew, welcome. I want to come back to an area where I think 

there is room for Republicans and Democrats to work together, and 

that is the issue of tax reform. 

What I have on my right here are the 1,300 pages that, the last 

time we did tax reform, the White House and the administration 

put forward in terms of their recommendations. In November 1984, 

May of 1985, it was Treasury I, Treasury II. We talked about this; 

I think you are familiar with these documents. 

25 

But contrast that with the paper that the White House, the administration, put out. This is 25 pages, basically. It is a corporate 

tax reform proposal. It is 25 pages, if you include the title page and 

the table of contents. 

But my point, very simply, is the administration, I think, is going 

to have to do a better job of leading on the issue of tax reform if 

we are actually going to get something done on this issue. This 

goes into great detail of the myriad complex issues that we deal 

with in the tax code. 

The President talked about, last night yet again, tax reform and 

the need for it, but he does not give us any details. He said he supports lowering rates for businesses that create jobs in America. I 

guess the question I would have for you is, does the President, 

when he says that, agree that rates need to be lowered across the 

board for all taxpayers? Because, as you know, there are lots of 

small businesses that file on individual tax forms and pay at the 

individual tax rates. 

So should tax reform include the lowering of rates on individual 

taxpayers as well as the corporate rate, which I think you have already addressed with regard to Senator Crapo’s question? 

Mr. LEW. Senator, I think that to proceed on tax reform, we are 

going to have to work together, both the executive branch and the 

legislative branch, and on a bipartisan basis. If confirmed, it would 

be at the very top of my priorities to work with you and this committee to do that. In terms of the best way for an administration 

to engage, as we discussed in your office last week, I remember 

Treasury I and Treasury II. I still have the white books and the 

blue books. They, at the time, were important. 

Tax reform in 1986 did not exactly follow either Treasury I or 

Treasury II. It was worked out by the two chairmen with the Secretary of the Treasury in the conversation, in the kind of regularorder process that I think we will need to follow again if we are 

going to succeed. 

I remember not that long ago, when I produced a pile of paper 

roughly that size—and it was the Health Security Act in the Clinton administration—it did not lead to health care reform. When 

President Obama sent a much shorter document to Congress, it 

ended up going the full distance and getting enacted into law. 

The goal is, how do we get something done? The means to the 

end I am very flexible on and would be very open to suggestions 

of how we could work constructively to both provide ideas and technical support. I think it is very important. 

On the question of rates, we will have to work very hard to 

broaden the base, to lower the rates, and meet the revenue targets 

that we have, but I think it is possible. I think if we roll up our 

sleeves and we are willing to do the hard work, we can both get 

our fiscal house in order and work on the rate structure. It will all 

depend on how much we are willing to do. 

Senator THUNE. Well, I guess I would just say—and I understand 

the whole issue of the health care reform legislation and the concern about too much specificity, but frankly this is not going to get 

done unless there is leadership out of the White House. This is a 

big issue. This is going to be very hard. There are lots of constituency groups out there that are very attached to the current tax 

26 

code. I, frankly, am one who believes that we need to do away with 

it. 

Start by doing away with everything and do what SimpsonBowles suggested, and that is, just come up with whatever those 

three rates are—8, 14, 23—and then figure out what we want to 

add back in and adjust the rates accordingly. 

But I think the goal in all this should be getting the rates down, 

promoting economic growth. I hear the President talking about 

raising revenue through tax reform. To me, if you get economic 

growth, you will get new revenue, but you will get it the oldfashioned way and at the same time create lots of jobs and get this 

economy expanding again. So, that ought to be the goal. But I am 

suggesting that there has to be, I think, more leadership than this 

relative to this when it comes to this issue. 

Very quickly, one other question. I raised this with you as well 

when we had our meeting last week. But the President, once again, 

I think, talks about entitlement reform. We have talked about the 

need to address what is the long-term driver of debt and deficits, 

and that of course is our entitlement programs. But again, there 

is just not the specificity there. The President has talked about 

$400 billion. If you think about $10 trillion in deficits just in the 

next 10 years, $400 billion looks like a drop in the bucket. 

So I guess my question again is, where is the specificity when it 

comes to addressing what I believe—and I think what most of us 

agree—is a spending problem. I mean, revenues as a percentage of 

GDP in 2015 are going to be back up to 19.1 percent, and over the 

next decade they are going to average 18.9 percent, which is almost 

a full percentage point higher than the 40-year historical average. 

We have revenue coming in. We have a spending problem. There 

is just no proposal that, in any meaningful way, addresses that. 

You look at the budgets that were submitted the last 2 years that 

got voted on in both the House and the Senate that did not receive 

a single vote, Republican or Democrat. They are not serious. 

I guess I am just asking you, I hope that you will engage on this 

issue of trying to do something about what I think is a very, very 

huge problem for our country’s future, and that is this massive 

debt. 

Mr. LEW. Senator, I could not agree more that we need to deal 

with our fiscal challenge. I may disagree that it is a combination. 

We have a deficit problem, and we are going to need to solve it 

with a combination of spending reduction and restoring revenue. 

But that is the kind of thing where we can have a discussion and 

figure out what the right balance should be. The President said he 

thinks it should be 2:1, spending cuts to revenue. 

In terms of specific proposals on Medicare, the President’s budget that I worked on had $300 billion of specific savings proposals. 

They were a mix of different approaches. Some were on the providers, some were on beneficiaries, some were adding a burden to 

those who can afford to pay for their Medicare if they retire, and 

they can afford to pay for it. There is going to be a difficult discussion at some point of what the right mix between those different 

approaches is. 

The President, in negotiations in December, offered to increase 

to $400 billion the savings in Medicare, and we are prepared to enVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:11 Feb 06, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 R:\DOCS\86523.000 TIMD
27 

gage in very specific ways to do that. The sooner we put the fiscal 

frame together, the better, to get certainty in the economy and to 

be able to move on and create an economy that is growing and creating jobs. 

Senator THUNE. I think my time has expired, Mr. Chairman. 

Thanks. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. 

Next, according to our early bird rule here, is Senator Menendez. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Lew, congratulations on your nomination. In your previous 

confirmation hearing to be the OMB Director, there were a series 

of questions raised about deregulation and the approximate causes 

of the financial crisis. Some of the responses that you gave raised 

some concerns as to your commitment to stronger financial regulations. Clearly, there is a difference between being the OMB Director and being the Treasury Secretary in that regard. 

The Wall Street reform law has given the Treasury Secretary a 

much stronger role in oversight of financial regulation, and you 

would play a very significant role in regulating our financial sector, 

so I would like to give you the opportunity to put some of those 

concerns to rest. 

Do you believe that stronger regulation of our financial sector 

was, and is, necessary? Moving forward, if you were to be confirmed, do you support the full and robust implementation of the 

oversight rules of the Dodd-Frank law? 

Mr. LEW. Senator, I very much believe that Dodd-Frank was necessary, that we needed to modernize the regulation of the financial 

services industry. I think that the oversight provisions in DoddFrank need to be implemented. If confirmed as Chairman of the 

FSOC, it would be an extraordinarily high priority of mine. 

Senator MENENDEZ. All right. 

One of the other things that you will have in your portfolio as 

the Treasury Secretary is the implementation of sanctions. As the 

author of the Iran Sanctions Act, I am obviously very interested in 

making sure that Treasury pursues the law that the Congress 

passed nearly unanimously and that the President signed as our 

last peaceful diplomacy tool to prevent Iran from achieving nuclear 

weapons. 

If you are confirmed, will you ensure the robust enforcement of 

the sanctions provisions that we have given to the President, seeing that a large universe of them are within the Treasury Department? 

Mr. LEW. Yes, Senator. If I might just elaborate on that a bit. 

I think that our sanctions—our unilateral sanctions that are bringing the world community together for multilateral sanctions—have 

put in place the strongest sanctions regime in history. Frankly, it 

is the only reason I have some hope that we might be able to resolve the issues that we have with Iran peacefully. 

Sanctions are doing what they need to do: they are crushing the 

Iranian economy. GDP is down, the value of their currency is down, 

unemployment is up, inflation is up. What we have not seen yet 

is whether that has changed the mind of the regime so that it is 

ready to, in a diplomatic process, give up the pursuit of nuclear 

weapons. That is the goal. 

28 

The President has made clear it is unacceptable for Iran to have 

nuclear weapons. We will exhaust all diplomatic and economic 

means we can, but all options are left on the table. I firmly believe 

that these economic sanctions are far preferable to war, but we 

must pursue them vigorously. 

Senator MENENDEZ. All right. 

Now, with reference to the President’s State of the Union speech, 

a good part of what he talked about was a growing economy, that 

growth is an essential provision of achieving some of the deficit 

questions as well as the job opportunity questions. 

What do you see—I read through your testimony—for yourself in 

the role as the Treasurer of the United States, in being part of creating that growing economy? 

Mr. LEW. Senator, the Secretary of Treasury is the senior member of the President’s economic team. I have worked on economic 

teams from various perspectives. One of the things that I think is 

most important for a Treasury Secretary to do is to always ask, 

what can we be doing to get the economy moving? What can we do 

to help create an environment where jobs will be created? What 

can we do to create the possibility that every family that is willing 

to work hard has the chance in this country to get a decent life? 

Now, I think there are many things we can do. I am an optimist 

by nature, but I also believe you just have to keep working at it. 

The President proposed, in the American Jobs Act, a number of 

proposals. Last night, he thanked the Congress for adopting a few 

of them, and he urged the Congress to enact the rest. I believe 

that, in the short run, investments in infrastructure make a lot of 

sense. 

I think investments in keeping teachers and firemen from being 

laid off make a lot of sense. I think, in the longer term, we have 

to get our fiscal house in order, no doubt, but we cannot shortchange the investments that build the economy for the future, 

things like infrastructure, things like education, skills training. 

We have the best workforce in the world. We have the most vital 

economy in the world. In order to be there in the future, we need 

the R&D, the people, and the infrastructure. That has to be in conjunction with a fiscal policy that we can afford. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Well, I hope, in closing, Mr. Chairman, that 

you will also put in that universe something the President mentioned in his speech last night, which is mortgage refinancing. 

Mr. LEW. Absolutely. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Senator Boxer and I have legislation on that. 

I cannot understand for the life of me why we would not let thousands of American families refinance, lower their rates to the historically low rates, and unlock, not only a universe of solidified 

homeowners, but also unlock economic potential for—— 

Mr. LEW. Senator, I could not agree more. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Senator Cardin? 

Mr. LEW. The work, you have done that. It is very important. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Cardin? 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Lew, thank you very much for your willingness to continue 

in public service. We congratulate you on the nomination. I thank, 

29 

also, your family, because this truly is a family sacrifice, and we 

very much appreciate that. 

You come to this hearing with an incredible background of public 

service. I just want to underscore one experience that I think will 

be very helpful, and that is your work in the House under Tip 

O’Neill, where you were a part of the efforts to reform our Social 

Security system and our tax code, both of which required bipartisan cooperation, where the White House and Congress were 

under different parties. We need that desperately today. I think 

you will be well-suited in that regard to bring together Democrats 

and Republicans to solve our national fiscal issues. 

I want to touch on one or two points in the time that I have. 

First, I would like to deal with the problems that have been 

brought to our attention about small businesses and access to capital. We have had several initiatives to try to help small businesses 

gain easier access to capital to expand job opportunities. 

With the concerns of community banks—and we see a lot of community banks being merged into larger banks—there is a real challenge for a small company to be able to get access to capital to expand our economy. Do you have thoughts as to how you, if confirmed as Treasury Secretary, can help ease the burdens that small 

businesses have in getting access to capital? 

Mr. LEW. Senator, in the aftermath of the financial crisis, one of 

the big challenges has been to get capital flowing again. We have 

two problems. One is, there are businesses that have a lot of cash 

on their balance sheet that they are not investing, and we have financial institutions that have been slow to get back into the lending business. 

I think we have seen some progress on the opening of the spigots 

in lending. It is going to be a balance. We have to make sure that 

financial institutions are sound and that, particularly, larger financial institutions do not get back into a position where they create 

risk to our entire system or risk that the taxpayers will be left with 

a burden. 

For community banks, I think that many of the new laws and 

regulations, quite rightly, were written to treat them differently, 

that small institutions do not have the same regulatory burdens, 

the same reserve requirements that large institutions do. I would 

look forward to working with you and others on this committee to 

make sure that we implement the laws in a way that does help get 

capital flowing. 

Senator CARDIN. I appreciate that. I think the laws are wellintended. I think, on the ground, they are not working exactly as 

we all intended. And I am not blaming the administration or Congress. I think collectively that we need to do a better job to help 

small businesses get the access to capital that we intended, that, 

in too many communities, is not taking place that way. 

I want to turn to a second subject dealing with the national savings rates. Senator Portman and I worked in the House on dealing 

with our national savings issues. During the best of economic 

times, savings rates in this country were very low. It is important 

for our economy to have private savings. It is also important for individuals, for retirement security, taking pressure off of a lot of the 

public plans. 

30 

One of our concerns is that, as we look at tax reform, there are 

efforts being made to diminish the tax incentives for individuals to 

save and companies to set up retirement plans. That could be very 

counterproductive for many reasons, because what you are doing is 

talking about the timing of tax revenues. And, on a long-term 

basis, we are accelerating tax collections and even making our 

long-term finances counter to what they should be. 

Will you work with us, and do you have suggestions as to how 

we can improve opportunities for individuals to save, particularly 

for their retirement? 

Mr. LEW. Senator, I believe that it is very important that we 

have policies that encourage individuals to save for their retirement. We have long viewed our retirement system as being something that depends on a combination of Social Security, pensions, 

and savings. We are in a new world where pensions are a smaller 

part for many people, which means that savings are going to have 

to pick up more of the burden. 

We have had rules that could have been simplified. There are 

proposals that the administration has made, for example, for people to have to opt out as opposed to opt in to retirement savings. 

That is viewed as something that would actually very much increase the likelihood of people saving for retirement. I would look 

forward to working with you and others on a bipartisan basis to 

think through these ideas. 

Senator CARDIN. Let me just say, lastly, Senator Stabenow 

talked about delivery system reform in the health care system. It 

has been very frustrating, because we know that we are moving 

forward to a better, more efficient health care system. 

The problem is, how do we get that scored, and how do we do 

it in a way that we know we will get the savings that we need? 

So, I just look forward to working with you, because your experience at OMB, your experience in the White House, and as Treasury 

Secretary, puts you in the unique position where you can help as 

we try to deliver a more efficient health care system for the American people. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Cornyn? 

Senator CORNYN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Lew, good morning. 

Mr. LEW. Good morning. 

Senator CORNYN. Good to see you. 

As you know, the Medicare Board of Trustees, on which the 

Treasury Secretary serves as the managing trustee, must project 

whether general revenue funding will exceed 45 percent of Medicare outlays for the current fiscal year, or any of the next 6 fiscal 

years. This is sometimes called the Medicare trigger. I think you 

and I talked about this in our meeting in my office. 

These funding warnings have been issued since 2007. President 

George W. Bush submitted a proposal pursuant to the requirement 

of the statute which says that, when this funding warning is triggered after two such consecutive determinations, the President is 

required to propose legislation within 15 days of submitting a 

budget to reduce spending below the 45-percent threshold. 

President Obama has never submitted a proposal pursuant to 

that legal requirement, has he? 

31 

Mr. LEW. Senator, I am familiar with the report, and I know that 

the acting OMB Director has written to you on it. The view, as I 

understand it, in the Bush administration when the prescription 

drug bill was signed, was that the report was not one that was constitutionally required of the administration. They voluntarily submitted it. When the Obama administration came in, actually the 

budgets that we have submitted have had specific Medicare savings proposals, but before I was at OMB the decision was made not 

to voluntarily submit the report. 

Senator CORNYN. So the administration is taking the position it 

is unconstitutional? 

Mr. LEW. Well, as I understand it, there was a signing statement 

in the Bush administration that said that it is inconsistent with 

the recommendations clause of the Constitution. 

Senator CORNYN. But they submitted the report. The Obama administration has never submitted a report, correct? 

Mr. LEW. Well, we have submitted specific Medicare savings proposals which, if enacted, would resolve the issue. I would also add 

that, in 2013, we will be out of that zone, so the combination of the 

trajectory we are on with the savings from the Affordable Care Act 

and specific proposals that the administration put forward, have 

addressed the substance of the issue. 

Senator CORNYN. Well, the record will reflect that the administration has never submitted a report, pursuant to that statute. I 

hear you saying they have submitted other proposals that you 

think are satisfactory, but it does not comply with the statute. 

As you know, the Congress has passed a no budget-no pay bill 

which says if Congress does not do its job and pass a budget, it 

does not get paid. I would just submit that maybe it would be appropriate to say that the Office of Management and Budget not get 

paid unless they comply with the statutory mandate under the 

Medicare trigger. 

Last night the President talked about energy production, which 

I was actually very gratified to hear about. My State has seen job 

growth go up 32 percent since 1995, compared to 12 percent for the 

Nation as a whole, in significant part because of energy production. 

But I would like to ask you, do the planned revenue proposals that 

the President has in mind include tax increases on American energy producers? 

Mr. LEW. Senator, the President has proposed eliminating a 

number of targeted provisions for the oil and gas industry. They 

are provisions that the administration does not believe are necessary to continue having the industry go through the process of 

extracting and using those resources. He has proposed other incentives to develop new sources of energy, and we would look forward 

to working with the Congress to have, as we call it, an all-of-theabove energy strategy. 

Senator CORNYN. So that would effectively raise the tax burden 

on American oil and gas producers? 

Mr. LEW. Well, it would take away a special provision that now 

encourages activity in that area more favorably than in other 

areas. 

Senator CORNYN. So they would pay more in taxes? 

32 

Mr. LEW. It is going to be part of tax reform. There will be some 

special provisions that have to be eliminated so that everyone can 

get a lower rate. 

Senator CORNYN. Well, Mr. Lew, I am amazed at your unwillingness to answer a simple question, but let us move on. 

We talked about the level of Federal spending, and we talked 

about that in my office. The 40-year norm is that the Federal Government spends roughly 20 percent of our Gross Domestic Product. 

Actually, during the Clinton years, in which you served, the average spending level was 19.8 percent. 

Under the Obama administration, it has been 24.4 percent, while 

revenue has been at 15 percent, hence the 9- to 10-percent deficit, 

the difference between revenue that is brought in and the amount 

of money that the Federal Government keeps spending, which is 

obviously borrowed money. 

In our meeting in my office, you declined to identify what you 

would consider to be an appropriate target for Federal spending. 

Are you prepared to do so today? Do you think the 40-year average 

norm of 20 percent, roughly, is appropriate, or do you think the 

new normal should be what it currently is under the Obama administration, 24.4 percent? 

Mr. LEW. Senator, I do not think the current situation is the new 

normal. We are at the end of a recovery from a very deep recession, 

where we have had extreme reductions in revenue because of economic activity and more spending because of economic conditions. 

What I do believe is that, as we look ahead, we have to recognize 

what is driving costs. 

What is driving spending is that there are 30 million more people 

who are going to be eligible for Medicare and Social Security because the baby boom is retiring. So we have a reality that, even 

if we make sensible changes, there is going to be more activity in 

those programs because there is going to be a larger population of 

people eligible. 

So I think to say that there is an exact number based on a historical norm kind of misses the fact that there is this large cohort 

moving through the system that we are going to have to make 

some tough choices about. 

I, for one, think we ought to pay Social Security and Medicare 

recipients’ benefits, and I think most members and Senators do as 

well. But that is what is driving the number. We are at a historically low level of discretionary spending as a percentage of GDP. 

We are down to the levels of the Eisenhower administration. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Portman? 

Senator PORTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would just say to the 24 percent, the Congressional Budget Office, as former OMB Director Jack Lew knows, just told us last 

week that we are quickly going to 25, and then 30, and then 35, 

and then, in the year 2042, 40 percent of GDP, so clearly this is 

not sustainable. CBO also made the point that you simply cannot 

cache that level of spending with new taxes, at least under the income tax code. 

So, as Treasury Secretary, you are going to have the opportunity 

to deploy all of those OMB skills. I would agree with Senator 

33 

Cornyn that we need to establish, what is the right level of government, and then be sure that our budget is balanced over time. CBO 

tells us that revenue is going to exceed its historic average, as you 

know, in the next few years, by 2015. 

But let me back up on a question that I would like to ask you 

today regarding corporate tax reform and individual tax reform. 

Last night in the State of the Union address, the President said a 

lot of things. Again, as a former OMB Director, I hope you were 

at least a little uncomfortable with his laying out what I counted 

as 10 new Federal spending programs. 

I will not ask you today how we are going to pay for those. The 

President said not a dime in the deficit, which I guess means higher taxes. But he did say some things I thought were very promising 

about reform, and that was with regard to tax reform and entitlement reform. He also said something that I appreciated, which is, 

it is not going to be easy. 

I think that is part of his role as President—and your role should 

you become Treasury Secretary—to lay this out for the American 

people in a way—as we just talked about, the current spending 

level is unsustainable. We do have to reform these important vital 

programs so that they are there for future generations. With regard to tax reform, as you and I have talked about, I believe it is 

a huge opportunity to give the economy a shot in the arm. 

Senator Hatch talked about it, Senator Baucus talked about it in 

his comments and questions to you, Senator Crapo, Senator Thune, 

and others. But I would like to dig a little deeper if I could, because 

I really think this is an area where we can both see strong economic growth and also, frankly, find a consensus here between the 

administration and the Congress on a nonpartisan basis almost, 

because I think it is one that we all agree needs to be done. 

In 1986, back when you were here on the Hill and Ronald 

Reagan was working on tax reform, we lowered the corporate rate 

from 46 percent to 34 percent 27 years ago. We did that very deliberately to get our corporate rate below the average of our competitors. 

In the intervening 27 years, every single one of our competitors, 

all of them, have not just lowered their rates but reformed their 

corporate tax code except us. That puts us at a clear competitive 

disadvantage. We are sitting on the sidelines while investment in 

jobs and headquarters is going overseas. We can talk more about 

that. 

But here is a quote that I like. It is from the Secretary of the 

Treasury equivalent, the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the UK. 

He says, ‘‘The headline rate of corporate tax remains the most visible sign of how competitive our country is. By 2014, Britain will 

have a 22 percent rate, headline rate, that is not lower than all of 

our competitors but dramatically lower, 18 percent lower, than the 

U.S.’’ So this is what is going on. They are all lowering their rates, 

and they are all reforming their code to make it more competitive, 

except us. 

We talked earlier about our rate being 39.2 as an average, that 

is the corporate rate, when you include the State and the Federal 

rate, which is 14 points above the OECD average. You made the 

point that, while that is really not the effective rate, the effective 

34 

rate is lower, but I will just put on the record today, the effective 

rate is still eight points higher than the OECD average. 

So I do not want folks to misinterpret what was said earlier 

when the point was made that our effective rate is lower, because 

you could have inferred from that that it is lower than the average. 

It is not. It is still higher. As you have talked about today, and I 

think Senator Crapo discussed, this is incredibly complicated. 

Therefore, we do not have an efficient allocation of resources; therefore, it is hurting jobs in this country. 

So I would just ask you, given that the President’s Jobs Council 

has come out with a report that cutting the corporate rate in a 

deficit-neutral way would boost economic growth, given that 

Simpson-Bowles also said that, given that the Treasury 2012 white 

paper advocated cutting the corporate rate because it would ‘‘put 

the United States in line with other major competitor countries and 

encourage more investment in America,’’ given that the OECD has 

now concluded that a high corporate tax rate is ‘‘most harmful to 

growth,’’ would you agree that revenue-neutral tax reform that reduces our corporate rate is a competitive necessity for our country? 

Mr. LEW. Senator, I very much agree that business tax reform 

where we broaden the base and lower the rate would be very important to getting our economy moving again. 

Senator PORTMAN. And do you believe that reducing that corporate rate is good for workers? Let me just give you a little background from some of the studies I have seen on this. The CBO has 

said that 70 percent of the corporate tax burden falls on workers 

in the form of reduced wages and fewer job opportunities. 

There is a recent study by a Harvard economist saying that corporate taxes depress both real wages and returns to capital, most 

of the burden of corporate taxes being borne by labor. Would you 

agree that the corporate tax system we have right now is bad for 

the American worker and that a corporate rate cut would be good 

for jobs and wages? 

Mr. LEW. I think a reformed tax system with a lower rate that 

encourages investment in the United States and the creation of 

jobs in the United States would be good for American workers who 

would fill those jobs. 

Senator PORTMAN. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to talking about entitlement reform on the second round. 

Mr. LEW. I look forward to working together. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator. 

Senator Brown? 

Senator BROWN. Thank you, Chairman Baucus. 

Welcome, Mr. Lew. Thanks for being here. One of the most important jobs the Treasury Secretary does is serving as Chairman 

of the FSOC. You did not mention it in your written testimony, and 

I am going to ask you a little bit about it. 

We know that the six or so largest mega-banks in our country 

benefit from lower interest rates in the capital market, some say 

50, 60, 70, 80 basis points. Senator Vitter and I have made a request of GAO to study what that differential exactly is. Basically 

it is a subsidy through reduced funding costs based upon the market’s belief that these banks are, in fact, too big to fail. 

35 

Don’t you think it is unfair for these banks, $2-trillion banks in 

at least a couple of cases, these mega-banks, to receive government-subsidized funding advantages that community banks in 

West Akron, or Palmyra, or Sycamore, OH do not get? 

Mr. LEW. Senator, the administration has proposed a financial 

responsibility fee that would fall on those large banks, which is 

something that we think is the right way to assess responsibility 

for past burdens put on taxpayers. In terms of the access to different borrowing windows, I would be happy to follow up with you 

on the differences between access in community banks and large 

money center banks. 

But in general, our view is that we have to distinguish between 

the large banks that create risk to the system and smaller institutions that are less likely to. We have tried to put less burdens on 

the smaller banks. I am not familiar with the specific issue you are 

raising. 

Senator BROWN. Well, I mean, you are familiar with the fact that 

these mega-banks do get advantages in the capital markets because they can borrow money at a less expensive rate. I mean, I 

have kind of heard this from Treasury before—not your responsibility yet, but I have heard this before. 

One of the jobs of FSOC is to eliminate the market’s expectations 

that the government will serve as a backstop in the event of failure. My question is fundamentally this: if GAO, with Senator 

Vitter’s and my request, finds these subsidies exist, will you commit to working with Senator Vitter and me to take further steps 

to eliminate that government subsidy, that government support for 

these mega-banks? 

Mr. LEW. I will be happy to follow up with you, Senator, and understand the GAO report, and work on having a system that appropriately encourages smaller banks to have the opportunities that 

they should have. 

Senator BROWN. You have not quite said that—— 

Mr. LEW. I have not read the GAO report. 

Senator BROWN. I mean, the GAO report is not there yet. Neither 

have we. But we also know that all evidence points to the fact that 

the largest banks in the country, in the capital markets, get interest rates lower when they borrow than do medium-sized and community banks, and you acknowledge that. 

Mr. LEW. I acknowledged that the market works the way you 

have described, yes. 

Senator BROWN. All right. All right. 

Now let me shift—— 

Mr. LEW. Just to be clear, the reason I am being a little hesitant 

is that markets, unless they are creating systemic risk or putting 

burdens on taxpayers, are not generally—we do not intervene in 

markets on a regular basis. So I would want to understand the 

issue, understand what Federal policy is behind it, and work with 

you if there is an issue where Federal policy is contributing to 

some unfair—— 

Senator BROWN. I guess I think it is pretty clear that Federal 

policy has contributed to this. I mean, really, it is Federal policy 

that subsidizes the mega-banks by the implicit ‘‘too big to fail’’ policy, but we can debate that later. 

36 

Mr. LEW. That is why, Senator, I mentioned the responsibility 

fee. We think that Dodd-Frank dealt with ‘‘too big to fail,’’ and on 

top of that we think there should be a fee on large money center 

banks to approximate the risk they presented in the past. 

Senator BROWN. All right. I do not totally agree with you, but 

that is fine. 

Let me shift to China currency for the last minute or so. It is 

clear that China’s currency manipulation means jobs in my State. 

There is no question it has cost us jobs. I spoke with Randy Solganik the other day, who owns a company called City Plating in 

Cleveland. They are doing just about everything right, yet they face 

a competitive disadvantage on their exports and unfair competition 

on imports because of the currency manipulation. 

There has been some movement in the right direction in the 

value of the yuan, we know that, but it has been too slow, it has 

been too little, especially when you consider the U.S.-China trade 

deficit. When trade deficits generally moved in the right direction, 

our trade deficit with China did not. It went from 295 to 315. 

Do you agree that currency manipulation is, in fact, an export 

subsidy? 

Mr. LEW. Senator, we have, over the last 4 years, pushed back 

very hard on China in a whole number of areas. We pushed back 

on our perception that the currency was under-valued. We pushed 

back on unfair trading practices. 

We engaged in the strategic and economic dialogues and bilateral 

discussions over many occasions. I think we have made progress. 

There has been a 15-percent improvement in the valuation of China’s currency. It is still under-valued, and more progress needs to 

be made. 

Senator BROWN. The administration has been pretty good on 

trade enforcement through Commerce and through ITC but has 

fallen short when we asked the administration to include currency 

in their filings. Are you willing to—or do you support industries filing petitions to seek relief against countries that actually manipulate their currency? 

Mr. LEW. Senator, I would put a lot of energy behind developing 

a relationship where I could push back on practices in China that 

we think are unfair. We have done that as an administration, and 

we will continue to do that. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator. 

Senator BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Toomey? 

Senator TOOMEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Lew, thanks for coming. Good to see you again. 

Mr. LEW. Good to see you. 

Senator TOOMEY. I wanted to follow up a little bit on the conversation we had in my office a week or so ago. As you know, I am 

very concerned about the implications, the effects of this huge new 

series of regulations, most of which emanate from Dodd-Frank. As 

you know, we have seen over 9,000 pages of new rules and regulations already, and they are not close to being finished. 

When Jamie Dimon famously questioned Chairman Bernanke 

about the cumulative adverse effect of all of these new regulations 

on the availability of credit and on job growth, Chairman Bernanke 

37 

acknowledged that they do not really know what the cumulative effect is and do not seem to have a way of analyzing and understanding that. 

So, as Treasury Secretary, of course, and head of the FSOC, you 

will be arguably the most powerful financial regulator in the world 

and have a great deal of influence over this. My question for you 

is, what are your thoughts about how we ought to think about the 

unintended and adverse consequences of this really massive new 

wave of regulations? 

I am particularly concerned about small and medium-sized 

banks, which are not at all systemically important, but nevertheless are hiring more compliance officers and loan officers because 

they have to afford this. Should we not understand the implications 

that this has? What are your thoughts on that? 

Mr. LEW. Thank you, Senator. I think we need to be very much 

attentive to the burdens of all regulations that we put forward, 

particularly in an area as important to the economy as the financial services area. I think we also have to be attentive to the cost 

of failure to regulate appropriately. 

We saw in 2008–2009 the enormous loss of economic power in 

this country because of the financial crisis, the burden it put on individuals and businesses, and the burden it put on taxpayers. So, 

as we look at the costs and benefits, we have to look at the systemic risks and what are the consequences of a failure to regulate 

properly. 

I know that each of the agencies that are working on this are 

working in their areas, trying to get their hands around that. It is 

complicated. It is something that, if confirmed as chair of FSOC, 

I would urge all of the regulatory agencies involved in implementing Dodd-Frank to pay close attention to. 

Senator TOOMEY. I would hope so because, as you know, the vast 

majority of financial institutions in America have no systemic significance, because they are not big enough to. Yet, they are often 

caught up in a whole lot of regulations that impede their ability to 

extend credit. That is one of my concerns. 

The second issue—— 

Mr. LEW. Senator, I would look forward to working with you to 

make sure that the provisions that were intended to not put those 

kinds of burdens on those smaller institutions are being implemented as intended. 

Senator TOOMEY. Good. Terrific. 

On a separate topic, you may be aware of a huge expansion in 

a relatively new form of tax fraud. We have seen this in Pennsylvania, where criminals steal a Social Security number, they submit 

a tax return to the Treasury seeking a refund, and they get it. The 

unsuspecting victim whose identity has been stolen wonders why 

they never get their refund. It is because someone else got an unrelated and fraudulent refund. 

The IRS, I think, believes this could be on the scale of tens of 

billions of dollars a year. They have made some progress. I am glad 

that they included Pennsylvania in a pilot program to work more 

closely with local law enforcement authority. But I think a lot more 

needs to be done, and I think it can be done. I think the technology 

38 

exists to largely solve this problem. Are you prepared to commit to 

making sure we get this under control? 

Mr. LEW. Senator, I am. My understanding is that the IRS has 

put a good deal of resources behind this, has made a great deal of 

progress. It is a pernicious kind of crime, identity theft. The President spoke to this issue last night in the broader context of cybersecurity. We have a whole new level of criminal activity where very 

clever and creative criminals are trying to get a step ahead of systems that are going to need to get a step ahead of them. If confirmed, I would work with the IRS Commissioner to make sure the 

IRS was doing that. I think we also need cyber-security legislation 

for the broader threat. 

Senator TOOMEY. Last question. Understanding, as we all do, 

that monetary policy is the realm of the Fed, the Treasury Secretary is nevertheless responsible for managing our Nation’s debt, 

for borrowings. The value of the currency is necessarily very important and integrally related in that. 

But there are a number of countries that seem to be inclined to 

deal with their fiscal problems by devaluing their currency. Some 

might argue that the behavior of the Fed would be consistent with 

one that was intended to, in time, devalue our currency. I am just 

asking if you will be a vocal advocate for a strong dollar policy and 

acknowledge that a strong dollar that maintains its value is a necessary precondition of strong growth. 

Mr. LEW. Senator, Treasury has had a long-standing position, 

through administrations of both parties over many years, that a 

strong dollar is in the best interest of promoting U.S. growth, productivity, and competitiveness. If confirmed, I would not change 

that policy. 

Senator TOOMEY. Thank you very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Bennet? 

Senator BENNET. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to join this committee. I am very pleased to be here. 

Mr. Lew, thank you for your public service. I want to ask you a 

couple of questions. The first one is, as we have lurched from manufactured crisis to manufactured crisis in this land of flickering 

lights on Capitol Hill, people at home are doing the best they can 

to try to build their businesses, support their communities, educate 

their children, and get ahead. 

The last 20 years has seen in this country a decline in median 

family income that is quite significant over that period of time, 

while the cost of health care has skyrocketed. The cost of higher 

education has skyrocketed. It has made it harder, harder, and 

harder for people working hard to get ahead. It also has created 

massive income inequality we have not seen since 1928 in this 

country. 

I know there are a lot of things we can do to address this with 

education and other kinds of things, and ultimately government 

cannot solve this problem. But you mentioned that tax reform was 

hard because of the interests that are fighting to hold onto benefits 

they gained, sometimes deep in the 20th century. But maybe, if we 

have an objective that people could rally behind, it will make our 

work easier. 

39 

It would seem to me that an objective that said we would like 

to recouple wage growth and job growth with economic growth once 

again might be a useful way for us to think about this. It is not 

just the economic growth for economic growth’s sake. It is economic 

growth that is building a middle class again in this country. I wonder if you have thoughts about how we might approach the discussions on the committee with that objective in mind. Maybe it is not 

the right objective. 

Mr. LEW. Senator, I think it is the right objective. I think, in the 

President’s speech last night, he called it the North Star that we 

need to always keep before us as we go through each of the component policy areas, and tax reform is one of those. I think we have 

made some progress. 

The tax bill that was passed in January did go a distance to restoring some equity in the distribution of the tax burden. I think 

the distribution of income has been a real problem. It ought to be 

possible for somebody who works 40 hours a week to earn a decent 

wage. It ought to be possible for anyone who is willing to work 

hard to make it into the middle class. We have a lot of work ahead 

of us, but there is no substitute for growing the economy. 

If we grow the economy, that is going to create jobs. If we create 

jobs and we have people with the skills for those jobs, there is 

going to be a better future for people to enter and stay in the middle class. I think there is no more important undertaking for a 

Treasury Secretary than to keep that in mind every day, because 

that is what it is about. That is what the goal is. 

Senator BENNET. Well, let me ask you this then, because I do not 

think there is anything that is creating a greater drag on this economy than our own dysfunction. That is certainly what I hear from 

the business people whom I talk to, from farmers and ranchers in 

the State. That is what is dragging us backward. 

On the other hand, there is huge, pent-up energy too. There is $2 trillion sitting on balance sheets in this country that cannot be 

invested because they have no idea what interest rate environment 

we are going to be in, because they have no idea how to calculate 

the political risk in Washington. 

You have been here during times when both parties were able to 

come together and craft long-lasting, not 2- and 3-month deals, but 

deals that endured over time and helped bring us back from the 

brink to get us where we need to be. What are some of the conditions that we need to rally around here so that we can see that 

kind of work again in the U.S. Congress, in your view, based on 

the experience that you have had? 

Mr. LEW. Senator, I share your concern that the short-term crisis, deadline-driven practices that we have seen over the last couple of years are undermining the economy. 

Senator BENNET. It makes matters worse. 

Mr. LEW. It does. It is the first time in my nearly 30 years in 

public life that I have felt that the actions of government were actually working against the goal of getting the economy moving. 

Now, I actually take some heart in the fact that there is a solution. There is a solution that we have gotten close to a couple of 

times and we, by going through the regular order, could get done 

if we can bring, on a bipartisan basis, parties together to do that. 

40 

I think that we have an obligation to the American people to get 

that done. 

Senator BENNET. Well, sign me up for that. I hope we will be 

able to work on that. Part of what you are going to be is chair of 

FSOC. Other than things outside of our control, like Europe, I cannot actually think of anything that is creating more systemic risk 

to this economy than this Congress. It is time for us to start working together to solve this problem. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you. My time is up. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Casey? 

Senator CASEY. Mr. Chairman, thanks very much. I join Senator 

Bennet and others in expressing gratitude. It is an honor to be on 

this committee, and we are grateful for this opportunity. We are 

also grateful for the effort that the chairman and others have made 

to bring folks together on this committee, and therefore to bring 

forth a more bipartisan approach to a whole range of difficult issues, economic and fiscal in nature. 

Jack Lew, I am grateful to see you back, putting yourself forward 

for yet another position of public service. We are grateful for that 

commitment. I will not read the list of positions you have held in 

the Federal Government, but every one of them was difficult and 

many of them required confirmation, or at least total engagement 

by you and by your family. We are grateful that your wife and 

daughter are here to join you today and to make their own statement of solidarity with you to serve the public again. We are grateful for that. 

I will begin with just a historical note, where the chairman 

began this morning talking about Albert Gallatin, who happened to 

be a Pennsylvanian. What is little-known, or little-remembered, I 

guess, is that, before he achieved acclaim as a Treasury Secretary, 

he was a candidate for the U.S. Senate, was elected by the legislature of Pennsylvania, the general assembly, tried to be seated, but, 

because he lived here only 7 years, according to the assertion made 

against him, he was thrown out of the Senate. So, he did not have 

a good experience with the U.S. Senate, but he became a great 

Treasury Secretary. 

So for you today, my wish is that you have a better experience 

with the U.S. Senate and then go on to a great career in the Treasury, leading the Treasury Department. 

I wanted to begin with maybe two areas to explore in the time 

I have. One is the basic challenge we face as it relates to the impact of global currency policy. I want to step back, because sometimes, when we talk about things in global terms, it does seem far 

away from communities in Pennsylvania and States like it. 

The reality is such that—and this is my point of view, and I 

know some disagree with this—when it comes to just China’s currency policies, that has a real impact, a tremendously adverse impact, on communities in Pennsylvania. We have lost a lot of jobs 

because China has cheated, and I would argue continues to cheat 

on the currency policy. 

In light of the exchange you had with Senator Brown, I hope that 

you would keep an open mind as Treasury Secretary, not simply 

to having a good engagement with the Chinese and therefore to 

41 

have a better policy as it relates to their currency policy, but I hope 

that you would seek new ways, maybe ways that are consistent 

with the bill we passed in the Senate, to have real consequences, 

to designate misaligned currencies, then to have priority actions, as 

the bill speaks to, which have real teeth and real consequence. 

But I ask you, not just in the context of China currency and 

other currency policies, but just generally, if you had to walk into 

a manufacturing plant in Pennsylvania that has been stressed by 

a tough economy, stressed by currency policies, stressed by trade 

policy as well, what would you say to the head of a manufacturing 

company that you are going to try to do as Treasury Secretary, that 

the administration is doing, to give them a level playing field, albeit a playing field that has to come about based upon a number 

of policies? 

Mr. LEW. Senator, I think that there are many things we have 

to do. We have to vigorously insist that the laws and international 

agreements be honored and, where they are not, that there be consequences. We have done that in the area of trade with China over 

and over again. We have done it in auto parts, we have done it in 

tires, we have done it in rare earths. 

I think on the currency question, we work through the international bodies, the G–7, the G–20, to advance the view that it is 

not just the United States, but the organized nations of the world 

that insist on having currency policies which are marketdetermined. In our bilateral relations, we push back very hard. 

I would look forward to working with you and the members of 

this committee so that we can assure manufacturers in the United 

States that we are doing everything we can to make the United 

States an attractive place to invest and to insist that these kinds 

of laws and norms be honored. 

Senator CASEY. Well, I am the newest member of the committee, 

so I did not have a chance until today to talk to you, but we will 

get together and talk about some other issues. Thank you very 

much. 

Mr. LEW. Thank you, Senator. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. 

I think, Senator Roberts, you are next. Oh, Senator Burr. Sorry. 

Senator Burr, you are next. 

Senator BURR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Lew, welcome. Thank you and your family for serving you 

up in public service so much. [Laughter.] 

Mr. LEW. If I might, Senator, just apologize. My wife has a class 

to teach at New York this afternoon, so she had to run to catch a 

train. 

Senator BURR. That is quite all right. I want you to know that 

my family’s differences with Alexander Hamilton do not extend to 

other Secretaries of the Treasury. [Laughter.] 

Mr. LEW. Well, I appreciate that. I am not going to Weehawken. 

Senator BURR. You said in your testimony that we cannot let sequestration take effect. In Bob Woodward’s book, ‘‘The Price of Politics,’’ Woodward credits you with originating the plan for sequestration. Was he right or wrong? 

Mr. LEW. Well, Senator, it is a little more complicated than that, 

and even in his account it was a little more complicated than that. 

42 

We were in a negotiation where failure would have meant the default of the Government of the United States. 

Senator BURR. And I hate to speed it up. Did you make the suggestion? 

Mr. LEW. Well, what I did was, I said that, with all other options 

closed, we needed to look for an option where we could agree on 

how to resolve our differences. We went back to the 1984 plan that 

Senator Gramm and Senator Rudman worked on and said that 

that would be a basis for having a consequence that would be so 

unacceptable to everyone that we would be able to get action. 

Senator BURR. So is it unfair that the President says the blame 

is on House Republicans, that they originated it, is what he said? 

Mr. LEW. Senator, the demand for an enforcement mechanism 

was not something that the administration was pushing at that 

moment. Our preferred outcome would have been to have there be 

something on taxes and something on spending. It was unacceptable to the other parties for taxes to be part of it. The only spending—the only alternative that anyone could think of that could be 

agreed to was sequestration, precisely because it is so objectionable 

that nobody could imagine it—— 

Senator BURR. I heard your testimony today that it should not 

take effect. On November 21, 2011, let me quote the President: ‘‘Already some in Congress are trying to undo these automatic spending cuts. My message is simple: no. I will veto any effort to get rid 

of these automatic spending cuts to domestic and defense spending. 

There will be no easy off ramps on this one.’’ What has changed? 

Mr. LEW. Well, the rest of what he said was that Congress 

should work on putting in place policies that make sense to get our 

fiscal house in order. That is consistent with what he said last 

night. It is consistent with what I believe. This is not an impossible 

problem to solve. It would be better for the country if we have an 

agreement on a framework for solving our fiscal problems instead 

of going into sequestration. 

Senator BURR. Do you regret suggesting sequestration? 

Mr. LEW. Senator, I look back at a time when a lot of people 

thought we were going to default. That was not an acceptable option. I think that it should not have been the case that the good 

faith and credit of the United States was at issue, but that is what 

was at issue. I think we had a solution that frankly should still 

work. Sequestration is so objectionable that we ought to just do our 

work and solve the problem. 

Senator BURR. Back in the Armed Services hearing last week, 

Secretary Panetta testified that, following his and General 

Dempsey’s 5 o’clock meeting on September 11th after the Benghazi 

attack, they had no further contact with the White House, and it 

was their understanding that you, as Chief of Staff, were the individual briefing the President. Is that accurate? 

Mr. LEW. Well, Senator, I did speak with the President that 

evening. The national security staff was working on the issue on 

a nonstop basis. 

Senator BURR. But who was actually briefing the President? 

Were you? 

Mr. LEW. I was not. I was in the room when the President was 

briefed, but I was not briefing the President. 

43 

Senator BURR. All right. Because John Brennan testified yesterday that it was not him. Secretary Panetta said it was not him. In 

hearings, the ODNI Clapper said it was not him. Acting DCI Mike 

Morell said it was not him. Ambassador Kennedy said it was not 

him, and the FBI said it was not them. Now, we have eliminated 

a lot of people who had contacts within the intelligence community 

who knew firsthand what was going on in Benghazi. 

Let me ask you again: who briefed the President on actually 

what was happening throughout this 7-hour period? 

Mr. LEW. Well, in the conversations that I was in, the national 

security staff was present, and some of the people—— 

Senator BURR. Would John Brennan have been included in that? 

Mr. LEW. You are asking who did a briefing, and that is different 

from who is in a conversation. I think if you ask people, were they 

in conversations, there might have been a different answer. 

Senator BURR. Who was your primary point of contact in the intelligence community? 

Mr. LEW. As Chief of Staff, I did not usually reach out directly 

to the intelligence community. I worked through the national security staff. 

Senator BURR. Was there anybody from the intelligence community in that briefing session on a continual basis, to your knowledge? 

Mr. LEW. The intelligence community was in close touch with the 

White House, with the national security team, on a near-constant 

basis. 

Senator BURR. Last question. If the Affordable Care Act is the 

panacea some suggest it is, why did the executive branch exclude 

themselves from coverage under the Affordable Care Act? 

Mr. LEW. Senator—— 

Senator BURR. Congress is included, staff is included, members 

are included, but nobody in the executive branch is included under 

the Affordable Care Act. 

Mr. LEW. Senator, that is actually a provision I was not involved 

in the creation of. I would have to go back and check. But I—— 

Senator BURR. Do you think they should be? 

Mr. LEW. Well, I assume it has something to do with the fact 

that the Federal system is something that is going to be accessible, 

in a sense, if there is a Federal exchange. But I would have to go 

back and check and get back to you. I do not want—— 

Senator BURR. In fact, my understanding is, every member of 

Congress and every staffer who works for a member of Congress 

is under the State exchange program. They are no longer part of 

FEHBP. My point is simple. If it is that good, why would we not 

include all branches? 

Mr. LEW. Yes. Senator, that is a detail that I am just not familiar with. I would have to go back and check and get back to you. 

Senator BURR. Great. Thank you. 

Mr. LEW. Thank you. 

Senator BURR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Roberts? 

44 

Senator ROBERTS. We will get back to you. That is the song I 

hear from an awful lot of people in the regulatory business, and it 

is a pretty tired country and western theme, it seems to me. 

Mr. Lew, welcome to what some in the press have described as 

the ‘‘Grand Cayman Ugland House Rehab and Restoration hearings.’’ In the Grand Caymans, they are very joyous about this hearing. I am not going to split the shingle on that with the exception 

to say the bottom line is, hopefully through tax reform we can 

lower the corporate tax rate, and this will not be a problem. You 

have indicated repeatedly that you did not know of this situation 

with regard to these investments, so I am not going to bother you 

with that. 

Senator Burr is a stickler in regards to the over-regulation problem. It is even more of a problem, or at least a challenge to us, in 

that I think the President last night said that, if in fact his agenda 

is hindered by Congress or high water, he is going to have the ability, or will take on the issue with more executive orders, which 

means more regulations. 

I have a whole series of questions on the four things that you 

have to achieve in regards to regulations under the President’s own 

executive order, and all four, according to staff, when we meet with 

folks from Treasury or from the Department of Health and Human 

Services or IRS, whomever it is, to try to merge these regulations, 

we are not getting any answers. 

Now, we talked about this in my office. You said, we do the best 

job that we can. I understand that: we will get back to you. But 

the ‘‘get back to you’’ stuff is getting a little bit old, more especially 

in the view of the people who are on the receiving end of regulations. But I am going to save that one too. I will submit it for the 

record. You will have a long time to go over those questions. 

[The questions appear in the appendix.] 

Senator ROBERTS. But over the past 4 years here, this administration has repeatedly brought up the issue of business aviation, 

general aviation, and the proposal to change the depreciation 

schedule for jets, agriculture aircraft, piston engine aircraft, from 

5 to 7 years. The estimates I have seen allege this will raise $200 

to $300 million a year, but it does not take into account the loss 

in tax revenue and jobs that will result from this change. 

Now, if you take into consideration the list of the projections of the Federal deficit for this year, which could end up being $1 trillion, $850 billion to $1 trillion, the changes that you have proposed 

would reduce the fiscal year 2013 deficit by about two-millionths of 

a percent. 

Now, based on this calculation, I think you can understand why 

someone like me gets a little bit hot under the collar, someone who 

is seeing our general aviation manufacturers in my State already 

lose 50 percent of their workforce during very difficult times, and 

why we would object to the seemingly unending attacks this administration continues to direct at the essential aviation industry, 

i.e., general aviation. 

We are not talking about fat cat corporate jets, which has been 

used over and over and over again. The general aviation industry 

has become the pinata in regards to tax reform by this administration. I am more than a little tired of it. 

45 

Now, I have a ‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no’’ question. If the administration continues attacking these hardworking, largely unionized American 

workers, which we can show has had a direct negative impact on 

sales, will we even have a U.S. general aviation manufacturing 

base in the next 10 years, or are we going to be flying Brazilian 

or French aircraft? 

Mr. LEW. Senator, I know you asked for a ‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no’’ answer. 

I have to say that the purpose of the policies that we proposed was 

to try to create a more fair tax code, and it was not aimed at trying 

to do any damage to the general aviation industry. 

I think a number of the kinds of aircraft that you are describing 

would not be covered by the policy that we proposed, and I would 

look forward, if confirmed, to working with you to understanding 

if in fact that is not the case. 

Senator ROBERTS. I appreciate that. It is just the adjectives that 

we use in the political system here that a particular industry is 

designated as being, as I said, a pinata or a target, and I know that 

is convenient. But we have a sales force out there that has already 

been cut in half, as I have indicated. We have good workers, we 

produce excellent product. If we make this change, we are going to 

be hurt. 

Mr. LEW. The objective of the policy was not to hurt the general 

aviation industry, it was to look at what was an inequity in the tax 

code where the users of the jets had preferential tax treatment, regardless of whether they bought U.S. or foreign-made aircraft. If it 

has an effect that I am not aware of that is disproportionate, I 

would look forward to working with you on it. 

Senator ROBERTS. Good. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Schumer? 

Senator SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize to the 

witness. We had an immigration hearing, and Lord knows—— 

Anyway, first question. As you know, unless Congress acts before 

March 1, sequestration will roughly impose $85 billion of acrossthe-board cuts. Now, rather than seek to replace the sequester with 

a balance of smart spending cuts and reforming tax loopholes, 

many of our friends on the other side are settling for letting the 

job-killing cuts take effect. Their only idea is to preserve the cuts 

but spread them out differently. 

This strikes me as a little bit like rearranging the deck chairs 

on the Titanic rather than steering away from the iceberg. So, first 

question: does the administration agree the Republican proposals 

to merely move spending cuts around will not solve the problem? 

Second, economist Mark Zandi said sequestration would cause a 

0.5-percent reduction in GDP for the entire year. 

Do you believe the Republican proposals would reduce the hit to 

GDP caused by the sequester at all, or would the reduction in 

growth be the same? 

Mr. LEW. Senator, first, thank you again for the very kind introduction this morning. I think that the analyses of the impact of 

such a dramatic and rapid reduction in Federal spending would 

hurt the economy at a time when the economy does not need a 

kick. It needs a little help, not a kick. 

46 

I think that if you look at the question of, should the sequester 

just be redistributed, in 2011 we agreed to reduce discretionary 

spending by $1.2 trillion. That is already putting a burden on all 

areas of government, including defense and all non-defense areas, 

and it is quite significant. I think it is the right challenge. We need 

to tighten our belt. We need to spend less. But I do not believe that 

the sequester can just be rearranged. We are already—— 

Senator SCHUMER. It would not change the reduction and the estimates of reduction in growth if we just did all cuts? 

Mr. LEW. The economic impact would be the same. I think the 

damage it would do to important investments, from defense to education, would be wrong. I think what we need is a balanced approach which combines mandatory savings and revenues and finishes the job. We did $2.5-trillion of deficit reduction. We need to 

do another $1.5 trillion. We can get this done. 

Senator SCHUMER. Great. Thank you. It makes sense. I mean, if 

you are just going to switch cuts from one place to the other, it is 

not going to change the reduction in growth that would occur. Probably the greatest reason—there are many—to avoid the sequestration, or just rearranging, is our economy is finally beginning to recover a little bit. This would snuff that out in a significant way. 

Zero-point-five-percent GDP is no small number. 

Mr. LEW. It is not a small thing. One could certainly have something more rational than across-the-board cuts, but it would have 

the same economic impact, and it would do a lot of harm. So, it is 

not the right policy. 

Senator SCHUMER. Right. 

Mr. LEW. It was meant to not happen. It was not meant to be 

rearranged. 

Senator SCHUMER. Right. 

Here is another question I have which you will be involved with 

should you, and I believe when you, become Treasury Secretary. 

That is, TRIEA, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Extension Act. I 

worked with your predecessor and President Bush’s Treasury Secretaries on this. It was last extended in 2007. 

But it is the nature of insurance that you cannot wait for the last 

minute, because businesses who need to renew their policies may 

find the insurance companies either are not willing to provide terrorism coverage if the future of the program is in doubt or will 

raise the price so high that, in effect, they are not offering coverage, and then you cannot get new building refinancing and all 

the things that keep an economy going. 

It is not just in New York, but in many areas with tall buildings 

that might be targets of terrorism. When TRIEA was last extended, 

there was some debate about the scope of the program or whether 

it was still necessary. The program was reformed, the need for it 

was reaffirmed, and the program was extended 7 years. If you talk 

to my constituents, I assure you that you would agree the program 

remains vital to obtaining insurance, regular insurance, to build 

and even to get financing. 

Terrorism is just something that the private sector is not willing 

to do on reasonable terms. It is a little like flood insurance, but 

probably worse because we have less of a record about terrorism. 

47 

We do not know when it comes, and, if it does come, it could come 

in such a horrifying amount nobody wants to insure against it. 

What is your view on extending TRIEA for 5 more years? 

Mr. LEW. Senator, I am very familiar with TRIEA. I was chief 

operating officer of NYU on September 11th. I would not have been 

able to have had a university with insurance during the time I was 

there without TRIEA. I am less familiar with where it stands right 

now in the extension process and would look forward to working 

with you and exploring options. 

Senator SCHUMER. Could you see the argument that you still 

need it, even though we are 10 years after 9/11? 

Mr. LEW. I certainly understand that it was very much needed 

at the time. I have no reason to believe that it is not important, 

but I would want to become current in my understanding. 

Senator SCHUMER. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Rockefeller? 

Senator ROCKEFELLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Lew, I welcome you and your family. I welcome my opportunity to vote for you. 

The chairman of this committee once called me ‘‘utterly predictable,’’ and he is utterly correct. I have a focused mission in life, and 

I stick by it. You are one of the people who could help me make 

progress. 

I have never really understood why it is that the Republicans are 

so adamant against raising revenues, because it does make sense. 

I do not know if it is Grover Norquist, I do not know if it is a 

Wednesday breakfast meeting they have every week to make sure 

that they—I just do not understand it, because, if you want to get 

things done in this country, you have to have revenue. You just 

have to have revenue. 

So, one, I would like to know that you are on that side and that 

you would encourage, in the development of the budget and tax 

proposals, that there be more revenue. 

Mr. LEW. Senator, I very much believe that we need to have a 

balanced approach to getting out of the fiscal hole we are in. I 

think that revenues are part of the solution. Nobody likes to raise 

taxes, but the choice is always between being able to pay our bills 

or not. If the choices are to cut more deeply into things like education and research or health care, I think that we need the right 

balance. 

Senator ROCKEFELLER. All right. 

Mr. LEW. The President’s ratio of 2:1 seems about right to me. 

Senator ROCKEFELLER. All right. Second question. You and I 

have talked about this before; we did in my office. It is something 

I care passionately about. It turns out, in fact, that the Earned Income Tax Credit is the greatest anti-poverty program in the U.S. 

Government, and it has an unbelievable effect in my State of West 

Virginia. 

The Earned Income Tax Credit on the one hand, and the Child 

Tax Credit on the other—there are other tax credits which help 

balance out the inequality and help people to live, just frankly to 

live. I would hope that, as those are up for reauthorization, they 

48 

would be part of a 5-year reauthorization that the administration 

would support. 

Mr. LEW. Senator, I have supported the Earned Income Tax 

Credit for many years and was proud to be part of the effort this 

year to extend the refundable credits again. They have a proud bipartisan history from the Nixon administration until today, and 

they are intended to encourage work and to make work pay. I 

think they do an important job. 

Senator ROCKEFELLER. Great. The next—and maybe I will make 

it my final question just to please my chairman so he will give me 

some credit for efficiencies here. No, I guess I will not. [Laughter.] 

Income inequality is a vast problem for this country, and there 

are a variety of ways that that can be attacked. But what were we, 

ranked 31st out of 34 developed countries in income equality? It is 

a disgrace. I would just hope that the administration would be 

strongly embarrassed by that as indeed I am, and that they would 

take that into account one way or another to effectuate a change 

in our standing in the globe. 

Mr. LEW. Senator, I mentioned earlier, and I believe strongly, 

that it was important in the tax bill that was enacted in January 

that we took a step towards having the tax system play less of a 

role in contributing to inequality. The President made some announcements last night that also contribute to that. This has 

been—— 

Senator ROCKEFELLER. I have two more questions. 

Mr. LEW. This has been decades in developing, and we need to 

address the problem. 

Senator ROCKEFELLER. I have two more questions and a hostile 

chairman here. 

You and I have talked about Medicaid. One of the things that I 

like about you is that you feel very strongly about Medicaid, and 

I think you have experienced Medicaid in your own life. 

Medicaid is not only sustenance for all of long-term care, if you 

can spend yourself down low enough to qualify for it, but it is one 

of the great funders of child help, and it is also the easiest thing 

to attack. I am pretty sure that you feel very strongly about Medicaid and would fight for its protection as much as possible. 

Mr. LEW. Senator, I do believe strongly in the Medicaid program. 

We do have to be careful in the Medicaid program to make sure 

we are not overpaying. Over the years there have been issues on 

that. 

I have defended the program strongly, that it needs to be protected, but I have also been willing to take out a sharp pencil when 

there were practices that needed to be addressed either on the reimbursement side or in terms of the way the State programs were 

working. I think if we care about a program, we have to run it well. 

Senator ROCKEFELLER. I agree with that. I am over on my time, 

and I apologize, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Isakson? 

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

you. 

Congratulations on your nomination. 

Mr. LEW. Thank you, Senator. 

49 

Senator ISAKSON. Thank you for your service to the country. You 

have repeatedly said that the administration addressed ‘‘too big to 

fail,’’ that we needed to expand credit, that it is critically important 

that we complete the implementation of Dodd-Frank. 

If you are confirmed, very shortly the first problem you may have 

as the Secretary of the Treasury is the implementation of a DoddFrank rule known as Qualified Residential Mortgage (QRM). Mr. 

Cordray just issued a QM ruling which I commend him on. I was 

scared to death they were going to overreach, but they did not, and 

they defined QM in such a way as to avoid predatory lending in 

housing but to protect traditional housing. 

But Dodd-Frank also had a QRM requirement, and the pending 

rule, which has been circulated twice and pulled by the 6-member 

committee, would have required for risk retention the exemption of 

a 20-percent or greater down payment. 

If that took place from the conventional mortgage market, you 

would withdraw fully 60 percent of the people buying housing from 

the marketplace, because nobody is going to hold risk retention 

against loans for that length of time. 

Will you engage, as Secretary of Treasury, with HUD, with 

FDIC, with OCC, and the others on the committee, to come up with 

a reasonable approach for risk retention and exemption from DoddFrank? 

Mr. LEW. Senator, I think that, if confirmed, I would very much, 

as the chairman of FSOC, engage in the issues of rules implementing Dodd-Frank. In terms of the relationship between the Department of Treasury and the Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, I would continue, as Secretary Geithner did, to work 

closely on those issues. 

The QM rule and the QRM rule were obviously designed to address different issues. I appreciate the comments you have made 

about the QM rule. It is really designed to protect borrowers 

against institutions that fail to exercise proper due diligence, so 

they would hold accountability for their failures. 

The QRM rule is really designed to make sure that we do not get 

back into a situation where institutions create risk to the system 

or create the risk that taxpayers will have to come in and bail out 

failed institutions. I would work on these issues going forward to 

make sure that the goals are achieved with the least burden possible. 

Senator ISAKSON. Well, I understand this: Dodd-Frank exempted 

Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, and FHA. If you end up with a conventional mortgage that cannot sustain the risk retention requirement, 

you will put the entire burden of financing housing in America on 

2 institutions, Freddie and Fannie, and FHA. 

FHA is in a difficult solvency position right now, and Freddie 

and Fannie owe the taxpayers $171 billion. So, it is critically important we get it right, and I would hope you would exercise leadership on that. 

Mr. LEW. Senator, I think it is very important that we get private capital back into housing. Our goal is not to have the heavy 

presence of either Federal programs or federally backed programs, 

and I would look forward to working with you on these issues. 

Senator ISAKSON. Well, thank you very much. 

50 

Second, Senator Schumer made the statement in his introduction 

that you have the unique ability to learn about a problem, study 

it for solutions, and implement those solutions. That is quite a compliment. We have a serious problem with spending, with the budget, with being out of process. It is broken in Washington. 

On March 6th and February 15th of 2000, when you were in the 

administration of President Clinton, you testified before the House 

Rules Committee on the biennial budget. There were 40 members 

of the House and Senate in a bipartisan fashion. 

Jeanne Shaheen and myself as the principal sponsors recommended the biennial budget process to change the paradigm where 

we appropriate in odd-numbered years and do oversight in election 

years, which are even-numbered years. 

You have been very supportive of that, all the way back to 1993. 

But once again, like in the last question, can you really help exercise some leadership to get the administration to come on board, 

and let us try to work together to do that? 

Mr. LEW. Senator, I have supported biennial budgeting for a long 

time and testified on a number of occasions in support of it. I have 

had my work on this cited by international figures in terms of following policies in their own countries to implement policies like 

that. 

It has not been something we took a position on, I believe, in this 

administration, though there has never been any opposition to it. 

I would look forward to following up with you. It is fundamentally 

a matter of congressional decision-making. I understand that there 

has been resistance to the idea over the years, but I think that the 

record of the last 10 years only strengthens the case. 

Senator ISAKSON. Well, I think also our inability to do budgets 

and appropriations on the Senate side and some of the difficulties 

we have had, demanded of us to change the paradigm and change 

the structure in which we make these considerations. 

Last question on behalf of a constituent. Treasury has dictated, 

by March 1st of this year, everybody receiving benefits will get 

them either through direct deposit or through express cards. Is 

that correct? 

Mr. LEW. I believe that is correct. 

Senator ISAKSON. And I understand 90 percent of people have 

complied, but there are 10 percent out there, some of them veterans, some of them people who are in poverty, who do not have 

a checking account and do not have access to the direct express 

card. 

Mr. LEW. I would actually have to follow up on that, Senator. I 

am not sure. 

Senator ISAKSON. On behalf of my constituent, please do, because 

they want to know how they are going to get their money after 

March 1st. 

Mr. LEW. All right. I will follow up on that, Senator. 

Senator ISAKSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Wyden? 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Lew, welcome. I was interested this morning—staff came in 

and said that they had done a count, and since 2001 the Congress 

51 

has passed 137 laws changing the tax code. Now, as you know, almost always these laws have helpful provisions. Nobody disputes 

that. But, with each one of these changes, the tax system gets more 

incomprehensible, more dysfunctional, and more byzantine. 

So my question to you is, do you support the idea that it is now 

time for the Congress to make a break with this idea of just passing these piecemeal changes, actually put a hold on these piecemeal tax changes, and actually move to the kind of long-term bipartisan tax reform that Senator Baucus, Senator Hatch, and 

Chairman Camp are talking about? Should we put a hold on these 

piecemeal approaches? 

Mr. LEW. Senator, I definitely agree that we should do the big 

job of tax reform, and I think we should do it now. 

Senator WYDEN. But the question is, should we put a hold on the 

piecemeal approaches? Because, as long as we keep passing them, 

I think it is going to be tough to get the long-term reform. 

Mr. LEW. I had not actually thought about whether there was an 

approach like the one you described. I would be happy to have a 

discussion with you about it. My own predisposition is we should 

just get the big job done, and anything that makes it easier to do 

is worth considering. 

Senator WYDEN. All right. 

You are going to have a large role in determining whether health 

care coverage is affordable for workers and families, because the 

IRS determines who is eligible for tax credits for health care and 

how much they would be eligible for. 

Now, the IRS has already determined that affordability is going 

to be based on the cost of a worker’s individual coverage, not the 

cost of family coverage. So we are going to have millions of workers, spouses, and dependents in a kind of regulatory no-man’s land. 

Now, in the Affordable Care Act, a provision was added that 

would have allowed an employee to take their employer’s contribution, either the individual or the family, and shop for a policy that 

best fit their needs at a price that they could afford. 

As we talked about in the office, that provision is no longer 

there, so we have millions of people, these working-class, middleclass people, who are pinched. They are in the middle. They are unable to afford the family coverage offered through their employer 

and ineligible for the subsidy that could be used by dependents on 

the exchanges. What do you think ought to be done to help them? 

Mr. LEW. Senator, I think that, in getting the Affordable Care 

Act in place, there are a lot of hurdles between now and 2014. Job 

number one is to get it up and running. I would look forward to 

working with you and the members of this committee to ask and 

answer the questions about, are there gaps that need to be addressed, after that. 

There are many things in the Affordable Care Act that require 

a lot of work to get in place. I must say, my first focus would be 

on making sure that we implement the law, but then I would be 

delighted to pursue with you looking at solutions to remaining 

problems. 

Senator WYDEN. The New York Times and others in the press 

said that millions of low- and moderate-income families are going 

to be affected by this IRS decision, so this is not an abstract quesVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:11 Feb 06, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 R:\DOCS\86523.000 TIMD
52 

tion. I appreciate your saying that you are going to work with me 

and others on it. This is an urgent matter. These are not people 

who ought to get hammered. They have done nothing wrong. We 

had a provision that would have made a real difference to those 

families. It is not there anymore. I think it has to be a priority. 

Let me ask you about one other area. We talked about it in the 

office. That is the electioneering that now takes place by taxexempt social welfare organizations. This stems from the wake of 

the Citizens United case. There has been a proliferation of these 

entities that are organizing under 501(c)(4) provisions in the Internal Revenue Code, and they are really doing politics. 

They get a tax break as social welfare organizations, but they are 

really ripping off the tax code because they are not social welfare 

organizations, they are doing politics. I think some of my colleagues 

had a little bit of a taste of how outrageous this has gotten. 

Now, Senator Murkowski and I are going to be introducing bipartisan legislation to stop this, to take away that tax break when 

these organizations do not disclose. But I was very troubled by the 

fact that the IRS, in what is called the priority guidance plan, basically does not make cleaning this abuse up a priority. 

My question to you is, when confirmed—I believe you will be; I 

am certainly supporting you—will you make it a priority to drain 

the swamp here? This is not a partisan issue; this is an abuse, a 

flagrant abuse, of the tax code. These are not social welfare organizations, they are electioneering, and they are doing it with the taxpayers’ dime, and they are not disclosing. Will you make it a priority to fix this? 

Mr. LEW. Senator, as a general proposition, I believe that the tax 

laws should be enforced and enforced fairly. If there is something 

wrong here, it should be looked at. There is appropriate distance 

between the Treasury Secretary and the IRS on enforcement matters, but on policy matters I think it is entirely appropriate to ask 

that question. 

Senator WYDEN. This is something that is way wrong. 

My time is up, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Senator Nelson? 

Senator NELSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Lew, I just want to make a statement before I ask you a couple of simple little questions. First of all, when Leon Panetta was 

nominated to be CIA Director, I talked to a number of our CIA personnel in various parts of the world, and they were concerned because Leon did not have a background in intelligence. 

My response was, anybody who has been Chief of Staff to the 

President of the United States can handle any job in the U.S. Government. Of course, Leon went on to prove that, so much so that 

then, for his next position, he was confirmed 100 to nothing as Secretary of Defense. Therefore, that is by way of saying to you, obviously, I support your nomination. You have handled that job of 

Chief of Staff very well. 

The other thing I wanted to say was that there was a problem 

when you were Chief of Staff with OMB, in that OMB was continuing to try to run this country’s space program. I went to you, 

and you started ‘‘massaging,’’ perhaps is the best way to say it, 

53 

that the NASA administrators got to administratively run the 

space program without OMB folks saying, you do this, you do that, 

pursuant to the directives given by the Congress in the NASA Authorization Act by the Commerce Committee, which Senator Rockefeller chairs. 

I want to thank you for that, because what you did was, you 

smoothed it out so that Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison and I could 

bring unanimity, and we got direction for the space program 3 

years ago that otherwise was in turmoil. That is in no small measure to what you did. I want the folks to know that is what you did, 

and I want you to know how much this Senator appreciates it. 

Mr. LEW. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator NELSON. Now, I want to ask you, we have all of this 

international finance stirring, and a lot of that is going to run 

under your bailiwick. Give me your thoughts on it. 

Mr. LEW. Well, Senator, the international financial situation is 

one that we do have to watch very closely. As much as we try to 

do our own business, we cannot separate ourselves from the world 

entirely. We can make sure our financial institutions are sound, we 

can make sure we run our policies appropriately. But look at Europe. 

Europe is our largest export partner. If Europe has an economic 

or a financial crisis, that is something we have to worry about. It 

is something that, if confirmed, I would work on. But frankly, I 

have been working on it, even as Chief of Staff, because, in addition to worrying about the U.S. economy, we have been worrying 

about the exposure to the U.S. economy from risks overseas. 

There are questions of demand overseas where that is directly 

going to determine the ability of U.S. exporters to have markets. 

There are issues of the financial interconnection, particularly with 

sovereign risk. If confirmed, I would work with this committee to 

give the President the best independent advice I could and to play 

a leadership role in the world economic community to advance U.S. 

interests. 

Senator NELSON. Do you think, given the extremes of situations 

of the economies in countries like Greece, that they can right their 

ship? 

Mr. LEW. I think that Europe has shown a resolve to deal with 

its problems, both as a union and individually in countries. But 

these are tough fiscal solutions that have to be put in place to fix 

the situation in some of these countries, much tougher than the 

choices we face. 

I think that it is going to take some time. It is encouraging that 

there has been more of a willingness on the part of the broader European community to give some time, provided that there are assurances that progress is being made and risk is not just being 

shifted. 

This is a fundamentally European problem, but it is one that has 

such an enormous impact on the United States’ economy that the 

President and Secretary Geithner were deeply involved, I was 

deeply involved as Chief of Staff, and it is something that we cannot take our eye off of, because the risks that are potentially in the 

future are not just within our borders, but there are external risks 

that we have to safeguard against. 

54 

Senator NELSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Thank you, Senator. 

Mr. Lew, Senator Schumer, in his introduction, mentioned your 

extraordinary talents and abilities. They have been referred to here 

a couple of times. We face extraordinary times. You mentioned 

yourself, it has been 3 decades in the making, but the American 

middle class has deteriorated. We face globalization. It is a far different world today than it was in 1986. The challenges facing the 

United States are far greater economically than they have been in 

the past. 

What can you tell us today to show that you have the courage 

to step up and tackle this and be a great Treasury Secretary? 

Mr. LEW. Well, Senator—— 

The CHAIRMAN. I mentioned before to you how, somewhat as an 

analogy, not quite the same, that the U.S. Solicitor General represents the U.S. Government before the Supreme Court, but the 

Solicitor General plays another role as well, as an advisor to the 

court. 

I believe the Treasury Secretary has a dual role as well. That is, 

to perform the functions that the Treasury Secretary would ordinarily perform and do well, but I think there is another role. It 

comes down to stature and gravitas, courage, and stepping up, 

after pursuing your analytics, abilities, skills, and solutions, and 

having the courage to do something about it publicly, as well as 

privately within the administration. 

So what can you say to us here today to show us that you are 

going to be, not just an ordinary Treasury Secretary, but that you 

are going to be a great Treasury Secretary, so that when your term 

is up you can look back and see that Secretary Lew was terrific, 

he got this country back on the right economic track? That includes 

tax reform, it includes all the multi-national issues, the globalization issues, that we all face. The world is changing so much. 

I think there are three major changes. One is demographics. 

Most countries are finding an aging population with huge pressures. Second is globalization. It tends to have downward pressure 

on wages, one of the main reasons why U.S. jobs are hard to find, 

and it probably has some effect on middle-class globalization. Third 

is increases in productivity, which are inexorable. You cannot turn 

back technology. You can go forward, but technology has a crosscurrent effect on jobs. 

So what can you tell us today to show us that you are going to 

be a great Secretary, that you are going to take on these issues? 

Mr. LEW. Mr. Chairman, I have the highest regard for the roles 

of Treasury Secretary and Solicitor General as the kinds of positions in government where, while you work for the President, you 

have a responsibility to represent some values that may go beyond 

the administration you are in, and to have the requirement that 

you have to be able to go in and give the President your honest 

view, even if you disagree, and you have to be able to build support 

outside of the administration for difficult decisions. 

I think that, if you look at my career from an early age, I have 

proven that I am not daunted by the challenge of going in before 

authority figures and speaking my mind. When I was in my 20s 

working for the Speaker of the House, it was not easy to look Dan 

55 

Rostenkowski in the eye and tell him I thought he was doing something that he needed to rethink. 

He said something to me once, and I agreed with him when he 

knew I did not. He lost his temper, and he said, ‘‘Don’t waste the 

air in this room if you tell me you agree with me if you think I’m 

wrong.’’ It liberated me at the age of, like, 24, to never again hesitate, whether it was with a Speaker or with the President of the 

United States or a world leader, to speak my mind. 

I do it respectfully. I try to do it without unnecessarily breaking 

china, but I do not believe that I have ever withheld my honest 

view from the President. As Secretary of the Treasury, I would be 

called upon in more circumstances to sometimes come in with hard 

messages. As Chief of Staff, it turns out you do not get to go to the 

President with a lot of good news. 

The good news finds its way to the President pretty easily. I, for 

a year, had to walk into that Oval Office every day and tell the 

President there were tough choices and here is what I think, never 

mincing my words, never not saying what I thought. As Treasury 

Secretary, I would follow that kind of a path, and I would hope to 

work with this committee on a bipartisan basis to have the kind 

of relationship where we could talk to each other that way. 

The CHAIRMAN. I appreciate that, but I was really getting at 

something else. It is clear that you can be a great staffer. I am not 

talking about being a great, courageous staffer and telling the 

President what you think and do not think. I am talking about 

something else. 

I am talking about the public perception, the public demeanor, 

representing the United States around the world—across the country and around the world—being able to influence policy in a way 

that makes sense that most of us tend to agree with. We may differ 

around the edges, but most everybody in this room agrees what 

needs to be done. That is what I am getting at. What can you tell 

us about that? 

Mr. LEW. Mr. Chairman, in the years I was at the State Department, I met with world leaders one-on-one. As White House Chief 

of Staff, I met with both world leaders and heads of major interests 

in this country. I think the position that you are in and the way 

you carry yourself in that position is where gravitas comes from. 

I feel like, in the business dealings that I have had, it is about 

building trust, it is about having credibility, it is about speaking 

clearly and saying what you think. I have done more than my 

share of public speaking and appearances on television. I am not 

afraid of taking issues public and expressing complicated ideas in 

terms that people can understand. 

I am not sure how to put a specific behind the question of 

gravitas, but I think the career path I have had—very few people 

leave the role of staff and become a member of the Cabinet. I have 

had a career path that is not the norm, and I think that that lends 

itself to the kind of gravitas that you are looking for. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I wish you well, because the challenges are 

tremendous. Thank you very much. 

Senator Hatch? 

Senator HATCH. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Lew, do you need a break? 

56 

Mr. LEW. I am fine, thank you. Thank you for asking. 

Senator HATCH. All right. I just want to make sure, because, unfortunately, this is one of the most important positions in the country, and this will go on a little bit longer, if you do not mind. 

Mr. LEW. Do you need a break? 

Senator HATCH. I have taken my break. When I need one, I will 

take one. 

Mr. LEW. It depends if we are talking about 20 minutes or 2 

hours. 

Senator HATCH. Well, if you need one, just let us know. 

Mr. LEW. Thank you. 

Senator HATCH. Because we understand. 

Senator Rockefeller raised the issue of why Republicans have 

such a tough time raising revenue. Well, the reason we have a 

tough time raising revenue is because we know that the Democrats 

will just spend it. They will not use it to pay down the national 

debt, which is astronomical. We also know that, if we taxed every 

dime that millionaires make, it would raise less than what the deficit is this year. 

We have seen that time after time after time. We do not have 

any faith that these funds would be used to help get our spending 

under control and get our government under control. That is one 

of the reasons why I think that the Republicans are so loathe to 

raise taxes. 

We know that fiscal calamity is primarily driven by the exponential growth in entitlement spending. We know that is a problem. You know it is a problem. Second, there are economic costs to 

tax increases: tax something—labor, capital, entrepreneurship— 

and you are going to get less of it. Third, there are practical limits 

to the politically designed tax increases on whatever the unpopular 

group is that is targeted. So like I say, these are problems that we 

as Republicans have, and they are legitimate concerns. I am sure 

you have legitimate concerns about these things as well as we do. 

Frankly, I think you have done really well today. I have a great 

deal of respect for you. It is not easy to give a lifetime of service 

as a staffer and then a Director of OMB, a top staffer in the White 

House. My gosh, I have nothing but respect for people like you who 

give yourself to our government. I really have great respect for 

your wife and your daughter, your family, too. 

Mr. LEW. Thank you. 

Senator HATCH. Because it is tough. 

Mr. LEW. That is something we agree on, Senator. 

Senator HATCH. That is good. Well, I think we do not give our 

spouses nearly the credit that they deserve. 

But some of these questions we do need to ask, just to make sure 

the record is clear. Now, let me ask one that hopefully will help 

make the record more clear. American taxpayers provided over $45 

billion to Citigroup in late 2008 and early 2009. 

Taxpayers backed hundreds of billions of dollars of Citigroup assets. Meanwhile, Mr. Lew, you reportedly received over $940,000 of 

compensation in early 2009, mostly comprised of ‘‘discretionary’’ 

compensation for work performed in 2008, and you received that a 

day before Citi received about $7 billion of taxpayer backing. 

57 

On January 29, 2009, President Obama remarked on Wall Street 

bonuses at the time and said, ‘‘That is the height of irresponsibility. It is shameful.’’ He went on to say that, ‘‘There will be a 

time for them to get bonuses. Now is not the time.’’ Elsewhere, he 

referred to Wall Street bonuses as ‘‘obscene.’’ 

Now, Mr. Lew, you wrote in a 2010 letter to Senator Grassley 

that ‘‘my compensation was in line with other management executives at the firm and in similarly complex operations.’’ Now, that 

seems a little bit to me like saying, gee, dad, everyone was doing 

it. Unfortunately, that type of reasoning is exactly what I think led 

to this financial crisis. 

Now, I have three questions related to your compensation. Let 

me just give them to you, and then you can respond to all three. 

First, could you explain what you did in 2008 for Citi that war- ranted payment to you of close to $1 million, most of which was 

a bonus? 

Second, what was it about your performance that merited your 

bonus from a company that was being propped up by taxpayer 

money, and are there any records of your performance assessment, 

or are there any assessments of your performance? 

Third, your employment agreement included a clause stating 

that your ‘‘guaranteed incentive and retention award’’ would not be 

paid upon exit from Citigroup, but there was an exception, that you 

would receive that compensation ‘‘as a result of your acceptance of 

a full-time high-level position with the U.S. Government or a regulatory body.’’ 

Now, is this exception consistent with President Obama’s efforts 

to ‘‘close the ‘revolving door’ that carries special interest influence 

in and out of the government?’’ I think that is a question that has 

to be asked, and I would appreciate hearing your response. 

Mr. LEW. Senator Hatch, the work that I did in 2008 was running, as I said earlier, the business of the business in a year when 

the financial products of that part of the firm were not doing very 

well. I think I actually performed quite well in managing the business operations, shedding real estate and parts of the operation 

that were not necessary, reducing the costs in a very considerable 

way. 

I am not familiar with records that were kept, so I do not have 

access to things that I do not know about. The experience that I 

had in the private sector has given me a perspective that I think 

enhances my ability to perform, both in the role that I am nominated for and in the roles I have had. 

I have practiced law. I have worked at a university. I have 

worked at a financial institution. I think that if I had not had a 

set of experiences like that I would not be sitting here today speaking with confidence that I could undertake the responsibilities of 

Secretary of the Treasury. 

As far as my 2008 compensation goes, it was for my work in 

2008. I do believe that it was comparable to compensation for people in positions like mine in the industry. As a broader discussion 

on compensation, I do not think there is anything that has not 

been fully transparent about both what I did and what I earned. 

Senator HATCH. Could you tell us how much money you made in 

2008 before you got the bonus? 

58 

Mr. LEW. My base salary, I believe, was $350,000. 

Senator HATCH. All right. Well, thank you, sir. That is a question 

I felt had to be asked, and I appreciate your answer. Go ahead, Mr. 

Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Portman? 

Senator PORTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thought the 

question posed by Senator Baucus earlier was very interesting, and 

I am glad I was not on the other side of the table to have to answer 

it. But I have been before this committee for a confirmation hearing, and they were much tougher on me, that is all I can say. 

[Laughter.] 

But that is sort of the ultimate question. Senator Hatch has 

posed it earlier in his reference to Gallatin and what kind of Secretary of the Treasury he was. There are different roles. Having 

been a staff person in OMB and USTR—and I have had the same 

balance that you will be facing, but Treasury is different. 

I think it is a different job than Chief of Staff or in OMB in the 

context of what both the ranking member and the chairman were 

talking about, and it does have to do with taking public positions. 

It is not about meeting with foreign leaders or meeting with the 

President and being frank in the Oval Office, it is about being willing to have the courage of your convictions and to talk about these 

issues at a time when our country is in trouble. 

I think we are truly in trouble with our debt and deficit at record 

levels and the weakest recovery we have had in our history, in 

terms of getting out of our economic doldrums. I think it requires 

a Secretary of the Treasury, because I think this is—Gallatin is 

quoted as saying, from Senator Baucus, ‘‘no more responsible position.’’ It is true. I mean, this is it. 

We talked about tax reform and entitlement reform earlier. I 

have just three quick questions for you, all of which may be the 

kind of questions where sometimes you need to break some china 

to do the right thing. But on entitlement reform, Senator Hatch 

has talked about the importance of it. 

CBO, which is, again, the nonpartisan group here in Congress 

that gives us our information on what is going to happen in the future, they have said that over the next 10 years Social Security, 

Medicare, and Medicaid will double in their costs. 

So you have about a 100-percent increase, about $1.5 trillion to 

$3 trillion in these programs over the next 10 years. During that 

time, other entitlements are going to go up 39 percent, discretionary spending only 10 percent. So it is very clear where the 

spending problem is. It is not only the biggest part of our budget 

now, it is the fastest-growing part of our budget. They are incredibly important programs, but they are not sustainable in their current form. 

By the way, another thing that is causing a problem in our deficit and debt is the interest payment. They have told us that in the 

next 10 years our interest payment is going to go up 284 percent, 

the bulk of which of course relates to the increase in spending on 

the entitlement side, which requires us to borrow more. 

So my question to you is the obvious one, which is, are you willing to take this on? The President has talked about it a lot. He has 

59 

even said he refuses to pass this problem on to another generation 

of Americans. But so far, that is what the administration has done, 

because the few changes that you have proposed in your budgets, 

which as you know have not gotten votes from Democrats or Republicans, really just are around the edges. 

So my question to you is, are you willing to step forward on this 

and show the kind of leadership that Senator Baucus is talking 

about? He may be talking about other kinds of leadership. I know 

he agrees that this is a huge challenge that we face. If you could 

answer that question with regard to entitlement reform—— 

Mr. LEW. Senator Portman, I agree that we need to tackle entitlement reform, and health programs are a big part of that. I think 

that we look at the trajectory and the gap between the revenues 

that come in in a program like Social Security—it is not the entirety of the program, but it is a gap. Social Security is 75-percent 

funded by the payroll tax forever, but it leaves a gap. We need to 

deal with that. 

Senator PORTMAN. Like, $9 billion this year. 

Mr. LEW. Yes. We need to deal with it in a way that protects Social Security in a balanced, fair way. I think that if you look at the 

arc of my career, whether it was in 1997 going and presenting the 

agreement that Senator Domenici and I worked through together 

on the Balanced Budget Act, going into the Democratic caucus in 

the House and the Senate, presenting it, advocating it, winning 

support for it, that was not easy. That was the courage of my convictions. 

Senator PORTMAN. Yes. It is not easy. 

Mr. LEW. You know it is not easy. You have been OMB Director. 

I think if you look at the current debate, and Senator Baucus 

knows this, I have gone before the Senate Democratic caucus many 

times, telling people what I thought needed to be told, even if it 

was not the popular thing at the time. 

I believe in a certain set of things, and we may disagree on some 

policy, but on the things that I believe in, I have never, never withheld my judgment and have always driven as hard as I could to 

get the job done. I would continue to do that. It would be a broader 

set of issues, a different playing field, that is clear. 

Senator PORTMAN. A different audience. 

Mr. LEW. But the thing I would say that is different about Treasury is, it is a job that requires one to transcend politics in many 

respects. That is what Senator Baucus was getting at in the comparison to the Solicitor General’s Office. I understand that, and I 

am looking forward to that. 

Senator PORTMAN. Before the chairman tells me my time is up, 

because it just about is, quickly, TPA. Not to have the ability to 

negotiate trade agreements makes it difficult to take the President 

up on his challenge last night for us to have a European-U.S. free 

trade agreement of some sort, and also to complete the TransPacific Partnership, because, without the ability to be able to upor-down vote here in Congress, in my experience other countries 

are not willing to put their last and best offer on the table. 

This is the first administration since FDR, of course, not to ask 

for Trade Promotion Authority. Why? One and two, are you willing 

to ask us to give you and to work with this committee and the 

60 

Ways and Means Committee on Trade Promotion Authority so we 

can indeed make good on the President’s commitments last night? 

Mr. LEW. Senator, I have, for 30 years, worked to try to advance 

free trade and fair trade at times when it was extremely unpopular. I worked to make sure that we did not have protectionist policies in a Democratic House in the late 1970s, early 1980s. 

I worked in the Clinton administration and the Obama administration. I am proud of the work I did helping to shape the TPP 

when I was at the State Department. I think it was a great announcement that the President made yesterday about Europe, and 

I would look forward to working with you and the members of this 

committee to have fair and free trade that expands markets to—— 

Senator PORTMAN. Will you be requesting Trade Promotion Authority? 

Mr. LEW. I would defer to the discussion that still has to take 

place on that. I would certainly engage on it. 

Senator PORTMAN. I will ask my last question as a written question, since I am over time. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. If you want to take more time, go ahead. 

Senator PORTMAN. Well, the final one is on retirement savings; 

we had this question posed generally earlier by Senator Cardin. 

This committee has worked over the years, along with the Ways 

and Means Committee starting in 2001, to expand retirement savings. 

The theory has always been, if you can get more businesses, particularly small businesses, to offer a 401(k) plan and get more people to take up an IRA, that you can expand people’s ability to save 

for their retirement privately to help take some of the pressure off 

Social Security. Some of us are concerned that sometimes the administration seems less committed to that going forward. In 2006, 

as you know, Congress chose to make that part of the 2001 Act permanent, so the expansions that occurred then are in place. 

Our question for you today would be, are you committed to the 

private retirement savings approach? Specifically, do you think 

that 401(k)s work, and do you think that they should be an important part of the 3-legged stool—savings, 401(k)s and IRAs, and Social Security—for people’s retirement? 

Mr. LEW. Senator, I think that they work better for people at the 

higher end of the income scale than people in the low to the middle 

end of the scale. I think we need to look at ways to get people to 

participate more in savings plans. 

It is obviously harder, when you are spending all of your disposable income, to save, no doubt about that. But there are things that 

we can do to make it easier, more attractive, and I would look forward to working with you and other members of the committee on 

that. I do believe we need a 3-legged stool. 

Senator PORTMAN. Both of these men have been leaders on that. 

We want to work with you on it. But just one point, quickly. Unless 

you provide that incentive to that small business owner to provide 

a plan, then those workers who are concerned about it are not 

going to have the alternative to be able to save for their private retirement, plus the matching contribution is key, as you know. 

61 

So we just hope the President would work with us on that to expand retirement savings in a way that gets more small businesses, 

not fewer, involved in providing that great opportunity for peace of 

mind in retirement. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LEW. Thank you, Senator. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. 

Mr. Lew, I appreciated your comments, I think in your opening 

statement and also in answer to questions, that you want to pursue 

regular order in pursuing comprehensive tax reform, which essentially, certainly on the business side, is base broadening and rate 

reduction. On the individual side, you were a little vague there, but 

certainly we need base broadening and also potentially rate reduction there depending upon the degree that it is necessary. 

I just want to say that this committee is going to act very forthrightly in pursuing tax reform in the regular order. That is, the 

committee itself will mark up legislation. I am sure I can speak for 

the House Ways and Means Committee, and say that is their preference too. I think I can speak for both sides of the aisle, that both 

parties, those on the Finance Committee and the Ways and Means 

Committee, and many other members of the Congress, want to pursue tax reform the same way, in much the same way we did back 

in 1986. That was wide open, freewheeling, amendments offered. 

It is true that, to some degree, 1986 began with the administration with Treasury I and Treasury II, but it is also true that both 

bodies got very engaged and very involved and found a solution. I 

can remember in this committee—Senator Packwood was then 

chairman—we reported out the 1986 bill unanimously. All members of the committee supported it, which was not expected earlier on. 

So, I appreciate not only your willingness, but your enthusiasm 

in working with the Congress and, under the regular order, where 

the committees are doing their work, to pursue the tax reform. I 

do think that is a good vehicle as well to address growth and jobs 

and the other goals that are just so important. 

Mr. LEW. And Senator, if I might add, I do not think there is any 

other way to accomplish it. It is too complicated. It has to be done 

by the people with expertise and responsibility. If confirmed, I 

would look forward to being a partner in that effort. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Senator Hatch? 

Senator HATCH. Well, thank you. 

Mr. Lew, I agree with the chairman that we need to do tax reform. We are going to need you to weigh in rather heavily. Hopefully we can do it in such a way that really does increase growth 

and pulls us out of the mess that we are in. 

I would just make one other comment. I think you have to weigh 

in on TPA. It is ridiculous that this is the only President who, in 

my memory, has not asked for that power. Trade is going to be one 

of the best ways we have to pull us out of the mess we are in and 

to create the manufacturing jobs that the President suggested he 

would like to last night. 

So, I think you are highly respected in this administration and 

by many of us, and I believe that, if you will weigh in, that is someVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:11 Feb 06, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 R:\DOCS\86523.000 TIMD
62 

thing that really has to be done or we could get into a massive 

mess here that is not going to be solved easily. 

We would like to see free trade move much faster and much better than it is. Other nations throughout the world are entering into 

these free trade agreements, and we are being left out in the cold 

at a time when we need the jobs, we need the opportunities, and 

the unions need the jobs. Getting more and more jobs gives them 

more and more chances to organize. So, all of that fits together. 

I would just encourage you to weigh in, because I know the 

President thinks very highly of you or he would not have put you 

in this position. That would be my counsel to you. I just want to 

thank you again for appearing and being willing to answer these 

questions. Frankly, I think you have done really well. 

Mr. LEW. Thank you very much, Senator. 

Senator HATCH. You bet. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. 

I want to just emphasize, Mr. Lew, what Senator Hatch said. I 

do not think this administration has been as aggressive in pursuing trade agreements as it should be. To be honest, I had to twist 

some arms to get this administration even to agree to pursue TPP. 

They were not in favor of it at the beginning at all. I thought that 

was just totally short-sighted. We need TPP to engage in the Pacific. 

Mr. LEW. I totally agree with you, Senator. 

The CHAIRMAN. We are doing it. But anyway, this administration 

was dragging its heels at best. 

Mr. LEW. I was on the side of the administration pushing for it, 

so I am glad you—— 

The CHAIRMAN. I appreciate that very much. Also, recently, when 

I was in Europe, I was very heartened to see the degree to which 

European countries want to pursue a trade agreement with the 

U.S. I might also add that TPA is a good opportunity to write a 

kind of trade authority with some provisions in it that would move 

us into the 21st century, move us forward, rather than just the old 

standard, garden-variety TPA. So, there are lots of opportunities 

here. Lots of opportunities here. I know you agree. 

I would say that I know you are going to pursue them all, but 

I just urge also that you work mightily to find ways for both ends 

of Pennsylvania Avenue to work together. It is not just the Congress, it is both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, because that is the 

way our Founding Fathers set this arrangement up. We just have 

to make it work. 

Mr. LEW. I look forward, if confirmed, to doing that with you, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. I wish you great luck. I mean, this 

is a tough job. I mean, Albert Gallatin said it was, and I agree with 

him. Good luck. 

Mr. LEW. Thank you, Senator. 

The CHAIRMAN. The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:27 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(63) 

A P P E N D I X 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD


86523001.eps
64 


86523.002

The Budget Control Act of 2011 and the end-of-year fiscal cliff agreement both bipartisan - have made 

a difference. Nearly $2.4 trillion of deficit reduction has been locked in for the next 10 years. But while 

progress has been made, the job is certainly not done. 

We have many tough decisions ahead of us. The first challenge is the sequester - across the board cuts 

to programs starting in just over two weeks. Then we quickly face the threat of a government 

shutdown. 

The sequester will cut critical programs including Medicare, rural development and early education. We 

will need to work together - Republicans and Democrats, House and Senate, with the administrationto prevent indiscriminate cuts and lasting economic damage. 

The state of the economy is still fragile. The unemployment rate rose slightly in January and is projected 

to remain stubbornly high, 8 percent in 2013 and 7.6 percent in 2014. These numbers are 

troubling. Combined with the more favorable deficit numbers, the unemployment figures show that we 

cannot take our eye off the ball - economy and job creation. 

Mr. Lew, we need you to concentrate on three areas to provide greater economic growth and certainty 

for the nation. 

First, focus like a laser on job creation. Do not get distracted. As the leader of the President's economic 

team, you must put in place policies that create more jobs and spark economic growth. 

Unemployment near 8 percent for the next two years is unacceptable. Use your office to develop new 

ideas to boost job creation and to relieve small businesses of needless regulatory burdens. 

Second, you must help return predictability and stability to our nation's capital. We have to get off this 

roller coaster of crisis after crisis. 

These crises are frustrating the American people and harming the economy. You need to help us 

achieve some stability in fiscal policy as the economy continues to repair itself after the financial 

meltdown in 2008. That will help give businesses and families certainty and confidence. 

Finally, we must simplify our tax code for individuals and businesses. We need to make the system 

fairer and help make U.S. businesses more competitive in the global marketplace. 

As Treasury secretary, you will be in a position to help make tax reform a reality. We will need not only 

leadership, but solid ideas and technical help. We will be counting on your deep experience in the policy 

world to help us achieve comprehensive tax reform. 

Overthe past two years, this committee has been moving steadily forward on tax reform. America's tax 

code has become too complex for both individuals and businesses. The rules have not kept pace with 

today's transactions. 

The last tax code overhaul was in 1986. Our world economy has changed drastically in the past three 

decades. 

Our tax code has not caught up and is now acting as a drag on America's economy. 
65 


86523.003

This is not some academic exercise. Tax reform is a real opportunity to spark the economy and create 

more jobs. As secretary, I expect you to be a partner as we tackle tax reform. 

Now, Mr. Lew, members of the committee are going to ask you some tough questions today. That is our 

right and responsibility. In fact, I will ask you to address my concerns that the administration is being 

distracted from what should be the main focus - job creation. But we'll get to that in a minute. 

I am confident that in the tradition of this committee, the questioning will of course be in a respectful 

manner and that these questions will focus on how we can best move our country forward. 

Mr. Lew, welcome. As you follow in Secretary Gallatin's footsteps, I encourage you to embrace this 

challenge as you chart your own path forward at Treasury - pending your confirmation. Recognize the 

great responsibility you have, ensure our government and finances are sound and help us remain a great 

world power in this competitive global economy. 

### 
66 


86523.004

STATEMENT OF HON. ORRIN G. HATCH, RANKING MEMBER 

U.S. SENATE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE HEARING OF FEBRUARY 13, 2013 

NOMINATION OF JACOB J. LEW TO BE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY 

WASHINGTON - U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utahj, Ranking Member of the Senate Finance 

Committee, today delivered the following remarks during a Senate Finance Committee hearing 

considering the nomination of Jacob Lew to serve as Treasury Secretary: 

Thank you Mr. Chairman, and thank you Mr. Lew for joining us here today. I look 

forward to hearing Mr. Lew's testimony today and finding out more about his knowledge, 

background, and qualifications for this very important position in the President's cabinet. 

As we all know, the U.S. Treasury Secretary is charged with a variety of responsibilities. 

Mr. Lew, I know that you are well-versed in budget matters, but those are not the main 

responsibilities of a Treasury Secretary. 

I believe that I already have a good understanding of your budget views, including your 

opinion that we need higher taxes and much more revenue to address our nation's fiscal 

problems. I also know about the Obama Administration's reluctance which I assume you 

share - to engage in structural reforms to our entitlement programs, even though they are 

main drivers of our debts and deficits. 

I do not share your views on these matters - neither do the American people. And, as a 

Social Security and Medicare Trustee, the Treasury Secretary cannot simply hope these 

problems will go away. 

But, the Treasury Secretary has responsibilities that extend far beyond the budget. 

These responsibilities include: implementation of financial regulations; oversight of 

financial stability; debt management; tax collection; oversight of economic sanctions; defense 

of the value of the U.S. dollar; disbursement of payments; implementation of certain housing 

policies; assisting Congress with its oversight responsibilities, and oversight of entitlement trust 

funds. 

So, while I admire your budget prowess and understand your views on fiscal policy, I 

know far less about your knowledge and experience in many of these other areas. 

I hope to learn more today. 

There remains a large amount of uncertainty in financial markets from the as yet 

unknown aspects of Dodd-Frank. Hundreds of Dodd-Frank rulemaking requirements are either 
67 


86523.005

still in the works or have not even been proposed yet. Meanwhile, lobbying continues, with 

hundreds of meetings having occurred between banks and their lobbyists on the one hand and 

Treasury and other regulators on the other. 

Whoever becomes the next Treasury Secretary ought to have a firm grasp of financial 

markets and risks to stability of our financial system. Dodd-Frank assigns responsibility for 

assessments of, and warnings about, threats to financial stability to the recently created and 

largely nontransparent Financial Stability Oversight Council, or FSOC (F-SOCK), which is chaired 

by the Treasury Secretary. 

In addition, the Secretary of the Treasury plays a key role in the international financial 

sphere. This is an area where we have seen a real lack of leadership from this Administration. 

With no real U.S. economic leadership, the world is left with a policy vacuum. If the 

United States does not lead, other nations will. Recent analysis shows that China has now 

surpassed the United States as the world's largest trading nation. 

Furthermore, the risk of international currency wars is rising, which could push the U.S. 

back into recession, or worse. 

Statements by U.S. political leaders at international conferences about currency policy 

are not enough. Without a clear policy, and a coherent strategy to advance that policy, the 

international monetary system will continue to be adrift. 

Our future economic competitiveness depends upon the United States leading efforts to 

establish a fair, stable, and transparent global financial and currency system based on market 

principles. 

I look forward to hearing your views about these important matters before the Treasury 

and your plan of action if you were to be confirmed. 

In addition, I understand that you worked as Managing Director and Chief Operating 

Officer of two units of Citigroup, but it is unclear what your exact roles and responsibilities 

were. 

So far, you have indicated that you coordinated operations, technology, human 

resources, and maybe legal and financial activities. But, we know very little about your 

knowledge of the activities and practices of the units for which you were the Chief Operating 

Officer. 

Some of the units' activities included proprietary trading along with sales and marketing 

of risky investments. If you knew about the marketing and sales of those investments, it would 

be instructive for us to find out what you knew. If you did not know much about them, then it 

would be instructive for us to find out why, and to determine exactly what your responsibilities 

were during your years at Citi when you were very well compensated, including times when 

Citigroup was being propped up by American taxpayers. 
68 


86523.006

These are important questions because, if you are confirmed as Treasury Secretary, you 

will be responsible for overseeing the implementation of regulations directed at some of the 

very practices undertaken by the Citi units that you operated. 

For example, as Treasury Secretary, you would be responsible for coordinating 

implementation of the so-called "Volcker Rule," which is intended to separate proprietary 

trading from federally-insured financial activities. 

You have stated that you support the Volcker Rule. Yet, you were the Chief Operating 

Officer over two units that engaged in the sort of activities the Volcker Rule is meant to 

prevent. 

Therefore, if you were to be confirmed, it could lead to an awkward situation in which, 

in your role as Chair of the FSOC, you would effectively be saying to financial firms: Do as I say; 

not as I did. 

These are not trivial matters. Indeed, they bear directly on your qualifications to serve 

as the next Treasury Secretary. 

If the committee was given time to examine your record more thoroughly before 

today's hearing, I'm sure many of these questions would have already been answered. As it is, 

we'll have to explore these matters here today. 

Finally, I just want to mention that, when we met to discuss your nomination, I told you 

that I was very dissatisfied with the Treasury Department's level of responsiveness to my letters 

as well as letters from my colleagues. In your own written statement, you pledge to "maintain 

frequent consultation with Members of this Committee." I appreciate that promise and want 

you, if confirmed, to be responsive in a timely manner. 

Once again, I want to welcome Mr. lew and thank him for his willingness to serve and 

for his past public service. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to what I hope will be an informative 

hearing. 

### 
69 


86523.007

Introduction 

Jacob J. Lew 

Nominee for Secretary of the Treasury 

Opening Statement 

Senate Finance Committee 

Confirmation Hearing 

February 13.2013 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Hatch, and Members of the Committee for 

welcoming me. It is a privilege to be considered by this Committee as the President's nominee 

to be the Secretary of the Treasury. 

I want to thank Senator Schumer and Senator Domenici for their gracious comments. 

have had the great fortune to work with both of them over many years, and I am honored they are 

here this morning. 

I am especially thankful to my wife, Ruth, my daughter, Shoshi, my son, Danny, his wife, 

Zahava, and my grandchildren. Public life demands much from our families, and I deeply 

appreciate their support and sacrifice over many years of long days and missed family time. 

And while my parents are only with me in spirit today, I know I am sitting here because 

they nurtured in me lasting values and an enduring commitment to serve our country. 

I am grateful to President Obama for asking me to lead the Treasury Department. It has 

been my honor to serve in his cabinet and as his chief of staff, and I am humbled by his 

continued faith in me. 

Finally, I want to thank the Members of this Committee for meeting with me over the last 

several weeks and sharing your insights. The Finance Committee plays a singular role in 

defining our nation's tax, trade, health care, and Social Security policies. And with a long 

history of cooperation and collaboration, this Committee stands out as a clear example of how 

bipartisanship can thrive and produce real results for all Americans. I pledge that if confirmed, I 

will maintain frequent consultation with Members of this Committee in accordance with the 

spirit of respect and understanding that has been this Committee's hallmark. 
70 


86523.008

Professional Career 

Forging bipartisan consensus is not an abstract idea for me. It is the fundamental thread 

that spans my professional life. Early in my career, the great Speaker Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. was 

a mentor to me. And by asking me to take part in the negotiations that led to the historic 

agreement with President Reagan to save Social Security, he allowed me to gain a deep 

understanding of what could be accomplished through bipartisan cooperation. 

Working across the aisle while serving under President Clinton, I helped negotiate the 

groundbreaking agreement with Congress to balance the federal budget. And as budget director, 

I oversaw three budget surpluses in a row even as we pursued policies to speed economic growth 

and create jobs. 

My experience in leadership positions outside government has proven that working 

collaboratively to solve problems is a universal necessity. At New York University, the largest 

private university in the country, I was responsible for helping to forge the tough choices to 

make sure the university would continue to make critical strides within the constraints of limited 

resources and growing demands. During my time at Citi, I was part of the senior management 

team trying to drive organizational change at one of our nation's largest banks. 

With my return to public service in this Administration, building partnerships has been 

central to getting things done. At the State Department, I worked alongside Secretary Clinton to 

promote our country's national security and international economic policies around the globe. 

Under her direction, America's leadership abroad was reinvigorated through diplomacy and 

engagement, and diplomatic missions were transformed to meet the needs of the day. 

At the Office of Management and Budget, pursuing sound fiscal policy required 

transcending politics and making tough calls. We eliminated and cut programs, and we worked 

with Democrats and Republicans to pass the Budget Control Act, which has reduced federal 

discretionary spending to historically low levels. 

Finally, as the White House Chief of Staff, I have had the opportunity to work directly at 

the side ofthe President who has always believed, as I do, that neither party has a monopoly on 

good ideas. The fact is, we do best for the American people when we can find common ground 

to move our country forward. We saw that most recently when the Administration and Congress 

acted together to protect the middle class from sweeping tax increases that could have thrown 

our economy back into a recession. 

What Has Been Accomplished 

Because of my experience, I approach the challenges that lie ahead with a clear 

understanding of their complexity and significance. That experience has also given me a 
71 


86523.009

profound respect for Secretary Geithner and for the women and men of the Treasury Department 

whose remarkable record of accomplishment I would like to acknowledge. 

When President Obama came into office, the economic conditions were the worst our 

nation has seen since the Great Depression. The President moved quickly to break the back of 

the financial crisis and reignite growth, and because he, along with Congress, responded with 

great speed and force, our economy is in better shape today. 

Over the past 35 months, the private sector has created more than 6 million new jobs. 

Taxpayer money that saved the financial system has been mostly repaid. Rules are in place so 

that the financial system is safer and taxpayers are not responsible if a big firm fails again. The 

housing market is recovering, and home values are stabilizing. We have isolated Iran from the 

global financial system and established what is widely regarded as the toughest sanctions regime 

in history. We have signed a series oftrade agreements to open up markets for American goods 

and level the playing field for American workers and businesses. Our auto companies are once 

again growing, innovating, and creating jobs. And we have made substantial progress reducing 

our deficit in a balanced way. 

More To Do 

So we are in a better position today. But as we all know, the work to create a sounder 

economy and a safer world remains unfinished. 

Our top priority is to strengthen the recovery by fostering private sector job creation and 

economic growth at a time when we must make sure our economy remains resilient to headwinds 

from beyond our shores. That means making it easier to sell American-made goods abroad and 

expand manufacturing in the United States. It means working with our partners around the globe 

and through organizations like the G20 to bolster the international financial system and promote 

global economic stability. It means moving forward on the work to complete financial reform so 

that the system is less vulnerable to crisis, with greater protections for investors and consumers. 

And it means reforming the tax system so American businesses ean thrive and remain 

competitive. 

At the same time, we must put our nation back on a path of fiscal sustainability. Over the 

past two years, we have locked in $2.5 trillion in deficit reduction through spending cuts and 

revenue increases. And we can do even more to shrink the deficit over the next decade through a 

balanced mix of spending reductions and tax reforms, and sensible reforms to Medicare that will 

help the program stay sound in the future. 

But even as we move forward with deficit reduction, we need to make sure we leave 

sufficient room for critical investments in education, research, and infrastructure that we need for 

our economy to grow and compete globally. We also have to avoid doing anything to degrade 

our national security or derail the economic recovery through abrupt moves in the short term. 

That is why we cannot allow the series of harmful automatic spending cuts known as the 
72 


86523.010

sequester to go into effect on March 1. These cuts would impose self-inflicted wounds to the 

recovery and put far too many jobs and businesses at risk. 

Conclusion 

In closing, I would like to make one final observation. In recent years, some have argued 

that Washington is irrevocably broken. That our government cannot tackle the nation's most 

serious problems. That bipartisanship is a thing of the past. I disagree. 

I have reached across the aisle to forge honorable compromises my entire professional 

life. I have been involved in almost every major bipartisan budget agreement over the last 30 

years. In this chamber alone, the list of Majority Leaders I have been privileged to work with 

includes Howard Baker, Bob Dole, Robert Byrd, George Mitchell, Trent Lott, Bill Frist, Tom 

Daschle, and, of course, Harry Reid. So I have seen and learned a lot. And I can honestly say 

that the things that divide Washington right now are not as insurmountable as they might look. 

The truth is, we all share the same goals. We want an economy that is expanding. We 

want a private sector that is robust. We want a vibrant job market that gives anybody who works 

hard the chance to get ahead. We want a financial system that helps families save and channels 

investment to support innovation and entrepreneurs. We want a strong housing market. We 

want a global economy that is prosperous, inclusive, and secure. We want a vigorous 

manufacturing base and a level playing field for American companies. And we want a 

government that lives within its means. 

It is going to take a lot of hard work to achieve these goals. We have plenty of obstacles 

ahead. But when I think of what our nation has been able to achieve since our founding, I have 

no doubt that we will work together to find solutions to today's challenges. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am grateful to you for considering my 

nomination, and I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

### 
73 


86523.011

SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE 

STATEMENT OF INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEE 

A. BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION 

1. Name: (Include any former names used.) 

Jacob Joseph Lew 

Jack Lew 

2. Position to which nominated: 

Secretary of the Treasury 

3. Date of nomination: 

January 22, 20 JJ 

4. Address: (List current residence, office. and mailing addresses.) 

5. Date and place of birth: 

New York, NY 

August 29, 1955 

6. Marital status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name,) 

7. Names and ages of children: 
74 


86523.012

8. Education: (Ust secondary and higher education institutions, dates attended, 

degree received, and date degree granted.) 

C<lrkton College 9/7:.-6/73 

llarvard College 9175-6178 (AB. 1978) 

G~orgetown University Law Center 8179-5/83 (1D, 1983) 

9. Employment record: (Ust all jobs held since college, including the title or 

description of job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of 

employment.) 

City of Boston. Office of j\.·tanagement lind Budget, Deputy Director of Program Analysis, 1978· 

1979 (13oston, MA) 

US House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee (Washington, DC) 

Deputy Director, 1979-1985 

Executive Director, 1985-1987 

Van Ness, Feldman and Curtiss (Washington, DC) 

Of Counsel, 1987 

Partner. 1988-1991 

Democratic National Committee, Campaign '88 Issues Director, 1988 (Washington, DC) 

Center for Middle East Research, Executive Director. 11)92-1993 (Washington, DC) 

White House. Special Assistant to the President, 1993-1994 (Washington, DC) 

Otlice of Management and Budget (Washington, DC) 

Associate Director, 1994 

Executive Associate Director, 1995 

Deputy Director, 1995-1998 

Director, 1998-200 I 

Georgetown University Public Policy Institute, Research Protessor, 2001 (Washington, DC) 

New York University, Executive Vice President and Clinical Protessor of Public Policy, 2001-

2006 (New York. NY) 

Citigroup (New York, NY) 

Managing Director and ChkfOpcrating Olliccr "fGlobal Wealth Manag':Ill':llt 

divisioll,2006·2007 

Managing Director allli ChiefOpcrnting Oflkcr ,)ITiti IIltemative Inwstments 

division, 2008-2009 

Iklmrtmclll of State, Deputy Secrdary of State tllr :'vlanagcl11ent and Rcsntlrce~. 2009-Novcmbcr 

:!!lIO (Wa,hington, DC) 

Olliec of Management and 13uuget. Director, November 2(] I O-.Ianuary 2012 (Washington, DC) 

White I·louse. Assistant to the President and Chief ofStalf, January 20 12·present (Washington. 

DC) 
75 


86523.013

10. Government experience: (List any advisory, consultative, honorary, or other parttime service or positions with Federal, State or local governments, other than 

those listed above.) 

Whit~ !louse COl11missiolll'n Aviation S~curity, Member; 1997 

Corporation lor National and ('<,mmuniry Service. Board Member, 2004-2008 (Washington, DC) 

11. Business relationships: (List all positions held as an officer, director, trustee, 

partner, proprietor, agent, representative, or consultant of any corporation, 

company, firm. partnership. other business enterprise, or educational or other 

institution.) 

Kaiser Family Foundation, Trustee (2007-2009) 

College Board Task Force on Higher Education Rclonn (2006) 

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Board Member (2008-2009) 

Tobin Project, Board Member (2006-2009) 

Hamilton Project, Brookings Institution, Advisory Board Member (2006-2009) 

City Year New York, Advisory Board Ch3ir(2002-2009) 

Institute for Policy Integrity. NYU Law, Advisory Board Member (2008-2009) 

IDT Corporation, Board Member (2001-2003) 

CVCI Private Equity Fund. Limited Partner (2007-20 10) 

Citigroup. Managing Director (2006-2009) 

12. Memberships: (List all memberships and offices held in professional, fraternal, 

scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and other organizations.) 

Brookings Institution, Hamilton Project. Advisory Board Member (2006-2008) 

Hebrew Institute of Riverdale. Member(2001-present) 

Council on Foreign Relations, Member (2006-present) 

National Academy of Social Insurance, Member (2002-present) 

Council on Excellence in Govemp1ent, Member (2001-2008) 

Beth Shololll Congregation and Talmud Torah (1992-2010) 

13. Political affiliations and activities: 

a. List all public offices for which you have been a candidate. 

N/A 

b. List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered to all 

political parties or election committees during the last 10 years. 

NIA 
76 


86523.014

17. Qualifications: (State what, in your opinion, qualifies you to serve in the position 

to which you have been nominated.) 

I currently sen'e as Assistant to the President Qnd White House Chief orStatT. a position that I 

have held since January 2012. Prior to that. I served in the Executive Branch as the Director of the 

Olliee of Management and Budget (O~IB) Irom November 20 I 0 through January 2012 and 

Deputy Secretary ofStnte lor Management and Resources Irom January 2009 through November 

2010. 1 began my career as the Deputy Director of Program A nalysis in the City of Boston' 5 

Otlke of Management and Budget from 1978 through 1979. After moving to Washington, I 

worked from 1979 through 1987 as the Deputy Director and then Executive Director of the Iiolise 

Democratic Steering and Policy Committee. I <llso worked in the Executive Branch from 199J 

through 2001. serving first as Special Assistant to the President from 1993 through 1994 betore 

moving to OMB where. from 1994 through 200 I. I served successively as Associate Director. 

Executive Assodate Director. Deputy Director and Director. In the private sector, I have served as 

a Inw tirm partner, Executive Vice President and Clinical Professor of Public Policy fit New York 

University, and as Managing Director and Chief Operating Oflic<:r of business units at Citigroup. 

B. FUTURE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIPS 

1. Will you sever all connections with your present employers, business firms, 

associations, or organizations if you are confirmed by the Senate? If not, provide 

details. 

Ifconfirmed, I will remain an employee of the U.S. government. 

2. Do you have any plans, commitments, or agreements to pursue outside 

employment. with or without compensation, during your service with the 

government? If so. provide details. 

No 

3. Has any person or entity made a commitment or agreement to employ your 

services in any capacity after you leave government service? If so, provide 

details. 

No 

4. If you are confirmed by the Senate, do you expect to serve out your full term or 

until the next Presidential election, whichever is applicable? If not, explain. 

Yes 

C. POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST 

1. Indicate any investments, obligations, liabilities. or other relationships which 

could involve potential conflicts of interest in the position to which you have been 

nominated. 
77 


86523.015

In connection with the nomination process, I have consulted with the Ollice "fGovemment Ethics 

nnd the o.:partment of the Treasury's designated agency ethics otlicial to identifY potential 

cont1icts of interest. Any potential contlicts of interest will be resolved in accordance with the 

terms of an (lhies agreement thai I have entered into with Treasury's designated agency ethics 

otlicial and that has been provided to this Committee, I mn 110t awarc of any other potential 

eont1iets of interest. 

2, Describe any business relationship, dealing or financial transaction which you 

have had during the last 10 years, whether for yourself, on behalf of a client, or 

acting as an agent, that could in any way constitute or result in a possible conflict 

of interest in the position to which you have been nominated. 

In connection with the nomination process, I have consulted with the Ollice ofGovemment Ethics 

and the Department of the Treasury's designated agency ethics official to idcntiry potential 

contlicts of interest. Any potential conllicts of in teres I will be resolved in accordance with the 

terms oran ethics agreement thot I have entered into with Treasury's designated agency ethics 

otlicial and that has been provided to this Committee, I nm not aware of any other potential 

conllicts of interest. 

3, Describe any activity during the past 10 years in which you have engaged for the 

purpose of directly or indirectly influencing the passage, defeat, or modification 

of any legislation or affecting the administration and execution of law or public 

policy. Activities performed as an employee of the Federal government need not 

be listed. 

Apart from my duties as a govemment omcial during the past 10 years, I have had minimal 

engagement in legislation and policy-making, While ~mployed by New York University, I had 

occasional meetings with Members of Congress and local govemment otlicials on education 

policy. 

4, Explain how you will resolve any potential conflict of interest, including any that 

may be disclosed by your responses to the above items. (Provide the Committee 

with two copies of any trust or other agreements.) 

In connection with the nomination process, [ have consulted with the Ot'fice of Government Ethics 

and the Department of the Treasury's designated agency ethics official to identify potential 

contliets of interest. Any potential conflicts of interest will be resolved in accordance with the 

Icnns of on ethics agreement that I have entered into with Treasury's designated agency ethics 

"nidal .lI1d that has been provided to this Committee. I mn not aware of any nthcr potential 

conniets of interest. 

5. Two copies of written opinions should be provided directly to the Committee by 

the designated agency ethics officer of the agency to which you have been 

nominated and by the Office of Government Ethics concerning potential conflicts 

None 
78 


86523.016

E. TESTIFYING BEFORE CONGRESS 

1. If you are confirmed by the Senate, are you willing to appear and testify before 

any duly constituted committee of the Congress on such occasions as you may 

be reasonably requested to do so? 

Yes 

2. If you are confirmed by the Senate, are you willing to provide such information as 

is requested by such committees? 

YI!S 
79 


86523.017

Question 1: 

Questions for the Record 

Nomination of Jacob J. Lew to be Secretary of the Treasury 

Hearing Date: February 13,2013 

Chairman Baucus 

Mr. Lew, many people who work with lower income taxpayers see much promise in a 

program operated by the Treasury Department, namely the tax time savings bond option 

available on the federal tax form. Qrganizations like Rural Dynamics, Inc. in Montana 

need all the tools they can get to help more individuals and families achieve economic 

independence. The tax time savings bond helps people save who have never saved before, 

do not have savings accounts, or would like to save as a gift for their children or 

grandchildren. 

I am concerned about the future of tax time savings bonds. Tax refund time is when many 

Americans have best the opportunity to save. And the savings bond program is a secure, 

simple, and increasingly popular way for many Americans to save. For example, in the 

2012 tax filing season, the tax time savings bond policy enabled 35,007 people to save $20.3 

million in savings bonds, an average savings of $579. That is nearly twice the total amount 

that was saved at tax time in 2011. If we are trying to get more Americans to save, those 

are pretty impressive numbers. 

Are you committed to making savings bonds accessible and, in particular, continuing the 

tax time savings bond program? 

Yes. I am committed to making savings bonds accessible through a program that is safe, simple, 

and secure. My understanding is that Treasury plans to offer paper bonds through the tax time 

savings bond program for the 2013 tax year and is evaluating ways to make electronic savings 

bonds more accessible through the tax time program in subsequent years. 

Question 2: 

One program implemented through the Community Development Financial Institutions 

Fund at the Department of Treasury is the New Markets Tax Credit program. Congress 

created the program in 2000 and Treasury has done a good job implementing it. The 

application process is fair and Treasury has appropriately focused on providing a 

proportionate amount of New Markets Tax Credits to rural areas. In Montana, the New 

Markets program has created hundreds of construction as well as permanent jobs. 

Recently, Congress extended the New Markets program for two years as part of the fiscal 

cliff deal. As Treasury considers applications for the new tax credit authority, I urge you 

to maintain the focus on rural areas. 
80 


86523.018

Will you continue the focus on rural areas when considering programs like the New 

Markets Tax Credit program? Will that focus on rural areas carry over into your thinking 

and efforts on tax reform? 

I am committed to ensuring that Treasury's and the CDFI Fund's policies and programs, 

including the New Markets Tax Credit Program, are applied fairly and can be utilized effectively 

in all communities, metropolitan and non-metropolitan alike. It is my understanding that 

Treasury has implemented the Congressional mandate by providing for 20 percent of New 

Market Tax Credits to go to rural areas, which Treasury has consistently met. 

Question 3: 

The IRS is facing significant budget challenges and is making decisions about taxpayer 

service delivery based on these pressures. For example, the IRS Taxpayer Assistance 

Office in Helena Montana, is only open part time. My office frequently receives calls from 

Montanans who traveled to the office on a day that it was closed complaining about the 

lack of assistance, frustrated that they are not even able to obtain tax forms. Whether it is 

a long wait to obtain assistance over the phone, erratic office hours or other cutbacks, we 

are hearing that taxpayers are finding it harder and harder to get a hold of anyone at the 

IRS to help them. It doesn't make sense to me to limit availability oftaxpayer assistance if 

we are trying to encourage compliance. 

What have you learned from your prior professional experiences that you believe will help 

you guide the IRS and a new Commissioner to improve services to taxpayers, increase 

enforcement and compliance, and help close the tax gap in this challenging budget 

environment? 

I agree that taxpayer assistance is an important aspect of our tax system, which relies heavily on 

voluntary compliance. Although I have not yet had the opportunity to delve deeply into the 

distribution of taxpayer assistance by the IRS, I am aware that the IRS does not have unlimited 

resources for taxpayer assistance. Dealing with constrained resources is challenging, but the key 

for the IRS is a balanced approach between taxpayer service and tax enforcement. Technology is 

an important component of helping make efficient use ofIRS resources. I believe continued 

cmphasis on delivery oftaxpaycr services through electronic means as well as improved access 

to web self-help applications will aid the IRS in service and compliance efforts in this 

challenging budget environment. As an example, I understand that in 2010, the IRS began 

piloting the use of video communication technology to provide taxpayers in remote locations 

with virtual face-to-face interactions with IRS assistors. Due to the success of the pilot, the IRS 

has expanded use of this technology to additional locations. 

Question 4: 

Currently Steve Miller is the Acting IRS Commissioner and he is doing a great job. We 

don't have a Commissioner. We don't even have a name of a nominee to consider or any 

indication of when we might have a nominee to consider or even know what skills the 
81 


86523.019

Administration thinks are important for the next IRS Commissioner to possess. 

What do you think are the professional skills and experiences that we should look for in the 

next IRS Commissioner? Should that individual be a tax professional or a business 

executive? Should they have experiences similar to yours or should they complement but 

be different from yours? What is the role of the Secretary of the Treasury regarding 

management of the IRS? How do you see yourself working with either Acting 

Commissioner Miller or the new Commissioner, once he or she is appointed? 

The IRS touches almost every part of the nation, including individuals, businesses, and the nonprofit community. Given the diverse portfolio of the IRS, it is critical to have someone who is 

well rounded. As I recall, one ofthe major lessons that emerged from the IRS reorganization in 

1998 was a new focus on selecting Commissioners who were familiar with management and 

technology as well as, ideally, having tax expertise. As you look over the record of the past three 

Commissioners and th.e agency's work, this model has been eftective during a challenging 

period. If confirmed, I look forward to working closely with the IRS Commissioner. 

Question 5: 

Mr. Lew, starting in just over two weeks the across-the-board spending cuts called 

sequestration will begin. There will be significant cuts in a variety of programs, including 

Medicare, food safety, and defense programs. In your opinion, what is the best way to deal 

with the sequestration? 

Sequestration is a blunt and indiscriminate approach to spending cuts that was never intended to 

be put into practice. It would have a severe impact across the government and its ability to 

provide the services the American people count on, as well as compromising economic growth in 

the recovery. I support the President's long-stated approach to avoid sequestration by replacing 

it with more balanced and sensible deficit reduction. The President has demonstrated a strong 

commitment and willingness to reach agreement on further balanced deficit reduction that avoids 

sequestration and that also supports economic growth in the near term. 

Question 6: 

The Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of2000 authorized agricultural 

exports to Cuba by payment of cash in advance or third-country bank letters of credit. For 

several years, until 2005, such cash-based sales were taking place and working well. After 

goods shipped from U.S. ports, the Cuban buyers initiated payments, routing them through 

third-country banks, as required by law. All ofthese cash-based sales came to a halt in 

2005 when the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) issued a rule that defined 

"payment of cash in advance" as payment prior to shipment of goods. The change in 

definition has brought all cash-based sales to a halt, rendering the cash in advance 

provision useless and undermining Congress's intent to facilitate agricultural sales to 

Cuba. 
82 


86523.020

Can I have your assurance that you will work to uphold Congressional intent to facilitate 

agricultural sales to Cuba by restoring the definition o( "payment of cash in advance" to 

payment before the transfer of title to, and control of, the exported items to the Cuban 

purchaser? 

In the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of2000, Congress prohibited the 

use of all payment and financing terms for sales of agricultural commodities or products to Cuba 

other than "payment of cash in advance" or financing by a third-country banle In clarifying the 

term "payment of cash in advance" through its regulations, I understand that Treasury adopted 

what it determined to be the industry standard definition of the term, which was that payment is 

received prior to shipment of the goods from the port at which they are loaded. I understand that 

the Congressional Research Service also found that this interpretation of "payment of cash in 

advance" is consistent with the industry definition. I understand that Treasury is implementing 

Congress's mandate with respect to payment mechanisms. 

Question 7: 

The Administration issued its Framework for Business Tax Reform one year ago. In that 

paper, international tax reform was briefly discussed, without many details but with a clear 

rejection of a "pure" territorial system. Can you give us your view of where we should be 

going on international tax reform and the reasons why it is important? 

The President's Framework for Business Tax Reform supports a hybrid approach that reduces 

incentives for companies to shift profits and investment to low-tax countries, puts the United 

States on a more level playing field with our international competitors, and helps end the global 

race to the bottom on corporate tax rates-while also making American companies more 

competitive globally. There is considerable debate as to how to reform the international tax 

system, but I believe that there is common ground on this subject, including a mutual concern 

about preserving the U.S. tax base by reducing incentives that encourage the shifting of 

investment and income overseas, and making the United States more competitive globally. I 

look forward to working with the Committee on a bipartisan basis to develop approaches to 

international taxation that will ensure the United States will retain and attract high-quality jobs. 

Question 8: 

This Committee also has jurisdiction over healthcare, and recently held a hearing looking 

at implementation ofheaIth insurance exchanges under the health reform law. In addition 

to the Department of Health and Human Services, Treasury has a large role in ensuring the 

exchanges are up and running. 

Mr. Lew, can you give us an update on Treasury's progress on implementation of the 

Health Insurance exchanges? Under your leadership at Treasury, can you assure us the 

exchanges will be up and running by October of this year when enrollment begins? 

While I haven't yet had an opportunity to engage with the Department's work in helping to 

develop the Health Insurance Exchanges, my understanding is that the IRS and the Department 
83 


86523.021

of Health and Human Services are working in close cooperation and that they are on track to 

begin open enrollment on time. If confirmed, I look forward to working with Congress on this 

issue. 

Question 9: 

It has been five years since we experienced the worst financial crisis since the Great 

Depression. In response we passed a stimulus bill, provided emergency funds to banks, and 

passed the Dodd-Frank Act. Now, TARP is winding down and Dodd-Frank regulations are 

being implemented. But the question on my mind and the mind of many Americans is 

"have we done enough?" What lessons did you learn from the financial crisis and, if 

confirmed as Treasury Secretary, what steps are you going to take to help protect 

Americans from a future financial crisis? 

When faced with the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression, President Obama and 

Secretary Geithner, following on the initial steps taken during the Bush Administration, acted 

quickly and decisively to arrest the collapse in the fmancial markets and the econOIuy. The crisis 

taught us, among other things, that we needed better communication among regulators; that our 

financial firms had to become more resilient to shocks; that activities such as over-the-counter 

derivatives needed to come under regulation; and that regulators needed tools to provide for the 

winding dovm of insolvent financial firms. With quick and decisive action, and the enactment of 

the Dodd-Frank Act, the U.S. economy is stronger, safer, and more resilient. Regulators now 

have important tools to make the financial system more resilient to future financial shocks and to 

respond to such shocks should they occur. 

If confirmed, I look forward to continuing these important efforts in my role as Chair of the 

Financial Stability Oversight Council to support the implementation of the reforms set out in the 

Dodd-Frank Act in the wake of the fmancial crisis. 

Question 10: 

It's clear that the Treasury Department has made great strides in winding down TARP, 

recouping most of the $418 billion disbursed. However, the Special Inspector General for 

T ARP (SIGT ARP) recently reported that there is still $40 billion of taxpayer money 

outstanding in the bailout program. SIGTARP was particularly concerned that Treasury 

has not done enough to recover the $14.7 hillion still owed hy Ally (formerly known as the 

auto lender GMAC). 

What is your plan to wind down T ARP and recover the remaining taxpayer money still 

outstanding? 

If confirmed, I would support continuing to wind-down the remaining T ARP investments in a 

manner that balances speed of exit with maximizing return for taxpayers. In the case of the bank 

programs and credit market programs, Treasury has already received cash distributions in excess 

of the original investment, and I expect them to continue to wind down going forward, while 

actively managing outstanding investments to maximize taxpayer returns. In the case of the 
84 


86523.022

remaining investment in OM, if confinued, I support continuing to sell dO\\<l1 our common stock 

position, subject to market conditions. In the case of Ally, I understand that Treasury has 

described its exit plan on several occasions. Based on those descriptions, I understand that 

Treasury expects to continue recovering the taxpayer's investment in Ally as the company 

completes two strategic initiatives which were commenced in May 2012-the Chapter II 

proceeding for its mortgage subsidiary and the sale of its international operations. 

Question 11: 

One of the first Acts of Congress was to establish the U.S. Customs Service to collect duties 

and facilitate trade. Treasury oversaw the Customs Service until 2002 when it transferred 

the agency along with certain authorities to the newly created Department of Homeland 

Security. I was concerned then as I am today that Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 

does not prioritize its trade mission. In fact, it has diminished as the Agency shifted its 

focus on security. Will you work with me to ensure that CBP prioritizes its trade mission? 

Will you exercise the Department's oversight function by ensuring proper staffing and 

resources within Treasury? 

Yes. If confinued, I look forward to working together with the Finance Committee and the 

Department of Homeland Security, including Customs and Border Protection, on striking the 

right balance between its security and trade mission. 
85 


86523.023

Ranking Member Hatch 

Question I: 

Mr. Lew, on October 11, 2011 the Senate passed S. 1619, the Currency Exchange Rate 

Oversight Reform Act. I wrote then-Secretary Geithner and Ambassador Kirk before 

Senate debate began on S. 1619 requesting the Administrations views and concerns with S. 

1619 - but neither responded before our vote. 

Following the vote, I asked then-Secretary Geithner a question for the record during his 

February 14,2012 Finance Committee budget hearing about Treasury's views on S. 1619. 

He replied "Aspects of (S. 1619) •.. raise concerns with our international obligations; if 

legislation were to advance, those concerns should be addressed. For any approach to be 

effective, it must be consistent with our international obligations." 

Because we have not had a hearing, and because your predecessor failed to provide the 

detailed views of the Administration, even today - almost a year and a half after the Senate 

voted on the biII last Congress - we do not know the Administration's specific views and 

concerns regarding S. 1619. That is unacceptable. 

Please provide written response that explains in detail each aspect of S. 1619, as passed by 

the Senate last Congress, that raises concerns for the Administration with respect to our 

international trade obligations and how those concerns should be addressed? Please 

identify specifically by provision number as identified in the biII text, which provisions 

concern the Administration. 

Moreover, the Committee would benefit from the Administration's views on the 

advisability or effectiveness of other provisions in the S. 1619 that, although they may 

comply with our international obligations, could prove ineffectual. 

I fully support the objective of taking effective actions, consistent with our international 

obligations, to provide a level playing field for American workers and firms, including rectifYing 

the undervaluation of China's exchange rate. 

I understand that Treasury has been working aggressively to address China's exchange rate, 

including through the U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue, the 0-20, and the 

International Monetary Fund. I also understand that there has been some progress. From June 

2010, when China moved the renminbi off its peg against the dollar, the renminbi has 

appreciated by about 15 percent against the dollar in real terms. China's current account surplus 

has fallen from a peak of over 10 percent of ODP to under 3 percent today and U.S. exports to 

China have almost doubled since early 2009. 

More progress, however, is needed. If confirmed, addressing China's exchange rate would be a 

top priority. I would press China to move to a market-determined exchange rate, level the 

playing field for our workers and firms, and support a sustained shift to domestic consnmption-
86 


86523.024

led growth in China. If confinned, I would welcome the opportunity to work closely with 

Congress on this important issue. 

Question 2: 

Do you support the United States taking unilateral steps to counter the effects of currency 

intervention, misalignment, or manipulation by our trading partners? What are the risks 

of taking unilateral actions? Would you characterize S. 1619 as passed by the Senate in 

2011 as a unilateral approach to addressing currency issues? 

The Administration supports taking steps that are both effective and consistent with our 

international obligations to address currency manipulation for purposes of gaining unfair 

competitive advantage in international trade. 

Question 3: 

Do you believe that signing S. 1619 into law would create millions of jobs in the United 

States? 

I fully support the objective oftaking effective actions, consistent with our international 

obligations, to provide a level playing field for American workers and finns, including rectifying 

the undervaluation of China's exchange rate. This is important for exports,jobs, and growth. 

Question 4: 

Do you believe that S. 1619 is consistent with U.S. trade policy and trade commitments? 

Please see my answer to Question 1. 

Question 5: 

Does the Administration support setting time frames that require our trading partners to 

take certain actions to better align their currency with market principles? What problems 

would triggering steps by the Administration on a fixed timeline present for the 

Administration? 

The Administration supports pressing China in ways that are both effective and consistent with 

its international obligations to move more rapidly to market-detennined exchange rates, as it has 

committed in the 0-20. 

Question 6: 

Would the impact of S. 1619 change if the country allegedly misaligning its currency is a 

non-market economy? How will the provisions of S. 1619 operate differently when applied 

to a non-market economy as opposed to a market economy? 
87 


86523.025

Please see my answer to Question 5. 

Question 7: 

Could you please explain how the antidumping and countervailing duty provisions in S. 

1619 are consistent or inconsistent with U.S. WTO obligations? 

Please see my answer to Question 5. 

Question 8: 

Is currency manipulation or fundamental misalignment a subsidy? 

Please see my answer to Question 5. 

Question 9: 

Do you, and does the Administration, support raising U.S. tariffs to remedy currency 

misalignments in foreign countries? 

Please see my answer to Question 5. 

Question 10: 

If Congress were to pass S.1619, would President Obama sign it? 

I cannot speculate on what the President would do with respect to any particular legislation 

passed by Congress. 

Question 11: 

Do you believe that the remedies provided for in S. 1619 will have any meaningful impact 

on China's decision-making or behavior with respect to its currency policies? 

Please see my answer to Question 1. 

Question 12: 

How many jobs would passage of S. 1619 create in the United States? Would you 

characterize S. 1619 as a jobs bill that will have a meaningful impact on the stubbornly 

high U.S. unemployment rate? 

Please see my answer to Question 3. 
88 


86523.026

Question 13: 

Do you support prohibiting China or any other country that fUndamentally misaligns it 

currencies from participating in U.S. government procurement? 

I fully support the objective of taking effective actions consistent with our international 

obligations to provide a level playing field for American workers and firms and to address the 

undervaluation of China's exchange rate. On government procurement more generally, I 

understand that the Administration, led by USTR, has been working hard both multilaterally and 

bilaterally to have China fulfill its commitment to join the WTO Oovernment Procurement 

Agreement (OPA). Since China has not yet joined the OPA, it does not have the preferential 

access to U.S. government procurement currently enjoyed by OPA members and our free trade 

agreement partners. 

Since June 2010, when China moved the renminbi off its peg against the dollar, the renminbi has 

appreciated by about 15 percent against the dollar in real terms. But more progress is needed. If 

confirmed, addressing China's exchange rate would be a top priority. I would press China to 

move to a market-deternlined exchange rate, level the playing field for our workers and firms, 

and support a sustained shift to domestic consumption-led growth in China. 

Ouestion 14: 

Do you support prohibiting OPIC and multilateral bank financing to countries that 

fundamentally misalign their currencies? 

I fully support the objective of taking strong actions that are both effective and consistent with 

our international obligations to provide a level playing field for American workers and firms 

against their foreign competitors. 

Moreover, for other reasons specific to China, I understand that OPIC progranls in China are 

already prohibited as a matter oflaw. I also understand that Congress has directed Treasury to 

vote against all multilateral development bank lending to the country, except in very limited 

cases to projects that meet basic human needs. If confirmed, I would continue to carry out these 

directives. 

Question 15: 

Please describe what types of remedial in terven tions Treasury could take - in partnership 

with the Federal Reserve, International Monetary Fund (IMF), and other monetary 

authorities - to mitigate interventions in international currency markets and respond to 

fundamentally misaligned currencies in other countries. 

I understand that Treasury is using strong efforts in the International Monetary Fund (lMF), the 

0-20, and the Strategic and Economic Dialogue to address fundamental currency misalignments. 

There has been some progress. I understand that in response to strong U.S. efforts, the IMF has 

taken steps to increase its surveillance of exchange rates in recent years, including, publishing for 

the first time in 2012 the real effective exchange rate misalignments of28 economies tlrrough its 

Pilot External Sector Report (ESR). It also is my understanding that the July 2012 ESR assessed 
89 


86523.027

that 9 of the 28 currencies were undervalued, and none by more than 15 percent, and that China's 

currency was assessed to be 5 to 10 percent undervalued. 

Question 16: 

If S. 1619 passed Congress and was signed by the President, under what circumstances 

would you recommend to the President that the remedies required by S. 1619 would cause 

serious harm to the national security of the United States and should be waived? Under 

what circumstance would you recommend a similar waiver because it would be in the vital 

economic interest of the U.S. to do so and that adopting such remedies would have an 

adverse impact on the U.S. economy greater than the benefits of such action? 

I am not in a position to speculate about what actions I might advise the President to take in 

specific circumstances under the provisions of legislation that has not passed Congress. 

Question 17: 

Do you support the provisions in S. 1619 that would allow Congress to overrule a waiver 

determination by the President? 

Please see my answer to Question 1. 

Question 18: 

Do you believe that is possible to quantify a specific percentage that a currency is 

misaligned? Do you agree that "fundamental misalignment" means a significant and 

sustained undervaluation of the prevailing real effective exchange rate, adjusted for 

cyclical and transitory factors, from its medium-term equilibrium level? 

Although I have not specifically studied this very complex issue, I understand that there is no 

single widely-accepted model for determining exchange rate equilibrium. I also understand that 

views among technical experts vary considerably with respect to exchange rate models and the 

outcomes that those models produce, as well as the factors that determine exchange rates at any 

point in time or over time. 

Question 19: 

Is the Treasury Department capable of analyzing on a semiannual basis the prevailing real 

effective exchange rates of foreign currencies? 

I understand that Treasury includes analysis of real effective exchange rates in its Semiannual 

Report to Congress on International Economic and Exchange Rate Policies. Real effective 

exchange rates provide an important metric of the change in value of a country's currency over 

time weighted by the share in trade of each trade partner and adjusted for relative rates of 

inflation. I understand that there already are several indices that record or show changes in real 

effective exchange rates over time. 
90 


86523.028

Question 20: 

Can current IMF surveillance methodology determine whether or not a country's currency 

is fundamentally misaligned? 

I have not specifically studied this technical issue; however, T understand that there is no single 

widely accepted model for determining exchange rate equilibrium. I understand that views 

among technical experts vary considerably with respect to exchange rate models and the 

outcomes that those models produce, as well as the factors that determine exchange rates at any 

point in time or over time. 

Question 21: 

Do you think that the Department of Commerce could calculate an accurate dumping or 

countervailing margin to offset the effects of a fundamentally misaligned currency? If 

currencies' values change from day to day, would Commerce need to also adjust any 

antidumping or countervailing margin? 

Calculating currency misalignments is a complex technical issue and not one that I have 

specifically studied. I understand that there is no single widely accepted model for determining 

exchange rate equilibrium. I also understand that views among technical experts vary 

considerably with respect to exchange rate models and the outcomes that those models produce, 

as well as the factors that determine exchange rates at any point in time or over time. 

Question 22: 

Can the Congress mandate that the Executive branch launch WTO dispute consultations 

with another country on a fixed time frame? 

The Obama Administration has a strong record of pursuing U.S. rights under the WTO using all 

available means, including through the initiation ofWTO dispute settlement procedures, if 

necessary. I understand that as part of that effort, USTR consults closely with this Committee 

and others in Congress. If confirmed, I would work closely with USTR on its efforts to vindicate 

U.S. rights in the WTO. I would defer to the Department of Justice on the question of whether 

Congress has the authority to direct the Executive branch to initiate WTO dispute consultations 

with another country. 

Question 23: 

Do you believe that trade remedies can effectively mitigate the effects of misaligned 

currencies? 

Please see my answer to Question 1. 
91 


86523.029

Question 24: 

Does the Administration support the repeal of The Exchange Rates and International 

Economic Policy Coordination Act of 1988? 

I am not aware that the Administration has proposed the repeal of the Exchange Rates and 

International Economic Policy Coordination Act of 1988 and am not in a position to comment on 

possible legislation. 

If confirmed, I would take seriously my responsibility to carry out U.S. law and to prepare the 

Report to Congress on International Economic and Exchange Rate Policies. 

Question 25: 

As the China trade deficit has increased, is it true that Asia's share of the U.S. trade deficit 

has actually declined? Do our current trade numbers capture the value added by U.S. and 

otber foreign countries to goods assembled in China? 

I understand that as China's share has increased from 22 to 53 percent since 2000, the share of 

other economies in the Asia-Pacific region has declined from 36 to 14 percent. It also is my 

understanding that trade data are not calculated on a value-added basis. 

Question 26: 

Do you support the conclusions by the Economic Policy Institutc that 2.4 million jobs were 

lost to China as a result of China's currency manipulation and unfair trade policies? 

I support efforts to create a more level playing field with China in order to support U.S. growth 

and jobs. If confirmed, I would press China to rebalance its economy toward domestic 

consumption-led growth, which will benefit Americans as Chinese households are able to buy 

more American goods and services. Chinese exchange rate reform is a critical part of this effort 

and [ would press for greater exchange rate flexibility. 

I also understand that the Administration has aggressively enforced our trade rights, doubling the 

rate ofWTO cases against China compared to the prior Administration. If confirmed, I would 

support a continuation of this strategy. 

Question 27: 

Do you believe that if China appreciated its currency to a market-based level that it would 

result in a significant reduction of the United States' overall trade deficit? What are the 

primary drivers of the U.S. trade deficit? Is the currency level of China, or any other 

major trading partner, a primary driver of the U.S. trade deficit? 

I believe that it is critical for China to move toward a market-determined exchange rate to 

support stronger, more sustainable, and more balanced global growth; to achieve more balanced 
92 


86523.030

trade; and, to create greater opportunities for American firms and workers to benefit from the 

U.S.-China economic relationship. 

The United States' overall trade deficit has been the result of a number of factors, including the 

imbalance of domestic saving and investment and differences in growth rates between the United 

States and its trading partners. The U.S. trade deficit shrank in late 2008 and 2009 because U.S. 

demand for imports collapsed as a result of the recession. One of the keys to addressing the U. S. 

trade deficit over the longer term is to put public saving and spending on a sustainable trajectory. 

Question 28: 

Is it a fact that in the three years from 2005 to 2008, China's currency appreciated about 20 

percent? Is it a fact that during that time the U.S. bilateral trade deficit with China grew? 

Is it a fact that during the first two years of the financial crisis and economic recession, 

China's exchange rate was pegged to the dollar - yet the U.S. bilateral trade deficit with 

China decreased? 

Yes, I understand that the renminbi appreciated by about 20 percent against the dollar between 

2005 and 2008, and that the U.S. bilateral trade deficit with China grew during the period. I also 

understand that this deficit shrank slightly between the first half of 2008 and the first half of 

2010. 

Question 29: 

On January 12, 2012, I wrote to then-Treasury Secretary Geithner and Ambassador Ron 

Kirk: "Many stakeholders believe that currency practices must be directly addressed in 

bilateral and multilateral trade negotiations, particularly negotiations such as TPP which 

are designed to address "21 sf Century" international trade agencies. Addressing currency 

manipulation in the TPP becomes particularly important as the Administration considers 

the possibility of new TPP participants, such as Japan, who have demonstrated a pattern of 

currency interventions. Given Japan's professed interest in joining the TPP, I respectfully 

request that the Administration provide its views regarding the inclusion of such a 

currency provision as a key negotiating objective in the TPP." 

On April 16, 2012, I received the following written response from then-Treasury Secretary 

Geithner and Ambassador Ron Kirk: "We also appreciate yonr interest in views on how 

currency issues could figure in future and ongoing negotiations. Like you, we have taken 

note of considerable stakeholder interest in this issue, and we will want to be in close 

contact with you as we consider possible approaches to persistent rate misalignments." 

Unfortunately, there was no engagement from the Administration on the issue of whether 

or not to include such a provision in the TPP negotiation following receipt of that letter. As 

I result, I reiterated my request to then-Secretary Geithner on October 18,2012: 

"Despite your acknowledgement that there is strong interest among U.S. stakeholders in 

including provisions to address persistent currency manipulation in on-going trade 
93 


86523.031

negotiations such as TPP, and your interest in remaining in close contact on the issue, there 

has been no effort to engage in any substantive dialogue since your reply in April of 2012. 

Meanwhile, negotiations to conclude TPP continue. In fact, the 15th Round of TPP 

negotiations are scheduled to be held in New Zealand on December 3-12, 2012. Given the 

critical nature of currency manipulation and its impact on U.S. competitiveness, I again 

respectfully request that the administration provide its view before the next round of TPP 

negotiations regarding the inclusion of a currency provision as a key negotiating objective 

in tbe TPP." 

Despite my request for the administration's views before the December 3-12, 2012 TPP 

Round, I did not receive a reply from the Treasury Department until December 19, 2012, 

seven days after the Round concluded. In that reply, Assistant Secretary for Legislative 

Affairs Alastair M. Fitzpayne wrote: 

"Finally, we are giving careful consideration to the potential benefits and risks of seeking 

new negotiating objectives for future and ongoing trade negotiations, drawing on our 

experiences in the WTO, the IMG, and the G-20, and recognizing that the negotiating goals 

we have set for tbe Trans-Pacific Partnership are ambitious and appropriately so in order 

to achieve a high-standard 21st century trade agreement." 

Please answer each of the following questions: 

a. What are your views regarding the inclusion of provisions to address persistent 

currency manipulation in on-going trade negotiations, such as TPP? 

It is my understanding that Treasury is addressing international currency issues in various 

international fora, including in the G-20, the IMF, and the WTO. In these venues, I 

understand that Treasury has underscored the importance of market-determined exchange 

rates in promoting more balanced global trade, avoiding persistent exchange rate 

misalignments, and advocating for faster and more efficient global adjustment of external 

imbalances. I also understand that Treasury has pushed for strong surveillance by the 

IMF of its member obligations to avoid manipulating exchange rates in order to prevent 

effective balance of payments adjustment or to gain an unfair competitive advantage over 

other members. 

If confirmed, I would give careful consideration to the potential benefits and risks of 

seeking new negotiating objectives for ongoing and future trade negotiations, drawing on 

Treasury's experiences in the WTO, IMF, and G-20, and recognizing that the negotiating 

goals that we have set for the Trans-Pacific Partnership are ambitious and appropriately 

so in order to achieve a high-standard 21 st century trade agreement. If confirmed, 

addressing currency issues would be a top priority. 

b. According to Treasury's December 19,2012 reply, the Department is deliberating 

about whether to see new negotiating objectives. Yet no one has contacted my office 

about these deliberations, despite a professed interest by Treasury to be in close 

contact with me as you consider possible approaches to persistent rate 
94 


86523.032

misalignments. This is unacceptable. Should you be confirmed, will you pledge to 

immediately and substantially improve Treasury's Congressional consultation 

procedures? 

I take Congressional consultations very seriously. If confinued, I would welcome the 

opportunity to discuss this further with you and others on the Committee. 

Question 30: 

In a recent Op-Ed, Bob Zoellick wrote "Central banks have tried most every tool to 

stimulate growth; if Japan is any warning, the next tactic is competitive devaluation, which 

risks a new protectionism. 'Currency manipulation' could become a danger that reaches 

far beyond the debate about Chinese policies. The world economy will need at some point 

to withdraw the drug of cheap money and negative real interest rates. The U.S. should 

anticipate these dangers." Please answer each of the following questions separately: 

a. Do you agree that competitive currency devaluations risk a new form of 

protectionism? 

I agree that competitive currency devaluations risk protectionism. That is why I believe 

the commitments made by the G-7 and G-20 members this week are significant. 

Specifically, I understand that G-7 members committed that fiscal and monetary policies 

would be oriented toward domestic objectives using domestic instruments and not target 

exchange rates. 

b. Do you agree that the world will need to withdraw from policies of cheap money and 

negative real interest rates? 

This question is more appropriate for the Federal Reserve in light of their responsibility 

for monetary policy. 

c. What criteria will be used to determine when it is time to stop the flow of cheap 

money? 

Please see my answer to Question 30(b). 

d. What will you do to prepare the United States to phase out and end its addiction to 

cheap money? 

Please see my answer to Question 30(b). 

e. Do you support a strong dollar policy? 

Treasury has had a longstanding position, through Administrations of both parties and 

over many years that a strong dollar is in the best interests of promoting U.S. growth, 

productivity, and competitiveness. If confinued, I would not change that policy. 
95 


86523.033

f. Do you agree that the IMF and the World Trade Organization should anticipate this 

risk and give effect to the existing WTO agreement that economies must "avoid 

manipulating exchange rates ••• to gain an unfair competitive advantage." 

It is my understanding that IMF members must avoid manipulating exchange rates in 

order to prevent effective balance of payments adjustment or to gain an unfair 

competitive advantage over other members, and that the WTO similarly requires that 

WTO members cannot, by exchange action, frustrate the intent of the provisions of the 

WTO Agreements. 

I understand that the IMF has taken steps to increase its surveillance of exchange rates in 

recent years, including publishing for the first time in 2012 the real effective exchange 

rate misalignments of 28 economies through its Pilot External Sector Report. 

I also understand that the WTO has initiated discussions on the relationship between 

exchange rates and trade in which Treasury has underscored the importance of marketdetermined exchange rates in supporting growth and trade. 

If confirmed, I would continue Treasury's efforts in the IMF and the WTO, as well as in 

the G-20, to ensure members comply with these commitments. 

Question 31: 

Mr. Lew, do you believe that countries intentionally undervalue their currencies to gain a 

trade advantage against their competitors? Do you support raising U.S. tariffs to remedy 

currency manipulation in foreign countries? Please describe in detail the negative effects 

to the global economy if countries resorted to tit-for-tat tariff retaliation in order to affect 

each other's currency policies. 

I am not yet in a position to evaluate why certain currencies may be undervalued. I understand 

that Treasury has noted, however, that China's currency remains significantly undervalued and 

that Treasury is pressing China for policy changes that increase exchange rate flexibility and 

level the playing field for U.S. workers and firms. 

It is my understanding that our trade partners have taken on important commitments in the IMF 

as well as in the G-20. I believe it is critically important that they adhere to these commitments, 

especially in light of the fragility of the global recovery. I also understand that IMF Article IV 

legally requires that each IMF member shall avoid manipulating exchange rates or the 

international monetary system in order to prevent effective balance of payments adjustment or to 

gain an unfair competitive advantage over other members. 

In addition, I believe that just this week, 0-20 members committed to refrain from competitive 

devaluation, not to target exchange rates for competitiveness purposes, and resist all forms of 

protectionism. I also understand that 0-20 members further committed to move more rapidly 
96 


86523.034

toward market-determined exchange rate systems and avoid persistent exchange rate 

misalignments. 

I believe that it is important for countries to adhere to these commitments to avoid beggar thy 

neighbor policies and possible retaliation which could further undercut a fragile global recovery 

and reduce market confidence, resulting in greater unemployment and weaker growth. 

Question 32: 

Mr. Lew, can current IMF surveillance methodology determine whether or not a country's 

currency is fundamentally misaligned? Can IMF, or any other methodology, consistently 

calculate the percentage difference between a fundamentally misaligned currency and a 

properly aligned currency? Please provide a detailed response to each question. 

It is my understanding that the IMF has published the real effective exchange rate misalignments 

of28 economies through its Pilot External Sector Report. I also understand that there are other 

methods to calculate estimates of misalignments 

Question 33: 

Why does Treasury Co-Chair the Strategic and Economic Dialogue? Most of the issues 

addressed and results achieved by the S&ED and its predecessor, the Strategic Economic 

Dialogue, were negotiated by non-Treasury agencies - so should the S&ED be led by the 

U.S. Trade Representative or another cabinet officer? 

I believe that the S&ED has served as the overarching framework for our economic engagement 

and proved to be a successful mechanism for addressing cross-cutting strategic economic 

priorities and concerns with an often times stove-piped Chinese government at the highest levels. 

As a result, I understand that this Administration (as well as the previous Administration) has 

secured concrete results across the entire spectrum of our economic agenda with China. 

For example, China has committed to accelerate its shift toward domestic consumption-led 

growth, including through enhanced exchange rate flexibility and transparency and tax reform. 

China has taken a number of steps to reform and open its financial sector, which are critical to 

leveling the playing field and making the transition to sustainable growth, including interest rate 

liberalization, and improved access for U.S. financial services firms such as in the areas of 

securities, banking, insurance, and auto finance. China has committed to negotiate new rules on 

otlicial export financing with the United States and other major providers. 

But much remains to be done. If confirmed, I would continue to press China to undertake crosscutting economic reforms that will rebalance China's economy toward domestic-driven, 

consumption-led growth and that will help level the playing field for U.S. workers and firms. I 

would do so using all appropriate opportunities, including bilaterally through the S&ED as well 

as the Commerce Department and USTR co-led Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade, and 

multilaterally. 
97 


86523.035

Question 34: 

Please rank in order of priority the top five economic issues that prevent a more open, 

balanced, and transparent economic, trade, and investment relationship between the 

United States and China. 

I believe that the five issues, not in rank order, that are important to achieving a more open, 

balanced, and transparent economic, trade, and investment relationship between the United 

States and China are for China: (I) continuing to move to a market-determined exchange rate; 

(2) accelerating its shift toward domestic consumption-led growth, including through exchange 

rate flexibility and transparency, tax reform, and financial sector reform; (3) strengthening 

further enforcement and protection of intellectual property rights, including against trade secret 

theft; (4) abiding by international guidelines, including on official export financing; and (5) 

providing non-discriminatory treatment for enterprises of all kinds of ownership. In each of 

these areas, I understand that we have made progress and that China has made commitments in 

the S&ED. 

Notwithstanding the real progress that has been made in these areas, I believe that there is more 

to do. If confirmed, I would press China to implement fully its commitments and to level the 

playing field for American firms and workers. I also would press China to continue to undertake 

cross-cutting economic reforms, including financial reform and exchange rate reform, which will 

rebalance China's economy toward domestic driven, consumption-led growth that will not 

discriminate against U.S. companies and goods and that will reduce barriers to U.S. exports, 

creating more jobs for U.S. workers. 

Question 35: 

Please explain when it is appropriate for the CFIUS process to block a foreign investment 

into the United States? 

I understand that CFIUS seeks to resolve any national security concerns that may arise from 

transactions it reviews, including by negotiating mitigation agreements, wherever reasonably 

possible, so as to allow the transactions to proceed. I further understand that it would be 

appropriate for CFIUS to recommend to the President that he suspend or prohibit the transaction 

in instances where CFIUS determines that no mitigation is available to resolve national security 

concerns arising from the transaction. 

Question 36: 

As you know, U.S. companies that invest abroad must take into account numerous business 

and political risks. However, established international treaty obligations between sovereign 

nations such as the bilateral investment treaties (BITs) and the International Center for 

Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) Convention may mitigate these risks and 

encourage U.S. investment abroad. The failure to comply with these international treaty 

obligations hy certain signatories to these treaties such as Argentina, however, puts U.S. 

investors and business at risk. 
98 


86523.036

A Texas-based water services company named Azurix invested significant capital in 

Argentina in preparation for a 30-year water concession in the country, but the 

Government of Argentina had effectively expropriated Azurix's investment after just a few 

years. 

Azurix sought and was awarded a judgment pursuant to the U.S.-Argentina BIT in 2009 

under the ICSID Convention that is now worth $242 million. Argentina, however, has 

repeatedly refused to pay the award, insisting instead - counter to the very purpose of the 

BIT - that Azurix must refile its claim in Argentina's domestic courts. 

To allow countries like Argentina to ignore international treaty obligations is dangerous 

and weakens the position of U.S. businesses both at home and abroad. The United States 

has already withdrawn Argentina's Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) benefits, 

voted against multilateral development bank loans to Argentina, and voted for the 

International Monetary Fund (IMF) censure of Argentina. What else can the U.S. 

government do to ensure that U.S. investors are protected from nations that intentionally 

ignore their BIT and ICSID obligations? Given that many apparent mechanisms for 

encouraging Argentina to comply with treaty obligations are ineffective without the 

support of the international community, will the U.S. Department of Treasury actively urge 

other countries to vote against multilateral development bank loans to Argentina until 

Argentina complies with its treaty obligations and pays its arbitral award obligations to 

successful ICSID claimants? 

I share the serious concerns about Argentina's unwillingness to honor its international 

obligations. 

If confIrmed, I would have Treasury continue to work actively to press Argentina at every 

appropriate opportunity to honor its obligations. 

I understand that Treasury is pressing Argentina to abide by its international obligations and to 

normalize its relationship with the international fInancial community and foreign investors, 

including by honoring its international obligations to provide accurate data to the IMF, paying 

amounts that are past due to the United States and other Paris Club members, and honoring final 

arbitral awards in favor of U.S. companies. 

Because of these concerns about Argentina, I understand that Treasury has opposed practically 

all lending to Argentina through the multilateral development banks and supported the IMF's 

decision to censure Argentina for its misreporting of data, and President Obama suspended 

Argentina's eligibility for trade preferences under the Generalized System of Preferences 

program. It is also my understanding that almost all other donors at the Inter-American 

Development Bank have joined the United States in opposing proposed loans to Argentina. 

understand that such a level of disapproval by other donors against the proposed loans to any 

single country is unprecedented in recent memory, and follows from the leadership position 

Treasury established in 2011. 
99 


86523.037

Question 37: 

Please review the following Pre-Due Diligence Question you received on February 6, 

2013:" As Director of OMB during this time period, are you whether the recommendations 

were submitted to the President as required by the Presidential Memorandum of March, 

2011? Were these recommendations submitted to the President in June, 2011? Regardless 

of whether the recommendations were actually submitted, are you aware of their contents? 

Have these recommendations been made public?" 

You responded in writing to this question that: "The Chief Performance Officer briefed 

me-in my role at the time as Director of the Office of Management and Budget 

("OMB"~n the recommendations ofthe Initiative. As directed in the Memorandum, the 

Chief Performance Officer submitted a recommendation to the President to restructure 

and streamline government programs focused on trade and competitiveness." 

Please elaborate on your answer, specifically answer each of the following questions 

separately: 

a. On what date were the recommendations submitted to the President? 

b. Please provide a copy of the recommendations submitted to the President. 

c. Please indicate whether a copy ofthese recommendations has been shared with any 

member of the public. 

You further responded: "In response, the President requested in January 2012 that 

Congress revive the authority of previous Presidents to submit proposals to reorganize 

Executive Branch departments. The proposed legislation would require that any 

reorganization plan submitted to Congress would reduee the size of government or would 

save money. The President stated publiely that his first proposal would foeus on promoting 

economic growth and spurring job creation. The Initiative's recommendation was to 

consolidate six agencies primarily responsible for business competitiveness and exports into 

one new Department with the dedicated mission to help American businesses grow, hire, 

and thrive in the global economy. After examining the international trade functions of the 

Departments of the Treasury and Agriculture, the Initiative concluded that these programs 

were integral to the Departments and thus were not included in the proposal. For example, 

foreign currency issues are a fundamental responsibility of Treasury. 

Congress did not act upon the President's proposal to reinstate consolidation and 

Reorganization authority. If Congress passes legislation to provide such authority, I believe 

the President would consult with Members of Congress, stakeholders, and federal 

employees to develop specific legislative proposals to reorganize Executive Branch 

departments and agencies." 

From your response, it appears that the President does not have a specific legislative 

proposal to reorganize Executive Branch departments and agencies and that passage of 
100 


86523.038

authority to consolidate and reorganize the executive branch is a condition precedent for 

developing specific legislative proposals. Please answer each of the following questions 

separately: 

a. Does the President have a specific legislative proposal to reorganize Executive 

Branch departments and agencies? If so, please provide a copy of that proposal. 

b. If not, is passage of authority to consolidate and reorganize the executive branch a 

condition precedent for the President to develop a specific legislative proposal? 

c. Do you believe it is reasonable to request broad authority to reorganize Executive 

Branch agencies when the Executive Branch has failed to develop or provide any 

specific legislative proposal? 

From your response, it appears that the President will not consult with Congress, 

stakeholders, and federal employees on specific legislative proposals until Congress passes 

authority to consolidate and reorganize the executive branch. Yet, you further responded 

that: "The Administration has taken a number of additional steps. By Presidential 

Memorandum, it created BusinessUSA, a streamlined one-stop shop for access to 

information useful to businesses seeking to export and grow. It established a cross-agency 

priority goal for increasing exports, laying out specific milestones, and reporting progress 

quarterly. By Presidential Memorandum, the President strengthened the role of the Export 

Cabinet to maximize the effectiveness of federal programs supporting trade and 

investment. And, by Executive Order, he established the Interagency Trade Enforcement 

Center to improve the nation's trade enforcement capabilities." Please answer each ofthe 

following questions separately: 

a. Did the President consult with Congress before issuing these Presidential 

Memorandums or Executive Orders? If so, please provide the specific dates of those 

consultations and who was consulted. 

b. Did the President consult with stakeholders before issuing these Presidential 

Memorandums or Executive Orders? If so, please provide the specific dates of those 

consultations and who was consulted. 

c. How many Executive Orders has the President issued related to international trade 

and competitiveness since January 1, 2009? 

d. How many Presidential Memorandums has the President issued related to 

international trade and competitiveness since January 1, 2009? 

e. How many interagency task forces has the President created related to international 

trade and competitiveness since January 1, 2009? 

f. Please describe how creation of the Interagency Trade Enforcement Center and 

reprograming offunds impacted the overall budget ofthe Office ofthe U.S. Trade 
101 


86523.039

Representative? Please be specific and provide a breakdown of tbe budget impact 

by function and office. 

In press reports from January 13, 2012, Jeffery Zients was reported as saying that the 

International trade agency reorganization would be the first of a "series" of proposals to 

reorganize government. Please answer each of the following questions separately: 

a. Does the President have any other proposals to reorganize executive branch 

agencies? 

b. If the President does have additional proposals to reorganize executive branch 

agencies, which agencies are part of those proposals? 

c. If the President does have additional proposals to reorganize executive branch 

agencies, are those proposals public? 

d. If not, does the President intend to develop any other proposals to reorganize 

executive branch agencies? 

e. If so, which executive branch agencies? 

f. If so, when will these proposals be made public? 

As directed in the Presidential Memorandum, the Chief Performance Officer submitted 

recommendations to the President. The President's announcement in January 2012 reflected the 

Chief Performance Officer's recommendations, and that proposal is public. 

As I noted in my previous submission to the Committee, the President requested in January 2012 

that Congress revive the authority of previous Presidents to submit proposals to reorganize 

Executive Branch departments. The reorganization authority requested by the President sets 

forth a process for expedited review of proposals while ensuring that Congress has a critical 

evaluative role and that proposals can only go forward through affirmative action by Congress. 

Should Congress pass legislation to provide such authority, the President has outlined a 

framework for integrating the six primary business and trade departments and agencies (as well 

other related programs) into one new Department responsible for the government's core trade 

and competitiveness functions. Congress did not act on the President's proposal to reinstate 

consolidation and reorganization authority, and the Administration has not put forward any 

additional proposals to reorganize federal agencies. 

In regard to the Interagency Trade Enforcement Center (ITEC), the President issued an 

Executive Order on February 28, 2012, which established the ITEC. The Administration is 

committed to leveling the playing field for American workers and businesses and making sure 

they are able to compete successfully in global markets. The goal of the ITEC is to build upon 

existing capacity through a unit that coordinates trade enforcement to give U. S. companies, 

workers, and producers every chance to compete on a level playing field in today's global 

marketplace. I understand that in FY 2012, USTR reallocated existing monitoring and 
102 


86523.040

enforcement funds and reprogrammed $450,000 to conduct monitoring and enforcement 

functions in conjunction with the !TEe. 

Ouestion 38: 

During our preliminary meetings and requests for information regarding your nomination 

to be Treasury Secretary, I asked why the international trade functions of the Department 

of Treasury and the Department of Agriculture were exempted from the Administration's 

reorganization proposal that you oversaw as Director of OMB? In response to my question 

you wrote, "After examining the international trade functions of the Departments ofthe 

Treasury and Agriculture, the Initiative concluded that these programs were integral to the 

Departments and thus were not included in the proposal." 

For each of the following international offices and trade functions of the Department of 

Treasury and the Department of Agriculture please provided a detailed explanation of how 

each office and function is integral to its respective Department. Please also provide a 

detailed explanation of why exempting each office and function will not undermine any 

benefits from a combined trade agency. 

Treasury 

a. Office of Trade and Investment Policy - The Purpose of the Office as described on 

the Treasury Department's website includes: " ... the Office of Trade Finance and 

Investment Negotiations and the Office of International Trade. The offices work 

with other U.S. government agencies to determine U.S. policy on international trade 

and investment issues, including in various bilateral and multilateral negotiations. 

Areas of work include participation in committees of the Organization for Economic 

Cooperation and Development (OECD) to advance open investment policies abroad 

and to support multilateral rules to reduce export financing subsidies; the 

negotiation of trade and investment agreements, including free trade agreements 

and bilateral investment treaties (BITs), with the deputate taking either a lead or 

supporting role in various facets of these negotiations; reviewing and addressing 

contemporary trade and financial services issues, as well as participation in the 

World Trade Organization, including the Doha Development Round of global trade 

negotiations." 

b. Office of International Monetary and Financial Policy - The Purpose of the Office 

as described on the Treasury Department's website includes: " ... Treasury's work to 

promote sound international regulatory policy practices, support financial stability, 

and develop international economic policy engagement and coordination in the 

International '\lonetal'v Fund, the Group of 7/~ and the Group of 20 Ministerial and 

other efforts. The group also leads the coordination of U.S. participation in the 

Financial Stability Board, and other various bilateral [mancial and regulatory 

dialogues. The group advises on currency legislation issues, prepares Treasury's 

Semi-annual Report.QJtInternalional Economic lind Exchange Rate Policies, and 

analyzes and reports on world economic developments. Other responsibilities 
103 


86523.041

include administering the Exchange Stabilization Fund and Treasury International 

Cal!ihll data, and liaising with the Federal Reserve." 

c. Office of Development Policy and Debt - The Purpose of the Office as described on 

the Treasury Department's website includes: " .•. The Office of Development Policy 

and Debt leads the U.S. government's efforts to promote economic growth and 

poverty reduction in developing countries through engagement with the multilateral 

development banks, including the World Bank and the regional development banks. 

The office works with the U.S. Congress and other government agencies to secure 

U.S. funding commitments to the multilateral development banks. The office also 

advises on potential reforms and innovative financing proposals for development, 

and formulates the U.S. position on issues coming before the Paris Club, an 

informal group of creditors who seek coordinated and sustainable solutions to 

payment difficulties for debtor countries. 

d. Office of East Asia - The Purpose ofthe Office as described on the Treasury 

Department's website includes: " ... The office's primary objectives include 

promoting strong, balanced, and sustainable growth in the region; advancing policy 

measures that support open trade and investment; encouraging the development of 

strong financial systems; and ensuring that all countries in the region fully 

participate in systems for global economic cooperation. It also plays a significant 

role in managing the U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue and U.S. 

engagement with Asian regional initiatives." 

e. Office of Investment Security - The Purpose of the Office as described on the 

Treasury Department's website includes: "The deputate is responsible for the dayto-day implementation of Treasury's responsibilities as Chair ofthe Committee on 

Foreign Investment in the United States ("CFIUS"). A 16-member interagency 

committee representing the broad spcctrum of security and economic agencies, 

CFIUS reviews certain foreign investments in the United States to identify and 

address the effects of the transactions on national security, according to a process 

specified in statute and regulation. The process focuses solely on national security 

concerns within the U.S.'s overall open invcstment policy, and it underwent 

substantial reforms through legislation enacted in 2007 and regulations 

promulgated in 2008. The deputate also leads Treasury's open investment initiatives 

and dialogues with other countries, including China and the European Union, to 

promote open investment policies and discourage foreign barriers to U.S. 

investment. " 

f. Office of South and Southeast Asia - The Purpose of the Office as described on the 

Treasury Department's website includes: "promoting U.S. policies and fostering 

growth, financial stability and poverty reduction in the region. Additionally, the 

office ensures U.S. interests are reflected in the regional activities of international 

financial institutions such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and 

the Asian Development Bank. The office also takes the lead on all issues related to 

India, including representing the United States in the new U.S.-India Economic and 
104 


86523.042

Financial Partnership, and has responsibility for Treasury's engagement with the 

Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum and Association of South East 

Asian Nations (ASEAN)." 

Agriculture 

g. Foreign Agriculture Service - The purpose and some of the divisions involved in this 

office as described on the Department's website include: "The Foreign Agricultural 

Service (FAS) links U.S. agriculture to the world to enhance export opportunities 

and global food security. In addition to its Washington, D.C. staff, FAS has a global 

network of 98 offices covering 162 countries. These offices are staffed by 

agricultural attaches and locally hired staff who are the eyes, ears, and voice for 

U.S. agriculture around the world. FAS staff identify problems, provide practical 

solutions, and work to advance opportunities for U.S. agriculture and support U.S. 

foreign policy around the globe. 

Please provide a detailed explanation of how each function of the Foreign 

Agriculture Services identified below, as taken from the Department's website, is 

integral to the Department. Please also provide a detailed explanation of why 

exempting each function will not undermine any benefits from a combined trade 

agency. 

i) Trade Policy: FAS expands and maintains access to foreign markets for U.S. 

agricultural products by removing trade barriers and enforcing U.S. rights 

under existing trade agreements. F AS works with foreign governments, 

international organizations, and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative to 

establish international standards and rules to improve accountability and 

predictability for agricultural trade. 

ii) Market Development and Export Assistance: F AS partners with 75 cooperator 

groups representing a cross-section of the U.S. food and agricultural industry 

and manages a toolkit of market development programs to help U.S. exporters 

develop and maintain markets for hundreds of products. FAS also supports U.S. 

agricultural exporters through export credit guarantee programs and other 

types of assistance. 

iii) Data and Analysis - FAS's network of global contacts and long-standing 

relationships with international groups contribute to the agency's unique market 

intelligence capacity. FAS analysts provide objective intelligence on foreign 

market opportunities, prepare production forecasts, assess export marketing 

opportunities, and track changes in policies affecting U.S. agricultural exports 

and imports. 

iv) International Development - FAS leads USDA's efforts to help developing 

countries improve their agricultural systems and build their trade capacity. FAS 

also partners with the U.S. Agency for International Development to administer 
105 


86523.043

U.S. food aid programs, helping people in need around the world. FAS's nonemergency food aid programs help meet recipients' nutritional needs and also 

support agricultural development and education. 

h. Office of Agreements and Scientific Affairs (OASA) from website: "OASA works 

to preserve and expand access to foreign markets for U.S. food and agricultural 

products by promoting an open, rules-based global trading system. OASA leads 

USDA in negotiation, monitoring, and enforcement of trade agreements. OASA 

advises senior officials on strategies to prevent and address barriers to U.S. 

agricultural exports. Areas of focus include sanitary and phytosllnitary measures 

(SPS), technical barriers to trade (TBT), and biotechnology and other emerging 

technologies. OASA coordinates USDA's participation in the World Trade 

Organization and other international organizations." 

i. Office of Country and Regional Affail's (OCRA) - from website: "OCRA provides 

strategic leadership and focused analysis on key countries and regions of the world 

to advance consistent and mutually-reinforcing strategies for U.S. agricultural, 

trade policy, foreign policy and national security interests." 

j. Office of Global Analysis (OGA) - from website: "OGA focuses on cross-cutting 

analysis to support USDA's trade agenda and develops and maintains USDA's 

agricultural production, supply and demand data." 

k. Office of Trade Programs (OTP) from website: "OTP administers programs that 

support marketing efforts, especially those carried out by the U.S. private sector, 

including the Market Access Program, the Foreign Market Development program, 

Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops, and the Quality Samples Program. OTP 

also administers the export credit guarantee and Dairy Export Incentive programs. 

Import programs include those for sugar, dairy and trade assistance." 

I. Office of FOI'cign Ser\"ice Operations (OFSO) - from website: "OSFO supports FAS 

foreign service officers and staff stationed in posts around the world. This includes 

logistic and administrative support as well as foreign travel coordination and 

management ofthe Foreign Service personnel system." 

m. Foreign Agriculture Service Foreign Offices - from website: "FAS staffs 100 offices 

in 80 countries around the world. F AS Foreign Service Officers (FSO) and LocallyEmployed Staff (LES) - while not maintaining a physical presence - also monitor 

and report on the agricultural trade matters of an additional1!2s.Q!!!!!d~~." 

As I noted in my previous submission to the Committee, the President requested in January 2012 

that Congress revive the authority of previous Presidents to submit proposals to reorganize 

Executive Branch departments. He stated publicly that his first proposed use of that authority 

was consolidating six agencies primarily responsible for business competitiveness and exports 

into one new Department with the dedicated mission to help American businesses grow, hire, 

and thrive in the global economy. 
106 


86523.044

The President's proposal was consistent with the recommendation ofthe Government Reform for 

Competitiveness and Innovation Initiative, which the President established in March 2011. The 

Initiative concluded that the international trade functions of the Departments of the Treasury and 

Agriculture were integral to the Departments and thus were not included in its recommendation. 

I am not in a position to address each of the individual offices and trade functions within the 

Departments of the Treasury and Agriculture referenced in your question. Nonetheless, I 

understand that the reorganization authority requested by the President would require Congress 

to vote on each specific proposal put forth by the Administration. Accordingly, if the President 

is granted such authority, I expect the Administration would consult closely with Members of 

Congress about specific proposals to reorganize Executive Branch departments and agencies, 

including the one referenced above. 

Question 39: 

In response to a question I asked regarding the Administration's proposed reorganization 

of the trade agencies you noted that the President requested legislation from Congress to 

grant him the authority to reorganize Executive Branch departments. In your response 

you wrote "The proposed legislation would require that any reorganization plan submitted 

to Congress would reduce the size of government or would save money." Please answer 

each ofthe following questions separately: 

a. Do you agree that under the terms of the legislation the President requested 

granting reorganization authority that the President could offer a proposal that 

reduced the number of agencies that work on trade could but could still cost more to 

the taxpayers than the aggregate cost of the respective agencies and offices that the 

proposal combined? 

b. Do you agree that any effort to reorganize and consolidate government agencies 

should reduce costs to the U.S. taxpayers? Do you agree that any such plan that 

increases government spending rather than reducing spending would fail the 

taxpayers? 

On January 13,2012, the President asked Congress to revive the same reorganization authority 

that it has granted to previous Presidents. The same day, the government's Chief Performance 

Officer spoke publicly about the requested legislation and stated: "I think we would all agree 

we're at a point where we need to make sure that every taxpayer dollar is well spent. That's a 

bipartisan belief, and I think we can all believe that making government operations leaner, 

smarter, more efficient is essential. And consolidation authority is a very important tool for 

ensuring that we achieve a smarter, leaner government." I agree with those sentiments. 

In addition, I understand that the reorganization authority requested by the President would 

require Congress to vote on each specific proposal put forth by the Administration. In other 

words, Congress would retain the authority to make its mvnjudgment about whether a particular 

proposal serves the best interests of the taxpayers. 
107 


86523.045

Question 40: 

As part of the fiscal year 2013 Budget and as part of deficit reduction talks, the Obama 

Administration has proposed applying "a single blended matching rate to Medicaid and 

CHIP" saving anywhere between $18 and 100 billion over 10 years. In December, the 

Administration reversed its position on the blended rate, and the only rationale offered was 

the Supreme Court decision that made the Medicaid expansion voluntary for the states. 

While states now have the option, rather than the mandatory requirement, to expand 

Medicaid, many worry that the Administration's policy shift does not eliminate the long 

term financial risks to the States should they accept the Medicaid expansions. States should 

be aware that when fiscal realities later dictate cuts to the Medicaid program, they may be 

left to finance a larger share of the Medicaid expansions. I assume that you were involved 

in the development of the blended rate policy either at OMB or at the White House. To 

better understand the potential future risks to the States, please provide the Committee 

with the detailed specifications of the Administration's fiscal year 2013 blended rate 

proposal and how it saved $18 billion, or as the Administration proposed during the deficit 

reduction talks, $100 billion. 

The blended match rate proposal would simplify the multiple matching rates in Medicaid and the 

Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) and reduce administrative costs to States and the 

Federal government. However, as the Department of Health and Human Services indicated in 

December guidance, the Supreme Court decision has made the higher matching rates available in 

the Affordable Care Act for the new groups covered even more important to incenti vize states to 

expand Medicaid coverage. We continue to seek efficiencies and identify opportunities to 

reduce waste, fraud, and abuse in Medicaid, and want to work with Congress, states, and 

stakeholders to achieve these goals while expanding access to affordable health care. 

Question 41: 

As you know, Medicaid consumes the largest health-related share of federal revenues and 

federal spending as a share of the economy is set to grow by 37 percent over the next 10 

years. Clearly, Medicaid -like our other entitlement programs - must he reformed if we 

are to make a meaningful impact on our debt and deficit problems. You were Deputy 

Director of the Office of Management and Budget when President Clinton proposed 

Medicaid per capita caps, and I presume you were involved in the development ofthat 

policy. To quote the former Secretary of Health and Human Service when she testified in 

this Committee back in March of 1997, per capita caps mean "there are absolutely no 

incentives for States to deny coverage to a needy individual, or to a family ... It is a sensible 

way to make sure that people who need Medicaid are able to receive it." Given the need to 

address health care entitlement spending and the bipartisan history behind Medicaid per 

capita caps, would you work with us on developing the details of this proposal to ensure we 

enact reforms that both protect taxpayers and patients? 

I support efforts to find ways to improve care coordination, reduce fraud, and make Medicaid 

operate more efficiently. However, we must be careful to ensure that savings arise from program 
108 


86523.046

improvements and not from shifting costs to states or beneficiaries or from exposing them to 

more risk. 

Question 42: 

Two weeks ago, your colleague at the White House, Gene Sperling, said, "We are not 

willing to accept even the Medicaid savings that we had once put on the table ... Medicaid 

savings, Medicaid cuts, for this administration, are not on the table ... " But then just last 

Friday, Acting CMS Administrator Marilyn Tavenner responded to a letter stating " ... we 

continue to welcome collaboration with Congress, states, and stakeholders regarding other 

areas of potential savings in the Medicaid program." Given these conflicting positions 

from officials in the Administration, I am interested to learn your thoughts on whether we 

should address the $4.4 trillion projected to be spent on Medicaid over the next decade. 

This spending is a substantial contributor to the federal debt. Would you plan to address 

it, if confirmed as Treasury Secretary? 

The Administration believes that it is important to find efficiencies in health spending so these 

programs provide their enrollees with higher quality care at a lower cost. 

Question 43: 

Throughout deficit reduction negotiations with Speaker Boehner, the President supported, 

and then apparently walked away from supporting an increase in the eligibility age for 

Medicare to 67 years of age. Can you please definitively state what the Administration's 

position is on this policy? 

The Administration does not support raising the Medicare eligibility age. 

Question 44: 

In the President's 2011 Plan for Economic Growth and Deficit Reduction, the 

Administration proposed to reduce payments to rural hospitals by $6 billion. Does the 

Administration continue to support these policies? If not, where else would you seek 

reductions in Medicare spending? 

The Administration included targeted reductions in payments to critical access hospitals in the 

FY 2013 Budget. This Budget proposed a range of additional measures to increase the efficiency 

of Medicare and ensure its sustainability for future seniors. 

Question 45: 

In the President's 2011 Plan for Economic Growth and Deficit Reduction, the 

Administration proposed a 15% surcharge on Part B premiums for new beneficiaries that 

purchase first-dollar Medigap coverage. Does the Administration still support this 

proposal? If not, what varia hies exist that would cause you to reverse your position? 
109 


86523.047

The President's annual Budget reflects the President's policy priorities, and this proposal 

appeared in the Administration's FY 2013 Budget. The Administration's FY 2014 Budget has 

not yet been released; if! am confirmed, I look forward to addressing this and related questions 

once that Budget has been released. 

Question 46: 

In the President's 2011 Plan for Economic Growth and Deficit Reduction, the 

Administration proposed increasing the income-related premiums under Medicare Parts B 

and D. Does the Administration still support this proposal? If not, what variables exist that 

would cause you to reverse your position? 

Please see my answer to Question 45. 

Question 47: 

In the President's 2011 Plan for Economic Growth and Deficit Reduction, the 

Administration proposed an increased Medicare Part B deductible for Medicare 

beneficiaries. Does the Administration still support this proposal? If not, what variables 

exist that would cause you to reverse your position? 

The President's annual Budget reflects the President's policy priorities, and the Part B deductible 

increase, which only applies to new beneficiaries, appeared in the Administration's FY 2013 

Budget. The Administration's FY 2014 Budget has not yet been released; if confirmed, I look 

forward to addressing this and related questions once that budget has been released. 

Question 48: 

The Medicare Trustees have determined that the Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund will 

be insolvent in 2024. Since President Qbama took office in 2009, the Medicare "45% 

trigger" has been tripped each year and yet the Administration has not submitted a 

proposal (as required by law) to Congress to reduce spending. Why is that and when will 

the Administration begin to follow the letter ofthe law? 

The Medicare Modernization Act requires that the President submit legislation to Congress in the 

event a Medicare Funding Warning is triggered. My understanding is that the Bush 

Administration issued a signing statement concluding that this is inconsistent with the 

Recommendations Clause of the Constitution, and the Obama Administration came to the same 

conclusion. After I became Director of OMB in late 2010, I did not revisit this position, and 

OMB reiterated it in a 2013 letter. 

I understand that the most recent Medicare Trustees Report shows that, while general revenues 

were projected to exceed the threshold that triggers the warning in 2012, general revenues are 

projected to fall below that threshold in every year from 2013 to after 2020. In other words, my 

understanding is that a warning is not projected in 2013 under current law, even absent 

legislative changes in Medicare. 
110 


86523.048

The President takes Medicare's financing problems seriously and proposed about $300 billion in 

Medicare savings in the last Budget. The Administration is committed to making Medicare more 

efficient and ensuring its long-run solvency. 

Question 49: 

As Treasury Secretary you will be responsible for reviewing and approving all regulations 

issued by the Department. One of the areas where there have been significant questions in 

this Administration has been about the economic impact analysis done on regulations 

which are deemed to be "economically significant" meaning that their impact will be 

greater than $100 million. Several of the recent economically significant regulations issued 

by Treasury have not contained supportable or verifiable economie impact statements. If 

confirmed, can you explain to me how you will validate the economic analysis contained in 

the regulations you approve out of the Treasury Department and will you promise me to 

provide this Committee with all of the information we request when attempting to 

ascertain the validity of the economic analyses contained in proposed and final regulations? 

I understand that, in the past year, OMB has designated two Treasury regulations as 

economically significant: Treasury's Interim Rule on Guarantees for Bonds Issued for 

Community or Economic Development Purposes and Treasury's Final RuIe on Assessment of 

Fees for Large Bank Holding Companies and Nonbank Financial Companies Supervised by the 

Federal Reserve to Cover the Expenses of the Financial Research Fund. Each rule included a 

regulatory impact analysis that contained a detailed discussion of the economic impact of the 

rule, including quantitative and qualitative costs and benefits, where applicable. If confirmed, I 

would work to provide information requested by the Committee in a timely manner. 

Question 50: 

The Treasury Department, in coordination with the Department of Health and Human 

Services (HHS), has an important role in implementing the Patient Protection and 

Affordable Care Act (PPACA). In fact some of the most critical aspects of tbe law will be 

implemented through the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), such as advance premium tax 

credits (APTC), employer mandate, individual mandate, medical device tax, and health 

insurance tax. 

The Administration has made claims that eligibility determinations will be made in real 

time through the federal data services hub by facilitating the exchange of data between 

IRS, Homeland Security, the Social Security Administration (SSA), and possibly other 

agencies. 

If confirmed, can you please commit to having the Department and/or IRS respond to the 

following questions? 

a. Is the Department a part of the inter-departmental working group, tasked with 

coordinating PP ACA implementation? 
111 


86523.049

b. Has the IRS completed scrvice level agreements with HHS to ensure the exchange 

and data hub will be able to provide a real time eligibility determination? 

c. What assurances can you provide regarding the security requirements placed on 

agencies and states accessing personal IRS data to make eligihility determinations? 

Please provide a specific description of how those security protocols meet the 

requirements of Section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code? 

Yes. If confirmed, I would be happy to work with this Corrunittee in responding to these 

questions. 

Ouestion 51: 

A recent report by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) states that in 2021 the APTC 

will be tbe largest refundable tax credit and of the $213 billion that will be spent through 

tax credits, $110 billion will be attributed to the APTC. The sheer size of the APTC raises 

questions about the possibility offraud or abuse. 

a. If confirmed, how will you ensure that the Treasury Department will put in place 

protocols at the IRS, the federal data services hub and the exchange to ensure 

individuals are appropriately accessing APTC? 

While I have not been directly involved in developing the procedures for administering 

the advance payments of the premium tax credit, my understanding is that the IRS and 

the Department of Health and Human Services are working in close cooperation to ensure 

that appropriate protocols are in place to administer the advance payments. I look 

forward to working with the Committee on this issue. 

b. If confirmed, can you please commit to having the Department provide a detailed 

briefing to describe what protocols are currently in place and any changes that will 

improve data security at the IRS under your leadership? 

Yes. 

Ouestion 52: 

The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) reported that the IRS is 

undergoing a new income and family seize verification project. 

If confirmed, can you commit to providing a briefmg descrihing the project, any findings 

that have resulted from the project, how the project will be used in the implementation of 

APTC under PPACA, and how it will improve capahilities at IRS as it relates to verifying 

income and family size? 

Yes. 
112 


86523.050

Question 53: 

I have concerns regarding the abuse of APTC. If confirmed, can you commit to having the 

Treasury Department provide a briefing on the following program integrity questions: 

a. Whether they have reviewed, commissioned or completed any analysis showing the 

number of individuals that will be eligible for APTC, but who are not required to 

file a tax return. 

b. How the Department will ensure APTCs are provided appropriately, especially for 

individuals that may not file because their income is below the filing threshold, but 

have a total household income that makes them ineligible for Medicaid and 

therefore eligible for an APTC. 

c. How the IRS will determine eligibility for individuals that apply for an APTC but 

have not filed a return, regardless ofthe reason. 

d. Whether the Department has conducted an analysis on the population between 

100% and 400% ofFPL to determine the number of applications they expect to 

receive for which no tax return is available to determine eligibility. 

e. A description of the process in place at the IRS to review applicant responses 

contesting the eligibility determination made by the IRS. 

f. Whether the IRS is coordinating with HHS to ensure that eligibility criteria for 

APTC are the same for cost-sharing reduction (CSR) subsidies? 

g. Provide a detailed timeline highlighting milestones that the IRS will work to meet to 

ensure the eligibility determination system, in coordination with state, partner and 

federal exchanges, will be ready by October I, 2013. 

Yes. 

Question 54: 

In a letter to Secretary Geithner, I raised concerns regarding the Department's 

interpretation of PP ACA as it relates to APTC availability through the federally-facilitatcd 

exchange. The statute clearly states that subsidies are only available to individuals in statebased exchanges, established under Section 1311 ofPPACA. Do you agree with this 

interpretation of the law, and if so, please provide a legal analysis describing the specific 

provision of law granting the Treasury Department the authority to make APTC subsidies 

available through the federal exchange. 

I believe that Treasury has a responsibility to implement the laws passed by Congress in a careful 

and thoughtful manner. My understanding is that for this regulation, Treasury's Office of Tax 
113 


86523.051

Policy (OTP) and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) followed their standard process for 

drafting, approving, and publishing tax regulations generally. I also understand that the public 

submitted numerous written and oral comments in response to the proposed regulation; that both 

OTP and IRS reviewed each comment carefully; that for this issue, OTP and IRS concluded that 

the statute should be interpreted as in the proposed regulation; and that the final regulations 

reflect this view. 

Question 55: 

In a letter to the President I raised concerns with the lobbying efforts of multiemployer 

plan requesting access to APTC for collectively bargained plans, mostly because of their 

concerns about the impact ofPPACA on the cost of insurance. Is it your view that 

multiempIoyer plans are not eligible for APTC because they will be under the definition of 

minimum essential coverage if they plans meets affordability and minimum value 

standards? If not, please provide a legal analysis outlining how collectively bargained 

plans may access APTC, when the law clearly states that APTC is only available to 

individuals no eligible for minimum essential coverage from a source other than the 

individual health insurance market. 

The Administration is continuing to issue regulations and other guidance to help employers, 

workers, and others implement the Affordable Care Act. As Treasury responds to further 

questions regarding the implementation of health reform, I can assure you that any regulations 

will continue to faithfully reflect the law, as enacted by Congress. 

Question 56: 

The annual fee on health insurance providers contained in the Patient Protection and 

Affordable Care Act (PP ACA) is unusual in that it raises a set amount of revenue that is 

then apportioned amongst that industry. Discussions with various members reveals that 

such revenue was intended to cover the federal costs of both states' Medicaid expansions as 

well as Exchange subsidies and tax credits. Will you support an annual study which 

calculates these federal costs and then compares such costs to the revenue raised from the 

fee? 

Under the Affordable Care Act, the amount of the fee to be imposed on entities that provide 

health insurance is set forth in the statute. Although I have not yet had an opportunity to fully 

develop a policy position on the specific matter referenced in your question, I look forward to 

working with the Congress on this issue. 

Question 57: 

There is an annual fee on health insurance providers contained in the Patient Protection 

and Affordable Care Act (PP ACA). Although the fee technically falls on insurers, the 

Joint Committee on Taxation has determined that "a very large portion of the fee" will be 

"borne by consumers". Will you support a study on the impact this fee has on public 
114 


86523.052

education institutions and as well as students obtaining health insurance through their 

university? 

The fee is imposed on entities that are in the business of providing health insurance, and those 

entities are responsible for paying the fee. Although I have not yet had an opportunity to fully 

develop a policy position on the specific matter referenced in your question, if confirmed, I look 

forward to working with the Congress on this issue. 

Question 58: 

Prior to the enactment ofthe bipartisan tax relief plans in 2001 and 2003, Federal taxes as 

a percentage of GDP were at record levels. In 2000, CBO reported Federal taxes at 20.9% 

ofGDP. 

Even after the bipartisan tax relief is fully in effect, taxes will remain at.l!!...!!£l!! the 

historical average percent of GDP. Over the last few decades, taxes have averaged around 

18 percent of GDP. 

On August 14,2008, Jason Furman and Austan Goolsbee, two senior advisors to thenSenator Obama, wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal. Among other things, Furman 

and Goolsbee indicated that, if elected, Obama's fiscal policy would leave the historic 

revenue take in place: 

Overall, Sen. Obama's middle-class tax cuts are larger than his partial rollbacks 

for families earning over $250,000, making the proposal as a whole a net tax cut 

and reducing revenues to less than 18.2% of GDP - the level of taxes that 

prevailed under President Reagan. 

On November 25,2012, Warren Buffett, writing in the New York Times, said that "Our 

government's goal should be to bring in revenues of 18.5 percent of GDP." 

a. Do you agree with Messrs. Furman and Goolsbess that the federal government's 

revenues should be "less than 18.2% of GDP"? 

b. Or do you agree with Mr. Buffett that the federal government's revenues should be 

"18.5% of GDP"? 

c. What level of revenues as a percent of GDP should the federal government receive? 

d. What is the position of the Obama Administration as to what federal government 

revenues should be as a percentage ofGDP? 

I believe, in the context of a sustainable fiscal policy, that the federal government must collect a 

level of taxes sufficient to support the services the public expects us to provide in order to ensure 

our continued national security and general welfare. Given projected demographic and 

economic trends, this will require a revenue-to-GDP ratio that is higher than 18.5 percent. Under 
115 


86523.053

the Administration's FY 2013 Budget policies, which I believe to be fiscally responsible, federal 

receipts would rise to 19.2 percent ofGDP by 2017 and to 20.0 percent by 2022. 

Question 59: 

Qn January 31, 2013, it was widely reported that John Engler, president ofthe Business 

Round Table, said that in meetings with business leaders in December 2012, President 

Qbama indicated his support for moving to a territorial tax system. 

Later that day, a spokesman for President Qbama stated that the President does not 

support a move to a pure territorial tax system. 

Furthermore, the President's Framework for Business Tax Reform (February 2012) stated 

that "Although the U.S. tax system is often described as 'worldwide' because it taxes U.S. 

companies on profits earned abroad, opportunities for deferral can make it effectively 

much closer to a territorial system ... for many companies." 

I am unaware of any significant proposals to enact a pure territorial tax regime in the 

United States, so the statement from the President's spokesman perhaps did not clarify 

much. 

a. The Framework almost sounds like the current system is too territorial, and needs 

to be more worldwide than it currently is. Is that the President's position? 

The President's Framework for Business Tax Reform supports a hybrid approach that 

reduces incentives for companies to shift profits and investment to low-tax countries, puts 

the United States on a more level playing field with our international competitors, and 

helps end the global race to the bottom on corporate tax rates-while also making 

American companies more competitive globally. There is considerable debate as to how 

to reform the international tax system, but I believe that there is common ground on this 

subject, including a mutual concern about preserving the U.S. tax base by reducing 

incentives that encourage the shifting of investment and income overseas, and making the 

United States more competitive globally. I look forward to working with the Committee 

on a bipartisan basis to develop approaches to international taxation that will ensure the 

United States will retain and attract high-quality jobs. 

b. Could you please clarify the President's position in this regard? 

Please see my answer to Question 59(a). 

c. The Framework proposed requiring companies to pay a minimum tax on overseas 

profits. Can you provide more details on the proposed minimum tax? Would this 

be a new category of Subpart F income? If such amounts are subsequently 

distributed to the US parent, would section 959 apply so as to exclude those amounts 

from gross income? 
116 


86523.054

Or would section 959 somehow only partially apply? Or would there be a credit 

against the combined total of foreign and US taxes already paid? 

The President's Framework is intended to lay the foundation for a dialogue with 

Congress and stakeholders on tax reform. I believe that there is common ground that 

could advance efforts to reform the current u.s. international tax rules, and if confirmed, 

I would commit to working \\1th Congress and stakeholders to enact tax reform. This 

would necessarily entail a dialogue on the various measures that would best strengthen 

the international tax system in a manner consistent with the principles and goals set forth 

in the Framework. 

d. When can we anticipate a more robust proposal from the President on international 

tax reform? 

The President's Framework is intended to lay the foundation for a dialogue with 

Congress and stakeholders on tax reform. I understand that the Administration has been 

engaged in an ongoing process, consulting with stakeholders, tax policy experts, 

members of Congress, and other policymakers. If confirmed, I would look forward to 

working with you and other Members of Congress on how best to continue laying the 

necessary foundation for reform, and on next steps to enable us to advance the reform 

process. 

Ouestion 60: 

President Obama says he wants permanent extension of the section 41 R&D tax credit. So 

does Chairman Baucus. And so do I. How do you propose we make this a reality? 

The Administration strongly supports the continuation of the Research and Experimentation 

(R&E) credit and has proposed to expand the R&E credit and make it permanent. If confirmed, I 

pledge to work with the Committee to make the R&E credit a permanent and effective incentive 

for research and innovation. 

Question 61: 

At least since 2005, Treasury has every year put on its priority guidance plan to issue 

guidance concerning gross receipts in the context of intra-group transactions. Guidance 

was publicly issued in February 2006. There was a significant court decision in this area: 

Proctor & Gamble v. United States (S.D. Ohio June 25, 2010). But throughout this period, 

the TreasurylIRS Priority Guidance Plan statement on gross receipts guidance remained 

the same. 

Could you assure me that, in an effort to ease administration for all parties concerned, you, 

if you are approved as Secretary of the Treasury, will attempt to clarify this area of the 

law, and that you will report back to me in 2013 as to your clarification? 
117 


86523.055

I am not yet familiar with this issue, but if confirmed, I will support Treasury and the IRS's 

efforts to clarifY this issue as necessary. 

Question 62: 

ASC via amended return: The GAO in 2009 recommended the following: "[TJhe 

Secretary of the Treasury should take the following .•. action[): Modify credit regulations 

to permit taxpayers to elect any of the computational methods prescribed in the IRC in the 

first credit claim that they make for a given tax year, regardless of whether that claim is 

made on an original or amended tax return." Obviously, the Secretary must consider the 

statutory language at section 41(c)(5)(C) and there could be no electing of the traditional 

credit in a later year if ASC had been elected in an earlier year unless that ASC election 

had been "revoked with the consent of the Secretary." Keeping the statutory language in 

mind, as well as section 7S05(b) (to the extent applicable), can you assure me, that if you 

are approved as Secretary of the Treasury, you will consider this GAO recommendation 

seriously and report back to me in 2013? 

The Administration strongly supports the continuation of the R&E credit and has proposed to 

expand the R&E credit and make it permanent. If confirmed, I will consider the GAO's 

recommendation regarding the ASe election as Treasury considers ways to improve the 

effectiveness of the credit. 

Question 63: 

GROWTH Act: Chairman Baucus and I have co-sponsored legislation getting rid of the 

traditional credit and permanently extending the ASC at a 20% rate. If that were enacted, 

would the problems cited at 1,3, and 4 supra go away? 

Currently, a taxpayer must choose between using an outdated formula for calculating the R&E 

credit that provides a 20-percent credit rate for research spending over a certain base amount 

related to the business's historical research intensity and the much simpler Ase that provides a 

14-percent credit in excess of a base amount based on its recent research spending. Increasing 

the rate of the Ase to 17 percent would provide an improved incentive to increase research and 

would make the ASe a more attractive alternative. Because the ASC base is updated annually, 

the ASe more accurately ret1ects the business's recent research experience and simplifies the 

R&E credit's computation. If confirmed, I look forward to working with you to increase the 

Ase and make the entire R&E credit permanent. 

Question 64: 

Allocation of Group Credit Amongst Members of a Controlled Group: The R&D credit is 

calculated on the basis of a controlled group of taxpayers. If one corporation owns more 

than 50 percent of another corporation, those two corporations would be in the same 

controlled group. However, two such corporations would not generally report on the same 

consolidated return unless the one corporation owned SO percent or more of the other 

corporation. So, if two corporations are in the same controlled group, but report on 
118 


86523.056

separate returns, the one group credit must be allocated between the two corporations. 

Treasury Regulation section 1.41-6 provides rules on how to allocate the group credit. 

The President signed ATRA in early January 2013. ATRA overrides the 1.41-6 rules on 

allocation of the group credit. However, I can foresee that there might be taxpayer 

confusion over the proper allocation of the ATRA group credit allocation rules and 

whether there is continuing vitality to the 1.41-6 rules. 

Can you assure me that you will issue guidance in 2013 on the proper allocation of a group 

credit? 

If confirmed, I will inquire about pending guidance reflecting the change made by ATRA to the 

group credit allocation rules, and I will work to ensure that any necessary guidance is issued in a 

timely manner. 

Question 65: 

The Foreign Investment in Real Property Tax Act of 1980 (FIRPTA), imposes a tax on 

foreign persons for their dispositions of interests in United States real property. In your 

view, has FIRPTA actually imposed this tax on foreign persons or has it mainly created 

procedural hoops that foreign persons must navigate to avoid paying this tax? 

I understand that FIRPTA generally subjects foreign investors' gains from the sale of U.S. real 

property to the same net-basis taxation that is imposed on U.S. taxpayers. I have not yet had an 

opportunity to develop a position on the operation of the statute, but, if confirmed, I look forward 

to working with the Committee to create a fair and efficient tax code so that foreign and 

domestic investors in U.S. real property are on a level playing field. 

Question 66: 

The Treasury Department touts non-risk adjusted returns on bailouts made during the 

financial crisis as "significant profits to taxpayers." Meanwhile, the administration 

continues to press for a "financial crisis responsibility fee," which would impose a tax on 

large financial firms which ultimately would get passed on to customers and shareholders 

(including retirees and pension funds), many of whom were not responsible for 

undertaking risks that contributed to the crisis. The President said, back in January of 

2010, that his determination to impose a "responsibility" tax on financial institutions" ... is 

only heightened when I see reports of massive profits and obscene bonuses at the very firms 

who owe their continued existence to the American people ... " 

a. Do you continue to support a financial crisis responsibility tax? 

Yes. The Administration continues to support the Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee and 

believes that it is the best approach to recouping some of the costs imposed on the 

economy by financial firms while, at the same time, discouraging risky behavior. 
119 


86523.057

b. Do you believe that any such tax should apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; to 

Ally Bank; to General Motors; or to money market mutual funds? 

I understand that the fee would not apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which are in 

government conservatorship. Similarly, the fee would not apply to money market mutual 

funds since they are entities that essentially pass all their income through to fund holders. 

In general, the fee would apply to any institutions that qualify as bank holding 

companies, thrift holding companies, certain broker-dealers, companies that control 

certain broker-dealers, and insured depository institutions with assets in excess of $50 

billion. Firms with worldwide-consolidated assets ofless than $50 billion would not be 

subject to the fee for the period when their assets are below this threshold. U.S. 

subsidiaries of foreign firms that fall into these categories and that have U.S. assets in 

excess of $50 billion also would be covered. 

c. Do you believe that the financial crisis responsibility tax would represent a fee (tax) 

on current market participants as punishment (responsibility) for actions of other 

past market participants? 

My understanding is that current companies subject to the fee benefited from government 

actions that stabilized the economy. The companies that would be subject to the fee 

include companies owning or controlling bank holding companies, thrift holding 

companies, certain broker-dealers, and insured depository institutions as of January 14, 

2010. This was done to ensure that financial firms that benefited from the T ARP 

contributed to the financing of the extraordinary efforts to rescue the economy. 

d. Do you believe that a financial crisis responsibility tax should be levied on 

individuals who were executives at large financial institutions at the time the 

financial crisis ensued and carried on, and who received bonuses? 

After consideration of a range of design options for this proposal, the Administration 

determined that the financial institutions that benefitted from the extraordinary assistance 

provided by the Federal government should be subject to this fee. 

Question 67: 

You have identified that there are needs for individual tax reform and corporate tax 

reform, and have stated that" ..• the primary goal in business corporate tax reform is to 

have the tax code be simplified and to be consistent with a more robust investment 

environment, particularly as we are in a competitive environment with other countries. I 

think it can be done in a revenue-neutral way. I don't believe we have the ability to raise 

the revenue that we need to deal with our fiscal problem and have it cost revenue as we go 

through business tax reform." 

a. Do you believe that corporate tax reform ought to be done in a revenue-neutral 

fashion, in the interest of global competitiveness, while individual tax reform, which 
120 


86523.058

would influence taxes paid by flow-through business entities, ought not to be 

revenue neutral? 

I believe that our fiscal choices must be responsible, so that we raise enough in revenues 

to pay for the services the public expects us to provide in order to ensure our continued 

national security and general welfare. We must keep taxes as low as possible, but we 

must also put the federal budget on a sustainable course. A fiscally responsible level of 

revenues - as part of a balanced deficit reduction package that includes significant 

spending cuts - can help stabilize our debt as a share of the economy. 

b. If so, do you believe that corporations require lower tax rates in order to boost their 

competitiveness but the competitiveness of flow-through businesses is either not 

influenced by their tax rates or is less important that corporate competitiveness? 

As a result of a combination of a relatively narrow tax base and a high statutory tax rate, 

the U.S. corporate tax system is not as effective and efficient as it should be. The system 

distorts choices such as where to produce, what to invest in, how to finance a business, 

and what business form to use. And it does too little to encourage job creation and 

investment in the United States while allowing firms to benefit from incentives to locate 

production and shift profits overseas. That is why the President's Framework for 

Business Tax Reform would reform the business tax base to reduce distortions that hurt 

productivity and growth. It would also lower the statutory corporate tax rate to 28 

percent, putting the United States in line with major competitor countries and 

encouraging greater investment in America. 

c. Do you have any concerns with discrepancies between corporate tax rates and tax 

rates applied to flow-through businesses? If so, what are the concerns and how 

would you ease those concerns. If not, why not? 

There are a variety of concerns about differences between the taxation of corporations 

and the taxation oft1ow-through businesses. The relationship between taxes imposed on 

different types of business entities must be considered as part of comprehensive tax 

reform to ensure that the resulting system is as efficient and equitable as possible. If 

confirmed, I would look forward to working with the Committee on this important issue. 

d. The administration has, recently, referred to a small collection of alterations of 

specific, idiosyncratic elements ofthe tax code, such as changes in depreciation rules 

applied to commercial aircraft, as "tax reform." This, to me, represents an exercise 

in creative license with respect to the term "tax reform" and suggests that there may 

be disagreements about what, exactly, different people mean by that term. How 

would you define "tax reform?" 

I think that tax reform is a term that is sufficiently expansive to encompass any number of 

related ideas that have at their core some notion of an improved tax system. Tax changes 

that are properly considered reforms should improve some aspect of the tax system, such 

as efficiency or equity or simplification. 
121 


86523.059

e. Related to part d. above, how would you define a tax "loophole" and please provide 

me with, given your definition, a list ofthe five largest loopholes in the personalincome tax code and a list ofthe five largest loopholes in the corporate-income tax 

code. 

The term "loophole" is a non-technical term that can be used to mean a variety of 

different things. In the strictest sense, a loophole can be seen as a feature of the tax 

system that leads to outcomes that were unanticipated and are contrary to the intent of a 

tax provision. A more commonly used description would cover special tax benefits, 

many of which may be unjustified. 

The President's FY 2013 Budget makes a number of recommendations to tighten up tax 

rules by eliminating what many would call loopholes. 

If confirmed, I look forward to working with the members of the Committee in 

developing a tax system that is simple, fair, and efficient. 

Question 68: 

Do you believe that economic activity is invariant to tax rates on upper-income earners? 

In principle, there is a connection between marginal tax rates and economic activity. However, 

there is substantial evidence suggesting that cuts in top marginal rates at the levels currently in 

effect have only small effects on real activity, and that any such effects are outweighed by the 

costs of the higher deficits associated with these rates. I consider economic growth and 

efficiency, as well as fairness, as important components for the tax code. 

Question 69: 

Your testimony before the Finance Committee identified that "The President says he thinks 

it should be 2:1, spending cuts to revenue." However, the ratio seems to vary over time and 

circumstances. I also believe that you and others have suggested that somewhere around 

$2.5 trillion of deficit reduction has already been put in place, though those numbers also 

vary significantly. 

a. With respect to the administration's views on any potential alteration of the 

upcoming so-called "sequester" spending reductions, does the administration 

believe that there ought to be an alteration such that 100% of the scheduled 

spending reductions are replace with other spending reductions and even more tax 

hikes such that there is a 2:1 spending-cut to revenue-increase ratio? 

The Administration supports a gradual and balanced approach to deficit reduction, 

replacing the sequester with deficit reduction that is supportive of our near-term 

economic recovery and long-term fiscal sustainability. I support the President's longstated approach to reach agreement on further balanced deficit reduction that avoids 
122 


86523.060

sequestratioh. Sequestration is a blunt and indiscriminate approach to spending cuts that 

was never intended to be put into practice. It would have severe impacts across the 

government and impair its ability to provide the services the American people count on. 

b. With respect to deficit and debt reduction, how much deficit and debt reduction has 

taken place to date (i.e., been realized), and how much represents promises of future 

spending reductions intended, but not required, to lead to deficit and debt 

reduction? 

The Administration and Congress have made substantial progress toward reducing the 

deficit over the past two years. As a share of the economy, the deficit has fallen from 

more than 10 percent at the height of the financial crisis to 7 percent in fiscal year 2012. 

Deficit reduction measures in the ATRA will lower the deficit-to-GDP ratio further by 

the end of this year. Looking forward, the President put forward a plan in the FY 2013 

Budget that would bring total deficit reduction over the 10-year budget window to $4 

trillion, stabilizing the debt as a share of the economy before the end of the decade. $2.5 

trillion of this $4 trillion has already been signed into law. 

Question 70: 

Do you support increasing payroll taxes on income of a shareholder who provides 

substantial services to a professional service business organized as S corporations? If so, 

please explain why and, if so, do you believe the increased payroll tax should apply only to 

certain levels of income? If so, do you believe that any increased payroll tax payments 

should be accompanied by increased future benefits from the Social Security system? 

I understand that the Administration has not proposed such a change in any of its annual budgets. 

I have some familiarity with the arguments on both sides of the issue, but have not established a 

specific view. As an increasing number of business organizations, large as well as small, have 

organized themselves as pass-through entities, we need to consider to what extent this change 

might erode the tax base that supports Medicare and Social Security. The issue deserves further 

consideration, and I look forward to working with you and the Committee on any proposals you 

may consider in this area. 

Question 71: 

You have repeatedly identified an ongoing need for federal "investments," which always 

means more federal government spending. You have repeatedly identified an ongoing need 

for "infrastructure" investments, though I am never sure exactly what people mean when 

they say "infrastructure," and definitions can, unfortunately, be wide-ranging, incomplete, 

and inclusive of spending on projects that have questionable financial and social returns. 

Recent proposals for a national infrastructure bank have vaguely defined infrastructure, 

and have included provisions allowing for such a "bank" to alter its definition of 

infrastructure whenever it desires. 
123 


86523.061

As a result, the term infrastructure has virtually no meaning and could include almost 

anything from laying redundant fiber cables in areas not in need of them to turtle tunnels 

surrounding road or bike path construction. When you speak of investments in 

infrastructure, what precisely do you mean and how does your definition exclude things as 

not being infrastructure? 

Infrastructure comprises the facilities needed for the functioning of a community or society, and 

in practice supports the productive function of our economy in a competitive global environment. 

The President is committed to revitalizing America's infrastructure. 

Question 72: 

Some are currently arguing that federal spending reductions scheduled to occur as a result 

of the so-called "sequester" will reduce the gross domestic product (GDP) and jobs in the 

near term; that GDP and jobs would fall by the same amounts if there were alterations to 

the sequester cuts such that there is an equal amount of federal spending reduction, but in 

different activities than those called for in the sequester as it currently stands; but that, 

somehow, negative effects of the sequester on GDP and jobs would be lower if the spending 

cuts called for by the sequester were replaced with a "balanced" (whatever that means) mix 

of tax hikes and other spending reductions. 

a. Do you agree with that argument? 

The Administration supports a gradual and balanced approach to deficit reduction, 

replacing the indiscriminate cuts of the sequester with deficit reduction that is supportive 

of our near-term economic recovery and long-term fiscal sustainability. This requires 

consideration of both the composition and the timing of fiscal consolidation. First, 

spending cuts and revenue increases should be targeted so that they are most supportive 

of economic activity and growth. Second, the timing of fiscal consolidation should not 

impose further immediate and sharp cuts, as fiscal tightening, including that which is 

already occurring, should be phased in over time. 

b. If so, why do you believe that tax hikes and some spending cuts that somehow differ 

from those called for by the Budget Control Act of2011 would somehow attenuate 

negative effects on GDP and jobs? lfyou do have such a belief, please provide 

economic analysis that supports your belief. 

The sharp and indiscriminate spending cuts in the sequestration frontload tiscal 

consolidation. An alternative approach commits to fiscal consolidation at a measured 

pace, achieving the same level of deficit reduction, but doing it in a way that is more 

supportive of economic growth in the near-term. This approach also acknowledges the 

fact that the components of deficit reduction can have different short-term multipliers, 

reflecting their differential impact on the economy, and many investments, such as 

education and infrastructure, have long-run benefits for economic growth. 
124 


86523.062

c. If you have the belief identified in b. and your analytical support relies on 

Keynesian multipliers, please identify whether you are relying on general tax and 

spending multipliers or unreliable and incredible sector-specific multipliers. 

The argument is based on general multipliers used by the CBO and other budget analysts 

and researchers. 

d. If, as in c., you rely on Keynesian multipliers, please explain the mechanism you 

have in mind through which federal spending and/or tax changes lead to changes in 

GDP and employment, such as sticky prices, sticky wages, financial frictions, or 

other such rigidities in markets, and provide any evidence that you have consistent 

with those transmission mechanisms somehow leading to failures of markets to 

clear. 

The general mechanisms underlying new Keynesian macroeconomics are widely 

documented and widely accepted in modern mainstream macroeconomics; these include 

not only economic rigidities and frictions, but also the presence of spillovers, 

externalities, and public goods that may be present in Classical economics. 

Question 73: 

Last May the Social Security Trustees reported that the Social Security Disability Trust 

Fund will be exhausted by 2016. When that happens, disability benefit payments will be 

reduced by 21 % unless Congress acts. SSDI benefits are funded through payroll taxes, as 

are Social Security retirement benefits. Other than raising payroll taxes, or diverting 

payroll taxes from tbe retirement trust fund as Congress did in 1994, what do you 

recommend Congress do to shore up the SSDI trust fund and avoid a 21 % cut in benefit 

payments? 

The projected exhaustion of the Dr Trust Fund requires attention and modernization to ensure 

that the disabled and those who may need the program in the future can continue to count on the 

benefits provided by disability insurance. In order to achieve this goal, the Administration has 

been looking at ways to improve the administration and performance of the program so that it is 

more efficient and better serves the needs of the disabled, now and in the future. If confirmed, I 

would look forward to working with the Committee on these reforms. 

Ouestion 74: 

As a means to cut the deficit, President Obama has called for capping deductions in each of 

his previous budgets, as well as a way to help pay for health care reform. Specifically he 

asked for a 28% cap on all itemized deductions for upper income earners. This would 

include the charitable giving deduction. Now, many reports have come out showing any 

cap, cut, or limit to the charitable deduction would decrease giving. Reports examining a 

28% cap found that it would result in a $5.6 billion decline in charitable giving for one 

year, directly impacting charities on the ground. Furthermore, the Pease limitation on 

itemized is once again included in the tax code. Given this data, will the Administration 
125 


86523.063

call again for 28% cap? If so, what are your estimates of its impact- which ought to be 

even worse now that the difference between the highest rate and 28% has widened? 

I recognize the important role played by our nation's charitable sector. Through our charities, 

millions of Americans join together, contributing funds and volunteer hours, to meet the needs of 

their communities. Charities provide healthcare, social services, and disaster assistance to those 

in need, among other things. They conserve our natural resources and expand the boundaries of 

our knowledge through scientific research. And they enrich our communities through education, 

athletics, and the arts. 

Unlike some other proposals to curb ta'( expenditures, the Administration's previous Budget 

proposal to limit the value of itemized deductions and certain other tax expenditures to 28 

percent would have a modest impact on the incentive to make charitable gifts. This is because 

the tax incentive on the last dollar of giving potentially would be somewhat reduced but not 

eliminated. Moreover, only a small fraction of taxpayers - married couples with incomes in 

excess of $250,000 and single taxpayers with incomes in excess of $200,000 - would be affected 

by the proposal. Charitable giving by non-itemizers and taxpayers with incomes below these 

thresholds - the vast majority of donors would not be affected by the proposal. 

The Administration's FY 2013 Budget proposal to limit the benefit of itemized deductions to 28 

percent is intended to be an even-handed approach covering all itemized deductions and is not 

intended to single out the charitable sector. But the Administration is also looking forward to a 

broader dialogue about tax reform and as part of that discussion would be open to discussing 

alternative ways of treating charitable deductions to ensure that the incentive is cost effective and 

fair. If confirmed, I look forward to working with this Committee to ensure that our tax system 

is fair and efficient, and appropriately supports our charitable sector. 

Question 75: 

Earlier this week the Joint Committee on Taxation released a report saying individuals 

donated almost $218 billion in 2011, a four year high coming out of the Great Recession. 

For 2012, though preliminary, reports have estimated that giving increased to over $230 

billion, more than a 6% increase from 2011. And yet for 2013, the giving is only projected 

to increase 1.6%, a significant decline compared to the strong growth of previous years. In 

light of these numbers, does the Administration plan to propose in its budget another 28% 

cap on the charitable deduction, even though all the data suggests such a cap will lead to a 

decline in giving? 

The Administration's FY 2013 Budget proposal to limit the benefit of itemized deductions to 28 

percent is intended to be an even-handed approach covering all itemized deductions and is not 

intended to single out the charitable sector, which I strongly support. But the Administration is 

also looking forward to a broader dialogue about tax reform and as part of that discussion would 

be open to discussing alternative ways of treating charitable deductions to ensure that the 

incentive is cost effective and fair. The FY 2014 Budget has not yet been released, so I cannot 

speak to what mayor may not be included therein. 
126 


86523.064

Question 76: 

We know that volunteers are often the backbone of charity. In October of 2011 this 

committee held a hearing on the tax treatment of charitable giving, and several of our 

witnesses noted that a decrease in charitable donations would cause a direct cut back in 

volunteers. Specifically, Brian Gallagher, President and CEO of United Way Worldwide 

said "The reason that charitable giving and private sector delivery of service is so efficient 

is that volunteers follow the money, and so you are leveraging somebody's contribution." 

So calling for a cut in the charitable deduction, as the President has done in all his last 

budgets, will drive less giving. But it will drive fewer volunteers. Please comment on the 

negative impact on volunteers ofthe President's 28% proposal? 

The Administration's FY 2013 Budget proposal to limit the benefit of itemized deductions to 28 

percent is intended to be an even-handed approach covering all itemized deductions and is not 

intended to single out the charitable sector, which I strongly support. I understand that the 

Administration's proposal would have only a modest impact on charitable giving. But the 

Administration is also looking forward to a broader dialogue about tax reform and as part of that 

discussion would be open to discussing alternative ways of treating charitable deductions to 

ensure that the incentive is cost effective and fair. I look forward to working with this 

Committee to ensure that our tax system is fair and efficient, and appropriately supports our 

charitable sector. 

Question 77: 

The International Monetary Fund has suggested a globally-coordinated bank tax. 

Actually, the IMF has proposed two bank taxes a so-called Financial Stability 

Contribution, mainly based on a bank's balance sheets, to help pay for the cost of winding 

down troubled financial institutions. The other proposed IMF bank tax would be a 

"Financial Activities Tax", levied on the sum of profits and compensation of financial 

institutions, to help finance the broader costs of a financial crisis. 

A recent UK Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Alistair Darling, welcomed these IMF 

proposals for two international bank taxes. Mr. Darling has gone on to say that a 

unilateral tax, imposed by just one country, "would simply risk being undermined." 

Strong allies and trading partners ofthe US, such as Canada, Australia, Japan, and India 

have expressed significant reservations about the proposed IMF global bank tax. 

a. Do you support either of the IMF's suggestions for a global bank tax? 

It is my understanding that in 20 I 0, at the request of the 0-20 Leaders, the IMF issued a 

report on how the financial sector could make a fair and substantial contribution to 

meeting the costs associated with government interventions in the crisis. The IMF 

analyzed three options: a financial stability contribution, a financial acti vities tax, and a 

financial transaction tax. The IMF concluded that the latter tax was inefficient, 

vulnerable to evasion, and likely to fall on retail investors. For those reasons, the IMF 
127 


86523.065

only recommended the first two options for those countries that were contemplating fees 

on their banks. 

The IMF's proposal for financial stability contribution is similar to President Obama's 

proposed Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee. The Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee 

imposes a modest fee on the riskiest parts of the balance sheets of financial institutions 

with assets over $50 billion so that taxpayers are not on the hook for excessive risk taking 

by the largest financial institutions. 

b. Was the Chancellor of the Exchequer correct that a unilateral tax, imposed by just 

one country, "would simply risk being undermined"? 

I am not familiar with Mr. Darling's remarks. In January 2011, the UK instituted a 

financial fee on the balance sheets of financial institutions, which remains in place. 

c. At the margin, would a US-specific bank tax drive financial institutions to countries 

without a bank tax? Why or why not? 

My understanding is that the Treasury believes that the Administration's proposed 

Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee is a smarter proposal than a financial transactions tax 

because the fee is levied on the riskiest assets of the largest firms, so it is unlikely to 

create incentives to move activities offshore. To the extent it changes incentives, it 

would likely discourage excessive risk taking by the largest institutions and push 

activities to institutions below $50 billion in size on the margins. 

d. Let us suppose for a moment, even though this is unlikely, that all G20 countries 

agreed to impose a global bank tax, along the lines of what the IMF has proposed. 

However, let us suppose that Hong Kong, one of the world's leading banking and 

financial centers, refused to impose a bank tax. Would this drive tremendous 

amounts of banking from the G20 countries to Hong Kong? 

As noted above, a fee imposed on the riskiest assets of the largest firms would most 

likely change incentives in favor of less risky assets and smaller institutions within each 

jurisdiction rather than drive transactions offshore. 

e. How should the US respond to the concerns of Canada, Australia, Japan, and India 

about the proposed IMF global bank tax? 

It is my understanding that the G-20 Leaders agreed at the Toronto Summit in June 2010 

that individual countries should make the determination whether they would impose any 

fees or taxes on their financial sectors. The Administration has consistently opposed a 

financial transactions tax on the grounds that it would be vulnerable to evasion, create 

incentives for financial reengineering, and burden retail investors. 
128 


86523.066

Question 7S: 

Mr. Lew, President Qbama talks frequently about 'closing loopholes' to raise revenue. 

am concerned that it sounds like the administration's definition of a loophole may be 

different from how the term is generally understood. I think of a tax loophole as the use of 

a tax provision in a way not intended by Congress when enacted. How do you define the 

term 'loophole'? Do you have general criteria for determining what a loophole is or does 

your definition depend solely on who or what industry is utilizing a given tax provision? 

The term "loophole" is a non-technical term that is used to mean a variety of different things, 

depending on the context. In the strictest sense, a loophole is a feature of the tax system that 

leads to outcomes that were unanticipated and are contrary to the intent of a tax provision. A 

more commonly used description would cover special tax benefits, many of which may be 

unjustified. 

While the term "loophole" is subject to various definitions, what really matters in considering tax 

reform is identifying features of the tax system that promote or hinder its operation - provisions 

that make the tax system more or less efficient, fair, simple, and so forth. I look forward to 

working with you and the Committee on tax reform that will make the tax code simpler, fairer, 

and more efficient. 

Question79: 

Carbon Tax - In President Qbama's inaugural address he pledged to address climate 

change in his second term. A carbon tax is one of the options that President Obama could 

pursue. Given the enormous tax increase that would result from a carbon tax, how would 

you advise the president to use carbon tax revenues? What would your highest priorities 

be? 

The Administration has not proposed a carbon tax, nor is it planning to do so. 

Question SO: 

Prior to enactment ofthe fiscal c1itTtax legislation (ATRA) maximum marginal income tax 

rates for both C corporations and individuals were the same (35%). Under current law 

business activities conducted by individuals or flow-through entities taxed to individuals 

are now taxed at a higher maximum marginal rate (39.6%) than business activities 

conducted by C corporations (35%). The tax provisions implemented under the 

Affordable Care Act add an additional 3.S% tax burden on business activities taxed to 

individuals in many cases as well. This wedge could grow even larger as the United States 

now has the highest corporate income tax rate of any QECD country and there is 

bipartisan agreement that corporate tax rates should be reduced as part of any meaningful 

tax reform. Is it good tax policy to have substantially higher tax rates apply to business 

activities conducted by individuals or flow-through entities taxed to individuals? 

Setting appropriate tax policy involves tradeoffs. Tax rates should be as low as possible 

consistent with the need to pay for the goods and services expected by the public and necessary 

to provide for our common defense and general welfare. It seems appropriate that our most 
129 


86523.067

affluent families should shoulder a reasonable share ofthe burden of keeping our fiscal house in 

order, and that is what underlies the Administration's support ofthe individual income tax 

increases that you identifY. 

In undertaking comprehensive tax reform, the relationship between individual and corporate 

income tax rates is an important consideration, and I look forward to working with you and the 

Committee on these issues. 

Question 81: 

Differential tax rates on various types of income account for much of the complexity in our 

present tax system. Is it good policy to have differential tax rates apply to various types of 

income such as income from lahor, capital gains and dividends? 

There are some good reasons to tax different income items differently. For example, because 

capital gains are taxed at realization rather than as they accrue, investors might hold on to less 

productive assets for longer than they should. Taxing capital gains at lower rates may reduce 

this lock-in effect. Similarly, capital gains on assets held over a long period oftime may retlect a 

substantial inflation component. This is another rationale used to support a preferential tax rate 

on capital gains income. On the other hand, differential treatments sometimes create complexity 

and incentives to mischaracterize the form of income - such as the incentive to mischaracterize 

labor income as capital income in the form of carried interest. We have to consider the costs and 

benefits of setting different rates. If confirmed, I look forward to working with this Committee 

to strike this balance and improve the efficiency, equity, and simplicity of our tax code. 

Question 82: 

Much of the complexity in our current income tax system is derived from the fact that we 

use it as a platform to encourage a variety of economic behaviors with puhlic policy goals 

related to health care, retirement, housing and education to name a few. Please identify the 

provisions that you feel are the hest examples of using the tax system effectively and 

efficiently to achieve desirahle public policy goals. In addition, please identify those tax 

provisions that you feel have failed to achieve desirable public policy goals. In each case 

explain why. 

We should never lose sight of the fact that the primary purpose of the tax system is to raise 

revenue to fund needed government programs. However, our tax system can be a mechanism for 

meeting other policy goals. The earned income tax credit is one example of a provision that is 

widely regarded as a success in terms of encouraging work and lifting families and children out 

of poverty. The credit, which was proposed by President Nixon and added to the Tax Code in 

1975, has enjoyed bipartisan support over the years. It was made permanent in 1978 and 

significantly expanded during the 1986 tax reforms, which indexed the credit for intlation and 

expanded eligibility. There are other well-intended provisions in the tax code that have been less 

successful in achieving policy goals, or are aimed at goals that could be better achieved through 

direct spending outside of the tax code. If confirmed, I look forward to working with this 

Committee to identify and improve or eliminate these provisions, and to strike the right balance 
130 


86523.068

between raising revenue and meeting other policy goals as efficiently, fairly, and simply as 

possible. 

Question 83: 

The Congressional Budget Office has recently estimated (Feb., 2013) that total federal tax 

receipts will reach 19.1 % ofGDP by fiscal year 2015 and spending will fall to 21.6% of 

GDP. Over the past 40 years average tax receipts as a percentage of GDP have been 17.9% 

while spending has averaged 21 %. Last year Warren Buffet stated that raising 18.5% of 

GDP in tax revenues and spending 21 % was a sustainable long~term pattern. What do you 

think are appropriate and sustainable long-term levels oftax revenue and spending relative 

to GDP? 

While historical averages are a useful benchmark, it is important to bear in mind that we face 

very different circumstances now than in previous decades. For example, the demographic 

profile of our population is changing. Baby boomers are retiring. An increasingly larger share 

of our population is becoming eligible for Social Security and Medicare. These demographic 

changes raise the share of spending in GDP needed to support the commitments already made to 

our seniors. If confirmed, I look forward to continuing to work with Congress to bring down 

deficits through a balanced combination of spending cuts and revenue increases in a manner that 

allows America's seniors to retire with dignity. 

As noted above, benchmarks for fiscal sustainability include a stable debt-to-GDP ratio, which 

assure that the gap between spending and revenue is reduced to stabilize the debt as a share of 

the economy. 

Question 84: 

As you know the District Court recently ruled (Loving, No. 12-385 (D.D.C. 1118/13» that 

the IRS does not have the statutory authority to regulate tax return preparers it presumed 

it had when it imposed registration (PTIN) and competency standards. What level of 

federal regulation is appropriate and necessary for tax return preparers? If Loving is 

upheld on appeal should Congress pass legislation that gives the IRS specific authority to 

regulate tax return preparers? 

I have not had an opportunity to fully develop a policy position on the IRS's return preparer 

program. If confirmed, I look forward to working with you and the Committee in considering 

whether additional legislation is necessary. 

Question 85: 

As you know Douglas Shulman recently completed his term as IRS Commissioner. What 

do you think are the greatest challenges that the new IRS Commissioner will face? What 

aspects of tax administration do you think are most important for the new Commissioner 

to focus attention and resources on? 
131 


86523.069

The IRS, like other agencies, is facing a number of challenges made all the more complicated by 

the current budget environment. Obtaining sufficient resources to maintain robust service and 

enforcement programs is certainly one of the greatest challenges facing the IRS today. In 

addition, over the past few years, the IRS has seen a significant increase in refund fraud schemes, 

particularly those involving identity theft. Ensuring adequate information technology 

capabilities is another major challenge for the IRS. 

Question 86: 

Your employment agreement with the Citigroup Glohal Wealth Management (GWM) 

husiness has a provision stating: 

Treatment of Equity Compensation Upon Separation: 

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary (whether in this agreement or otherwise), if you 

terminate your employment on or after January 1,2008, as a result of your acceptance of a 

full-time /righ level position with the United States government or regulatory body, all of 

your outstanding equity awards (basic shares, premium and supplemental shares) 

(including your sign-on restricted stock award, or any cash award in lieu thereof, and the 

stock portion of any incentive and retention awards) will immediately vest, or, at GWM's 

sole discretion, GWM shall promptly pay you the cash equivalent of any forfeited shares 

measured as of the date of termination. 

a. Why didn't Citi provide such acceleration of vesting if you had left Citi to work for 

a charity? 

h. Why didn't Citi provide such acceleration of vesting if you had left Citi to work in 

the private sector not in competition with Citi? 

c. Why didn't Citi provide such acceleration of vesting if you had left Citi to retire? 

d. Do you believe Citi was pleased to have one of their senior employees accept a fulltime high level position with the United States government? 

e. Does Citi have any current dealings with employees of the United States 

government, and in particular in the Treasury Department? 

f. Could there be any potential advantage to Citi in having one of its recent former 

employees be in a full-time high level position with the United States government? 

g. How was the determination made that a position with the United States government 

was sufficiently "high level" that this henefits vesting acceleration clause was 

triggered? Who made that determination? What were hislher criteria? 

Given my long history of public service, and interest in potentially returning to it, I sought this 

provision. I believe Citigroup agreed to include it, because such an agreement was consistent 
132 


86523.070

with Citigroup's goal of using deferred compensation, such as the vesting of stock compensation 

over time, to discourage employees from leaving and joining competitors. I did not have a 

similar personal history with private sector non-competitors or with charities, and I had no plans 

to retire at the time. When I left Citigroup, there was general agreement that my departure to 

become Deputy Secretary of State satisfied the provision. 

In regard to your other questions, I have no knowledge of Citigroup current business dealings. 

have always complied with government ethics rules and have always followed the guidance of 

ethics officials. If confirmed, I would continue to do so. 

Question 87: 

You identified in your testimony, with respect to your roles in Citigroup's Global Wealth 

Management and Citigroup Alternative Investments units, that you were not in the 

business of making investment decisions, but were" ... certainly aware of things that were 

going on ... " and that you" ... take away from that experience a deep understanding that 

there are risks that we need to be very much on guard against ... " and I would be delighted 

to discuss those policy considerations as we go forward. You also identified that you were 

" ... aware that there were funds that were in trouble." 

a. Please identify any specific risk-taking activities of the Global Wealth Management 

and Citigroup Alternative Investments units that provided you with understanding 

of risks that we need to guard against. 

b. Did you have knowledge of allegations surrounding Citigroup's Class V Funding 

Collateralized Debt Obligation, or the ASTA, MAT, or Falcon funds and did you 

participate in any discussions or correspondence about those allegations? If so, 

please provide details. 

c. While managing with an objective of provide efficiencies at the Citigroup units that 

you oversaw, were any services of Citigroup Global Services utilized? 

In my testimony, I was referring to the general factors that contributed to the 2008 financial 

crisis, including the emergence and rapid growth of institutions and financial activities outside 

the scope of classic banking regulation (commonly referred to as the "shadow banking" system); 

a dramatic and widespread increase in leverage and risk; increased reliance on short-term 

funding sources (such as the repurchase or "repo" market); fundamental breakdowns in risk 

management practices across the financial sector; increased complexity and lack of transparency 

regarding the over-the counter derivatives markets; and, an outdated and inadequate regulatory 

structure, with weak or nonexistent capital requirements. As I testified, it has been quite a 

number of years, and I do not recall the specific Citigroup financial products, or investment 

funds referenced in your question. 
133 


86523.071

Question 88: 

At least one of your employment agreements with Citigroup included a clause stating that 

"your guaranteed incentive and retention award" would not be paid upon exit from 

Citigroup, but there was an exception that you would receive that compensation "as a 

result of your acceptance of a full-time high level position with the United States 

government or regulatory body .•. " Please explain this exception in your employment 

agreement and whether you are aware if such an exception is provided in agreements of 

executives at the time you were at Citigroup who were similarly situated relative to the 

position for which you were accepting. 

The provision referenced in your question states that certain guaranteed awards would not be 

paid in left Citigroup before the end of2007. As your question also notes, there was a limited 

exception to that provision. I did not leave Citigroup, however, until 2009. Accordingly, neither 

the provision nor the exception was triggered. I am not familiar with the employment 

agreements of other Citigroup employees. 

Question 89: 

Mr. Lew, we've heard that you had not heard of the Ugland House until last week, though 

for many years you were a limited partner in a hedge fund that was domiciled there. This 

is especially interesting given that the Ugland House has become a symbol to many of my 

colleagues for many bad tbings that need to be stopped. The specific nature of the activity 

differs from speech to speech, but any casual observer of Congress could not fail to believe 

that very bad things happen at the Ugland House based on statements made by my 

colleagues. Based on a search of the Congressional Record for the past 4 years, or last two 

Congresses before the current Congress, the Ugland House was mentioned at least 44 times 

on the Senate floor, and many of those times by the then Chairman of the Budget 

Committee. 

In a speech given last year on September 20, the former Budget Chairman gave a speech 

where he literally said that Congressman Paul Ryan's budget was a monstrosity. One of 

the reasons that budget was a monstrosity was "they refuse to do anything to close the tax 

loopholes that are allowing certain wealthy people to avoid paying taxes in this country 

entirely. I have shown on the floor of the Senate many times a picture of a five-story 

building in the Cayman Islands called the Ugland House." In the same speech the Budget 

Chairman claimed that "the Ryan budget fails the moral test. 

Mr. Lew, I am interested in your point of view on this since in your two tenures as Director 

of OMB you have put together multiple budgets. 

The former Chairman of the Budget Committee used very strong language in discussing 

the Ugland House and the activities attributed to it. Many others have lIsed similar 

language too. How do you respond to that rhetoric, in general and specifically regarding 

your own investment headquartered at the Ugland House? 

In regard to my investment, I made it because I wanted to diversifY my portfolio, invest in 

international companies, and modestly increase the risk of my holdings, which always have been 
134 


86523.072

very conservative. I did not consider tax issues or where the fund was located. I invested 

$56,000. I got back $54,418. During the course of the investment, I reported all income and 

expenses on my tax returns, and I paid all taxes that were due. Also, I have been fully 

transparent about the investment. I disclosed it to the three Senate Committees that considered 

my previous nominations during this Administration-as well as to the Office of Goverrunent 

Ethics and to ethics officials at the State Department and OMB. I have responded to every 

question from this Committee. 

In regard to the broader issue of offshore tax evasion, my guiding principle would be, if 

confirmed, that all U.S. taxes should be paid, regardless of the form ofa particular investment or 

its location. In other words, no taxpayer should be allowed to hide income outside of the United 

States, in an offshore tax haven, to avoid paying the appropriate U.S. taxes. 

Question 90: 

Mr. Lew, this hearing has shown light on a disparity. The disparity is between your 

Cayman Islands investment and the rhetoric from the President and my friends on the 

Democratic side regarding Cayman Islands investments. 

Should it be a concern to US tax policymakers that many US taxpayers, did, as you did, 

and invested in a business organized in the Cayman Islands? That is, should we care that 

there may be an attractiveness to investments subjected to a low rate oftax in a foreign 

jurisdiction? 

Put another way, isn't the answer really to look deeper and make US investments more 

attractive with fundamental tax reform? Wouldn't our preference be to make US 

businesses more attractive for US investors and foreign investors? 

In regard to the issue of offshore tax evasion, please see my answer to Question 89. In regard to 

fundamental tax reform, I support reforming the tax system so American businesses can thrive 

and compete. As I testified at my confirmation hearing, I think tax reform is an extremely 

important priority, and, if confirmed, I would look forward to working with the Committee on a 

bipartisan basis to help make it happen. 

Question 91: 

Prior to investing in the Citigroup Venture Capital International (CVCI) private equity 

fund, did you analyze the investments made by the fund when and before you invested? 

I believe I invested at the time the fund was created (or shortly thereafter), so there were no 

individual investments to analyze. Instead,1 invested based on the fund's international 

investment strategy. I believe the fund ultimately invested in a mix of foreign corporations 

located around the world-in places like India, Bulgaria, Lithuania, and Chile-that were 

engaged in a wide range of businesses, from pharmaceuticals to power generation to vegetable 

oil. 
135 


86523.073

Question 92: 

Is OMB Memorandum 99-13 (March 30,1999, signed by OMB Director Jacob J. Lew) still 

relevant guidance for the heads of departments, agencies, and independent establishments 

to consult in seeking to comply with the Congressional Review Act (CRA, 5 USC Chapter 

8)? Has Memorandum 99-13 been superseded or cancelled? 

I understand that OMB Memorandum 99-13 is still relevant guidance and has not been 

superseded or cancelled. 

Question 93: 

Who is the Treasury Department's "Desk Officer in OMB's Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs (OIRA)"? Is the Desk Officer for the Treasury Department the same as 

the Desk Officer for the IRS? 

The Office ofInformation and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) assigns career policy analysts, or 

"desk officers," to handle the review of regulations promulgated by agencies across the federal 

government, one of whom handles the Department of the Treasury and its bureaus. 

Question 94: 

What is the "established practice" for the Treasury Department and for the IRS to comply 

with the Congressional Review Act? 

I am not sure precisely what you are asking, but I assume you are referring to Memorandum 99-

13, referenced in question 92. Different agencies have different practices in regard to submitting 

rules for OIRA review, and I have not had an opportunity to review Treasury's process in detail. 

Nonetheless, I understand that Treasury prepares a Notice of Planned Regulatory Action for 

every proposed and final Treasury rule published in the Federal Register. The memorandum 

contains basic information, such as the title of the rule, planned publication date, and a brief 

description that includes information designed to help OlRA determine the status of the 

rulemaking under the Congressional Review Act. Treasury generally submits the memorandum 

to OlRA by email. 

Question 95: 

Mark Mazur (now the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Tax Policy) has informed the 

Committee that "Pursuant to a longstanding agreement between the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) and Treasury, Treasury is responsible for alerting OMB to any ruling 

document that reasonably could be expected to have a significant economic impact, which 

also would enable OMB to determine whether the ruling document is 'major' within the 

meaning of the CRA." 

a. When did this "longstanding agreement" originate? 
136 


86523.074

b. Were you a director of OMB at the time this longstanding agreement originated? 

c. Is this "longstanding agreement" in writing? If yes, then please send a copy of it to 

the Committee. If no, then please reduce the agreement to writing and send it to the 

Committee. 

d. Please send the Committee a list of all instances of the Treasury since March 29, 

1996 alerting OMB to any ruling document that reasonably could be expected to 

have a significant economic impact. 

e. How does the Treasury make a determination whether a rule is subject to E.O. 

12866 review? 

OMB designates and reviews "significant regulatory actions" as that term is defined in section 

3(f) of Executive Order 12866. These include rules with an annual economic impact greater than 

$100 million, rules that raise novel legal and policy issues, rules that interfere with the actions of 

other agencies, and rules that materially impact the budgets of certain agency programs. For any 

rule that is covered by E.O. 12866 and reaches the $100 million threshold, which is commonly 

known as "economically significant" regulatory action, Treasury analyzes the costs and benefits 

of the proposed rule and its alternatives, consistent with OMB Circular A-4. For rules that do 

not reach the economic threshold. but that are designated by OMB as significant regulatory 

actions, Treasury adheres to the principles set forth in Executive Orders 12866 and 13563. 

In regard to the IRS, I understand that pursuant to OMB guidance implementing E.O. 12866, and 

longstanding agreements between OMB and Treasury, only IRS legislative ruIes that constitute 

"significant regulatory actions" are subject to E.O. 12866 review. I further understand that 

Treasury is responsible for alerting OMB to any ruIing document that reasonably could be 

expected to meet the definition of a significant or economically significant regulatory action 

under Executive Order 12866, or otherwise have a significant economic impact, which also 

would enable OMB to determine whether the ruling document is "major" within the meaning of 

the CRA. I understand that this longstanding agreement originated during the Reagan 

Administration. During my service as Director of OMB, I do not recall revisiting the agreement 

or studying the issue in detail. 

Ouestion 96: 

Mark Mazur has informed the Committee that "there may be instances where the effects 

on the economy derive from the regulation itself [rather than from the statute]." 

a. Please list those Treasury regulations promulgated since March 29, 1996 where the 

effects on the economy derive from the regulation itself. 

h. Do you helieve it is generally easy to tell whether a given regulation is the only 

permissible interpretation ofthe statute? 

• If yes, then presumably answering 5.a) above should be easy. 
137 


86523.075

• If no, then do you think the default assumption should be when performing a 

CRA analysis is that the effects on the economy derive from the taxpayer 

obligations imposed by the regulation? 

I have not had an opportunity to study this issue in detail. If confirmed, I would be happy to 

discuss the issue further with the Committee. 

Question 97: 

a. Do you agree that before a Treasury rule takes effect, the Treasury Department 

must submit to Congress a report, which among other things must state whether the 

rule is a major or non-major rule? 

b. Do you agree that only the Administrator of the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget may make a finding 

that a rule is a major rule within the meaning of 5 USC section 804(2)? 

c. Assume that Treasury Rule X would have an effect on the economy of $100 million 

or more. Also assume that the Treasury Department never submits Rule X to OIRA 

for review. 

i. Would Rule X be a major or non-major rule? 

ii. Would the Treasury Department be complying with both the letter and the 

spirit of the CRA by reporting to Congress that Rule X is non-major? 

iii. If you were the Secretary of the Treasury and this situation arose, would you 

tell Congress that Rule X was non-major? 

The Congressional Review Act ("CRA") states that, "[b]efore a rule can take effect, the Federal 

agency promulgating such rule shall submit to each House of the Congress and to the 

Comptroller General a report containing ... a concise general statement relating to the rule, 

including whether it is a major rule." The CRA further defines the term "major rule" to mean 

any rule that the Administrator ofthe Office ofInformation and Regulatory Affairs finds has 

resulted (or is likely to result) in one of three specified criteria being satisfied. I do not believe it 

would be appropriate to speculate about hypothetical situations. If confirmed, I would comply 

with the CRA. 

Question 98: 

You wrote: "OIRA's centralized review process enables a president to co-ordinate a 

government-wide regulatory policy and receive a relatively dispassionate and analytical 

'second opinion' on the output of Executive Branch agencies operating in his name." 
138 


86523.076

Do you believe OIRA's centralized review process includes review of Treasury tax 

regulations? Should it so include? 

I generally support the centralized review of Executive Branch regulations by the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). I understand that Treasury notifies OIRA regarding 

every proposed and final Treasury rule published in the Federal Register. I also understand, 

however, that pursuant to longstanding practice across several Administrations, IRS rules 

generally are not subject to E.O. 12866 review. During my service as Director ofOMB, I do not 

recall revisiting the agreement or studying the issue in detail. If confirmed, I would be happy to 

discuss the issue further with the Committee. 

Ouestion 99: 

You wrote: "[TJhose who have studied the issue from the perspective of the president, 

including liberal and conservative Democrats, have uniformly concluded that the president 

must have a centralized mechanism to review regulations as an important tool to 

implement policy." 

Must this centralized mechanism also review Treasury regulations, including tax 

regulations? Please explain your answer. 

Please see my answer to Question 98. 

Ouestion 100: 

You wrote: "It is important that the new president reaffirm the legitimacy and importance 

of centralized review ... " 

Do you think it is important that the new Treasury Secretary reaffirm the legitimacy and 

importance of centralized review? 

Please see my answer to Question 98. 

Ouestion 101: 

Will you here reaffirm the legitimacy and importance of centralized review by assuring the 

Committee that TreasuryllRS will submit all new tax regulations to OIRA for centralized 

review? 

Please see my answer to Question 98. 

Question 102: 

Title I of the Dodd-Frank Act established the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) 

which is supposed to be a watchdog over possible threats to stability ofthe financial 

system-also known as "systemic risk." Please provide me with your definition of 
139 


86523.077

"systemic risk" and identify specific metrics you would use to determine whether, when, 

and where there might exist systemic risks and threats to financial stability. Please, 

also, give me your views about possible current risks to financial system stability from: 

a. The tri-party repo market; 

b. Money market mutual funds; 

c. The Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs), Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; 

d. Competitive currency devaluations and any roles played by China's managed peg 

and by outsized quantitative easing policies pursued by the Bank of Japan and by 

the Federal Reserve; 

e. Federal Reserve quantitative easing; 

f. The "fairly significant pattern of reaching-for-yield behavior emerging in corporate 

credit" as explained in Fed Governor Jeremy C. Stein's February 7, 2013 speech at 

a symposium sponsored by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; 

g. Federal debt. 

The Dodd-Frank Act frames systemic risk in terms of threats to the stability of the U.S. financial 

system. Congress created the FSOC to identifY risks to U.S. financial stability, promote market 

discipline, and respond to emerging threats to the stability ofthe U.S. financial system. The 

Dodd-Frank Act lists a number of non-exclusive factors that the Council must consider before 

determining that a nonbank financial company could pose a threat to U.S. financial stability and 

should be designated for Federal Reserve supervision and enhanced prudential standards. I 

would expect to focus on these types of risks in assessing threats to financial stability. 

The Council's 2012 annual report highlights many of the risks noted in your question, including 

risks associated with the tri-party repo market, money market mutual funds, housing finance, the 

low interest rate environment, and the federal debt. If confirmed, I look forward to working with 

the Congress on these and other important issues. 

Question 103: 

Of the options for money market mutual fund reform options considered by the FSOC, are 

there particular reforms that you favor. 

The financial crisis demonstrated that MMFs are susceptible to runs and can be a source of 

financial instability with serious implications for broader financial markets and the economy. 

While MMFs are more resilient today, more reform is needed to protect investors and improve 

the stability of the industry. I do not want to prejudge the outcome of the comment process on 

the FSOC recommendations. If confirmed, I look forward to learning more about the comments 

that FSOC received on these recommendations and engaging with FSOC members. 
140 


86523.078

Question 104: 

What do you feel should be done, if anything, to reform activities in the tri-party repo 

market? 

I have not yet had an opportunity to study this issue in detail. However, my understanding is that 

the Treasury believes that the tri-party repo market remains a major area of concern. The 

Financial Stability Oversight Council's last two annual reports have stressed needed reforms to 

this market, particularly the elimination of most intraday credit exposure between the clearing 

banks and dealers. Without addressing this and other structural weaknesses in this market, the 

tri-party repo market is vulnerable to fire-sale conditions, as we witnessed in the financial crisis. 

The Federal Reserve Bank of New York is spearheading efforts to get the industry to implement 

necessary reforms in a timely fashion and is coordinating directly with regulators and through the 

FSOC. If confirmed, I would look forward to working with the Council to continue its work on 

this important issue. 

Question 105: 

Which reform option, if any. from those laid out by Treasury in February 2011 is closest to 

the reforms you would support for the GSEs, Fannie and Freddie? 

The Administration is committed to a sustainable housing finance system that does not allow the 

GSEs to return to their previous form, where private gains were allowed at the expense of 

taxpayer losses. Any future system must also protect taxpayers and financial stability, promote 

private capital taking on more mortgage credit risk in a responsible way, and meet the needs of 

our nation's rental population. At the same time, we must preserve access to credit for American 

families, including long-term fixed rate mortgages, and better target governnlent support for lowand moderate-income Americans, including the development of affordable rental options. Our 

housing finance system must also include stronger and clearer consumer protections and must 

establish a level playing field for all participating institutions. 

Question 106: 

If confirmed as Treasury Secretary, when would you begin to actively pursue reforms to 

the GSEs, Fannie and Freddie and when would you expect to have arrived at your most 

preferred reform? 

It is critically important that we move allead with reforming the housing finance market and 

winding down Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Creating a more stable and sustainable housing 

finance market is an important priority of this Administration, and, if confirmed, I would look 

forward to working on this issue with Congress. 

Question 107: 

While the Federal Reserve (Fed) has been buying tens of billions of long-term Treasuries 

every month to push their rates down, Treasury has been busy lengthening the average 
141 


86523.079

maturity of federal debt. According to Fed Chairman Bernanke, such action by Treasury 

offsets some of the benefits of the Fed's policies. If you believe the Fed's story line, then you 

could conclude that Treasury is acting against Fed policy, which means Treasury is acting 

against a job-creation policy which it could reinforce, instead, if it wanted. Or, you may 

conclude that Treasury just takes the Fed's policies as given and wants to borrow more to 

capitalize on the low long-term rates that Fed policy artificially creates, and that job 

creation isn't a mandate of Treasury, so jobs are not the goal of Treasury and its debt 

management policy. 

a. The Fed's policy of buying up tens of billions of long-term Treasuries each month, 

and prior quantitative easing measures, including the so-called "operation twist," to 

push long-term interest rates down is a purported effort to ultimately help job 

creation. Do you agree that the Fed's quantitative easing strategy of attempting to 

lower longer-term interest rates has led to and will lead to job creation relative to a 

setting in which there was no quantitative easing in place? 

The Treasury and the Federal Reserve are separate entities with different mandates. 

Treasury is focused on financing the government at the lowest cost over time and does 

not coordinate its borrowing strategy with the Federal Reserve's monetary policy actions. 

Treasury has had a long-standing policy through Administrations of both parties to 

refrain from commenting on independent monetary policy decisions by the Federal 

Reserve. 

b. Do you believe that lower longer-term interest rates, including rates on longer-Term 

Treasury securities, can help boost economic activity, including job creation? If so, 

why or why not? 

Lower longer-term interest rates, including rates on longer-tenn Treasuries, can 

potentially help support economic growth and job creation through several channels. For 

example, a key way this is done is by lowering the cost that homeowners must pay on 

their mortgages. As families are able to refinance their mortgages at lower interest rates, 

they will be able to keep more of their hard-earned money, which supports consumer 

spending, saving, investment, and job creation. 

e. Do you agree with Fed Chairman Bernanke the Treasury's strategy of lengthening 

the average maturity of outstanding federal debt is "an issue" and offsets some of 

the benefits of the Fed's policies? 

Treasury and the Federal Reserve are separate entities with different mandates. 

Treasury's goal is to finance the government at the lowest cost over time, while the 

Federal Reserve attempts to maintain price stability and maximum employment. Given 

the low level of interest rates at present, it does not appear that Treasury's borrowing 

activity is putting upward pressure on interest rates. 
142 


86523.080

Question 108: 

Do you advocate issuance of Treasury securities at negative yields? If so, how soon would 

you, if confirmed as Treasury Secretary, move to provide such issuance? 

My understanding is that last year, Treasury announced that it was in the process of building the 

operational capability to allow negative rate bidding in Treasury bill auctions. Negative yields 

on Treasury securities are something for which many market participants had never planned. In 

my view, any decision to allow Treasury securities to be issued at negative yields would have to 

be predicated on the market's ability to purchase and trade these securities in an orderly and 

efficient manner. If confirmed, I would be prepared to assess the need to issue Treasury 

securities at negative rates if market conditions warrant. 

Question 109: 

Do you advocate issuance of "floating rate notes" by Treasury? If so, how soon would you, 

if confirmed as Treasury Secretary, move to provide such issuance and what reference rate 

would you advocate using? Please, also, discuss what you feel are risks and potential 

benefits to Treasury issuance of floating rate notes. 

In August 2012, Treasury announced plans to develop a floating rate note (FRN) program to 

complement its existing suite of securities and to help achieve its objective of financing the 

government at the lowest cost over time. I believe it is prudent for Treasury to evaluate the tools 

that it has to achieve those goals. CUiTently, many market participants are searching for a short 

duration, stable-value product and floating rate notes would meet this demand and allow 

Treasury to further extend the weighted average maturity of its portfolio. As I understand it, 

Treasury is developing the optimal issuance structure for FRNs, has not reached a final decision 

regarding a reference rate, and currently estimates the first FRN auction to be about a year away. 

Question 110: 

Concern has been expressed about the impact of the Dodd-Frank and the Basel III reforms 

on bank capital on the financial system and our economy broadly. I am concerned that 

failure to consider and balance the combined impact of all of the regulatory changes will 

have real consequences on our economy beyond just the obvious constraints on bank 

lending and the availability of credit. 

a. Do you share these concerns? 

b. Given the magnitude of all these rules and their impacts on lenders and investors of 

all sizes, do you believe that it will be prudent for the FSOC to examine the 

cumulative impact of ALL these reforms, and report to Congress on what this 

means for credit availability and economic growth? 

I think we need to be attentive to the benefits and burdens of all regulations, particularly in an 

area as important to the economy as financial services. For example, the crisis revealed that 
143 


86523.081

banking institutions need more and better capital to help reduce the probability of a future 

financial crisis. It is important that Treasury continues its dialogue with the banking regulators 

as they work towards implementing Basel III capital standards and the Dodd-Frank Act, 

recognizing that we need strong standards that reflect lessons learned from the financial crisis 

while avoiding the imposition of undue costs. If confirmed, I would continue the important work 

of coordinating closely with the regulatory agencies, including Treasury's engagement with the 

banking regulators and the FSOC's efforts to facilitate information sharing and coordination 

among its member agencies. 

Question 111: 

In a recent interview, former Treasury Secretary Geithner told the WaH Street Journal 

that when another major financial crisis comes, "[Y]ou're going to have to do what you 

need to do to try to reduce the risk of damage and contagion on the financial system," Do 

you share Secretary Geithner's belief that the government has to "do whatever it takes" 

during a crisis? If so, do you believe that a Treasury Secretary who responds to severe 

financial crisis should be bound by the limits of law? 

I share the belief of Secretary Geithner that in a period of crisis one must act boldly and swiftly, 

but, of course, within the limits of the law, to protect taxpayers and the stability ofthe financial 

system. 

Question 112: 

Do you believe that the Dodd-Frank Act ends too-big-to-fail? 

The reforms put in place \\'ith the Dodd-Frank Act provide regulators with critical tools and 

authorities that we lacked before the crisis to resolve large financial firms whose failure would 

have serious adverse effects on financial stability. I understand that the emergency resolution 

authority for failing firms created under Title II prohibits any bailout, while protecting taxpayers 

and the U.S. economy. For any financial firm that is placed into receivership under this DoddFrank emergency resolution authority, management and directors responsible for the failed 

condition of the firm will be removed and shareholders will be wiped out. 

In addition, the largest firms have written "living wills" to provide a roadmap to facilitate rapid 

and orderly resolution in the event of bankruptcy. In addition to resolution, large, complex 

financial institutions will now be required to hold significantly higher levels of capital. Leverage 

is significantly lower, reliance on short term funding is lower, and liquidity positions have 

already improved such that large firms are less vulnerable in the event of a downturn. 

Question 113: 

Do you believe that because of financial "reforms" implemented by the Dodd-Frank Act 

there will be no more taxpayer financed bailouts? 
144 


86523.082

I believe the reforms put in place by Dodd-Frank which are described in Question 112 provide 

mechanisms to avoid future taxpayer financed bailouts. 

Question 114: 

Richmond Federal Reserve Bank President Jeffrey Lacker recently suggested that the next 

big failed financial firm should go through bankruptcy without taxpayer funding. Do you 

agree with Mr. Lacker? 

It is hard to predict the contours of the next financial crisis or the catalyst for the failure of a 

particular firm. The Dodd-Frank Act preserves the ability of a firm that faces failure to enter 

bankruptcy and provides a new alternative to resolve a failing firm whose failure would have 

serious adverse effects on U.S. financial stability, in an orderly fashion, without cost to the 

taxpayer, or impact on the broader financial system. These new authorities and tools that we 

lacked before the crisis will provide even greater flexibility to mitigate risk to the financial 

system and the economy. 

Question 115: 

Former Treasury Secretary Geithner has stated that "you won't be able to make a 

judgment about what's systcmic and what's not until you know the nature of the shock." 

Do you agree with Former Secretary Geithner's recognition that Dodd-Frank's 

infrastructure, such as the FSQC, for ferreting out systemic risk is not going to be effective 

anyway? If so, what changes to Dodd-Frank do you recommend should be made to better 

reflect reality? 

I agree with Secretary Geithner that financial shocks are sometimes difficult to predict, 

particularly if they are unprecedented or emanate from less-regulated or opaque parts of the 

financial system. The Dodd-Frank Act put in place measures to make our financial system more 

resilient to unforeseen shocks, and created a new body, the FSOC, to monitor risks to financial 

stability across the system. It also created tools for authorities to address shocks should they 

occur. Because the nature of risks in our financial system continually evolves, it is important 

that we continue the work of establishing a robust regulatory framework that protects taxpayers 

and the stability of the financial system. 

Question 116: 

The Secretary of Treasury, in his capacity as chairman of the FSQC, has an important 

coordinating role to play in the financial regulatory process both domestically and 

internationally. Unfortunately, since the passage of Dodd-Frank, inter-agency regulatory 

conflicts have been allowed to fester and international tensions over regulatory reform 

have mounted. If confirmed, what specific steps would you take to foster effective interagency rulemaking and to smooth international regulatory relations? 

The Dodd-Frank Act encourages interagency coordination and information sharing, including 

through the establishment ofthe CounciL The Council has played a crucial role in fostering both 
145 


86523.083

formal and informal coordination among regulatory agencies. I expect that the Council will 

continue to serve as a forum for agencies to discuss important issues regarding financial markets 

and regulation. The implementation of the Dodd-Frank Act has involved unprecedented 

cooperation between agencies in rule writing and other efforts. If confirmed, as Chair of the 

FSOC, I would continue the Council's important work in facilitating interagency coordination. 

Question 117: 

The FSOC has been unresponsive to inquiries I have made to its voting members, and has, 

overall, been nontransparent in its operations. Indeed, the title of a September 2012 

Report by the United States Government Accountability Office is titled "New Council and 

Research Office Should Strengthen the Accountability and Transparency of Their 

Decisions," where Research Office is reference to the unaccountable Office of Financial 

Research (OFR). If confirmed as Treasury Secretary, what concrete steps will you take to 

substantially improve the accountability and transparency of the FSOC and OFR and to 

substantially improve responsiveness of the FSOC and OFR to requests for information by 

Memhers of Congress? 

My understanding is that the Council has consistently maintained transparency with regard to the 

implementation of its specific authorities. For example, the Council provides notices of 

meetings, publishes the minutes of its meetings, and has issued several rulemakings and reports 

for public comment, including on money market mutual fund reform and the criteria for 

designating nonbank financial companies for Federal Reserve supervision and enhanced 

prudential standards. Moreover, the Council's annual report, which is provided to Congress and 

made available to the public online, provides a clear public record of its collective judgments, 

through its recommendations and assessments of threats to financial stability. 

One of the central missions of the Council is to identifY, monitor, and respond to emerging 

threats to financial stability. To fulfill this mission, I expect that the Council frequently 

discusses market developments and market functioning involving many companies and financial 

sectors. I would expect that these discussions are often preliminary and frequently involve 

market-sensitive and confidential supervisory information. I believe this is necessary to support 

the Council's ongoing work in fostering open dialogue, constructive coordination, and 

information sharing across it members. 

Ifconfirmed as Treasury Secretary, I will work to foster the Council's continued transparency, to 

the extent feasible given the sensitivities outlined above. 

Question 118: 

If confirmed as Treasury Secretary, will you recommend that the President dissolve the 

President's Working Group on Financial Markets this year? If not, why not? 

I have not had an opportunity to fully develop a position on any remaining responsibilities of the 

President' s Working Group on Financial Markets, but if confirmed, I will consider this issue. 
146 


86523.084

Question 119: 

Housing is a significant portion of the nation's gross domestic product. Both Treasury and 

the Fed have commented that tighter lending standards are preventing creditworthy 

borrowers from buying homes, and this is slowing the revival in the housing sector and 

slowing the economic recovery. 

One reason for the lack of mortgage availability is that the private capital has been largely 

absent from funding mortgages since 2008, while the federal government through the 

GSEs, FHA, VA and USDA support over 85 percent of the nation's newly originated 

mortgages. 

Do you believe that attracting private capital for mortgage backed securitizations is 

important to the recovery of our housing market? If so, as Secretary, how will you work to 

attract private capital back into the mortgage fmance market and shrink the government 

footprint? 

Yes, attracting private capital and responsibly shrinking the government's footprint in housing 

finance over time are critical to the long-term stability of our housing market and to protecting 

taxpayer interests. However, we must balance policy actions that reduce the government's 

footprint against the need to preserve access to mortgages for creditworthy borrowers. In 

addition to winding down the GSEs, we must make it more attractive for private capital to take 

on more mortgage credit risk in a responsible marmer. Many rules are being developed and 

implemented that will help give market participants clarity, such as the Qualified Mortgage rule. 

However, much work remains to be done. If confirmed, I look forward to supporting clear and 

transparent rules around housing finance. 

Question 120: 

The current level of federal debt held by the public is 76% ofGDP, more than double the 

37% level it averaged during the 50 years between 1957 and 2007. Is the current debt level 

too high? If it is, what is an acceptable and sustainable level and how long should we take 

to get there? 

A key indicator of fiscal sustainability is a stable debt-to-GDP ratio, which stands at 72.5 percent 

at the end ofFY 2012, for federal debt held by the public. A stable debt-to-GDP ratio assures 

that the debt is no longer growing relative to the size of the economy and that non-interest 

spending is aligned with revenues. The deficit reduction measures the President proposed in his 

FY 2013 Budget, together with the deficit reduction agreements reached with Congress since 

2011, would stabilize the debt as a share ofthe economy before the end of this decade. Though 

there is still more work to do, this is an important benchmark for stabilizing our fiscal outlook. 

Question 121: 

Qn August 1,2012, the House Energy and Commerce Committee released a report stating 

that the Qffice of Management and Budget analyst Kelly Colyar suggested that taxpayers 
147 


86523.085

would lose only $141 million if the company were immediately liquidated, as opposed to 

$385 million if the government restructured the loan agreement and released more money 

to Solyndra. It was also reported that career OMB staff members circulated a series of emails emphasizing the risks of restructuring the loan. 

a. Referring to section VII of the House Energy and Commerce Committee's report 

titled The Solyndra Failure, were you ever aware of Mr. Colyar's and other career 

OMB staff member warnings? 

b. Were you ever notified by OMB analysts that a refinancing plan that favored 

private investors might violate the law? 

c. Were you aware at the time of the decision to lend Solyndra money that its largest 

investors were funds linked to George Kaiser, a fundraiser for the president? 

d. Did you ever speak with George Kaiser about Solyndra and the Department of 

Energy's loan guarantee program? If so, describe the discussion. 

e. Did you intervene in any way to prevent the refinancing plan based on any 

information that you received about Solyndra's deteriorating financial condition? 

In September 2011, OMB Deputy Director for Management Jeffrey Zients testified before the 

House Energy and Commerce Committee on this subject. He stated that, "OMB engages in 

general oversight of the programs being executed by federal agencies." He described how, in 

that role, OMB was "asking tough questions and pressure testing assumptions, respectful of 

DOE's statutory authority to make final programmatic decisions on Title XVII loan guarantees." 

He discussed OMB's role under the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, and how OMB reviews 

and approves credit subsidy cost estimates for all loans and loan guarantee programs, including 

the DOE Loan Guarantee Program. Ultimately, Mr. Zients testified that OMB staff were 

comfortable with the final credit subsidy score for this project. Mr. Zients' testimony is 

consistent with my recollection. 

Question 122: 

During a recent Senate hearing with major bank regulators, an observation was made that 

large banks trade below their book value and a conjecture was made that the reason is 

either that "nobody believes that the banks' books are honest" or that nobody believes that 

the banks are really manageable. Do you agree with the observation and the conjecture? 

There are a range of factors that impact the valuations of large banks' shares, but I do not want to 

speculate about any specific factor. 

Question 123: 

The Treasury Department has no set of coherent policies regarding Department use of 

social media. As things stand, use of such media is loosely governed by Office of 
148 


86523.086

Management and Budget memoranda, most of which apply to privacy issues. The 

Treasury Department seems not to do much, if any, monitoring of public postings on its 

social media outlets. 

For example, on its Facebook page, private telephone numbers and the like can be viewed 

among the public commentary. 

Will you, if confirmed as Treasury Secretary, develop and provide to Congress policies and 

procedures governing Treasury's use of social media outlets? 

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has issued government-wide guidance regarding 

the appropriate use of social media. Moreover, my understanding is that Treasury's Office of 

Public Affairs, in consultation with Treasury's Office of General Counsel, periodically provides 

guidance on the use of social media to Treasury staff. If confirmed, I would commit to having 

the Office of Public Affairs continue to inform Treasury staff of these guidelines and would 

provide information on Treasury policies and procedures regarding social media to Congress 

upon request. 

Question 124: 

Last year, Treasury displayed on numerous social media outlets arguments and an 

infographic (titled "Penny Wise and Pound Foolish") identifying funding levels for the 

Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission (CFTC) specified in legislation pending before the Congress. The arguments 

and infographic represent, in my view, lobbying activities by Treasury, posted before the 

public on social media sites, against legislation pending before the Congress. The lobbying 

was with respect to funding levels for the SEC and CFTC, both of which are independent 

of Treasury. 

a. Do you support Treasury's use of appropriated funds to lobby against legislation 

pending before the Congress with respect to funding levels of regulatory bodies that 

are independent of Treasury? 

b. Would you, if confirmed as Treasury Secretary, institute any policies and 

procedures governing Treasury's use of appropriated funds that would prohibit the 

type of activity identified above? 

While I was not at Treasury last year, my understanding is that Treasury counsel has reviewed 

the infographic and has concluded that it is consistent with the law. According to a letter sent to 

Senator Hatch, counsel found that the info graphic does not contain "a clear explicit appeal to the 

public to contact Members of Congress." As a result, counsel found that the info graphic does 

not violate the longstanding bright-line rule in determining whether an agency has violated the 

prohibition against grassroots lobbying established by the Government Accountability Office 

(GAO). 
149 


86523.087

If confirmed, I would be committed to using social media to help keep the public informed of 

key policy issues relevant to Treasury, while continuing to ensure that all social media activities 

conducted by the Treasury are lawful. 

Question 125: 

If confirmed as Treasury Secretary, would you argue against, or attempt to change or 

influence, any decisions made by the Federal Housing Finance Agency? If so, what would 

you attempt to change or influence, and why? 

The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) is an independent regulator of Fannie Mae and 

Freddie Mac (the GSEs). FHFA is also conservator of the GSEs. As an independent regulator, 

FHF A is responsible for making its own decisions. 

Question 126: 

Do you support use of taxpayer funds to engage in further principal reduction mortgage 

modification schemes? If so, and if confirmed as Treasury secretary, what principle 

reduction measures will you propose or advocate? 

I support using principal reduction on a targeted basis where it makes economic sense to do so. 

As part of a payment-reducing loan modification, as in Treasury's Home Affordable 

Modification Program, principal reduction can help distressed underwater borrowers avoid 

preventable foreclosures and help housing markets to recover. 

Question 127: 

Do you support the "Responsible Homeowner Refinancing Act of 2012" (S.3085)? 

I believe that creating more opportunities for homeowners to refinance their mortgages is very 

important for the continued recovery of our housing market as well as to the broader economic 

recovery. Refinancing at today's rates can help save an average middle class family $3,000 a 

year and can get underwater homeowners on the path to restoring equity in their homes more 

quickly. The "Responsible Homeowner Refinancing Act of2012 helps lower barriers for 

borrowers to refinance. If confIrmed, I would support this bill and look forward to working with 

Congress and others to help tlnd solutions that will make it easier for families to take advantage 

ofthe current low-rate environment. 

Question 128: 

Internal Use Software: Over 16 years ago, the Treasury issued proposed regulations on the 

definition of internal-use software (IUS). In 2001, the Treasury issued final regulations 

regarding the definition of internal-use software. Announcement 2004-9 may have 

confused matters as to whether those final regulations applied in the IUS context. Since 

2004, the IRS has put every year on its priority-guidance plan issuing new proposed 

regulations concerning the definition of internal-use software. According to one US district 
150 


86523.088

court, taxpayers "may rely on the 'internal use software' test from the 2001 Final 

Regulations at 26 C.F.R. § 1.41-4(c)(6)(vi)." FedEx Corp. v. United States (W.O. Tenn., 

June 9,2009). 

a. Has the IRS acquiesced to the Fed Ex decision? 

No. 

b. There may be final regulations that apply in the IUS area, or there may not be. 

Fed Ex may apply to just the western district of Tennessee, or it may apply 

throughout the United States. There may be proposed regulations coming out, or 

there may not be. Could you assure me that, in an effort to ease administration for 

all parties concerned, you, if you are approved as Secretary ofthe Treasury, will 

attempt to clarify this area of the law, and that you will report back to me in 2013 as 

to your clarification? 

If confirmed, I will support Treasury and the IRS's efforts to issue clarifying guidance 

concerning internal use software. 

Question 129: 

In responding to questions from Senator Burr, you seemed to raise a distinction between 

conversations with the President and briefings. I am concerned by this exchange because it 

suggests that in responding to questions from Members of Congress, you might respond to 

a very specific "letter" of a question rather addressing what is clearly recognizable as the 

"spirit" of the question. 

When you received questions from myself and other Members of Congress, will you seek to 

be fully responsive, and not take efforts to limit the information contained in your 

response? 

I strongly support transparency in government. If confirmed, I would seek to foster an open and 

constructive relationship with the Committee, and I would do my best to respond to requests in a 

forthcoming manner. 

Question 130: 

On August 20th, 2012, the House Oversight Committee asked for "all documents and 

communications between IRS employees and employees ofthe White House, Executive 

Office of the President, or any other federal agency or department referring or relating to 

the proposed IRS rule or final IRS rule between March 23, 2010, and August 17,2012." 

The Chairman and Committee staff have asked on numerous occasions for an update on 

this request. 

Has IRS and/or Treasury compiled the documents and communications referenced in the 

August 20th letter? If the documents and communications have not yet been fully compiled, 
151 


86523.089

have IRS and/or Treasury begun compiling the documents and communications referenced 

in that letter? If so, do you have an estimate of when these documents and communications 

will be produced to the Committees? 

I believe in openness and transparency, and I also understand the need for vigorous oversight. 

understand that Treasury has been cooperating with the Committee since August 2012 on these 

requests. I also understand that Treasury officials and attorneys have briefed Committee staff on 

the legal analysis behind these regulations, and that Treasury has produced hundreds of pages of 

materials responsive to the Committee's requests. If confirmed I would work with Congress, and 

all of Treasury's oversight bodies, so they are able to conduct their important oversight work. 
152 


86523.090

Senator Rockefeller 

Question 1: 

The National Taxpayer Advocate's report to Congress raised specific questions about the 

high audit rate for claims on the adoption tax credit. According to the Advocate's report, 

the IRS, partly using income-based rules, selected 69 percent of tax returns claiming the 

credit during the 2012 filing season for audit, compared with one percent of returns 

overall. These audits imposed significant burden on the affected taxpayers for several 

reasons, most notably because the median refund claim constituted nearly one-quarter of 

the taxpayers' adjusted gross income for the year, and the audits on average took over four 

months. Despite the burden, the payoff was relatively small. The IRS denied only about 10 

percent of the amounts claimed in tax year 2010, and as of mid-November had denied only 

about 1.5 percent of the amounts claimed in tax year 2011. The excessive focus on returns 

claiming the adoption credit burdened many taxpayers according to the report, and it 

could have the effect of negating Congress's intent to encourage adoptions. 

How will you direct the IRS to reform its treatment ofthe adoption tax credit? 

I am not yet familiar with the details of this issue, but, if confirmed, I will carefully consider the 

National Taxpayer Advocate's recommendations for revising the IRS's compliance strategy for 

the adoption tax credit. If confirmed, I will instruct the IRS to work with stakeholders to 

determine which recommendations, if any, can be implemented in a way that balances the goals 

of reducing burdens on compliant taxpayers and satisfying Congressional intent with the IRS's 

responsibility to deny improper claims. 

Question 2: 

The Adoption Tax Credit was only refundable to tax years 2010 and 2011. Preliminary 

data suggests that making the adoption tax credit refundable had a real impact on the 

number of middle to lower income families who were able to benefit from the adoption tax 

credit. Can you provide greater detail on the extent to which families with middle to low 

AGIs are benefitting from the adoption tax credit? 

According to published IRS statistics, for tax year 2010 (the latest year for which IRS has 

published statistics) over 97,000 families received $1.2 billion in adoption tax credits. The 

number offamilies receiving the credit grew by 20 percent between 2009 and 2010, and the 

amount of credit claimed more than quadrupled. In 2009, about 30 percent of families claiming 

the credit had AGI below $50,000, and they claimed about 10 percent of the total amount of 

credit claimed. In 2010, nearly 50 percent offamilies claiming the credit had AGI below 

$50,000, and they claimed about half of the total amount of credit claimed. 

Question 3: 

How can the Adoption Tax Credit be improved to meet its original goal of 1996 to promote 

adoptions of children from the U.S. foster care system? 
153 


86523.091

In 2012, Congress took an important step by making certain adoption credit provisions 

permanent, providing certainty to taxpayers who are planning adoptions. The American 

Taxpayer Relief Act of2012 made permanent the changes to the credit that were enacted as part 

of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 200 1. I look forward to working 

with the Committee to ensure that the credit meets its goal of encouraging adoptions of foster 

children. 
154 


86523.092

Senator Wyden 

Question 1: 

Most Americans don't fully appreciate the extent to which tax policy directs energy policy 

in this country, but it most certainly does to a very great extent - whether it's production 

tax credits for wind energy or expensing drilling expenses for oil and gas or tax credits to 

help homeowners save energy. 

Beyond express tax credits and other preferences, our tax code has long enabled Master 

Limited Partnerships (MLPs) and Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) to serve as 

successful investment structures in the energy sector, especially for the promotion of oil, 

gas and other traditional energy sources. 

Because I believe that the Code should be more or less resource and technology neutral 

when it comes to the development of our sources of energy, I am very interested in 

exploring the expansion of proven investment structures like MLPs and REITs into the 

clean energy space. With such an expansion, these tools can help promote growth, move 

renewables closer to subsidy independence, and vastly broaden the base of investors in 

America's energy economy. 

While direct government investment in the energy sector has proven beneficial in recent 

years, as we work mightily to get our nation's fiscal house in order, rather than focusing 

solely on increasing government funding-whether through tax expenditures or 

otherwise-it makes imminent sense to consider expanding proven tools like MLPs and 

REITs into the renewable energy space and thereby driving private investment and the 

innovation that comes with it toward cleaner sources of energy. 

The center of action for REITs has been the Treasury Department. A series of recent IRS 

private letter rulings have allowed REIT investment in a range of energy and 

infrastructure projects, including natural gas pipelines and terminals, electric power 

transmission lines, railroad tracks, cell towers and even LED-lit billboards. But RETTs 

have not yet been extended to renewable energy. 

That said, most agree that REITs could be opened for renewable energy investment 

through executive action. Executive action would require the Department of the Treasury 

to clarify-through project-specific private letter rulings or, preferably, a broadly 

applicable revenue ruling-that renewable power generation equipment qualifies as real 

property under the tax code and that income from these assets, including from the sale of 

electricity, is considcred REIT-eligible income. 

With that background, would you support Treasury taking executive action to expand 

REITs for investment in renewable energy? Or do you believe it would be inappropriate 

for the Department to take those steps without legislative direction? 
155 


86523.093

I share your commitment to expanding clean energy investments. However, I am not yet 

familiar enough with the issue to know whether the measures you describe can be accomplished 

through administrative action, or whether they would require a statutory change. If confirmed, I 

would be happy to work with you and the Committee on this important issue. 

Question 2: 

Mr. Lew, the President's "Framework for Business Tax Reform" (a joint report by The 

White House and the Treasury Department issued in February 2012), makes various 

recommendations to help "strengthen the international tax system to encourage domestic 

investment." In that section, the report states that "many companies reinvest, rather than 

repatriate, a significant portion of their income overseas and as a result may never face 

U.S. taxes on much of that income." I would take that a step further and say that many 

companies opt to leave earnings offshore even without reinvesting it, in order to avoid 

paying corporate income tax in the U.S. on such earnings. For that reason, among others, I 

have long advocated repealing deferral entirely to eliminate the abusive profit-shifting that 

mainly works to reduce taxes on the foreign profits of some U.S. multinationals, while also 

increasing the budget deficit, to the comparative tax disadvantage of companies investing 

their earnings back in the United States. 

My question, however, relates to those companies, and there are certainly some with 

operations in my state and elsewhere around the country, that currently choose to reinvest 

substantial sums of overseas income in the U.S. These companies, often due to core 

operating principles, routinely repatriate foreign earnings, pay tax in the U.S. and invest in 

plant and equipment and other needs to help create jobs and grow their businesses. The 

calculation of benefit ofthe one-time low rate on repatriation of foreign earnings enacted in 

2004 worked against these companies that are not holding cash abroad in anticipation of 

either another temporary rate reduction or the enactment of laws moving toward a 

territorial system. Current U.S. tax policy favors their competitors who defer U.S. taxes on 

non-U.S. earnings as long as possible and either have received or may receive a significant 

tax benefit when (or it) they finally repatriate their non-U.S. earnings. 

I would like to get your ideas and the ideas of others in the Treasury Department and 

elsewhere in the Administration on what to do for these companies. Could (or should) they 

be rewarded somehow for these practices? How do we ensure that any transitional relief 

provided on unrepatriated earnings doesn't reward deferral and penalize those who 

repatriated earnings sooner, paid maximum U.S. tax, and invested in the U.S.? I'd 

appreciate hearing any thoughts you have on it now and having the opportunity to spend 

more time on this once you are confirmed. 

As stated in the President's Framework for Business Tax Reform, the President is committed to 

reform that will support the competitiveness of American businesses and increase incentives to 

invest and hire in the United States. If confirmed, I would work with the Committee to enact tax 

reform, and would welcome a dialogue on the measures that would best strengthen the 

international tax system in a manner consistent with the principles and goals set forth in the 
156 


86523.094

President's Framework. The tax treatment of earnings accumulated overseas should be 

considered as part of this dialogue. 

Question 3: 

The federal government loses both individual and corporate income tax revenue from the 

shifting of profits and income to foreign countries. While the revenue losses from this tax 

avoidance and evasion are difficult to estimate, the Senate Subcommittee on Investigations 

found that the annual cost of offshore tax abuses could be as much as $100 billion per year. 

According to an Economic Policy Institute analysis, much of the international tax reduction 

from individuals results from evasion and has been estimated to range from $40 billion to 

$70 billion per year. 

Corporate tax reductions resulting from profit-shifting have also been estimated in various 

ways, and those estimates range from as little as $10 billion per year to as much as $60 

billion per year. 

Tax avoidance through profit-shifting by U.S. corporations and the abuse of loopholes by 

individuals to avoid (and perhaps evade) appropriate taxation is a serious problem that 

costs the U.S. Treasury tens of billions of dollars each year in lost revenue. 

The magnitude of these abuses demonstrates very clearly a number of problems with our 

current tax regime and calls out for comprehensive reform. Moreover, as we continue 

conversations about how to reduce our current budget deficits, with $50-100 billion lost 

each year (up to potentially $1 trillion over 10 years) as a consequence of abuses of the 

international tax system, it is imperative that we take firm steps to curb these abuses 

through both executive action as currently permitted and legislative action as needed. 

Last month, Treasury and the IRS issued comprehensive final regulations implementing 

the information reporting and withholding tax provisions commonly known as the Foreign 

Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA). Enacted by Congress in 2010, these provisions 

target non-compliance by U.S. taxpayers using foreign accounts. 

In your view, will these regulations lead to a meaningful reduction in the ability of 

individuals to evade taxes legally owed through the abuse ofthe international tax system? 

If so, do you know whether Treasury has quantified what that effect will be? Even so, what 

additional steps are being or should be taken-whether by executive or legislative actionto ensure better collection of the estimated $40-70 billion in revenue lost each year because 

of such individual abuses? 

The Administration has made addressing the use of offshore accounts and entities to evade U.S. 

tax a high priority. FATCA was enacted by Congress, with bipartisan support, as part of the U.S. 

government's multi -pronged effort to combat the use of offshore accounts and entities to evade 

U.S. income tax. On January 17,2013, the Treasury Department and the IRS issued 

comprehensive final regulations implementing the information reporting and withholding 
157 


86523.095

provisions ofFATCA. In addition, I understand that Treasury is working with other 

governments to ensure that all of the relevant financial institutions located in those jurisdictions 

will participate in FA TCA reporting. FA TCA will meaningfully address offshore tax evasion 

and avoidance as the information provided to the IRS under FATCA will help to ensure that U.S. 

persons properly pay tax on income earned through foreign accounts. Finally, I understand that 

over the last several years, the Treasury Department has revised the terms of a number of 

existing U.S. bilateral income tax treaties to provide for full information exchange between the 

tax authorities, has concluded treaties and tax information exchange agreements with new 

partner countries that create new information exchange relationships, and has been a leader in 

developing and promoting global adoption of the international standards for information 

exchange in tax matters. 

While most ofthe lost revenue on the corporate side arises out of tax avoidance measures, 

such as the profit shifting that is encouraged by our current deferral regime, some part of 

the revenue lost derives from illegal abuse and evasion. What action can Treasury or the 

IRS take (or is either taking) to address the multi-billion dollar problem on the corporate 

side of the Code? 

I understand the concern that certain current domestic laws and international standards allow 

multinational corporations to engage in profit shifting. The President's Framework for Business 

Tax Reform stated that income-shifting behavior by multinational corporations should be 

addressed through tax reform. I also understand that the United States supports the efforts of the 

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) to analyze these issues and is 

actively participating in the OECD's project to study these issues. 

If confirmed, I look forward to working with the Committee to develop additional measures to 

combat corporate tax evasion by U.S. companies doing business outside of the United States. 

Question 4: 

Mr. Lew, as you know, America's voice at international financial institutions like the 

World Bank is represented by the Department of Treasury. I am very pleased that the 

Obama Administration has strongly championed equality for the LGBT community at 

home and abroad. 

If confirmed, will you ensure that Treasury uses its weight and power to press for robust 

attention by the World Bank and similar institutions to attend to the health, social, 

education, and economic needs of the LGBT and other marginalized communities in 

foreign countries? 

The Administration is committed to using U.S. leadership to advocate for human rights for all 

individuals, including members of the LOBT community and other marginalized communities in 

foreign countries. I believe that the World Bank and the other MDBs have an important role as a 

force for positive change on human rights matters. If confirmed, I will ensure that my staff 

encourages the MDBs to use their influence to uphold human rights in all countries in which they 

operate. 
158 


86523.096

Question 5: 

Mr. Lew, in the wake of the events of 9/11, the Congress established the Department of 

Homeland Security and moved Customs and Border Protection into it from Treasury, 

although Treasury maintains a role with respect to CBP's revenue functions. I'm 

concerned that CBP is increasingly disinterested in its revenue collection responsibility, 

particularly with respect to collecting anti-dumping and countervailing duties and the 

sureties associated with them. 

If confirmed, can I get your commitment to assist with vigorous oversight of CBP to ensure 

that it takes seriously its responsibility with respect to the accurate collection of import 

duties? 

Yes. If continned, I look forward to working together with the Committee and the Department 

of Homeland Security, including Customs and Border Protection, on issues related to the 

collection of import duties. 
159 


86523.097

Senator Schumer 

Question 1: 

Perhaps no foreign policy challenge is as pressing as preventing Iran from acquiring a 

nuclear weapon. And make-no-mistake, I believe that when it comes to Iran, we should 

never take the military option off the table. But I have long argued that economic sanctions 

are the preferred and probably most effective way to choke Iran's nuclear ambitions. 

While sanctions are having a dramatic impact on the Iranian economy, they have yet to 

change Iran's nuclear ambitions. As you know, this Administration has the capability to 

tighten tbeir crippling sanctions on Iran should they continue with their nuclear weapons 

program. Therefore, as the lead agency implementing U.S. economic sanctions, the 

Treasury Department is central to U.S. efforts to stop Iran's nuclear quest. 

a. Should the U.S. seek to strongly enhance the economic pressure on the regime in 

Tehran? 

The President has made it very clear that it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear 

weapon, and that all options must be on the table to achieve this objective. In service of 

this objective, I understand that the Treasury Department has imposed increasingly robust 

economic and financial sanctions on Iran, including sanctions that restrict Iran's access to 

its foreign exchange reserves and impair its balance-of-payments position; that target 

entities and individuals involved in proliferation, terrorism, human rights abuses, and 

regional destabilization; that identifY and expose Iranian efforts to deploy deceptive 

schemes to evade sanctions; and, that cut off from the U.S. financial system those who try 

to assist Iran in these efforts. I firmly believe that the imposition and implementation of 

robust economic sanctions is critically important to achieving the President's policy of 

denying Iran a nuclear weapon, and due to the intensive, collaborative efforts ofthe 

Congress and this Administration, as well as steps taken at our urging by partners around 

the world, the current sanctions regime on Iran is unprecedented in terms of scale, and 

scope and impact. If confirmed, I will support Treasury's efforts to implement fully 

existing sanctions and, as necessary, I would support additional actions that advance our 

shared objective of stopping Iran's nuclear ambitions. 

b. Do you think that sanctions can prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons? 

I believe there is time and space to pursue a negotiated resolution that denies Iran a 

nuclear weapon, but that the window for such negotiations is narrowing. I see sanctions 

as critically important in demonstrating to the Iranian regime that it has a clear choice - it 

could enjoy the benefits of inclusion in the international financial system that could come 

from meeting its international obligations, or it will face increasingly powerful and 

painful sanctions by continuing to pursue a nuclear program. 

c. How would you define the role of the Treasury Department in stopping Iran's 

nuclear ambitions? Will you be prepared to share with this Committee your candid 

views about our requirements for action? 
160 


86523.098

I believe the Treasury Department performs a critical role in the Administration's efforts 

to halt Iran's nuclear ambitions by imposing increasingly powerful financial and 

economic pressure on Iran, thereby presenting the regime with the starkest choice 

possible. If confirmed, I am committed to sharing with Congress my views about 

potential additional actions as long as Iran continues to defY the international community 

over its nuclear program. 

d. What additional sanctions do you believe are needed to succeed in our effort to 

thwart Iran's nuclear ambitions? 

Please see my answer to Question lea). 

Question 2: 

Notwithstanding serious multinational efforts -led by the U.S. - some banks have ignored 

sanctions and continue to conduct business with designated Iranian entities. To date the 

Treasury Department has sanctioned just two non-Iranian foreign banks for continuing to 

conduct significant financial transactions with sanctioned banks. However, there is plenty 

of evidence that other non-Iranian owned or controlled banks have violated our laws with 

by conducting large transactions with sanctioned banks. 

a. Will you implement punishing measures against foreign banks conducting business 

with Iran in clear violation of U.S. sanctions? 

As a result ofthe efforts of the United States and its partners around the world, Iran today 

is more isolated than ever, especially on the economic front. Treasury has a strong record 

of aggressively pursuing Iran's financial networks and implementing sanctions against 

Iran and those individuals, entities, and banks that violate our sanctions. If confirmed, 

Treasury will continue to aggressively target additional individuals, entities, or banks that 

engage in sanctionable activity, wherever they may be. 

b. One of the banks sanctioned by Treasury is Bank Kunlun of China. The bank's 

majority shareholder is China National Petroleum Corp. In your opinion should a 

parent company such as CNPC be held responsible for the actions ofits subsidiaries 

when they violate U.S. sanctions on Iran? 

I understand that Bank of Kunlun was sanctioned under the Comprehensive Iran 

Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act (CISADA), which provides for sanctions 

against foreign financial institutions that knowingly facilitate significant transactions or 

provide significant financial services for designated Iranian financial institutions. If 

confirmed, I will support Treasury's efforts to identifY any sanctionable activity and 

ensure that Treasury continues to aggressively implement CISADA and aU other 

sanctions against Iran. 
161 


86523.099

Question 3: 

In the ten years since China joined the World Trade Organization - a move that was 

intended by the global community to bring China's policies in line with global trade rules 

meant to ensure free and fair trade- from duty evasion to intellectual property theft, the 

Chinese government has proven that they have no interest in playing by the same rules as 

their global trading partners. Instead, China has single-mindedly flouted those rules to 

spur its own economy and export-oriented growth at the expense of its trading partners, 

most of all the United States. Of China's many offenses, perhaps there is no issue with a 

larger impact on the American economy than their systemic devaluation oftheir currency. 

In the 10 years since China joined the WTO the Economic Policy Institute estimates that 

2.8 million American jobs were lost or displaced in manufacturing or other trade-related 

industries as a result of increased trade with China and the Chinese Government's 

manipulation of its currency -161,000 of those in my state of New York alone. 

This issue has been near and dear to my heart for many years. Senator Graham and I have 

been working to rectify this issue for 7 years now. Many members ofthis committee have 

dedicated themselves to the cause since that time as well - Chairman Baucus and Senators 

Grassley, Stabenow, Brown and Casey have all played integral roles in our China currency 

legislation, making it WTO consistent and finally moving it over the finish line here in the 

Senate last congress, but we cannot solve the problem of Chinese Currency Devaluation 

without the assistance of the Administration, and particular the Treasury Department. In 

November, the Office oflnternational Affairs released its Semiannual Report on 

International Economic and Exchange Rate Policies which, as it has every six months for 

years now, calling China's renminbi "significantly undervalued." Yet again, the Treasury 

Department has stopped short of calling China a "currency manipulator." Treasury 

Secretary after Treasury Secretary has failed in their attempts to end this systemic 

devaluation of the renminbi. 

a. In your view what, if anything, distinguishes a country that has had "significantly 

devalued currency" for years from a country that systematically manipulates its 

currency? 

If confirmed, I would take seriously my responsibility to prepare the Report to Congress 

on International Economic and Exchange Rate Policies, and would assess whether 

countries have manipulated the rate of exchange between their currency and the United 

States dollar for purposes of preventing effective balance of payments adjustment or 

gaining unfair competitive advantage in international trade based on the evidence then 

available. 

b. A 15% appreciation in the renminbi over four years, while helpful, is not nearly 

enough to rectify this problem - more action certainly must be taken to stop 

sacrificing American jobs to unfair unscrupulous trading partners. Will you deem 

China a currency manipulator, and if not what actions that are different than your 

predecessors will you take to end Chinese currency devaluation? 
162 


86523.100

I understand that China's current account surplus has fallen from 10 percent of ODP at 

the peak to under 3 percent today. It also is my understanding that the renminbi has 

appreciated 40 percent against the dollar on a real, inflation-adjusted basis since June 

2005. 

While some progress has been made, I believe more is needed. If confirmed, I would 

assess whether countries have manipulated the rate of exchange between their currency 

and the U.S. dollar for purposes of preventing effective balance of payments adjustment 

or gaining unfair competitive advantage in international trade based on the evidence then 

available. I would work actively in the Strategic and Economic Dialogue, the 0-20, and 

the IMF to press China to move more rapidly to a market-determined exchange rate and 

to not target exchange rates for competitive purposes, as China recently committed to do 

in the 0-20. 

Ouestion 4: 

I was very proud we were able to extend the American Opportunity Tax Credit for an 

additional five years in the year-end fiscal cliff deal. This was a great victory for middleclass students and their families; but as we roll up our sleeves and get to work on tax 

reform, there is more work to be done. I have a proposal to increase the value of the credit, 

extend it permanently and expand the number of middle-class families that qualify for it. 

In addition, over the past year, I've discussed a number of ideas with my Republican 

colleagues on this committee about ways to safeguard against fraud and abuse of the credit. 

Can we count on your support to improve, expand and permanently extend the American 

Opportunity Tax Credit in tax reform? 

I strongly support the American Opportunity Tax Credit (AOTC), which the Administration has 

proposed to make permanent. I share the Administration's goal of making college affordable for 

middle-income families and, if confirmed, I will work with Congress on this important issue. 
163 


86523.101

Senator Stabenow 

Question 1: 

Housing markets have rebounded somewhat but progress has been slow and obstacles 

remain. Critically, millions of families are still underwater on their mortgages, affecting 

not only them but also the broader economy. In the Detroit metro area, almost half of all 

homeowners are significantly under water on their mortgages - about 130,000 

families. That figure is about 11 million nationwide. Simply stated, we need to do more to 

help troubled homeowners and restore housing markets to health. 

Treasury's Home Affordable Modification Program has shown that principal reduction 

can be an important element of successful mortgage loan modification 

programs. However, the Federal Housing Finance Agency has not permitted the GSEs, 

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, to participate in principal reduction programs, despite 

analyses showing that such programs could benefit homeowners, taxpayers, and the 

economy at large. 

a. What is your view on the importance of principal reduction loan modification to the 

recovery of the housing sector and the overall economy? 

b. What steps will you take as Treasury Secretary to facilitate the use of principal 

reduction in the loan modification programs of the GSEs, Fannie Mae and Freddie 

Mac? 

I support using principal reduction on a targeted basis where it makes economic sense to do so. 

believe that when used in combination with a payment-reducing loan modification such as a 

HAMP modification, it can be an effective way to help underwater borrowers avoid foreclosure 

and help housing markets to recover. If confirmed, I will continue to work with the FHF A on 

implementation of Treasury's housing programs, and I will be happy to consult with them if they 

wish to continue an analysis of principal reduction. 

Question 2: 

The November 30, 2012, Treasury Report to Congress on Export Credit Negotiations states 

that, "It is important that the demand for official export credit support arise only from a 

lack of market financing and not the mere presence of competing official export credit 

offers." As the global economy continues to recover and financial institutions are beginning 

to lend again, access to private capital should be increasing and the need for government 

sponsored financing lessening. 

a. As access to private capital continues to improve, please describe how you will work 

to reduce the instances of competing foreign export credit agency support. 

If confirmed, I would continue to press China and all other major providers to negotiate 

and ultimately abide by international guidelines that complement market financing. I 
164 


86523.102

understand that this would build on work already underway by Treasury to bring large 

emerging market countries that now account for a dramatically increased share of official 

export credit support and that are not party to the international guidelines (e.g., China) 

into a new international framework that helps to ensure that official export financing 

support is complementary to that of the market. 

b. Will you also commit to working with export credit agencies in France, Germany 

and the United Kingdom to seek an agreement that would reduce governmentsupported financing for foreign airlines that have access to commercially viable 

private market financing? 

If confirmed, I would engage my European counterparts to strengthen guidelines that 

limit official export financing to airlines that have access to private market financing 

while maintaining a level playing field for all U.S. exporters. 

In these efforts, I would seek to build on the progress made in 2011 when Treasury 

negotiated new international guidelines for official export financing support of 

commercial aircraft sales that were designed to ensure that official export credits for 

aircraft are used only when market financing is not available. 

Question 3: 

Japan has a long history of using trade and currency policies to restrict access to the 

Japanese market for U.S. exporters. These types of policies have inflicted tremendous 

harm on the U.S. economy, and especially on our auto industry. Despite these anticompetitive policies, Japanese leaders continue to express an interest in joining talks to 

conclude a Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement. Recent media reports, however, indicate 

that Japan continues to be intent on further weakening the value of its yen in an attempt to 

boost its economic growth. 

a. Has the Administration conducted a comprehensive analysis of the potential 

economic impact of Japan's inclusion in the Trans-Pacific Partnership? As 

Treasury Secretary, is this something you would support? 

USTR chairs the interagency process that assesses and recommends potential candidates 

for trade agreements with the United States. As part of this process, it is my 

understanding that under U.S. law, USTR is required to obtain advice from the U.S. 

International Trade Commission (USITC) on the probable economic effects of reducing 

or eliminating tariffs and removing non-tariff barriers to trade for any country joining the 

TPP negotiations before that country enters the TPP negotiation. This process would 

apply to Japan were it to request to join the negotiations. The USITC also is required 

after the negotiations conclude to do a study and report on the likely impact of the 

agreement on the U.S. economy and specific industry sectors. 

If confirmed, I would support Treasury's continued active participation in this process 

chaired by USTR. 
165 


86523.103

b. What measures would you take to encourage Japan to strengthen the value of its 

currency? 

This week, each member of the G-7, including Japan, affirmed its commitment to fiscal 

and monetary policies focused on domestic objectives not to target exchange rates and 

reaffirmed its commitment to market-determined exchange rates. If confirmed, I would 

engage with all members of the G-7 to ensure that they adhere to these commitments, 

including in statements by officials. 
166 


86523.104

Senator Cantwell 

Question 1: 

The recent economic crisis and credit crunch have highlighted the importance for 

Americans to develop responsible, long-term saving habits. Savings helps families to build 

capital and to weather rainy days. We must make it easier to save, especially for lower 

income Americans and those without access to traditional savings vehicles. 

When an individual receives an income tax refund, there is an opportunity for the 

individual to save and for the government to encourage that savings. Enabling taxpayers 

to check a box right on the federal tax return form and set aside some of that refund in a 

U.S. Savings Bond is a simple policy for encouraging savings among a broad spectrum of 

the population that otherwise has trouble building wealth. 

What is your view on the role of savings bonds play in our economic recovery and 

promoting responsible saving habits? Would you support an extension of the tax time 

savings bond program with an option to purchase savings bonds (both paper and electronic 

bonds) as part of the federal tax filing process? 

As more savings bonds are purchased electronically and the sale of paper bonds is phased 

out, what can be done to strike a balance to ensure lower-income people without access to 

internet service can purchase savings bonds? 

I believe that encouraging Americans to save and assisting them in developing responsible, longterm saving habits is important, and purchasing U.S. savings bonds can be part of those habits. 

If confirmed, I look fOIWard to working with you to encourage Americans to save responsibly 

and to consider potential adjustments to the existing savings bond program to help achieve this 

goal. 
167 


86523.105

Senator Menendez 

Question 1: 

The Congressional Budget Qffice wrote in their latest report on the budget and economic 

outlook: "Persistent long-term unemployment will lead some workers to leave the 

workforce earlier than they would have otherwise and will erode the skills of other 

workers, making it harder for them to find work in the coming years." Compounding this 

problem is evidence which shows many employers discriminating against the long-term 

unemployed, perpetuating a vicious cycle. The longer a worker is unemployed the less 

attractive they are as a job candidate and the longer they remain unemployed. 

Mr. Lew, how difficult do you believe the crisis of long-term unemployment is today and 

what, in your view, are some of the most effective steps we can take to tackle the problem? 

Long-term unemployment remains a challenge after the worst financial crisis since the Great 

Depression. We've seen a modest decline in the length of unemployment spells over the course 

of the recovery as the labor market gradually improves. But, we need to do more. In addition to 

job creation measures that the Administration proposed through legislation like the American 

Jobs Act, the Administration has supported skill development and job matching programs to help 

maintain workers' attachment to the labor force and preparation for work. If confirmed, I look 

forward to working with you to pass these kinds of measures to put more Americans back to 

work, laying the foundation for longer term economic growth and employment. 

Question 2: 

In my view, expanding opportunities for workers to advance their skills and their value is a 

critical one when we're thinking about how to help shore up the economic fortunes of the 

middle class. I have a proposal that would encourage businesses to train the unemployed 

and under-employed for jobs they are trying to fill. It would provide a tax credit for 

businesses who pay for long-term unemployed workers to obtain certificates or credentials 

and would create a competitive pool of tax credits for business clusters who come together 

to set up training programs at local colleges. 

It's an innovative way for Congress to begin to tackle the so-called "skills gap." Estimates 

show the economy is going to be short 5 million trained workers by 2018. Every state in the 

country is confronted with this shortage and we shouldn't shy away from any opportunity 

to address the issue. 

Can you commit to me that you will take a look at this proposal and work with me to 

address the challenge of the skills gap? 

Yes. 
168 


86523.106

Question 3: 

Senator Schumer and I are working together to introduce a package of tax provisions to 

help the region rebuild from Sandy. Almost every one of these provisions were ones made 

available to victims of Hurricane Katrina and the Midwestern floods, and are critical to 

rebuilding from Sandy. There was a similar bipartisan bill introduced in the House as 

well. All we're asking for is that our region is given access to the same recovery tools as 

other major disaster areas so we can get families, businesses and communities back on 

their feet. 

Do you support the use of certain tax provisions such as have been used in past disasters to 

help facilitate a region's recovery from a natural disaster? 

I believe that when major disaster strikes, a 'Wide range of relief efforts should be marshaled. 

Because the needs of devastated communities can vary, the relief must be sufficiently flexible to 

address those needs. Tax provisions can help facilitate a region's recovery, and if confirmed, I 

would be pleased to review the proposals you and Senator Schumer are developing. 

Question 4: 

I have always been very concerned about Hispanic representation and procurement at 

Treasury. Without an adequate understanding of diverse communities from senior 

leadership, regulatory agencies cannot effectively prevent marketplace discrimination 

among communities hardest hit by the recession. This is where I have found Treasury to 

be weak, and this is something I hoped to address through my amendment that passed in 

the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform to create the Offices of Minority and Women 

Inclusion. 

Thus far, I am incredibly disappointed - not only with the lack of mid-to senior level 

Hispanics at Treasury but also the pervasive culture that makes it difficult for Hispanics to 

gain access. In fact, there seems to be a complete absence of a transparent diversity and 

inclusion policy at all levels. Essentially, I question whether Treasury has fully embraced 

the intent of the OMWI provision. 

If confirmed, will you make Hispanic hiring and contracting a priority? If so, what specific 

steps will you take to change the culture of non-inclusion and incentivize department heads 

at Treasury to make diversity an agency-wide priority? 

I am fully committed to diversity and inclusion, including Hispanic diversity and inclusion. 

I understand that OMWI has established a plan to promote diversity in Treasury's Departmental 

Offices at all levels and is actively engaged in outreach efforts with academia and minorityserving professional organizations, including several Hispanic organizations. Additionally, in 

March 2012, Treasury issued its Department-wide Strategic Diversity and Inclusion plan, and 

each Treasury bureau has developed an implementation plan with specific actions to further the 

Department's diversity and inclusion goals. 
169 


86523.107

Furthermore, according to OPM's annual Hispanic Employment report, the Department's 

participation rate of Hispanics was 9.1 percent in FY 2011, the fourth highest among major 

federal agencies, and above the government-wide average of 8.1 percent. During the same fiscal 

year, Hispanics also represented 10 percent of all new hires at Treasury, the 3rd most as a 

percentage among agencies. It is my understanding that Treasury expects the Hispanic 

participation rate to increase for FY 2012. 

Regarding contracting diversity, I understand that Treasury was the only agency to meet all ofits 

small business goals established by the Small Business Administration in FY 2011. Treasury 

achieved more than double the small disadvantaged business contracting goal, which is largely 

made up of minority-owned businesses. Preliminary data shows that Treasury once again 

exceeded its small business goals in FY 2012. 

I know that more can still be done and, if confirmed, I would be happy to directly discuss with 

you Treasury's record on this important issue as well as any additional comments or concerns 

you may have. 
170 


86523.108

Senator Carper 

Question 1: 

Recently, the director of the National Economic Council indicated that the President's 

budget will propose not only making the research and experimentation tax credit 

permanent, but also, will increase the credit by 20 percent. I welcome this news. 

Businesses need more certainty when it comes to making research investments, and for that 

reason we should simplify and make the R&D credit permanent. However, I also believe 

the credit is greatly in need of improvement and overall reform. In preparation for 

undertaking tax reform, the Finance Committee has heard testimony from any number of 

witnesses who have recommended making addition reforms, beyond permanent extension. 

We have heard testimony that suggests that the current research credit might be improved 

in any number of ways. 

Firms that conduct research and development cannot capture the bulk ofthe monetary 

returns from their research investments (even with protections provided by intellectual 

property law). The average rate of return from research and development to society in 

general-and to the competitors of the company doing research--exceeds the return to the 

company that actually conducted the research. Because firms understand that the fruits of 

their own research successes will be shared with the broader economy, there is a weaker 

incentive to actually conduct this research, as planners know that the overwhelming 

majority of benefits will go to others. The R&D credit is designed to compensate for this by 

reducing the after-tax cost of spending on research, thereby encouraging additional 

research spending. 

However, many experts have suggested that the current R&D credit rate is not high 

enough to fully overcome the disincentives resulting from spillover effects. As a related 

matter, some experts have suggested that the current R&D credit structure does not 

properly incentivize truly groundbreaking research, but instead, effectively subsidizes 

incremental improvements on existing technologies. Finally, some have pointed out that 

tax-based research incentives are frequently unavailable to companies that most need a 

research funding: innovative, fledgling start-ups that do not yet have tax liabilities against 

which to take the credit. 

How will the President's annual budget request propose to tackle these and other problems 

associated with the R&D Credit? Specifically, what does the Administration believe to be 

the proper R&D credit rate? Also, in addition to assisting manufacturers, will the 

Administration consider any changes to the R&D credit-or other research incentives-to 

direct more resources toward startup firms that are the lifeblood of innovation? 

The President supports the goal of encouraging technological innovation. To this end, the 

Administration proposed in its Fiscal Year 2013 Budget two changes to enhance the research and 

experimentation (R&E) tax credit. First, the R&E tax credit would be made pennanent, which 

would encourage research and innovation by removing the uncertainty that firms face over the 
171 


86523.109

future availability of the credit when making decisions over their investments in research 

projects that may not be completed prior to the credit's expiration. Second, the credit rate would 

be increased from 14 to 17 percent for firms electing to use the alternative simplified research 

credit (ASC). The increased credit rate would provide an improved incentive to increase 

research and would make the ASC more attractive. Both of these changes to the R&E credit 

would further promote research investments, including research initiated at startup firms. R&E 

tax credits are available to firms even when they currently do not have sufficient tax liability 

against which to take the credit because any unused credit amounts can be carried back one year 

and forward for up to 20 years to offset tax liability in those years. The FY 2014 Budget has not 

yet been released, so I cannot speak to what mayor may not be included therein. 

Question 2: 

One of the important goals of the Dodd-Frank Act is to ensure there are no financial 

institutions that are too-big-to-fail and there is a credible and workable process to unwind 

any failing financial firm in an orderly way. Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act is the key part 

of the legislation intended for this purpose, and the financial regulators have given high 

priority to developing the regulations to implement the provisions. In your view, with the 

statutory changes in hand and the regUlations implementing those changes, does the United 

States now have a credible and effective program for orderly resolution of any failing 

financial institution in the U.S.? 

The Dodd-Frank Act provides regulators with critical tools and authorities that we lacked before 

the crisis to resolve large financial firms whose failure would have serious adverse effects on 

financial stability. I understand the emergency resolution authority for failing firms created 

under Title II prohibits any bailout, while protecting taxpayers and the U.S. economy. For any 

financial firm that is placed into receivership under this Dodd-Frank emergency resolution 

authority, management and directors responsible for the failed condition of the firm will be 

removed and shareholders will be wiped out. 

Question 3: 

I'm pleased that the President called for comprehensive tax reform in his State of the 

Union Address. Almost everyone agrees that the Corporate Income Tax code is too 

complicated, too inefficient, and doesn't do enough to encourage---and may even be 

counterproductive to-economic growth and the competitiveness of U.S. business firms. 

It is perhaps too early in the reform process to request specific proposals. However, a 

majority of members of the President's Fiscal Commission endorsed a proposal that 

included some of the elements that the President has proposed: lowering rates while closing 

loopholes and tax preferences. At the same time, the Commission also proposed moving to 

a "territorial" international tax system. 

First, could you give some insight into the Administration's approach to international 

corporate tax reform, and the merits of adopting a territorial tax system? Second, what is 

the Administration's view of the argument that the current "worldwide" international tax 
172 


86523.110

system actually induces businesses to locate offshore to take advantage of lower overseas 

tax rates? In combination with strong measures to guard against base erosion, would the 

Administration consider a modified territorial tax system to be part of an overall solution 

to the problem of "offshoring" jobs overseas? 

The President's Framework for Business Tax Reform supports a hybrid approach that reduces 

incentives for companies to shift profits and investment to low-tax countries, puts the United 

States on a more level playing field with our international competitors, and helps end the global 

race to the bottom on corporate tax rates-while also making American companies more 

competitive globally. There is considerable debate as to how to reform the international tax 

system, but I believe that there is common ground on this subject, including a mutual concern 

about preserving the U.S. tax base by reducing incentives that encourage the shifting of 

investment and income overseas, and making the United States more competitive globally. I 

look forward to working with the Committee on a bipartisan basis to develop approaches to 

international taxation that will cnsure the United States will retain and attract high-quality jobs. 

Question 4: 

Industry has shown extreme interest in developing offshore wind in the United States 

despite the unique challenges offshore wind presents. The ideal offshore winds are often 

found in federal waters - requiring federal permits and other logistical complications that 

can add years to the construction timeline. The long investment time, infancy of the 

industry, and higher initial costs of offshore wind, make offshore wind unique from 

onshore wind. Investors need a quicker return on such a long-term investment, which is 

why the investment tax credit is advantageous for offshore wind projects and the 

production tax is not. Tax certainty for the first offshore wind movers is expected to 

ultimately reduce costs for future projects and for consumers. 

To provide long-term certainty and support the first movers in this new industry, I 

introduced legislation last Congress with former-Senator Snowe and other colleagues on 

the Finance Committee that would extend the Investment Tax Credit for offshore wind for 

the first 3,000 MW. Do you believe this is a concept that could work for not only offshore 

wind, but for other clean technologies? 

This Administration has focused on building an energy economy in the United States that is 

cleaner as well as more efficient and secure. As part ofthat effort, the Administration has taken 

action over the past few years to support the development and deployment of renewable energy 

that will create new jobs and jumpstart new industries in America. Building on important 

progress achieved during the President's first term, including the doubling of energy from wind 

and solar, the United States must continue to take steps to reduce carbon pollution. To once 

again double generation from wind, solar, and geothermal sources by 2020, the President has 

called for making the renewable energy Production Tax Credit permanent and refundable, 

providing incentives and certainty for investments in new clean energy like offshore wind. 

Question 5: 

With limited budgets, we need to choose our federal investments wisely - I believe that goes 

for federal spending and for tax incentives. As you know, we have several permanent tax 
173 


86523.111

incentives for oil and gas drilling at a time when oil companies see record profits and 

increased global demand for oil production. Do you believe we should prioritize our energy 

tax incentives to focus on newer, cleaner technology - such as offshore wind - that may 

need greatest investor assistance in the short-term, but will give our country energy 

security in the long-term? 

The President has called on Congress to enact comprehensive tax reform that cuts inefficient and 

unfair tax breaks. This includes eliminating special tax breaks for oil and gas companies that 

distort markets, which are detrimental to long-term energy security and also inconsistent with the 

Administration's policy of supporting a clean energy economy, thereby reducing our reliance on 

oil and cutting pollution. 

Question 6: 

In the American Taxpayer Relief Act 0(2012, Congress extended the production tax credit 

under 26 U.S.C. 45(d) and the investment tax credit under 26 U.S.C. 48(a)(5)(C) for all 

wind projects and changed the eligibility requirements for these credits. Mirroring the 

language in Section 1603 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Tax Act 0(2009, 

Congress made all wind projects that commenced construction by December 31, 2013 

eligible for the investment tax credit and production tax credit rather than just projects 

placed into service. Currently, the Department of Treasury is determining wbat will qualify 

as "commenced construction." It is my hope that the agency will also mirror the Section 

1603 program - as Congress intended - when determining qualifications. If you become 

Secretary of Treasury and this issue is yet resolved, do I have your assurances you will 

consider Section 1603 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Tax Act of 2009 as a 

template for the recently extended wind credits? 

I have not yet become familiar with the details of this credit, but if confirmed, I would work to 

ensure that Treasury and IRS issue timely guidance on this topic. 

Question 7: 

When we enacted health care reform three years ago, we included a provision that I coauthored designed to make it easier for employers to run effective wellness programs for 

their employees. Before health reform was passed, companies designed outcomes-based 

wellness plans that incentivize people to take better care of their health, in accordance with 

current regulations. The provision in the Affordable Care Act that I offered as an 

amendment codified wellness program regulations that had been in place since 2006 under 

HIP AA, and allowed (or greater rewards (or employees within the context of those rules. 

Unfortunately, rather than supporting these proven approaches to wellness programs, the 

Administration's proposed rule published in November, entitled "Incentives for 

Nondiscriminatory Wellness Programs in Group Health Plans," would actually take a step 

in the opposite direction due to a substantial departure of the regulations that have been in 
174 


86523.112

place since 2006 and reinforced in the ACA. Our intent was to give companies the 

flexibility to expand outcomes-based wellness programs, but the proposed rule will actually 

undermine this goal. Can you provide assurance that Treasury will work to ensure that 

companies that comply with the current rules can operate those plans and take advantage 

of expanded premium differentiation? 

I was not at the Treasury Department in November 2012 when the proposed regulations on 

wellness programs were published. However, I appreciate your leadership with respect to the 

Affordable Care Act, and the unique perspective you bring to the wellness program provision as 

co-author of that provision. The November 2012 proposed regulations, which would allow 

employers to offer greater rewards for employees under their wellness programs, state that 

appropriately designed wellness programs have the potential to contribute importantly to 

promoting health and preventing disease. I understand that Treasury staff are currently studying 

several thousand public comments regarding the proposed regulations. If confirmed, I would 

direct Treasury staff to fully consider the points you raised in finalizing these regulations. 
175 


86523.113

Senator Brown 

Question 1: 

This month, the International Monetary Fund censured Argentina for not providing 

accurate economic statistics, including metrics related to inflation, as required by the 

IMF. Argentina's IMF censure was supported by the U.S. Treasury Department, and puts 

Argentina one step closer to being expelled from the IMF and denied access to low cost 

emergency IMF funding. 

There are additional actions Argentina has taken to restrict trade and investments, 

including expropriating the assets of U.S. companies and failure to comply with arbitral 

awards reached pursuant to the World Bank's Convention on the International Centre for 

Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). 

Are there other "censure" mechanisms, such as those used by the IMF, which can be used 

by the U.S. Government to encourage Argentina to comply with its treaty obligations? For 

instance, I understand the Department of Treasury is currently voting against loans to 

Argentina in the multilateral development banks, but such votes are ineffective unless 

other countries join the United States in achieving a majority vote. 

What other tools are available to the U.S. Department of Treasury to compel states that 

refuse to abide by international obligations and directly harm U.S. businesses and investors 

to comply with their international treaty obligations? 

How would you, as Secretary, make full use of such tools and encourage other nations to do 

the same? 

I share the serious concerns about Argentina's unwillingness to honor its international 

obligations. 

If confirmed, I would have Treasury continue to work actively to press Argentina at every 

appropriate opportunity to honor its obligations. 

I understand that Treasury is pressing Argentina to abide by its international obligations and to 

normalize its relationship with the international financial community and foreign investors, 

including by honoring its international obligations to provide accurate data to the IMF, paying 

amounts that are past due to the United States and other Paris Club members, and honoring final 

arbitral awards in favor of U.S. companies. 

Because of these concerns toward Argentina, I understand that Treasury has opposed practically 

all lending to Argentina through the multilateral development banks and supported the IMF's 

decision to censure Argentina for its misreporting of data, and President Obama suspended 

Argentina's eligibility for trade preferences under the Generalized System of Preferences 

program. It is also my understanding that almost all other donors at the Inter-American 

Development Bank have joined the United States in opposing proposed loans to Argentina. 
176 


86523.114

understand that such a level of disapproval by other donors against the proposed loans to any 

single country is unprecedented in recent memory, and follows from the leadership position 

Treasury established in 2011. 

Question 2: 

One of your responsibilities as Treasury Secretary will be to oversee our nation's pension 

regulator, the PBGC, where you will be one of its three Board members. The PBGC has 

come under some criticism recently for their handling of the termination of some pension 

plans, including the Delphi Salaried plan, the US Airways Plans, and the United Plans. In 

the case of the Delphi Salaried Plan, the PBGC has demonstrated a lack of transparency 

regarding the release of records and various calculations used to value the plan, and also 

the time taken to calculate a final determination of the pension values that will be paid to 

the participants. For example, the Delphi Salaried Retirees saw their plan terminated 

approximately 3 'Iz years ago, and have been told it will be at least another three years 

before they are told what their pension payments will be, making it very difficult for them 

to plan their vastly reduced futures. 

As a member of the Board of Directors of the PBGC, what would you do to make the 

PBGC more transparent and open about their methods of calculating the valuations of 

pension plans prior to termination? 

As a member of the Board of Directors of the PBGC, how would you urge the agency 

to correct and significantly shorten the time taken to determine the final value of pensions 

that will be paid by the PBGC? 

I have not yet had an opportunity to fully develop a policy position on how best to address these 

matters, but I look forward to working with the Committee on the issue if confirmed. I do 

believe that it is critically important for beneficiaries to learn the final value of their pensions in a 

reasonable amount of time when faced with plan terminations. In my view, the PBGC should 

work to improve transparency surrounding these processes. 

Question 3: 

The U.S. government for good reasons supports an open investment regime. However, the 

increasing prevalence of state-owned enterprises raises concerns, especially when their host 

governments urge them to "go abroad" as in the case of China. 

In the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations, U.S. trade negotiators are trying for 

the first time to achieve a set of agreed multilateral rules that would discipline the trade 

and market-distorting practices of state-owned enterprises (SOEs). This is a good initiative 

that should be encouraged and hopefully will gain support from our TPP partners. 

Do you have concerns that our current policy of reviewing foreign acquisitions through the 

Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) - focused as it is solely on 

national security - may be too narrow and might need to be modified? 
177 


86523.115

I understand that the Administration is pursuing trade and commercial concerns with regard to 

state-owned enterprises (SOEs) in the Trans-Pacific Partnership as a high priority. In addition, I 

understand that at the May 2012 Strategic and Economic Dialogue, Treasury secured a 

commitment by China to ensure that SOEs payout dividends in line with publicly listed 

companies to ensure a more level commercial playing field. 

As you note, by statute, the sole focus of CFIUS is national security. The statutorily mandated 

focus of CFIUS on national security is an important part of our open investment policy, which in 

tum brings healthy competition, creates good jobs, spurs innovation, and results in lower prices 

and greater consumer choice. 

Within the purview of national security, the Foreign Investment and National Security Act of 

2007 appropriately identifies foreign government control as a factor for consideration in CFJUS 

national security reviews and establishes a presumption that such transactions will be subject to a 

second-stage investigation to identifY and address the national security effects, if any, posed by 

the particular transaction under review. 

Question 4: 

In his State ofthe Union address, the President spoke about the need to create ladders to 

the middle class. 

The President knows that our nation's economic prosperity grows from the middle 

out. And I laud his comprehensive agenda that provides the opportunity for all to succeed. 

As you know, the refundable tax credits for working families are among the most effective 

ladders to the middle class. By rewarding work, the earned income and child tax credits, 

constitute some of our nation's most effective anti-poverty programs. 

Now researchers are finding that these credits have lasting, life-long benefits. Recent 

research shows that children in homes that receive income boosts, like those provided by 

these credits, do better in school and earn more as adults. 

Could you comment on the effectiveness of these credits? Does this Administration support 

making the recent improvements to these credits permanent? Will you commit to working 

with this Committee to make them permanent? 

If confirmed, I commit to working with this Committee to make the American Opportunity Tax 

Credit and recent improvements to the Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit 

permanent. 

Question 5: 

We've recently heard federal prosecutors declare that they elected not to bring eriminal 

charges against HSBC executives for money laundering, because they feared the economic 

consequences of prosecuting this global bank. 
178 


86523.116

Justice Department officials have said that they will not pursue criminal charges against 

certain institutions if they believe that the penalties could threaten the institution's 

wellbeing and the institution's failure would rattle the markets. 

Senator Grassley and I have questioned this policy. Unfortunately, there have been reports 

that some financial policy officials within the Administration hold the same view. What is 

your view about prosecuting banks or their executives who facilitate money laundering, tax 

evasion, or other financial crimes? Do you believe that bringing criminal charges against a 

single financial institution could jeopardize the safety and soundness of the entire financial 

system? 

Will you, as Treasury Secretary, consult with the Justice Department in order to express 

your views regarding the advisability of, and penalty levels related to, criminal actions 

against financial institutions? 

I believe that it is important to enforce the criminal laws vigorously, fairly, and in a consistent 

manner. How the Justice Department chooses to exercise its prosecutorial discretion is a 

decision that is solely theirs. 

Question 6: 

It's been two years since the Treasury Department issued its white paper outlining three 

broad options for winding down Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and establishing a new 

framework for secondary mortgage market. What are your plans would for moving 

forward with this initiative, and the level of urgency it would have? 

What are your views on the proper role that federal support should play in order to restore 

a vibrant housing finance market that minimizes taxpayer exposure and encourages the 

return of private capital to the market, while preserving the benefits of our current system, 

such as availability of the 30-year fixed rate mortgage, the ability of borrowers and lenders 

to lock-in interest rates through the "To Be Announced" market, and the multifamily 

rental housing market for millions of Americans? 

It is critically important that we move ahead with reforming the housing finance market and 

winding down Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Creating a more stable and sustainable housing 

finance market is an important priority of this Administration, and, if confirmed, I would look 

forward to working on this issue with Congress. 

The Administration is committed to a sustainable housing finance system that does not allow the 

GSEs to return to their previous form, where private gains were allowed at the expense of 

taxpayer losses. Any future system must also protect taxpayers and financial stability, promote 

private capital taking on more mortgage credit risk in a responsible way, and meet the needs of 
179 


86523.117

our nation's rental population. At the same time, we must preserve access to credit for American 

families, including long-term fixed rate mortgages, and better target government support for lowand moderate-income Americans, including the development of affordable rental options. Our 

housing finance system must also include stronger and clearer consumer protections and must 

establish a level playing field for all participating institutions. 
180 


86523.118

Senator Bennet 

Question 1: 

In Colorado, we've led the country in renewable energy production. We generate the 6th 

highest percentage of wind power nationally and the wind industry employs over 5,000 

people statewide. Colorado is 5th in the nation in installed solar generating capacity. And 

the state is home to 246 different companies along the solar supply chain. As we begin our 

work on tax reform, how do we balance the need to streamline and simplify the tax code 

with the need to encourage this type of innovative technology and investment that wiII 

create the next generation of sustainable, high wage jobs? 

This Administration has focused on building an energy economy in the United States that is 

cleaner as well as more efficient and secure. As part of that effort, the Administration has taken 

action over the past few years to support the development and deployment of renewable energy 

that will create new jobs and jumpstart new industries in America. Building on important 

progress achieved during the President's first term, including the doubling of energy from wind 

and solar, the United States must continue to take steps to reduce carbon pollution. 

To date, the United States has provided only a temporary production tax credit for renewable 

electricity generation. This approach has created an uncertain investment climate, undermined 

the effectiveness of our tax expenditures, and hindered the development of a clean energy sector 

in the United States. To address these issues and to once again double generation from wind, 

solar, and geothermal sources by 2020, the President has called for making the renewable energy 

Production Tax Credit permanent and refundable, providing incentives and certainty for 

investments in new clean energy. 

Question 2: 

It is my understanding that since 2011, the Treasury Department has required most federal 

benefits, including Social Security payments and veterans benefits to be delivered 

electronically. This movement toward electronic payments has saved significant money 

and improved the efficiency of federal disbursements. The Treasury Department has not, 

however, required tax refunds to be dispersed electronically. Given the potential for 

additional savings, does the IRS intend to move away from paper checks to different forms 

of electronic payments? And if so, on what time frame would this likely happen? 

The IRS encourages taxpayers to direct deposit refunds into their bank accounts. It is the most 

efficient and effective manner for the IRS to deliver refunds and last year almost three out of 

four refund filers elected to have their tax refunds directly deposited. The IRS is working to 

encourage this choice. If confirmed, I ""ill work with the IRS to determine if there are additional 

steps that should be taken in this area. 
181 


86523.119

Senator Casey 

Ouestion 1: 

Tax reform is an expressed priority for many in the business community and beyond. 

While nearly everyone supports the basic tenants of promoting efficiency and enhancing 

competiveness, the pathway fonvard brings up a number of interesting questions for 

debate. 

Please share your thoughts on how we can ensure Pennsylvania manufacturers and 

businesses thrive in an improved system? I know many of our global companies look to a 

territorial system as a good pathway forward but I would like to hear your thoughts on 

how domestic businesses would fare? 

America's system of business taxation is in need of reform. The United States has a relatively 

narrow corporate tax base compared to other countries and a statutory corporate income tax rate 

that is nearly the highest among advanced countries. As a result of this combination of a 

relatively narrow tax base and a high statutory tax rate, the U.S. tax system is less competitive 

and inefficient. The system does too little to encourage job creation and investment in the 

United States while allowing firms to benefit from incentives to locate production and shift 

profits overseas. The system is also too complicated---especially for America's small 

businesses. 

For these reasons, the President is committed to reform that will support the competitiveness of 

American businesses-large and small-and increase incentives to invest and hire in the United 

States by lowering rates, cutting tax expenditures, and reducing complexity, while being fiscally 

responsible. 

In February oflast year, the White House and the Treasury issued a joint report outlining the 

President's Framework for Business Tax Reform, which provides a solid approach to tax reform 

that will support high quality jobs in the United States. 

Ouestion2: 

Tax fraud is a challenging problem for law enforcement across Pennsylvania and beyond. 

According to a November 29, 2012 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, there 

were over 600,000 incidents of tax fraud related to identity theft in 2011, more than double 

the previous year. More troubling, the report suggests that this finding represents only a 

fraction ofthe overall fraud perpetrated against taxpayers. 

The Internal Revenue Service recently began a pilot program in an effort to combat tax 

fraud. As Treasury Secretary, how do you intend to expand these efforts? Are there 

technologies that can be employed to crack down on these crimes? 
182 


86523.120

Preventing tax fraud and combating identity theft are critical to ensuring that our tax system is 

fair. It is my understanding that, in recent years, the IRS has undertaken an extensive effort to 

combat tax fraud and, if confirmed, I would continue to support the IRS in those efforts. 

Question 3: 

According to your testimony, job growth is a top priority. I have introduced legislation, the 

Small Business Job Creation Act of 2013, which would give a tax break to businesses that 

hire new workers and increase wages. 

The administration has advocated for a similar proposal in the past. As Treasury 

Secretary, will you continue to press for such a policy? 

The Administration made a proposal in its Fiscal Year 2013 Budget that would provide a 

temporary 10 percent tax credit for new jobs and wage increases. Under the proposal, qualified 

employers would be provided a tax credit for increases in wage expenses, whether driven by new 

hires, increased wages, or both. Although the economy is recovering and the private sector has 

increased employment, a tax credit designed to stimulate job creation and wage increases could 

help put Americans back to work, provide tax relief targeted at America's small businesses, and 

strengthen the foundation of the economic recovery. 

Question 4: 

Our goal in Congress is to ensure full enforcement of Iran sanctions, including the KirkMenendez language from last December. We must put pressure on Iran's foreign exchange 

reserves and balance of payments. 

a. As Treasury secretary, what additional ways are you considering to ensure that the 

Iranian nuclear program will not continue to withstand Western economic 

pressure? 

The President has made it very clear that it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear 

weapon, and that all options must be on the table to achieve this objective. In service of 

this objective, I understand that the Treasury Department has imposed increasingly robust 

economic and financial sanctions on Iran, including sanctions that restrict Iran's access to 

its foreign exchange reserves and impair its balance-of-payments position; that target 

entities and individuals involved in proliferation, terrorism, human rights abuses, and 

regional destabilization; that identify and expose Iranian efforts to deploy deceptive 

schemes to evade sanctions; and that cut off from the U.S. financial system those who try 

to assist Iran in these efforts. I firmly believe that the imposition and implementation of 

robust economic sanctions is critically important to achieving the President's policy of 

denying Iran a nuclear weapon, and due to the intensive, collaborative efforts ofthe 

Congress and this Administration, as well as steps taken at our urging by partners around 

the world, the current sanctions regime on Iran is unprecedented in terms of scale, and 

scope and impact. If confirmed, I will support Treasury's efforts to implement fully 
183 


86523.121

existing sanctions and, as necessary, I would support additional actions that advance our 

shared objective of stopping Iran's nuclear ambitions. 

b. Will the Treasury Department, under your leadership, commit to sharing with 

Congress your own economic analysis of the efficacy of sanctions? 

I believe that it is important to provide Congress with the information necessary to 

perform its oversight function, and I understand that Treasury staff regularly briefs both 

members of Congress and their staff on the impact of Iran sanctions. For example, I 

understand that in the past month Treasury officials joined colleagues from the 

Departments of State and Energy in briefing Congressional staff on the state of Tran's 

economy and how the actions taken by the Administration have exacerbated Iran's 

economic strains. Additionally, as required under section 216 of the Iran Threat 

Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of2012, Treasury in early February provided 

both unclassified and classified reports on the impact of sanctions on Iran's fmancial 

system and economy. If confirmed, the Treasury will continue to share information with 

Congress on the efficacy of sanctions on the Iranian regime. 
184 


86523.122

Senator Grassley 

Question 1: 

In 2007, New York University (NYU) and other schools settled with the New York State 

Attorney General and pledged to stop steering students to so-called "preferred" lenders. In 

NYU's case, while you were Executive Vice-President of the University, the school was 

receiving $300,000 per year in kick-backs from its preferred lender, Citigroup. In 2007, 

after you left NYU and went to Citigroup, NYU signed a settlement and pledged to stop this 

activity. While you were at NYU, did you have any conversations with Citigroup officials 

about these kick-backs? If so, please describe them. Did you have any knowledge of this 

program with "preferred" lenders? 

I do not recall having any conversations with Citigroup officials regarding Citigroup's selection 

or actions as a preferred lender for NYU students. Also, I do not believe that I approved the 

selection of Citigroup as a preferred lender for NYU students. Student loans were the 

responsibility of NYU's Financial Aid O±1ice, which reported (through various offices) to the 

Office of the Provost. I was generally aware of the preferred lender designation, but I do not 

recall how or when I learned of it. 

I respectfully disagree with your characterization of the preferred lender designation. In March 

2007, NYU released a public Notice to NYU Students, which addresses this issue in detail. 

According to the Notice, NYU held a competitive process in 2004 to identify a preferred lender 

for private loans and to assist students and families obtain loans with the best rates. NYU 

selected Citigroup, because it offered the best rates for the greatest number of students. After 

NYU selected Citigroup, the bank proposed to return to the University a small portion of its 

profits (0.25% ofthe value of the loans), which NYU put in an account for financial aid use only. 

In other words, NYU used the money to provide more financial aid to NYU students. 

Question 2: 

You were Vice-President of NYU when it first began its preferred lender arrangement with 

Citigroup. Did you approve this arrangement? 

Did you have any knowledge of this arrangement when it was initiated? At any other time? 

If so, please explain how and when you learned of it. 

Please see my answer to Question I. 

Question 3: 

When you worked at Citigroup, Citigroup was part of then-Attorney General Cuomo's 

settlement regarding so-called student loan "kick-backs." Please describe in detail your 

involvement, if any, regarding Citigroup's legal strategy in response to then-Attorney 

General Cuomo's investigation. 
185 


86523.123

I do not recall having any involvement regarding Citigroup's legal strategy in response to thenAttorney General Cuomo's investigation. At the time, I worked for Citigroup Global Wealth 

Management, which was separate from Citigroup's student loan business. 

Question 4: 

When you were at Citigroup, did you have any communications with anyone at NYU or its 

representatives in regards to then-Attorney General Cuomo's investigation or NYU's 

settlement with the New York State Attorney General? If so, please describe them in 

detail. 

I do not recall any such communications. 

Question 5: 

At your hearing, I inquired about NYU using offshore accounts to avoid Unrelated 

Business Income Tax (UBIT). Hedge funds frequently set up so called UBIT blockers in 

low-tax or no tax jurisdiction, such as the Cayman Islands, that are in turn invested in by 

tax-exempt entities to get around UBIT debt financing rules. From a policy perspective, 

how do you view the use of blockers by tax-exempt organizations? 

This is a complex area ofthe tax code, and I have not had an opportunity to study it in detail. 

Nonetheless, I am generally familiar with the Unrelated Business Income Tax or "UBIT." UBIT 

applies to tax-exempt entities. It subjects income that is unrelated to their tax-exempt purpose 

(such as religious or educational activities) to tax. This is intended to ensure that tax-exempt 

entities cannot use their tax advantaged status to compete with private-sector organizations that 

pay income tax. If confirmed, I would work with the Committee to ensure that the U.S. tax laws 

collect the appropriate amount of tax. 

Question 6: 

In the President's State of the Union Address, he expressed concern about the skyrocketing 

cost of higher education. The President correctly pointed out tbat the federal government 

cannot simply continue throwing ever more money at the problem in the form of financial 

aid and tax benefits. More needs to be done to encourage colleges and universities to keep 

the cost of a higher education under control. In response to questions asked of you by the 

Chairman and Ranking Member regarding your role in setting tuition at NYU, you stated 

you "worked hard to reduce the University's expenses to limit the need for tuition 

increases." Yet, during your tenure at NYU the average tuition and fees paid by students 

increased nearly 40%. Could you provide examples of what you did to keep tuition under 

control? 

As Chief Operating Officer of NYU, one of my responsibilities was to manage operating costs 

and reduce the pressure to raise revenue, which principally came from tuition. I tried to 

accomplish this goal through a variety of means, including implementing a hiring freeze, 

reforming NYU's general procurement and purchasing practices, implementing a standard 
186 


86523.124

procedure for business travel, managing real estate in a manner that limited the need for new 

capital acquisitions, and generally reducing common expenses (such as computer purchases). 

Ouestion 7: 

As the Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of New York University, you 

were one of NYU's highest paid employees, earning even more the President and Dean of 

NYU. In fact, based on data from the Chronicle of Higher Education your salary was 

higher than most college presidents at either public or private institutions. 

a. As you worked hard to reduce expenses to limit tuition increases, which actually 

increased nearly 40%, did you ever look inward at the expenses of the executive 

suite? 

b. How was your salary at NYU determined? What types of compensation in addition 

to salary did you receive from NYU? 

As I previously disclosed to the Committee, my NYU salary was established in an employment 

agreement that I signed nearly twelve years ago, in May 2001. NYU recruited me to address a 

series of particularly challenging management issues, including the unsuccessful merger in 1998 

of the Mt. Sinai and NYU medical centers. During my five years at NYU, my salary rose 

approximately five percent total (or approximately one percent per year). For some years, there 

was no increase. In addition to my salary, I received housing assistance, tuition remission, and a 

one-time severance payment upon my departure. 

Ouestion 8: 

My understanding is that according to Forms 990 filed by New York University from 2002 

to 2005 you were provided a sizable loan as part of your employment. The amounts 

reported include $1.4 million in 2002, $748,000 in 2003, $698,000 in 2004, and $673,000 in 

2005. 

a. Please describe the terms of the loan including interest rate, minimum payment 

requirements, term, and the purpose of the loan. Be sure to explain how a 

reasonable rate of interest was determined. 

b. Please describe how the loan was repaid and whether any portion of it was forgiven. 

c. Were any terms of the loan altered at any point? If so, please describe which terms 

were altered and when. 

d. Please provide the promissory note and any other documents related to the loan. 

e. lfthe loan interest rate was below market, or ifthe loan was forgiven, did you 

report appropriate amounts as income to the IRS? 
187 


86523.125

The terms of NYU's housing assistance are described in the employment agreement referenced 

in my answer to Question 7. In short, the University provided a mortgage forgiven in equal 

installments over five years, and an additional shared appreciation mortgage. I do not recall the 

interest rate or other specific terms. According to my employment agreement, the interest on 

both loans was equal to the rate earned by the bond portion of NYU's endowment in the quarter 

preceding the signing of the mortgage. NYU provided an annual payment equal to the interest 

paid on the first mortgage described above. NYU reported income related to housing assistance 

on my Forms W-2, and I paid all taxes that were due. 

Question 9: 

As you may know, I have been actively reviewing our tax-exempt laws governing 

nonprofits of all stripes, including colleges and universities. What role do you see for our 

tax-exempt laws in ensuring the affordability of a higher education? 

I have not had an opportunity to study this issue in detail. If confirmed, I would welcome your 

thoughts and would be happy to discuss the issue further with the Committee. 

Question 10: 

One concern I have is that current laws governing executive compensation of non profits 

are inadequate and administratively difficult to enforce. Under current law, an excise tax 

is imposed on a nonprofit leader that knowingly participates in an excess benefit 

transaction. A rebuttable presumption, or safe harbor, for the nonprofit is establisbed if 

the compensation of an officer or key employee is based on an independent compensation 

study. My concern is that this rebuttable presumption has resulted in a race to the top in 

officer and key employee compensation. 

a. In your view, have current rules governing the compensation of officers and key 

employees of non profits been effective? 

b. Would you favor replacing the current rebuttable presumption with a minimum 

standard of due diligence? 

I have not had an opportunity to study this issue in detail. If confirmed, I would welcome your 

thoughts and would be happy to discuss the issue further ,,,,jth the Committee. 

Question 11: 

A key focus of my review of colleges and universities has been the accumulation of billion 

dollar endowments while at the same time tuition continues to rise exponentially. During 

your tenure, NYU's endowment increased nearly 60 percent from around $1.1 billion to 

over $1.7 billion. How did the size of the endowment inform your budget decisions, 

including the large tuition increases that occurred and the availability of financial aid? 
188 


86523.126

During my time at NYU, I was responsible for budget, finance, and operations, which included 

preparing the University's financial plan and making sure that revenues and expenses were 

aligned. Tuition is the principal source of revenue for NYU, as it is for most private universities. 

NYU draws some income from its endowment annually. The precise amount is approved by the 

Board of Trustees, but it is relatively small compared to the University's overall budget. For 

example, according to NYU's fiscal year 2013 operating budget (which is publicly available 

online), the University's total budget is approximately $2.5 billion. The revenue drawn from the 

endowment (the "endowment distribution and other investment income") is approximately $109 

million, or approximately 4 percent of the NYU's total operating budget. 

Question 12: 

One proposal that could help ensure large endowments are working for the students is to 

require colleges and universities to spend a certain percentage of the value of their 

endowments each year. Private Foundations are currently subject to a 5 percent payout 

requirement. Do you believe our nation's universities and colleges should be subject to a 

similar requirement? Why or why not? 

During my time at NYU, the University considered numerous factors-such as the long-term 

viability of the endowment, the need to keep tuition low, and constraints imposed by New York 

state law-in determining the appropriate annual draw from its endowment. Various options 

were presented to both the Finance and Investment Committees of the Board of Trustees, and the 

annual draw was ultimately subj ect to approval from the full Board. I do not recall the specific 

details, but I believe the annual draw was typically based on a percentage of the annual yield 

from the endowment. A rule that mandated a minimum payout based on the value of the 

endowment-rather than the annual yield--could hann the long-term viability of an endowment 

during periods of economic stress. I have not had an opportunity to study this issue in detail, 

however, and I would be happy to discuss the issue further with the Committee. 

Question 13: 

In 2006, I authored updates to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) whistle blower program 

to increase the tools available to track down and expose tax cheats. It has proven to be the 

most successful program the administration has to go after the big time tax cheats. Yet, I 

am concerned that some within Treasury and the IRS view whistleblowers and the 

whistle blower program with hostility. I have highlighted my specific concerns in several 

letters to Treasury and IRS. Please review my letters and inform me of what actions you 

plan to take to ensure the effectiveness and efficiency of the IRS whistleblower program. 

In doing so, please be sure to address concerns about a lack of communication with 

whistleblowers and the length of time it takes to process claims. 

I agree that the IRS whistleblower program is an important tax administration tool, and, if 

confirmed, Treasury and the IRS will continue to work with you on ensuring the effectiveness 

and efficiency of the IRS whistleblower program and addressing your concerns on the program's 

operation. 
189 


86523.127

Question 14: 

At your hearing, you stated that you believe it is best if corporate and individual tax reform 

is done together. Yet, the tax reform framework issued by the President in February 2012 

focused only on corporate reform. When can we expect the President to issue a similar 

framework for individual tax reform? 

As you noted, the President's Framework for Business Tax reform was released in February 

2012. In his FY 2013 Budget, the President called for fundamental reform that meets five key 

principles: (1) simplifYing the tax code and reducing tax rates; (2) reforming inefficient and 

unfair tax breaks; (3) decreasing the deficit while improving progressivity; (4) increasing job 

growth and creation in the U.S.; and, (5) observing the Buffett rule so that those making over $1 

million do not face a lower tax rate than middle-class taxpayers. 

If confirmed, I look forward to engaging with the members of this Committee to move forward 

on tax reform measures so that we can efficiently and fairly raise the tax revenue we need. 

Question 15: 

In response to a question from Senator Crapo, you indicated that a lower corporate tax 

rate should be accompanied by "a minimum worldwide tax rate." The concept of an 

international "minimum tax" was first included in the President's February 2012 tax 

reform framework, but there has since been very little, if any, detail provided on how that 

proposal would work. Will the President's FY 2014 budget proposal include this proposal 

and will the Treasury department provide a more specific explanation? If not, when can 

Congress expect Treasury to provide these details? 

The President's Framework is intended to lay the foundation for a dialogue with Congress and 

stakeholders on tax reform. I understand that the Administration has been engaged in an ongoing 

process, consulting with stakeholders, tax policy experts, members of Congress, and other 

policymakers, however, the President's FY 2014 Budget has not yet been released, so I cannot 

speak to what mayor may not be included therein. 

Question 16: 

In further response to Senator Crapo, you said that there is "room to work together" with 

Congress to reform our worldwide tax system and negotiate a competitive territorial tax 

system in the corporate code. You said "We actually have a debate between whether we go 

one way or the other, and we have a hybrid system now. It's a question of where we set the 

diaI." The President's Framework for Business Tax Reform included a number of 

proposals that would curtail deferral, including the proposal for a "minimum worldwide 

tax rate" that you referenced. These proposals would increase the amount of active foreign 

business income that would be subject to current federal tax. 

a. Wouldn't these proposals turn the "dial" of our hybrid system toward the 

worldwide end of the spectrum and away from the territorial end? 
190 


86523.128

b. In your view, would "a competitive territorial tax system" be a hybrid that is more 

or less worldwide than our current system? 

c. Please describe what types of foreign income would receive territorial treatment or 

worldwide treatment under such a system. Would income that is subject to the 

international "minimum tax" be exempt upon repatriation? 

The President's Framework for Business Tax Reform supports a hybrid approach that reduces 

incentives for companies to shift profits and investment to low-tax countries, puts the United 

States on a more level playing field with our international competitors, and helps end the global 

race to the bottom on corporate tax rates-while also making American companies more 

competitive globally. There is considerable debate as to how to reform the international tax 

system, but I believe that there is common ground on this subject, including a mutual concern 

about preserving the U.S. tax base by reducing incentives that encourage the shifting of 

investment and income overseas, and making the United States more competitive globally. I 

look forward to working with the Committee on a bipartisan basis to develop approaches to 

international taxation that will ensure the United States will retain and attract high-quality jobs. 

Question 17: 

The biodiesel tax credit expired at the start of 2012 and was retroactively extended at the 

beginning of2013. It has come to my attention that new procedures put in place by the IRS 

to claim the biodiesel credit for the first three quarters of 2012 may pose a barrier to 

partnerships, joint ventures, and Coops retroactively claiming the credit for 2012. Under 

the procedures, biodiesel producers organized as a partnership, joint venture, cooperative 

or LLC will not be able to claim the credit directly, but instead will have to issue statements 

to the partners who in turn would have to claim the credit. As most producers have 

contracts with petroleum companies or blenders to rebate to them the value of the credit, 

having the credit paid the partners instead of the entity puts these producers in a very 

difficult position. This issue impacts most biodiesel producers greatly frustrating the 

purpose behind Congress retroactive extension of the law. If you are confirmed as 

Treasury Secretary, will you direct IRS to solve this issue so the law will work as intended? 

If confirmed, I will look into the issue you raise. 

Question 18: 

The research and development (R&D) tax credit requires businesses to perform 

complicated calculations to determine their eligibility. This has been a major roadblock to 

medium and small sized businesses claiming the credit. In 2006, Congress added the 

alternative simplified credit (ASC) to make it easier for businesses, especially smaller sized 

businesses, to determine their eligibility for the credit. However, the Treasury and IRS 

through regulation in 2008 - without any support in the statute - greatly limited the 

benefits of the ASC by not allowing it to be taken on amended returns. President Obama 

has been referencing the importance of the R&D credit to the nation and even calling for 
191 


86523.129

it to be made permanent. Why then would the Administration inhibit the use of the credit 

to small and medium businesses? If you are confirmed as Secretary of the Treasury, will 

you review these regulations and consider allowing the ASC to be claimed on amended 

returns? 

The Administration strongly supports the continuation of the Research and Experimentation 

(R&E) credit and has proposed to make the R&E credit permanent and to simplify and expand it. 

If confirmed, I would be happy to look into the specific issue you raise. 

Question 19: 

Implementing the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is a massive undertaking for the IRS. 

However, the Administration has been less than forthcoming with the administrative costs 

and resources that will be necessary for the IRS to implement it over the next several years. 

a. Can you give me a better picture of the resources the IRS has devoted to 

implementing ACA? 

b. How many employees are devoted to these projects (full and part-time)? How much 

has the IRS paid or committed to paying outside contractors to implement ACA? 

Since the passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), no additional appropriated funding 

has been provided to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for implementation. The ACA 

included a $1 billion fund, the Health Insurance Reform Implementation Fund (HIRlF), 

(0 be administered by HHS and to be used to fund the early phases of ACA 

implementation. The IRS spent $488 million ofHIRlF funding on ACA implementation 

from FY 2010 through FY 2012. 

In FY 2012, the IRS had just under 700 full-time equivalent staff working on ACA. 

From FY 2010 through FY 2012, (he IRS spent $297.1 million on information 

technology contract costs. 

c. I am sure the IRS has done budgeting for the upcoming year. What are projected 

staff numbers and cost of implementation for the next year? 

The FY 2013 President's Budget requested $360 million and 859 FTE, about 70 percent 

of which is for IT implementation and program management. 

Question 20: 

As a former Citigroup employee, do you believe that Citigroup's size played a role in its 

ultimate collapse and need for a taxpayer bailout? 

I believe there were many factors that contributed to the 2008 financial crisis and Citigroup's 

need for taxpayer support. These factors included the emergence and rapid growth of institutions 

and financial activities outside the scope of classic banking regulation (commonly referred to as 
192 


86523.130

the "shadow banking" system); a dramatic and widespread increase in leverage and risk; 

increased reliance on short-tenn funding sources (such as the repurchase or "repo" market); 

fundamental breakdowns in risk management practices across the financial sector; increased 

complexity and lack of transparency regarding the over-the counter derivatives markets; and, an 

outdated and inadequate regulatory structure, with weak or nonexistent capital requirements. I 

believe these factors played a more significant role in the crisis than the size of anyone 

individual finn. 

Question 21: 

Do you believe that tbe "Too Big to Fail" provisions in Dodd-Frank ensure that the failure 

of large financial institutions will not cripple the economy? If not, what additional 

measures are needed? 

The Dodd-Frank Act provides regulators with critical tools and authorities that they lacked 

before the crisis to resolve large financial finns whose failure would have serious adverse effects 

on financial stability. I understand the emergency resolution authority for failing finns created 

under Title II prohibits any bailout, while protecting taxpayers and the U.S. economy. For any 

financial finn that is placed into receivership under this Dodd-Frank emergency resolution 

authority, management, and directors responsible for the failed condition of the firm will be 

removed and shareholders will be wiped out. 

Question 22: 

Regulators should not be afraid to take large financial institutions to trial when they have 

broken the law. If you are confirmed as Treasury Secretary, you will be a frontline 

regulator of the financial system. Do you agree that the threat of a trial has an important 

deterrent role in preventing illegal behavior by large financial institutions? 

I believe that it is important to enforce the criminal laws vigorously, fairly, and in a consistent 

manner. How the Justice Department chooses to exercise its prosecutorial discretion is solely 

theirs. 

Question 23: 

Is LIB OR a safe and reliable benchmark rate for American investors? Would you 

consider the construction of American-based benchmark interest rate similar to LIBOR? 

I am committed to protecting market integrity. Important steps are being taken by the relevant 

regulatory and law enforcement agencies in the United States and abroad to investigate issues 

related to LIB OR and to address misconduct where they find that it may have occurred. I urge 

them to continue this important work. As I understand, there are ongoing efforts by the global 

regulatory community to comprehensively strengthen the integrity and governance of LIB OR, as 

well as to evaluate potential alternatives. 
193 


86523.131

Question 24: 

Were you aware that Citigroup had 121 Cayman subsidiaries? 

a. Were you aware of any of Citigroup's Cayman subsidiaries? 

b. If so, please describe in detail the nature and extent of your work involving any of 

the particular Cayman subsidiaries? 

During my time at Citigroup, I served as chief operating officer for two different business units. 

I did not have any role in creating investment funds or deciding where they were located. I do 

not recall being aware of any particular Citigroup subsidiaries located in the Cayman Islands. 

Question 25: 

Did you plan any role in the development of Citigroup's tax strategy? If so, what role? 

No. 

Question 26: 

Did you at any point in your tenure at Citigroup raise opposition to the use of Cayman 

Islands-based corporation in transacting company business? If so, when and how? 

Please see my answer to Question 24. 
194 


86523.132

Senator Crapo 

Question 1: 

What are the key components you believe must be included in tax reform? If Congress did 

nothing but cap or eliminate certain credits and deductions for certain taxpayers, in an 

effort to raise a targeted amount of revenue to be used for deficit reduction or to offset 

spending, would you consider that to be "tax reform"? 

As the President outlined in his FY 2013 Budget, fundamental tax reform has five key 

components; (1) simplifY the tax code and lower tax rates; (2) reform inefficient and unfair tax 

breaks; (3) decrease the deficit while protecting progressivity; (4) increase job growth and 

creation in the U.S.; (5) observe the Buffett rule so that those making over $1 million pay no less 

than 30 percent of their income in taxes. 

The President's Framework for Business Tax Reform provided some additional detail on how 

the tax system can be reformed. Reducing unwarranted tax credits and deductions can be an 

appropriate way to raise revenue and should be a component of tax reform because it can 

improve tax simplicity, fairness, and efficiency. I hope, however, that we will be able to work 

together to achieve more far-reaching reforms. 

Question 2: 

Do you believe that comprehensive tax reform, if done right, can and should have a 

significant positive effect on economic growth, which likely cannot be fully captured in 

traditional static projections? Would any tax reform proposal be worth doing, ifit was 

projected to reduce, or have no measurable effect on, economic growth? 

I believe that tax reform can and should help to improve the functioning of the U.S. economy. It 

should also improve simplicity and fairness in our tax laws. All of these objectives make tax 

reform a worthwhile undertaking. 

Question 3: 

The Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) program is projected to be insolvent before 

President Qbama leaves office. The Medicare program is projected to be insolvent before 

President Qbama's successor leaves office. Separate from the discussions and debates on 

how much deficit reduction we need, and how much revenue we need to raise for the 

general fund, do you agree that leadership and action is needed right now to enact the 

necessary structural reforms to ensure that the next Administration is not handed key 

entitlement programs that are either insolvent or on the brink of insolvency? 

Social Security and Medicare are critical programs to our nation's senior citizens and the 

disabled, and we must work to ensure their long-run solvency so that both our seniors and future 

generations can continue to rely on them. The President has expressed a willingness to make 

difficult choices to address these challenges. 
195 


86523.133

As the Affordable Care Act has shown, we can make considerable progress on improving the 

solvency of these programs while preserving them. I understand that largely due to the ACA, for 

instance, the 75-year actuarial deficit of the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund is lower by two-thirds 

now than it was before the ACA and the life of the Trust Fund has been extended by eight years. 

The projected exhaustion ofthe Disability Insurance Trust Fund is an important issue that should 

be addressed by policymakers in a way that modernizes the program and also best serves the 

disabled population, now and in the future. 

Question 4: 

When we see the President's budget request, will it contain new proposals that will be 

scored by CBO to dramatically improve the solvency of these programs? 

In the President's FY 2013 Budget, the Administration proposed to strengthen Medicare while 

saving about $300 billion over the next 10 years. The Administration has sho\\TI a willingness to 

consider even more to make the program sustainable over a longer time-frame. At the same 

time, we must protect America's seniors by ensuring that changes to Medicare still safeguard 

vital programs. The President's FY 2014 budget has not yet been released. If confirmed, I look 

forward to addressing this and related questions once that budget is released. 

Question 5: 

The Social Security program is now running annual deficits and is projected to be insolvent 

within a generation. While it may be politically very dangerous to deal with, every expert 

from every side of the political spectrum that presented before us in the Bowles-Simpson 

Commission told us that Social Security reform is actually far easier to do on a policy basis 

than Medicare or Medicaid reform. Is the President prepared to work with us on 

comprehensive Social Security reform now, which will ensure the program's solvency for 

at least the next 75 years? 

The President has sho\\TI a willingness to work with Congress in making the difticult choices 

necessary to ensure the long-run sustainability of all our entitlement programs, including Social 

Security. He remains committed to ensuring their long-run solvency, so that both our seniors 

and future generations can continue to rely on them. 

Question 6: 

If the President does not believe it is yet timely to enact Social Security reform, when 

exactly does he believe is the appropriate time to do it? 

Please see my answer to Question 5. 
196 


86523.134

Ouestion 7: 

There has been much recent discussion about the composition and effects of recent deficit 

reduction efforts, particularly the Continuing Resolution, the Budget Control Act and the 

recent Fiscal Cliff agreement. I know there are some modest Medicare savings currently 

projected to be a part of the sequester. Outside of those modest savings, which have yet to 

actually take effect, is it not correct that, regardless ofthe significance that one may apply 

to the overall deficit-reduction effects of those pieces of legislation, those measures have not 

had any measurable effect on improving the solvency of any of these important programs? 

A number of provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) will restrain Medicare spending 

growth while maintaining services to the Americans who rely on it I understand that many 

provisions of the Affordable Care Act reducing health care costs have already started, including 

provisions to provide financial incentives for hospitals to provide high quality care, provisions to 

fight fraud and abuse, and reductions in overpayments to Medicare Advantage plans. I also 

understand that the ACA began several programs that could greatly increase the efficiency of 

care, like Accountable Care Organizations and bundled payments to providers. Taken together, 

the provisions in the ACA extended the solvency of the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund by eight 

years. The President is committed to doing more to ensure the long-run solvency of Medicare 

and Social Security. 

Ouestion 8: 

Is it also true that any further revenue increases, spending cuts, or fiscal reforms, unrelated 

to the Medicare and Social Security Trust Funds, will not have any measurable impact on 

improving the solvency of these programs? 

Fiscal measures do not directly impact the solvency of the programs themselves, unless they 

involve the operation of the Trust Funds. The overall current fiscal condition of the government, 

including Trust Fund programs, is reflected in the unified budget 

Ouestion 9: 

The 2004 American Jobs Creation Act ("Jobs Act"), and the implementing rules issued by 

the Treasury, have had a deleterious impact on the Virgin Islands Economic Development 

Commission ("EDC") program and the Territory's economy. Scores of businesses have 

closed (including the Territory's largest private sector employer), and many potential 

investors who considered relocating to the Territory have determined that the Jobs Act 

rules are too burdensome and have chosen to invest elsewhere. One study commissioned by 

the EDC found that 36 companies that closed their doors in the period between 2004 and 

2009 cited the Jobs Act rules as the primary reason for terminating their operations. 

Another 22 companies that had been approved by the EDC during the same period 

declined to commence operations. The result is a stagnant economy, declining revenues, 

and record levels of unemployment. 

My bipartisan Finance Committee colleagues and I have been assured by Treasury on 

several occasions that it is willing to reconsider its rules in an effort to assist the Virgin 
197 


86523.135

Islands and promote economic growth in a challenging environment. Can I have your 

personal commitment to work with this committee to address these issues going forward? 

I am not yet familiar with the details of this matter, but, if confirmed, I look forward to working 

with you and the Committee on issues of economic development in the U.S. Virgin Islands. 

Question 10: 

There is a growing list of Dodd-Frank Act issues that Congress needs to fix. One 

bipartisan solution is to protect end-users of swaps from burdensome margin 

requirements. Are you open to working with the Senate Banking Committee to find 

bipartisan Dodd-Frank Act fixes? 

The Dodd-Frank Act provided critically important reforms over derivatives activity and, if 

confirmed, I am committed to completing full implementation of the legislation. The issue of 

end user margin is very important, but I understand that the regulators have not yet completed 

their task in this regard. Once there has been full implementation, I am happy to work with the 

Senate Banking Committee and other Members on issues that warrant attention. 

Question 11: 

Concern has been expressed about the impact of the Dodd-Frank Act and the Basel III 

reforms on bank capital on the financial system and our economy broadly. I am concerned 

that failure to consider and balance the combined impact of all of the regulatory changes 

will have real consequences on our economy beyond just the obvious constraints on bank 

lending and the availability of credit. Do you still share these concerns? 

I think we need to be attentive to the benefits and burdens of all regulations, particularly in an 

area as important to the economy as financial services. For example, the crisis revealed that 

banking institutions need more and better capital to help reduce the probability of a future 

financial crisis. We need strong standards that reflect on these lessons learned from the financial 

crisis, but we also must avoid the imposition of undue costs that could harm the U.S. banking 

system or impede lending that could negatively impact businesses, consumers, and the economy 

as a whole. It is important that Treasury continues its dialogue with the banking regulators as 

they work towards implementing the Basel III capital standards and the Dodd-Frank Act. 

Question 12: 

In 2011, Treasury released a GSE white paper that provided three options on how to 

proceed with Fannie and Freddie. Do you intend to provide more details with regard to the 

plan on how to reform the housing finance market? 

It is critically important that we move ahead with refonning the housing finance market and 

winding down Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Creating a more stable and sustainable housing 

finance market is an important priority of this Administration, and, if confirmed, I would look 

forward to working on this issue with Congress. 
198 


86523.136

The Administration is committed to a sustainable housing finance system that does not allow the 

GSEs to return to their previous form, where private gains were allowed at the expense of 

taxpayer losses. The Administration is also committed to a system that promotes private capital 

taking on mortgage credit risk in a responsible way in order to reduce the government's footprint 

in the housing finance system, and protect taxpayer interests; promotes financial stability; better 

targets government support for low- and moderate-income Americans, including the 

development of affordable rental options; supports stronger and clearer consumer protections; 

and, establishes a level playing field for all institutions participating in the housing finance 

system. 

Question 13: 

The Terrorism Reinsurance Act is coming up for reauthorization. Do you believe that 

private insurers should assume more of the financial responsibility for terrorism risk 

insurance? 

I understand that the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA), and its amendments, established a 

federal reinsurance program that facilitates private insurance market coverage of terrorist events. 

Recognizing that the TRIA backstop is essential, I believe TRIA should be structured to 

minimize taxpayer exposure and maximize the responsibility of private insurers. 

Question 14: 

One ofthe roles ofthe Secretary of the Treasury is to Chair the Financial Stability 

Oversight Council (FSOC) and to ensure coordination among regulators and guard against 

regulations that unnecessarily harm U.S. competitiveness. What is your opinion of the role 

of the FSOC in coordination with FSOC members to avoid duplicative, costly or 

overburdensome regUlations? Do you agree that the Securities and Exchange Commission, 

Commodities and Futures Trading Commission, and international regulators need to 

clearly address cross-border issues in their rules by harmonizing the substance and timing 

with their international counterparts? 

I believe the Council has played, and will continue to play, a critical role in providing a venue for 

coordination and collaboration among regulators. I also believe that we should coordinate 

internationally so that different jurisdictions adopt comparable rules and regulations so that there 

is a level playing field that minimizes the risk of regulatory arbitrage. 

Question 15: 

In April of last year, FSOC approved a final rule to determine which non-bank financial 

firms require Federal Reserve scrutiny. The final rule bas been criticized for its failure to 

adequately address the issue of interconnectivity in the financial sector, the treatment of 

U.S. subsidiaries oflarge foreign companies, or bow it will provide consistency with similar 

G20, European Union or United Kingdom regulatory framework. As FSOC's chair, how 
199 


86523.137

would you address these significant issues while ensuring that U.S. non-bank firms are not 

at a competitive disadvantage in the global marketplace? 

By moving early with the passage and implementation of the Dodd-Frank Act, the United States 

has been able to lead from a position of strength in setting the international reform agenda and 

elevating the world's standards to our own. U.S. regulators and Treasury are working closely 

with their international counterparts on a number of initiatives, including the process for 

identifying global systemically important financial institutions. If confirmed, I would emphasize 

continuing this important work. 

I am confident that the checks and balances built into the nonbank designations process will 

promote appropriate determinations. I understand that the Council is engaging in extensive 

company-specific analyses to determine which nonbank financial companies should be 

designated, based on factors including companies' interconnectedness. 

Question 16: 

In its November 2011 report and again in 2012, GAQ recommended that FSQC work with 

the federal financial regulators to establish formal coordination policies for Dodd-Frank 

rulemaking that clarify issues, such as when coordination should occur. Nonetheless, the 

FSQC has not established such formal policies. Will you commit to implementing the 

formal coordination policies and procedures as recommended by GAQ? 

The Council has played a crucial role in fostering both formal and informal coordination among 

regulatory agencies. I expect that the Council will continue to serve as a forum for agencies to 

discuss important issues regarding financial regulation. If confirmed, as Chair of the FSOC, I 

would continue the Council's important work in facilitating interagency coordination. 

Question 17: 

Last November, FSQC exercised its authority under Section 120 of Dodd-Frank for the 

first time to publish for public comment recommendations for structural reforms of money 

market mutual funds (MMFs). The recommendations the FSQC made were exactly the 

same as the alternatives that failed to gamer the necessary votes for the Securities and 

Exchange Commission (SEC) , the functional regulator of MMFs, to put forth for public 

comment and did not include alternatives that SEC Commissioners publicly stated were 

likely to be put forth in an impending SEC rule pro-posaI. Should the FSQC put forth for 

public comment issues and proposals that may be contrary to regulatory proposals that the 

functional regulators are likely put forth? In this instance, do you believe the FSQC's 

action has compromised the independence of the SEC? 

The Dodd-Frank Act authorizes the FSOC to issue recommendations to regulatory agencies to 

apply new or heightened standards and safeguards for a financial activity or practice that the 

Council determines could pose risks to financial markets. By issuing proposed recommendations 

on MMF reform, the Council enabled an important public discussion on the structural 

vulnerabilities ofMMFs and alternatives for much-needed reform. In my view, this action 
200 


86523.138

allows policymakers, industry participants, and other members of the public to discuss the key 

issues and options for reform. 

The FSOC's proposed recommendation notes that if the SEC accepts the recommendation, it is 

expected that the SEC would implement the recommendation through its own rulemaking. The 

FSOC process does not supplant the SEC's authority, and I agree with the view of the FSOC that 

the SEC is best positioned to implement reforms to address the risks posed by MMFs. 

Question 18: 

With hundreds of new regulations either proposed or already finalized under Dodd-Frank, 

and more yet to come, many argue that the U.S. financial institutions are facing a serious 

competitive disadvantage and have erected barriers to new entrants in the markets. In 

your view, does the cumulative regulatory burden and anticipated burden of yet to be 

finalized regulations create a barrier to entry for new entrants in the banking, securities 

and insurance markets? How can the U.S. financial markets remain competitive in a 

global marketplace with such enormous regulatory burden and more to come and what 

measures would you take as tbe Secretary of the Treasury to encourage banks not to move 

to jurisdictions that require less regulatory burden? 

The Dodd-Frank Act is critical to the refonn of the financial system and restoring investor 

confidence. The safety and soundness of our financial system is also critical to attracting new 

entrants. As with all regulation, I think we need to be attentive to the benefits and costs, 

particularly in an area as important to the economy as the financial services industry. It is 

important to continue working with our international counterparts to help ensure that U.S. and 

international financial firms are subject to strong standards and able to compete on level terms. 

Question 19: 

As independent regulatory agencies, the federal financial regulators are not subject to 

Presidential Executive Orders, including two Executive Orders issued by President Obama, 

which require comprehensive cost-benefit analysis and require agencies to coordinate 

regulations to avoid duplication or unnecessary costs in accordance with guidance issued 

by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). While most financial regulators say that 

they generally attempt to follow OMB's guidance in principle or spirit, a recent GAO study 

found that the agencies did not consistently follow key elements of the guidance in their 

regulatory analyses for the 66 Dodd-Frank rules GAO analyzed. Do you believe that the 

federal financial regulators should follow the President's Executive Orders and OMB 

guidance regarding comprehensive cost-benefit analyses? How should agencies work 

together to find the cumulative effect of regulations on regulated entities, consumers and 

the economy? 

I believe that it is important for the independent financial regulatory agencies to coordinate and 

to perform a rigorous analysis of the implications of their regulations, consistent with their 

statutory requirements, so as to avoid unnecessary costs (both quantitative and qualitative), 

overlap, and conflict. If confirmed, I would look forward to serving as the Chair of the Financial 
201 


86523.139

Stability Oversight Council and working with Council members to further strengthen our 

collective efforts in this area. I believe the FSOC can play an important role coordinating closely 

with the regulatory agencies to achieve the aims of Dodd-Frank. 
202 


86523.140

Senator Roberts 

Question 1: 

I want to address the issue of business aviation and the proposal to change the depreciation 

schedule for jets, agriculture aircraft, and piston engine aircraft from 5 to 7 years. The 

estimates that I have seen say that this will raise $200 to 300 million a year. This of course 

does not account for the loss in tax revenues and jobs that would be caused by this change. 

The Congressional Budget Office projects that the federal deficit for this year will be $845 

billion. As I calculate the change you propose, it would reduce the FY2013 deficit - using 

the most favorable numbers to you - by about 2 millionths of a percent. Based on this 

calculation, can you understand why someone like me who has seen general aviation 

manufacturers in my state lose 50% of their workforce - unionized workforce by the way -

objects to the misleading focus and rhetoric around this issue. I would hope that you would 

set a higher standard as Treasury Secretary - these political games are beneath the office 

and seriousness ofthese issues. 

These vindictive attacks come at the same time the administration is pushing a new set of 

policies to reinvigorate the U.S. manufacturing sector. The goal ofthese policies is to 

double exports, retain and build a robust manufacturing base and help communities to 

access and compete in markets across the states or across the world. During your tenure 

with Citigroup, did you ever fly on the firm's corporate jets or helicopter? If so, what was 

the purpose of this travel? What business advantage was there to you or the company from 

you travelling on these business assets? 

During my time at Citigroup, I generally traveled on commercial carriers. I was not one of the 

most senior executives who had access to company aircraft. In limited instances, however, I 

traveled with those senior executives. In those circumstances, I would accompany them because 

it was more efficient than flying separately. 

Question 2: 

I struggle to understand the assault that this administration has leveled against Business 

Aviation while working to improve our manufacturing sector. It's clear to me that Business 

Aviation is, in fact, the perfect example of a world-leading, high tech industry that we 

should be doing all we can to support. Yet, we are barraged by the negative spin about "fat 

cat jets." It's neither accurate nor fair and has a deeply damaging effect on the aviation 

market. Is it consistent to promote pro-manufacturing policy while attacking a successful 

manufacturing sector? 

The Administration is committed to a strong domestic manufacturing sector, including the 

production of aircraft. I believe it is important to treat both commercial and non-commercial 

aircraft consistently. 
203 


86523.141

Question 3: 

Business aviation provides a large number of high paying manufacturing and services jobs 

in my state and across the country; helps companies to be efficient and competitive in the 

global markets; is a lifeline to communities with little or no airline service; and plays a vital 

part in this country's emergency preparedness and disaster assistance. If the 

administration continues to say that it likes the U.S. to build aircraft but continues to 

attack the people and companies who use business aircraft, will we have a robust aircraft 

manufacturing base? Or, will we kill offthis leading, high-tech, internationally competitive 

industry? 

Please see my answer to Question 2. 

Question 4: 

The depreciation period for business aircraft has been in place for decades and it has 

worked exactly as Democrats and RepUblicans intended. None ofthe taxpayers utilizing 

this schedule are trying to avoid law. They are simply following a law that was established 

by the Kennedy Administration and later adopted by Congress. Can you confirm that the 

Treasury Department during the Kennedy Administration first put forward the 

depreciation schedule for business airplanes? 

I understand that the depreciation schedules for aircraft changed several times in the 1980s 

although those changes were made to original guidance from a revenue ruling from the 1960s. 

As I said at the Finance Committee hearing, the purpose of the proposal is to create a fairer tax 

code by establishing parity in the depreciation rules for all aircraft that primarily carry 

passengers. In addition, as 1 said at the hearing, the purpose of the proposal is not aimed at 

trying to do any damage to the general aviation industry. The Administration is committed to a 

strong domestic manufacturing sector, including the production of aircraft. 

Question 5: 

It is inaccurate to call the current depreciation period for business aircraft a 

"loophole." There is no way anyone can watch the countless video tapes of the President 

talking about business aviation without hearing vilification in the tone of his voice." 

Frankly, I fail to see how this proposal, which would raise such a tiny amount toward 

reducing our deficit, can continue to be a centerpiece of your policy. It makes no sense to 

destroy this industry when it is such a key contributor to our international competitiveness 

and such a strong generator of exactly the kind of jobs we need in Kansas and across the 

nation. Does the administration consider this a "loophole"? 

Please see my answer to Question 2. 
204 


86523.142

Question 6: 

Repeal of "Iast-in-first-out" (LIFO) accounting continues to be included in the 

administration's deficit reduction proposals despite concern about the proposal that has 

increasingly been expressed from both sides of the aisle. One ofthe major problems I have 

with the proposal is the degree of retroactivity that is associated with it. As I understand 

the proposal, the administration would not simply terminate the LIFO method 

prospectively (which I would oppose in any event), but would require all LIFO taxpayers, 

large and small, to pay over to the Treasury all of the tax benefits they have ever received 

from LIFO, even those benefits dating back 60 or 70 years -- the full period LIFO has been 

in existence. In other words, the administration would require that those taxpayers be 

treated as if they were never on LIFO in the first place. Quite apart from the harsh 

economic consequences to the companies that would therefore result from the proposal, do 

you really believe that a proposal so constructed is fair? 

I support the Administration's proposal to repeal the LIFO method of accounting. This proposal 

would be a step toward the overall tax reform goals of base-broadening, fiscal responsibility, and 

tax simplification. Like most accounting method changes, taxpayers switching from LIFO 

would have to make an adjustment. To alleviate this burden, the proposal would allow taxpayers 

to spread any increase in income over ten years rather than the four-year period required under 

current law. 

Question 7: 

Recently, eleven members of the European Union joined together in support of a EU 

financial transaction tax. We have heard reports that the countries interested in deploying 

such a tax plan will use the revenue collected here in the United States to pay down 

European debts. I ask you whether or not it is appropriate for American investors and 

retirees to be asked to pay for Europe's expansive social safety net? If confirmed as 

Secretary, will you seek to protect Americans from having to pay the French and Italian 

tax, or seek to amend U.S. tax treaties with foreign governments to ensure that no foreign 

government can apply future extraterritorial taxes on securities transactions occurring 

within the United States? 

I understand that the Treasury Department is studying the financial transaction taxes that have 

recently been enacted and proposed. I also understand that while the Treasury Department is 

continuing to analyze the full proposal for the EU financial transactions tax, the Treasury 

Department does not support the proposal because it would harm U.S. investors in the United 

States and elsewhere who have purchased affected securities. It is my understanding that the 

Treasury Department has raised these concerns with its European counterparts. 

Question 8: 

Late last year, the president signed a law to relieve U.S. airlines from paying a European 

carbon tax on the full length of an international flight when a short segment occurs within 

Europe. Will the administration take similar steps to shield U.S. investors and retirees 

from having to pay similar extraterritorial EU taxes on securities transactions within the 

United States? 
205 


86523.143

Please see my answer to Question 7. 

Question 9: 

I am concerned that the President's Framework for Business Tax Reform could actually 

hurt smaller companies. Lowering the corporate tax rate and removing tax incentives 

without also cutting the individual tax rate would favor large C corporations over "passthrough entities" (typically small and medium-sized husinesses organized as limited 

Iiahility companies or S corporations) that pay the individual tax rate rather than the 

corporate rate. The plan would effectively raise those entities' taxes hy removing their 

incentives while keeping their rates the same. Can you tell me how restructuring the tax 

treatment of a significant portion of the economy, the area where most johs are created, 

will help spur economic growth? 

T share your concern about small business taxation. This concern is reflected in the President's 

five principles for business tax reform, as laid out in last year's joint White House and Treasury 

report titled, The President's Framework for Business Tax Reform. Principal number 4 is 

"Simplify and cut taxes for America's small businesses: Tax reform should make tax filing 

simpler for small businesses and entrepreneurs so that they can focus on growing their businesses 

rather than filling out tax returns." Indeed, the plan outlined in the Framework would cut taxes 

for small businesses, including pass-throughs. 

Question 10: 

The Research and Development tax credit is an important tool to encourage innovation and 

job creation through the tax code. The Alternative Simplified Credit (ASC) was intended 

by Congress to broaden the numher of companies that would be eligible to take advantage 

of the incentives provided by the R&D tax credit. From discussions with small and medium 

business owners and their tax advisors, it is clear that a significant roadblock to these 

companies taking the R&D tax credit is the fact that the Alternative Simplified Credit 

(ASC) is only available on original returns. In 2006, Congress expanded the availability of 

the R&D tax credit for businesses, making it easier for businesses, especially small and 

medium businesses to determine their eligibility for tbe credit. However, the Treasury and 

IRS through regulation in 2008 -- without any support in the statute - greatly limited the 

benefits of the ASC by not allowing it for an amended return. This action by Treasury and 

IRS has significantly hamstrung the ability of small and medium businesses to take full 

advantage of the R&D credit. A GAO report on the R&D credit stated that this regulation, 

again, with no basis in statute, disproportionately disadvantages small and medium 

businesses. Tbe president has been referencing the importance of tbe R&D credit to the 

nation. Why then would the administration inhibit the use of the credit to small and 

medium businesses? Will you seek to reverse these regulations as Secretary ofthe 

Treasury? 
206 


86523.144

The Administration strongly supports the continuation of the Research and Experimentation 

(R&E) credit and has proposed to make the R&E credit permanent and to simplifY and expand it. 

If confirmed, I would be happy to look into the specific issue you raise. 

Question 11: 

There are approximately 2,300 S Corporation Banks that pay individual income tax. What 

would be your position on higher income tax rates related to Subchapter S 

banks? Shouldn't Treasury consider the potential negative impact higher taxes will have 

these institutions? 

All effects of taxes on business decisions need to be considered in determining tax policy, 

including tax rates. At the same time, the government has to raise revenue to fund needed goods 

and services. 

Question 12: 

The IRS in the past few years has been promising to get out refunds faster to taxpayers (as 

soon as 5-10 days). But recently, the IRS has stated that refunds could take as long as 21 

days. I understand the IRS is blaming delayed refunds because they are checking for 

fraud, but while stopping fraud is important, I wonder if that is an easy excuse to cover 

more serious issues at the IRS. Will you commit for the next tax filing season that the IRS 

will go back to meeting its promise to get back refunds to taxpayers within the 5-8 day time 

frame. It seems this should be an urgency especially for those taxpayers who have simple 

returns and have just had over withholding for the year - - as it is really their money that in 

effect they have let the government use for a while. 

I understand that in recent years, the IRS has made a number of improvements allowing more 

refunds to go out faster to taxpayers than ever before. At the same time, the IRS has added more 

security screens and reviews to help protect against an increase in refund fraud, particularly 

involving identity theft. The security features mean that some refunds get extra review, which 

means more time before a refund is released. This dynamic situation means there is no longer an 

easy "one size fits all" description for refund speed that applies to all taxpayers. If confirmed, I 

will work to ensure that IRS processes refunds as expeditiously and responsibly as possible. 

Question 13: 

I am concerned that in the past the IRS has been devoting resources to ideas like "a real 

time tax system" where the government will basically be doing your tax return for you 

instead of focusing on their main mission of processing tax returns and getting out refunds 

to those taxpayers who are owed money back. Will you commit as Treasury Secretary to 

allocate resources away from special projects of the Commissioner such as "real time tax 

systems" and focus on the IRS' core mission of processing tax returns and refunds and 

serving the taxpayer to help them comply with the tax laws? 
207 


86523.145

I understand that the IRS is exploring a real time tax concept that would allow for more timely 

matching of information return data, such as W-2 wage information, received from third parties. 

The real time tax concept does not involve IRS providing pre-populated tax returns. Benefits of 

the real time tax concept include reduced taxpayer burden and improved compliance. If 

confirmed, I would be happy to examine how the IRS might fulfill its mission most efficiently. 

Question 14: 

Some commentators have stated that a delay in payment of IRS refunds will delay when 

the debt limit is reached? Are you aware of any discussions, em ails, or memos within 

Treasury, the White House, or OMB regarding a delay in income tax refund payments and 

the impact that would have on when the debt limit is reach? If you are aware of such 

items, please disclose these. 

Legislation was enacted earlier this year suspending the debt ceiling through May 18, 20 I 3. 

Since I understand that most refunds will be paid prior to May 18, 20 I 3, this year's tax refunds 

should not be affected by the debt limit. 

Question 15: 

Regarding IRS fraud efforts, I know the IRS has been publicizing their efforts to combat 

fraud. However, I have also been told that some simple efforts to identify fraud has been 

stopped in the past year. For example, I have been told that the IRS would informally 

investigate when multiple IRS refund checks were going to a single address or PO Box but 

that has been stopped for some reasons. Can you explain? It is also my understanding that 

the IRS has no formal activity that when other tax preparers know of another preparer 

likely committing fraud and inform the IRS, such whistleblowers are told that it will take 

several months until the IRS can check on this information and by that time the criminals 

have closed up shop and left town. Will you commit to the IRS devoting more resources to 

combatting fraud and taking such simple steps as I described to go after criminals 

immediately? Such steps will not slow refunds as the many IRS fraud efforts do now, but 

are commonsense ideas to combat fraud. 

Preventing tax fraud and combating identity theft are critical to ensuring that our tax system is 

fair. It is my understanding that, in recent years, the IRS has undertaken an extensive effort to 

combat tax fraud and, if confirmed, I would continue to support the IRS in those efforts. 

Ouestion 16: 

I am concerned about Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) fraud. The IRS currently 

requires tax preparers to request if a taxpayer has documents to support aspects of 

qualifying for EITC. But the rules stop there and do not require a tax preparer to actually 

look at the documents. Also, if a tax preparer does look at such documents, then that 

preparer is required to make a copy of such document and store it for three 

years. Unfortunately, such rules then handicap good preparers because ifthey exercise 

good due diligence to combat fraud, they are then burdened with copying documents and 
208 


86523.146

then having to store them for three years, but a bad preparer could just ask if the 

document exists and do nothing more and meets the current law IRS fraud rules. Such 

rules seem to discourage legit preparers from trying to combat fraud and then such rules 

do not apply at all to self-prepared returns done with computer software (which is my 

understanding a big issue in EITC fraud). Will you commit to reviewing some of these 

rules regarding EITC fraud and also not handicap preparers who want to help the IRS 

stop EITC fraud? 

Preventing tax fraud-whether it is related to the EITC or otherwise-is an important goal, and, 

if confirmed, I look forward to working with you and this Committee on preventing fraud in a 

manner that minimizes the burden on compliant taxpayers. 

Question 17: 

I know the IRS is involvcd with litigation regarding its preparer regulation and requiring 

preparers to have identification numbers. However, I can undcrstand why some preparers 

have issues with these rules because I was told that the IRS website on August 4, 2012, 

began selling Form W-12 information - apparently all 850,000 PTIN holders - including 

email addresses, phone numbers, professional credentials, and websites on a CD for just 

$35. IRS even offers an option for ordering a "customized listing" of preparers at 

additional cost. I know the IRS needs money, but this seems over the top - - is the IRS 

going to start selling other taxpayer information. Will you commit to reviewing this 

preparer regulation and insure that its focus is on stopping and catching bad preparers 

and not selling information and gauging with fees most of the small businesses who have 

been properly preparing tax returns for decades? 

I agree that one of the primary goals of the return preparer program should be to ensure that 

taxpayers are receiving advice from qualified tax return preparers. If confirmed, I 'hill work with 

the IRS to achieve this goal. 

Question 18: 

In general, small banks, which are the majority of financial institutions in Kansas, are 

overwhelmed by regulation, which severely detracts from their ability to serve their core 

customers. Yet, community banks weren't the cause of the financial crisis. The community 

banks have been hamstrung with a series of burdensome and costly new regulations. It 

looks like the regulatory balance has shifted too far toward regulation. How do we 

effectively regulate the financial services industry without adding unnecessary regulations 

that stymie or hurt the core function of banks? 

I think we need to be attentive to the benefits and burdens of all regulations that we put forward, 

particularly in an area as important to the economy as financial services. For community banks, 

in particular, the authors of the Dodd-Frank Act understood that small banks did not cause the 

crisis and that rules should be written to treat them differently. Accordingly, they should not be 

under the enhanced and more stringent regulation appropriate for large institutions. If 

confirmed, I look forward to working mth the Congress to help make sure that laws are 
209 


86523.147

implemented in a way that preserves the functions of community banks and keeps capital 

flowing. 

Question 19: 

Can I have your assurances that you will make sure that the Federal Home Loan Banks are 

sufficiently strong to continue to achieve their core mission of providing liquidity and 

supporting community banks and thrifts? 

I understand that the Federal Home Loan Banks (FHLBs) playa vital role in our housing finance 

system by helping smaller financial institutions effectively access liquidity. I look forward to 

engaging further on the issues related to the FHLBs if confirmed. 

Question 20: 

Concern has been expressed about the impact ofthe Dodd-Frank and the Basel III reforms 

on bank capital on the financial system and our economy broadly. I am concerned that 

failure to consider and balance the combined impact of all of the regulatory changes will 

have real consequences on our economy beyond just the obvious constraints on bank 

lending and the availability of credit. Do you still share these concerns? Furthermore, 

given the magnitude of all these rules and their impact on lenders and investors of all sizes, 

wouldn't it be prudent for the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSQC) to examine the 

cumulative impact of ALL these reforms, and report to Congress on what this means for 

credit availability and economic growth? 

I think we need to be attentive to the benefits and burdens of all regulations, particularly in an 

area as important to the economy as financial services. For example, the crisis revealed that 

banking institutions need more and better capital to help reduce the probability of a future 

financial crisis. We need strong standards that reflect on these lessons learned from the fmancial 

crisis, but we also must avoid the imposition of undue costs that could harm the U.S. banking 

system or impede lending that could negatively impact businesses, consumers, and the economy 

as a whole. It is important that Treasury continues its dialogue with the banking regulators as 

they work towards implementing the Basel III capital standards and the Dodd-Frank Act. 

Question 21: 

As part ofthe Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) Treasury has begun winding down 

the Capital Purchase Program (CPP). The majority ofthe approximately 300 banks 

remaining in CPP are community banks. Implementing and executing a program to exit 

the program has been a daunting task for these banks. Community banks were hit 

especially hard by turmoil in the financial industry, are under extreme regulatory pressure, 

and have little access to the capital markets. Treasury is implementing three approaches to 

helping these banks exit TARP, including repayments, restructurings, and auctions. Some 

of the community banks have had difficulty participating in the CPP auctions, particularly 

because they essentially are bidding to buy back their own shares. Several community 

banks have said that their bids to buy back their own stock were rejected as insufficient or 
210 


86523.148

otherwise failing to comply with the auction procedures. A particular concern is a lack of 

communication from Treasury personnel on the auction procedures and on the reasons for 

the rejection ofthe bids. 

a. Can you assure the committee that the procedures for these auctions will be clearly 

communicated to the community banks, and that banks attempting to bid for their 

own securities will receive ample feedback from CPP staff on potential inadequacies 

in their bids? 

b. What steps should Treasury take to ensure that it is transparent with regard to the 

prices agreed upon in the CPP auctions? Should Treasury disclose exactly how it 

determined that the offer from the financial institution was reasonable? 

I have had no involvement in Treasury's past communication process with institutions 

participating in the Capital Purchase Program (CPP). I agree that clear and transparent 

communication is critical to the success of CPP, including the auction process. I believe it is in 

the best interests of taxpayers and all parties, including the CPP institutions, that there continues 

to be a fair and competitive process and that CPP institutions be fully informed about the 

process. If confirmed, I would make sure Treasury continues to achieve that goal. 

Question 22: 

State insurance regulation has performed extremely well throughout the financial crisis, 

with very few insurer failures compared to other financial sectors. In fact, our domestic 

insurance industry has near record surplus, and is highly competitive here and abroad, 

despite the confluence of the financial crisis, unprecedented natural catastrophes and a 

weak economy over the past several years. Few, if any, U.S. insurers are truly systemically 

important. And U.S. insurers are competing effectively in many parts of the world, 

creating jobs at home. Considering all of these facts, would you agree that the Treasury 

should work with state regulators and the NAIC to oppose efforts to adopt one-size-fits-all 

global standards or bank centric standards that would be inconsistent with our proven 

effective insurance regulation or that would impose new layers of regulation or bank 

centric standards on U.S. insurance companies? 

I have not yet had an opportunity to develop a detailed understanding of all issues pertaining to 

the regulation of insurance. I agree that international standards applicable to insurers should not 

only foster appropriate and balanced supervision for internationally active firms, but also foster a 

level playing field. If confirmed, I would engage with the full range of interested parties 

including the appropriate federal and state regulators, industry, consumers, and advocates. 

Question 23: 

When a regulation is determined through the review process with OMB to be economically 

significant will these regulations issued by TreasurylIRS, either on your own or with other 

Agencies, contain quantifiable (not just qualitative) description of benefits or costs to reach 

the economically significant effects ($100 million or more in any 1 year)? So far on 
211 


86523.149

regulations you've already issued with HHS and Department of Labor, I have heard that 

you'll get back to us/that you're meeting minimum requirements/etc. but you have yet to 

give us the numbers that quantify the $100 million threshold. Can we get those estimates? 

Or if that is not possible, will you explain why the Administration is unable to quantify the 

costs/benefits? 

I agree that assessing the potential economic costs and other burdens imposed by economically 

significant regulations on the public is an important part of the rulemaking process. For any rule 

that is covered by E.O. 12866 and has an annual economic impact greater than $100 million, 

Treasury analyzes the costs and benefits of the proposed rule and its alternatives, consistent with 

OMB Circular A-4. If confirmed, I would work to ensure that economically significant 

regulations contain a quantifiable description of the costs and benefits, whenever possible. In the 

case ofIRS regulations, however, I understand that pursuant to longstanding practice across 

several Administrations, IRS rules generally are not subject to E.O. 12866 review. 

Question 24: 

During briefings by Treasury/IRS in implementing PPACA regulations staff have been 

unable to define why a regulation is considered significant, even when the regulation has 

been determined to be significant, or has met the economic threshold set by OMB. This is 

an obvious concern, when staff briefing the hill do not know specifics in their own 

regulations. Will future significant regulations issued by your Department, either on your 

own or with other Agencies, include a clear defmition (such as which of the four 

requirements are met) for why a regUlation is considered significant? 

In most instances, Treasury regulations implementing the Affordable Care Act have not been 

designated as significant regulatory actions. I understand that pursuant to longstanding practice 

across several Administrations, IRS rules generally are not subject to E.O. 12866 review. 

Accordingly, ACA tax regulations have not been designated as significant regulatory actions. In 

one instance, I understand that ACA regulations issued jointly by the Department of Health and 

Human Services and Treasury were designated as significant. In that case, the regulations 

(which implement section 1332 of the ACA) are not tax rules promulgated by the IRS, and OMB 

concluded that they raise novel legal or policy issues. 

Question 25: 

We requested during a briefing on the Employer Mandate rule on January 17 an 

explanation for why this rule is NOT considered significant. During previous briefings by 

DoL and Treasury/IRS staff indicated that all PP ACA regulations are expected to be 

significant because they raise novel legal and policy issues. We have not yet received a 

response. Why does this regulation NOT meet one ofthe 4 requirements to be considered a 

significant regulatory action, specifically if it does not meet the novel legal and policy 

concerns? 

Please see my answer to Question 24. 
212 


86523.150

Question 26: 

On many regulations implementing the PPACA statute stakeholders are being given the 

minimum amount of time to respond (30 days) to the sometimes hundreds of pages of 

regulations, often with many of these regulations being issued in the same week. In these 

instances the Administration has had months if not years to draft and review and OMB is 

given months to review as well. Will future regulations give stakeholders more than a 

minimal amount of time to review? It has been suggested but other nominees before 

Finance Committee that 60 days would be a more reasonable timeframe? 

The amount of time for review and comment on a regulation depends on a number of factors, 

including the complexity of the regulation and the deadline for implementing it. It is my 

understanding that most Treasury regulations have a comment period between 60 and 90 days, 

consistent with Executive Order 13563. In limited instances, Treasury regulations have had a 

3D-day comment period. 

In addition, we are getting feedback that many stakeholder groups do not believe the 

Administration will take into account their comments when issuing the final regulations. 

We would like to point to the Employer Responsibility rule as an example. Section X in the 

preamble seems to indicate a belief, which has been verbally communicated during 

briefmgs, that few comments are expected on the NPRM, and that few changes would be 

expected. However the traditional regulatory process as described in both statute and 

executive order, calls for notice, comment, review and consideration of comments and 

issuing of a final rule. What is being done to address this very troubling concern? 

I value stakeholder involvement in the regulatory process, and I believe that it is an important 

part of developing regulations that are effective and do not impose unnecessary burdens on the 

public. It is my understanding that, in issuing regulations under the ACA, Treasury has engaged 

in extensive outreach with stakeholders during the entire regulatory process and has carefully 

considered each comment received in drafting final regulations. 

Question 27: 

As an additional consideration the Treasury/IRS and many of the Departments 

implementing PPACA have often referred to sub regulatory guidance documents such as 

bulletins, FAQs, etc. to demonstrate stakeholder participation the regulatory process. This 

raises several concerns as sub regulatory guidance does not hold the force oflaw, generally 

does not reach, through notification and other means, the same amount of stakeholder 

participants, and is outside the traditional regulatory process, so as to confuse stakeholders 

with limited resources, both time and money, on where they should place their focus. Why 

is this Administration deviating from the normal rulemaking process and can we ever 

expect it to return to the more traditional notice and comment rulemaking? If not, do you 

plan to formally notify stakeholders of the new emphasis by this Administration on sub 

regulatory actions over the legally binding rulemaking process? 
213 


86523.151

In developing regulations, the Treasury Department often obtains input from stakeholders 

through a variety of means including, but not limited to, the formal notice and comment process. 

The Treasury Department and the IRS for decades have used revenue rulings, notices, and 

similar subregulatory guidance to supplement, rather than to substitute for, the usual rulemaking 

process. Before issuing proposed regulations on the employer responsibility provisions for 

comment, for example, the Treasury Department and IRS published several detailed notices 

suggesting possible approaches that were under consideration and obtaining extensive public 

comments on each of them. Subregulatory guidance is also used to provide answers in an 

efficient manner that taxpayers can rely on, even though they are not binding on taxpayers in the 

way that regulations may be. This is by no means unique to the Affordable Care Act. 
214 


86523.152

Senator Enzi 

Question 1: 

I hope that you and the Obama Administration would lend your support to the Finance 

Committee for taking up tax reform in the near term. Our tax code is too long and too 

complicated, and we need to make it simpler and fairer for all taxpayers. That being said, 

we must ensure that any tax reform effort includes a period of transition so that people and 

businesses can plan accordingly. In particular, I'm sure you would agree that we don't 

want to implement a sudden change that could put a company out of business and add 

people to the unemployment rolls. Do you agree that appropriate transition, i.e., phase-in's 

and phase-out's of certain provisions, is needed when we undertake tax reform? 

Yes, I agree that provisions designed to ensure a smooth transition can be appropriate when 

adopting major tax changes. 

Question 2: 

On February 22, 2012, the Obama Administration unveiled a business tax reform 

framework that calls for lowering the statutory corporate tax rate to 28 percent. The 

framework leaves many of the details on a corporate tax overhaul to Congress, including 

the roster of corporate tax expenditures that would be eliminated in order to reduce the 

rate to 28 percent and whether business tax reforms would apply to pass-through 

entities. I am particularly concerned that small businesses, many of whom are structured 

as pass-through entities, have recently been saddled with a tax increase (because they are 

taxed under the individual income tax system) and that a corporate tax reform effort could 

take even more money out of their pockets. While I don't believe we should do corporateonly tax reform, if that situation arises would you agree that we need to ensure that passthrough businesses are held harmless? 

I agree with the President's five elements of business tax reform. One of these elements is that 

business tax reform should simplify and cut taxes for America's small businesses so that tax 

filing is simpler and entrepreneurs can focus on growing their businesses rather than filling out 

tax returns. I also agree with the approach takcn in the President's Framework for Business Tax 

Reform, which would expand appropriate tax benetits for small businesses in order to make the 

tax code simpler and to offset the effects of general business base broadening. Indeed, the 

Framework suggested a net tax cut for small businesses, including small pass-throughs. 

Question 3: 

The business tax reform framework released by the Obama Administration in February 

2012 appears to call for retention of the worldwide system of taxing foreign earnings. The 

framework states the following: 

"The Administration believes that a pure territorial system could aggravate, 

rather than ameliorate, many of the problems in the current tax code. If 
215 


86523.153

foreign earnings of U.S. multinational corporations are not taxed at all, these 

firms would have even greater incentives to locate operations abroad or use 

accounting mechanisms to shift profits out ofthe United 

States. Furthermore, such a system could exacerbate the continuing race to 

the bottom in international tax rates." (note: italics added for emphasis) 

Since you and I last spoke in January, I'm sure you and your staff have had a chance to 

review both the international tax reform bill I introduced last year (S. 2091, the United 

States Job Creation and International Tax Reform Act of 2012) as well as the international 

tax reform discussion draft released by House Ways and Means Committee Chairman 

Dave Camp in 2011. Upon a careful reading, you'll note that neither ofthose proposals 

calls for a "pure" territorial system. On the contrary, both include strong base erosion 

provisions (i.e. provisions to ensure that companies aren't able to easily strip taxable 

earnings out ofthe United States.) Do you still believe, as you indicated to me last month, 

that there is room for a conversation on updating our international tax system to a 

territorial system (and NOT a "pure" territorial system)? 

The President's Framework for Business Tax Reform supports a hybrid approach that reduces 

incentives for companies to shift profits and investment to low-tax countries, puts the United 

States on a more level playing field with our international competitors, and helps end the global 

race to the bottom on corporate tax rates-while also making American companies more 

competitive globally. There is considerable debate as to how to reform the international tax 

system, but I believe that there is common ground on this subject, including a mutual concern 

about preserving the U.S. tax base by reducing incentives that encourage the shifting of 

investment and income overseas, and making the United States more competitive globally. I 

look forward to working with the Committee on a bipartisan basis to develop approaches to 

international taxation that will ensure the United States will retain and attract high-quality jobs. 

Ouestion 4: 

In 2007, the Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued guidance 

(Notice 2007-55) impacting the Foreign Investment in Real Property Tax Act (FIRPTA) 

rules. In particular, the guidance reversed well-established law regarding liquidating 

distributions. More specifically, the guidance provided that liquidating distributions of a 

real estate investment trust (REIT) should be treated as a sale of real estate subject to the 

FIRPT A tax rules rather than a sale of stock. 

It's my understanding that former Secretary Geithner and his staff have been looking into 

this issue. If confirmed, would you commit that you and your staff will expedite the 

completion of the work that was started by Secretary Geithner on this FIRPT A issue? 

I understand that FIRPTA generally subjects foreign investors' gains from the sale of U.S. real 

property to the same net-basis taxation that is imposed on U.S. taxpayers. I have not yet had an 

opportunity to fully develop a position on Notice 2007-55 but, if confirmed, look forward to 

working with the Committee to create a fair and efficient tax code so that foreign and domestic 

investors in U.S. real property are on a level playing field. 
216 


86523.154

Question 5: 

I am concerned about the "balanced" approach (i.e., additional revenues and spending 

cuts) that the President states is necessary to get our fiscal house in order and potentially to 

replace the upcoming sequester (across-the-board spending cuts). 

The president's proposal to avert the sequester, set to go into effect March 1,2013, 

exemplifies the problem we face here in Washington: raising taxes rather than making the 

important choices on spending reforms. Reducing federal spending must be the focus if we 

are to get back on a sustainable fiscal path. Carefully cutting spending, rather than finding 

more ways to tax American families and businesses, will put America on a path to fiscal 

recovery. 

With high unemployment and a sluggish economy, I am concerned that higher taxes will 

put the brakes on an economic recovery that may be on the verge of accelerating. Do you 

believe additional higher taxes in the near term will have a negative impact on economic 

growth? 

The President is committed to an approach to deficit reduction that includes both spending cuts 

and revenue increases that ask the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share. Implementing 

fiscal consolidation in a balanced way over time coupled with measures that support economic 

growth in the near term is the best approach to address our fiscal challenges and grow the 

economy. 

Question 6: 

Our debt is out of control at more than $16 trillion, and the Senate hasn't had a budget to 

spell out its fiscal priorities in almost four years. After four years oftrillion dollar deficits, 

the current budget situation cannot continue. The budget and economic outlook for the 

next decade released by the Congressional Budget Office last week indicates that our 

nation's debt will continue to grow. And the cause ofthe debt and deficits is entitlement 

spending. Are you willing to work with the members of this committee in the near term to 

truly address the drivers of our long-term fiscal deficits and debt - the huge growth in 

entitlement spending? 

The President has expressed a willingness to work with Congress to make tough decisions to 

ensure the sustainability of the entitlement programs and, if confirmed, I would look forward to 

working with members of this committee to reach such an agreement. There has been 

substantive progress on reducing deficits and additional deficit reduction has been achieved in 

the ten-year budget window. Going forward, I understand that a number of provisions of the 

Affordable Care Act will restrain Medicare spending growth, and the FY 2013 Budget also 

proposed a number of other reforms that improve the efficiency Medicare spending. 
217 


86523.155

Question 7: 

I have been working with Senators on both sides of the aisle for many years on the issue of 

sales tax collection. More specifically, my bill, the Marketplace Faimess Act of 2013, 

empowers states to choose to collect already existing sales taxes on all purchases, regardless 

of whether the sale was online or in store. If states want to keep things the way they are, it's 

a state's choice. I believe we are very close to passing this bill and closing the loophole that 

distorts the American marketplace by picking winners and losers, by subsidizing some 

businesses at the expense of other businesses, and by subsidizing some taxpayers at the 

expense of other taxpayers. I believe all businesses and their retail sales and all consumers 

and their purchases should be treated equally and fairly. The President has been very 

explicit in his call to close tax loopholes. Do you agree that this tax loophole should be 

closed? 

I agree that the system of collecting income, sales, and use taxes by state and local governments 

should be made simpler and provide clear, bright line rules for state and local governments and 

taxpayers to follow. SimplifYing the tax system and clarifYing the rules will increase fairness 

and tax compliance, while reducing the burdens on the sellers and employers that would collect 

and remit such taxes. 

Question 8: 

Middle-income families have endured great economic hardships since the 2008 financial 

collapse. At a forum on government accountability in 2011 you highlighted the challenges 

the collapse created by stating, "Millions of hardworking men and women were losing their 

jobs. Home values and retirement accounts were virtually wiped out." Current 

unemployment and wages remaining flat continue creating challenges for retirement 

savers. Congress, in the Tax Code, has long favored increased access and lower costs for 

retirement saving. Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) are an example ofthis policy. 

The Department of Labor (DOL) is working on re-proposing a rule that could cross 

Treasury's jurisdiction. It will likely redefine Tax Code provisions related to retirement 

savings. The Labor Department's original proposal impacted the Tax Code in a manner 

that would have reduced access and increased costs for IRA savers. That result directly 

contradicts the policy set by Congress in the Tax Code, which the Treasury Secretary has a 

duty to enforce. 

As Treasury Secretary, how would you execute Executive Order 13563 to ensure close 

"coordination across agencies" is taking place between the DOL, the Internal Revenue 

Service (IRS), and other affected agencies like the Securities and Exchange Commission 

(SEC) to protect Congress' Tax Code policy of encouraging affordable access to lRAs and 

incentivizing saving for retirement? 

If confirmed, I would work to implement both the letter and the spirit of this Executive Order, 

which directs Federal agencies to work together to prevent redundant, inconsistent, or 

overlapping regulatory requirements. 
218 


86523.156

My understanding is that the specific DOL rule to which your question refers is a proposal, 

which was withdrawn for further consideration, relating to the meaning of the term "fiduciary" 

under ERISA, a definition that also applies for purposes of certain prohibited transaction rules 

under the Tax Code. If confirmed, I will encourage Treasury staff to work with DOL to avoid 

any unnecessary burdens and overlapping or redundant regulation in the IRA market. 

Question 9: 

Retirement savings is covered in the law under ERISA, the Tax Code, and various 

securities laws. Depending on the issue, the Department of Labor, Treasury, and the SEC 

all could be involved in retirement savings regulation. ERISA's Conference Report 

directed the Administration "not to disrupt the established business practices of financial 

institutions" and directed the Secretaries of Labor and Treasury to ensure brokerage 

services continued (P.L. 93-406, at 309). Congress further applied this principle to the SEC 

in Dodd-Frank by requiring any "uniform fiduciary duty" imposed on brokers and 

investment advisors to be business-model neutral. (P.L. 111-203, Sec. 9I3(g)). 

You've made clear in previous testimony that your [mancial industry experience is 

unrelated to brokerage or investment advisory services. In fact, you characterized your 

experience as being a "manager." That same characterization could also describe the 

Treasury Secretary's duties. So, you're experience in the industry should serve you well 

should you be confirmed. 

Competition between large or small brokerage and investment advisory businesses leads to 

more access and lower costs for retail retirement savers. When the Labor Department, the 

SEC, or any other agency promulgate retirement savings regulations impacting Treasury's 

jurisdiction, would you as Secretary work to protect ERISA's and Dodd-Frank's stated 

intent "not to disrupt the established business practices of financial institutions" and 

establish business-model neutral regulation? 

I support the principles articulated in the ERISA conference report and in Dodd-Frank, and 

would work to advance those principles with respect to matters within the Treasury 

Department's exclusive or shared jurisdiction. If confirmed, I will encourage Treasury staff to 

continue to coordinate with these other agencies on matters within their jurisdiction that may also 

have effects on matters within the Treasury's jurisdiction. 

Question 10: 

IRAs are the fastest growing source of retirement savings in the United States, holding a 

total of $4.7 trillion in 47 million accounts. As Treasury Secretary that means you would 

be responsible for managing a retirement savings vehicle, the IRA, that holds more assets 

than Defined Benefit plans or Defined Contribution plans. The Department of Labor is 

currently working on re-proposing a rule that could impact Treasury's jurisdiction over 

IRAs by redefining certain Tax Code provisions. The Labor Department's original 

proposal impacted the Tax Code in a manner that contradicted Dodd-Frank's business-
219 


86523.157

model neutral policy because it would have effectively compelled broker-dealers marketing 

IRAs to adopt a fee-based advisory business model. 

According to an SEC staff report that studied imposing a "uniform fiduciary rule" under 

Section 913 of Dodd-Frank, "If ... broker-dealers elected to convert their brokerage 

accounts from commission-based accounts to fee-based accounts, certain retail customers 

might face increased costs, and consequently the profitability oftheir investment decisions 

could be eroded, especially accounts that are not actively traded." In short, eliminating 

commission-based representatives harms certain retail investors. Most IRAs are just such 

accounts with 88 percent oflRA investors using a commission-based brokerage to service 

their account. 

The Department of Labor is developing a new rule that will likely impact IRA Tax Code 

provisions within your jurisdiction. How would you work as Treasury Secretary to ensure 

the Tax Code complements Dodd-Frank's business-model neutral policy so retirement 

savers continue having affordable access to IRAs without increased costs? 

If confirmed, I would encourage the Departments to work together to further the common 

objective of assuring that retirement savers have access to affordable IRAs without unnecessary 

costs or burdens. 

Question 11: 

One ofthe most positive elements ofthe US economy is the development of American oil 

and natural gas. Its success positions America to be more secure in its energy supply than 

it has for many decades. Yet, once again the Administration wants to raise taxes on oil and 

natural gas producers. One ofthe tax increases it wants is changing the deductibility of 

intangible drilling and development costs. These are deductions comparable to those 

available for research and development costs. Loss of this deduction for independent 

producers would reduce their available capital by about 25 percent. Why does the 

Administration seek to diminish American oil and natural gas production and suppress one 

of the brightest areas of American industry activity? 

The Administration is committed to an approach that develops all forms of American energy. 

This commitment includes the safe and responsible production of our oil and natural gas 

resources. Today, domestic oil production is at the highest level in nearly a decade, while oil 

imports have fallen to the lowest level in nearly 20 years. Thanks to pioneering new 

technologies developed in the United States we are also now the world's leading producer of 

natural gas. As production has increased, it has boosted our manufacturing, dramatically reduced 

prices, and created more jobs for the American people. 

The fossil fuel tax preferences the Administration proposes to repeal distort markets by 

encouraging inefficient investment. To the extent these subsidies crowd out investments in other 

energy sources, they are detrimental to long-term energy security and are also inconsistent with 

the Administration's policy of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and encouraging the use of 
220 


86523.158

renewable energy sources. Moreover, the inefficient investments generated by these subsidies 

result in underinvestment in other, potentially more productive, areas of the economy. 

Question 12: 

Another tax increase that the Administration seeks relates to the oil and natural gas 

depletion deduction. All minerals are allowed to use percentage depletion. The 

Administration seeks to eliminate it for oil and natural gas. For these minerals, because 

percentage depletion is only available for independent producers and royalty owners and 

only for the first 1,000 barrels per day of production, it is a small business and royalty 

owner issue. Additionally, because these small producers have little or no access to bank 

capital, they must raise their investment capital from reinvested income and from private 

investors. The Administration also proposes to repeal the passive loss exclusion that 

applies to oil and natural gas production investments. The combination of the 

Administration's proposals on intangible drilling and development costs, percentage 

depletion for oil and natural gas production and the passive loss exclusion will cripple these 

small businesses and the royalty owners who depend on them - royalty owners who are 

typically farmers and ranchers and retirees. Why does the Administration seek to target 

these small businesses, farmers, ranchers and retirees? 

When considering the elimination of fossil fuel subsidies, the Administration carefully 

considered the impact that their elimination would have on the overall economy. Our analysis 

indicates that changes in domestic fossil fuel production costs resulting from repeal of these 

subsidies would have little effect on U.S. energy prices. The subsidies for oil do not contribute 

significantly to energy security or significantly reduce our vulnerability to oil price shocks 

because oil is an internationally traded commodity, and its price is determined on the world 

market. 

Tax subsidies that are not designed to correct an existing distortion or market failure lead to an 

over allocation of resources to the tax-favored industries and an under allocation of resources to 

other industries. The tax subsidies that are currently provided to the oil and gas industry lead to 

inefficiency by encouraging an overinvestment of domestic resources in this industry, to the 

detriment of other industries. Removing this distortion would improve overall economic 

efficiency. 
221 


86523.159

Senator Cornyn 

Question 1: 

Total federal debt now exceeds 100 percent of GDP. Over the next 10 years, CBO's 

baseline shows that debt will grow by $9 trillion and reach a total of $26 trillion by 2023. 

Do high levels of debt make this country more vulnerable to fiscal crises? 

The statistic that you cite - gross federal debt includes intra-governmental borrowing. Hence, 

it reflects transactions within the government, in addition to what the government owes outside 

creditors. Debt held by the public amounts to 72.5 percent of GOP, which measures the debt 

owed by the government relative to the size of the economy. 

The federal government continues to borrow at historically low interest rates, reflecting 

investors' confidence in the government's ability and commitment to meet its obligations. The 

Administration remains committed to reducing deficits and stabilizing the debt as a share of the 

economy, and has proposed measures to achieve the necessary deficit reduction in a balanced 

way over the next decade. 

Question 2: 

How would a fiscal crisis affect the U.S. economy? 

If investors lack confidence in the government's ability to borrow it could negatively affect 

Treasury's interest rates and borrowing costs. For example, during the debt ceiling debate in 

2011, investors, businesses, and consumers all lost confidence and the markets were rattled. 

Question 3: 

Would the higher debt from paying higher interest rates slow the economy? 

Interest rates are currently at historically low levels and are expected to remain low for an 

extended period of time. As we contemplate the effect of rising interest rates, it is important to 

consider the economic context in which that would occur. An increase in future interest rates is 

typically forecast as a result of a strengthening economy. In that context, the strengthening 

economy improves the fiscal situation and improves the debt position. Indeed, the Congressional 

Budget Office (CBO) projects rising interest rates in the medium term, reflecting an acceleration 

in economic growth. 

Question 4: 

In his 2010 State of the Union address, the President said, "Understand if we don't take 

meaningful steps to rein in our debt, it could damage our markets, increase the cost of 

borrowing, and jeopardize our recovery." But since the President has been in office, the 
222 


86523.160

debt has grown by almost $6 trillion or by 55 percent and is now larger than the economy. 

Therefore, it appears the President has not made any meaningful steps since then. 

What steps do you believe the Administration must take to reverse this recent explosion of 

debt? 

The Administration has been clear in its commitment to putting the nation's finances on a 

sustainable path. The Administration and Congress have made substantial progress over the past 

two years, enacting $2.5 trillion in deficit reduction to be implemented over the next ten years, 

and the budget deficit has fallen, especially relative to the gradually improving economy. Last 

year, the President put forward a plan in the FY 2013 Budget that would bring total deficit 

reduction over the I O-year budget window to $4 trillion, stabilizing the debt as a share of GOP 

before the end of the decade. 

Question 5: 

The nation's debt is also currently over $16 trillion and exceeds our Gross Domestic 

Product. Do you think the debt is a national security concern? If so, shouldn't we prioritize 

balancing our budget and begin to pay down the debt? 

As you know, the statistic that you cite - gross federal debt includes intra-governmental 

borrowing. Hence, it reflects transactions within the government, in addition to what the 

government owes outside creditors. Oebt held by the public amounts to 72.5 percent of GOP, 

which measures the debt owed by the government relative to the size of the economy. 

Our immediate goal has been and should continue to be to enact a plan that will put our nation's 

finances on a sustainable course over the next decade in a balanced way that protects and 

enhances our economic recovery. A key indicator of fiscal sustainability is a stable debt-to-GOP 

ratio. The deficit reduction measures the President proposed in his FY 2013 Budget would 

stabilize the debt as a share ofthe economy before the end ofthis decade. 

Question 6: 

Do you agree that debt can put a drag on the economy causing lower wages, greater harm 

to human welfare and higher risk of fiscal crisis? 

Following the financial crisis and severe recession, fiscal support for the economy remains 

important as the economy recovers and growth is restored. The federal government continues to 

borrow at historically low interest rates, reflecting investors' confidence in the government's 

ability and commitment to meet its obligations. Given these low interest rates, and low private 

sector mortgage and commercial borrowing rates, there is little evidence that federal borrowing 

is crowding out private sector activity or investment. Maintaining the credibility of Federal 

government borrowing and reducing any potential impact on the economy by stabilizing the 

debt-to-GOP ratio and reducing the deficit as a share of the economy continues to be a high 

priority. 
223 


86523.161

Question 7: 

Is our debt causing these things right now? 

Interest rates are currently at historically low levels and are expected to remain low over the 

period of both private and government forecasts. If confirmed, I am committed to working with 

Congress to chart out a credible path toward long-run fiscal sustainability. This commitment 

will help to maintain the confidence of investors in our debt, as well as ensuring the strength of 

the ongoing recovery. 

Question 8: 

House Minority Leader Pelosi recently said, "It is almost a false argument to say we have a 

spending problem." Of course, this ignores the fact that we have had four consecutive 

years oftrillion dollar plus deficits and spending remains near a post-WWII record level. 

Do you agree with Leader Pelosi? 

We have fiscal challenges arising from years of spending and revenue decisions, as well as from 

the financial crisis and recession. 

Question 9: 

If not, what are the Administration's plans to solve our spending problem? 

The Administration supports a balanced approach to deficit reduction. The President has 

proposed deficit reduction totalling $4 trillion, including $2.5 trillion of already enacted savings, 

which is sufficient to stabilize the debt as a share ofthe economy. These proposals represent a 

balanced approach of additional spending cuts and modest revenue increases. If confirmed, I 

look forward to working with the Congress toward achieving these goals. 

Question 10: 

Do you believe that Congress should surrender its authority to establish the debt limit of 

the United States, effectively giving the Administration a blank check to run up the debt as 

much as possible? 

I would support an extension ofthe provision that was included in the Budget Control Act of 

2011. This provision allowed the President to periodically request an increase in the debt limit. 

It also provided that Congress could disapprove of any increase in the debt limit, via the 

enactment of disapproval legislation. 

Extending this provision would not permit the executive branch to spend money or collect 

revenues without prior congressional approval. The debt limit does not authorize new spending 

commitments; it simply allows the government to finance existing legal obligations that 

Congresses and Presidents of both parties have approved in the past. 
224 


86523.162

Question 11: 

Do you agree with the views expressed by some members of the Democrat leadership that 

the 14th Amendment gives the President unilateral power to raise the debt ceiling without 

going through Congress, effectively giving the President the power to ignore the debt 

ceiling? If not, why not? 

No, I do not believe the 14th Amendment gives the President the unilateral power to ignore the 

debt ceiling. 

Question 12: 

Do you believe that the law can or should be used to facilitate the production of platinum 

coins for the purpose of avoiding an increase in the debt limit? 

No, I do not believe the law can or should be used to produce platinum coins for the purpose of 

ignoring the debt limit. 

Question 13: 

If you could draft a tax code from scratch, what percentage oftotal income taxes and total 

tax revenue do you think should be borne by the top 1 % of income earners? 

The specific answer to your question depends on all the features of the tax system. The tax code 

should raise sufficient revenue to fund the goods and services demanded by the American public. 

The tax code should support the middle class and promote economic growth. The system should 

be fair and simple. And the goal of fairness must be balanced against the goal of efficiency - our 

tax code should not distort beneficial economic activity and marginal tax rates should not be too 

high. Former Secretary Geithner has stated, and I agree, that we should strive to have a tax code 

that is at least as progressive as the Administration's FY 2013 Budget Policy. Moreover, highincome families should not face ta" burdens that are lower than those faced by middle-income 

families. 

Question 14: 

If you could draft a tax code from scratch, what percentage of total income taxes and total 

tax revenue do you think should be borne by the lowest quintile of income earners? 

The specific answer depends on all the features of the tax system. The tax code should raise 

sufficient revenue to fund the goods and services demanded by the American public. The system 

should be fair and simple. And the goal of fairness must be balanced against the goal of 

efficiency our tax code should not distort beneficial economic activity and marginal tax rates 

should not be too high. Former Secretary Geithner has stated, and I agree, that we should strive 

to have a tax code that is at least as progressive as the Administration's FY 2013 Budget Policy. 
225 


86523.163

Moreover, high-income families should not face tax burdens that are lower than those faced by 

middle-income families. 

Question 15: 

Can you estimate what the effective total tax rates are for the bottom, middle, and top 

quintiles of income earners? 

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that in 2009 total effective federal tax rates for these 

groups were 1 percent, 11.1 percent, and 23.2 percent respectively. To put this into context, 

these groups received 7.7 percent, 13.8 percent, and 50 percent of pre-tax income. 

Question 16: 

A number of nonpartisan analysts, including the Joint Committee on Taxation, have told 

Congress that a number of the new Obamacare taxes will hit taxpayers making less than 

$200,000/$250,000 a year. These taxes include the individual mandate excise tax, the 

elimination ofthe ability to use pre-tax funds in FSAsIHRAs to pay for over-the-counter 

medicine, the new FSA cap, the reduction in the itemized deduction cap for medical 

expenses, the higher HSA withdrawal penalty, the tanning services tax, and the "Cadillac 

insurance" plan tax. Do you agree that Obamacare imposes higher taxes on those making 

less than $200,000/$250,000 a year? 

The Affordable Care Act provides significant tax cuts and other large benefits to middle income 

families. In addition to hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts to help families afford health 

insurance, it provides other crucial help for middle-class families, such as prohibiting insurance 

companies from dropping their coverage if they get sick or refusing to cover pre-existing 

conditions. As a result, it is misleading to consider the impact of particular provisions in 

isolation. 

Question 17: 

Economists are in general agreement that there is no way for Washington to rein in the 

deficit or start reducing our debt unless we reform our entitlement programs. 

Do you think we should focus our attention on reforming and strengthening Medicare, 

Medicaid and Social Security? 

Long-run entitlement reform to ensure solvency for those who rely on these programs will 

require difficult choices. The Administration is focused on addressing these challenges in order 

to assure that we fulfill our commitments to our seniors and others who rely on these programs. 

The major reforms the President achieved in the Affordable Care Act demonstrate this 

commitment, though there is still more work to do. Likewise, his most recent budget proposed 

significant savings in health programs, including Medicare. We must work together to ensure 

that current and future generations of Americans can count on these vital programs, and, if 

confirmed, I look forward to working with the Congress to secure these reforms. 
226 


86523.164

Question 18: 

What concrete proposals would a Lew-run Treasury Department offer for entitlement 

reform? 

Please see my answer to Question 17. 

Question 19: 

In its long-term budget outlook in 2012, CBO estimated that between now and 2037, 75 

percent of the growth in entitlement spending will be driven by demographic factors 

associated with the retirement ofthe Baby Boomers and general aging of the population. 

In other words, controlling health care cost inflation isn't enough to address the rapid 

growth in entitlement spending. Do you agree with the CBO's analysis? 

Please see my answer to Question 17. 

Question 20: 

One year ago, then-Treasury Secretary Geithner told the House Budget Committee, 

"We're not corning before you to say we have a definitive solution to our long-term 

problem. What we do know is we don't like yours." This was in response to the concerns 

expressed by House Budget Chairman Ryan about the Administration's lack of a plan to 

meet the challenges of rising debt and the growing unfunded obligations of our entitlement 

programs. 

Mr. Lew, can you tell the Committee ifthe President's budget, which is already late and is 

not expected until next month, will include a definitive solution to our long-term problem? 

This question refers to the Administration's FY 2014 budget, which has not yet been released. If 

confinned, I look forward to addressing this and related questions once that budget is released. 

Question 21: 

Unot, why not? 

As noted, this question refers to the Administration's FY 2014 budget, which has not yet been 

released. If confinned, I look forward to addressing this and related questions once that budget 

is released. 

Question 22: 

When can Congress expect the Administration to offer a definitive solution to the fiscal 

challenges facing the nation? 
227 


86523.165

The Administration is committed to putting the nation's finances on a more sustainable path. 

This process begins by reducing the deficit by an amount sufficient to stabilize the situation, that 

is, by stabilizing our debt relative to the size of the economy. Last year, the President put 

forward a plan in the FY 2013 Budget that would reach this goal. The policies he proposed 

would bring total deficit reduction over the 10-year budget window to $4 trillion, including the 

$2.5 trillion in deficit reduction achieved together with Congress since 2011. 

Question 23: 

On January 11,2013, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) 

issued a report addressing human capital needs at the IRS. The IRS estimates that under 

PP ACA, "at least 42 provisions will either add to or amend the tax code and at least eight 

will require the IRS to build new processes that do not exist within current tax 

administration." 

In addition, the report notes that the IRS FY 2012 budget made the assumption that 856 

full time equivalents (FTEs) would be dedicated to implementation of PPACA. The FY 

2013 IRS budget includes no such FTEs funded by the Department of Health and Human 

Services. 

With respect to PPACA, some of the IRS' responsibilities include administration ofthe 

premium tax credits in the exchanges, which are supposed to be up and running by 

October 1 st of this year, along with implementation of the individual and employer 

mandates. This seems like an insurmountable challenge given a lack of 856 assumed 

employees. 

As Treasury Secretary, how do you think the IRS will be able to implement all of these new 

tax provisions? 

I am not yet familiar with the specific details ofIRS's allocation of resources. However, if 

confirmed, I will look into the concerns that you raise here. In the interim, I understand that the 

IRS is working hard to stretch current resources to be ready to implement these provisions when 

they take effect. 

Question 24: 

Section 1401 of PP ACA specifically provides that advanced premium tax credits are 

available for individuals "which were enrolled in through an Exchange established by the 

State under 1311 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act." Many states, like my 

home state of Texas, have declined to set up a state exchange and will instead let the federal 

government set up an exchange. The IRS issued a regulation last year stating that these 

premium tax credits will be provided to individuals enrolled in both state and federal 

exchanges. 

Do you argue with the plain text of the statute that specifically states the tax credits are 

available only for those in state-hased exchanges? 
228 


86523.166

I believe that Treasury has a responsibility to implement the laws passed by Congress in a careful 

and thoughtful manner. Although I was not involved, my understanding is that for this 

regulation, Treasury's O±1ice of Tax Policy (OTP) and the IRS followed their standard process 

for drafting, approving, and publishing tax regulations generally. I also understand that the 

public submitted numerous written and oral comments in response to the proposed regulation; 

that both OTP and IRS reviewed each comment carefully; that for this issue, OTP and IRS 

concluded that the statute should be best suited to resolve this matter. 

Question 25: 

The Treasury Department plays a unique and crucial role in protecting our national 

security and complementing our foreign policy goals. The fight against terror finance and 

illicit financing of weapons proliferation and rogue regimes are key tasks for the Treasury 

Department. The U.S. cannot afford to lose track of these issues as we deal with the fiscal 

issues and economic challenges facing our country. 

Perhaps no foreign policy challenge is as pressing as preventing Iran from acquiring a 

nuclear weapon. As the lead agency implementing U.S. economic sanctions, the Treasury 

Department is central to U.S. efforts to stop Iran's nuclear quest. While sanctions are 

having a dramatic impact on the Iranian economy, they have yet to change Iran's nuclear 

calculus. It is therefore crucial that the U.S. seek to dramatically increase the economic 

pressure on the regime in Tehran. 

Do you think that sanctions can prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons? 

I believe there is time and space to pursue a negotiated resolution that denies Iran a nuclear 

weapon, but that the window for such negotiations is narrowing. I see sanctions as critically 

important in demonstrating to the Iranian regime that it has a clear choice - it could enjoy the 

benefits of inclusion in the international financial system that could corne from meeting its 

international obligations, or it will face increasingly powerful and painful sanctions by 

continuing to pursue a nuclear program. 

Question 26: 

How would you define the role of the Treasury Department in stopping Iran's nuclear 

ambitions? 

I believe the Treasury Department performs a critical role in the Administration's efforts to halt 

Iran's nuclear ambitions by imposing increasingly powerful financial and economic pressure on 

Iran, thereby presenting the regime with the starkest choice possible. If confirmed, I am 

committed to sharing with Congress my views about potential additional actions if Iran continues 

to defY the international community over its nuclear program during my tenure. 

Will you be prepared to share with this Committee your candid views about our 

requirements for action? 
229 


86523.167

If confirmed, I am committed to sharing with Congress my views about potential additional 

actions as long as Iran continues to defY the international community over its nuclear program. 

Question 27: 

What additional sanctions do you believe are needed to succeed in our effort to thwart 

Iran's nuclear quest? 

The President has made it very clear that it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, 

and that all options must be on the table to achieve this objective. In service of this objective, the 

Treasury Department has imposed increasingly robust economic and financial sanctions on Iran, 

including sanctions that restrict Iran's access to its foreign exchange reserves and impair its 

balance-of-payments position; that target entities and individuals involved in proliferation, 

terrorism, human rights abuses, and regional destabilization; that identifY and expose Iranian 

efforts to deploy deceptive schemes to evade sanctions; and, that cut off from the U.S. financial 

system those who try to assist Iran in these efforts. I firmly believe that the imposition and 

implementation of robust economic sanctions is critically important to achieving the President's 

policy of denying Iran a nuclear weapon, and due to the intensive, collaborative efforts of the 

Congress and this Administration, as well as steps taken at our urging by partners around the 

world, the current sanctions regime on Iran is unprecedented in terms of scale, scope, and 

impact. If confirmed, I will support Treasury's efforts to implement fully existing sanctions and, 

as necessary, I would support additional actions that advance our shared objective of stopping 

Iran's nuclear ambitions. 

Question 28: 

Can you tell me your view on the European Financial Stability Facility? What is it and is it 

working? 

Europe is in a more stable position today because Euro Area authorities have put in place a 

powerful set of financial tools in support of member states undertaking difficult reforms. One of 

those tools is the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF), which is a temporary euro 440 

billion facility that provides loans backed by Euro Area governments. As I understand, this has 

now been replaced by the permanent European Stability Mechanism (ESM), which provides 

loans to Euro Area member states that are backed by all Euro Area governments. 

It is important for Euro Area governments to build on the progress made so far and deliver on 

their commitments in a timely manner. In particular, the Euro Area needs to continue to move 

toward common bank supervision and to develop policies that strengthen growth. 

Question 29: 

What scenario in Europe poses the greatest threat to the U.S. economy or financial 

system? How might a crisis in Europe most harm the U.S. financial system and economy? 
230 


86523.168

Europe is in a more stable position today because the European Central Bank and Euro Area 

leaders have demonstrated their shared commitment to stand behind the Euro Area and have put 

in place a powerful set of financial tools in support of member states undertaking difficult 

reforms. 

Nonetheless risks remain in some countries where unemployment is high and reforms will take 

some time to complete. 

As our largest economic partner, Europe is an important source of investment and jobs for the 

United States, and our recovery has been affected by headwinds from the Euro Area. Europe's 

crisis has curbed demand for exports from the United States, reduced foreign direct investment at 

horne, and adversely impacted the retirement accounts of American workers. I understand that 

direct U.S. financial sector exposure to the program countries in the Euro Area is limited 

although it is difficult to estimate precisely all possible exposures. Our globally active banks are 

much better capitalized and more resilient than they were before the financial crisis. 

Question 30: 

Taxpayers deserve transparency on Treasury's decision to award multimillion-dollar pay 

packages to executives at companies that had been stuck in T ARP for four years. 

In a January 2013 report issued by the TARP Special Inspector General entitled "Treasury 

Continues Approving Excessive Pay for Top Executives at Bailed-Out Companies," the 

Inspector General found that once again Treasury failed to rein in excessive pay for TARP 

executives. The report states that the Inspector General last year also warned Treasury 

that it lacked robust criteria, policies, and procedures to ensure the guidelines set for 

TARP executive compensation are met. Therefore, it appears Treasury has made no 

meaningful reforms. 

The report, which discusses Treasury's 2012 executive compensation decisions for the Top 

25 executives of AIG, General Motors and Ally Financial, recommends that each year 

Treasury should reevaluate compensation for employees paid from the prior year; develop 

policies, procedures, and criteria for approving pay in excess of Treasury guidelines; 

independently analyze wbether good cause exists to award a pay raise or cash salary over 

$500,000; and return to using long-term restricted stock for employees, particularly for 

senior employees such as CEOs. 

What are your views on the Inspector General's report? 

I support vigorous oversight, and, if confirmed, would value input from all of Treasury's 

oversight bodies. Although I have not had an opportunity to review the report, my understanding 

is that the Office of the Special Master (OSM) continues to fulfill its mandate by striking a 

balance between limiting excessive compensation at the remaining "exceptional assistance" 

TARP recipients while at the same time keeping compensation at levels that enable such firms to 

remain competitive and repay T ARP assistance. I also understand the OSM has responded to 

many of the issues and recommendations made by the Special Inspector General. If confirmed, I 
231 


86523.169

would carefully consider and consult with the OSM on the recommendations made by the 

Special Inspector General. 

Question 31: 

Do you agree with their findings? 

Please see my answer to Question 30. 

Question 32: 

Do you support any of the recommendations made by the Inspector General? 

Please see my answer to Question 30. 

Question 33: 

General Motors Acceptance Corporation (GMAC), which has been rebranded as Ally 

Financial is the second largest remaining TARP investment, with $14.6 billion in TARP 

funds owed, for which taxpayers still own 74% ofthe company. 

As part of the auto bailouts of General Motors and Chrysler, the Federal Government 

made a coordinated bailout of GMAC, once the auto financing subsidiary of GM. 

According to the TARP Special Inspector General, "GMAC's TARP assistance was 

markedly different because Treasury never required GMAC to submit a viability plan 

outlining how it would resolve substantial liabilities that led to historic losses. In addition, 

Treasury's rescue of GMAC was markedly different from the other auto bailouts because 

GMAC was the only company in the auto bailout whose business extended beyond the auto 

industry. In fact, GMAC was one of the nation's largest sub prime mortgage lenders. 

Taxpayers were not just bailing out an auto finance company; they were bailing out one of 

the nation's largest lenders of subprime mortgages." 

Although the Federal Reserve required some restructuring of GMAC as a bank holding 

company, which was agreed to by the Treasury Department, neither it nor Treasury 

addressed GMAC's subprime mortgage liabilities through its subsidiary Residential 

Capital LLC ("ResCap"), where most of its losses occurred. According to the TARP 

Special Inspector General, by not working to fully restructure Ally and ResCap, as it did 

with GM and Chrysler, the Treasury Department was merely postponing the resolution of 

the company's substantial mortgage liabilities, and fmally in 2012, ResCap filed 

bankruptcy. 

Because of ResCap's losses and other issues, GMAC/Ally failed Federal Reserve stress tests 

designed to gauge financial stability, resulting in the Federal Reserve requiring GMAC to 

raise additional capital. The company did so largely through three taxpayer-funded TARP 

injections totaling $17.2 billion, of which the Office of Management and Budget estimates 

taxpayers will lose $5.5 billion. 
232 


86523.170

Ally has repaid only $2.5 billion in principal. Other subprime mortgage companies failed 

without receiving TARP funds. The Federal Government has also sanctioned Ally for 

improper mortgage foreclosure practices at ResCap, requiring Ally to pay $316.6 million 

while being 74% owned by taxpayers. 

According to the TARP Special Inspector General, by failing to have required a fully 

developed viability plan as a condition ofTARP, Treasury missed an opportunity to 

address GMAC's mortgage issues, thereby better protecting the taxpayers' investment and 

promoting GMAC's financial stability. 

Do you agree with the Inspector General's analysis? If not, why not? 

I support vigorous oversight, and if confinned would value input from all of Treasury's oversight 

bodies. The SIOTARP analysis suggests that, given issues facing ResCap today, Treasury 

should have taken different actions at the height of the financial crisis. While I was not at 

Treasury when the decisions on Ally were made, my understanding is that an Ally Financial 

bankruptcy would have jeopardized financing to dealers and consumers. As a result it could 

have significantly decreased the likelihood of successfully completing the OM and Chrysler 

restructurings and threatened the health of the auto industry generally. Moreover, my 

understanding is that ResCap's legacy mortgage liabilities have significantly worsened since 

2009. 

Ouestion 34: 

What could Treasury have done differently to protect taxpayers' money? 

I understand that over the past three and a half years, Treasury has managed the investment in 

Ally diligently in a manner that protects taxpayer's interests. While more work remains to be 

done, Treasury has collected $5.8 billion to date inclusive of dividends and has set forth its exit 

plan to monetize the remaining investment. 

Question 35: 

The Inspector General has also reported that Treasury has no concrete T ARP exit plan for 

Ally that balances repayment to taxpayers with Ally's financial stability. Do you agree 

with this statement? What plan of action should Treasury have in place? 

I understand that Treasury has described its exit plan on several occasions. Based on those 

descriptions, I understand that Treasury expects to continue recovering the taxpayer's investment 

in Ally as the company completes two strategic initiatives which were commenced in May 

20 12-the Chapter 11 proceeding for its mortgage subsidiary and the sale of its international 

operations. 
233 


86523.171

Question 36: 

The Research & Development (R&D) tax credit is an important tool to encourage 

innovation and job creation through the tax code. The Alternative Simplified Credit (ASC) 

was intended by Congress to broaden the number of companies that would be eligible to 

take advantage of the incentives provided by the R&D tax credit. 

From discussions with small and medium business owners in Texas, it is clear that a 

significant roadblock to these companies taking the R&D tax credit is the fact that the 

Alternative Simplified Credit (ASC) is only available on original returns. 

Congress passed the ASC to expand the availability of the R&D tax credit for businesses -

making it easier for businesses, especially small and medium businesses, to determine their 

eligibility for the credit. However, the Treasury and IRS through regulation in 2008, which 

appears not to be supported by statute, greatly limited the benefits of the ASC by not 

allowing it for an amended return. This action by Treasury and IRS has significantly 

hamstrung the ability ofsmall and medium businesses to take full advantage of the R&D 

credit. A GAO report on the R&D credit stated that this regulation, again, with no basis in 

statute, disproportionately disadvantages small and medium businesses. 

President Obama has been referencing the importance of the R&D credit to the nation. 

Why then would the Administration inhibit the use of the credit to small and medium 

businesses? 

The Administration strongly supports the continuation of the Research and Experimentation 

(R&E) credit and has proposed to make the R&E credit penn anent and to simplify and expand it. 

If confinned, I would be happy to look into the specific issue you raise. 

Question 37: 

Will you seek to reverse these regulations as Secretary of the Treasury? 

Please see my answer to Question 36. 

Question 38: 

I am concerned about the timeliness of the Department of the Treasury and the Internal 

Revenue Service in responding to ruling requests by taxpayers. 

For example, in one particular circumstance related to Section 25D of the Internal Revenue 

Code, which became law in 2005, one of my constituents has been waiting for almost two 

years following their pre-submission meeting with the IRS and a subsequent formal private 

letter ruling request. A supplemental submission was filed 17 months ago and to date, 

Treasury has simply published a new Priority Guidance Plan, issued in late November 

2012 seeking "guidance under Section 2SD regarding credits for residential energy 

property." 
234 


86523.172

While I understand taxpayers will need to wait to receive an answer, do you think waiting 

two years is a reasonable amount of time for taxpayers to receive an answer from their 

government? 

I agree that taxpayers should receive a timely response to their ruling requests. 

Question 39: 

What policies will you pursue that will improve the timeliness of the Department of 

Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service in responding to ruling requests by taxpayers? 

Please see my answer to Question 38. 

Question 40: 

Did you intend to lead the American people into the belief that the President's fiscal year 

2012 budget would reach balance when you said, in testimony before Congress, "[W]e're 

spending that money we have each year."? Unot, do you think it would be reasonable for 

the average person to infer from your statement that the budget would continue to run a 

deficit every year, and that in the best year we would be spending $600 billion more than 

we had? 

Although budget debates can be both complex and contentious, I have always tried to be as 

accurate as possible in my statements on these issues. During the discussion of the FY 2012 

budget, the full context of my statements made it clear I was trying to establish that the federal 

budget achieved primary balance during the period covered by this budget and that primary 

balance was an important milestone on the path toward reducing our deficits and debt to 

sustainable levels. 

Question 41: 

As Director of the Offiee of Management and Budget, you testified before the Senate 

Budget Committee that President Obama's fiscal year 2012 budget would not add to the 

debt, "That we've stopped spending money we don't have." Yet that budget showed $13 

trillion new gross debt. In fact, the tables in the budget showed that in no year was the 

deficit less than $600 billion. Do you still stand by your statement? 

Please see my answer to Question 40. 

Question 42: 

Former Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner admitted that even if Congress passed the 

President's year fiscal year 2012 budget as submitted, "[W]e would still be left with a very 

large interest burden and unsustainable obligations over time." The same month 

(February 15, 2011) you told National Public Radio that, "[I]fwe're able to reduce the 

deficit to the point where we can pay for our spending and invest in the future, that is an 
235 


86523.173

enormous accomplishment. This budget has specific proposals that would do that." Can 

you explain why your statements contradict those of Secretary Geithner? 

I do not believe the two statements referenced in your question contradict each other. My 

statements on the President's FY 2012 budget refer to the fact that this budget achieves primary 

balance in the short-to-medium term. Former Secretary Geithner's comments refer to the fact 

that once we achieve primary balance, additional savings are needed to ensure that our deficit 

and debt levels are sustainable over the long term. 

Question 43: 

You publicly stated, "We also nced to be honest: You can't pass a budget in the Senate of 

the United States without 60 votes." However, the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 

created a special process in the Senate that limits debate and only requiring a simple 

majority to pass a budget. This specifically prevents a budget filibuster. 

a. Was your statement inaccurate? 

b. Did you make this statement to suggest to the American people that it was the fault 

of Senate Republicans for the Senate's failure to pass a budget for almost 1,900 

days? 

The statement was not intended to lay blame at anyone's doorstep. As I noted above, budgets 

and budget processes are complicated issues. While the Senate can pass its version of the budget 

with a simple majority, this budget does not take effect until the House and Senate pass identical 

versions of the budget, usually in the form ofa budget resolution conference report. Until the 

House and Senate adopt a budget resolution conference report, budget-related legislation is 

subject to a 60 vote hurdle in the Senate, just like other legislation. 

Question 44: 

Do you believe any of your public statements contradict the President's FY2012 budget 

documents? If not, why not? 

I believe my statements during the discussion ofthe President's FY 2012 budget were consistent 

with the substance and proposals contained in that budget. 

Question 45: 

The President said in his State of the Union speech that no area holds more promise than 

our investments in American energy, and that Americans have benefitted from lower 

energy prices due to more domestic production. He has been quick to note the growth in 

oil and gas production - although this growth has been primarily on private lands in states 

like Texas. The President also proposed we use some of our oil and gas revenues from 

public lands to fund an Energy Security Trust that will drive new research and technology 

to shift our cars and trucks off oil for good. 
236 


86523.174

What are the Administration's revenue proposals with respect to the energy industry? 

This Administration has been focused on building an energy economy in the United States that is 

cleaner as well as more efficient and secure. As part ofthat effort, the Administration has taken 

action over the past few years to support the development and deployment of renewable energy 

that will create new jobs and jumpstart new industries in America. Building on important 

progress achieved during the President's first term, including the doubling of energy from wind 

and solar, the United States must continue to take steps to reduce carbon pollution. To once 

again double generation from wind, solar, and geothermal sources by 2020, the President has 

called for making the renewable energy Production Tax Credit permanent and refundable, 

providing incentives and certainty for investments in new clean energy such as offshore wind. 

Question 46: 

Do the planned revenue proposals include tax increases on American energy 

manufacturers and producers? 

Please see my answer to Question 45. 

Question 47: 

If so, does the Administration propose increases on other industries that have analogous 

tax provisions? 

The FY 2013 Budget proposed to repeal a range of tax subsidies claimed by fossil fuel 

producers. The domestic price of oil is determined on the world market, and our domestic 

production has little or no influence on the world price of oil. Thus, tax subsidies that encourage 

domestic production are very unlikely to affect domestic oil prices. Instead, these subsidies 

distort markets by encouraging more investment in the oil and gas industry than would occur 

under a neutral system and, to the extent they encourage our continued dependence on oil, are 

detrimental to our long-term energy security. Policies that reduce our dependence on oil, such as 

investing in clean energy technologies, are a more effective way to promote energy security. 

A large majority of the natural gas consumed in the United States is domestically produced and 

the United States is a net exporter of coal. The elimination of tax subsidies for natural gas and 

coal is unlikely to have any significant effect on domestic production of those commodities. 

Moreover, the Administration has proposed policies that will increase investment in clean coal 

and efficient natural gas technologies, highlighting the important role these fuels will continue to 

play in our nation's energy future. 

Question 48: 

How would tax increases impact the energy hills of Americans? 

Please see my answer to Question 47. 
237 


86523.175

Question 49: 

How does raising taxes on the energy producers help increase domestic production? 

The Administration is committed to an approach that develops all fonns of American energy. 

This commitment includes the safe and responsible production of our oil and natural gas 

resources. Today, domestic oil production is at the highest level in nearly a decade, while oil 

imports have fallen to the lowest level in nearly 20 years. Thanks to pioneering new 

technologies developed in the United States we are also now the world's leading producer of 

natural gas. As production has increased, it has boosted our manufacturing, dramatically reduced 

prices, and created more jobs for the American people. The strength of this sector shows they 

are not in need of special tax preferences. 

Question 50: 

How will a decrease in domestic production on federal lands impact the President's goal of 

a research trust fund financed with oil and gas revenues from puhlic lands? 

Please see my answer to Question 49. 

Question 51: 

A recent Price Waterhouse Coopers study estimates that 9.6 million American johs already 

exist, in the oil and gas industry. How would increasing taxes on domestic oil and gas 

companies impact johs in this industry? 

The existing oil and gas tax subsidies distort markets by encouraging over-investment in the oil 

and gas industry and underinvestment in other, potentially more productive areas ofthe 

economy. The resulting distortions in resource allocation generally reduce economic growth. 

Over the long tenn, employment in the oil and natural gas production and supply industry would 

not change by a significant amount due to the small changes in domestic production. Moreover, 

eliminating the distortionary influence ofthe tax preferences for oil and natural gas will result 

over time in new jobs being created in other sectors of the U.S. economy. 

Question 52: 

We need to make sure that U.S. companies can compete in the glohal economy and how tax 

policy and changes to that policy will impact johs, and not single out certain 

industries. The Administration's previous tax proposals would undermine U.S. companies 

to the advantage of foreign companies and would undermine what is currently a hright 

spot of growth, providing millions of American johs. Dual capacity prevents American 

companies from heing taxed twice on income earned ahroad. Rules finalized over 25 years 

ago hold U.S. firms to a strict standard as to how much they can deduct from their 
238 


86523.176

domestic income tax liability. Doing away with these rules would result in companies 

facing double taxation, while foreign competitors are not. 

Mr. Lew, can you agree that putting American companies at a disadvantage to foreign 

competitors with proposals such as eliminating dual capacity would put American 

investment and jobs at risk? 

Although the United States has one of the highest statutory corporate tax rates, the large number 

of loopholes and special interest carve-outs means that effective tax rates are much lower than 

the statutory rate and vary widely by industry, and even by company, and allow some 

corporations to avoid paying income taxes almost entirely. The Administration has proposed 

eliminating a number of tax provisions that favor some industries and investments and benefit 

only those who receive them, rather than society as a whole. Eliminating loopholes and special 

preferences will result in a more equitable system and eliminate distortive incentives that hurt 

overall economic growth. With respect to the dual capacity taxpayer proposal specifically, I 

have not yet had an opportunity to fully develop a policy position on it, but, if confinned, look 

forward to working with the Committee to achieve a fairer and more efficient tax code. 

Question 53: 

During his State of the Union address, the President urged Congress to pursue a 

bipartisan, market-based solution to climate change, in other words, cap and trade 

legislation - which Congress has rejected on a bipartisan basis. The President said further 

that if Congress won't act, he will through executive actions. 

The Waxman-Markey legislation would have had significant impact on Texas families, 

businesses, and consumers. The goal of the legislation is to dramatically reduce America's 

conventional energy usage through higher energy prices. In a 2008 San Francisco 

Chronicle interview, then Senator Qbama said that "Under my plan of a cap and trade 

system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket." Gasoline and natural gas prices will 

rise as well, along with the prices of many products that depend on reasonably priced 

energy. The Texas Comptroller looked at a reasonable prediction of future energy prices 

under Waxman-Markey performed hy the Charles River Associates for the National Black 

Chamber of Commerce. The analysis indicates Texas could lose 170,000 to 425,000 jobs by 

2030 as a result of those increased energy prices. 

What impact will the President's proposals or executive actions have on the economy? 

The President urged Congressional action to pursue solutions in this area, but I anl not aware of 

specific executive actions or proposals that have been announced so I am unable to provide an 

estimate of any impact. However, as the President's record in his first tenn makes clear 

whether it's new fuel economy standards for cars and trucks or new efficiency standards for 

household appliances - it's clear that there are common sense steps that we can take to use 

energy more wisely, create jobs, and save consumers money on their energy bills at the same 

time. 
239 


86523.177

Question 54: 

Do the Administration's revenue proposals seek to address the President's goal of a 

market-based solution to climate change? 

The President urged Congressional action to pursue solutions in this area, but I am not aware of 

specific Executive actions or proposals that have been announced. 

Question 55: 

If you cannot give specifics, have discussions taken place within the Treasury and White 

House on proposals to restrict greenhouse gases? 

During the recent State of the Union address, the President stated that ;'we must do more to 

combat climate change." The Administration has worked to address the challenges posed by 

climate change by taking common sense steps that also promote sustainable economic growth, 

and it will continue to pursue a wide range of initiatives that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, 

and that provide safe, clean, and affordable energy in the United States. I am aware that White 

House and Treasury staff members have participated in ongoing discussions about these general 

issues. 

Question 56: 

How does the President reconcile highlighting increased domestic production and lower 

energy bills, and at the same time want to go back to the failed, rejected, and economicallydevastating cap and trade proposals? 

The President is not calling for cap-and-trade legislation. We can take smart steps to help 

families save money on their energy bills, create jobs, and reduce pollution all at the same time. 

For example, the President's fuel economy standards - which will double the efficiency of our 

cars and trucks - are already saving families money at the pump and reducing greenhouse gas 

emissions. Moving forward, the President is focused on building on this progress through 

common-sense steps that help move the country towards safe, affordable, and American-made 

energy sources. 

Question 57: 

I understand the Treasury Department is asking a federal district court to dismiss a 

Freedom of Information Act (FQIA) suit brought by the Competitive Enterprise Institute 

(CEI). CEI is seeking Treasury emails alleged to discuss a carbon tax. 

Further, Treasury has previously said they will process the FOIA request from last 

August. I have a strong interest in open government and have worked over the years to 

ensure agencies act on FQIA requests in a timely manner. 
240 


86523.178

What is your general view and expectation on how federal agencies, and particularly the 

Treasury Department, should handle FOIA requests? 

I believe that federal agencies should fulfill their obligations under FOIA and the President's 

commitment to open and transparent government. If confirmed, I would work with Treasury 

staff to meet these important FOIA commitments. 

I understand that Treasury reduced its FOIA backlog by more than 50 percent between 2009 and 

2012 and was one of six Cabinet-level departments recently to receive an "A-" or better rating 

from the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee with respect to its tracking and 

management of FOIA requests. 

Regarding the specific case you reference, I understand that CEI submitted two very broad FOIA 

requests to Treasury seeking records using the word "carbon." Treasury has been working to 

respond to these FOIA requests. However, the unusual breadth of the requests has required 

significant time to process. 

Ouestion 58: 

What legitimate reason does Treasury have for delaying this particular request for several 

months? 

See response to Question 57. 

Question 59: 

Do you believe the public has a right to information regarding a potential carbon tax that 

could impactthem directly? 

Yes. However, the Administration has not proposed a carbon tax and does not intend to do so. 

Question 60: 

What assurances can you give that this matter will be handled to the satisfaction of the 

requestors? 

See response to Question 57. 

Question 61: 

On the night of September 11, 2012, did President Obama stay up late in order to supervise 

the U.S. government's response regarding the Americans under attack in Benghazi? 

National Security Staff (NSS) officials were in touch with their counterparts across the 

government in real-time throughout the night to ensure interagency coordination. The President 
241 


86523.179

and his senior advisors were continuously kept apprised ofthe situation. The ARB report 

specifically notes that the interagency response that evening was "timely and appropriate." 

Question 62: 

If he did not, did you or his national security adviser ever awaken him as news came in and 

further decision points were reached? 

Please see my answer to Question 61. 

Question 63: 

When was the last time you spoke to the President on the evening of September 11,2012, 

and when was the last time he was briefed by his national security team that night? 

Please see my answer to Question 61. 

Question 64: 

When the President announced his controversial recess appointments to the National 

Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and Consumer Protection Financial Board (CFPB) on 

January 4, 2012, he asserted a novel expansion of executive authority, which was ruled 

unconstitutional by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit this year. 

To what extent did you participate in discussions with the President and his advisors about 

the strategy and timing of these recess appointments? 

Please see my answer to Question 65. 

Question 65: 

As the chief of staff to the President, sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution, did 

and/or do you harbor any concerns that the President's decision was unconstitutional and a 

severe breach of the separation of powers between executive and legislative branches of 

government? Why or why not? 

No, I do not have any concerns about the President's decision to make recess appointments, 

which presidents of both parties have done for many decades. 

Question 66: 

The RepUblic of Argentina is a signatory to the US-Argentina Bilateral Investment Treaty, 

which jointly recognizes The World Bank's International Center for Settlement of 

Investment Disputes (ICSID) as the final arbiter in commercial disputes. As a signatory, 

Argentina has agreed to abide by ICSID judgments and awards, subject to economic 

sanctions for non-compliance. 
242 


86523.180

I am concerned that Argentina has developed a pattern of consistently flaunting 

international expectations and investor protection obligations, and that the U.S. 

Government is allowing this pattern of behavior to continue unabated. For instance, in 

2001 Argentina expropriated a $600 million investment in water concessions made by 

Azurix of Houston, Texas. Following eight years of international litigation, the ICSID 

panel awarded a judgment to the U.S. investor in 2009. Nearly four years later, Argentina 

still refuses to pay. Failure to adequately compensate U.S. investors for a government 

taking is a violation of Argentina's treaty obligations, and the U.S. Government's failure to 

enforce the terms of that treaty dilutes a key protection for investors in all nations with 

which a bilateral investment treaty has been signed. 

The Department of Treasury leads the Administration's engagement in the World Bank, 

the International Monetary Fund, and other regional development banks. From your 

point of view, wbat remedies are available to investors with definitive ICSID judgments 

against Argentina, but with which the Argentine Government refuses to comply? 

I share the serious concerns about Argentina's unwillingness to honor its international 

obligations. 

If confirmed, I would have Treasury continue to work actively to press Argentina at every 

appropriate opportunity to honor its obligations. 

I understand that Treasury is pressing Argentina to abide by its international obligations and to 

normalize its relationsbip with the international financial community and foreign investors, 

including by honoring its international obligations to provide accurate data to the IMF, paying 

amounts that are past due to the United States and other Paris Club members, and honoring tinal 

arbitral awards in favor of U.S. companies. 

Because of these concerns toward Argentina, I understand that Treasury has opposed practically 

all lending to Argentina through the multilateral development banks and supported the IMF's 

decision to censure Argentina for its misreporting of data, and President Obama suspended 

Argentina's eligibility for trade preferences under the Generalized System of Preferences 

program. It is also my understanding that almost all other donors at the Inter-American 

Development Bank have joined the United States in opposing proposed loans to Argentina. 

understand that such a level of disapproval by other donors against the proposed loans to any 

single country is unprecedented in recent memory, and follows from the leadership position 

Treasury established in 2011. 

Question 67: 

According to the most recent Medicare Trustees Report issued in April 2012, the Trustees 

reported the following: The difference between Medicare's total outlays and its 'dedicated 

financing sources' reaches an estimated 45 percent of outlays in fiscal year 2012, the first 

year of the projection. 
243 


86523.181

Based on this result, federal law required the Trustees to issue a determination of projected 

"excess general revenue Medicare funding." This is the seventh consecutive such finding, 

triggering a statutory "Medicare funding warning" for the sixth year in a row (2007 

through 2012). The Trustees must issue a funding warning after two consecutive reports in 

which general revenue is estimated to account for more than 45 percent of Medicare's 

outlays for the current fiscal year or at any time during the next six fiscal years. The law 

(31 USC §1105(h» states that: 

If here is a Medicare funding warning under section 801(a)(2) of the Medicare 

Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 made in a 

year, the President shall submit to Congress, within the IS-day period beginning 

on the date of the budget submission to Congress under subsection (a) for the 

succeeding year, proposed legislation to respond to such warning. 

In response to the Medicare funding warning issued in 2007, President George W. Bush 

submitted legislation to Congress in 2008. Why has the Obama Administration failed to 

submit a single legislative proposal to Congress in response to annual Medicare funding 

warnings issued by the program's Trustees? 

The Medicare Modernization Act requires that the President submit legislation to Congress in the 

event a Medicare Funding Warning is triggered. My understanding is that the Bush 

Administration issued a signing statement concluding that this is inconsistent with the 

Recommendations Clause of the Constitution, and the Obama Administration came to the same 

conclusion. After I became Director ofOMB in late 2010, I did not revisit this position, and 

OMB reiterated it in a 2013 letter. 

I understand that the most recent Medicare Trustees Report shows that, while general revenues 

were projected to exceed the threshold that triggers the warning in 2012, general revenues are 

projected to fall below that threshold in every year from 2013 to after 2020. In other words, my 

understanding is that a warning is not projected in 2013 under current law, even absent 

legislative changes in Medicare. 

The President takes Medicare's financing problems seriously and proposed about $300 billion in 

Medicare savings in the last Budget. The Administration is committed to making Medicare more 

efficient and ensuring its long-run solvency. 

Question 68: 

While Director of the Office and Management and Budget (OMB) do you recall having 

discussion with the President or any other Administration official about whether legislation 

should be submitted to Congress in response to Medicare funding warnings issued by the 

Trustees should be submitted? 

I do not recall any such discussions. 
244 


86523.182

Question 69: 

During your confirmation hearing before the Senate Finance Committee on February 13, 

2013, you referenced a statement that President Bush issued when signing H.R. 1, the 

"Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003." Part of 

that signing statement reads: 

The executive branch shall construe these provisions in a manner consistent with 

tire President's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch 

and to recommendfor the consideration of the Congress suclr measures as the 

President judges necessary and expedient. " 

When campaigning for office in 2008, then-Senator Obama promised the American people 

"[W]e are not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end run around 

Congress." 

Why is the President now relying on this signing statement to avoid meeting his statutory 

responsibilities, if it previously viewed such statements as "a way of doing an end run 

around Congress"? 

If confirmed, it would not be my role as Secretary of the Treasury to have a position or policy on 

signing statements. The President's position is that signing statements should be used sparingly, 

and I believe his record bears that out. 

Question 70: 

You have suggested that 'reforms' included in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care 

Act (PP ACA) will help preserve the Medicare program. However, in its 2012 report, the 

Medicare Trustees project that, even while taking into account PP ACA, the Medicare 

Hospital Insurance Trust Fund will be insolvent by 2024. Does the President not believe 

that reforms are "necessary" at this point? 

The President has demonstrated a commitment to improving the long-run solvency of Medicare, 

and he continues to seek ways to increase the efficiency of the program. The Affordable Care 

Act (ACA) significantly reduced Medicare's financing shortfall. My understanding is that, 

without the ACA, the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund would be exhausted in 2016, eight years 

earlier than currently projected. I also understand that the ACA also cut the actuarial deficit of 

the 75-year Hospital Insurance Trust Fund by nearly two-thirds. At the same time, more reforms 

are necessary, and the President's FY 2013 budget included about $300 billion in additional 

reductions in Medicare spending. 

Question 71: 

In your testimony before the Senate Finance Committee on February 13,2013, you 

asserted that "Before I was at OMB, the decision was made not to voluntarily submit it." 

As you know, each year you were at OMB another Medicare funding warning was issued, 

triggering a legislative response from the President. 
245 


86523.183

a. While these warnings were being issued, is it accurate to say that you never 

discussed submitting a legislative proposal to Congress to shore up Medicarc's 

finances? 

b. Is it your view, and the President's view, then that the program is not in need of 

reforms? 

Please see my answers to Questions 67, 68, and 70. 

Question 72: 

In 2010 and 2011, you served as OMB Director, the entity responsible for drafting and 

submitting fiscal proposals to Congress and complying with federal budget law. You also 

served in that office for part of 2012. 

a. As the President's Budget Director, did you know you were responsible for 

complying with 31 USC §1105? 

b. Were you aware that this includes sUbmitting a legislative response to Medicare 

funding warnings? 

c. When did you first become aware of this statutory requirement? 

d. In addition, in your testimony before the Senate Finance Committee on February 

13,2013, you referred to the legal requirement as a requirement that the President 

submit a report to Congress. Are you aware that the law requires the President to 

submit legislation to Congress, not a report? 

e. In your testimony before the Senate Finance Committee on February 13, 2013 you 

suggested that the President's budget submissions fulfilled this legal requirement. 

Are you aware that a budget submission is not the same as legislation? 

I do not recall when or how T learned of the statute referenced in your question. As I noted in my 

answer to Question 67, I understand that the Bush Administration issued a signing statement 

concluding that the requirement is inconsistent with the Recommendations Clause of the 

Constitution, and that the Obama Administration came to the same conclusion. After I became 

Director of OMB in late 2010, I did not revisit this position, and OMB reiterated it in a 2013 

letter. Again, the President takes Medicare' s financing problems seriously and proposed about 

$300 billion in Medicare savings in the last Budget. 

Question 73: 

Furthermore, you also asserted in your February 13, 2013 testimony before the Senate 

Finance Committee that "[T)he combination of the trajectory we're on with the savings 

from the Affordable Care Act and specific proposals ofthe administration put forward 

have addressed the substance ofthe issue." Can you provide the basis for this claim? As 
246 


86523.184

you know, the Medicare trustees have issued funding warnings in all three reports since the 

health care law was enacted (2010 through 2012). Additionally, under the President's most 

recent budget submission (FY 2013), formulated while you were OMB Director, Medicare 

spending would have increased by $135 billion over the next 10 years, according to OMB 

estimates. The prior year's budget submission by the President (FY 2012), also formulated 

under you, would have increased Medicare spending by $329 billion over a 10-year period, 

also based on OMB's own estimates. Please provide the estimates you are relying upon to 

substantiate the assertion you made in your testimony. 

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) significantly reduced Medicare's financing shortfall. I 

understand that, without the ACA, the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund would be projected to be 

exhausted in 2016, eight years earlier than currently projected. I also understand that the ACA 

also reduced the actuarial deficit ofthe 75-year Hospital Insurance Trust Fund by nearly twothirds. 

My understanding is that in the 2009 Medicare Trustees Report, the general revenue share of 

program expenditures exceeds 45 percent for every year starting in the early part of this decade. 

In the 2012 Report, I understand that the general revenue share falls below 45 percent in 2013 as 

many ofthe financing and program reforms from the ACA are in place, and remains below 45 

percent until after 2020. Even with these improvements in program financing, the President 

proposed about $300 billion in additional Medicare savings over 10 years in the FY 2013 budget. 
247 


86523.185

Senator Thune 

Question 1: 

If confirmed, what actions will you take or will you recommend that the president take to 

address serious and meaningful entitlement reform? 

Long-run entitlement refonn to ensure solvency for those who rely on these programs will 

require difficult choices. The Administration is focused on addressing these challenges in order 

to assure that we fulfill our commitments to our seniors and others who rely on these programs. 

The major refonns the President achieved in the Affordable Care Act demonstrate this 

commitment, though there is still more work to do. Likewise, his past budget proposals find 

efficiencies in health programs, including Medicare. We must work together to ensure that 

current and future generations of Americans can count on these vital programs. 

Question 2: 

What would you say to those in your party who say that reforming Medicare and Social 

Security would be dangerous, from a political standpoint, for your party? Where do you 

draw the line between politics and good policy? 

The President has shown a willingness to make the difficult choices necessary to ensure the longrun sustainability of all our entitlement programs, including Medicare and Social Security. I 

have always been a proponent of making sound policy decisions that are in the best interests of 

the American people. 

Question 3: 

While running for president in 2008, then-Senator Obama said: "The problem is, is that the 

way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of 

China in the name of our children, driving up our national debtfrom $5 trillion for thefirst 

42 presidents - #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of 

debt that we are going to have to pay back - $30,000 for every 1IUln, w01lUln and child. That's 

irresponsible. It's unpatriotic." 

Given that President Obama added nearly $6 trillion to the national debt during his first 

term in office - more than President Bush added in 8 years - and considering that thc 

recent CBO baseline projects $10 trillion in new debt over the next 10 years under current 

policies, do you believe the fiscal record of the Obama Administration to date has been 

responsible or irresponsible? If the national debt at the end of President Obama's second 

term exceeds $19 trillion - as CBO currently projects - would you agree that this level of 

debt would represent an enormous failure on the part of the administration? 

When the President took office, he inherited a federal deficit of more than 9 percent of GDP in 

Fiscal Year 2009 before any of his policies were enacted and a time when budget projections did 

not contemplate the full depth of the crisis. These deficits were largely tile product of decisions 
248 


86523.186

made during the previous decade, including both unpaid-for spending and tax cuts. This 

situation was made significantly worse by the financial crisis and recession, which was the worst 

this country has experienced since the Great Depression. 

As the economy has been recovering from the crisis, President Obama has moved to reduce 

fiscal deficits and proposed a way to dig us out of these deep deficits. The Administration's FY 

2013 Budget included proposals that would reduce projected deficits by a total of more than $4 

trillion over the next decade, stabilizing the debt as a share of the economy before the end of the 

decade. The budget deficit has fallen, and is projected to fall further as previously-enacted 

deficit reduction and economic growth take hold. If confirmed, I look forward to working with 

Congress to help put in place a budget that will move us further down the path towards fiscal 

sustainability. 

Question 4: 

Federal spending this year is 23% of GDP, up from 18% under Clinton. How high should 

federal spending go? Is 25% too high? Is 28% too high? CBO's alternative fiscal scenario, 

which assumes no spending reforms, shows federal spending rising to 40% of GDP by the 

2040s. What would be the impact on America's economy and the well-being offuture 

generations from this level of spending? 

Federal expenditures rose in Fiscal Years 2009 and 2010 in response to the recession, through 

increased spending on automatic stabilizers and temporary policy measures necessary to help 

pull the economy out of the financial crisis and recession. Substantial progress has been made 

over the past few years to reduce deficits through a balanced approach to spending reductions 

and modest revenue increases. Spending as a share of the economy has fallen by nearly 2.5 

percentage points ofGDP since 2009 as the economy has begun to heal. The Administration's 

deficit reduction proposals, along with deficit reduction measures signed into law over the last 

two years, would reduce discretionary spending to the lowest level as a share of economy since 

President Eisenhower was in office. Over the longer run, changing demographics will put 

additional pressure on entitlement programs, with 30 million new retirees over the next 20 years. 

Anticipating these changes emphasizes the need for sensible reforms, so that current and future 

seniors can continue to rely on our retirement and health care programs. 

Question 5: 

What are some specific options for entitlement reform that this Administration would be 

comfortable supporting? 

I understand that the reforms implemented by the Affordable Care Act have already reduced the 

Medicare Hospital Insurance actuarial deficit by nearly two-thirds and extended the life ofthe 

Trust fund by eight years. The President's FY 2013 Budget proposed specific measures that 

included about $300 billion in Medicare savings and hundreds of billions more in other 

mandatory programs. The President has also expressed willingness, as part of a larger package 

of reforms, to consider alternative approaches to indexing Social Security benefits and other 
249 


86523.187

measures. However, we must ensure that our seniors and most vulnerable don't bear an outsized 

share of the burden of any reforms. 

Question 6: 

Do you believe Dodd-Frank has ended the notion of banks being "too big to fail"? Please 

elaborate on specific provisions of Dodd-Frank that you believe prevent the need for 

government bailouts going forward. 

The reforms put in place with the Dodd-Frank Act provide regulators with critical tools and 

authorities that we lacked before the crisis to resolve large financial firms whose failure would 

have serious adverse effects on financial stability. I understand that the emergency resolution 

authority for failing firms created under Title II prohibits any bailout, while protecting taxpayers 

and the U.S. economy. For any financial firm that is placed into receivership under this DoddFrank emergency resolution authority, management and directors responsible for the failed 

condition of the firm will be removed and shareholders will be wiped out. 

In addition, the largest firms have written "living wills" to provide a roadmap to facilitate their 

rapid and orderly resolution in the event of bankruptcy. In addition to resolution, large, complex 

financial institutions will now be required to hold significantly higher levels of capital. Leverage 

is significantly lower, reliance on short term funding is lower, and liquidity positions have 

already improved such that large firms are less vulnerable in the event of a downturn. 

Question 7: 

There is increasing concern among U.S. financial services companies that international 

standard setters may be imposing new one-size-fits-all requirements that will add to 

marketplace costs without adequate analyses of the problems to be addressed and the 

benefits versus costs ofthe new requirements. Further, these mandates may harm the 

competitiveness of U.S. companies competing in foreign markets, when the new 

requirements reflect a non-U.S. regulatory model. These concerns have surfaced with 

regard to Basel III mandates on banks but apply equally, for example, to the proposed new 

mandates on U.S. insurers through the International Association of Insurance Supervisor's 

(IAIS) ComFrame initiative. The FSB and IAIS are also coordinating new global standards 

to impose on insurers that are part of global systemically important financial institutions. 

Considering the involvement of Treasury in the FSB and Treasury's Federal Insurance 

Qffice (FIQ) in the IAIS, what will your Department do to prevent the imposition of new 

mandates on U.S. insurers from international standard setting organizations, including the 

FSB and IAIS, that could reduce U.S. competitiveness and jobs growth? 

I have not yet had an opportunity to develop a detailed understanding of all issues pending at the 

FSB and IAIS. I agree that international standards applicable to insurers should not only foster 

appropriate and balanced supervision for internationally active firms, but also foster a level 

playing field. 
250 


86523.188

Question 8: 

The Republic of Argentina, as I am sure you are aware, has ignored over 100 U.S. court 

judgments against it stemming from its failure to meet its obligations to private creditors. I 

note that following a recent judgment against Argentina by the U.S. Court of Appeals for 

the Second Circuit, Argentine President Kirchner defiantly pledged "not to pay a single 

dollar" to private U.S. creditors, regardless ofthe court decision. Are you concerned about 

Argentina's open hostility to US courts? Please provide your views on how this disrespect 

for the rule of law is harmful to the international financial system. 

I share the serious concerns about Argentina's unwillingness to honor its international 

obligations. 

If confirmed, I would have Treasury continue to work actively to press Argentina at every 

appropriate opportunity to honor its obligations. 

I understand that Treasury is pressing Argentina to abide by its international obligations and to 

normalize its relationship with the international financial community and foreign investors, 

including by honoring its international obligations to provide accurate data to the IMF, paying 

anlounts that are past due to the United States and other Paris Club members, and honoring final 

arbitral awards in favor of U.S. companies. 

Because of these concerns toward Argentina, I understand that Treasury has opposed practically 

all lending to Argentina through the multilateral development banks and supported the IMF's 

decision to censure Argentina for its misreporting of data, and President Obama suspended 

Argentina's eligibility for trade preferences under the Generalized System of Preferences 

program. It is also my understanding that almost all other donors at the Inter-American 

Development Bank have joined the United States in opposing proposed loans to Argentina. 

understand that such a level of disapproval by other donors against the proposed loans to any 

single country is unprecedented in recent memory, and follows from the leadership position 

Treasury established in 2011. 

Question 9: 

Two weeks ago, the IMF took the unprecedented step of censuring Argentina for failing to 

publish honest economic statistics. Other international institutions have also taken firm 

action in response to Argentina's serial defiance of international norms. The World Bank, 

for example, has refused to consider new loans to Argentina. The Paris Club has resisted 

Argentine requests to dilute its standards and has continued to insist that Argentina meet 

its obligations. The World Trade Organization is examining Argentina's violation of trade 

agreements. 

The Inter-American Development Bank, however, is an outlier. It continues to approve 

loans to Argentina despite Argentina's evasion of court judgments against it, defiance of 

international arbitral panels, failure to settle its debts to official and private creditors, and 

unwillingness to meet basic international standards. 
251 


86523.189

My question is this: While I understand that it is US policy to oppose loans to Argentina in 

the IADB, what steps will you take as Treasury Secretary to encourage other nations to 

join us? Will you energetically work to persuade the IADB board that further loans to 

Argentina are inappropriate as long as Argentina fails to respect the rules of the 

international community? 

Please see my answer to Question 8. 

Question 10: 

Senator Wyden and I recently sent a letter (dated February 7,2013) to the Department of 

Treasury and US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) asking for immediate assistance in 

resolving what has been an embarrassing failure to collect bonds relating to duties owed on 

certain agricultural imports from China. In the late 1990s, unfairly traded imports from 

China of honey and other agricultural products began having a very negative impact on 

certain U.S. industries, including honey producers in South Dakota. The US imposed antidumping duties to offset the unfair pricing of these Chinese products. However, as of 

today, hundreds of millions of dollars owed to taxpayers have not been collected. To be 

clear, this is not a matter of tracking down companies in China, the bonds remain 

uncollected due to the inaction of CBP and the insurers that issued the bonds in question. 

Senator Wyden and I have been pressing CBP to address this glaring problem for months 

and have heretofore received an inadequate and unsatisfactory response. Although CBP is 

primarily under the aegis ofthe Department of Homeland Security, the revenue collection 

functions of CBP are still largely at the Department of Treasury and Treasury regulates 

the insurance companies that issue customs bonds, which makes this at least partly a 

responsibility ofthe Department of Treasury. 

Can you commit to me that you will provide me a full accounting of these bonds, and that 

you will directly answer the questions raised in my most recent letter with Senator Wyden? 

Additionally, can you assure me that you will direct CBP to pursue all necessary means to 

collect these bonds for the sake of American taxpayers and American producers injured by 

the unfairly priced Chinese imports? 

Yes. If confirmed, I look forward to working together with the Committee and the Department 

of Homeland Security, including Customs and Border Protection, on issues related to the 

collection of import duties. 

Question 11: 

Under the law exchanges and Medicaid programs are required to perform eligibility 

determinations for premium subsidies, Medicaid, CHIP and the basic health plan. The 

statute clearly does not contemplate a majority of states defaulting to the federallyfacilitated exchange or FFE, and therefore does not specify how the federal exchange will 

administer eligibility determinations for state-run programs. With more than half of all 

states, including South Dakota, defaulting to the Federally-facilitated exchange can you 
252 


86523.190

please explain how the FFE will make eligibility determinations as required under the law, 

particularly in light of the complexity and variation in each state's Medicaid and CHIP 

eligibility rules? More specifically, will the FFE have the technology and capacity to make 

MAGI eligibility determinations for the states or will it be limited to making eligibility 

assessments and forwarding that information onto the state's Medicaid/CHIP program for 

the eligibility determination? 

It is my understanding that the Department of Health and Human Services has primary 

responsibility for this issue and is therefore in a better position than Treasury to provide an 

answer. But to the extent that Treasury is involved in the matter, I look forward to working with 

the Committee on the issue. 

Question 12: 

Can you give me a better picture ofthe resources the IRS is having to devote to 

implementing ACA? How many employees are devoted to these projects (full and parttime)? How much has the IRS paid or committed to regarding outside contractors to 

implement ACA? What are the projections for next year? I believe when the 

Commissioner was asked a similar question about next year his answer was "you tell me 

my budget and I will tell you how much I will spend on ACA implementation." I hope 

your answer will contain specifics and not a similar evasive answer as I am sure the IRS 

has done budgeting for the upcoming year. 

According to Treasury, in FY 2012, the IRS had just under 700 full-time equivalent staff 

working on ACA. From FY 2010 through FY 2012, the IRS spent $297.1 million on 

information technology contract costs. The FY 2013 President's Budget requested $360 million 

and 859 FTE, about 70 percent of which is for IT implementation and program management. 

Question 13: 

For the past six years, the Medicare Trustees report has triggered the excess general 

funding warning. As you know, this warning requires the administration to submit a 

legislative proposal to Congress to reduce the general fund contribution of Medicare to 45 

percent or less. George W. Bush complied with the law in 2008, which was the first time 

the trigger was met. The trigger has been met each year since, yet this administration has 

not submitted a legislative proposal to Congress. 

Why hasn't this administration complied with the law, and do you intend to comply with 

this portion ofthe Medicare Modernization Act if confirmed? 

The Medicare Modernization Act requires that the President submit legislation to Congress in the 

event a Medicare Funding Warning is triggered. My understanding is that the Bush 

Administration issued a signing statement concluding that this is inconsistent with the 

Recommendations Clause of the Constitution, and the Obama Administration came to the same 

conclusion. After I became Director of OMB in late 2010, I did not revisit this position, and 

OMB reiterated it in a 2013 letter. 
253 


86523.191

I understand that the most recent Medicare Trustees Report shows that, while general revenues 

were projected to exceed the threshold that triggers the warning in 2012, general revenues are 

projected to fall below that threshold in every year from 2013 to after 2020. In other words, my 

understanding is that a warning is not projected in 2013 under current law, even absent 

legislative changes in Medicare. 

The President takes Medicare's financing problems seriously and proposed more than $300 

billion in Medicare savings in his FY 2013 Budget. The Administration is committed to making 

Medicare more efficient and ensuring its long-run solvency. 

Question 14: 

The Administration's suggestion in its business tax reform framework that the corporate 

tax rate should be lowered, from 35 percent to 28 percent is a step in the right direction. 

However, as you know, the vast majority of businesses today are organized as pass-thru 

entities, such as LLCs, S-corporations and partnerships. 

My state of South Dakota happens to rank in the top 6 states in terms of states with the 

highest proportion of its businesses organized as pass-thrus. As such, I am deeply 

concerned by the Administration's suggestion that we could enact business tax reform 

without enacting individual tax reform. It strikes me as deeply unfair to have one taxpayer 

paying a nearly 40 percent tax rate on his business income while another business is taxed 

at, for example, the Administration's proposed 28 percent corporate rate. 

Given these concerns, wouldn't you agree with me that tax reform needs to be truly 

comprehensive and that it must encompass both the individual rates and the corporate 

rates? 

I believe that both individual and business income tax reform are needed. I also believe that 

business tax reform can be accomplished independently from individual tax reform. The 

President's Framework for Business Tax Reform lays out broad principles and makes a number 

of specific suggestions on how to achieve a reformed and rational business tax system. That 

system would have a maximum corporate tax rate of no more than 28 percent, while being 

mindful of the important role played by pass-throughs and sensitive to the need to provide 

simplifYing tax relief to small businesses. If confirmed, I look forward to working with the 

Committee on business and individual income tax reform. 

Question 15: 

One of the reasons for tax reform is the need to make U.S. businesses more globally 

competitive. As the Administration's business tax "framework" documents states: "Tax 

reform should be a foundation to maximize investment, growth and jobs in the United 

States." Yet the very same framework document largely dodges the issue of whether the 

U.S. should move from the current worldwide system of taxation to a territorial system. 
254 


86523.192

Given that we are now the only G-8 country without a territorial system, and given that the 

abuse concerns raised by the administration would need to be considered as part of any 

move to a territorial system, why won't the Administration come out in favor of a 

territorial system? I believe such a statement by the Administration would do much to 

build confidence in the business community that this Administration is serious about tax 

reform that will make America more competitive in the global economy. 

The President's Framework for Business Tax Reform supports a hybrid approach that reduces 

incentives for companies to shift profits and investment to low-tax countries, puts the United 

States on a more level playing field with our international competitors, aod helps end the global 

race to the bottom on corporate tax rates-while also making American companies more 

competitive globally. There is considerable debate as to how to reform the international tax 

system, but I believe that there is common ground on this subject, including a mutual concern 

about preserving the U.S. tax base by reducing incentives that encourage the shifting of 

investment aod income overseas, and making the United States more competitive globally. I 

look forward to working with the Committee on a bipartisao basis to develop approaches to 

international taxation that will ensure the United States will retain aod attract high-quality jobs. 

Question 16: 

As you know, the current economic recovery is the weakest we've experienced since World 

War II and most economists project economic growth in 2013 to be below 2 percent. This 

persistent slow grow has an enormous effect on deficits and debt over the long-term. 

The RepUblican staff of the Joint Economic Committee found that simply having growth 

equal to the average economic growth of the past 60 years since the beginning ofthe 

recovery would have cut last year's deficit in half. 

As such, does the Administration agree that boosting economic growth should be a top 

priority going forward and that fundamental tax reform and regulatory reform are 

important means by which to accomplish this end? 

An analysis of the historic record supports the view that recessions triggered by finaocial 

collapses tend to be deeper aod last longer. The Administration places boosting growth as a top 

priority and has proposed a wide raoge of pro-growth policies, including job creating initiatives 

in the Americao Jobs Act, aod policies that support education aod skills development, research 

aod innovation, aod infrastructure investment. 

I have supported tax reform as a meaos to reducing the costs and complexity in our current tax 

code. Appropriately designed tax reform can help to boost economic performaoce aod growth, 

for example by making American businesses more competitive aod by removing distorting tax 

considerations from economic decisions. If confirmed, I look forward to working with Congress 

on this issue. 

With regard to regulatory reform, I have supported efforts to review aod reduce unnecessary aod 

redundaot regulations while I was at the Office of Management and Budget to ensure that the 
255 


86523.193

United States has a regulatory system that protects financial stability and Americans' health and 

well-being, while promoting innovation, competition, and economic prosperity. Also, fully 

implementing Dodd-Frank will give rise to a sounder, more stable financial system that supports 

growth. 

Question 17: 

As you know, the issue of "tax havens" has garnered a great deal of attention over the past 

few years. A number of bills have been introduced in Congress and the President's reelection campaign went to great lengths to highlight the investments of his opponent in 

what the President's campaign in one of its ads portrayed as "tax havens like Bermuda and 

the Cayman Islands." 

Yet as numerous examinations ofthis issue have revealed, businesses and individual invest 

otT-shore for a variety of reasons, some of which are nefarious but some of which are 

completely legitimate. Even your former employer found it advantageous to hase some of 

its funds outside the U.S. 

While I strongly support etTorts to stop illegal tax avoidance, shouldn't we also focus on the 

underlying reason why Americans sometimes invest outside the U.S., which is that our 

current tax system is antiquated and not competitive? Do you agree with the view that 

investments outside the U.S., even in places often characterized as "tax havens," are a 

symptom of deeper problem with our tax system? Wouldn't a focus on a lower corporate 

tax rate, for example, take away the incentive to derive profits outside the U.S.? 

The President's Framework reflects a concern that the current U.S. international tax system 

creates incentives for U.S. companies to locate their operations and profits abroad, which leads 

to erosion of the U.S. tax base. The Framework ackoowledges that the combination of a 

relatively narrow tax base and a high statutory tax rate makes the U.S. tax system less effective 

and less efficient than it should be. The Administration believes that tax reform should be a 

foundation to maximize investment, growth, and jobs in the United States. In order to promote 

increased investment in the United States, the Framework proposes to reform the current system 

oftaxing U.S. businesses and sets forth several elements of business tax reform that would help 

address these concerns. There is considerable debate as to how to reform the international tax 

system, but I believe that there is common ground on this subject, including a mutual concern 

about preserving the U.S. tax base by reducing incentives that encourage the shifting of 

investment and income overseas. This common ground could advance efforts to reform the 

current U.S. international tax rules, and if confirmed, I would commit to working with Congress 

and stakeholders to enact tax reform. 

Question 18: 

While you were Chief of Staff for President Obama, the Obama Administration rejected 

the presidential permit for the Keystone XL pipeline. This was a high profile decision that 

likely had input from the Obama White House. Did you ever advise or counsel the 
256 


86523.194

president, TransCanada, or State Department officials on TransCanada's permit 

application? If so, what input did you provide on the permit for the pipeline? 

The Administration has not rejected TransCanada's permit application. In November 2011, the 

Department of State concluded it could not make a fully informed national-interest determination 

given unresolved issues concerning the proposed route through Nebraska. In late November 

2011, Congress began considering legislation to force the Administration to make a final 

decision within 60 days. The Administration informed Congress that such a deadline was 

unreasonable, and that enacting legislation would delay a final decision and would require a 

renewed permit application. Nonetheless, in late December 2011, Congress passed legislation 

adopting the deadline. 

In January 2012, the President accepted the State Department's recommendation that 60 days 

was insufficient to consider all the issues related to TransCanada's permit application. The 

President concluded that the permit was not in the national interest "as presented and analyzed at 

[that 1 time." The review process was run by the State Department, pursuant to Executive Order 

13337. TransCanada's renewed permit application is under continued review by the State 

Department. 

Question 19: 

What are your thoughts in terms of the Treasury Department's role in ensuring that the 

combined impact ofthe new banking regulations, whether related to the newly proposed 

capital rules or the expected liquidity rules, or in general the changes in consumer and 

mortgage regulations, does not harm the economy's potential for growth? Have you been 

involved in any formal or informal economic studies on this subject while at the OMB, or 

are you planning to conduct such studies at the Department of Treasury? How would you 

plan to exert influence on any new or existing regulations to ensure that they are effective 

in preventing risk while maintaining the efficient role of financial institutions in promoting 

growth? 

I think we need to be attentive to the benefits and burdens of all regulations, particularly in an 

area as important to the economy as financial services. For example, the crisis revealed that 

banking institutions need more and better capital to help reduce the probability of a future crisis 

in the banking system. It is important that Treasury continues its dialogue with the banking 

regulators as they work towards implementing Basel III capital standards and the Dodd-Frank 

Act, recognizing that we need strong standards that reflect lessons learned from the financial 

crisis while avoiding the imposition of undue costs. If confirmed, I would continue the 

important work of coordinating closely with the regulatory agencies, including Treasury's 

engagement with the banking regulators and the FSOC's efforts to facilitate information sharing 

and coordination among its member agencies. 

Question 20: 

Last fall, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) released a report that said taxes have 

no effect on economic growth. A recent study from the Tax Foundation reviewed every 
257 


86523.195

empirical study published in a peer reviewed academic journal it could find on the topic of 

taxes and economic growth, and found the opposite to be true - that taxes do in fact impact 

economic growth. Do you agree with the premise that if you tax something more heavily, 

such as wages or investment, you will get less of it? In your view, what is the effect of taxes 

on growth, and which taxes are most harmful? 

Appropriately designed tax reform can help to boost economic performance and growth, by 

making American businesses more competitive and by removing distorting tax considerations 

from economic decisions. 

Our goal is a tax system that minimizes distortions to economic activity while at the same time 

meeting revenue requirements for vital government services that enhance the dynamism and 

competitiveness of the American economy. 

Question 21: 

I understand from tax preparers and the National Taxpayer Advocate, that tax fraud 

continues to be a growing problem, especially with respect to identity theft. However, I 

understand that some simple efforts to identify fraud have been stopped in the past 

year. For example, I understand that the IRS would informally investigate when multiple 

IRS refund checks were going to a single address or P.O. Box but that practice has been 

stopped. Is this accurate and, if so, can you explain why this is the case? It is also my 

understanding that when a tax preparers knows of another preparer likely committing 

fraud and inform the IRS, such whistleblowers are told that it will take several months 

until the IRS can check on this information. Is this report accurate? If confirmed, what 

specific steps will you take to combat tax fraud, especially relating to identity theft? 

Preventing tax fraud and combating identity theft are critical to ensuring that our tax system is 

fair. It is my understanding that, in recent years, the IRS has undertaken an extensive effort to 

combat tax fraud and, if confirmed, I would continue to support the IRS in those efforts. 

Question 22: 

There have been concerns raised by many Americans, including Members of Congress, 

regarding the rapid increase in the number oftaxpayers using Individual Taxpayer 

Identification Numbers (I TINs) to file for refundable child credits. ITINs are typically 

used by taxpayers who are not eligible to legally work in the U.S. These taxpayers are 

unable to claim other public benefits, such as Earned Income Tax Credit payments, by 

virtue of a 1996 law that limits such benefits to those using a valid Social Security number. 

Refundable child credit payments to taxpayers using IT INs is increasing rapidly, from 

$924 million in 2005 to $4.2 billion in 2010. A report released by the Treasury Inspector 

General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) on July 7, 2011 estimated that conforming the 

treatment of the child credit outlays to other public benefits would save taxpayers $8.4 

billion over two years. Given the recent growth in ITIN refund filings and the fact that 

Congress recently made permanent the child credit at the $1,000 per child level, it is not 
258 


86523.196

unrealistic to assume that bringing the refundable child credit in line with other 

government outlays with respect to ITIN filers could save American taxpayers at least $40 

billion over the next ten years, and possibly much more. 

I understand that the Treasury Department has made the legal judgment that the 

provisions of the 1996 law that require a social security number to claim the refundable 

Earned Income Tax Credit and other federal benefits does not apply to the refundable 

child credit. Will you commit to reconsidering this determination in light of the potential 

for fraud regarding refundable credits in general and the child credit in particular? If 

Treasury believes it does not have the authority to disallow these payments to ITIN filers, 

would you support congressional action to clarifY the treatment of child credit payments to 

bring them in line with how government spending on other public benefits is currently 

treated? 

It is my understanding that Treasury and the IRS have considered this issue carefully and have 

concluded that the IRS does not have authority under current law to deny the refundable child 

credit to Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) filers. 
259 


86523.197

Senator Burr 

Question 1: 

If confirmed to be Treasury Secretary, you will also serve as a Managing Trustee of the 

Medicare Trust Fund. The Trustees' reports have repeatedly warned of Medicare's 

unsustainable course-the program faces $37 trillion in unfunded liabilities-and the 

Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund could be exhausted as early as 2017. Please 

explain what happens when Medicare Part A runs out of money. 

My understanding is that the 2012 Trustees Report estimates that implementation ofthe 

Affordable Care Act (ACA) reduces the actuarial deficit ofthe Hospital Insurance Trust Fund by 

two-thirds and extends the life of the Trust Fund to 2024. At that time, I understand that 

payments to providers and health plans would be paid at a level consistent with incoming taxes 

and premiums unless further action is taken to support the Hospital Insurance fund. There is 

more work to do to ensure long-run sustainability of the Medicare program, and the 

Administration has been clear in its commitment to meet its obligations to our seniors by 

strengthening Medicare's finances. 

Question 2: 

Does the Administration believe that the 60,000 millionaires on Medicare should pay the 

same Medicare premiums as other seniors with incomes above $250,000 enrolled in the 

Medicare program? 

Building on similar policies in the ACA, the President supports proposals that ask the highest 

income beneficiaries to pay their fair share in financing the costs of the program. The 

President's FY 2013 Budget included a proposal to raise Parts Band D premiums on highincome beneficiaries. Under that proposal, the highest income category would pay 90 percent of 

the costs of their benefits. 

Question 3: 

The President's Fiscal Commission warned that federal health care spending represents 

our single largest fiscal challenge over the long run. Yet, the President's last two budget 

submissions, formulated under your watch, would actually have increased Medicare 

spending relative to current law. Do you disagree with any of the President's Fiscal 

Commission, the Medicare Trustees, and CBO's findings about the unsustainable course of 

federal health care spending? If so, please describe in detail which specific findings you 

disagree with and why. 

The President's FY 2013 budget included about $300 billion in Medicare savings. Moreover, the 

ACA significantly reduced Medicare's financing shortfall. For instance, the ACA cut the 

actuarial deficit of the 75-year Hospital Insurance Trust Fund by nearly two-thirds. The 

President has demonstrated a commitment to improving the long-run solvency of Medicare, and 

he continues to seek ways to increase the efficiency of the program. 
260 


86523.198

Question 4: 

Earlier this month, Ranking Member Hatch laid out five specific, reasonable health care 

reforms that would help to rein in entitlement spending and put our nation on a better 

fiscal course. These reforms have enjoyed bipartisan support. Please provide at least five 

specific, bipartisan health care entitlement reforms that the President supports. 

The President's FY 2013 Budget contains numerous reforms to entitlement programs. Many of 

the reforms proposed in the Budget are also found in many of the bipartisan proposals that have 

been released in the past few years. 

Question 5: 

The President's health care law includes an annual fee on health insurance providers that 

appears to apply to individuals, Medicare Advantage, and managed care Medicaid 

programs. The Joint Committee on Taxation has determined that a very large portion of 

the fee will be borne by consumers, including state governments with impacted Medicaid 

plans. Since Medicaid is a federal-state partnersbip, doesn't this fee essentially tax federal 

and state governments, driving up health care costs for both? 

The annual fee is imposed on entities that are in the business of providing health insurance, and 

those entities are responsible for paying the fee. I have not yet had an opportunity to fully 

develop a view on this particular matter, but look forward to working with the Committee on this 

issue. 

Question 6: 

When will IRS promulgate the regulation on PP ACA's annual fee on health insurance 

providers? 

The Administration is working diligently on all aspects of implementation ofthe Affordable 

Care Act. If confirmed, I look forward to working with officials in the Treasury Department and 

the IRS on this issue. 

Question 7: 

CMS has been building infrastructure for the Exchanges, which need to be operational 

beginning October 1, 2013 for the initial open enrollment period-a very aggressive 

timeline considering all that remains to be done. We've heard significant concerns from 

stakeholders regarding the readiness of the IT infrastructure necessary to support the 

Exchanges, particularly with respect to the federal data services hub. Please describe in 

detail the Administration's contingency plan if the Exchanges and the hub aren't actually 

operational on October 1, 2013. Please also detail what testing has occurred to date with 

respect to this IT infrastructure, including the federal data services hub. 
261 


86523.199

While I have not yet had an opportunity to fully engage with the issue of the federal hub, it is my 

understanding that the Department of Health and Human Services has primary responsibility and 

therefore may be in a better position than Treasury to provide an answer. But to the extent that 

Treasury is involved in the matter, I look forward to working with the Committee on the issue. 

Question 8: 

My understanding is that the federal data services hub will determine consumer eligibility 

for federal subsidies and connect with several federal agencies, such as Homeland Security, 

Social Security, IRS, Treasury, and HHS. The hub will be sharing very sensitive data, such 

as Social Security numbers. Has the hub been thoroughly tested to ensure that the data 

flows are accurate and sensitive information wiII be protected? Has an independent audit 

been done to assure the validity of the data and system security to ensure sensitive 

information wiII be protected? If not, would you support such an audit and does the 

Administration plan to pursue such an audit? 

I have not yet had an opportunity to fully engage with the details of the implementation of a 

federal hub. Moreover, it is my understanding that the Department of Health and Human 

Services has primary responsibility for the hub. 

Question 9: 

What will be the annual budget costs for running the Federally Facilitated Exchange under 

PPACA? 

It is my understanding that the Department of Health and Human Services has primary 

responsibility for the Exchanges. But to the extent that Treasury is involved in the matter, if 

confirmed, I look forward to working with the Committee on the issue. 

Question 10: 

What will be the annual budget costs for states implementing a Partnership Exchange 

under PPACA, for both states and the federal government? 

Please see my answer to Question 9. 

Question 11: 

What will be the annual budget costs for states implementing State-based Exchanges under 

PPACA? 

Please see my answer to Question 9. 

Question 12: 

Last December, CMS issued a Frequently Asked Questions document that noted that CMS 

has proposed that issuers pay a monthly user fee to support the operation of the Federally 
262 


86523.200

Facilitated Exchange, specifically proposing a fee rate of 3.5 percent of premiums. How 

much will this fee increase the cost of premiums for consumers receiving health insurance 

through the Federally Facilitated Exchange? Will this increase be more or less than the 

increase in premiums due to the health insurance tax under the President's health care 

law? 

Please see my answer to Question 9. 

Question 13: 

President Obama has been a vocal advocate ofPell Grants. During the 2012 campaign, he 

highlighted the fact that Pell Grants had doubled during his tenure. During this time, 

however, eligibility requirements have changed while keeping the current maximum award 

level, causing nearly 200,000 students, through summer, Ability-to-Benefit, etc., to lose 

access. What is the Administration's plan for reforming Pell so eligibility changes like 

these will not endanger eligibility for others? 

The President is committed to making college more affordable. As you note, Pen grant spending 

has doubled during his time in office and the President's Budget demonstrates his continued 

commitment to Pell and to college access more generally. 

Question 14: 

Given your close involvement in the creation ofthe State Department's first QDDR, what 

further steps or necessary tools do you believe the U.S. must pursue in order for diplomacy 

and development efforts to work together more effectively? 

The QDDR provides a blueprint for elevating American "civilian power" to better advance our 

national interests and to be a better partner to the U.S. military. It provides a framework for 

coordinating the resources of all America's civilian agencies to prevent and resolve conflicts; 

help countries lift themselves out of poverty into prosperous, stable, and democratic states; and 

build global coalitions to address global problems. We must continue to tap the expertise of all 

parts of the U.S. government to advance these goals and, if confirmed, I will seek to ensure that 

the Treasury Department plays an active and constructive role in this process. 

Question 15: 

An important function ofthe Treasury Department is its work with multilateral 

development banks. How would you describe the approach you would take as Secretary 

toward strengthening U.S. engagement with multilateral development banks to reduce 

poverty in developing countries and also encourage private sector investment? 

U.S. support for the MDBs and their objective to reduce poverty is a cost-effective way to 

support future economic growth; address key global challenges, such as food insecurity and 

environmental degradation; and promote our national security. With U.S. support, the MDBs 

have been able to increase their efforts to promote these goals. 
263 


86523.201

If confirmed, I look forward to strengthening the strong U.S. leadership at the MDBs. 

Question 16: 

On Iranian sanctions, given new reports of Iran's attempts to evade sanctions through use 

of exchange houses and trading companies, use of fraudulent shipping documents and false 

vessel/flag registration credentials, what is your commitment to greater enforcement of 

sanctions against Iran? 

As a result of the efforts of the United States and its partners around the world, Iran today is 

more isolated than ever, especially on the economic front. Treasury has a strong record of 

aggressively pursuing Iran's financial networks and implementing sanctions against Iran and 

those individuals, entities, and banks that violate our sanctions. If confirmed, Treasury will 

continue to aggressively target individuals, entities, or banks that engage in sanctionable activity, 

wherever they may be. 

Question 17: 

If confirmed as Secretary of Treasury, you would sit on the PBGC Board of Directors 

along with the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Commerce. One of the biggest 

challenges facing the PBGC is the funding and viability of the multiemployer 

system. Recently, the PBGC released three major status reports. The first two reports are 

more than a year overdue and concern the funding and viability ofthe multiemployer 

system. The third report is the 2012 PBGC Exposure Report that details the anticipated 

solvency/liability issues ofthe PBGC for both its single employer trust fund and the 

multiemployer trnst fund. To what extent did OMB or other White House staff under your 

direction participate in the preparation of these reports? 

I am not aware whether White House or OMB staff members participated in the preparation of 

the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation reports referenced in your question. I understand that 

OMB and White House staff reviewed the reports prior to release, consistent with typical 

practice regarding similar agency documents. 

Question 18: 

Were you aware the reports were late and do you have an explanation for the lateness of 

the reports? 

I was not aware that the reports were late and would refer you to PBGC for an explanation of 

why they were late. 

Question 19: 

Were you personally aware that the current law multiemployer provisions of the Pension 

Protection Act expire at the end of 2014? 
264 


86523.202

I am generally aware of the Pension Protection Act (PPA). As I understand it, as the PPA was 

taking effect in 2008, the economy and financial markets underwent significant shocks, causing 

losses to both multiemployer plans and their contributing employers. Subsequent enactment of 

funding relief in 2008 and 2010 (the Worker, Retiree, and Employer Recovery Act and the 

Pension Relief Act, respectively) changed the implementation of multiemployer plans by funding 

improvement and rehabilitation plans provided for by the PP A. As I understand it, these 

provisions expire at the end of2014. 

Question 20: 

The Pension Protection Act required the PBGC and agencies to provide Congress with 

recommendations for the reauthorization process. The PBGC and agencies declined to 

provide those recommendations in the report. Why have they declined to make these 

recommendations and when will they be forthcoming? 

As a nominee, and not a current employee of the Treasury Department, I have not yet been 

involved in these issues. However, I believe that it is important that Congress have the benefit of 

recommendations from the PBGC and the Board member agencies to help facilitate the 

reauthorization process. 

Question 21: 

What policies do you have in place to monitor and ensure compliance with Congressionally 

mandated reporting requirements? 

As a nominee, and not a current employee of the Treasury Department, I would refer you to 

Alastair Fitzpayne, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Legislative Affairs for information 

regarding congressionally mandated reporting requirements. 

Question 22: 

How many Congressionally mandated reports are currently delinquent? 

See response to Question 21. 

Question 23: 

Is compliance actively tracked and how? 

See response to Question 21. 

Question 24: 

As White House Chief of Staff or as Director of OMB, have you made recommendations or 

do you have recommendations for addressing the health of the multiemployer system? 
265 


86523.203

I have not made any recommendations for addressing the health of the multiemployer system. 

understand the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation ("PBGC") recently issued a report 

addressing the multiemployer pension system. I expect that the PBGC, as well as the federal 

agencies that sit on its Board of Directors-the Departments of the Treasury, Labor, and 

Commerce-will continue to gather information, examine the issue, and work with Congress and 

stakeholders to discuss potential policies for strengthening the multiemployer pension system 

and protecting the retirement of millions of workers and retirees. 

Question 25: 

Would you support or oppose a taxpayer bailout of either the single or mUltiemployer 

system? 

The defined benefit pension system does not rely upon support from taxpayers. Individual 

employers choose whether to establish or join a pension, and employers are responsible for 

funding those plans. The insurance provided by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

("PBGC") to protect the benefits of workers and retirees is funded through premiums paid by 

employers as well as the assets of plans that have been trusteed by the PBGC. This 

Administration has previously proposed ideas to protect workers and retirees in single and 

multiemployer plans that include increases in premiums to strengthen the PBGC insurance 

program. However, it may be the case that broader legislative action is needed, and there are 

numerous proposals that may be considered by Congress in the next few years. The 

Administration has not yet developed a position on any such proposals. I expect the PBGC, as 

well as the Departments of the Treasury, Labor, and Commerce, will continue to examine the 

issue and will work with Congress and stakeholders on potential policy solutions. 

Question 26: 

What is your rationale for your viewpoint on bailing out the single or mUltiemployer 

pension system? 

Please see my answer to Question 25. 

Question 27: 

In your recent White House tenure, you have had budgetary responsibilities including 

proper stewardship of tax payer dollars. A recent GAO study entitled "Davis-Bacon Act: 

Methodological Changes Needed to Improve Wage Survey" has been published by the 

Government Accountability Office (GAO), highlighting serious flaws in how wages are 

determined under the Davis-Bacon Act and recommended steps for the U.S. Department of 

Labor (DOL) to take in order to remedy some of the issues. Knowing that Davis-Bacon 

significantly affects the cost of government projects, what is your view of these 

recommendations as former OMB Director and White House Chief of Stam 
266 


86523.204

I agree that it is important to improve the timeliness and accuracy of wage surveys under the 

Davis-Bacon Act. The Department of Labor has statutory authority to conduct these surveys, 

and I understand the Department has taken a number of steps to address the issues identified in 

the GAO report referenced in your question. 

Question 28: 

Under your leadership, where is the Administration on implementation of the GAO 

recommendations? 

Please see my answer to Question 27. 

Question 29: 

According to GAO, the DOL rejected their recommendation that they obtain objective 

expert advice on its survey design. Do you believe the DOL should use an independent 

statistical organization? 

I have not had an opportunity to study the issue in detail, and the Department of Labor has 

statutory authority to conduct these surveys. As a general matter, federal agencies make 

determinations regarding whether to retain outside organizations to assist in their work based on 

a variety of factors, including cost. 

Question 30: 

Has the Administration complied with Congressional requests to provide all 

documentation concerning the its role in the decision-making that led to certain Delphi 

pension beneficiaries being treated differently during the 2009 General Motors Company 

(GM) bailout? 

I understand that over the past three and a half years, the Administration has shared with 

Congress extensive information about the bankruptcies of General Motors and Delphiincluding, in particular, the treatment ofthe Delphi pension plans. In a November 2012 letter to 

Chairman Camp, Treasury described the voluminous and detailed public record. Treasury, the 

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, GM, Delphi, and others have produced thousands of 

pages of material and have made senior officials available to testifY at numerous public hearings. 

In the same letter, Treasury identified the specific documents in the public record that address 

each of the issues raised by the Committee. In addition, Treasury offered to discuss any 

remaining issues with the Committee, stating that "if you believe there are specific matters that 

the existing record does not adequately address, we would be happy to discuss them with you or 

your staff." 

Question 31: 

Regarding the above question, can you certify that the Administration has produced all 

responsive documents or provide a privilege log for any documents withheld? 
267 


86523.205

Please see my answer to Question 30. 

Question 32: 

What is the President's current position on reducing the charitable deduction? 

I recognize the important role played by our nation's charitable sector. Through our charities, 

millions of Americans join together, contributing funds and volunteer hours, to meet the needs of 

their communities. Charities provide healthcare, social services, and disaster assistance to those 

in need, among other things. They conserve our natural resources and expand the boundaries of 

our knowledge through scientific research. And they emich OUT communities through education, 

athletics, and the arts. 

Unlike some other proposals to curb tax expenditures, the Administration's previous Budget 

proposal to limit the value of itemized deductions and certain other tax expenditures to 28 

percent would have a modest impact on the incentive to make charitable gifts. This is because 

the tax incentive on the last dollar of giving potentially would be somewhat reduced but not 

eliminated. Moreover, only a small fraction oftaxpayers married couples with incomes in 

excess of $250,000 and single taxpayers with incomes in excess of $200,000 - would be affected 

by the proposal. Charitable giving by non-itemizers and taxpayers with incomes below these 

thresholds - the vast majority of donors would not be affected by the proposal. 

The Administration's FY 2013 Budget proposal to limit the benefit of itemized deductions to 28 

percent is intended to be an even-handed approach covering all itemized deductions and is not 

intended to single out the charitable sector. But the Administration is also looking forward to a 

broader dialogue about tax refornl and as part of that discussion would be open to discussing 

alternative ways oftreating charitable deductions to ensure that the incentive is cost effective and 

fair. If confirmed, I look forward to working with this Committee to ensure that our tax system 

is fair and efficient, and appropriately supports our charitable sector. 

Question 33: 

How has his position on the charitable deduction evolved over your tenure? 

The Administration has remained committed to maintaining a charitable deduction throughout 

the President's time in office. 

Question 34: 

What role have you played in the consideration of changes to the deductibility of charitable 

contributions and what is your current position? 

Please see my answer to Question 32. 
268 


86523.206

Question 35: 

What is the President's current position on retirement tax incentives? 

Particularly in light of the increasing average age and longevity of America's population, I 

believe that tax incentives for retirement savings should playa vital role in helping support our 

pension, 401 (k), and other employer-sponsored plans, and promote retirement security for 

everyone. The Administration's commitment to encouraging retirement savings has been 

evident in the Administration's budget proposals to expand retirement coverage, encourage 

greater tax-favored retirement savings through automatic emollment in lRAs (with the ability to 

opt out) for employees without a workplace retirement plan, and its efforts to promote and 

expand 401(k) and similar plans through automatic emollment. It is important that these 

programs and incentives be designed so that their benefits extend to as many taxpayers as 

possible, especially those in the middle and lower ranges of the income scale. 

Question 36: 

What role have you played in the consideration of changes to retirement tax incentives and 

what is your current position? 

In my view, tax incentives to encourage pensions, 401 (k)s, IRAs, and other retirement plans and 

retirement savings are an important means of promoting adequate retirement security for our 

population. As a matter of policy, it is important that retirement tax incentives be designed to be 

effective and efficient and to promote an appropriate allocation of retirement and tax benefits to 

moderate- and lower-income workers and households. 

Question 37: 

Legislation known as the Public Employee Pension Transparency Act has been considered 

by Congress and the provisions of the bill relate to the Treasury Department and the 

budget. Under the bill, State and local pension plans will report two sets of information to 

the Secretary ofthe Treasury which will be made available on the internet for public 

review. The first set of numbers will detail current public pension liabilities based on 

existing accounting methods. The second set of numbers will detail the current pension 

liabilities but will do so using uniform guidelines. Do you support these provisions? 

The financial health of public pension plans is a very important topic to millions of Americans. 

have not yet had an opportunity to fully develop a policy position on this particular bill, but if 

confirmed, I look forward to working with the Congress on the issue. 

Question 38: 

What is the reason for your view (for or against) providing taxpayers with an apples-toapples comparison of pension liabilities across jurisdictions? 
269 


86523.207

Transparency of public pension plans is a very important topic. I have not yet had an 

opportunity to fully develop a policy position on this particular bill, but if confinned, I look 

forward to working with Congress on the issue. 

Question 39: 

Do you agree with the provision of the bill that says that State and local governments that 

refuse to report their public pension liabilities should be denied the ability to issue federally 

tax-exempt bonds? What is the reason for your view? 

I have not yet had an opportunity to fully develop a policy position on this particular bill, but I 

am aware of the importance of tax-exempt bond issuance as a critical source of funding for 

states, municipalities and other local entities. 

Question 40: 

Finally, the bill rejects the possibility of a federal bailout of state and local pension 

programs. Do you agree that the federal government should not bail out state and local 

pensions? 

I support the efforts of state and local governments and pension plans to meet their own financial 

obligations and, if confinned, I look forward to working further with the Congress on the issue. 

Question 41: 

The recent fiscal cliff extension of additional federal unemployment benefits included a 

provision called the "non-reduction" clause that forbids states from making certain benefit 

modifications to their plan. Who in the Obama Administration crafted and supported this 

provision? 

In fonnulating his policies, the President considers a wide range of input from the agencies. The 

President is committed to ensuring that unemployment insurance continues to be a safety net for 

those suffering from job loss. 

Question 42: 

What was the policy rationale behind the "non-rcduction" provision? 

As our economy recovers, we must make sure that those suffering from job loss have a strong 

safety net. The American Taxpayer Relief Act of2012 aims to maintain the strength of the 

protections provided by unemployment insurance. 

Question 43: 

Does the "non-reduction" clause in fact cause a benefit reduction should a state modify its 

benefit structure? 
270 


86523.208

I understand that the non-reduction clause contains limitations relating to state reductions of 

unemployment benefits. Nonetheless, I also understand that states maintain the ability to change 

the structure of unemployment benefits in ways consistent with this clause. 

Question 44: 

What policy objective does the Federal government seek to achieve in unemployment 

benefit reductions through the clause mentioned above? 

Please see my answer to Question 42. 

Question 45: 

Acting Secretary of Labor Seth Harris stated in an official statement that he has no 

flexibility to modify the non-reduction provision. Is the Administration seeking flexibility 

to modify the non-reduction clause? 

Please see my answer to Question 42. 

Question 46: 

Did you support the "non-reduction" provision that was part of the unemployment benefit 

extension? 

The President signed the American Taxpayer Relief Act of2012, which included an extension of 

unemployment benefits and a number of other provisions. I support the President's policies, 

including those on unemployment insurance. 

Question 47: 

Legislation in the Middle Class Tax Relief and Jobs Act of 2012 passed Congress and was 

signed by the President with a provision to "restore state flexibility to improve 

unemployment program solvency". Why should different states be treated differently 

now? 

As our economy recovers, we must make sure that those suffering fromjob loss have a strong 

safety net. The President's policies aim to maintain the strength of the protections provided by 

unemployment insurance. 

Question 48: 

The Secretary ofthe Treasury serves as Managing Trustee ofthe Social Security program. 

According to the Social Security Trustees, Social Security Disability Insurance's trust fund 

is expected to be exhausted by 2016. Because SSDI is legally required to run a cash positive 

balance sheet, that would mean a 79% cut to benefits in order to serve the 11 million 
271 


86523.209

Americans currently receiving SSDI payments. It would also mean that no new disability 

entrants would be accepted. What is your plan for averting this crisis to SSDI in the next 

two years? 

The projected exhaustion of the DI Trust Fund requires attention and modernization to ensure 

that the disabled and those who may need the program in the future can continue to count on the 

benefits provided by disability insurance. In order to achieve this goal. the Administration has 

been looking at ways to improve the administration and perfonnance of the program so that it is 

more efficient and better serves the needs of the disabled, now and in the future. If confinned, I 

would look forward to working with the Congress on this issue. 

Question 49: 

Will the President's forthcoming budget contain a solution for the millions of Americans 

who are beneficiaries ofthe Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) program? 

This question refers to the Administration's FY 2014 budget, which has not yet been released. If 

confinned, I look forward to addressing this and related issues once that budget is released. 

Question 50: 

During his inaugural address, President Obama said "the commitments we make to each 

other ... through Social Security - these things do not sap our initiative; they strengthen 

us." Do you plan to strengthen SSDl's trust fund so we can continue to make this 

commitment to current and future disabled Americans? 

The Administration believes that strengthening the SSDI trust fund is a key aspect of refonning 

the program. If confinned, I hope to work with the Congress to modernize the DI program so 

that it best serves the disabled population and is in a secure position to continue to serve those 

who need it in the future. 

Question 51: 

The Secretary of Treasury serves as the Managing Trustee of Social Security. SSA's 

Commissioner Michael As true has told Congress that the backlog of disability reviews is a 

significant driver of the trust fund's solvency issues. As you know, declining Continuing 

Disability Reviews (CDRs) are an increasing problem as the medical conditions of 

beneficiaries are put off. Further, for every $1 invested in CDRs $9 is saved for the trust 

fund. Do you support focusing SSA's resources on CDRs? 

Please see my answer to Question 52. 
272 


86523.210

Question 52: 

Does the Administration plan to reform the SSDI CDR process so that they are completed 

in a timely fashion rather than shifting focus to benefit administration as is current 

practice? 

I understand that the Administration's FY 2013 Budget included funding to more effectively and 

efficiently process thousands of continuing disability reviews to enhance program integrity for 

long-term savings. I support these efforts. 

Question 53: 

President Qbama announced this week that the United States and the European Union 

would be launching negotiations on a Transatlantic Trade and Investment 

Partnership. What steps will the Administration take in negotiating this agreement to 

address the barriers to U.S: agriculture exports to Europe? 

I strongly support the President's intention to launch comprehensive negotiations with the 

European Union under the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TIIP). The TIIP 

provides an opportunity to deepen the already extensive trade and investment relationship 

between the United States and the European Union and promote mutual growth and job creation. 

A key focus of the negotiations is to expand the exports of U.S. agricultural goods into European 

markets. If confirmed, I would work with USTR, USDA, the Department of State, and other 

U.S. agencies to achieve an agreement that opens EU markets to U.S. exports. 

Question 54: 

Because the Department of Education is now the largest lender of student loans in the 

nation, do you believe it would make more sense to move loan origination and 

disbursement for federal student loans from the Department of Treasury? Why or why 

not? 

Student loans are a critical part of the Administration's goal to increase access to higher 

education. Without federal student aid, many students, particularly low-income students, would 

be unable to access and complete a post-secondary education. While the Department of 

Education has historically been the home of student lending operations, it is my understanding 

that Treasury plays an important role in financing direct loans and supporting delinquent debt 

collection across the government. If confirmed, I look forward to working with the Department 

of Education and this committee to continue improving administration of the student loan 

program. 

Question 55: 

In 2011, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) reported that 

2.1 million taxpayers received $3.2 billion in AOTC credits that appeared to be erroneously 

claimed. The vast majority were due to IRS being unable to confirm that the students 

actually attended postsecondary education. This suggests IRS' guidance to filers, not 

necessarily fraudulent behavior, is to blame. Considering TIGTA's report and conclusions 
273 


86523.211

on IRS' administration of the American Opportunity Tax Credit (AOTC), do you think the 

program is flawed in its structure? 

The American Opportunity Tax Credit provides millions of students and their families with 

funds to help pay for college and other post-secondary training. Unfortunately, some people are 

claiming funds to which they are not entitled. Strong enforcement measures are necessary so 

that the IRS, with the help of Treasury and Congress, can ensure that everyone who receives an 

AOTC is entitled to this credit. 

My understanding is that IRS and Treasury are working to improve forms and instructions. The 

Administration's FY 2013 Budget also includes a proposal to allow IRS to deny the AOTC to 

taxpayers who have exceeded lifetime limits during routine tax return process, using math error 

authority rather than more expensive and cumbersome taxpayer audits. 

Question 56: 

Do you have suggestions for how the AOTC can be improved so fraudulent claims don't 

enhance program costs? 

Please see my answer to Question 55. 

Question 57: 

Please provide the Fiscal Year 2012 total operating expenses for the Consumer Financial 

Protection Bureau (CFPB). 

The CFPB is an independent bureau of the Federal Reserve System. According to the FY 2013 

President's Budget, CFPB estimated they would spend $356 million in FY 2012. 

Question 58: 

By Treasury's calculations, what is the fair market value of the following loan programs 

per fiscal year? 

a. Stafford and PLUS student loan programs; 

b. FHA loan programs (all loan programs therein); 

c. Small Business Administration (all loan programs therein). 

While the Departments of Education and Housing and Urban Development, the Small Business 

Administration, and OMB are best placed to answer questions about the budgetary treatment of 

specific programs, you raise an important question about the budgetary methodology associated 

with credit programs. If confirmed, I look forward to working with the committee on the issue. 
274 


86523.212

Question 59: 

What is the difference in cost between the Fair Credit Reform Act (FCRA) accounting and 

a fair market value accounting for the above programs? 

While the Departments of Education and Housing and Urban Development, the Small Business 

Administration, and OMB are best placed to answer questions about the budgetary treatment of 

specific programs, you raise an important question about the budgetary methodology associated 

with credit programs. If confirmed, I look forward to working with the Committee on the issue. 
275 


86523.213

Senator Isakson 

Question 1: 

The Dodd-Frank Act of 2010 was touted as a bill designed to prevent another financial 

crisis. However, I believe that there are serious unintended consequences of well-intended 

regulations within the bill. I'm also concerned about those who have worked and continue 

to work in senior capacities in President Obama's Administration, who have mostly public 

sector experience and lack the private sector knowledge needed to prevent such unintended 

consequences from occurring in the first place. As Treasury Secretary, you would be 

responsible for promulgating various parts of Dodd-Frank with the goal of providing the 

least systemic risk on our financial system. 

I would be very interested in hearing from you on what parts of Dodd-Frank you believe to 

be potentially harmful and which provisions you believe will prevent another fmancial 

crisis? 

I think the Dodd-Frank Act has been an important step to make the financial system more 

resilient to the kinds of shocks we saw in 2008 and to reassert proper regulatory oversight of an 

industry that is critical to the health of our economy. The regulators are working hard to 

complete the implementation of the Dodd-Frank Act while taking into account these 

considerations through public comment and stakeholder engagement. I believe they should 

complete their work before prejudging outcomes. 

Question 2: 

The passage of the Fiscal Cliff Bill entitled the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 

(ATRA) quickly helped boost investor confidence. In the first week of January, mutual 

funds investing in US stocks attracted $4 billion in net deposits and funds investing in 

foreign stocks took in about $3.5 billion. This $7.5 billion total investment into stock funds 

was the largest since the week ending May 2, 2001. I believe that capital still remains on 

the side lines and will not be invested back into our economy until even greater 

transparency for long-term planning is provided. 

What actions at the Treasury Department do you believe will most effectively restore the 

flow of credit back into our economy? 

The American Taxpayer Relief Act of2012 helped to reduce fiscal uncertainty by extending 

lower tax rates for the middle class and providing clarity to businesses on a number of tax 

provisions. Continued progress to resolve our fiscal challenges, while supporting economic 

growth in the near term, gives investors and businesses confidence to bring capital and 

investment back into our economy. Moreover, the pro-growth policies proposed by the 

Administration support economic activity and increase investor confidence as a consequence. 

As a result, I would expect these policies, if fully enacted, to also help draw in capital from the 

sidelines and be put to productive use, thereby further strengthening economic growth. 
276 


86523.214

Question 3: 

The US corporate tax rate is among the highest and least competitive of all developed 

nations. Some in Congress believe that ifthe government increases the tax rate on 

corporations, they will in turn give the government more tax revenue with no negative 

consequences. But it is just the opposite as tax hikes reduce investment and business 

creation. The business community has consistently addressed the need to tackle this issue 

in the near future for fear oflower domestic investment and less entrepreneurship. One 

business leader, Fred Smith who is the CEO of FedEx, told me that if FedEx had a 25% 

corporate tax rate with no deductions he could compete with anyone in the world. 

Do you feel that the corporate tax rate should be reduced and if so, to what level and why? 

America's system of business taxation is in need of reform. The United States has a relatively 

narrow corporate tax base compared to other countries and a statutory corporate income tax rate 

that is nearly the highest among advanced countries. As a result of this combination of a 

relatively narrow tax base and a high statutory tax rate, the U.S. tax system is less competitive 

and inefficient. The system does too little to encourage job creation and investment in the 

United States while allowing firms to benefit from incentives to locate production and shift 

profits overseas. The system is also too complicated--especially for America's small 

businesses. 

For these reasons, the President is committed to reform that will support the competitiveness of 

American businesses-large and small-and increase incentives to invest and hire in the United 

States by lowering rates, cutting tax expenditures, and reducing complexity, while being fiscally 

responsible. 

In February oflast year, the White House and the Treasury issued a joint report outlining the 

President's Framework for Business Tax Reform, which provides an approach to tax reform that 

will support high quality jobs in the United States. The Framework suggested that the statutory 

corporate income tax rate could be reduced to 28 percent in general and the effective marginal 

rate reduced to 25 percent for manufacturing. I support such a balanced and fiscally responsible 

reduction in the corporate income tax rate. 

Question 4: 

More than $1.1 trillion dollars of commercial real estate loans written before the financial 

crisis will need to be ref'manced in the next three years. If commercial real estate 

borrowers can't secure other funding options when these payments come due, commercial 

properties across the country will go into foreclosure, leaving communities with even more 

vacant storefronts, lost jobs, lower tax revenues and a deeper economic hole to dig 

themselves out of. In 2007, the IRS issued guidance that overturned long-standing policy 

and, for the first time, treated domestically-controlled REIT liquidating distributions and 

redemptions with respect to foreign investors as sales of property under FIRPTA rather 

than sales of stock. 
277 


86523.215

Do you agree that particular sections of IRS Notice 2007-55 have in fact discouraged 

foreign capital from reentering the US real property market? If confirmed, would you be 

willing to reinstate an IRS position to allow redemptions and liquidating distributions to be 

treated the same as sales of stock in the case of a domestically controlled REIT in 

conjunction with increasing the exemption level from 5 percent to 10 percent for investors 

in certain widely held qualified collective investment vehicles? 

I understand that FlRPTA generally subjects foreign investors' gains from the sale of U.S. real 

property to the same net-basis taxation that is imposed on U.S. taxpayers. I have not yet had an 

opportunity to fully develop a position on Notice 2007-55 but, if confirmed, look forward to 

working with the committee to create a fair and efficient tax code so that foreign and domestic 

investors in U.S. real property are on a level playing field. 

Question 5: 

Since 1980, Congress has only twice completed the appropriations process before October 

1 st. A two-year budget cycle would allow Congress to devote every other year to reviewing 

these authorizations and the enhanced oversight will result in more accountability of 

government programs and reduce waste. I found your prior testimony in February and 

March of 2000 before the House Rules Committee where you indicated support for the 

Biennial Budget concept very interesting. 

As you know, the Biennial Budgeting process is designed to provide greater stability and 

predictability in the congressional budget process. As Treasury Secretary, do you believe a 

move from a one-year budget cycle to a two-year cycle in Congress would provide greater 

confidence to our financial markets? 

Sound budget planning is essential to achieving our fiscal priorities. I have supported a biennial 

process before in order to improve the accountability and oversight of budgeting. Whether 

budgeting is done on an annual or biennial basis, our goal should be to move toward fiscal 

sustainability in a way that is balanced and safeguards our economic recovery. 

Question 6: 

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act requires employers who offer health 

benefits to pay a tax equal to $3,000 per year for any employee who receives a premium tax 

credit for coverage through a health insurance exchange. Section 1401 ofPPACA 

authorizes premium tax credits for individuals who obtain coverage through "an Exchange 

established by the State under Section 1311." No premium tax credits are authorized for 

coverage through a federally-run exchange, which is described in a different section of the 

law. 

As you know, my state of Georgia is one of 26 states that have chosen not to establish a 

state-based exchange. Since the law does not authorize premium tax credits for enrollment 

in a federally-run exchange, Georgia employers who offer health benefits should not have 

to worry about facing this new tax. Yet, a rule issued by the IRS last year disregards the 
278 


86523.216

plain language of the law and calls for premium tax credits and corresponding taxes on 

employers in states with federally-run exchanges. 

Do you agree that the IRS does not have authority to impose a tax that has not been 

expressly authorized by Congress? What action will you take to ensure that taxpayers in 

Georgia and 25 other states are not assessed an illegal tax? 

I believe that Treasury has a responsibility to implement the laws passed by Congress in a careful 

and thoughtful manner. Although I was not involved, my understanding is that for this 

regulation, Treasury's Office of Tax Policy (OTP) and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) 

followed their standard process for drafting, approving, and publishing tax regulations generally. 

I also understand that the public submitted numerous written and oral comments in response to 

the proposed regulation; that both OTP and IRS reviewed each comment carefully; that for this 

issue, OTP and IRS concluded that the statute should be best suited to resolve this matter. 

Question 7: 

IRAs are the fastest growing source of retirement savings in the United States, holding a 

total of $4.7 trillion in assets. As Treasury Secretary you would be responsible for 

managing a retirement savings vehicle, the IRA, that holds more assets than Defined 

Benefit plans or Defined Contribution plans. The Department of Labor is currently 

working on re-proposing a rule that impacts Treasury's jurisdiction over IRAs by 

redefining Tax Code provisions related to retirement savings. The Labor Department's 

original proposal impacted the Tax Code in such a manner that contradicted DoddFrank's "business-model neutral" policy because it would have effectively compelled 

broker-dealers marketing IRAs to adopt an asset-based advisory model. 

According to an SEC staff report that studied imposing a "uniform fiduciary rule" under 

Section 913 of Dodd-Frank, "If ... broker-dealers elected to convert their brokerage 

accounts from commission-based accounts to fee-based accounts, certain retail customers 

might face increased costs, and consequently the profitability of their investment decisions 

could be eroded, especially accounts that are not actively traded." In short, eliminating 

commission-based representatives does more harm than good for retail investors. Most 

IRAs are just such accounts with 88% of IRA investors using a commission-based 

representative to service their account. 

As the Department of Labor develops a new rule that will impact IRA tax code provisions, 

how would you work as Treasury Secretary to ensure the Labor Department's impact on 

the tax code complements Dodd-Frank's "business-model neutral" policy so that retail 

savers continue to have affordable access to IRAs without facing any increased costs? 

I support the business-model neutral policy articulated in connection with Dodd-Frank, and I 

would work to advance that policy if confirmed. My understanding is that the specific DOL rule 

to which your question refers is a proposal, which was withdrawn for further consideration, 

relating to the meaning of the term "fiduciary" under ERISA. If confirmed, I would encourage 
279 


86523.217

the Departments to work together to further the common objective of assuring that retirement 

savers have access to affordable IRAs without unnecessary costs or burdens. 

Question 8: 

Expanding trade must be a cornerstone of any administration policy for economic growth 

and job creation. Despite this, it took almost three years before the free trade agreements 

with South Korea, Colombia and Panama were finally acted on by the Administration 

despite being negotiated well before President Obama took office. The Treasury Secretary 

plays a key role in shaping and promoting U.S. trade policy and there are currently 

multiple trade issues that need to be addressed including the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a 

possible U.S.-E.U. free trade agreement, and the renewal of Trade Promotion Authority. 

If confirmed, how would you work to promote a robust trade agenda and move forward on 

many of these trade issues? 

I understand that the National Export Initiative goal of doubling exports is a cornerstone of the 

President's growth and job creation strategy. In 2012, U.S exports of goods and services set a 

record of almost $2.2 trillion, and exports have supported and helped create over 6 million 

private sector jobs over the past 35 months. 

If confirmed, I would work closely with USTR and other agencies, as well as domestic 

stakeholders and Congress, to advance the President's efforts to create new market opportunities 

by forging new international agreements such as the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment 

Partnership with the European Union and the International Services Agreement, once domestic 

procedures are concluded, and to complete the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations. 

In addition, I believe that we should continue to enforce our trade rights aggressively both 

domestically and in the WTO. I believe that this multi-pronged approach on trade can give a 

strong boost to the U.S. economy and support jobs for more Americans. 

Question 9: 

Despite U.S. and international efforts, some banks have ignored sanctions and continue to 

conduct business with designated Iranian entities. To date the Treasury Department has 

sanctioned just two non-Iranian foreign banks for continuing to conduct significant 

financial transactions with sanctioned banks, but there is ample information in the public 

sphere that other banks have violated our laws with impunity by conducting significant 

transactions with sanctioned banks. 

Will you pursue punitive measures against foreign banks conducting business with Iran in 

violation of U.S. sanctions? 

As a result of the efforts of the United States and its partners around the world, Iran today is 

more isolated than ever, especially on the economic front. Treasury has a strong record of 

aggressively pursuing Iran's financial networks and implementing sanctions against Iran and 
280 


86523.218

those individuals, entities, and banks that violate our sanctions. If confirmed, Treasury will 

continue aggressively to target individuals, entities or banks that engage in sanctionable activity, 

wherever they may be. 

Question 10: 

In your position as Treasury Secretary, you would be responsible for representing the 

United States at the World Bank and several other multilateral development banks 

(MDBs). 

I would like to know what your views are on the role ofthese institutions. Namely, what do 

you consider to be the most important U.S. national interests that are served through 

American participation in the MDBs? And please comment on the degree of effectiveness 

of the banks in leveraging U.S. contributions, both in terms of actual dollars and collective 

action more broadly, to multiply the impact of U.S. assistance. 

If confirmed, I would continue strong U.S. leadership of the MDBs, which multiplies U.S. 

investments in shaping the global development agenda. 

U.S. participation in the MDBs is one of the most cost-effective ways to promote our national 

security, support our future export markets and safeguard growth, reduce poverty, and address 

key global challenges. The MDBs help protect our national security by helping anchor economic 

reform in regions such as the Middle East and North Africa. The MDBs help to develop open, 

stable market economies that become the next generation of U.S. trading partners, supporting 

U.S. exports and jobs. The MDBs are well positioned to address global challenges, such as food 

insecurity, poverty, and environmental degradation. 

U.S. support for the MDBs has a strong multiplier effect. For example, a U.S. capital increase 

contribution of $420 million made under the Reagan Administration helped support $325 billion 

in lending over the subsequent two decades. 

Question 11: 

China allowed financial institutions to increase their ownership stake in securities joint 

ventures from 33% to 49% following last year's Strategic and Economic Dialogue (S&ED). 

While China continues to impose ownership limits on financial institutions operating in 

China, Chinese financial institutions face no restrictions when seeking to operate in the 

U.S. 

As China continues to liberalize its financial sector, what steps can be taken to ensure US 

financial institutions doing business in China are allowed to have 100% ownership of their 

venture? 

I believe that financial sector liberalization is important to providing a level playing field for 

U.S. firms and workers, and that it is important to take steps to move China to a market-
281 


86523.219

detennined exchange rate, and promote the rebalancing of China's economy towards homegrown, consumption-led growth. 

Through the U.S.-China Strategic & Economic Dialogue (S&ED) and other ongoing 

engagement, I understand that the Administration has pressed China to liberalize its financial 

sector and allow for more meaningful access for U.S. financial finns. In the S&ED last May, 

China committed to move beyond its WTO commitments and allow U.S. and other foreign finns 

to take up to 49 percent equity stakes in securities joint ventures and futures brokers joint 

ventures. 

If confinned, I would press China to further advance financial sector liberalization and pennit 

greater ownership stakes by U.S. and other foreign finns in an increased number of subsectors. 

Question 12: 

As you are aware, President Obama indicated during negotiations with Congress in 2011 

that he was willing to consider a proposal to gradually increase the Medicare eligibility age 

from 65 to 67, bringing it into line with the full retirement age for Social Security. 

However, on February 11, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney stated that the 

President would oppose any increase in the Medicare eligihility age. According to data 

compiled by CDC's National Center for Health Statistics, life expectancy at age 65 has 

increased from 14.3 years in 1960 to 19.2 years in 2009. Furthermore, as the share ofthe 

population pursuing college and postgraduate degrees continues to grow, entry into the 

workforce is being delayed. Partly as a result of these trends, the ratio of workers paying 

Medicare and Social Security taxes to retirees receiving benefits continues to shrink. 

Do you believe our current social insurance structure can hold up indefinitely as the ratio 

of workers to retirees keeps going down? If the Administration intends to oppose any 

increase in the eligibility age for retirement programs, how do you propose to address the 

demographic reality of increasing life expectancy? 

Long-run entitlement refonn to ensure solvency for those who rely on these programs will 

require difficult choices. The Administration is focused on addressing these challenges in order 

to assure that we fulfill our commitments to our seniors and others who rely on these programs. 

The major reforms the President achieved in the Affordable Care Act demonstrate this 

commitment, though there is still more work to do. Likewise, his past budget proposals find 

efficiencies in health programs, including Medicare. We must work together to ensure that 

current and future generations of Americans can count on these vital programs. 

Question 13: 

States increasingly are relying on sales tax revenues and are seeking ways to capture those 

revenues that are supposed to be remitted to them anyway through agreements like the 

Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement (SSUTA) and other online retail taxes. This is 

the core of the Main Street Fairness Act proposal by Sens. Enzi, Durbin and Alexander. 
282 


86523.220

Do you support legislative efforts in the House and Senate to facilitate the states collection 

of sales tax over the internet? 

I agree that the system of collecting income, sales, and use taxes by State and local governments 

should be made simpler and provide clear, bright-line rules for state and local governments and 

taxpayers to follow. SimplifYing the tax system and clarifYing the rules would increase fairness 

and tax compliance, while reducing the burdens on the sellers and employers that would collect 

and remit such taxes. 
283 


86523.221

Senator Portman 

Question 1: 

As General Motors Company's primary lender in bankruptcy, the Treasury Department 

played a substantial role in GM's 2009 bankruptcy and subsequent resolution of Delphi 

pensions. This involvement culminated in GM's decision to fund portions of hourly but not 

salaried Delphi pensions. Did the Treasury Department receive any communication, 

direction, or other influence from the White House on Delphi pensions? 

As your question notes, the decision by General Motors regarding the pensions of certain Delphi 

hourly retirees, during the course ofGM's bankruptcy, occurred in the summer of2009. During 

that time, I was serving as Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources. I had no 

role or involvement in the bankruptcy ofGM or the treatment of Delphi pensioners. 

I understand that Delphi originally was a subsidiary ofGM. In 1999, however, GM spun off 

Delphi into a separate independent company. In connection with that transaction, GM agreed to 

"top-up" pension benefit guarantees for certain Delphi hourly-but not salaried--employees. I 

understand that GM made this distinction, in part, because the salaried pension plan was fully 

funded, whereas the hourly plan was not. 

In 2009, GM filed for bankruptcy. During the course of the subsequent proceedings, GM had to 

decide whether to honor the Delphi "top-up" agreements (along with many other obligations). 

The Presidential Task Force on the Auto Industry-which was supported by both Treasury and 

White House staff (the "Auto Team")-worked ",ith GM as the company developed its 

reorganization plan. I understand that the Auto Team facilitated discussions between the Pension 

Benefit Guaranty Corporation, Delphi, and GM, and that GM ultimately made the decision to 

honor the preexisting Delphi top-up agreements. Treasury reviewed GM's decisions and 

approved its overall reorganization plan. In doing so, Treasury deferred to GM's business 

judgment, consistent with the Administration's longstanding shareholder principle that the 

"government ",ill not interfere with or exert control over day-to-day company operations." I am 

not aware of any attempt by the Auto Team to influence GM's decision regarding the Delphi 

pension plans. 

Question 2: 

Did any official at the Treasury Department communicate with GM in any way to influence 

the company toward supporting Delphi hourly pensions, or against supporting salaried 

pensions? 

Please see my answer to Question I. 

Question 3: 

On August 13, 2012, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp requested 

that the Treasury Department provide "All records ... that relate to: Delphi; and/or GM's 
284 


86523.222

interest in Delphi." To date, the Treasury Department has only provided a selection of 

documents and has refused to certify that it has or will comply completely with the request. 

Does the Treasury Department plan to comply with the Ways and Means Committee's 

request? 

I understand that over the past three and a half years, the Administration has shared with 

Congress extensive information about the bankruptcies of General Motors and Delphiincluding, in particular, the treatment of the Delphi pension plans. In a November 2012 letter to 

Chairman Camp, Treasury described the voluminous and detailed public record. Treasury, the 

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, GM, Delphi, and others have produced thousands of 

pages of material and have made senior officials available to testify at numerous public hearings. 

In the same letter, Treasury identified the specific documents in the public record that address 

each of the issues raised by the Committee. In addition, Treasury offered to discuss any 

remaining issues with the Committee, stating that "if you believe there are specific matters that 

the existing record does not adequately address, we would be happy to discuss them \\-ith you or 

your staff." 

Question 4: 

In the Treasury Department's most recent report on currency issues in November 2012, tbe 

Obama Administration said that China's currency "remains significantly undervalued, 

and further appreciation of the RMB against the dollar and other major currencies is 

warranted." The November report was the Obama Administration's eighth report on 

currency issues, and each time tbe Administration has failed to name China a currency 

manipulator, despite calling China's currency "persistently misaligned" as they did in 

December 2011. What concrete steps will the Treasury Department and the Obama 

Administration take to hold China accountable for their currency manipulation? 

I understand that Treasury has been working aggressively both bilaterally and multilaterally to 

address China's exchange rate. Bilaterally, Treasury has been engaged in ongoing extensive 

efforts on this issue, including through the U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue. 

Multilaterally, including in the G-20, the IMF, and the WTO, Treasury has consistently 

underscored the importance of market-determined exchange rates to promote more balanced and 

sustainable growth, achieve more balanced global trade, avoid persistent exchange rate 

misalignments, and to accelerate the global adjustment of external imbalances. 

Since June 2010, when China moved the renminbi off its peg against the dollar, the renminbi has 

appreciated by about 15 percent against the dollar in real terms. But more progress is needed. If 

confirmed, addressing China's exchange rate would be a top priority. I would press China to 

move to a market-determined exchange rate, level the playing field for our workers and firms, 

and support a sustained shift to domestic consumption-led growth in China. 

Question 5: 

I have been a long time supporter ofthe Tropical Forest Conservation Act (TFCA) and was 

an original sponsor of legislation that created the TFCA. The TFCA, administered by the 
285 


86523.223

U.S. Department of Treasury and USAID, has been an important mechanism for providing 

opportunities for eligible countries to reduce a portion of their concessional debt owed to 

the U.S. Government in exchange for the payment of funds to support tropical forest 

conservation activities. As of December 2011, approximately US$194 million in 

Congressionally appropriated funds had been used to conclude eighteen TFCA debt-fornature swaps with fourteen countries - generating more than US$295 million for 

conservation in these countries over the life of the agreements. Tbe TFCA has 

demonstrated great success in building the capacity oflocal stakeholders to successfully 

manage tbeir own financial resources dedicated to conservation. Tbe TFCA has reinforced 

strategic partnerships between the U.S. and local stakeholders tbat support regional 

stability and are in the national security interests of tbe United States. 

If confirmed, under your leadership wiII the Department of Treasury continue to support 

this important program? 

I share your interest in supporting tropical forest conservation. If confirmed, I would consult 

with you on how best to advance the objectives ofTFCA. 

Question 6: 

The TFCA was originally enacted in 1998 (PLI05-214) and is in need of reauthorization. If 

you are confirmed, would Treasury be willing to provide tecbnical assistance in drafting 

legislation to reauthorize the TFCA? 

If confirmed, I would ensure that Treasury staff work with appropriate officials to provide 

Congress with technical assistance in drafting legislation to reauthorize the TFCA. 

Question 7: 

The TFCA applies to bilateral government debt resulting from concessionalloans made 

under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and credits granted under the Agriculture and 

Trade Assistance Act of 1954. If confirmed, would you provide to the Committee a list of 

countries with concessional debt eligible for consideration under the current TFCA 

program? 

If confirmed, I would work with Treasury staff to send a list of countries with eligible 

concessional debt to the Committee as soon as possible. 
286 


86523.224

Senator Toomey 

Question 1: 

In response to concerns that the bank-centric Basel 3 capital standards are unworkable for 

insurers, the Fed has indicated that it would perform some limited tailoring of those 

standards. However, there is continuing concern that this kind of limited tailoring is 

inadequate and does not properly acknowledge the wide differences between banking and 

insurance. 

What kinds of more substantive changes will the Fed consider to the Basel 3 rulemaking to 

prevent negative impacts to insurers and the savers and retirees that are their customers? 

To the extent that the issue involves the application of Basel III capital standards by the Federal 

Reserve Board to a particular sector, these are questions that the Federal Reserve Board would be 

in a better position to address. 

Question 2: 

Section 11 of the Export Import (ExIm) Bank Reauthorization Act of 2012required the 

Secretary ofthe Treasury to "initiate and pursue negotiations ... with all countries that 

finance air carrier aircraft with funds from a state-sponsored entity, to substantially 

reduce, with the ultimate goal of eliminating, aircraft export credit financing for all 

aircraft covered by the 2007 Sector Understanding on Export Credits for Civil Aircraft." 

Section 11 also requires Treasury to submit annual reports to the Senate and House 

Banking Committees on the progress of those negotiations. 

Although the Treasury Department submitted the statutorily required negotiation report 

in November of2012, the department's response was lacking, providing more of a history 

of export credit financing than an update on negotiations. 

a. Will you commit to take immediate steps to eliminate all export financing for 

investment grade foreign airlines as well as for other airlines that have access to 

private market financing? If not, why not? 

b. Please describe how you plan to lead the effort to work with the European ECAs to 

maintain a level playing field for U.S. airlines. 

c. Detail your plan to begin negotiations with the European ECAs - called for in the 

2012 ExIm Reauthorization - to substantially reduce or eliminate official export 

financing for wide body aircraft. 

I understand that in 2011 Treasury successfully negotiated new international guidelines for 

official export financing support of commercial aircraft sales, bringing that support more in line 

with the market. These new guidelines are to help ensure that official export credits for aircraft 

are used only when market financing is not available. 
287 


86523.225

It also is my understanding that during these negotiations, France, Germany, and the United 

Kingdom were unwilling to reduce overall government-supported financing for aircraft 

purchases. Notwithstanding, I understand that Treasury has continued to engage its European 

counterparts on this issue, and together they are now coordinating with aircraft manufacturers, 

airlines, and others to benchmark the 2011 ASU fee rates against commercial-market financing 

of aircraft. I believe that this benchmarking will assist Treasury and the Europeans to further 

refine the guidelines so that they complement the commercial markets. 

If confirmed, I would have Treasury continue to work to ensure a level playing field for all U.S. 

exporters. I also would have Treasury continue its engagement with its European counterparts 

about possible limitations on official export credit support for aircraft and seek to identity new 

opportunities to engage European partners to develop guidelines that limit official export 

financing to airlines with access to private market financing - so as to provide a level playing 

field for all U.S. exporters. 

Question 3: 

Do you think attracting private capital for mortgage backed securitizations is important to 

the recovery of our housing market? 

If so, as Secretary, how will you work to attract private capital back into the mortgage 

finance market and shrink the government footprint? 

Yes, attracting private capital and responsibly shrinking the government's footprint in housing 

finance over time are critical to the long-term stability of our housing market and to protecting 

taxpayer interests. However, we must balance policy actions that reduce the government's 

footprint against the need to preserve access to mortgages for creditworthy borrowers. In 

addition to winding down the GSEs, we must make it more attractive for private capital to take 

on more mortgage credit risk in a responsible manner. Many rules are being developed and 

implemented that will help give market participants clarity, such as the Qualified Mortgage rule. 

However, much work remains to be done. If confirmed, I look forward to supporting clear and 

transparent rules around housing finance. 

Question 4: 

How would you define the role of the Treasury Department in stopping Iran's nuclear 

ambitions? 

I believe the Treasury Department performs a critical role in the Administration's efforts to halt 

Iran's nuclear ambitions by imposing increasingly powerful financial and economic pressure on 

Iran. 

What additional sanctions do you believe are needed to succeed in our effort to thwart 

Iran's nuclear quest? 
288 


86523.226

The President has made it very clear that it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, 

and that all options must be on the table to achieve this objective. In service of this objective, I 

understand that the Treasury Department has imposed increasingly robust economic and 

financial sanctions on Iran, including sanctions that restrict Iran's access to its foreign exchange 

reserves and impair its balance-of-payments position; that target entities and individuals involved 

in proliferation, terrorism, human rights abuses, and regional destabilization; that identify and 

expose Iranian efforts to deploy deceptive schemes to evade sanctions; and that cut off from the 

U.S. financial system those who try to assist Iran in these efforts. I firmly believe that the 

imposition and implementation of robust economic sanctions is critically important to achieving 

the President's policy of denying Iran a nuclear weapon, and due to the intensive, collaborative 

efforts of the Congress and this Administration, as well as steps taken at our urging by partners 

around the world, the current sanctions regime on Iran is unprecedented in terms of scale, and 

scope and impact. If confirmed, I would support Treasury's efforts to implement fully existing 

sanctions and, as necessary, I would support additional actions that advance our shared objective 

of stopping Iran's nuclear ambitions. 

Question 5: 

In a September 2012 report discussing the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC), 

the GAO criticizes the Council's lack of transparency regarding its deliberations on money 

market fund regulation and concludcs, among othcr things, that the Council's minutes 

from a closed meeting in which the issue was discusscd "lacked any content ofthe 

discussion" . 

What steps will you take to make these policy discussions more transparent to the public? 

My understanding is that the Council has consistently maintained transparency with regard to the 

implementation of its specific authorities. For example, the Council provides notices of 

meetings, publishes the minutes of its meetings, and has issued several rulemakings and reports 

for public comment, including on money market mutual fund reform and the criteria for 

designating nonbank financial companies for Federal Reserve supervision and enhanced 

prudential standards. Moreover, the Council's annual report, which is provided to Congress and 

made available to the public online, provides a clear public record of its collective judgments, 

through its recommendations and assessments of threats to financial stability. 

One of the central missions of the Council is to identify, monitor, and respond to emerging 

threats to financial stability. To fulfill this mission, I expect that the Council frequently 

discusses market developments and market functioning involving many companies and financial 

sectors. I would expect that these discussions are often preliminary and frequently involve 

market-sensitive and confidential supervisory information. I believe this is necessary to support 

the Council's ongoing work in fostering open dialogue, constructive coordination, and 

information sharing across it members. 

If confirmed, I would work to foster the Council's continued transparency, to the extent feasible 

given the sensitivities outlined above. 
289 


86523.227

Question 6: 

Section 120 of the Dodd-Frank Act states that "[tJhe Council shall consult with the primary 

financial regulatory agencies [ •.. J for any proposed recommendation that the primary 

financial regulatory agencies apply new or heightened standards and safeguards for a 

financial activity or practice." In its November 2012 release on money market fund 

regulatory proposals, FSOC states that "in accordance with Section 120 of the Dodd-Frank 

Act, the Council has consulted with the SEC staff." It is my understanding that FSOC did 

not consult with any of the SEC Commissioners serving at the time. 

Given that the SEC is solely governed by the commissioners, and especially considering 

that SEC staff serve at the will of the SEC Chairman rather than all Commissioners, how 

would such consultations with staff fulfill this statutory obligation going forward? 

I have not had an opportunity to consider this matter in detail, but if confirmed, I would look to 

learn more about the FSOC's process on this issue. 

Question 7: 

Given the increased concerns about cybersecurity do you believe the Department has given 

the issue sufficient prominence? Are cybersecurity and critical infrastructure protection 

overseen at a senior enough level in the department? 

I understand the Treasury Department has been one of the most active government agencies in 

the Administration's efforts to secure our nation's digital infrastructure. I understand that much 

ofthis work is conducted through the Financial and Banking Information Infrastructure 

Committee, a government-coordinating council chaired by the Treasury Assistant Secretary for 

Financial Institutions. If confirmed, I would chair the Financial Stability Oversight Council 

(FSOC) and I understand that the FSOC has been briefed on cybersecurity issues. I am also 

aware that Treasury has unique authorities, such as targeted financial measures, to help safeguard 

our national security; if confirmed, I would explore the possibility of using these authorities as 

part of our ongoing efforts to strengthen cybersecurity. 
290 


86523.228

New Questions: 

Question 1: 

Additional Questions for the Record for Jack Lew 

Received February 22, 2013, Submitted February 23, 2013 

Ranking Member Hatch 

During your nomination hearing, you noted that an early trip you took as an employee of 

Citigroup was to Billings, Montana to visit financial advisors. 

When did you make this trip to Montana, who did you specifically meet with, and what did 

you discuss with the financial advisors you met with? 

What other offices did you visit around the country during your time at Citigroup, between 

2006 and 2009? 

During your whole time at Citigroup, did you consistently meet with financial advisors? 

Did any of the financial advisors you spoke with mention the ASTA, MAT, or Falcon 

funds? 

Have you been interviewed by the Securities and Exchange Commission regarding the 

ASTA, MAT, or Falcon funds? 

During my confirmation hearing, I mentioned that I traveled to Billings, Montana, early in my 

time at Citigroup, "to make sure that our business was working on the ground." Although I was 

based in New York City, I thought it was important to visit offices in relatively small cities and 

towns throughout the country to engage personally with my colleagues and to understand better 

their day-to-day businesses. I do not recall precisely when I traveled to Montana or with whom I 

met, given the passage of time, but I believe it was in the winter of2006-07. 

I do not recall discussions with financial advisors about any particular Citigroup funds. I was not 

interviewed by the Securities and Exchange Commission regarding the funds referenced in your 

question. 

Question 2: 

Was there any part of your compensation that you would not have received, but did 

receive, if you had not left Citigroup for a high-level government position? 

During the pre-due diligence process, the Committee asked about the compensation I received 

from Citigroup before my departure in January 2009. In my response to the Committee-which 

I submitted on January 29, 2013-1 described the components of that payment, which included 

"the vesting of restricted stock from previous years." If I had remained at Citigroup, that stock 

would have vested over time. 
291 


86523.229

Follow Up Questions to Responses Received by Committee on February 20, 2013: 

Question 3: 

Response to Hatch Question 67(a): Do you believe that corporate tax reform ought to be 

done in a revenue-neutral fashion, in the interest of global competitiveness, while 

individual tax reform, which would influence taxes paid by flow-through business entities, 

ought not to be revenue neutral? 

You provided a response, but not a response to the question that I asked. 

I believe that in this time of medium and long-term fiscal challenges, tax reform has to be 

fiscally responsible. The tax system must collect sufficient taxes to pay for the services that the 

public expects us to provide in order to ensure our continued national security and general 

welfare. Within that constraint, tax reform efforts should rationalize the tax system so that it 

more effectively achieves the goals of efficiency, equity, simplicity, and growth. 

As the President's Framework for Business Tax Reform noted, tax reform should make tax filing 

simpler for small businesses and entrepreneurs so that they can focus on growing their businesses 

rather than filling out tax returns. While some of the base-broadening provisions and other 

reforms described in the Framework would apply to both C-corporations and pass-through 

entities, the Framework also includes provisions so that small businesses, including small passthroughs, receive a net tax cut from business tax reform. The President's Framework for 

Business Tax reform was intended to be fiscally responsible and not add to the Federal budget 

deficit. 

Question 4 (Tax Policy): 

Response to Hatch Question 67b: If so, do you believe that corporations require lower tax 

rates in order to boost their competitiveness but the competitiveness of flow-through 

businesses is either not influenced by their tax rates or is less important than corporate 

competitiveness? 

You provided a response, but not a response to the question that I asked. 

I believe that the comparatively high statutory corporate income tax rate in the United States, 

when combined with a relatively narrow tax base, creates a corporate income tax system that is 

not as effective as it should be. This reduction in the statutory tax rate has to be done in a 

fiscally responsible way, that is, by broadening the tax base. I do not believe that the decisions 

made by flow-through businesses are completely uninfluenced by tax rates nor do I think that the 

business activities of flow-through businesses are unimportant for the U.S. economy. 

Question 5 (Tax Policy): 

Response to Hatch Question 67e: Related to part d. above, how would you define a tax 

"loophole" and please provide me with, given your definition, a list of the five largest 

loopholes in the personal-income tax code and a list of the five largest loopholes in the 

corporate-income tax eode. 
292 


86523.230

You identified your ideas about what constitutes a "loophole" but did not provide lists of the 

Jive largest loopholes in the personal- and corporate-income tax codes. Your views on what 

are the largest "loopholes" would be instructive in the event that Congress and the 

administration engage in tax reform efforts to close agreed-upon "loopholes." 

The President has suggested a number of policies that would tighten up the tax system by 

eliminating what many would call loopholes. and I support his recommendations. These include 

taxing carried interests as ordinary income, repealing the subsidies for fossil fuel producers, and 

restricting deductions for conservation easements. Again, without a technical definition, what 

constitutes a "loophole" is largely in the eye ofthe beholder. However, I believe that my support 

for these recommendations gives an indication of my overall views on this topic. 

Question 6: 

Response to Hatch Question 72d: If, as in c., you rely on Keynesian multipliers, please 

explain the mechanism you have in mind through which federal spending and/or tax 

changes lead to changes in GDP and employment, such as sticky prices, sticky wages, 

financial frictions, or other such rigidities in markets, and provide any evidence that you 

have consistent with those transmission mechanisms somehow leading to failures of market 

to clear. 

You identified that the "general mechanisms underlying new Keynesian macroeconomics are 

widely accepted in modern mainstream macroeconomics; these include not only economic 

rigidities and frictions, but also the presence of spillovers, externalities, and public goods that 

may be present in Classical economics." You did not explain any particular mechanism that 

you have in mind through which federal spending and/or tax changes lead to changes in GDP 

and employment. General mechanisms in Keynesian theory are known. However, part of my 

question asks for any evidence you have consistent with those mechanisms being at work 

(measurement, not theory). You also identifY "spillovers, externalities, and public goods that 

may be present in Classical economics." Please explain what you mean. 

As I understand the approach, the general mechanisms I described are not mutually exclusive, so 

the impact of fiscal policy on economic activity need not rely on any particular one of these 

mechanisms. Any or all of them may be at work. 

Regarding evidence, the general observation that prices and/or wages move slowly over the 

business cycle is consistent with broadly accepted economic principles. I also understand that 

there is a large body of research documenting slow-moving prices of individual goods. 

Moreover, the persistent underutilization of capital and labor (observed in unemployment and 

low capacity utilization), suggest frictions keep these markets from returning immediately to 

full-employment of our economic resources. Finally, with regard to spillovers, externalities, and 

public goods: Infrastructure or national defense fits the definition of a public good (a public good 

is one which individuals cannot be excluded from using, regardless of whether it is privately or 

publically provided), so that social benefits can exceed private returns. In these cases, there is a 

rationale for a government role. A spillover occurs when an economic activity affects other 

individuals, even if they are not directly involved in that activity; for example, higher 

employment benefits those who get jobs, but it also tends to reduce crime in communities. An 
293 


86523.231

externality-either positive (such as lower crime) or negative (such as congestion) -is the result 

of a spillover. 

Question 7: 

Response to Hatch Question 86: In my first round of Questions for the Record I asked you 

about a provision in your employment agreement with Citigroup that concerned the 

treatment of your compensation upon your separation from Citigroup, and specifically if 

you accepted a "full-time high level position with the United States government or 

regulatory body." In your response to that question, you noted that "Given my long 

history of public service, and interest in potentially returning to it, I sought this provision." 

It is my understanding that when you met with bipartisan Finance Committee staff on 

February 4, you stated that you did not know how this provision became part of your 

compensation agreement and expressed a view that this provision was standard language. 

Did you tell my staff that the high-level government position in your compensation 

agreement was standard, and if so, why didn't you tell them that you specifically sought the 

provision? 

In negotiating your employment agreement, how long were you planning to work at 

Citigroup before returning to government, and had you already made plans to do so? 

How did you and Citigroup determine what qualified as a full-time high level position with 

the government or a regulatory body. Please list all specific entities and positions that 

would meet this criteria? 

Who specifically at Citigroup made the determination that Deputy Secretary of State 

satisfied the provision? 

As your question notes, I met with bipartisan Committee staff for over three hours on February 4, 

2013, as part of the "due diligence" process prior to my confirmation hearing. During that 

meeting, I answered all the questions that were asked, including several about my Citigroup 

employment agreement. To the best of my recollection, I told Committee staff that I believe 

Citigroup later adopted a provision similar to the one in my contract as standard policy. I 

described my belief that one purpose of deferred compensation (such as the vesting of stock 

compensation over time) was to prevent people from going to other firms by raising the price of 

people moving to private-sector competitors. The provision in my employment agreement did 

not violate that purpose, since it only applied to government service. 

When I joined Citigroup, I had no plans or intent to leave the firm. As I noted in my previous 

submission to the Committee, there was general agreement that my departure from Citigroup to 

become Deputy Secretary of State satisfied the provision. 

Question 8: 

Response to Hatch Question 87a: Please identify any specific risk-taking activities ofthe 

Global Wealth Management and Citigroup Alternative Investment units that provided you 

with understanding of risks that we need to guard against. 
294 


86523.232

Your response to Question 87 in general identified that you do not recall the specific Citigroup 

financial products, or investment funds referenced in the question. However, you did not 

respond to the request that you identifY any specific risk-taking activities of the Global Wealth 

and Citigroup Alternative Investment units that provided you with understanding of risks that 

we need to guard against. Please respond. 

At my confirmation hearing, I testified that, "1 was certainly aware of things that were going on. 

I was working in a financial institution ... There was a very bad financial situation going on in 

that year. There were products that were widely understood to be troubled. So, yes, 1 was aware 

that there were funds that were in trouble." 1 was referring to the general activities and practices 

that 1 observed at Citigroup and throughout the entire financial sector at the time. As I noted in 

my previous submission to the Committee, these included, for example, firms taking on 

increased leverage and risk, relying heavily on short-term funding sources (such as the 

repurchase or "repo" market), and creating increasingly complex financial instruments that 

lacked transparency. 

Question 9: 

Response to Hatch Question 95: In your response to Question 95, you stated "In regard to 

the IRS, I understand that pursuant to OMB guidance implementing E.O. 12866, and 

longstanding agreements between OMB and Treasury, only IRS legislative rules that 

constitute 'significant regulatory actions' are subject to E.O. 12866 review." 

Please send any document which contains or reflects such "longstanding agreement." 

As I noted in my previous submission to the Committee, I understand that this longstanding 

agreement originated during the Reagan Administration. I further understand that the initial 

agreement is memorialized in a Memorandum of Understanding between Treasury and the 

Office of Management and Budget, which was signed by Peter Wallison and Christopher 

DeMuth on April 29, 1983. I understand that Treasury is prepared to make the MOU available 

for your review. 

Question 10: 

Response to Hatch Question 102: Title I of the Dodd-Frank Act established the Financial 

Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) which is supposed to be a watchdog over possible 

threats to stability of the financial system-also known as "systemic risk .. " Please provide 

me with your definition of "systemic risk" and identify specific metrics you would use to 

determine whether, when, and where there might exist systemic risks and threats to 

financial stability. Please also give me your views about possible current risks to financial 

stability from" a. The tri-party repo market; b. Money market mutual funds; c. The 

Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs), Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; d. Competitive 

currency devaluations and any roles played by China's managed peg and by outsized 

quantitative easing policies pursued by the Bank of Japan and the Federal Reserve; e. 

Federal Reserve quantitative'easing; f. The "fairly significant pattern of reaching-for-yield 

behavior emerging in corporate credit" as explained in Fed Governor Jeremy C. Stein's 
295 


86523.233

February 7, 2013 speech at a symposium sponsored by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. 

Louis; g. Federal debt. 

Your response identified that the Dodd-Frank Act "/ists a number of non-exclusive factors 

that the Council must consider before determining that a nonbank financial company could 

pose a threat to U.S. financial stability and should be designatedfor Federal Reserve 

supervision and enhanced prudential standards. I would expect to focus on these types of 

risks in assessing threats to financial stability." I presume that you are referring to Section 

113 of the Dodd-Frank Act, which applies to certain nonbank financial companies. However, 

risks to the system can emanate from more than just activities of specific nonbank financial 

companies. My question relates to more than simply Section 113 and includes duties specified 

(or the FSOC identified in Section 112 (a)(2), such as monitoring the financial services 

marketplace in order to identifY potential threats to the financial stability of the United States. 

You also identified the FSOC views, as summarized in the Council's 2012 report, about risks 

associated with the tri-party repo market, money market mutual funds, housing finance, the 

low intere.ft rate environment, and thefederal debt. My question, however, askedfor your 

views. 

Please also respondfully to parts e. andJ. of the question. 

I believe that the factors identified in section 113 of the Dodd-Frank Act, and in the Council's 

interpretive guidance regarding its authority to designate nonbank financial companies for 

Federal Reserve supervision and enhanced prudential standards, provide a strong framework for 

evaluating threats to U.S. financial stability. As you note, threats to financial stability can 

emanate from a variety of sources. I believe that the Council's assessments of emerging threats 

to financial stability, as described in the Council's two annual reports, are well-founded. If 

confirmed, I look forward to engaging with members of the Council on the important issues 

highlighted in your question. 

Question 11: 

Response to Hatch Question 105: Which reform option, if any, from those laid out by 

Treasury in February 2011 is closest to the reforms you would support for the GSEs, 

Fannie and Freddie? 

You provided a response, but did not identifY which reform option, if any, from those laid out 

by Treasury in February 2011 is closest to the reforms you would support for the GSEs. 

Regardless of the exact form taken by reform of the housing finance system, if confirmed, I 

would expect a plan to meet several core, fundamental requirements. A reform plan would need 

to ensure that private capital becomes the primary source of mortgage credit and bears the 

primary burden for credit losses. Taxpayers must be strongly protected. I would also seek a 

system that sets in place robust safeguards and helps ensure credit-worthy American families' 

access to sustainable mortgage credit and products. Additionally, credit availability and the 

finance system should be stable and not reinforce cyclical market swings. Given the complex 

work required to balance these priorities and the dynamic nature of the housing market, my 

intent, if confirmed, is to engage in a thorough evaluation of this issue with Administration 

policymakers, members of Congress, and other stakeholders. 
296 


86523.234

Question 12: 

Response to Hatch Question 106: If confirmed as Treasury Secretary, when would you 

begin to actively pursue reforms to the GSEs, Fannie and Freddie and when would you 

expect to have arrived at your most preferred reform? 

You provided a response, but did not identify any expected time frame. Please do so, or 

identify that you do not currently know when you would begin to actively pursue reforms or 

when you think you will have arrived at your most preferred reform. 

Given the complex work required to balance our priorities and the dynamic nature of the housing 

market, my intent, if confirmed, is to engage in a thorough evaluation of this issue with 

Administration policymakers, members of Congress, and other stakeholders. 

Question 13: 

Response to Hatch Question 107a: The Fed's policy of buying up tens of billions of longterm Treasuries each month, and prior quantitative easing measures, including the socalled "operation twist," to push long-term interest rates down is a purported effort to 

ultimately help job creation. Do you agree that the Fed's quantitative easing strategy of 

attempting to lower long-term interest rates has led to and will lead to job creation relative 

to a setting in which there was no quantitative easing in place? 

Your re~ponse indicated that Treasury has a policy to refrain from commenting on Fed policy 

decisions. I askedfor your view, not Treasury's. 

I agree with Treasury's policy to refrain from commenting on policy decisions of the Federal 

Reserve. 

Question 14: 

Response to Hatch Question 107c: Do you agree with Fed Chairman Bernanke that 

Treasury's strategy of lengthening the average maturity of outstanding federal debt is "an 

issue" and offsets some of the benefits of the Fed's policies? 

Your response identifies that "Given the low level of interest rates at present, it does not 

appear that Treasury's borrowing activity is putting upward pressure on interest rates." From 

this response, I take your response to my question to be a "no;" that is, you do not agree with 

Fed Chairman Bernanke's assessment identified above. Correct me if I am wrong. 

If confirmed I look forward to having regular conversations with Chairman Bemanke regarding 

economic policy matters. 

Question 15: 

Response to Hatch Question 123: The Treasury Department has no set of coherent policies 

regarding Department use of social media. As things stand, use of such media is loosely 

governed by Office of Management and Budget memoranda, most of which apply to 
297 


86523.235

privacy issues. The Treasury Department seems not to do much, if any, monitoring of 

public postings on its social media outlets. For example, on its Facebook page, private 

telephone numbers and the like can be viewed among the public commentary. Will you, if 

confirmed as Treasury Secretary, develop and provide to Congress policies and procedures 

governing Treasury's use of social media outlets? 

Your response indicates to me that you will not, if confirmed, develop and provide to Congress 

policies and procedures governing Treasury's use of social media and that you are content 

with the status quo. Correct me if I am wrong. 

I strongly support transparency and openness in government. I believe that federal agencies, 

such as Treasury, should use a variety of means to share information and to solicit input from the 

general public. In recent years, new technologies, such as social media, have become 

increasingly important and powerful tools. I support Treasury's efforts to use these new 

technologies to communicate more effectively with the public. At the same time, I recognize 

that new technologies can create certain risks, for example, in regard to personal privacy and 

data security. I do not yet work at Treasury, however, and I have not had an opportunity to 

review the Department's practices in this area. If confirmed, I would work to ensure that 

Treasury uses new technology effectively-both to share with and to gather information from the 

public-and in a manner that protects personal privacy interests and data security. 

Question 16: 

Response to Hatch Question 124: Last year, Treasury displayed on numerous social media 

outlets arguments and an infographic (titled "Penny Wise and Pound Foolish") identifying 

funding levels for the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity 

Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) specified in legislation pending before the Congress. 

The arguments and infographic represent, in my view, lobbying activities by Treasury, 

posted before the public on social media sites, against legislation pending before the 

Congress. The lobbying was with respect to funding levels for the SEC and CFTC, both of 

which are independent of Treasury. 

a. Do you support Treasury's use of appropriated funds to lobby against legislation 

pending before the Congress with respect to funding levels of regulatory bodies that are 

independent of Treasury? 

Your response identified your understanding of Treasury 's views. My question is whether 

you, not Treasury, support use by Treasury of appropriated funds to create information 

promoting opposition of legislation with respect to funding levels of government regulatory 

agencies that are independent of the Treasury. 

b. Would you, if confirmed as Treasury Secretary, institute any policies and procedures 

governing Treasury's use of appropriated funds that would prohibit the type of activity 

identified above? 

Your response, which identified your understanding of Treasury 's views, does not respond 

to this question. Would you, if confirmed, institute any policy to prevent the type of activity 

identified above, or are you content with the status quo? 
298 


86523.236

As noted above, I strongly support transparency and openness in government. I believe that 

Treasury has a duty to inform the public about its work, including its efforts to promote 

economic growth and financial stability. 

I understand that the purpose of the infographic referenced in your question was to highlight the 

importance of adequately funding two financial regulatory agencies, the Commodity Futures 

Trading Commission (CFTC) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). I support the 

work of these two agencies, which is critical to the stability of our financial markets. And I 

believe that Treasury has a strong interest in making sure that they have sufficient resources to 

fulfill their statutory missions. Nonetheless, I recognize that there are legal restrictions that 

prohibit federal agencies from engaging in indirect or grassroots lobbying of Congress. If 

confirmed, I would comply fully with the law. 

Question 17: 

Follow up to questions 1-9, 11-12, 15, 17,22-23,29-31, and 37-38: Mr. Lew, as I said 

during my opening statement at your confirmation hearing, the Secretary of the Treasury 

plays a key role in the international financial sphere. Your failure to respond in a 

meaningful way to the questions for the record from the Senators of the Finance 

Committee continues a real lack of leadership and lack of transparency from this 

Administration. Your non-responses to my particular questions regarding trade and 

currency policy continue the Treasury Department's ongoing practice of refusing to brief 

the Congress on its views and policies in a meaningful way. 

For example, you wrote back to me during the due diligence process prior to your 

confirmation in response to one of my questions that "[You] take requests by Members of 

Congress very seriously, including requests to provide views on pending legislation. If 

confirmed, [you] would work to respond to all such requests in a timely manner." A mere 

two weeks later, in your responses to my questions for the record, you completely ignored 

my questions requesting your views, and the views of the Administration, about a piece of 

legislation the Senate passed in the 112th Congress, S. 1619, almost a year and a half ago. A 

year ago, former Secretary Geithner stated in written responses to this Committee on the 

record that the Administration had concerns tbat aspects of this bill may be inconsistent 

with U.S. international obligations. The Administration's and your failure to explain what 

those concerns are for over almost a year and a half is unacceptable. Moreover, your 

refusal to meaningfully answer questions about the overall currency policy of the Treasury 

Department and the Administration, your refusal to share views on whether or not to 

include currency provisions in the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and your refusal to share in 

detail the President's plans for reorganizing the trade agencies, all suggest that you do not, 

in fact, take the requests of Senators from this Committee seriously. 

So I ask you again, please respond in a meaningful way to questions 1-9,11-12,15,17,22-

23,29-31, and 37-38 that I submitted to you as questions for the record. Please provide 

detailed responses to these questions that demonstrate your commitment to share your 

views and the views of the Administration with me and the other Members ofthis 

Committee. In amending your responses to these trade and currency questions, you have 
299 


86523.237

the opportunity to show that you and the Administration will work seriously with the 

Congress and the Finance Committee. 

In my previous positions in the Administration. I have been a strong advocate of free and fair 

trade. I believe that exports are essential to economic and job growth in the United States, and 

have been supportive of a robust trade agenda. As Deputy Secretary of the State Department, I 

actively promoted the United States' entry into the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations, helped 

formulate the Administration's policy, and participated in the Strategic and Economic Dialogue 

with China. As Director of the Office of Management and Budget, I worked with the economic 

agencies and Congress to successfully ratify the three free trade agreements with Colombia, 

Panama, and Korea. If confirmed, I would continue to work to open markets to U.S. goods and 

services and create additional opportunities for U.S. workers using tools and approaches that are 

effective and consistent with our international obligations, while insisting that our trade partners 

live up to their international obligations. 

On currency, I strongly believe that China, given its role and size in the international trading 

system, must move to abide by the same set of international norms and standards as its major 

trading partners. It is important that all major economies move to market-determined exchange 

rates to ensure we derive full benefits from trade liberalization and to guard against 

protectionism. 

This approach has yielded progress. The renminbi has appreciated by about 15 percent against 

the dollar in real terms since June 2010 when China moved off its currency peg. China's current 

account surplus has fallen from a peak of over 10 percent of ODP to under 3 percent today, and 

U.S. exports to China have almost doubled since early 2009. In the 0-20, China has committed 

to move more rapidly toward a market-determined exchange rate, refrain from competitive 

devaluation, and not target its exchange rate for competitive purposes. 

But more remains to be done. If confirmed, I would take steps that are effective and consistent 

with our international obligations to press China to fulfill its commitments to move to a marketdetermined exchange rate and to level the playing field for our workers and firms. If confirmed, 

I would welcome the opportunity to work closely with Congress on these important issues. 
300 


86523.238

Senator Charles E. Grassley 

Question 1: 

Mr. Lew, Principle 23 ofthe Panel on the Nonprofit Sector's "Principles for Good 

Governance" specifically states a "charitable organization should not provide loans (or the 

equivalent, such as loan guarantees, purchasing or transferring ownership of a residence 

or office, or relieving a debt or lease obligation) to directors, officers, or trustees." In the 

limited circumstances that a charity does provide a loan to an employee, its terms "should 

be clearly understood and approved by the board." Given that these guidelines raise 

significant issues for tax-exempt organizations like NYU, it is critical that the Senate has 

the ability to see if those guidelincs were adhered to and to receive a fully transparent 

answer from you. 

a. In your response, you state that the terms of NYU's housing assistance are described 

in your employment agreement you released to the Committee. The employment 

contract does describe housing assistance that "will be available to you .... [e)xcept as 

otherwise provided for in any subsequent written agreements." However, it is not 

clear these details are specific to your loan. The information you have provided 

thus far does not answer the questions I asked including the terms of the loan, the 

loan's interest rate, and minimum payment requirements. Please provide me this 

information as previously requested. Please feel free to consult your records 

regarding this information. If these records have been destroyed, please inform us 

and explain why they were destroyed and why they are not accessible to you 

through NYU or your lender. 

b. Your answer indicates that the interest rate was equal to the rate earned by the 

bond portion of NYU's endowment. How was it determined that this was a 

reasonable rate of interest? Did this constitute a below market rate and by what 

measure, for the purposes of determining your tax liability? 

c. Your answer to my questions appears to indicate you received a 5 year forgivable 

loan from NYU. Is this an accurate description of the loan? Please clearly identify 

the amounts of the loan that were ultimately forgiven and all amounts that were 

reported as income, including amounts that would be considered income from 

receiving a below market loan. 

d. At the end of your term with NYU, what was your share of the equity in the 

property financed by the NYU loans? Assuming this property has been sold, what 

was the gain you received and what was the gain received by NYU? 

e. In response to my question asking whether any terms of the loan altered at any 

point and if so, asking you to describe which terms were altered and when, you did 

not provide any information. Please answer whether any terms of the loan altered 

at any point. If so, please describe which terms were altered and when. 

f. I requested that you provide the promissory note and any other documents related 

to the loan; you did not provide them. Please provide the promissory note and any 

other documents related to the loan. If you are refusing this request, please explain 

the statutory basis for refusing to answer this question. If these records have been 
301 

Æ 


86523239.eps